Academic cheating:

frequency, methods, and causes.

Mikaela Bjrklund and Claes-Gran Wenestam
bo Akademi University
Department of Teacher Education,
Vasa, Finland
email: Mikaela.Bjorklund@abo.fi or cwenestam@abo.fi

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland

22-25 September 1999.
Abstract
During the past decades cheating among undergraduate students has been a well-known
problem difficult to gain knowledge of. European research in this field of research is scarce.
The aim of this paper is to present a study, investigating the frequency of cheating, the
cheating methods used and the students motives for cheating or not cheating in a SwedishFinnish university context. Comparisons with other higher education contexts were possible
since an anonymous questionnaire, worked out and used by Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes and
Armstead (1995), was translated into Swedish and used in the study. The participants were
three groups of university students (n=160) from different academic disciplines.
The findings implicate that cheating among undergraduates is common and mainly is a
problem of ethic character. The paper also discusses consequences of student cheating for the
university staff, legislators, and society. Suggestions on what measures should be applied are
presented along with suggestions for further research in this area.
Background
During the past decade, problems concerning cheating among undergraduate students have
become increasingly apparent in academic institutions in the Nordic countries. Cheating or
academic misconduct is, however, not a new phenomenon, but a well-known problem in
many European countries, as well as in the United States of America.
Because of the ethical and moral character of the problem it is not easy to do research in this
field. Obvious problems are i.e. student integrity. Thus, academic dishonest behaviour and
cheating is a familiar problem for any university, but it is often not very well known and
sometimes the university authorities do not even want to know of it. Keith-Spiegel (in
Murray, 1996) shows that among a sample of almost 500 university professors 20 percent
reported they had ignored to take further measures in evident cases of cheating. Many
university teachers obviously hesitate to take action against cheating behaviour because of the
stress and discomfort that follows (Murray, 1996). Also Maramark and Maline (1993) suggest

that faculty often choose not to involve university or departmental authorities but handle
observed cheating on an individual level, making it invisible in university documents and,
thus, unknown to the university authorities. Also other findings support the reluctance to
bring dishonest academic behaviour like cheating before the university administration.
Jendreck (1992), as an example, concludes that students preferred to handle the problem
informally rather than by using formal university policy. Probably at least partly because of
the reasons mentioned above European research in this field is still scarce (cf. Newstead,
Franklyn-Stokes & Armstead, 1995 and Ashworth et al., 1997).
Nevertheless, we feel that it is of the utmost importance that this area of research is further
developed in the near future, not the least since students tend to see cheating as a more or less
normal part of their studies, which is illustrated in the quote below:
Students beliefs that "everyone cheats" (Houston, 1976, p. 301) or that cheating is a normal
part of life (Baird, 1980) encourage cheating. The adage "cheaters never win" may not apply
in the case of academic dishonesty. With cheating rates as high as 75% to 87% (e.g., Baird,
1980; Jendreck, 1989) and detection rates as low as 1.30% (Haines et al., 1986), academic
dishonesty is reinforced, not punished. (Davis, Grover, Becker & McGregor, 1992, p. 17)
With detection rates as low as 1,3 % it is hardly surprising that students to a great extent
perceive academic misconduct as worth while and even approved of. As an illustration of the
low detection rates; during a five year period (1991-1995) only 24 students were brought to
the disciplinary board for cheating at one Swedish university (Grahnstrm, 1996).
It is, hence, of importance to university staff and administrators, as well as to legislators and
society as a whole to gain insight in this matter, in order to be able to do something about it.
The aim of the study
The main aim of the study presented in this paper is to provide a first step in a survey over
university students cheating, i.e. to investigate the overall frequency, different methods and
main reasons for cheating and not cheating among students in a Finnish context. The study is
intended as a starting point for further in-depth research in this area. In order to get a better
understanding of the problem, the aim is also to relate the outcome to subjects backgrounds
in terms of sex, age, academic experience (number of study years), faculty belongings, level
of difficulty, level of study success and main reason for study at the university, in order to get
a deeper understanding of student cheating behaviour.
To make comparisons with other contexts possible an anonymous questionnaire, worked out
and used by the British researchers Newstead , Franklyn-Stoked and Armstead (1995), was
translated into Swedish and used in the study, which was carried out on 160 university
students during the spring of 1996.
I this presentation we focus attention on:
a) the frequency of admitted cheating,
b) what kinds of cheating is most frequent in relation to the British results,
b) the relationship between frequency of admitted cheating/not admitted cheating and sex,

c) the reasons selected for or against cheating in relation to the British results, and
d) the relationship between the reasons selected and sex.
Theoretical introduction
It is very human to try to find ways to solve problems as easy as possible or to avoid
unnecessary difficulties. Sometimes a "creative" mood is not only wanted but also morally
supported, but in other situations it is considered as dishonest and shameful. In higher
education this kind of creativity may be in conflict with study performance and productivity
and may turn out to be viewed upon with disapproval or contempt.
How define cheating?
Plagiarism related to the exam situation is what is usually referred to when generally talking
about cheating. It is also this kind of behaviour that has received most attention in research on
cheating. Defining cheating is, however, much more complicated than that, since cheating
seems to involve both a moral and an achievement dimension, which is graphically illustrated
in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Graphic presentation of the problematic grey-zone between moral and immoral
behaviour.
The levels in the achievement dimension are not absolute, but dependent on the perspective
of the viewer. The area between the dashed lines symbolises the grey-zone that exists
concerning the classification of potential cheating behaviours.
Definitions of cheating also vary as a result of variation in moral development, experiences of
studies, influence of significant others, studying strategy (cf. Miller & Parlett, 1973) and
probably also other factors. The result is a wide spectrum of definitions ranging from liberal
to conservative. Hence, the need for normative documents is apparent. Evenso they do not
seem to exist, at least not in Finland. Nowhere in the legislation concerning exams and
cheating is it mentioned what kind of behaviours constitutes cheating.

The examples above illustrate what a complex problem cheating is. In the study presented in
this paper all not strictly correct behaviours were classified as cheating for claritys sake.
To what extent does cheating occur?
Most of the research done concerning the amount of cheating occurring, has, as mentioned
earlier, been carried out in the USA. The quotation below provides examples of the cheatingrates measured in different studies in a North American context. The reader ought to observe
that these studies were different in design; concentrated on different behaviours and therefore
some of the variation in the percentages might be accounted for in that way, and thus can not
only be taken to convey a steadily increasing rate of cheating.
Drake (1941) reported a cheating rate of 23%, whereas Goldsen, Rosenberg, William, and
Suchman (1960) reported rates of 38% and 49% for 1952 and 1960, respectively.
Hetherington and Feldman (1964) and Baird (1980) reported cheating rates of 64% and 76%,
respectively. Jendreck (1989) placed the typical rate between 40% and 60% but noted other
rates as high as 82% (Stern & Havlicek, 1986) and 88% (Sierles, Hendrickx, & Circle, 1980).
(Davis et al., 1992,s.16)
Davis et al. (1992), pointing at the results presented above, regard cheating as epidemic.
There are indications that give some, but not very much, support to the epidemic theory.
McCabe and Trevino (1996) found that the tendency to cheat had increased only little, from
63 percent in 1963 to 70 percent in 1990-91 but that the cheating methods had been more
developed and the repertoire wider. Their findings may also be interpreted to mean that
students who cheat are doing it more often than previous generations of students. Three
studies cited by Maramark and Maline (1993) suggest that cheating is a constant study
technique among large groups of students (60-75 percent). Also Davis and Ludvigson (1995)
found in a more recent study that the individuals who cheat during their university-level
studies are the ones that also have cheated earlier in their studies.
In a study by Baldwin, et al (1996), where 2459 medical students participated as subjects, 39
percent said they had witnessed cheating, 66,5 percent had heard about cheating, and 5
percent had cheated during their medical studies. Graham et al (1994) found that among 480
college students 89 percent admitted cheating and in a study by Lord and Chiodo (1995) 83
percent of the undergraduates investigated (n=300) admitted to cheating on significant tests
and major projects.
In a European context Newstead et al. (1995) also present high rates of cheating. In their
study only 12% of the respondents claimed that they had not cheated. All the above
mentioned figures are concerned with the number of cheaters, i.e. the number of students who
have at least on one occasion been involved in academic misconduct, they do not tell us
anything about to what extent these people do cheat. It is, however, likely that the more
cheating is done, the more probable it is that the numbers of behaviours used vary. It is
therefore of importance to find out what kind of behaviours students utilise.
What methods are used?
There are four major kinds of groups to be distinguished when classifying cheating
behaviours, namely: Individual opportunistic, individual planned, active social and passive

social (Hetherington & Feldman, 1964). Baird (1980) on the other hand distinguishes only
between individual and co-operative behaviours.
The findings of Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead (1995) point to extensive cheating in some
areas like copying each others work, changing or inventing research data, while some other
cheating behaviour like lying or changing persons at examination (impersonation) was fairly
scarce (see Table 5). Hence, there seems to be a correlation between level of perceived
seriousness of the behaviour and its frequency of occurrence the more serious the
behaviour, the less frequent it is. Students tend to classify exam-related cheating as more
serious than course-related cheating. These classifications were also confirmed by Newstead
et als results, where all exam-related items were among the least frequent and course-related
items among the most frequent.
McCabe and Trevino summarise their findings in a table showing what kind of cheating and
the frequency students admit they are engaged in. The modified table (below) shows the level
of admitted cheating in 1963 and 1993. The two tests make a comparison possible.
Table. 2. Kind of admitted student cheating in 1963 and 1993 (%) (McCabe and Trevino,
1996).
1963

1993

Diff

Tendency

26

52

+26

Increase

Helped another student 23

37

+14

Increase

Used crib notes

16

27

+11

Increase

Copied material
without footnoting

49

54

+5

Increase

Plagiarised

30

26

-4

Falsify a bibliography 28

29

+1

Similar

Turned in work done

by another

19

14

-5

Decrease

Collaborated on
assignments requiring 11
individual work

49

+38

Increase

Tests/Examinations
Copied from another
student

Written Work

Decrease

Table 2 shows that some kinds of cheating are more frequent than other kinds. It is also
interesting to find that in most of the cases the tendency is an increase of the cheating
between 1963 and 1993. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the students were
cheating more in 1993 than they did in 1963. Another reasonable explanation is that the
students were more prone to admit cheating in 1993 than the students were in 1963.

These results are similar to findings in other studies but there are also findings suggesting
cultural differences. Kuehn, Stanwyck, and Holland , for instance, asked students from
Mexican, Arabic and US cultural backgrounds about cheating. The main focus was on three
typical cheating behaviours: using crib notes, copying another students test, and allowing
another student to copy course work. The findings suggest that there were differences
between the culturally different groups of students in how they looked upon and rated
cheating.
Also new technique, like the World Wide Web, is used by students in order to download
papers, essays, etc produced by other students but presented to the examiner as own work.
One illustration of this is a report from a Swedish university, where several students were
found out using not accepted means for getting course credits among which the downloading
of ready-made course works from the web was mentioned (Lunds Universitet Meddelar,
1998). Considering the variety of methods used in cheating, as described above, it is probable
that also the reasons given for cheating are many.
Reasons for cheating and not doing it
The reasons or motives for cheating are not very well known but must be assumed to be
complex. In a North American study of school students cheating by Anderman, Griesinger,
and Westerfield (1998) it is claimed that the schools obsession with performance measures
spurs cheating. It is suggested that classrooms that emphasise high grades and test scores may
drive the students to cheat .
Similar conclusions are reported from several investigations, where the students workload is
found to be an important explaining factor (Lipson & MacGavern, 1993). Davis et al (1992)
point out that pressures for good grades in higher education, student stress, ineffective
deterrents, teacher attitudes, and an increasing lack of academic integrity are important
determinants of cheating. Baird (1980) previously reported similar findings. In that study 35
percent of the students stated that they had too little time for studying for the exam and 26
percent of the students said their working load made it necessary to cheat. In a study by
Singhal (1982) as much as 68 percent of the students regarded the wish to get good results as
the reason for cheating. Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes, and Armstead (1995) found that 21
percent of the cheaters say it was lack of time to study that made them cheat and 20 percent
explicitly stated that their cheating was a consequence of their wish to get better grades. A
third frequently occurring reason for cheating was "everybody else does it" (16%), which
effectively reflects students attitudes towards cheating. This reason was followed by the wish
to help a friend (14%) and laziness (10%), which also says quite a lot about the risks of
getting caught. It is obviously easier to help a friend cheat than to e.g. help the friend learn to
an exam. Also Maramark and Maline (1993), when looking for causes for cheating, found
that stress, competition for jobs, scholarships and admission to post-graduate programs were
important determinants.
On a general level the causes or explanations identified can be organised in two classes of
factors, external, and individual/personal. In Table 1 below the two super-ordinate factors and
some elements/reasons mentioned in research done by Baird (1980), Davis et al (1992) and
Hetherington & Feldman (1964) are presented.
Table 1. Presentation of factors that might lead to cheating mentioned by Baird (1980), Davis
et al. (1992) and Hetherington & Feldman (1964).

Researcher

External factor

Personal factors

Laziness
Awareness of the
Seating order
performance of fellow
Importance of the test
students
Level of test-difficulty
Low grades
Baird

Unfair test
Previously experienced
Scheduling
failure
Supervision
A certain expectation of
success

Overcrowded, great
classes
Wish to help a friend
Davis et al.

Multiple-choice
questions

Aversion to teacher

Economic benefit

Difficult test
Hetherington Lacking supervision

To gain social

& Feldman

acceptance/liking

Badly organised
course

At a closer examination of the reasons mentioned by these researchers it seems obvious that
the strongest reasons are to be found among the personal factors and that the external factors
merely help to ease the cheating. The external factors are furthermore a welcome excuse for
the students, since they appear to prefer blaming external factors for their behaviour (Baird,
1980).

Anderman et al (1998) identified two general types of study approaches, which on a general
level seem to be similar to the deep and surface approaches to studying and learning. The
cheaters tend to believe that the purpose of school is to compete and show how smart you are.
Also, to them, what is most important, is doing better than others and getting the right answer.
They also worried about school and made use of self-handicapping behaviours, blaming
others and making excuses for not performing well at school, more often than their
counterparts. Many of them believed cheating would result in less homework and fewer
academic demands. The non-cheating group of students, in comparison, expressed interest in
their learning of science concepts and tried various problem-solving methods and sought to
connect ideas.
In several previous studies it is suggested that the effect of an explicit and unanimously
accepted honour code will lower the frequency of cheating behaviour (McCabe & Bowers,
1994). But honour code may have an effect in two opposite directions. A very common
reason for some types of cheating is the wish to help a friend (Franklyn-Stokes and
Newstead, 1995; McCabe & Trevino, 1996). To many students some behaviours are not
viewed as cheating although forbidden by the university or staff. For instance, letting a fellow
student borrow or copy an individual course work or a written assignment or even have a
look at the answer in a test may be regarded as honest and correct behaviour. Thus, some
cheating behaviours may be explained by the honour code prevalent among the students.
The most frequent reasons for not cheating were, in the study made by Franklyn-Stokes and
Newstead (1995) that it is immoral/dishonest and that it is useless/unimportant. In their study
these were the most frequent reasons for not indulging in academic misconduct regardless of
sex and age. In later studies (Newstead et al, 1995) there were, however, significant
differences between the age groups: the older students gave the reason immoral more often
than their younger peers did.

3. Method
The 160 subjects participating in the study were recruited from three different groups of
students. In Table 3 below, the samples and some characteristics are presented.
Table 3. Participants in the study
Students

Number

Male/Female (%)

Teacher education 77

19,5/80,5

Theology

52

40/60

Economics

31

29/71

Total

160

27,5/72,5

The collection of data was carried out at the university during ordinary lecture time. The
students were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of questions about cheating
behaviours. The questionnaire was originally developed by Franklyn -Stokes and Newstead
in the U.K. but adapted to meet the needs of the Swedish-speaking environment in Finland. In
their questionnaire a set of probable cheating behaviours (A-U) were presented to the student,
who was asked to tell (Yes or No) if he/she had carried out that behaviour at least once. Two
additional items were included in the questionnaire totalling the number of cheating

behaviours presented to 23. Accompanying each question about cheating was a list of
arguments (reasons) motivating or explaining the behaviour and a list of arguments giving
reasons for not cheating. The subjects were asked to select one reason for each Yes/No
response.
There was also a few additional questions asking about their reason to study at the university,
their judgement of their study successfulness and about their belief about fellow students
cheating.
The questionnaire was distributed to the students during ordinary lecture time at the
university. The respondents completed it immediately and anonymously. It took about 15
minutes to complete. The data was analysed by quantitative methods.

4. The result of the data analysis

The overall frequency of cheating
75 % of the respondents in this study had engaged in at least one of the behaviours listed in
the questionnaire. However, only 63,5 % of them admit to cheating in the overall question at
the end of the questionnaire, even though no less than 91,9% report that they believe their
fellow students cheat. The over all tendency to cheat only correlated with year of study
(Spearmans rho= ,160, P=.046), reason to study (Spearmans rho= ,213, p=.012) and the
respondents estimation of how much other students cheat (Spearmans rho= ,159, p=.046).
This seems to imply that the over all amount of cheating is relatively stable, but that the
methods used vary depending on discipline of study, gender, age and success in studies, since
there are some significant correlations for the individual items on the basis of these
background variables
This study was not designed to study the moral development of the respondents, but the
results do, however, point in one certain direction as far as moral is concerned. In Table 4
below, the reported tendency to cheat is cross-tabulated with respondents own evaluation of
their inclination to cheat.
Table 4. Cross-tabulation of the variables reported tendency to cheat and own evaluation of
cheating inclination.

Tendency
to cheat
0

3-5

6-

Total

11

58

19%

1,7%

100%

1-2

27
Own

19

Never
46,6% 32,8%

12
evaluation

40

37

93

Rarely
12,9% 43%

Sometimes

of cheating

39,8% 4,3%

100%

37,5% 62,5% 100%

39

59

51

10

159

Total
24,5% 37,1%

32,1% 6,3%

100%

Of the ones who have reported that they never cheat 53,4 % have admitted to exercising at
least one of the behaviours mentioned in the questionnaire, whereas 12,9 % of the ones of the
opinion that they cheat rarely have not reported cheating on any of the behaviours. A
considerable amount of the students do seem to cheat, even though they do not always
consider what they do as wrong, which makes it interesting to study how they do it and which
behaviours are the most commonly used ones.
Cheating methods used
In this section the occurrence of the different methods listed in the questionnaire are
presented. Observe that the behaviours listed in the questionnaire are various behaviours that
can be regarded as cheating and dishonest behaviour, but do not necessarily need to be
considered as such (cf. the definition of cheating used in this paper). Below, in Table 5 the
students responses to the behaviours described in the questionnaire are presented in order of
frequency. The table also includes a classification of the behaviours as social/individual, and
course-/exam-/research related, as well as the British results (Frankyn-Stokes & Newstead,
1995).
Table 5. The cheating behaviours listed in order of frequency. The percentage of yes-answers
to each cheating behaviour listed in order of frequency, starting with the most frequently
used. The figure to the right is the percentage of positive answers received for the same item
in the study made by Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead (1995).The letters to the left represent the
classification of the behaviour. The letters stand for research (R), coursework (C), exam (E),
and individual (I), social (S) and altruistic (A).
Situation

Percent (FI)

Percent
(UK)

CI

O) Copying without
reference

35,8 %

54 %

CI

N) Paraphrasing without
references

27,0 %

66 %

CSA

A) Allow copying
(coursework)

24,4 %

72 %

CS

E) Copying coursework with

21,4 %
knowledge

64 %

CS

V) Reporting presence

15,7 %

---

EI

Q) Copying (exam)

13,8 %

20 %

CI

C) Fabricating references

12,0 %

54 %

EI

K) Advance information
(exam)

11,4 %

6%

RI

R) Altering data

10,8 %

66 %

M) Library

10,1 %

31 %

CSA

S) Doing anothers
coursework

6,9 %

21 %

T) Collusion (coursework)

6,9 %

25 %

CI

F) Lying (coursework)

6,3 %

16 %

EI

B) Cribs (exam)

5,7 %

13%

CI

G) Essay banks

5,1 %

9%

CI

J) Copying coursework
without knowledge

5,0 %

7%

ES

P) Collusion (exam)

3,8 %

6%

EI

D) Lying (exam)

2,5 %

3%

L) Inventing data (NB!

translation)

0,6 %

60 %

W) Keeping silent

0,6 %

---

------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------ES

H) Impersonation (exam)

0,0 %

0%

CS

I) Peer assessment

0,0 %

65 %

U) Corruption/bribery

0,0 %

---

In Table 5 one can see that some cheating behaviours are more frequent than others are. The
most frequent ones among the Finnish respondents are "Copying material for course-work
from a book or other publication without acknowledging the source", "Paraphrasing material
from another source without acknowledging the original author", "Allowing own coursework to be copied by another student", and "Copying another student's course-work with their
knowledge". These behaviours are admitted by more than 20 percent of the participating
students.
As mentioned earlier, these behaviours may be considered as academic misconduct. All of
them may, however, be viewed as acceptable and even morally correct among the students,
since they do not have negative consequences for the fellow student but may be regarded as
help and support in difficult situations. In that sense it can be assumed that there exists a

conflict between staffs and students social and ethical value systems, creating a moral
borderline area where what is right and wrong are not easily delimited.
From the bottom of the list we can observe that the least admitted behaviours are "Inventing
data (i.e. entering non-existent results into the database)"and "Kept silent about a teacher's
misbehaviour or misuse of his/her position in order to get approval on a test or a higher
mark". These behaviours were reported only by one respondent/ behaviour. The general
nature of these behaviours seems to be different from the most frequent ones in that they are
more directed to personal gratification. The behaviours also represent more active deception
of teachers and fellow students in order to gain personal reward. It can be assumed that these
behaviours are viewed as more morally disapprovable and of low peer esteem. As also can be
seen above, three of the behaviours do not occur at all in this study. This is probably due to
the limited sample and perhaps also (judging from cryptic comments of the respondents) to
fear of punishment.
Gender differences
The students responses to the items in the questionnaire depicting various cheating
behaviours were in most cases similar for the both sexes; that is, there are almost no
differences between female and male students responses in this respect. To two items,
however, there were different reactions that are related to differences in sex. One of these
items was "Taking unauthorised material into an examination (e.g. cribs)". The outcome is
presented in Table 6 below.
Table 6 Relationship between students responses to item "Taking unauthorised material into
an examination (e.g. cribs)" and students sex
Response

Yes

No

All

Female

111

114

2.6

97.4

100.0

Male

38

44

13.6

86.4

100.0

Total

44

158

5.7

94.3

100.0

The result in the table indicates that there are clear differences between female and male
students ways of responding to the item suggesting cheating in the form of taking
unauthorised material in the testing situation. Among the female students only 2.6 percent
admitted to the behaviour while 13.6 percent of the male students said Yes to having carried
out the cheating. The differences are statistically significant (Fishers Exact Test, D.F.=1,
p=.015).
The second item where there were observed statistically significant ( 2 =5.82, D.F.=1,
p=.016) response differences related to sex was the item "Signing as present a not present

fellow student at a course where obligatory attendance is asked for". This item was added to
the original questionnaire. The outcome is presented in Table 7 below.
Table 7. Relationship between students responses to the item "Signing as present a not
present fellow student at a course where obligatory attendance is asked for" and students sex
Response

Yes

No

All

Female

23

91

114

20.2

79.8

100.0

Male

42

44

4.5

95.5

100.0

Total

25

133

158

15.8

84.2

100.0

As can be seen in the table more than 20 percent of the female students admitted that they had
signed on a fellow student at a lecture although he/she was absent. This can be compared with
4.5 percent of the male students admitting the same behaviour. Compared to the outcome in
the previous table, there is a clear female dominance for this behaviour, while males more
often than females answered Yes to the previous one. Another difference is that the total
proportion of Yes-responses are much larger for the item "Signing as present a not present
fellow student at a course, where obligatory attendance is asked for" when compared with
students Yes-responses to the item "Taking unauthorised material into an examination (e.g.
cribs)" (se Table 6 above), showing the response variation between the items regarding the
tendency among the students to accept or not accept a specific cheating behaviour.
The social individual relation
In the following, the frequency of certain cheating behaviours are discussed in relation to the
nature (see classification in Table 5 above) of the behaviour. 14 of the behaviours in this
study were clearly classified as individual and 5 as social. The mean for yes-responses was
14,4 % for the social behaviours and 10,5 % for the individual ones. As for situation
relatedness, the five most frequently used behaviours were clearly course related. The study
only contained one item concerning research related cheating (R), and this was the ninth in
order of frequency (10,8 %) and had mostly been used by male respondents at the age of 2123 successfully (16-24.99 credits/term) studying education . Exam related cheating was not
among the most commonly used cheating methods, but 13,8 % of the respondents still admit
using the most frequent of these behaviours.
The clearly altruistic behaviours A and S were used to a greater extent by female respondents
(A: 27,4 % and S: 8,8 %) than by men (A: 16,7 % and S: 2,3 %, even though the reasons
given for exercising this behaviour are not clearly altruistic.
Reasons for cheating
Another area of interest to us concerns the reasons and the arguments selected as explanations
and sometimes also as excuses for the behaviour. In Table 8 below all the reasons used to
motivate cheating are listed in order of frequency. It should be remembered that the reasons

available to be selected were generated by the researchers, but that the respondents also were
given the possibility to express other reasons/motives. These less frequent reasons are also
listed in Table 8.
Regarding reasons given for not cheating the most frequent one (27.5 %) is the choice stating
that cheating is immoral or dishonest. The reasons following in frequency of appearance
represent on a general level a completely different class of attitudes, since it may mean that
the subject do not distance him/herself from cheating, only that it was not considered or
regarded as useful ("I never thought of it", 21.3 % and "Situation did not arise", 19.5 %). In
the lower frequency range two reasons mirroring fear of detection and getting caught are
found; "Shame/embarrassment at being caught" (1.3 %) and "Fear of detection/punishment"
(1.4 %). In a way these reasons like the two previous ones are focusing the social
condemnation for cheating and dishonest behaviour and are not clearly a statement against
cheating.
When looking at students ways of choosing reasons for cheating or for not cheating there
seems to exist a strong connection with the cheating behaviour that is in focus. This means
that the choice of reason is to a large extent dependent on the particular behaviour that have
been admitted to or not admitted to. This topic will be discussed no further in this paper.
Gender differences
In most cases, however, there are no obvious differences between female and male students
ways of selecting their reasons for their responses. Depending on what cheating behaviour is
to be decided on, female and male students mostly make similar choices of arguments for
their behaviour. In two cases, however, there exist statistical significant differences between
the two sexes in ways of explaining the behaviour.
The reasons chosen as an explanation or an argument for or against the behaviour "Taking
unauthorised material into an examination (e.g. 'cribs')" are different between female and
male students. In the table below the outcome is presented.
Table 10. Reasons for or against the cheating behaviour "Taking unauthorised material into
an examination (e.g. 'cribs')"among female and male students
Reason

Female

Male

Total

Time pressure

0.9

2.4

To increase the mark

0.9

0.0

Fear of failure

0.0

7.1

Everybody does it

0.0

2.4

Laziness

0.9

0.0

It would devalue my achievement 9

8.0

2.4

10

It is immoral/dishonest

48

42.9

18

42.9

66

Personal pride

4.5

7.1

It was unnecessary/pointless

5.5

2.4

Shame/embarrassment at being

3.6

4.8

caught
I never thought of it

23

20.5

14.3

29

Fear of detection/punishment

8.0

7.1

12

I would not know how to go about

1
it

0.9

0.0

It would be unfair to other

students

0.0

4.8

Situation did not arise/not

applicable

3.6

0.0

Total

112

42

154

The outcome points to statistical significant differences (Phi and Cramrs V =.404, p=.048)
between the female and male ways of selecting the reason for their behaviour regarding
"Taking unauthorised material into an examination (e.g. 'cribs')". First of all 7.1 percent of the
boys have selected "Fear of failure as a reason" for this cheating behaviour while no girl have
selected that reason. Also "It would be unfair to other students" were chosen by 4.8 male
students but not one female student.
Among the female students reasons like "To increase the mark", "Laziness", "I would not
know how to go about it" and "Situation did not arise/not applicable to my course" were
chosen by a few female students but no male student. A relatively large difference between
female and male ways of choosing among the reasons for explaining the Yes/No-answer can
be found for reason "I never thought about it", where 20.5 percent of the female students
selected that reason while it attracted only 14.3 percent of the male students. Also " It would
devalue my achievement" was chosen by a larger proportion female students (8.0 %) than
male students (2.4 %).
The second statistical significant difference (Phi and Cramrs V=.348, p=.028) concerns
the reasons chosen for item " Taking an examination for someone else or having someone
else take an examination for you". The outcome is presented in Table 11 below.
Table 11. Reasons for or against the cheating behaviour " Taking an examination for
someone else or having someone else take an examination for you". among female and male
students
Reason

Female

Male

Total

It would devalue my achievement 2

1.8

4.8

It is immoral/dishonest

49

43.8

18

42.9

67

Personal pride

0.9

2.4

It was unnecessary/pointless

1.8

4.8

Shame/embarrassment at being
caught

0.0

2.4

I never thought of it

37

33.0

14.3

43

Fear of detection/punishment

1.8

0.0

I would not know how to go about

9
it

8.0

2.4

10

It would be unfair to other

students

1.8

2.4

Situation did not arise/not

applicable

7.1

10

23.8

18

Total

112

42

154

In one case the male students have chosen a reason ("Shame/embarrassment at being caught")
that is not chosen by any female student. Large difference on the basis of sex are found for
the reason "Situation did not arise/not applicable to my course", where more than 16 percent
more boys have chosen that reasons for their behaviour. Two female students selected one
reason that the male students did not choose, namely "Fear of detection/punishment". Largest
difference (18.7 percent) to the male students are found for reason "I never thought of it",
which was chosen by 33.0 percent of the female students but only 14.3 percent of the male
students.

5. Discussion
Various methodological problems that have been discussed elsewhere (see Bjrklund,
1997), are not mentioned here, since they do not seem to affect the reliability and validity of
the results discussed. There is, however, one point of importance as far as methodological
bias is concerned and that is the fact that the instrument in this study was translated from
English and a British context, which in some cases have called for adjustment and in one case
yielded an erroneous translation (item L).
The frequency of individual cheating behaviours in comparison to the British results
The over all frequency of cheating reported in this study does not differ significantly from the
ones reported by previous researchers, and can, hence, be taken as a further proof of the fact
that the over all cheating rates seem to be fairly constant in the western word. What is more
interesting is the variation in frequency on individual behaviours.
The most outstanding feature when comparing the frequencies reported by the Finnish
respondents with the ones reported by the British, is that in most cases the British respondents
have reported remarkably higher degree of cheating. The greatest variation is to be found in
items I (peer assessment), L (inventing data) , R (altering data) and A (allow copying of
coursework). The great difference concerning peer assessment is probably due to differences
in the academic traditions: Peer assessment is not very common in the Swedish speaking
university level studies in Finland. Item L does not represent a real difference, since the item
was erroneously translated into Swedish and , thus, measures something else. Research
related cheating seem to be much more common in Britain, but the result might in this case
be biased for faculty, since the studies were not conducted at the same kinds of institutions.
Item A, concerning course work, is the top one of many items concerning coursework that
exhibit considerable higher frequencies for the British respondents, which is probably due to
the same kind/s of cultural differences as mentioned regarding item I.

Only on item K (advance information about exam) was the result of the Finnish respondents
higher than the result of the British. The items concerning examrelated behaviours generally
exhibit the smallest differences between the groups, which seems to indicate that exam
conditions are more or less alike between the two countries. It is also possible to claim that
the results indicate that Finnish students seem to find examrelated cheating less serious than
British, who , in turn, do not seem to regard research related cheating as particularly serious.
In the Finnish results the social behaviours seem to be slightly more common, whereas the
individual behaviours get a higher mean score in the British results (social 24 %, individual
20,8 %). This can be seen claimed to indicate that the British academic environment is more
competitive than the Finnish, but it ought to be remembered that the mean score used here is
a very crude measure.
Reasons for cheating in comparison to the British results
The most frequent reasons for cheating mentioned by the Finnish students were time
pressure, laziness and the wish to help a friend. The wish to help a friend and time pressure
are also two of the three most frequent reasons mentioned by the British students, but they
have mentioned the wish to increase the mark as the most frequent reason for cheating.
Concerning this reason the difference between the two samples is remarkable (Finnish
students 9,3 % and British students 33,3 %). Finns on the other hand contribute their cheating
to laziness and extenuating circumstances considerably more often than their British peers,
who, in turn, seem to fear failure more and also tend to justify their behaviour with the reason
"everybody does it".
Out of these differences it is easy to create caricature image of the cheating British student as
an ambitious person , who wishes to perform well and of the Finnish student who mainly
cheats because it seems to be the easiest way to go about the studies.
Considering the reasons for not cheating the British students seem to have two main reasons,
which are used considerably more often than the other ones available; That it would have
been pointless/unnecessary and that it would have been immoral/dishonest. The immorality
aspect is mentioned as the most frequently used among the Finnish students, but the second
most frequently used is that the student never thought of it, closely followed by the reason
that the situation didnt arise or wasnt applicable. Again, then , the British students seem to
be more focused on the outcome/the result of the cheating behaviour than the Finnish ones.
Even though morality is one of the most frequently used reasons for not cheating in both of
the groups, the "potential cheater-reasons", i.e. the ones giving I never thought of it, the
situation didnt arise and/or it was unnecessary/pointless, amount to about 50 % in both of the
groups. In connection to the fact that the reasons shame /embarrassment at being caught (1,3
% of Finnish answers, 0 % of British ones) and fear of detection/punishment (1,9 % of
Finnish answers and 5,8 % of British ones) were used quite infrequently, this implicates that
it is of the utmost importance to reduce the opportunities of successful cheating, e.g. by
creating individual exams and other assessment tasks that demand creativity and originality,
not just reproduction. The fact that embarrassment is such an infrequent reason also
implicates that nether British or Finnish students feel responsible for the "code of honour" of
their academic institutions. Hence, by establishing a functioning code of honour one could
most likely reduce the instances of cheating remarkably, since the socio-moral climate is

known to affect the behaviour of students more effectively than their own level of moral
development (MacCabe & Trevino, 1996).
The reduction of opportunities for successful cheating is, of course, the most immediate way
of reducing cheating, but in the long run that measure will not suffice. According to the
findings in this study and other ones (cf. Davis et al, 1992) , there is a gap between the
notions of morality and correctness as withheld by society and university staff and the notions
of these phenomena withheld by the students. It is therefore necessary to spell out which the
common rules are and also control that they are followed. To go even further it is also
important to stress the importance of moral education for moral development in order to
secure a functioning society, presuming that that is what is what is wanted.
Variations in cheating behaviour on the basis of the back ground variables
Contrary to previous research very few of the background variables seem to affect the
tendency to cheat to a significant extent. This was, however, also the case for Haines et al
(1986, in Davis et al, 1992). They came to the conclusion that it was because of the
unproportionality concerning sex and year of study in the sample, which also seems to be the
case in this study. Except the gender differences on some items, mentioned in the results,
there were, however, also weak, but statistically significant positive correlations between the
overall tendency to cheat and year of study, the perception of how much other students cheat
and reason for studying. This result implies that academic misconduct, at least to some extent,
may be epidemic and that students reasons for not cheating are gradually worn down when
they see fellow students cheat, without being caught. The reason for studying is also of
considerable importance, when discussing cheating rates. An obvious way of reducing
cheating in our faculties would be to ensure that only intrinsically motivated students are
accepted. The question is then: How do we control for that, and do we really want to; It is all
linked to the kind of professionals we want to educate.
Summary of implications
Academic staff can no longer presuppose that students know and behave according to
unwritten moral rules or an inner code of honour. One, obvious way of reducing cheating in
universities is then to spell out what rules and codes the students are subjected to. Such a
document ought, however, to be carefully thought out and produced in co-operation with the
students, in order to establish it as a "code of honor2, otherwise it will only fill the purpose of
a list of potentially successful cheating behaviours.
According to previous research, students moral behaviour and ethical reasoning seems to
develop under continuous education. I am convinced that this influence can be made stronger
through focused attention to the area and an open ethical dialogue, not in any specific course,
but as every teachers concern. This would create a good socio-moral environment for moral
development, which is what universities ought to foster in their students, since that is
something they will need in their everyday life as well as in their professional activities, and
of which society will benefit or suffer in the long run.
Even though the personal factors causing or preventing cheating are probably the primary
ones, it is also a good idea to try to reduce or eliminate the external factors that seem to cause
cheating. One of the major external reasons for cheating was time pressure. That ought to be
quite easily remedied through courses/ supervision in studying technique and discipline, as

well as a better co-ordination of courses and exams between university staff. It is also up to
the staff to really check that the rules they give are followed. Such a behaviour signals that
the rules are judged as important and might awaken conscience in the students, or at least
make the "cheating alternative" less attractive and easy to carry out. In this case it is, in fact,
most important to catch the small fish.
Davis and Ludvigson in turn present a twofold way of reducing cheating in the long run,
namely by a) using positive reinforcement and b) by encouraging and fostering the students
to acquire an outlook on life that will prevent them from cheating.
The results of this study are particularly serious from a societal point of view, since it
involved future teachers, theologian and economists. What kind of teachers does the society
of today want? Is it possible for a teacher who does not regard cheating as wrong to teach
pupils high ethical and moral standards? Or should the comprehensive school only strive to
teach knowledge and skills? The compulsory schoolteachers are of strategic importance,
since they are the ones who ought to start the process of moral development, if "academic
freedom" is to be a reality in the future.
Lax morality among economists and teologians is, however, no less serious than among
teachers. If those particular groups in society are not to be trusted, then who? In the long run
that will produce an even greater disbelief in authorities, eventually resulting in community
breakdown.
In order to be able to deal with the problem in an efficient manner it is necessary to reach the
causative factors, which probably are best reached with a flexible and qualitative approach.
To understand delicate and inaccessible phenomena like the one at hand it is important to
benefit from as many sources of knowledge as possible; an interdisciplinary approach would
probably be most adequate. It is also important to realise the problem with truthfulness. In
this study it was generally found that the students tended to answer the questionnaire with
less anxiety, when it was stressed that the researcher was a fellow student and not a member
of the university staff.

References
Anderman, E, Griesinger, T, & Westinger, G. (1998). Motivation and cheating during early
adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 1, 84-93.
Ashworth, P. Bannister, P. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students perceptions of
cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 22,
2, 187-204.
Baird, J.S. Jr. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17, s.
515-522.
Baldwin., DeWitt C., et al. (1996). Cheating in Medical School: A Survey of Second-Year
Students at 31 Schools. Academic Medicine; 71, 3, p267-73.
Bjrklund, M. (1997). Akademiskt fusk Frekomst, metoder och orsaker. En
enktunderskning bland studerande vid Svenska handelshgskolan i Vasa, samt

pedagogiska och teologiska fakulteterna vid bo Akademi. Unpublished masters thesis.

bo Akademi University, Vasa.
Davis, S.F., Grover, C.A., Becker, A.H. & McGregor, L.N. (1992). Academic dishonesty:
prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 1, s. 1620.
Davis, S.F. & Ludvigson, H.W. (1995). Additional data on academic dishonesty and a
proposal for remediation. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 2, s. 119-121.
Franklyn-Stokes, A. & Newstead, S.E. (1995). Undergraduate cheating: who does what and
why?. Studies in Higher Education, 20, 2, s. 159-172.
Graham, Melody A., et al. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: An examination of student
development. Journal of College Student Developments, 35, 4, 255-260.
Grahnstrm, T. (1996). Svrt f upprttelse fr fuskanklagad. Vertex, 5.
Hetherington, E.M. & Feldman, S.E. (1964). College cheating as a function of subject and
situational variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 4, s. 212-218.
Jendreck, Margareta, Platt. (1992). Students reactions to academic dishonesty.Journal of
College Student Development, 33, 3, 260-273.
Kuehn, P., Stanwyck, D. J., & Holland, C. L. (1990). Attitudes toward "cheating" behaviours
in the ESL classroom. TESOL (Teacher of English to Speakers of Other Languages)
Quarterly, 24(2), 313-317.
Lipson, Alberta and McGavern, Norma. (1993). Undergraduate academic dishonesty at MIT.
Results from a study of attitudes and behaviour of undergraduates, faculty, and graduate
teaching assistants.
Lord, T., & Chiodo, ?D. (1995). A Look at Student Cheating in College Science Classes.
Journal of Science Education and Technology; 4, 4, 317-24.
Lunds Universitet Meddelar, rg 31, nr 7, 1998. Lunds universitet.
Maramark, Sheila & Maline, Mindi, barth. (1993) Academic dishonesty among college
students. Issues in education. Office of Educational research and Imporvemnet (ED),
Washington, DC.
McCabe, Donald, L. (1993). Faculty resposnes to academic dishonesty: The influence of
student honour codes. Research in Higher Education, 34, 5, 647-658.
McCabe, Donald, L., & Bowers, William, J. (1994). Academic dishonesty among males in
college: A thirty year perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 1, 5-10.
McCabe, D.L. & Trevino Klebe, L. (1996). What we know about cheating in college.
Change, 28, 1, s. 28-33.

Miller, C.M. & Parlett, M. (1974). Up to the Mark, a study of the examination game. Society
for Research into Higher Education.
Murray, B. (1996). Are professors turning a blind eye to cheating? Schools facing a plague of
cheating. Beware the A student: Overachievers can be cheaters. The APA MONITOR , 27, 1,
s. 1, 42.
Newstead, S.E., Franklyn-Stokes, A. & Armstead, P. (1995, in press) Individual differences in
student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Singhal, A.C. (1982). Factors in students dishonesty. Psychological Reports, 51, s. 775-780.

Appendix 1
Cheating behaviours
A) Allowing own course-work to be copied by another student
B) Taking unauthorised material into an examination (e.g. 'cribs')
B)Fabricating references or a bibliography
D) Lying about medical or other circumstances to get special consideration by examiner
E) Copying another student's course-work with their knowledge
F) Lying about medical or other circumstances to get an extended deadline or exemption from
a piece of work
G) Submitting course-work from an outside source
H) Taking an examination for someone else or having someone else take an examination for
you
I)In a situation where students mark each other's work, coming to an agreement with another
student or students to mark each other's work more generously than it merits J) Copying
another student's course-work without their knowledge
K) Illicitly gaining advance information about the contents of an examination paper
L) Inventing data (i.e. entering nonexistent results into the database)
M) Ensuring the availability of books or journal articles in the library by deliberately misshelving them so that other students cannot find them, or by cutting out the relevant article or
chapter
N) Paraphrasing material from another source without acknowledging the original author

O) Copying material for course-work from a book or other publication without

acknowledging the source
P) Premeditated collusion between 2 or more students to communicate answers to each other
during an examination
Q) Copying from a neighbor during an exami-nation without them realizing
R) Altering data (e.g. adjusting data to obtain a significant result)
S) Doing another student's course-work for them
T) Submitting a piece of course-work as an individual piece of work when it has actually
been written jointly with another student
U) Attempting to obtain special consideration by offering or receiving favors, for example,
bribery, seduction, corruption
V) Signing as present a not present fellow student at a course where obligatory attendance is
asked for
W) Kept silent about a teacher's misbehavior or misuse of his/her position in order to get
approval on a test or a higher mark
This document was added to the Education-line database on 21 March 2000