Under Reporting of Cheating in Research Using Volunteer College Students.

Reported rates of cheating may significantly underestimate the threat to academic integrity in universities due to volunteer sample biases. To vary the incentive states of the participants, we sampled using: 1) a 126 item questionnaire solicited through campus email, 2) a 33 item questionnaire solicited the same way, and 3) a questionnaire that offered course credit. Course-credit participants were more likely to report a cheating behavior (80.7%) than the long questionnaire (68.5%) or the short questionnaire (56.3%), both of which offered no tangible reward. We also asked subjects to respond regarding the cheating behavior of a person that they know best in two different research designs. In both designs, participants reported less cheating for themselves than they did for others. The hypothesis that we underestimate cheating through volunteer sampling was clearly supported. ********** For obvious reasons, questionnaires have typically been the most common avenue of research on student cheating. The validity of findings in survey research rests upon the degree to which the sample is representative of the population of interest. However, academic dishonesty researchers rarely consider how the incentive to participate may create bias in the sample, particularly when the only motives for participation are internal motives such as altruism or being concerned about academic integrity. The purpose of this study was to consider the influences of sampling methods on survey results in the area of student cheating. Further, when a questionnaire explores immoral actions, under reporting of misconduct can occur. To further explore the validity of reports of cheating behavior, we wanted to see whether students report different levels of cheating when they are reporting on the actions of themselves or a student other than themselves that they feel they know best. Many studies have reported on the alarming rates of cheating in college (see Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992, for a review), but the portions that cheat vary dramatically; ranging from reports of 23% cheating to reports of over 89% cheating (Baird, 1980; Graham, Monday, O'Brien, & Steffen, 1994). Some researchers have reported evidence that supports the view that rates of cheating are on the rise (Baird, 1980; McCabe & Trevino, 1996), while others argue that evidence does not support dramatic changes in rates of cheating (Brown & Emmett, 2001; McCabe & Bowers, 1994). The ability to compare rates of cheating across time and setting is limited because there is substantial disparity in rates being reported at any one point in time. Brown and Emmett (2001) reviewed thirty-one studies that reported on the frequency of cheating using regression to consider factors that would influence cheating reports. The sample size in the Brown and Emmett's (2001) analysis was not predictive of cheat rates. However, with sample size ranging from 45 to 6096, it seems that no meaningful predictor variable could be embedded in sample size. Sample size per se is likely to affect cheating rates only to the extent that it relates to attributes of participants. Since subjects cannot be compelled to participate, the incentive for participation, e.g., course credit or simply altruism, is probably the most significant influence on who volunteers. This would seem to be particularly true when the research is investigating sensitive matters of misconduct or moral behavior. Violators may be motivated to avoid, or even participate in the research, while more honest people may be drawn to the research because they are offended by cheating. However, when there are course incentives, these incentives may be the greatest influence on who participates. Rosenthal & Rosnow (1975) have detailed many of the dimensions that differentiate volunteer subjects from the general population. Volunteers generally score higher in intelligence and desire for approval than non-volunteers. …