ArticlePloS one2017
Behavioral correlates of cheating: Environmental specificity and reward expectation.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating academic dishonesty and its relationship with moral competence and professional identity of nursing students: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Reasons for academic cheating in a cohort of nursing students in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.Journal of medicine and life · 2024Article
- Academic dishonesty when doing homework: How digital technologies are put to bad use in secondary schools.Education and information technologies · 2023Article
- Comparison of the effect of training academic honesty using two workshop and virtual training methods on the knowledge and attitude of M. S. students.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Academic dishonesty has been and continues to be a major problem in America's schools and universities. Such dishonesty is especially important in high schools, where grades earned directly impact the academic careers of students for many years to come. The rising pressure to get the best grades in school, get into the best college, and land the best paying job is a cycle that has made academic dishonesty increase exponentially. Thus, finding the widespread roots of cheating is more important now than ever. In this study, we focus on how societal norms and interactions with peers influence lying about scores in order to obtain a benefit in a high school population. We show that (1) the societal norms that go hand in hand with test-taking in school, as administered by a teacher, significantly dampen small-scale dishonesty, perhaps suggesting that context-dependent rewards offset cheating; (2) providing reminders of societal norms via pre-reported average scores leads to more truthful self-reporting of honesty; (3) the matrix search task was shown to not depend on class difficulty, confirming its effectiveness as an appropriate method for this study; (4) males seem to cheat more than females; and (5) teenagers are more dishonest earlier in the day. We suggest that students understand that cheating is wrong, an idea backed up by the literature, and that an environment which clearly does not condone dishonesty helps dampen widespread cheating in certain instances. This dampening effect seems to be dependent on the reward that students thought they would get for exaggerating their performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.