Review of Educational Research

Fall 1977, Vol. JĻ7, No. JĻ, Pp. 623-632

School Cheating Behavior

Ann Bushway
William R. Nash

Texas A&M University

Cheating in the classroom includes many behaviors: using crib

notes on an exam, copying answers from another student's
paper, letting others copy a homework paper, plagiarizing, and
ghostwriting, to name just a few. These types of behavior can be
traced in history through thousands of years. Brickman (1961)
reported t h a t during the civil service examinations in ancient
China t e s t s were given in individual cubicles to p r e v e n t
examinees from looking at t h e test papers of others, t h a t
examinees were searched for notes before they entered the
cubicles, t h a t the death penalty was in effect for both examinees
and examiners if anyone was found guilty of cheating; but
cheating still occurred. In modern society, Brickman continued,
cheating is a frequent occurrence. In this regard, Zastrow (1970)
provided evidence of a 40% incidence of c h e a t i n g a m o n g
graduate students. In a study by Schab (1969), approximately
24% of the girls and 20% of the boys admitted t h a t they first
began cheating in the first grade, 17% of the girls and 15% of the
boys began in the eighth grade, and 13% of the girls and 9% of
the boys began in the seventh grade. It would seem, then, that
cheating is currently widespread in the American education

Requests for reprints should be sent to William R. Nash.

623
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL R E S E A R C H Vol. 47, No. 4

system. In response to this problem, a great deal of research has

been performed in education and psychology. Most studies deal
with (a) characteristics of cheaters, (b) the situational factors
involved in a student's decision about whether or not to cheat,
and (c) reasons students often give for cheating—three areas
that are vitally important in determining why cheating occurs.
Some of the findings of research in each of these three areas are
reported in this paper.

Personal Characteristics of Cheaters

The first area that much research has dealt with is t h a t of
personality and behavioral differences between cheaters and
noncheaters.
Several investigators have worked with the relationship be-
tween either intelligence or school achievement and cheating.
Woods (1957) reported a tendency for honest students to be more
intelligent. Ellenburg (1973) found that approximately half of the
cheaters in his study had grade averages above 85, whereas the
averages of the other half of the class were below t h a t level. Hoff
(1940) found a correlation between IQ and honesty of .32, suggest-
ing that bright students tended not to cheat as much as did
slower ones. Vitro (1971) reported that cheating was more preva-
lent among students with low grade averages, and Drake (1941)
stated that in a sample of 126 university women, no students
receiving A's cheated, while 4% of those receiving B's, 23% of the
C's, 75% of the D's, and 67% of the F's cheated. Gross (1946) found
that the mean IQ of noncheaters was slightly higher than t h a t of
cheaters. Brownell (1928) stated that cheaters had IQ's slightly
lower than average. Bonjean and McGee (1965) reported a slight
tendency for increased cheating among students with averages
below a C, and Kanfer and Duerfeldt (1968) found t h a t the
low-achieving students cheat more than higher-achieving stu-
dents. Thus, the majority of studies indicate t h a t students who
are lower in intelligence or school achievement may cheat more
frequently.
Another characteristic investigated is the relationship of
fraternity or sorority membership and cheating behavior. Drake
(1941) found that 16% of the nonfraternity members cheated,
whereas 36% of the members did. Parr (1936) reported a higher
percentage of cheating among sorority girls (44% versus 33%) as
well as slight differences between fraternity and nonfraternity
men (fraternity men cheated 47% of the time and nonfraternity
men cheated 43% of the time). In 1965 Bonjean and McGee wrote
that fraternity or sorority membership was the personal charac-
teristic most common to cheating students. In a related study,
Hartshorne and May (1928) stated t h a t students who associated

624
SCHOOL CHEATING BEHAVIOR BUSHWAY & NASH

with cheaters were more likely to cheat than were students who
associated with noncheaters. Thus, the degree of closeness to
others in the class seems to affect cheating behavior.
Hetherington and Feldman (1964) inferred t h a t cheaters were
more neurotic than noncheaters. Brownell (1928) supported their
findings and added t h a t cheaters were more extraverted as well.
Keehn (1956), stating t h a t cheating should be "more related to
either extraversion alone or to extraversion and neuroticism
than to neuroticism alone" (p. 63), found more cheating among
students scoring high on both extraversion and neuroticism
scales, but he said t h a t it was impossible to find a relationship
between cheating and extraversion alone (from his study) be-
cause most of his subjects who scored high on the extraversion
scale also scored high on the neuroticism scale. In a 1967 study
White, Zielonka, and Gaier reported that cheaters were more
"tense, irritable, anxious, and in turmoil" (p. 70) than noncheat-
ers.
Concerning the relationship of sex of the student and incidence
of cheating, Hartshorne and May (1928) reported no significant
differences in the sex of cheaters. Black (1962) supported these
findings. Anderson (1957), however, found statistically signifi-
cant differences between the attitudes of men and women to-
wards cheating behavior, with women professing much stricter
attitudes and, therefore, possibly cheating less frequently. Also,
Feldman and Feldman (1967) suggested that females cheated
more in the earlier grades, but t h a t males surpassed them in
cheating by the senior year in high school. In a study conducted
in a ghetto elementary school, David (1973) found t h a t boys
tended to cheat more frequently than girls on a vocabulary test,
with the reverse occurring on a math test. Schab (1969) reported
that among 1,629 high school students, males admitted cheating
in a variety of ways in significantly greater numbers than
females. Overall, the findings seem to indicate (with a few
exceptions) t h a t the amount of cheating among females is some-
what less than the cheating engaged in by males.
Other investigators have concerned themselves with a diver-
sity of other behavioral characteristics and their relationship to
cheating. Hetherington and Feldman (1964) found cheating more
common among students who were less self-sufficient and who
exerted little effort in their studies. Boodish (1962) noted t h a t
cheaters were often good, but overambitious, students. Vitro
(1971) found t h a t cheaters generally had parents who punished
them severely or not at all. Thus, his results suggest t h a t a
moderate degree of discipline results in children who internalize
moral values and are thus honest in their school work. Black
(1962) stated t h a t there were no significant differences in the
cheating behavior of students who attended class regularly and

625
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL R E S E A R C H Vol. 47, No. 4

those who frequently cut class. Hartshorne and May (1928) found
a relationship between age and cheating with older students
cheating slightly more often, although Black (1962) found no
significant differences in various age groups. Drake (1941) pub-
lished some findings suggesting that interest in a course's con-
tent influenced cheating behavior. In his study 20% of the
cheaters and 90% of the noncheaters enrolled in further courses
in the department in which they had cheated. He added t h a t lack
of success may have also accounted for part of the difference.
Steininger, Johnson, and Kirts (1964) found a definite relation-
ship between lack of meaningfulness of courses and cheating.
Zastrow (1970), in contrast to all these findings, found no signifi-
cant personal differences in cheating and noncheating students.
In most cases though, these research studies do suggest that
there are differences in the personal and behavioral characteris-
tics of cheaters and noncheaters.

Situational Factors in the School

Several investigators have determined that particular charac-
teristics of a situation have a great influence on whether or not a
student cheats. McQueen (1957) reported t h a t situational factors
were a very important determinant of cheating. Rogosin (1951)
interpreted some of the studies in the area to mean t h a t the
situation was more important than behavioral characteristics as
a determinant of whether or not cheating occurred. Other re-
searchers, though, have merely identified characteristics of a
situation that influence cheating without making any judgments
about the relative influence of personal or situational charac-
teristics.
Steininger, Johnson, and Kirts (1964) stated t h a t a professor's
leaving the room during an exam could cause some students to
cheat more than they might have but that the cheaters sub-
sequently would feel more guilt because of having cheated in
that situation.
The moral climate of the school also influences the amount of
cheating. Steiner (1930) indicated that the moral tone of the
school can have a positive effect on the characters of students as
well as on the incidence of cheating in the school. Atkins and
Atkins (1936) found that a good emotional tone in the classroom
and instruction about not cheating before taking a test and great
difficulty in cheating led to less cheating. Thus, the tone of the
classroom seems to have an influence. In a related study, Fischer
(1970) examined five classroom situations in an attempt to de-
termine when students would be most likely to cheat. The five
conditions were (a) a "control" condition in which students were
given instructions for the test, (b) an "informative appeal to

626
SCHOOL CHEATING BEHAVIOR BUSHWAY & NASH

honesty" condition in which students were given the instructions

and were also told t h a t their being honest on the test was
important in providing results that could be used in helping the
teacher assess her teaching techniques, (c) a "public affirmation
of value" condition in which a pretest discussion was held about
cheating and the students were asked to state why they would
not cheat on the upcoming test, (d) a "value-relevant threat of
punishment" condition in which students were told prior to the
examination t h a t if they were caught cheating they would have
to write fifty times a sentence about cheating and (e) a "non-
value-relevant threat of punishment" condition in which stu-
dents were told t h a t their punishment for cheating would be
writing numbers repeatedly. Under the first two conditions,
Fischer reported that approximately two-thirds of the control
and three-fourths of the informative appeal groups cheated. The
incidence of cheating was lower in the other three situations, but
no significant differences in incidence of cheating were found
between the three. These were significantly lower than the
second group. Thus, punishment conditions appear equally as
effective as nonpunishment conditions in their influence on
cheating behavior. It would seem these researchers have shown,
in different ways, t h a t cheating is influenced by the moral
climate of the school.
The chances of success in cheating were another situational
determinant that some researchers dealt with. The literature
seems to indicate that students are less likely to cheat if the
chances are greater t h a t they may get caught. Vitro and Schoer
(1972) found that the highest incidence of cheating occurred
among students who were unlikely to do well on the test, who
were unlikely to get caught, and to whom the particular test was
very important. Ludeman (1938) lent support to the findings of
likelihood of success as a determinant when he reported t h a t one
of the two major reasons that students cheated was the fact t h a t
they had seen others get away with it. Atkins and Atkins (1936)
reported t h a t "the amount of individual dishonesty increased
with the ease of dishonesty" (p. 600). Uhlig and Howes (1967)
found that a large percentage of college students would cheat
even in a nonpressure situation if the opportunity was present.
On the other hand though, Williams (1969) reported t h a t "cheat-
ing does not increase with the number of opportunities" (p. 184).
Nevertheless, the literature indicates the likelihood of success as
an important determinant of cheating behavior.
Personality and teaching style of the teacher or professor were
found to be other situational determinants. Steininger, Johnson,
and Kirts (1964) found t h a t poor professors produced more stu-
dent cheating. Shirk and Hoffman (1961) theorized t h a t a teacher
who was very authoritarian, indicating to the students t h a t he

627
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL R E S E A R C H Vol. 47, No. 4

knew all the answers, that they were inferior beings, and that
the grades he gave were an adequate and accurate measure of
the students' intelligence frequently led students to cheat more.
Weldon (1966) underscored this argument with her discussion of
the relationships between amount of cheating and the demo-
cratic or totalitarian characteristics of teachers. She suggested
that students cheated much less frequently when they were freer
to voice their opinions about their work and were not tested by
totalitarian procedures. According to Montor (1971), students felt
that negative attitudes of teachers towards inquisitive students
was a factor in encouraging some students to cheat. In a related
study, Johnson and Klores (1968) found t h a t a dissatisfying
classroom situation was judged by students as producing a
greater amount of cheating. Woods (1957) mentioned teachers
giving work t h a t was too difficult and teachers who were too easy
as factors t h a t might c o n t r i b u t e to c h e a t i n g . Steininger,
Johnson, and Kirts (1964) suggested the giving of excessively
difficult tests by a teacher as a situation which may increase
cheating. Excessively difficult tests may lead to feelings of
hopelessness in students. Finally, the Montor (1971) study re-
ported t h a t some students saw a teacher's grading on a curve as
an inducement to cheating because under such a grading system
poor students would have to cheat or would be doomed to get a
low grade. Thus, there seems to be a relationship between
teaching style and the amount of cheating t h a t occurs.

Reasons for Cheating

Related to the situational influences as determinants of cheat-
ing are the reasons students give for their dishonesty in the
classroom. In the relevant literature, investigators have cited
numerous reasons for cheating.
Concern about grades was most frequently mentioned. Drake
(1941), Ludeman (1938), Montor (1971), Schab (1969), Smith, Ryan,
and Diggins (1972), Trabue (1962), and Woods (1957) all stated
that pressure to get grades to gain admittance to college or
pressure to maintain their existing average caµsed many stu-
dents to cheat. Related to all these studies are the findings of
Cornehlsen (1965), whose results showed t h a t any kind of pres-
sure from administrators, teachers, and/or parents frequently
infleunced cheating.
Boodish (1962), Montor (1971), Woods (1957), and Uhlig and
Howes (1967) reported on the perceived relationship of morality
and cheating. Boodish indicated that one type of cheater could
not see any relationship between cheating and morality. Montor
stated that students cheated because they did not understand
why it was wrong, whereas Woods claimed, on the basis of his

628
SCHOOL CHEATING BEHAVIOR BUSHWAY & NASH

findings, t h a t "a large amount of cheating occurs where students

are ignorant of or indifferent to the immediate and ultimate
consequences ,, (p. 82) of their behavior. Uhlig and Howes suggest
that some students were confused about what is considered to be
dishonest behavior. Thus, this research seems to indicate t h a t
cheating is more frequent when students do not understand the
relationship of cheating and morality.
Other reasons for cheating reported in the literature are found
in the studies of Cornehlsen (1965), Woods (1957), and Zastrow
(1970). Cornehlsen studied 200 high school seniors and found t h a t
"33% of the girls and 55% of the boys felt it (cheating) was
justified when success or survival was in jeopardy" (p. 107).
Woods similarly reported fear of failure as a reason. Zastrow
reported "handicaps,“ such as extracurricular activities or a job,
and being unprepared for a test as reasons given by some
students. It is obvious t h a t there are numerous reasons for
cheating, a fact which may explain why cheating is so wide-
spread.

Conclusion
As a first step in attempting to arrive at conclusions after
reviewing such a large body of research, one must give attention
to methodological considerations. The most obvious weakness of
some of the studies cited is that of heavy reliance on self-report.
It is difficult to know how far to trust this technique. Many of the
studies, however, have designed clever methods of determining
cheating, and greater credibility should be given these. Some, for
example, graded tests and returned them to the students for
self-grading with a comment that the tests had not been graded;
cheating was then determined from the number of changed
answers. Other weaknesses in methodology in a few of the
studies involve the use of small samples, an absence of adequate
control conditions, and, in some instances, making it too easy to
cheat. Most of the studies, however, have met the rigors of ex-
perimental research and appear valid.
From this review, it can be seen that there are many factors
influencing whether or not any given student will cheat. The
large number of these factors along with the statistics cited
indicates how large a problem cheating is in the school systems of
our country. It would seem then that since the researchers have
spent so much time determining why the problem exists that
research time and money might now be spent on programs to
discourage and/or prevent cheating. Atkins and Atkins (1936),
Heiman (1965), and Page (1963) suggest that educating students
about cheating, its immorality and its effects on the cheaters and
other students in the class can have an effect on the students'

629
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL R E S E A R C H Vol. 47, No. 4

ideas of morality and, as shown in the Page article, can possibly

reduce the amount of cheating. Thus, information seemed to be
the key in that situation. Studies on this topic are scarce though
and are not especially conclusive. The fact remains that if our
school systems are to develop the sense of responsibility and
general sense of morality as it is discussed in Durkheim (1961),
Eddy (1959), Hofstadter (1960), Lerner (1969), and McKeon (1969),
then the time appears to be right for a greater emphasis on
prevention, rather than on determinants of cheating. It is rec­
ommended t h a t future research focus on strategies that prevent
or reduce cheating, and these studies should utilize large sam­
ples and meet the requirements of tight experimental design.

References
Anderson, W. F., Jr. Attitudes of university students toward cheating. Journal of
Educational Research, 1957, 50, 581-88.
Atkins, B. E., & Atkins, R. E. A study of the honesty of prospective teachers.
Elementary School Journal, 1936, 36, 595-603.
Black, D. B. The falsification of reported examination marks in a senior univer­
sity education course. Journal of Educational Sociology, 1962, 35, 346-54.
Bonjean, C. M., & McGee, R. Scholastic dishonesty among undergraduates in
differing systems of social control. Sociology of Education, 1965, 38, 127-37.
Boodish, H. M. The teacher's page: School vs. life. The Social Studies, 1962, 53,
149-53.
Brickman, W. W. Ethics, examinations and education. School and Society, 1961,
89, 412-15.
Brownell, H. C. Mental test traits of college cribbers. School and Society, 1928,27,
764.
Cornehlsen, V. H. Cheating attitudes and practices in a suburban high school.
Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 1965,2S,
106-109.
David, P. Correlates of cheating behavior in a ghetto elementary school. Graduate
Research in Education and Related Disciplines, 1963, 7, 35-63.
Drake, C. A. Why students cheat. Journal of Higher Education, 1941,12, 418-20.
Durkheim, E. Moral education: A study in the theory and application of the
sociology of education. New York: The Free Press, 1961.
Eddy, E. D., Jr., Parkhurst, M. L., & Yakovakis, J. S. The college influence on
student character. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1959.
Ellenburg, F. C. Cheating on tests: Are high achievers greater offenders than low
achievers? Clearing House, 1973, JĻ7, 427-29.
Feldman, S. E., & Feldman, M. T. Transition of sex differences in cheating.
Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 957-58.
Fischer, C. T. Levels of cheating under conditions of informative appeal to
honesty, public affirmation of value and threats of punishment. Journal of
Educational Research, 1970, 6J>, 12-16.
Gross, Sister M. M. The effect of certain types of motivation on the "honesty" of
children. Journal of Educational Research, 1946, JĻO, 133-40.
Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. Studies in deceit. New York: Macmillan, 1928.
Heiman, M. M. The use of a film to teach ethical values. Journal of the National
Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 1965, 2S, 110-13.
Hetherington, E. M., & Feldman, S. E. College cheating as a function of subject
and situational variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964,55, 212-18.

630
SCHOOL CHEATING BEHAVIOR BUSHWAY & N A S H

Hoff, A. G. A study of honesty and accuracy found in pupil checking of examina­

tion papers. Journal of Educational Research, 1940, 3JĻ, 127-29.
Hofstadter, A. The structure and ground of responsibility. In C. H. F a u s t & J.
Feingold (Eds.), Approaches to education for character. N e w York: Columbia
University Press, 1969.
Johnson, R. E., & Klores, M. S. Attitudes toward cheating as a function of
classroom dissatisfaction and peer norms. Journal of Educatiάnal Research,
1968, 62, 60-64.
Kanfer, F. H., & Duerfeldt, P. H. Age, class standing, and commitment as determi­
nants of cheating in children. Child Development, 1968, 39, 545-57.
Keehn, J. D. Unrealistic reporting as a function of extraverted neuroses. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 1956,12, 61-63.
Lerner, D. Education and responsible behavior in modernizing societies. In C. H.
F a u s t & J. Feingold (Eds.), Approaches to education for character. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1969.
Ludeman, W. W. A study of cheating in public schools. American School Board
Journal, 1938, 96, 45.
McKeon, R. Character and the arts and disciplines. In C. H. F a u s t & J. Feingold
(Eds.), Approaches to education for character. N e w York: Columbia University
Press, 1969.
McQueen, R. Examination deception as a function of residual background and
immediate stimulus factors. Journal of Personality, 1957,25, 643-50.
Montor, K. Cheating in high school. School and Society, 1971, 99, 96-98.
Page, A. Socrates on cheating. Liberal Education, 1963, JĻ9, 193-97.
Parr, F. W. The problem of student honesty. Journal of Higher Education, 1936, 7,
318-26.
Rogosin, H. What about "cheating" on examinations and honesty? School and
Society, 1951, 7JĻ, 402-03.
Schab, F. Cheating in high school: Differences between the sexes. Journal of the
National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 1969, 33, 39-42.
Shirk, E., & Hoffman, R. W. The academic setting of the dishonest student.
Improving College and University Teaching, 1961, 9, 130-34.
Smith, C. P., Ryan, E. R., & Diggins, D. R. Moral decision making: Cheating on
examinations. Journal of Personality, 1972, JĻO, 640-660.
Steiner, M. A. Does the school strengthen or weaken the tendency to cheat?
Journal of Educational Research, 1930, 22, 388-95.
Steininger, M., Johnson, R. E., & Kirts, D. K. Cheating on college examinations as
a function of situationally aroused anxiety and hostility. Journal of Educa­
tional Psychology, 1964, 55, 317-24.
Trabue, A. Classroom cheating—An isolated phenomenon? Educational Record,
1962, ¿3, 309-16.
Uhlig, G. E., & Howes, B. Attitude toward cheating and opportunistic behavior.
Journal of Educational Research, 1967, 60, 411-12.
Vitro, F. T. The relationship of classroom dishonesty to perceived parental
discipline. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1971,12, 427-29.
Vitro, F. T., & Schoer, L. A. The effects of probability of test success, test
importance, and risk of detection on the incidence of cheating. Journal of
School Psychology, 1972,10, 269-277.
Weldon, L. L. Cheating in school: Teachers are partners in crime. Clearing House,
1966, JĻO, 462-63.
White, W. F., Zielonka, A. W., & Gaier, Eugene L. Personality correlates of
cheating among college women under stress of independent opportunistic
behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 1967, 61, 68-70.
Williams, F. N. Cheating in the classroom. Improving College and University
Teaching, 1969,17, 183-84.
Woods, R. C. Factors affecting cheating and their control. West Virginia Academy
of Science Proceedings, 1951,29, 79-82.

631
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Vol. 47, No. 4

Zastrow, C. H. Cheating among college graduate students. Journal of Educational

Research, 1970, ¾ , 157-60.

AUTHORS
ANN BUSHWAY Address: Department of English, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas-77843. Title: Teaching Assistant. Degrees: B.A. Uni-
versity of Maine at Orono. Specialization: Rhetoric and teacher education.
WILLIAM R. NASH Address: Department of Educational Psychology, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843. Title: Associate Professor.
Degrees: B.A., M.Ed., Georgia Southern College; Ed.D., University of Georgia.
Specialization: Creative thinking abilities, learning, and teacher training.

632