Journal of Educational Ptytluilon

19M, Vol. 56, No. 4, 212-218

COLLEGE CHEATING AS A FUNCTION OF

SUBJECT AND SITUATIONAL VARIABLES'
E. MAVIS HETHERINGTON AND SOLOMON E. FELDMAN
University oj Wisconsin
A group of 78 college students was exposed to 3 different examination
situations in which cheating was possible. 46 Ss cheated in at least 1 of
the examinations and most of the cheaters cheated on more than 1
occasion. An attempt was made to isolate 4 types of cheating: in-
dividualistic-opportunitistic, individualistic-planned, social-active, and
social-passive. Both the tendency to cheat and the specific type of
cheating employed were reliably related to certain demographic, in-
tellectual, and personality characteristics of Ss.

Several attempts have been made literature (Burton, 1963) including

to identify those demographic, per-
sonality, or situational factors that
predispose a student to cheat. Camp-
bell (1933), Hartshorne and May
(1928), Howells (1938), and Parr
(1936) concur in the finding that
cheating is most frequent among stu-
dents with low grades. There is evi-
dence that sorority membership is
associated with an increased incidence
of cheating (Drake, 1941; Parr, 1936).
Cheaters are also less self-sufficient
and more neurotic (Campbell, 1933)
and exhibit a lower level of effort
than noncheaters (Atkins, 1936). In
contrast to these positive findings,
Woods (1957) was unable to demon-
strate any significant relationships be-
tween either academic achievement or
personality and cheating.
Investigations of situational factors active-passive dimension, and the
related to cheating have indicated
that a difficult test (Howells, 1938),
lack of supervision, pressure to get
good grades, a poor test, or a poorly
organized course may encourage cheat-
ing (Stang, 1937). The Hartshorne
and May (1928) and McQueen (1957)
studies suggested that cheating was
not a stable trait across situations.
However, a recent survey of the
'This study was partially supported by which involves an element of fore-
the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
through the Wisconsin University Research sight and activity preliminary to the
Committee.
a reanalysis of the original Hartshorne
and May data indicates that there is
some generality of moral behavior, but
that much of the variance in honesty
measures can be attributed to specific
test determinants.
It seems likely that lack of evidence
for a consistent tendency to cheat
may be due to the selective interac-
tion of types of cheating behaviors and
subject characteristics. Since situa-
tions differ in the types of cheating
that they facilitate, cheating may only
occur when a situation arises that
permits the form of cheating compati-
ble with the individual's personality
structure.
Three dimensions on which cheating
behavior could be ordered are the
opportunistic-planned dimension, the
social-independent dimension. On the
basis of these dimensions, it is pro-
posed that at least four major types
of cheating can be differentiated which
will be associated with different
clusters of subject characteristics.
These four types of cheating behavior
are:
1. Independent-opportunistic cheat-
ing which is unplanned and impulsive
2. Independent-planned cheating
actual test situation
212
 SUBJECT AND SITUATIONAL VABIABLES IN CHEATING
3. Social cheating which involves
two or more people and in which the
subject actively instigates the cheating
4. Social cheating which involves
two or more people but in which the
individual plays a passive role
The present study attempted to pro-
vide academic situations which would
elicit these various types of cheating
and to isolate subject characteristics
associated with cheating.
METHOD
Subjects
Thirty-nine female and 39 male students,
enrolled in two child psychology courses at
a state university, unwittingly served as the
subjects in the study. All subjects had taken
a large battery of tests as part of an evalua-
tion program. These tests included the Con-
cept Mastery Test (CMT), the California
Personality Inventory (CPI), the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS), and
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality In-
ventory (MMPI). The standard scales on
all the personality tests were scored. The
L and K scales, the Taylor (1953) Manifest
Anxiety (MA) scale, and a repression index
(Welsh, 1954), each derived from the
MMPI were also employed. In addition,
the subjects also completed a questionnaire
designed to elicit demographic data. This
questionnaire elicited information on age,
sex, birth order, number of siblings, religion,
frequency of church attendance, year in
college, grade-point average (GPA), aca-
demic major, and fraternity or sorority affil-
iation.
Procedure
All subjects were evaluated in three situ-
ations which they regarded as routine class-
room procedures, but which offered them op-
portunity to cheat.
Five students who were not enrolled in
the courses attended class frequently enough
to be regarded as a fellow student by other
members of the class. These students served
as observers and recorded various types of
cheating during the first two situations.
Situation 1 was the first hour examination
of the semester consisting of 30 multiple-
choice, 30 true-false, and 30 fill-in items.
The five student observers were seated at
213
widely dispersed locations. Throughout the
hour the professor assumed a superficially
inattentive attitude. The five observers and
the professor recorded all instances of the
use of crib notes, copying, and permitting
others to copy. Any observation noted by at
least two observers was considered as cheat-
ing.
In the following class period, the subjects
graded their own test papers, unaware that
this examination had been graded previ-
ously. The number of shifts in scoring on
the three types of items was recorded.
Situation 2 was the second examination
in the course, an essay examination m which
the students were given a list of five ques-
tions the previous week and were informed
that the test would consist of two of these
questions. Examination booklets were read-
ily obtained at this university. There had
been frequent complaints that prior to
similar examinations students had written
the answere to the questions in blue books
which they had substituted for the booklet
given to them in the classroom. All booklets
handed to the students were marked by an
inconspicuous pinprick on the back cover,
and the students who returned substitute
booklets were noted. In addition, the same
observational measures of cheating used in
Situation 1 were recorded.
Situation 3 was an individual testing sit-
uation. The student expected to take a
short oral examination as part of the course
requirements. When he arrived at the pro-
fessor's office, he was asked extremely dif-
ficult, detailed questions. After several min-
utes the professor was called out of the
room. The text from which these questions
were taken was in a conspicuous position in
a group of several other books on the desk
at which the student was sitting. Its position
had been carefully marked to enable the ex-
perimenter to note if it had been moved or
opened while she was absent from the room.
The opportunistic-individual cheating was
thought of as including changing answers in
Situation 1 and the use of the book in
Situation 3. Planned-independent cheating
was conceived of as including the use of
crib notes and bringing in blue books.
Copymg and letting a person copy defined
social-active and social-passive cheating,
respectively.
After the data had been collected for
each subject in all three situations, the class
was told about the experiment. Those who
cheated were permitted to take a make-up
examination.
214 E . MAVIS HETHEBTNOTON AND SOLOMON E . FELDMAN
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
One rather striking finding is the in-
cidence of cheating: 59% of the sub-
jects exhibited some form of cheating
(46 cheaters, 32 noncheaters). This
is probably an inflation of typical
cheating incidence since the situations
would tend to promote cheating by
providing an inattentive proctor, by
having students score their own papers,
and by providing such temptations as
the available book in Situation 3.
However, since there is also the pos-
sibility that some cheaters escaped
detection, the obtained figure can be
viewed as an index of minimum inci-
dence under conditions of stress where
opportunities for cheating exist.
Situations 1 and 2 were about equal
in their tendency to elicit cheating;
in both situations approximately 50%
of the students cheated. However, only
22% of the students cheated in Situa-
tion 3.
The procedure in Situation 3 may
have permitted communication be-
tween subjects who had not yet taken
the test and those who had. However,
in informal postexperimental inter-
views of 10 of the subjects, only one
subject reported getting any feedback,
and she still was not suspicious of the
situation.
The results support Burton's (1963)
finding of some consistency in moral
behavior across situations since only
10% of those who cheated confined this
behavior to a single situation. Approxi-
mately 64% of those who cheated did
so in two situations, while 24% of
those who cheated did so in all three
situations. It should be noted that
all of the situations in the present
study involved a relatively limited
form of dishonesty, that of cheating
on academic examinations. If Burton
is correct in his assumption that con-
sistency in moral behavior is related
to similarities between the situations,
such results would be expected.
In analyzing the variables in fre-
quency format (sex, religion, fratern-
ity-sorority membership, incidence of
being first born, incidence of psychol-
ogy major versus all other majors,
and incidence of being an only child)
chi-square tests were performed. The
extreme skewness of the distribution
of professed church attendance dic-
tated the use of the Mann-Whitney
test. In all other comparisons, two-
tailed t tests were employed. A total
of 59 comparisons was made: 47
personality scores, 9 demographic
scores, GPA, CMT, and score on the
first examination preceding the oppor-
tunity for self-scoring.
Table 1 presents a listing of vari-
ables that significantly (p < .10) dis-
criminated between cheaters and non-
cheaters. Although in these and
subsequent analyses, multiple com-
parisons serve to increase the chance of
Type I errors above the stated p levels,
the number of significant differences
obtained exceed expectations.
In addition to the tabulated entries,
the score differences on the MMPI
Pd and L scales and sorority-fra-
ternity membership were in the ex-
pected direction, but failed to reach
significance (.20 < p < .10).
Cheaters appear to exhibit a set
of behaviors similar to those produced
by maternal overprotection. Cheaters
seem to manifest a passive-dependent
mode of adjustment giving little of
themselves in either intellectual en-
deavors or social relationships. They
appear to seek out people, but lack
an awareness of their general social
immaturity and irresponsibility. The
higher incidence of males and first
boms found among the cheaters is con-
sistent with a background of maternal
overprotection (Levy, 1943).
The present study agrees with that
 SUBJECT AND SITUATIONAL VAHIABLES m CHEATING 215

TABLE 1
VARIABLES DISCBIICNATTNG BETWEEN CHEATERS AND NONCHEATEBS

Variable X X Statistic
cheater noncheater

Score before cheating 32.3 45.1 I = 4.82 .001

Repression (MMPI) 17.9 14.1 / = 4.11 .001
Church attendance days/year 32.7 14.0 z = 4.15 .001
Sociability (CPI) 26.6 23.4 t = 2.95 .01
GPA 2.15 2.56 t = 2.77 .01
Concept Mastery 57.2 70.9 t = 2.62 .02
First born 48% 22% X1 = 5.45 .02
Male 61% 34% x« = 5.39 .02
Achievement via conformity (CPI) 25.4 28.2 t = 2.24 .05
Socialisation (CPI) 35.4 38.8 t = 2.23 .05
Responsibility (CPI) 27.8 30.9 t = 2.22 .05
Autonomy (EPPS) 12.4 13.9 I = 1.94 .10
Intraception (EPPS) 15.1 16.6 t = 1.82 .10
Achievement via Independence (CPI) 18.0 19.8 t = 1.77 .10
Intellectual Efficiency (CPI) 36.9 39.2 t = 1.74 .10
Deference (EPPS) 11.7 10.3 t = 1.68 .10
* All significance levels of bidirectional statistics are two-t&iled.

of Hartshorne and May (1928) in as subjects found a higher incidence

finding that subjects with lower in-
telligence and lower grades tend to
cheat more. The passive dependent
adjustment and use of repressive de-
fenses by cheaters in this study, con-
cur with previous descriptions of
cheaters as neurotic (Campbell, 1933),
experiencing little conscious guilt
(MacKinnon, 1938), manifesting low
self-sufficiency (Campbell, 1933), and
exerting little effort (Atkins, 1936).
When considering the finding that
cheaters have a higher frequency of
church attendance, it should be noted
that this information was gathered by
self-report. Before speculation about
guilt reduction, actual attendance
should be obtained to control for the
falsifying of self-reports. In a study
of the cheating of college students on a
motor task,2 also reported is a signifi-
cant relationship between cheating and
professed church attendance.
In contrast to the present study,
earlier studies which used children
'A. Marston, personal communication,
1963.
of female than male cheaters. It may
be that by the time males enter college
they become more motivated to suc-
ceed academically and take greater
risks to do so.
In an attempt to delineate the sub-
ject characteristics related to types of
cheating, the intercorrelations between
and within the four proposed cheating
groups were examined and are pre-
sented in Table 2.
Three of the four behaviors thought
to be examples of independent-oppor-
tunistic cheating (i.e., changing true-
false multiple choice and fill-ins) show
high intercorrelations. The fourth pro-
posed measure, using the textbook in
Situation 3, is not significantly related
to either of the three other measures;
in fact, this latter behavior appears
most related to the tendency to copy.
Perhaps a plagarizing cluster would
be appropriate. In light of these re-
sults, changing answers was used to
define the independent-opportunistic
cheating cluster, while using the text-
book was considered separately.
216 E. MAVIS HETHEBINGTON AND SOLOMON E. FELDMAN

TABLE 2
INTERCOBRELATIONS OP THE TYPES OF CHEATING*

Variable 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 N
b
1. Change TF (l) 74* 85* -14 -03 19 30* 30* -25 -09 -18 27
2. Change NC (1) 86* 61* -20 -12 09 34* 31* -24 -08 -04 31
3. Change FI (1) 76* 72* -07 01 18 12 09 -21 -14 -04 20
4. Blue book (2) 18 18 16 28 -48* -28 -48* -17 01 03 18
6. Crib (1) 16 12 16 37* 08 17 08 -11 -13 08 S
8. Crib (2) 36* 31* 32* -23* 18 21 21 -04 -07 -04 12
7. Copy (1) «• 44* 25* -10 25* 29* 71* -11 01 30* 9
8. Copy (2) 44* 45* 24* -23* 18 31* 74* -17 -19 16 12
9. Let oopy (1) -01 03 -03 -01 00 07 00 -04 80* -15 9
10. Let oopy (2) 12 16 04 16 -02 05 10 -06 82* -08 10
11. Book (3) 14 27* 19 23* 20 12 39* 29* 00 08 17
12. If cheat 61* 68* 50* 46* 30* 36* 30* 36* 30* 32* 44* 46
* The values above the diagonal represent intercoirelations (phi) within cheaters only (AT = 46) j p < .05, p < 01,
p < .001 are 29, 38, and 49, respectively. The values below the diagonal represent lntercorrelations (phi) among all
subjects tV •» 78); p < .05, p < .01, and p < .001 are 23, 30, and 38, respectively.
b
The parenthesized values refer to the three different testing situations.
* p < .05.

The second type of cheating, inde- and social-active clusters. Of the 13

pendent-planned, was thought to in-
clude bringing crib notes or filled
blue books to the examination. How-
ever, Table 2 indicates that although
the relationship between the use of the
crib notes on the first exam and the
use of blue books on the second exam
was significant and positive, the
use of crib notes on the second exam
was unrelated to their use on the
first exam and showed a significant
negative relationship to the use of the
blue book. It should be noted that
it is probably more difficult to use
crib notes on an essay examination
than on an objective examination and
that bringing in blue books would
make crib notes superfluous on the sec-
ond examination. In view of these con-
siderations, the independent-planned
cluster was defined in terms of the
use of crib notes on the first exam
and blue books on the second. The use
of crib notes on the second exam was
dropped from further consideration.
The remaining two clusters, social-
active and social-passive, appear well
defined in terms of copying or letting
people copy, respectively.
Looking at the within-cheaters in-
tercorrelations, there appears to be a
slight, but significant, relationship be-
tween the independent-opportunistic
subjects who indulged in socially ac-
tive cheating, 12 also showed indepen-
dent-opportunistic cheating. This may
be due to the unplanned impulsive
element found both in copying and
changing responses. Except for the
significant negative relationship be-
tween bringing blue books and copy-
ing, no other correlation between the
defined clusters is significant. In con-
trast to the previously noted finding
that 10% of the cheaters confined this
behavior to one situation, 42% of the
cheaters engaged in only one type of
cheating.
Those subjects engaging in any of
the behaviors that defined a cluster
were compared to all other cheaters
and to all other subjects. Table 3
presents these comparisons.
Meaningful clusters of personality
characteristics emerged for each of the
four types of cheaters.
The subject who indulged in inde-
pendent-planned cheating was a psy-
chology major who had been obtaining
poor grades. His motivation to cheat
was therefore obvious. He had enough
self-control to calculatedly make crib
notes or falsify blue books, and thus
cheat in a manner that would permit
no excuses if he were apprehended.
The subject who engaged in inde-
 SUBJECT AND SITUATIONAL VARIABLES IN CHEATING 217

TABLE 3
VARIABLES RELATED TO THE CHEATING TYPES

Type Variables discriminating between type and all Variables'discriminating between type
other students and all other cheaters

Independent-Opportun-
utie (32)* Score before cheating —42*"
Repression CMMPI) 37"
Concept Mastery -33" Mf (MMPI) 47"*
Achievement via Independence (CPI) -32" N Affiliation (EPPS) 32*
N Affiliation (EPPS) 29" m (MMPI) -31 •
Achievement via Conformity (CPI) -27* Achievement via Independence - 3 1 *
(CPI)
Intellectual Efficiency (CPI) -25* ffv (MMPI) 29*
Sociability (CPI) 26*
Psychology major -24'
Independent-Planned
(21) GPA -44"' Self-Control (CPI) 45"
Score before cheating -38" GPA -45"
Self-Control (CPI) 32" Psychology major 41"
Repression (MMPI) 23* First born -35*
Good Impression (CPI) 30*
Social-Active (13) Firstborn 44"' N Succorance (EPPS) 47*"
Achievement via Independence (CPI) -38" First born 46"*
N Sucoorance (EPPS) 36" Achievement via Independence - 4 1 "
(CPI)
Capacity Status (CPI) -31" Capacity Status (CPI) -34*
Repression (MMPI) 29" N Change (EPPS) 34*
Achievement via Conformity (CPI) -28* Jewish -33*
Good Impress (CPI) -25* Good Impression (CPI) -33*
Jewish -24* Communality (CPI) -29*
N Endurance (EPPS) -24*
N Change (EPPS) -23*
Social-Passive (11) First born 37 . . . Firstborn 38"
Sociability (EPPS) 29" Score before cheating 37"
N Nurturanoe (EPPS) 29" N Nurturance (EPPS) 38"
N Intraception (EPPS) 27* Ma (MMPI) -34*
Ma (MMPI) -24* Social Presence (CPI) 30*
N Deference (EPPS) 24* Sociability (CPI) 29*
K (MMPI) 24*
Text (17) Church attendance 29"
Capacity Status (CPI) -25* Fraternity-sorority -33*
Socialization (CPI) —23* Number of sibs -3I#
Number of sibs -23* N Intraception (EPPS) 31*
GPA -23' H> (MMPI) -29*
Pi (MMPI) 22*
Note —The values fallowing each variable represent a phi or point-bisenal correlation coefficient with two-tailed
significance levels, appropriate to the statistic.
* Parenthesized values represent the number of subjects engaging in this type of cheating.
• P < .05.
•• v < .01
— p < .001.

pendent opportunistic cheating was is readily characterized as an indi-

somewhat duller than his peers and
cheated as a reaction to poor test per-
formance. He appears to seek basic
satisfactions through contacts with
people rather than through academic
achievement. Despite a tendency to
respond immaturely in the face of
stress , he is probably initially socially
well received since he exhibits naive
enthusiasm and optimistic attitude to-
ward life.
In contrast, the social-active cheater
vidual who is unable to achieve in
either academic or social situations be-
cause of his immobilizing dependency
needs. He is a first born who has never
relinquished the infantile desire to be
protected and succored by others.
The most clearly delineated cheater
was the social-passive cheater. He is
concerned with sustaining mutually
supportive relationships with others
and his actions are oriented toward the
maintenance of approval and affection.
218 E . MAVIS HJBTHBBINOTON AND SOLOMON E . FELDMAN
He appears to be a calm, insightful,
socially mature individual who permits
others to copy from him as part of a
general pattern of nurturance. Since he
also scored high on the previous ex-
amination it is not surprising that
social-active cheaters seek to copy
from him. It is interesting to note that
unlike the previous three types of
cheaters this subject is not character-
ized by the use of repressive defense
mechanisms.
Subjects who cheated by using the
textbook in the oral examination ap-
pear to be unconventional, poorly
socialized, and impulsive. This is the
only situation in which cheating was
significantly related to Pd. The situa-
tion involved considerable risk since
the subjects had no way of anticipating
when the examiner would reappear.
The results of this study suggest
that different situations tend to elicit
specific types of cheating behavior
which are at least partially associated
with subject characteristics.
REFERENCES
ATKINS, BLANCHE E., & ATKINS, RUTH E.
A study of the honesty of prospective
teachers. Elem. Sch. J., 1936, 36, 595-603.
BUBTON, R. V. Generality of honesty re-
considered. Psychol. Bull., 1963, 70, 481-
499.
CAMPBELL, W. G. Measurement in determin-
ing the personality and behavior of the
college cribber. Education, 1933, 53, 403-
408.
DBAKE, C. A. Why students cheat. J.
higher Educ, 1941, 12, 418-420.
HAKTSHOBNB, H., & MAT, M. A. Studies tn
deceit. New York: Macmillan, 1928.
HOWELLS, T. H. Factors influencing hon.
esty. J. soc. Psychol., 1938, 9, 97-102.
LEVY, D. M. Maternal overprotection. New
York: Columbia Univer. Press, 1943.
MACKINNON, D. W. Violation of prohibi-
tions. In H. A. Murray (Ed.), Explora-
tions in personality. New York: Oxford
Univer. Press, 1938. Pp. 491-501.
MCQUEEN, R. Examination deception as a
function of residual, background, and
immediate stimulus factors. J. Pers.,
1957, 25, 643-650.
PABB, F . W. The problem of student hon-
esty. J. higher Educ., 1936,7, 318-326.
STANG, ROTH. Behavior and background oj
students in college and secondary schools
New York: Harper, 1937.
TATLOB, JANET A. A personality scale of
manifest anxiety. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.
1953, 48, 285-290.
WELSH, G. S. Factor dimensions of the
MMPI. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina, 1954. (Mimeo)
WOODS, R. C. Factors affecting cheating
and their control. Proc. W. Va. Acad.
Set., 1957, 29, 79-S2.
(Received October 14, 1963)