“I Cheat” or “We Cheat?” The Structure and Psychological Correlates of Individual vs. Collective Examination Dishonesty

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS
Maciej Koscielniak, Jolanta Enko, Agata Gąsiorowska
{"title":"“I Cheat” or “We Cheat?” The Structure and Psychological Correlates of Individual vs. Collective Examination Dishonesty","authors":"Maciej Koscielniak, Jolanta Enko, Agata Gąsiorowska","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09514-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Examination dishonesty is a global problem that became particularly critical after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to remote learning. Academic research has often examined this phenomenon as only one aspect of a broader concept of academic dishonesty and as a one-dimensional construct. This article builds on existing knowledge and proposes a novel, two-factor model of examination misconduct, dividing it into individual and collective forms of dishonesty. A study conducted on a large sample of 462 Polish students confirmed the psychometric quality of the new Examination Dishonesty Intention Scale (EDIS) and the superiority of the two-factor model over the unidimensional model. In addition, we tested the psychological correlates of both types of academic dishonesty and demonstrated their divergent validity. The results suggest that EDIS can be a valuable tool for exploring the intentions of exam dishonesty and has potential for practical applications in academic integrity policy and research.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09514-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Examination dishonesty is a global problem that became particularly critical after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to remote learning. Academic research has often examined this phenomenon as only one aspect of a broader concept of academic dishonesty and as a one-dimensional construct. This article builds on existing knowledge and proposes a novel, two-factor model of examination misconduct, dividing it into individual and collective forms of dishonesty. A study conducted on a large sample of 462 Polish students confirmed the psychometric quality of the new Examination Dishonesty Intention Scale (EDIS) and the superiority of the two-factor model over the unidimensional model. In addition, we tested the psychological correlates of both types of academic dishonesty and demonstrated their divergent validity. The results suggest that EDIS can be a valuable tool for exploring the intentions of exam dishonesty and has potential for practical applications in academic integrity policy and research.

Abstract Image

"我作弊 "还是 "我们作弊?个人与集体考试作弊的结构和心理相关性
考试不诚信是一个全球性问题,在 COVID-19 大流行病爆发和转向远程学习之后,这个问题变得尤为严重。学术研究通常只将这一现象作为学术不端这一更广泛概念的一个方面和一个单维结构来研究。本文以现有知识为基础,提出了一个新颖的考试不端行为双因素模型,将其分为个人不端行为和集体不端行为。对 462 名波兰学生的大样本研究证实了新的考试不诚实意向量表(EDIS)的心理测量质量,以及双因素模型优于单维模型。此外,我们还测试了这两种学术不诚实行为的心理相关因素,并证明了它们之间的差异有效性。研究结果表明,EDIS 是探究考试不诚实意图的重要工具,在学术诚信政策和研究中具有实际应用的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信