Abstract
AbstractAcademic cheating is a pervasive issue in tertiary education, with implications for the competency of university graduates and their future ethical workplace behavior. Past research indicates that understanding academic cheating according to its different levels of severity allows for a more nuanced understanding of its aetiological factors, and an investigation into dispositional traits can further aid this. The primary aim of this study was to explore the synergistic relationships between trait mindfulness, self-regulatory efficacy, and academic cheating intention using purpose-designed vignettes, with a view to providing a foundation for the development of targeted academic cheating interventions. The secondary aim of this study was to examine these relationships in the context of minor and serious academic cheating intention (MACI and SACI), to better capture the nuances of academic cheating. First-year university students from an Australian university (N = 200) completed a questionnaire measuring trait mindfulness and self-regulatory efficacy and responded to vignettes corresponding to MACI and SACI. The results of this study indicated that high self-regulatory efficacy was correlated with low overall academic cheating intention (OACI), as well as lower MACI and SACI. Self-regulatory efficacy also amplified relations between trait mindfulness and OACI, such that high trait mindfulness was associated with lower OACI, in the context of high self-regulatory efficacy. This result was replicated for MACI, but not SACI. Interestingly, no direct associations were found between trait mindfulness and any of the measures of academic cheating intention. These results highlight the necessity of developing nuanced understandings of academic cheating. They further point to the potential role of self-regulatory skills in developing future interventions, while de-emphasizing the relevance previously attributed to mindfulness in supporting students at risk of academic misconduct.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference67 articles.
1. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
2. Anderman, E. M., Cupp, P. K., & Lane, D. (2009). Impulsivity and academic cheating. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 135–150.
3. Ariely, D., & Jones, S. (2012). The (honest) truth about dishonesty. Harper Collins.
4. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504
5. Ballantine, J., McCourt Larres, P., & Mulgrew, M. (2014). Determinants of academic cheating behavior: The future for accountancy in Ireland. Accounting Forum, 38(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2013.08.002