Cebu Eastern College

Senior High School Department

Leon Kilat St., Cebu City, Philippines

TENSION REDUCTION: A QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH STUDY ON THE

MOTIVATING FACTOR OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE TOWARDS THE
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG STUDENTS OF CEBU CITY

A Research Paper
Presented to the Faculty of the Senior High School Department
Cebu Eastern College

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Grade 12 Senior High School in the STEM Track
of Second Semester S.Y. 2020-2021
Research Project

Bucao, Gracelle Mae E.

Co, Kathleen Claire A.
Dela Victoria, Cathrina Y.
Mendez, Faith Charlize C.
Pasquil, Jerdvy Mae

May 2021

i
 ABSTRACT

This research study was conducted in order to assess the influencing or motivating factor

of cognitive dissonance towards academic dishonesty among students. Academic dishonesty has

been a long-discussed issue in the academic realm, as it affects the academic integrity of

institutions. During exams, researches or assignments, students engage in dishonest actions due to

various reasons. Academic dishonesty is complicated and difficult to understand with only one

factor. This research applied the theory of cognitive dissonance to the classroom, with a vision of

curbing academic dishonesty. A two-part survey was conducted among 70 students, all of which

were adolescents aging 17-21 years old, all over the schools of Cebu City. Stratified random

sampling, under non-probability sampling, was used in selecting the participants for data

collection. Two hypotheses were formulated in order to effectively carry out the research project.

The study is based on a correlational survey regarding the cognitive dissonance behavior of

students towards cheating and plagiarism, followed by the frequency of academic dishonesty

among the participants. Using the Simple Linear Regression as a statistical treatment, the obtained

data yielded to a p-value of 0.0000023, which is significantly lower than the alpha value 0.05. This

statistical result indicates that there is indeed a positive relationship between cognitive dissonance

and academic dishonesty. In other words, cognitive dissonance does influence the academic

dishonesty of students, in a way that students choose to rationalize and justify their dishonest

actions and/or behaviors in their academics, instead of changing it.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title ……………………………………………………………………………………. i

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………….…... ii

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………… iv

List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………… v

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study ……………………………………………………………. 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………………. 4

1.3 Scope and Delimitation ……………………………………………………………… 5

1.4 Significance of the Study …………………………………………………………… 6

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Review of Related Literature ……………………………………………...………… 8

2.2 Conceptual Framework …………………………………………………………….. 18

2.3 Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………………….. 18

2.4 Research Hypothesis ………………………………………………………………. 24

2.5 Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………………... 24

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Research Design ……………………………………………………………………. 25

3.2 Instruments of the Study …………………………………………………………... 26

3.3 Population and Sampling

3.3.1 Population …………………………………………………………………. 27

3.3.2 Sampling …………………………………………………………………… 28

iii
 3.4 Statistical Data Analysis …………………………………………………………… 29

Chapter 4: Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

4.1 Presentation of Data ………………………………………………………………… 31

4.2 Hypothesis Testing ……………………………………………………………...…... 37

Chapter 5: Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

5.1 Summary of Findings ……………………………………………………………… 40

5.2 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………. 41

5.3 Recommendations …………………………………………………………………... 42

References/Works Cited ……………………………………………………………………….. 45

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Tables

1 Interpretation of Correlational Degree of Variables ................................................ 30

2 Raw Scores of the Participants in Each Part of the Questionnaire ……………….. 31

3 The Mean and Standard Deviation of the ATP & ATC Scale ……………………. 35

4 The Mean and Standard Deviation of the AISS …………………………………. 36

5 Analyzed Regression Statistics …………………………………………………… 37

6 Simple Linear Regression Summary Output ……………………………………... 38

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figures

1 Conceptual Framework ………………………………………………………….. 18

2 Cognitive Dissonance Line Fit Plot ………………………………………………38

vi
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

People may not be able to realize it, but they all do experience having two contradicting

ideas which sometimes causes individuals to disregard new pieces of information conflicting with

their previous beliefs. Sometimes a person might find themselves engaging in behaviors that are

opposed to their own beliefs due to external expectations, often for work, school, or a social

situation (Montecinos, Björklund & Lindholm, 2018). These circumstances happen because of

cognitive dissonance. According to McLeod (2018), cognitive dissonance refers to situations

wherein a person has contradicting ideas, beliefs, attitudes or behavior. These contradictions create

a sense of mental distress, which often leads to a change in one’s attitude, values or behavior, in

order to minimize discomfort and regain equilibrium. Mismatches between one’s values and

actions can lead to feelings of discomfort and, sometimes, dealing with decisions that have adverse

effects. However, these feelings can also sometimes lead to improvement and growth. Cognitive

dissonance plays a role in many valuable judgments, decisions, and evaluations. Becoming aware

of how conflicting beliefs impact the decision-making process is a great way to improve one’s

ability to make faster and more accurate choices (Hasan, 2012).

Cognitive dissonance isn’t something that people talk about a lot, but it is something that

they experience every day without knowing it (McLeod, 2018). According to Festinger's (1957)

cognitive dissonance theory, people have an inner drive to hold all their attitudes and behavior in

harmony, and avoid disharmony (or dissonance). When an inconsistency occurs, they will alter

1
their behavior or attitude in order to reduce the "dissonance". This is known as the principle of

cognitive consistency. Cognitive Dissonance Theory suggests that cognitive inconsistency leads

to a motivational state that promotes balance, which comes mainly through a change of opinions

or behaviors. Festinger (1957) believed that this was one of the most powerful motivators, as

learners want to avoid the discomfort, pressure, and tension that a dissonance can cause. In essence,

when there are two behaviors, actions, or cognitions in conflict within their minds, learners are

more likely to make meaningful change to remedy the issue and seek alignment.

Many investigations of this theory have relied on the inconsistency between attitudes and

behaviors, usually resulting in an attitude shift towards more consistent behaviors (Festinger and

Carlsmith, 1959). In addition, Festinger (1957) stated that people always strive toward consistency

within themselves and their lives. For instance, a person who holds a strong belief in the

importance of further education beyond high school is more likely to attend college and encourage

others to attend college. However, the problem arises when a person's attitude toward a specific

behavior is inconsistent with his or her actual behaviors. He also proposed that when a person

experiences an inconsistency, or dissonance, between his or her beliefs and actions, this person

will attempt to eliminate the unwanted and undesired psychological effects. Moreover, the person

might try to rationalize their behavior by adding beliefs or attitudes that would help justify their

behavior. Festinger (1957) identified these rationalizations as consonants. The person might also

try to minimize the importance of the conflict between his or her previous attitudes and current

behaviors. This mechanism of thought or attitude change is the same mechanism used to produce

changes in negative, irrational thoughts that are involved in the maintenance of depression and

related disorders (Thompson & Menzel, 2012).

2
 In an academic setting, one common example of cognitive dissonance is academic

dishonesty. Whitley & Spiegel (2002) and Cizek (2003) defined academic dishonesty as the act

of committing dishonest acts by those individuals engaged in teaching, learning, research and

related academic activities. Moreover, they stated that this behavior is not only limited to students

but to everyone in the academic environment. In relation, Faucher (2009) viewed academic

dishonesty to the behaviors that includes giving or receiving information from others using

unauthorized means; without proper evaluation in an academic context. Among students,

Genereux & McLeod (1995) defined academic dishonesty as “the attempt of students to obtain a

desired outcome through prohibited or unauthorized means”. Similarly, Guthrie (2009) viewed

academic dishonesty as an academic behavior wherein students behave in ways that do not follow

institutional policies in order to gain undue benefits for themselves, in relation to academic tasks.

Academic dishonesty has many different forms. Two common forms of academic

dishonesty are cheating on examinations and plagiarizing written assignments (Antenucci, Tackett,

Wolf, & Claypoold, 2009). Moreover, some of the more common forms of cheating are acts,

including copying homework assignments, sharing test questions with students who have yet to

take the test, and giving away old copies of tests from previous semesters (Moberg, et al., 2008).

McCabe (1992) and Evans & Craig (1990) explained that students who often commit academic

dishonesty, like cheating, justify their behavior by attributing it to external factors like teachers’

characteristics and job-related obligations. As such, these justifications may lead to the reduction

of the cognitive dissonance of students between their convictions that cheating is wrong and their

academically dishonest behavior (Festinger,1957).

Academic dishonesty has been a global phenomenon happening in both developed and

developing countries (Ubaka et. al., 2013). It has been a growing concern amongst students seeking

3
for better grades (Bushweller, 1999). These behaviors occur in elementary school, middle school,

high school, college, and even in master's level programs. Despite knowing that cheating is wrong,

Olafson et al. (2013) stated that students who cheat, believe that cheating was acceptable because

they did not perceive themselves to be harming anyone by committing such actions. This is what

cognitive dissonance is, most students who commit academic dishonesty choose to focus on one

thought; to justify their actions.

In significance to the past studies, the researchers’ general objective is to determine if

cognitive dissonance really serves as a motivator for students to continue academic dishonesty.

The purpose of the study is to clearly explain why students still commit academic dishonesty

despite knowing the repercussions.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Cognitive dissonance isn’t something that people talk about a lot, but it is something that

they experience every day without knowing it (McLeod, 2018). Students with a high level of

disinhibition often experience difficulties in studying because of their desire for instant result or

gratification, and also because of lack of impulse control. Consecutively, they choose to cheat and

commit academic dishonesty in order to pass classes (Baran & Jonason, 2020). Woodbine (2013)

assumed that the cognitive dissonance associated with academic dishonesty exposes behavioral

orientations that embody conscious and unconscious impulses to relieve behavioral distress by

seeking to condone it. In essence, when there are two behaviors, actions, or cognitions at war

within their minds, learners are more likely to make meaningful change to remedy the issue and

seek alignment (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959).

4
 In significance to these problems, the researchers have analyzed previous studies and came

up with a specific question to be answered:

1. Does cognitive dissonance really serve as a motivator for students to continue academic

dishonesty?

1.3 Scope and Delimitation

According to Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance (1957) theory, the drive to restore

consistency is felt among people who have experienced a lack of consistency, which he defines as

dissonance. This incentive to consistency can be harnessed by intentionally inducing hypocrisy or

by making a person conscious that he or she is not practicing what he or she preaches (Aronson,

1999). In a study by Davis, Drinan and Bertram (2009), they discovered that more high school

students conduct cheating and plagiarizing behavior. Thus, it is assumed that cognitive dissonance

associated with academic dishonesty exposes behavioral orientationsm, that embody conscious

and unconscious impulses to relieve behavioral distress by seeking to condone it.

The main objective of the study is to assess how rationalization—a result of cognitive

dissonance affects the continuity of academic dishonesty among students. This study will center

on two specific kinds of academic dishonesty; cheating and plagiarism. With this, the research will

focus primarily on students aging 17-21 years old. The study delineates students from Junior High

School and Senior High School. In order to prevent prejudice, the said prospects will be randomly

selected from different schools all over Cebu City.

5
1.4 Significance of the Study

The study aims to provide results that will be of great benefit the following sectors:

Students. The main subject of this study are those students who have committed academic

dishonesty. This study would help them understand what cognitive dissonance is and how it affects

their views and choices in making decisions, specifically in the academic setting. Thus, this study

can help them reflect on their actions and realize how academic dishonesty could harm their

integrity, affecting their future.

Parents. They are the people who serve as a model and mentors to their children. This study will

bring awareness to parents on how cognitive dissonance motivates their children in committing

dishonesty in the academic setting. In this way, they will be guided on how to educate their children

on what is right and warn them of the consequences of committing academic dishonesty in school.

Teachers. They are known to be one of the biggest educators to students, especially in the

academic setting. Moreover, they are an important factor in the difference of student’s attitude and

behavior. Thus, having a big impact on helping shape, create, support and establish students’

strengths, goals and knowledge. Through this research, teachers may think of better ways to

discipline their students and encourage them to give importance to academic integrity.

School. The academic performance of students is one of the biggest factors of a school’s image to

the public. Student’s academic dishonesty can tarnish the school’s reputation. Thus, this study will

serve as a guide for the school to seek for better methods or alternatives to motivate students in

studying and practice of academic integrity.

Other Researchers. This study will give more information to future researchers regarding

cognitive dissonance among students. Thus, they can use this study as a reference in conducting

6
related studies in the future. Furthermore, this could also serve as an instrument for them to dig

deeper on more alternative ways on how to reduce cognitive dissonance in the academic setting.

7
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents the relevant literatures and studies pertaining to academic dishonesty

and cognitive dissonance after a rigorous and in-depth analysis done by the researchers. This

chapter also extends to the conceptual framework of this study, along with the theoretical

background to further explain and support the concept of the study. Moreover, this chapter also

comprises the definition of terms for better comprehension and discernment of the study.

2.1 Review of Related Literature

2.1.1 Academic Dishonesty

The purpose of learning institutions is to attract good students as well as to establish a

culture of integrity and a virtuous standard among all its students. However, academic dishonesty

has been a fundamental issue for the academic integrity of higher education institutions, and has

lately been gaining increasing media attention (Brimble & Clarke, 2005). There is no commonly

accepted, standard definition of academic dishonesty (Schmelkin et al. 2008). According to

Faucher & Caves (2009), academic dishonesty refers to actions aimed at giving or receiving

information from others, using unauthorized means, and circumventing the recognized evaluation

process in an academic context. Similarly, Guthrie (2009) considered it as the students’ behaviors

of not following institutional policies in order to achieve undue benefits for themselves. Academic

dishonesty is regarded as a violation of academic integrity (Kitahara, Westfall, & Mankelwicz

2011). The Northern Illinois University (NIU, 2019) considers academic dishonesty a serious

offense, regardless of whether or not it was committed intentionally. Thus, the issue of academic

8
dishonesty is a significant problem and has been referred to as “the bane of higher education”

(Josien & Broderick, 2013).

In literature, two most common forms of academic dishonesty are cheating and plagiarism

(Antenucci et.al., 2009). According to Olafson et. al. (2013), cheating is the behavior of "receiving

external assistance" from another student. This behavior is most often seen among students during

quizzes and examinations. In examinations, Etter et. al. (2006) states that activities including

copying or looking at a classmate's test responses, bringing or using notes, formulas or other

information in a programmable calculator or any other electronic device without formal permission

and approval from the teachers are considered to be an academic misconduct. Moreover, Bernardi

et. al. (2008) implied that the act of sharing and letting someone else look at their own papers and

answers as an academic misconduct. They also added other methods of academic cheating,

including obtaining a copy of the exam prior to taking it in class, taking an examination for another

student, and not disclosing grading errors (Bernardi et.al., 2008).

The second common form of academic dishonesty is plagiarism. Plagiarism is the

significant misuse of intellectual integrity, specifically the act of copying and pasting phrases from

an online source without proper citation or attribution (Olafson et.al., 2013). It involves actions

like giving or obtaining inappropriate assistance on an assignment intended to be an individual

work and using or paraphrasing works of others and claiming it to be one’s own idea (Mitchell,

2008). According to Quinn (2011), plagiarism can be classified into the following types which

includes: copying a text from another source without using quotation marks and without citing the

reference, paraphrasing the words of someone else without citing the source, incorporating a figure

or a drawing from another source without acknowledging the source, using information that is not

common knowledge without citing the source and using another person's ideas or hypotheses

9
without giving that person credit. Furthermore, another type of plagiarism, known as self-

plagiarism, is also a common act among students. This usually happens when students apply and

submit substantial fragments of the same academic work to gain credit in more than one subject

without consulting and getting approval from both teachers (Brimble & Stevenson, 2005).

Plagiarism is a type of academic dishonesty that may happen unintentionally and students may

sometimes not realize that their actions are ethically wrong (Robert, 2005).

Permissive attitudes toward cheating have been found to increase the likelihood of

engaging in such behaviors (Farnese et. al., 2011). Miller, Murdock & Grotewiel (2017) implies

that the increased social comparisons and competition experienced by many children and

adolescents in high-level schools or classrooms, or a desire to help a friend may be another factor

in the choice of dishonesty. Students in high-achieving cultures, moreover, tend to cheat more

when they see or perceive their peers cheating (Galloway, 2012). As such, O'Rourke et al. (2010)

found that students tend to engage more frequently in cheating activities when they see that other

students are not disciplined for cheating. Students may also cheat because of the risk of low grades

due to worry, pressure on academic performance, or a fixed mindset. They may tend to commit

dishonesty because of the pressure in high-performing schools to "do it all" which can be involved

by heavy workloads and/or multiple tests on the same day (Miller, Murdock & Grotewiel, 2017).

Miller et.al. (2017) also added that students may also cheat because they feel pressure to maintain

their status in a successful community where they see the situation as "cheat or be cheated”.

Furthermore, the frequent use of technology has increased the ability to engage in academically

dishonest behaviors (Nazir & Aslam, 2010; Jones, 2011).

More cognitions have been introduced by Novotney (2011), including the low probability

of detection, unserious consequences, unstated academic misconduct regulations or unclearly

10
articulated prohibitions. Students may rationalize cheating by blaming their teachers or the

situation. This often happens when students see the teacher as uncaring or clearly focused on

performance over mastery (Miller, Murdock & Grotewiel, 2017). Students can rationalize and

normalize cheating as a way to succeed in a challenging environment where achievement is

paramount (Galloway, 2012). Passow et al. (2006) found out that students tend to cheat when

policies are unclear and unenforced. It is a matter of fact that students are more likely to cheat

when they see the slight risk of being detected, and when the consequences of potential detection

are not that serious (Bisping et al. 2008; Gire and Williams 2007).

According to Olafson et.al., (2013), students have been found to neutralize cheating in

several different ways. Students may trivialize the situation by arguing they only cheated on one

small part of a test or assignment and that their actions did not harm anyone. Conversely, they may

rationalize cheating by citing outside factors. When alumni were asked why they cheated, the most

common responses were a perceived time constraint and to aid a friend (Yardley et al., 2009).

Logically, when students have a neutralized and rationalized attitude towards cheating, they tend

to report engaging in more cheating behaviors (O’Rourke et. al., 2010). This makes sense because

if students can justify why they are cheating, they will not feel the impact of the associated guilt.

In a longitudinal study conducted by Dr. Donald McCabe and the International Center for

Academic Integrity between 2002 and 2015 found that 64% of high school students admitted to

having cheated on an examination, 58% to plagiarism, and 98% to participating in some form of

academic dishonesty. This is similar to the results of Yardley, et.al (2009) which indicates that

80% of college students admit to cheating at least once while attending college. Brimble &

Stevenson (2005) reported that 53% of students work together on an assignment when it should be

completed individually and copying from someone’s paper in examinations at least once was done

11
by 36% of students from four German universities (Patrzek et.al., 2015). A study by Trost (2009)

found that 61% of undergraduate students in Sweden copied information for academic work from

a book or other publication without acknowledging the source. Similarly, a study on the rate of

plagiarism in Poland, prepared by IPPHEAE Project Consortium, discovered that 31% of students

are reported plagiarizing unintentionally or purposely during their studies (Glendinning et.al.,

2015). Furthermore, a study by Lin & Wen (2007) involving a sample of 2,068 college students

throughout Taiwan found out that the prevalence rate for all types of dishonesty behaviors among

college students in Taiwan is 61.72%.

Academic dishonesty in school is another form of student deviant behavior that has been

rampant among students. This act may negatively contribute to character development, harm other

students and jeopardize the institution's reputation (Staats et al, 2009). The effects of academic

dishonesty on the quality of education have been identified by Brimble and Stevenson (2005) in

three dimensions. First, it undermines the fairness and effectiveness of academic assessment,

wherein relative abilities of students are not effectively evaluated. Second, cheating is likely to

affect the level of learning of students leading to unpreparedness for advanced education or

adaptation of the topics covered in a higher course. Similarly, Fonseca (2014) discusses the

problematic consequences of student cheating on two main factors. The first is how ethics,

morality and social trust in school become damaged through cheating, and the second is how the

learning of an individual student is affected.

Cheating at school is linked to an increased risk of future unethical actions, both in the area

of further education and later working life (Graves 2011; Lucas and Friedrich 2005). Students who

do not value academic integrity in school are more likely to disrespect integrity in their future

professional and personal relationships. The widespread violations of academic integrity may

12
contribute to endemic corruption (Crittenden, Hanna, & Peterson, 2009). To put it simply,

academic dishonesty is an obstacle to quality performance because they reduce the relevance and

authenticity of marks and achievements. For instance, Hegmann (2008) conducted a study about

dishonesty involving medical assistant student logging of patient information, noting that 50%

self-reported some kind of cheating and 90% said they believed their classmates were cheating. In

another discipline, Muhney et.al. (2008) found that 86.5% of graduating dental hygiene students

had cheated in some form during their studies.

Studies by Woodbine et.al. (2013) and Zafarghandi et.al. (2012) show that most students

understand that cheating and plagiarism is an academic misconduct, but nevertheless plagiarize

and use other methods that breach academic integrity. The main determinant of academic

dishonesty is rationalization, embodied in justifications of cheating due to difficult courses for

college survival and the thought of “others are getting away with it” (Antenucci et.al., 2009). Such

cognitions are related to cognitive dissonance.

2.1.2 Cognitive Dissonance

The theory of cognitive dissonance, developed by Leon Festinger (1957), asserts that when

people act in a way that contradicts their convictions, people experience mental distress and

discomfort called dissonance. For instance, dishonest students have two options to reduce the

uncomfortable feeling of dissonance. First, they can change their actions/behaviors and stop

engaging in academic dishonesty, and second is to modify or rationalize their views and

beliefs about such actions.

Among all the major theories of psychology, Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory has

been one of the most enduring and successful one, leaving a remarkable mark in the history of

13
social psychology (Gawronski and Strack, 2012; Kruglanski et al., 2018). The emergence of

Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT) and its classical experiment (Festinger &

Carlsmith, 1959) opened a new phase for the cognitively-oriented social psychologists. Dissonance

theory continues even 60 years after its original formulation by Festinger (1957), in A Theory of

Cognitive Dissonance, to develop and inspire new research (Cooper, 2007; Jones et al., 2015). It

has generated hundreds and hundreds of studies, from which much has been learned about the

determinants of attitudes and beliefs, the internalization of values, the consequences of decisions,

the effects of disagreement among persons, and other important psychological processes.

According to Asciak (2013), the concept of cognitive dissonance is obtained easily from

the two terms, cognitive is thinking, or the mind, and dissonance is inconsistency or dispute. This

theory is one that holds its ground in an individual's reality, while simultaneously possessing the

ability to alter or change the said reality. Generally. it is easy to describe cognitive dissonance as

a discrepancy between the cognitive elements of an individual, such as their attitudes or thoughts.

Such condition gives rise to a need to reduce such feelings of inconsistency, as strong as those of

hunger or thirst (Cooper, 2007). This can be done by modifying one of the dissonant elements or

introducing new cognitions, any discomfort produced by this state can be minimized until mental

'consonance' is established, so that one cognition is no longer incongruent with the other.

Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory (1957) states that the inconsistency between

cognitive elements (e.g., between cognitions about attitude and cognitions about behavior) causes

aversive feelings in people, characterized by tension and discomfort. Festinger (1957) proposed

that these inconsistencies among a person's attitudes and behaviors produce uncomfortable

psychological effects. When a person experiences dissonance, between his or her beliefs and

actions, this person will attempt to eliminate the unwanted and undesired psychological effects. In

14
order to reduce these negative feelings, behavior changes are one option, besides attitude changes

and further resolution strategies (Sorrentino & Yamaguchi, 2008; McGrath, 2017). The person

might try to rationalize the behavior by adding beliefs or attitudes that help to justify the behavior.

Various studies have found that people rather tend to justify their behaviors or deny its impact,

instead of changing their behavior (Cohen et.al., 2013; Hanna & Adams, 2019). Festinger (1957)

identified these rationalizations as consonants. The person might also try to minimize the

importance of the conflict between his or her previous attitudes and current behaviors. Another

method of dissonance reduction is reducing perceived choice. The person might rationalize that he

or she simply did not have a choice in the decision to engage in the specific behavior. Finally, the

individual can reduce dissonance by altering his or her attitude or behavior (Festinger, 1957).

The study of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) has been regarded as the classic experiment

of cognitive dissonance since it provides the first ample evidence for the theory. It shows that if a

person performs an unpleasant task that is insufficiently rewarded, his/her cognition of performing

this unpleasant task is dissonant with his cognition of receiving no reward. Thus, the person

reduces dissonance by seeking some justifications such as increasing the attractiveness of the goal.

“There is.... consistency with what a person knows or believes and what he does.... This is

not surprising, of course; it is so much the rule that we take it for granted. Again, what captures

our attention are the exceptions to otherwise consistent behavior.” (Festinger, 1957, p.1-2).

Leon Festinger (1957) discusses through this quote, as provided by Asciak (2013), in the

first pages in one of the first publications regarding cognitive dissonance, how people display

expectable behavior most of the time. If an individual thinks that having good education is a

positive thing, then this person would most likely want to give their children a good education.

When a child knows that they will get in trouble if they misbehave, then they will try as hard as

15
possible not to misbehave. It is expected behavior, so much so that people do not even think about

it, but certainly start scrutinizing an individual’s behavior when they do not follow this rule, for

instance when a person is committing a crime even though they know it is wrong and they are

likely to be caught. These were the underlying concepts behind the first experiments on cognitive

dissonance and how it affects human actions. It was Festinger who pioneered experiments on ideas

related to the theory and the first cognitive dissonance experiment, established in 1959.

The hypothesis underlying this experiment was that the presence of cognitive

inconsistencies is psychologically uncomfortable and will encourage an individual to reduce

dissonance and regain consonance, as well as that a person will strive to stay clear of any

circumstances that will most likely increase dissonance when tension is present (Festinger, 1957).

As presented by Festinger in 1957, dissonance theory began by postulating that pairs of

cognitions (elements of knowledge) can be relevant or irrelevant to one another. If two cognitions

are relevant to one another, they are either consonant or dissonant. Two cognitions are consonant

if one follows from the other, and they are dissonant if the obverse (opposite) of one cognition

follows from the other. The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable,

motivates the person to reduce the dissonance and leads to avoidance of information likely to

increase the dissonance. The greater the magnitude of the dissonance, the greater is the pressure to

reduce dissonance.

According to Leonard (2019), cognitive dissonance is a theory in social psychology which

refers to the mental conflict that arises when a person's behaviors and beliefs do not align. Festinger

(1957) suggested that people experience discomfort when they hold conflicting beliefs or when

their actions contradict their beliefs. People will try to reduce this dissonance to relieve the

discomfort. The drive to overcome dissonance is referred to as the "principle of cognitive

16
consistency.” It is important to note that cognitive dissonance is not automatic when a person holds

conflicting views. They must have a proper understanding of the inconsistency to feel discomfort.

Cognitive dissonance differs greatly from person to person, due to the degree of dissonance

aroused in relation to a specific cognition, the amount of dissonant and consonant cognitions with

the problem or decision at question, and the fact that each cognition is weighted differently in

significance for different individuals (Jones et.al, 2011). Not everyone experiences cognitive

dissonance to the same degree. Some people have a higher tolerance for uncertainty and

inconsistency and may experience less cognitive dissonance than those who require consistency.

There are factors that affect the degree of cognitive dissonance that an individual

experiences which includes: the type of beliefs that are more personal leads to more critical

dissonance; the importance of beliefs that people hold in high regard stimulates greater dissonance;

and size of the discrepancy that is a substantial disparity between conflicting and harmonious

beliefs will result to more dissonance (Festinger, 1957).

The effects of cognitive dissonance are also mentioned by Leonard (2009). According to

him, it has the immediate effect of triggering feelings of discomfort and unease. Cognitive

dissonance has a major impact on the habits, emotions, choices, beliefs and attitudes, and mental

wellbeing of an individual, because people typically have an inherent urge to alleviate this

discomfort. People experiencing cognitive dissonance may realize that they feel nervous, guilty,

and embarrassed, as a result, they may try to conceal their behavior or beliefs from others or

continuously rationalize their actions or choices. They could even steer away from discussions or

debates on particular topics, avoid learning new information that contradicts their existing beliefs,

and even disregard studies, journal papers, or the doctor's advices that causes dissonance.

17
 The fact people think that modifying their attitudes is much easier than changing the way

they behave has made dissonance more pertinent to attitudes than many other concepts. Much

research has shown that people actually experience dissonance and are driven to reduce it (Jones

& Jones, 2011), but questions continue to arise about why individuals experience it and why they

are so motivated to reduce it.

2.2 Conceptual Framework

Cognitive Dissonance
Motivators of
as a Motivator to Students aging 17-21
Academic
Continue the Acts of years old from the
Dishonesty
Academic Dishonesty schools all over Cebu
City

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

2.3 Theoretical Background

2.3.1 Theory of Academic Dishonesty

According to Blume & Easley (2008), the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), also known

as Rational Action Theory, is a framework for understanding and institutionalizing social and

economic behavior. This theory was first introduced in 1967 by Fishbein in order to better

understand the relationship between beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior of individuals

(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The TRA has been demonstrated in numerous studies as an appropriate

18
framework for explaining academic dishonesty among university students (Sattler et al., 2013;

Simkin & McLeod, 2009; Tibbetts & Myers, 1999).

The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) suggests that a person’s behavior is determined by

their intention to perform the behavior, which is set on by their attitude toward the behavior and

the subjective norms (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). According to Ajzen (1985), intentions emerge

from an individual's perception of a behavior (as positive or negative) integrated with the

individual's perception of how the society perceives the same behavior. To simply put, the basic

premise of the rational choice theory is that the aggregate-social behavior is the result of

individual-actors making individual-decisions.

However, although the theory of reasoned action typically provides an excellent account

of volitional behaviors, studies have shown that the theory of reasoned reaction (TRA) is more

used in explaining behaviors when volitional-control is high (Montano& Kasprzyk, 2002). As

such, Ajzen (1991) modified the theory of reasoned action to account for behaviors that were not

entirely under the individual's control. This is known as the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).

The Theory of Planned Behavior is based on the premise that individuals make rational

decisions to engage in specific behaviors based on their own beliefs about the behaviors and their

expectation of a positive outcome after engaging in the behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). According to

Ajzen (2002), three factors influence a person's intention to perform a behavior: attitude toward

the behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. He defined intention as

“indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to

exert, in order to perform the behavior” (p. 113). Moreover, he contextualized attitude toward a

behavior as “a disposition to respond favorably or unfavorably to an object, person, institution, or

event” (p. 4). Subjective norm can be considered the individual’s perception that other individuals

19
important to the respondent believe the respondent should perform the behavior of interest. Finally,

according to Ajzen (2002), perceived behavioral control is “the perceived ease of performing the

behavior based on previous experience and anticipated impediments” (p. 132).

TPB hypothesizes that cheating occurs both because of the opportunity and the intention

to cheat (Ajzen, 2002). For instance, a student may have a favorable attitude toward cheating and

may have friends who also cheat, but the level of examination-monitoring in a specific-class may

make cheating extremely difficult or impossible. In circumstances where individuals’ perceptions

of control closely reflect actual control, perceived behavioral control would determine the strength

of the Intention-Behavior Relationship (Ajzen, 1991). Consequently, Montano & Kasprzyk (2002)

concluded that this theory is more appropriate to use in explaining behaviors where volition-

control is low.

Two additional variables, moral obligation and moral reasoning, were added to the

constructs in Ajzen's original theory of planned behavior model. Ajzen (1991) described moral

obligation as “personal feelings of … responsibility to perform, or refuse to perform, a certain

behavior” (p. 199). Moral reasoning, on the other hand, is “a psychological construct that

characterizes the process by which people determine that one course of action in a specific situation

is morally right and another course of action is wrong” (Rest, et.al., 1997).

A study by Passow et.al. (2006) demonstrated that moral obligation and feelings of shame

were important deterrents to cheating regardless of context. In addition, Beck & Ajzen (1991)

discovered that moral obligation was a significant predictor of both cheating behavior and the

formation of a desire to cheat. They further found that moral obligation provided modest gains in

the predictive power of the theory of planned behavior.

20
 Furthemore, a meta-analysis of 107 studies of academic dishonesty conducted by Whitley

(1998) and Whitley & Spiegel (2002) found support for the theory of planned behavior as a

predictive model of cheating. Among the findings, Whitley reported that (a) students with

favorable attitudes toward cheating are more likely to cheat than students with unfavorable

attitudes (attitude toward behavior), (b) students who believe that social norms permit cheating

cheat more than other students (subjective norm), and (c) students who perceive themselves as

more effective cheaters are more likely to cheat (perceived behavioral control). Similarly, Beck

and Ajzen (1991) provided additional support for the theory as a predictive model for cheating,

demonstrating that the model successfully predicted the majority of the systematic variance in

student decisions to cheat.

2.3.2 The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance

The theory of cognitive dissonance (CDT) is premised on the notion that individuals are

constantly striving for consistency. Because of this, if they experience inconsistencies, they will

attempt to rationalize their behaviors in order to reduce the psychological tension they discern

(Festinger, 1957). Festinger (1957) coined the term “consonance” in terms of consistency and the

term “dissonance” in terms of inconsistency. He proposed that dissonance may emerge from

logical inconsistencies, cultural conventions, inconsistencies between a cognition and a more

confined cognition based on past experiences. He also noted that there is at least one cognitive

constituent in an individual that is dissonant with the behavioral elements. The presence of

disharmony motivates individuals to reduce dissonance and avoid circumstances that escalate

dissonance.

21
 The magnitude of dissonance is determined by the importance or value of the dissonant

elements (e.g., knowledge, belief, attitudes). If a person prioritizes these elements, the magnitude

of the dissonant relationship between elements will increase (Festinger, 1957). Consequently,

Festinger stated that the magnitude of the dissonance would influence pressures to reduce or

eliminate it. As the magnitude increases, so do the pressures to reduce dissonance and avoid

situations that cause dissonance. (Festinger, 1957). Furthermore, Festinger (1957) suggests that

individuals can reduce dissonance by changing behavioral cognitive elements, environmental

cognitive elements, or adding new cognitive elements. To illustrate, a student who habitually

cheats realize that cheating is unethical may change his behavior (e.g., stop cheating), change his

perception about the effects of cheating (e.g., cheating is normal) or may add new cognitive

elements that are consonant with the concept of cheating (e.g., bullying is worse).

Several scholars proposed similar ideas prior to the development of Dissonance theory. To

specify, Heider (1925, as cited in Festinger, 1957) stated that unless there is a balanced state in

which two or more relations fit together, forces will act to change action or reorganize cognitions;

otherwise, an imbalanced state will produce tension. Heider (1958) proposed similar arguments in

balance theory after a few decades (as cited in Taylor, Peplau, & Sears, 2006). Furthermore, in

1955, Osgood and Tannenbaum published "the principle of congruity," which proposes that

"people change their evaluation in the direction of increased congruence with existing knowledge"

(p. 43, as cited in Festinger, 1957). This means that if a person's knowledge is incongruent with

another source of information, the person is more likely to change either the evaluation of existing

knowledge or the evaluation of the source in order to reduce the incongruence. This concept is

similar to Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance theory. Nonetheless, Festinger is regarded as

22
the first to formulate these concepts in a precise and applicable form, by providing implications in

a variety of contexts.

The CDT has far-reaching implications and applications in a wide range of contexts. For

instance, during the decision-making process, people should deal with the unpleasantness of

having rejected an appealing alternative (Festinger, 1957). Lewin (1935, as cited in Festinger,

1957) affirmed that people tend to stick to their belief once a decision has been made. Similar

notions were found by Brehm (1956, as cited in Aronson, 1969) wherein subjects increased their

liking for the chosen alternative while decreasing their liking for the unchosen alternative after a

decision was made. This process, known as the “freezing effect of decision,” is caused by

establishing consonant relations with the decision (e.g., the preferred alternative appears to be

more appealing) and eliminating dissonant relations (e.g., unchosen alternatives seem to be less

attractive).

However, Festinger (1957) asserts that dissonance occurs after a decision is made. The

magnitude of post-decision dissonance is determined by the decision's importance, the relative

attractiveness of the unchosen alternative, and the degree of cognitive overlap between the

alternatives. In other words, if the decision is substantial, unconsidered alternatives are appealing,

and the degree of overlap is low, the post-decision dissonance is greater. To illustrate, imagine a

person who accepted the dinner party invitation and declined a rock concert. The person may

reconsider and go to the concert; or he or she may try to think of negative things about the concert

and positive things about the dinner party; or the person may believe that there will be good music

at the dinner party as well.

23
2.4 Hypothesis and Assumption of The Study

The following are assumed by the researchers:

𝐇𝟎 – Cognitive dissonance doesn’t affect the frequency of academic dishonesty among students,

and thus, it is not a motivator for students to continue the acts of academic dishonesty.

𝐇𝟏 - Cognitive dissonance affects the frequency of academic dishonesty among students, and thus,

it is a motivator for students to continue the acts of academic dishonesty.

2.5 Definition of Terms

Academic Dishonesty. This refers to the actions aimed at giving or receiving information

from others, using unauthorized means, and circumventing the recognized evaluation process in

an academic context (Faucher & Caves, 2009).

Cheating. The behavior of "receiving external assistance" from another student. This act

is most often seen among students during quizzes and examinations (Olafson et. al., 2013).

Cognitive Dissonance. A situation that involves conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behavior.

This produces a feeling of mental discomfort that results to an alteration in one of the attitudes,

beliefs or behaviors to minimize discomfort and restore balance (McLeod, 2018).

Dissonance. The cognitive conflict that arises when new information contradicts one’s

beliefs or assumptions (Britannica, 2019).

Plagiarism. This is the significant misuse of intellectual integrity, specifically the act of

copying and pasting phrases from an online source without proper citation or attribution (Olafson

et.al., 2013).
24
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter will be outlining the following parts: research design, instrument of the study,

respondents of the study, sample selection and the statistical data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

This study is designed as a quantitative research, aiming to determine the relationship

between cognitive dissonance and academic dishonesty. The main objective of the study is to find

out whether cognitive dissonance influences or serves as a motivator to keep students from

committing dishonest acts. Thus, the ideal design for this study is a quantitative; non-experimental

design. Specifically, a correlational approach is incorporated in the entire research process.

Quantitative research is defined as a systematic investigation of phenomena through the

collection of quantifiable data, and the application of statistical, mathematical, or computational

techniques (Bhat, 2020). Moreover, according to Creswell (2012), a correlational research design

is used to measure degree of association (or relationship) between two or more variables or set of

scores. In this study, the independent variable (i.e., cognitive dissonance) and the dependent

variable (i.e., academic dishonesty) are directly tested and measured, in order to determine if the

study’s independent variable is influential to the study’s dependent variable.

To obtain the needed results, the researchers will be utilizing survey sheets in order to cover

the desired number of respondents in a shorter period of time. However, considering the situation

caused by the COVID pandemic, the survey sheets will be distributed online, with the aid of the

25
available platform — Google forms. This will serve as the main tool in collecting all the necessary

data. Moreover, since the nature of the study requires statistical analysis, equations and formulas

will be used as a guide in analyzing and interpreting the data. With this, the validity and accuracy

of the results will be ensured, all throughout the research analysis.

3.2 Instruments of the Study

An instrument is a tool for measuring, observing, or documenting quantitative data

(Cresswell, 2012). This study follows a quantitative approach and thus, the researchers decided to

use survey questionnaires because it seemed more appropriate for the level of study. According to

Check & Schutt (2012), survey research is "the collection of information from a sample of

individuals through their responses to questions". This type of research allows various of methods

to recruit participants, collect data, and employ various methods of instrumentation. In quantitative

research strategies, questionnaires with numerically rated items are usually employed. In this

study, the questionnaires were compiled from numerous of other related studies that used such

instruments to help measure academic dishonesty and cognitive dissonance.

The survey questionnaire utilized in this study was divided into two parts:

Part I – The researchers will utilize the Attitude Toward Plagiarism Scale (ATP scale)

modified by Howard et.al. (2014) together with the Attitude Toward Cheating Scale (ATC scale)

developed by Gardner and Roper (1988). This instrument contains statements that would help

measure the participants’ cognitive dissonance behavior towards cheating and plagiarism. The

survey contains a total of 20 items which will be rated using the Likert Scale ranging from

‘Strongly Disagree' (1), ‘Disagree’ (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), to Strongly Agree' (5),

26
 Part II - For the academic dishonesty questions, an abbreviated version of the Academic

Integrity Student Survey (AISS) developed by McCabe (1990), which was compiled by Spear and

Miller (2012) will be used in this study. The list is composed of statements that were used in other

studies about academic dishonesty from Lucas and Freidrich (2005), Rettinger & Kramer (2009),

and Yardley et al. (2009). This survey contains a total of 10 items which will be rated by the

participants through a Likert scale from ‘Never’ (1), ‘Rarely’ (2), ‘Sometimes’ (3), ‘Often’ (4) to

‘Always’ (5), in order to assess the frequency of academic dishonesty among the participants.

3.3 Population and Sampling

3.3.1 Population

According to Creswell (2012), population is a group of individuals who have the same

characteristics. In order to achieve the desired results, the researchers decided to conduct a survey

among 70 students, all of which are adolescents, ranging in the age of 17 to 21 years old from the

schools all over Cebu City. The selection of the total participants will be divided into two — 35

male students and 35 female students. Although the main objective of the study doesn’t need this

stratification, the researchers have opted to do this in order to acquire a more equal representation

of students, considering the gender differences. The researchers could easily attain and gather the

said respondents since there will be no other qualifications, such as the respondents’ educational

attainment, religion, financial status, and other personal backgrounds. With this, the chosen

participants are to answer the online survey questionnaire distributed, according to their distinctive

attitudes and personalities.

27
3.3.2 Sampling

In quantitative approach, a target population (or sampling frame) is a group of individuals

with some common defining characteristics that the researcher can identify and study (Creswell,

2012). In determining the sampling mehod, researchers usually employ either probability or non-

probability sampling approaches.

In this study, the researchers have decided to use the Stratified Random Sampling under

Probability Sampling. According to Frey (2018), stratified random sampling is a method of

sampling from a population in which the population is divided into subgroups and units are chosen

at random from the subgroups. Thomas et.al. (2005) stated that this type of sampling may be

particularly useful in survey research, as researchers typically want to find a large representative

sample. To obtain a stratified sample, members of a population are first divided into

nonoverlapping subgroups of units called strata. The strata must be mutually exclusive and

exhaustive, and there is an assumption of homogeneity within the strata. Stratification is also used

to improve a sample design's efficiency in terms of survey costs and estimator precision (Parsons,

2017). Following stratification, the sample will be selected from each stratum, often through

simple random sampling.

With gender and age being considered in selecting the respondents, this sampling method

is indeed appropriate for the study because there are certain characteristics taken into consideration

in order to obtain the desired outcomes for this research. Moreover, the researchers will still

employ a random selection in the stratified sample population done, considering the study’s

conditions. This sampling method will guarantee an unbiased data collection, and hence, ensure

reliable results, interpretations and conclusions for this research study.

28
3.4 Statistical Data Analysis

The obtained data from the respondents will be measured and analyzed through a Simple

Linear Regression. According to Freedman (2009), Simple Linear Regression is a statistical

method that summarizes and studies the relationships between two continuous quantitative

variables. One variable, denoted as x, is referred to as the predictor, explanatory, or independent

variable, while the other variable, denoted as y, is referred to as the response, outcome, or

dependent variable. In this study, this statistical treatment will be used in order to analyze the

functional relationship between the independent variable (i.e., cognitive dissonance) and

dependent variable (i.e., academic dishonesty).

In analyzing the data there will be a total of 5 (five) procedures:

1. The researchers will tabulate the scores of each respondent on both parts of the

questionnaire, which used a 5-point Likert scale, based on the numerical interpretations of

their corresponding answers. In the first part of the questionnaire which measures the

cognitive dissonance of the participants, the score of each respondent must range from 20

to 100. On the other hand, the score of each respondent must range from 10 to 50 in the

second part of the questionnaire, which measures the frequency of academic dishonesty

among the participants. These scores will serve as the main input of data in analyzing the

results of the study.

2. After tabulating all the results of the given questionnaires, the mean and standard deviation

for each statement will also be calculated and presented using Microsoft Excel, in order to

illustrate the dispersion of scores among the respondents. A low standard deviation will

indicate that the respondents’ answers are not scattered, while a high standard deviation

will indicate that the answers of the respondents are scattered.

29
3. Next, the researchers will use the coefficient r to solve the T statistic. In finding the

coefficient r, the researchers utilized the formula:

𝑛(∑𝑥𝑦)−(∑𝑥)(∑𝑦)
𝑟= , where r = correlation coefficient
√[𝑛∑𝑥 2 −(∑𝑥 2 )]−[𝑛∑𝑦 2 −(∑𝑦 2 )]

The table below shows the interpretation of correlational degree of possible results.

Coefficient Interval Interpretation

0.20 – 0.35 Slight Relationship

0.36 – 0.65 Moderate Relationship

0.66-0.85 Strong Relationship

0.86 and above Very Strong Relationship

Table 1. Interpretation of Correlational Degree as cited from Creswell (2012, p. 347).

4. The researchers will further calculate the value of the test statistic using the formula:

𝑟√𝑛−2
𝑡 = , where t = test statistic
1−𝑟 2

5. Lastly, the p-value will be calculated using the resulting test statistic. The p-value is

determined by referring to a t-distribution with 𝑛 − 2 degrees of freedom. Using this

statistical test and the data collected, the researchers will be able to determine whether or

not cognitive dissonance serve as a motivator for academic dishonesty. With that being

said, in order to conclude that the study’s independent variable is influential, the p-value

must yield to a result significantly lesser than the alpha value of 0.05. This result will

indicate that there is a linear relationship in the population between the predictor x and

response y, and thus, will justify the alternative hypothesis (H1), rejecting the null

hypothesis (H0).

30
 CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter contains the detailed presentation and discussion of the data gathered from the

respondents. Moreover, this will also illustrate the analysis and interpretation of the results

obtained by the researchers. All the data that will be presented and interpreted in this chapter was

thoroughly and objectively calculated by the researchers using the tools in Microsoft Excel.

4.1 Presentation of Data

In this research, the motivating factor of cognitive dissonance towards the academic

dishonesty among students was analyzed and studied. A total of 70 students all over the schools

of Cebu City were chosen as the main subjects of the study. They were given an online two-part

survey questionnaire that would measure this study’s variables.

The table below (Table 2) shows the raw scores of each respondent in each part of the

survey questionnaire. These scores will serve as the main input of data in the statistical analysis

that will be discussed in the next pages. The first column illustrates the number of respondents

who took part in the survey. On the other hand, the second column displays the scores of the

respondent in the Attitude Toward Plagiarism (ATP) and Attitude Toward Cheating (ATC) scale,

while the last column shows their corresponding scores in the Academic Integrity Student Survey.

Respondents ATP & ATC Scale AISS

1 67 37

2 66 36

31
3 62 28

4 50 22

5 61 28

6 83 25

7 84 48

8 54 18

9 72 39

10 71 34

11 83 30

12 55 29

13 46 24

14 62 19

15 67 22

16 92 27

17 52 20

18 49 24

19 61 28

20 48 23

21 64 31

22 49 18

23 85 29

24 58 31

25 57 21

32
26 67 37

27 77 40

28 81 32

29 58 21

30 55 19

31 60 24

32 73 34

33 45 29

34 70 25

35 65 34

36 68 27

37 68 34

38 65 28

39 67 27

40 55 26

41 41 25

42 68 25

43 74 20

44 80 17

45 60 29

46 84 38

47 72 30

48 58 29

33
 49 40 12

50 72 35

51 75 28

52 73 26

53 71 29

54 29 19

55 59 23

56 44 22

57 59 40

58 52 22

59 62 34

60 36 18

61 70 35

62 46 20

63 54 20

64 65 31

65 60 22

66 48 20

67 32 24

68 70 28

69 39 17

70 63 47

Table 2: Raw Scores of the Participants in Each Part of the Questionnaire

34
 Statements Mean SD

1. Short deadlines or a heavy workload give me the right to 3.385714286 1.045983572

plagiarize a bit.
2. A plagiarized paper does no harm to the value of a university 2.314285714 1.153167775
degree
3. Those who say that they have never plagiarized are lying. 3.7 0.867673
4. Plagiarism can be justified if I currently have more important
obligations or tasks to do. 2.985714 1.127486
5. I cannot avoid using other people’s words because there are
only so many ways to describe something. 3.557143 0.965634
6. Self-plagiarism is not punishable because it is not harmful. 2.857143 1.198639
7. Since plagiarism is taking other people’s words rather than
tangible assets, it should not be considered a serious offense. 2.5 1.143303
8. If another student gives me the permission to copy for his/her
paper, I’m not doing anything bad because I have his/her
permission. 3.542857 1.078169
9. Everyone else is doing it, anyway. 3.057143 1.240803
10. I just copy a sentence or two just to become inspired. 3.371429 1.097678
11. If a teacher leaves the room during a test, the teacher is in
effect permitting cheating. 2.642857 1.183647
12. Most students who don't cheat are just afraid of getting
caught. 3.371429 1.148557
13. If over half the class is cheating on an assignment, the
others are justified in cheating also. 2.928571 1.125312
14. Studying doesn't always result to a better grade. 3.128571 1.194289
15. There is really nothing wrong with cheating, other than the
risk of being caught. 2.7 1.086935
16. I would let my students cheat if I were a teacher. 2.371429 1.220906
17. Asking questions during an exam is not a big deal 3.4 1.060997

35
 18. Allowing a friend to copy one’s work is a way of helping
him/her. 3.242857 1.006205
19. Cheating is a normal part of life. 3.271429 1.09442
20. Tests don't measure useful knowledge or ability. 3.5 1.155731
Table 3: The Mean and Standard Deviation of the ATP & ATC Scale.

The first part of the survey was the Attitude Toward Plagiarism (ATP) and Attitude Toward

Cheating (ATC) scales, which measured the degree of cognitive dissonance among the participants

towards cheating and plagiarism. This was scored using a Likert scale from ‘Strongly Disagree’

(1) to ‘Strongly Agree’ (5). The table above (Table 3) illustrates the calculated mean and standard

deviation of each statement of the instrument. As shown in the table, the standard deviations of the

corresponding statements are relatively low, with 1.240803 being the highest. This indicates that

the participants' responses are clustered closely around the mean, making it a reliable data.

Statements Mean SD

1. Took an online test with the help of a friend/classmate. 2.785714 0.998468

2. Allowed others to copy from your assignments. 3.385714 0.930328
3. Copied from another’s assignment. 2.9 0.89682
4. Copied or paraphrased material from a book without citing
the source 2.942857 0.924055
5. Made up part of whole of a reference or a bibliography listing 2.485714 0.99632
6. Looked at another student’s paper during an examination 2.685714 1.007725
7. Received exam answers from other students during exam
sessions 2.685714 1.03569
8. Allowed others to copy from a classmate 2.928571429 0.97572579
9. Used unauthorized crib notes on exams 2.2 1.022601724
10. Illegitimately got advanced information about a test 2.328571429 1.142946425
Table 4: The Mean and Standard Deviation of the AISS.

36
 The second part of the survey was the Academic Integrity Student Survey (AISS), which

assessed the frequency of academic dishonesty among the participants. This instrument was also

rated using a Likert Scale ranging from ‘Never’ (1) to ‘Always’ (5). The table above (Table 4)

presents the calculated mean and standard deviation of each statement of the questionnaire. As

shown in the table, the standard deviations of the corresponding statements are also relatively low,

with 1.142946425 as the highest. This indicates that the dispersion of answers from the participants

are tightly clustered around the mean, making it reliable.

4.2 Hypothesis Testing

𝐇𝟎 – Cognitive dissonance doesn’t affect the frequency of academic dishonesty among students,

and thus, it is not a motivator for students to continue the acts of academic dishonesty.

𝐇𝟏 - Cognitive dissonance affects the frequency of academic dishonesty among students, and thus,

it is a motivator for students to continue the acts of academic dishonesty.

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.530640873
R Square 0.281579736
Adjusted R Square 0.271014732
Standard Error 6.166695045
Observations 70
Table 5. Analyzed Regression Statistics

Table 5 shows the regression statistics of the analyzed data. In the table, it can be seen that

the multiple R or the correlation coefficient is 0.530640873, indicating a moderate level of

correlation among the variables. Although it didn’t elicit a really high degree of correlation, this

37
result still signifies that the independent variable (i.e., cognitive dissonance) influences the

dependent variable (i.e., academic dishonesty).

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 1 1013.530168 1013.530168 26.65211851 2.30E-06

Residual 68 2585.912689 38.02812778
Total 69 3599.442857
Table 6. Simple Linear Regression Summary Output

Furthermore, Table 6 shows the summary output of the Simple Linear Regression done by

the researchers using Microsoft Excel. As shown in the table, the significance F or the p-value of

the calculation is 2.30E-06 or 0.0000023, which is significantly lower than the alpha value 0.05.

This result indicates that cognitive dissonance influences the frequency of academic dishonesty

among students, and thus, it is a motivator for students to continue committing dishonest acts. With

this, the researchers reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

The figure below (Figure 2) shows the scatterplot or line fit plot of the relationship of the

corresponding variables.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE LINE FIT PLOT

Academic Dishonesty Linear (Academic Dishonesty)
60

50
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

40 y = 0.2865x + 9.6163

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Figure 2. Cognitive Dissonance Line Fit Plot

38
 As illustrated in the figure, the plot of the dots formed an upward line, indicating a positive

linear relationship between the independent variable (i.e., cognitive dissonance) and dependent

variable (i.e., academic dishonesty). This means that cognitive dissonance does affect and

influences the practice of academic dishonesty (i.e., cheating and plagiarism) among students.

39
 CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter will conclude the research study. The summary of findings of the whole data

gathering is presented in this section. Moreover, this chapter also extends to the conclusions and

recommendations constructed by the researchers for future studies pertaining to a similar topic.

5.1 Summary

This study was conducted in order to assess if cognitive dissonance influences the academic

dishonesty behavior of students. According to McLeod (2018), cognitive dissonance refers to

situations wherein a person has contradicting ideas, beliefs, attitudes or behavior. These

contradictions create a sense of mental distress which often leads to a change in one’s attitude,

values or behavior to minimize discomfort and regain equilibrium. Moreover, Festinger (1957)

stated that a person might try to rationalize their behavior by adding beliefs or attitude to help

justify their behavior, which he identified as consonants.

Specifically, this research seeks to answer the question, “Does cognitive dissonance really

serve as a motivator for students to continue academic dishonesty?” In order to gather the

necessary data, the researchers distributed a two-part survey among 70 students, all of which were

adolescents aging 17-21 years old, all over the schools of Cebu City. The questionnaires used were

compiled from various instruments utilized from other studies related to cognitive dissonance and

academic dishonesty. With this, the researchers used a stratified random sampling, under non-

probability sampling, as a method of selection. The selection of participants was divided into two,

in order to acquire a more equal representation of students, considering the gender differences.

40
 Two hypotheses were formulated in order to effectively carry out the research project. In

the previous chapter, the resulting mean and standard deviation illustrated that the dispersion of

answers from the participants are tightly clustered around the mean, and hence, making it a reliable

data. Using the Simple Linear Regression as a statistical treatment to identify the significance of

the study, the researchers achieved a p-value of 0.0000023, which is significantly lower than the

alpha value 0.05. Thus, the researchers rejected the null hypothesis, and accepted the alternative

hypothesis. This statistical result indicates that there is indeed a positive relationship between

cognitive dissonance and academic dishonesty. In other words, cognitive dissonance does

influence the practice of academic dishonesty among students, in a way that they choose to

rationalize and justify their dishonest actions and/or behaviors in their academics, instead of

changing it.

5.2 Conclusions

Academic dishonesty is a widespread issue at universities around the world, as it leads to

negative consequences for both students and the educational system. During exams, researches or

assignments, students engage in dishonest actions due to various reasons. To effectively address

this issue, specific predispositions that encourage cheating must be identified.

The main objective of this study was to find out the motivating or influencing factor of

cognitive dissonance towards the academic dishonesty among students. With all the data collected

and presented, the researchers then conclude that cognitive dissonance does motivate students in

committing academic dishonesty. Although they know that cheating and plagiarism is wrong, they

choose to rationalize and change their perceptions towards such dishonest acts. Irrational

41
justifications like “Everyone is doing it”, clouds their awareness of how unethical cheating and

plagiarism are. This mindset of theirs is the very reason as to why students continue to cheat and

plagiarize despite knowing the repercussions.

This study can serve as a basis for further studies in the future regarding the motivating

factor of cognitive dissonance towards academic dishonesty. Cognitive dissonance is prevalent

among every individual, in which affects the mindset of a person. As McLeod (2018) said,

cognitive dissonance isn’t something that people talk about a lot, but it is something that they

experience every day without knowing it. This behavior may bring a positive or negative effect to

an individual, depending on how he or she changes his or her attitudes and behaviors.

5.3 Recommendations

This study paves the way for more research to be done on the subject pertaining cognitive

dissonance and academic dishonesty. The researchers have made various recommendations for

future researchers. One of which is to try searching for more factors that influences academic

dishonesty among students. They could also try obtaining data from a larger sample, which can

provide more diversified and accurate data to get results. Future researchers could also try to

broaden the scope, and focus not mainly on students aging 17-21 years old, but learners of all ages

and levels. Moreover, the geographical location can be expanded to reach more places and see a

variety of data based on different locations for data collection. In doing so, future researchers could

try translating some unfamiliar words that are not common in people's vocabularies, when

conducting the survey. They could also try to localize the questionnaire based on the geographical

language variations, so that their participants will comprehend to the survey more easily.

42
 Furthermore, this study can be used as a foundation for future research papers in regards

to the motivating factor of cognitive dissonance towards academic dishonesty, not only among

students but also among all academic personnel. Aside from this, this paper can also serve as the

basis for conducting surveys among students, and even among professionals and adults as well.

This can be used as a reference for a much more serious and deeper research topic in the future.

Additionally, although the results of this study showed a positive relationship among the

variables, the correlational coefficient illustrated that there is only a moderate relationship among

the two variables. As such, the researchers strongly encourage future researchers to conduct an in-

depth analysis of both variables present in this study, as well as additional and extraneous variables

that may have played a part in affecting the students’ cognitive dissonance towards academic

dishonesty. They are adamant that conflicts caused by a disparity in beliefs and values can be

resolved through careful examination and analysis. Cognitive dissonance may also be used by

individuals to better themselves and change their behaviors for improvement. Through more

thorough study, future researchers may find a way to reduce the cognitive dissonance of students

towards academic dishonesty, and thus, help promote academic integrity in the society.

Future research may look into different types of academic dishonesty in greater depth. An

individual's concept of cheating, in particular, can influence how he or she perceives his or her

own academic dishonesty. Despite the fact that this study concentrated on the motivating factor of

cognitive dissonance towards academic dishonesty, the field of education may benefit from

applying the theory to various aspects of the educational institution. Uncovering the necessary

strength of the public commitment and the mindfulness manipulations will be the key to effective

implementation. If investigated further, academic dishonesty may have an effect on a variety of

issues that the educator may face. When situational factors, contextual factors, and individual

43
factors overlap, individuals are more likely to cheat or plagiarize. According to previous research,

academic dishonesty was not solely a product of individual factors, but also a result of a mixture

of individual and situational factors. This demonstrated that an individual factor cannot be the sole

predictor of cheating and plagiarism. Nonetheless, the situational or contextual factor cannot be

the sole predictor. In the end, this study opened the door to exploring a new way of solving growing

issues in the realm of academia.

Finally, in terms of statistical analysis, the researchers recommend using statistical tests

other than Simple Linear Regression to interpret the data. ANOVA, t-Tests, and F-tests can also

provide data that are useful for data analysis. Multiple tests to validate results must be used to

achieve accurate and reliable results. Although the process may be time-consuming and requires a

lot of effort, with enough patience, resources, and time to get through the end, the final outcomes

can be utilized to make a lot of better changes in the world. The researchers also suggest using

instruments that focus on the conciseness and accuracy of the data collected. Furthermore, for the

convenience of both the researchers and the respondents, unnecessary and irrelevant questions that

may result in a lengthy gathering should be avoided.

44
 References

Ajzen, I. (1985). “From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior”, in J. Kuhl & J.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes 50.2: 179–211.

Antenucci, J., Tackett, J., Wolf, F., & Claypoold, G. A. (2009). The rationalization of

academic dishonesty in business students. Journal of Business and Accounting, 2(1), 77-

92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.234

Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion. American Psychologist, 54(11), 875–884.

doi:10.1037/h0088188. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344388357_Self-

persuasion_increases_motivation_for_social_isolation_during_the_COVID-

19_pandemic_through_moral_obligation

Asciak, D. (2013). Cognitive Dissonance amongst Smokers. University of Malta. Retrieved from

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox?projector=1.

Baran L, Jonason PK. (2020) Academic dishonesty among university students: The roles of the

psychopathy, motivation, and self-efficacy. PLoS ONE 15(8):

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238141

Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior.

Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301.

Bhat, A. (2020). Quantitative Research: Definition, Methods, Types and Examples. Question Pro

Survey Software. Retrieved from https://www.questionpro.com/blog/quantitative-

research/.

45
Bisping, T. O., Patron, H., & Roskelley, K. (2008). Modeling academic dishonesty: The role of

student perceptions and misconduct type. The Journal of Economic Education, 39(1), 4–

21. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/JECE.39.1.4-21

Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005). Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of

academic dishonesty in Australian universities. The Australian Educational Researcher, 32

(3), 19-44. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ743503.pdf

Bushweller, K. (1999). Student cheating: A moral moratorium. The Education Digest, 65(3), 4–

11. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED469468.pdf

Check J., Schutt R. K. (2012). Survey research. In: J. Check, R. K. Schutt., editors. Research

methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage Publications; pp. 159–185

Cizek, G. J. (2003). Experts in assessment. Detecting and preventing classroom cheating:

Promoting integrity in assessment. Corwin Press. https://us.corwin.com/en-

us/nam/detecting-and-preventing-classroom-cheating/book220773

Cohen, S.A., Higham, J., Reis, A.C. (2013). Sociological barriers to developing sustainable

discretionary air travel behaviour. J. Sustain. Tour. 21, 982–998.

Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. London: Sage.

Crittenden, V.L., Hanna, R.C., & Peterson, R.A. (2009). Business students’ attitudes toward

unethical behavior: A multi-country comparison. Marketing Letters, 20 (1), 1-

14.224871850360041. http://article.scieducationalresearch.com/pdf/education-2-11-9.pdf

Davis, S., Drinan, P.F., Bertram, T. (2009). Cheating in School: What We Know and What We

Can Do. West Sussex. Wiley-Blackwell.ml.

Etter, S., Cramer, J. J., & Finn, S. (2006). Origins of academic dishonesty: Ethical orientations and

personality factors associated with attitudes about cheating with information technology.

46
 Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39 (2), 133-155.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ768871.pdf

Evans, E. D., & Craig, D. (1990). Teacher and student perceptions of academic cheating in middle

and senior high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 44–

52. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220671.1990.10885989

Farnese, M. L., Tramontano, C., Fida, R., & Pacielo, M. (2011). Cheating behaviors in academic

context: Does academic moral disengagement matter? Procedia-Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 29, 356–365.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281102711X

Faucher D, Caves S. (2009). Academic dishonesty: Innovative cheating techniques and the

detection and prevention of them. Teach Learn Nurs.4: 37–

41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244829418_Academic_dishonesty_Innovati

ve_cheating_techniques_and_the_detection_and_prevention_of_them

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L., and Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. J.

Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 58, 203–211. doi: 10.1037/h0041593

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to

Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Freedman, D.A. (2009). Statistical Models: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press. p.

26. A simple regression equation has on the right-hand side an intercept and an explanatory

variable with a slope coefficient. A multiple regression e right hand side, each with its own

slope coefficient.

47
Frey, B.B (2018). Stratified Random Sampling. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research,

Measurement, and Evaluation.

Galloway, M. K. (2012). Cheating in advantaged high schools: Prevalence, justifications, and

possibilities for change. Ethics & Behavior, 22(5), 378-399.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254302573_Cheating_in_Advantaged_High_Sc

hools_Prevalence_Justifications_and_Possibilities_for_Change

Gawronski, B., and Strack, F. (Eds). (2012). Cognitive Consistency: A Fundamental Principle in

Social Cognition. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gfMytVxgOM0C&oi=fnd&pg=PP2

&ots=AtplrhFuJ3&sig=ERIpayORYRdhWZb9FAx_fXavm_k&redir_esc=y#v=onepage

&q&f=false

Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. B. (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire

study of college students. Research in Higher Education, 36, 687–

704. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233142786_Study_of_a_Cognitive_Disso

nance_Intervention_to_Address_High_School_Students'_Cheating_Attitudes_and_Behav

iors

Gire, J. T., & Williams, T. D. (2007). Dissonance and the honor system: Extending the severity of

threat phenomenon. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(5), 501–509.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11218-019-09486-6.

Glendinning, I., Jóźwik, K., Dutkiewicz, A. (2015). Plagiarism policies in Poland. Impact of

Policies for Plagiarism in Higher Education Across Europe. Available

from http://plagiarism.cz/ippheae/

Gordon F Woodbine (2013). Vimala Amirthalingam Journal of Academic Ethics 11 (2), 139-155.

48
Graves, S. M. (2011). Student cheating habits: A predictor of workplace deviance. Journal of

Diversity Management, 3(1), 15–22. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11218-

019-09486-6

Guthrie CL. (2009). Plagiarism and cheating: a mixed methods study of student academic

dishonesty. New Zealand: Master of Social Sciences, The University of Waikato.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45532200_Plagiarism_and_Cheating_A_Mixed

_Methods_Study_of_Student_Academic_Dishonesty

Hanna, P., Adams, M. (2019). Positive self-representations, sustainability and socially organised

denial in UK tourists: discursive barriers to a sustainable transport future. J. Sustain. Tour.

27, 189–206.

Hasan U. (2012). Cognitive dissonance and its impact on consumer buying behaviour. IOSR

Journal of Business and Management.;1(4):7-12. doi: 10.9790/487x-0140712

Hegmann, T. (2008). Cheating by physician assistant students on patient encounter logs. Journal

of Physician Assistant Education, 19(2), 4-9.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518485.pdf

Josien, L., & Broderick, B. (2013). Cheating in higher education: The case of multi-methods

cheaters. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(2), 93-105. Retrieved July 29,

2015, from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-2999118601/cheating-in-

highereducation-the-case-of-multi-methods

49
Jones, D. R. et.al., (2011). Academic dishonesty: Are more students cheating? Business

Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 141-150.

https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=aphe

Jones, E., & Jones, C. (2015). Testing the Action-Based Model of Cognitive

Kitahara, R., Westfall, F., & Mankelwicz, J. (2011). New, multi-faceted hybrid approaches to

ensuring academic integrity. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, Retrieved from

http://www.aabri.com/ manuscripts/10480.pdf,

Kruglanski, A. W., Jasko, K., Milyavsky, M., Chernikova, M., Webber, D., Pierro, A., et al.

(2018). Cognitive consistency theory in social psychology: a paradigm reconsidered.

Psychol. Inq. 29, 45–49.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480619

Leonard, J. (2019). Cognitive dissonance: What to know. Medical News Today. Healthline Media

UK Ltd, a Red Ventures Company. Brighton: UK.

Lin, C.H.S., & Wen L.Y.M. (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher education—a nationwide study

in Taiwan. 54, pages 85–97. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-006-9047-z

Lucas, G. M., & Friedrich, J. (2005). Individual differences in workplace deviance and integrity

as predictors of academic dishonesty. Ethics and Behavior, 15(1), 15–35.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327019eb1501_2

McCabe, D. L. (1992). The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students.

Sociological Inquiry, 62,365–374.

McGrath, A. (2017). Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction. Soc.

Personal. Psychol. Compass, 11, e12362.

50
McLeod, S. A. (2018). Cognitive Dissonance. Simply Psychology,

https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

Mitchell, T. & Carroll, J. (2008). Academic and research misconduct in the Ph.D: Issues for

students and supervisors. Nurse Education Today: 28, 218-226.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1109249.pdf

Moberg, C., Sojka, J., & Gupta, A. (2008). An update on academic dishonesty in the college

classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 19, 149–

176. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ894373

Montano, D. and Kasprzyk, D. (2002). “The theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned

behavior”, In K.

Montecinos S, Björklund F, Lindholm T. (2018). Dissonance reduction as emotion regulation:

Attitude change is related to positive emotions in the induced compliance

paradigm. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0209012

Muhney, K. A., Gutmann, M. E., Schneiderman, E. DeWald, J. P., McCann, A., Campbell, P. R.

(2008). The prevalence of academic dishonesty in Texas dental hygiene programs. Journal

of Dental Education 72(11), 1247-1260. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518485.pdf

Nazir, M. S., & Aslam, M. S. (2010). Academic dishonesty and perceptions of Pakistani students.

International Journal of Educational Management, 24(7), 655-668.

https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=aphe

Novotney, A. (2011). Beat the cheat. Monitor on Psychology, 42(6), 54. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/06/cheat.aspx

51
Olafson, L., Schraw, G., Nadelson, L., Nadelson, S., & Kehrwald, N. (2013). Exploring the

judgment action gap: College students and academic dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 23(2),

148–162. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10508422.2012.714247

O’Rourke, J., Barnes, J., Deaton, A., Fulks, K., Ryan, K., & Rettinger, D. A. (2010). Imitation is

the sincerest form of cheating: The Influence of direct knowledge and attitudes on

academic dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 20(1), 47–64.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233276635_Imitation_Is_the_Sincerest_Form_

of_Cheating_The_Influence_of_Direct_Knowledge_and_Attitudes_on_Academic_Disho

nesty

Parsons, V.L. (2017). Stratified Sampling. Wiley Online Library.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05999.pub2

Passow, H. J., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S., & Carpenter, D. D. (2006). Factors

influencing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assessment. Research in

Higher Education, 47(6), 643–684. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1180068.pdf

Patrzek, J., Sattler, S., Veen, F., Grunschel, C., Fries, S. (2015). Investigating the effect of

academic procrastination on the frequency and variety of academic misconduct: a panel

study. Stud High Educ.;40: 1014–1029.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238141

Rest, J. R., Thoma, S. J., & Edwards, L. (1997). Designing and validating a measure of moral

judgment: Stage preference and stage consistency approaches. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 89, 5–28.

Roberts, E. (2005). "Strategies for promoting academic integrity in CS Courses," vol. 3 32nd

Annual Frontiers in Education.

52
 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3981310_Strategies_for_promoting_academic_

integrity_in_CS_courses

Schmelkin, L. P., Gilbert, K., Spencer, K. J., Pincus, H. S., & Silva, R. (2008). A multidimensional

scaling of college students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Higher

Education, 79(5), 587–607.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772118?journalCode=u

hej20

Taylor, S. E., Peplau, A. L., & Sears, D. O. (2006). Social Psychology (12th ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 136

Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2005). Research methods in physical activity (5th

ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Thompson, J.K., Menzel, J.E. (2012). in Encyclopedia of Body Image and Human

Appearance. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00731/full

Tibbetts, S. G., & Myers, D. L. (1999). Low self-control, rational choice, and student test cheating.

American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 179- 200. doi:10.1007/BF02887271.

Trost, K. (2009). Psst, have you ever cheated? A study of academic dishonesty in Sweden. Assess

Eval High Edu.;34: 367–376.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248966027_Psst_have_you_ever_cheated_A_st

udy_of_academic_dishonesty_in_Sweden

Ubaka C, Gbenga F, Sunday N, Ndidiamaka E. (2013). Academic dishonesty among Nigeria

pharmacy students: a comparison with United Kingdom. Afr J Pharm Pharmacol. ;7:1934–

53
 41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251566228_Academic_dishonesty_among_

Nigeria_pharmacy_students_A_comparison_with_United_Kingdom

Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review.

Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.

Whitley, B. E., and Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002). Academic Dishonesty: An Educator’s Guide,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ. https://www.niu.edu/academic-

integrity/students/types/index.shtml

Woodbine, G. F., & Amirthalingam, V. (2013). Dishonesty in the classroom: The effect of

cognitive dissonance and the mitigating influence of religious commitment. Journal of

Academic Ethics, 11, 139-155.

https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=5535&co

ntext=etd

Yamaguchi, S., Sorrentino, R.M. (2008). Universality in Cognitive Dissonance: A Conceptual

Reanalysis. In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition Across Cultures; Eds.; Elsevier:

New York, NY, USA, pp. 297–314. 23.

Yardley, J., Rodriguez, M. D., & Bates, S. C. (2009). True confessions?: Alumni’s retrospective

reports on undergraduates cheating behaviors. Ethics & Behavior, 19(1), 1–14.

https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5535&context=etd

Zafarghandi, A. M., Khoshroo, F., & Barkat, B. (2012). An investigation of Iranian EFL Master

students’ perceptions of plagiarism. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 8(2),

69-85.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304036003_An_investigation_of_Iranian_EFL

_Masters_students%27_perceptions_of_plagiarism

54