The NEO Personality Inventory, Attitudes, and Academic Dishonesty

This study examined the relationship between personality traits and academic dishonesty while controlling for the effects of self-efficacy, attitudes, and academic motivations. University students (N = 344) completed a confidential online questionnaire that assessed personality based on the five-factor model, academic self-efficacy, attitudes towards academic dishonesty, academic motivations, self and peer reports of academic dishonesty before and during university, and demographic variables. The results indicate that although personality variables are significantly related to reports of academic dishonesty (α = .05), this effect is mediated by attitudes towards academic dishonesty. Consistent with previous research, academic selfefficacy and gender were significantly related to reports of academic dishonesty before and during university. Current grade point average and program were predictive of reports of academic dishonesty during university. Type of motivation was not significantly related to reports of academic dishonesty. Finally, peer reports of academic dishonesty were significantly higher than self-reports. NEO Personality Inventory 4 The NEO Personality Inventory, Attitudes, and Academic Dishonesty Recent research examining the prevalence of academic dishonesty in high schools, colleges, and universities worldwide suggests that the rates of academic dishonesty have risen to epidemic proportions. Some reports claim that 74% of high school students and 95% of college students are admitting to at least one incidence of cheating (Marsden, Carroll, & Neill, 2005; McCabe 2001; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Academic dishonesty can include a variety of behaviours such as plagiarism, cheating on exams, and copying assignments from other students (Jensen, Arnett, Feldman, & Cauffman, 2002). Studies have shown demographic variables to be related to academic dishonesty (Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; McCabe, Butterfield, & Trevino, 2006; Pino & Smith, 2003): For example, younger students, male students, business students, and students with lower GPAs have been shown to engage in more acts of academic dishonesty. These findings, however, have not been replicated across all studies and are often found to be mediated by contextual variables and personality characteristics (Anderman & Murdock, 2007). Contextual variables such as classroom setting, teacher characteristics and practices, as well as preventive measures, such as seating arrangements during tests and honour codes have also been shown to have an effect on academic dishonesty (Houston,1986; McCabe & Trevino, 1993). Individual variables such as level of self-efficacy, type of motivation, attitudes, and general personality characteristics have also been implicated as contributing factors in a student’s decision to engage in academically dishonest behaviours (Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998; Haines et al., 1986; Murdock et al., 2001). For example, high levels of academic selfefficacy have been shown to be inversely related to academic dishonesty (Murdock et al., 2001). The more students believe they are capable of performing the required course work and NEO Personality Inventory 5 successfully obtaining their academic goals, the less likely they are to cheat (Anderman & Murdock, 2007). Academic motivation has also been shown to have an effect on academic dishonesty. Students who report extrinsic academic motivations are more likely to engage in academic dishonesty than students who report intrinsic academic motivations (Anderman et al., 1998). Student attitudes towards academic dishonesty are also predictive of academic dishonesty (Anderman et al., 1998; Whitley, 1998). Students who endorse lenient attitudes towards academic dishonesty are more likely to commit academically dishonest behaviours (Anderman et al., 1998). Furthermore, attitudes may mediate the relationship between personality variables and academic dishonesty. Bolin (2004) examined the relationship between self-control, attitudes, and academic dishonesty and found that attitudes played a meditational role in this triad. The literature on the relationship between general personality characteristics and academic dishonesty, in contrast, is sparse, and only in the exploratory stages. However, it is clear from the research that does exist that general personality characteristics have an effect on whether or not students choose to engage in academic dishonesty (e.g., DeBruin & Rudnick, 2006). Further, attitudes have been found to mediate this relationship between general personality characteristics and academic dishonesty (e.g., Bolin, 2004). General personality characteristics that relate to time management have been shown to predict academic dishonesty. Studies have found that students most frequently self-report time pressure as the reason for engaging in academic dishonesty (Anderman & Murdock, 2007; Devlin & Gray, 2007). When students feel stressed and overwhelmed by the lack of time to complete assignments they are more likely to cheat. Time pressures may be related to contextual sources, such as classes that require a large number of assignments completed in a short amount of time and nonacademic responsibilities such as children, or they may be related to internal NEO Personality Inventory 6 resources, such as the ability to manage time effectively. Academic procrastination, defined as “the purposeful delay in beginning or completing academically-related tasks” (Ferrari & Beck, 1998, p. 529), has also been shown to be related to academic cheating (Roig & DeTomasso, 1995). DeBruin and Rudnick (2006) argue that procrastination is a stable trait that can be included under the personality factor of conscientiousness, which is part of the five-factor model of personality. The five-factor model provides a comprehensive umbrella of personality traits that encompasses virtually all traits measured by personality scales. According to De Bruin and Rudnick, the five-factor model of personality is useful in that it allows researchers to communicate effectively about personality, and it sheds light on virtually all facets of personality allowing for a greater understanding. Conscientiousness includes traits, such as competence, dutifulness, achievement striving, deliberation, order, and self-discipline (O’Cleirigh, Ironson, Weiss, & Costa, 2007). Conscientiousness has been found to be positively related to academic success, integrity, and achievement in the workplace (Salgado, 2003; Wanek, Sacckett, & Ones, 2003). In contrast, conscientiousness has been demonstrated to be inversely related to negative work habits such as dishonesty and missed days of work (Salgado, 2003; Wanek et al., 2003). If academic dishonesty is often a result of an inability to organize one’s time effectively and prepare accordingly for exams and assignments, it follows that conscientiousness may offset these situational variables. The ability to stay organized and discipline oneself in order to achieve academic success should be related to lower levels of academic dishonesty. Other aspects of conscientiousness, such as integrity and achievement striving, should also result in lower levels of academic dishonesty. Another personality trait that falls under the umbrella of the five-factor model that may NEO Personality Inventory 7 be related to academic dishonesty is excitement-seeking. Excitement-seeking is a facet of the broader personality domain of extraversion and can be described as a “need for thrills, risktaking, and strong stimulation” (De Bruin & Rudnick, 2006, p. 156). Sensation-seeking, a trait that is highly similar to excitement-seeking, has been shown to be related to risk-taking behaviours. Academic dishonesty can be categorized as a risk-taking behavior. Students who engage in academically dishonest behaviour are often very aware of the potential risks involved and the possible consequences that may follow if they are caught. Students who are high in sensation-seeking may seek out the rush or thrill associated with the act of academic dishonesty and the possibility of avoiding detection (Anderman & Murdock, 2007). Therefore, it follows that students who score high on excitement-seeking may also report more incidences of academic dishonesty. DeBruin and Rudnick (2006) conducted a study in South Africa which examined the role of conscientiousness and excitement-seeking on academic dishonesty. As predicted, they found that high levels of conscientiousness predicted lower levels of academic dishonesty. In contrast, they found that high levels of excitement-seeking predicted higher incidences of self-reported academic dishonesty. The current study is a partial replication of De Bruin and Rudnick’s (2006) research. This study will examine the relationship between the five domains of personality as measured by the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and academic dishonesty. The NEO-PI-R is a validated measure of the five major dimensions of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Each domain is further divided into six sub-facets, or traits, that define each of the dimensions. The NEO-PI-R is a comprehensive, well-researched measure of normal personality that has been used in both NEO Personality Inventory 8 research and clinical settings (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The current study will control for attitudes towards cheating, academic self-efficacy, and extrinsic academic motivations as these variables have consistently been shown to be related to academic dishonesty (Anderman et al., 1998; Murdock et al., 2001). This study will also examine a broad range of cheating behaviours such as, plagiarism, test cheating, and unauthorized student collaboration on assignments. The use of a detailed measure will help to provide a uniform definition of academic dishonesty for participants, and therefore may result in a more accurate response rate