College Student Cheating: The Role of Motivation, Perceived Norms, Attitudes, and Knowledge of Institutional Policy

By A. Jordan. 2001

413 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0779b684f763d1facbebb964b1a870b377a4b180

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

True Confessions?: Alumni's Retrospective Reports on Undergraduate Cheating Behaviors (2009, background): “Jordan (2001) found that students who reported cheating were more likely to agree that academic dishonesty could be occasionally justified in order to help a friend or pass a class.”
Motivational Perspectives on Student Cheating: Toward an Integrated Model of Academic Dishonesty (2006, background): “To test this hypothesis, participants attending an elite private college rated their goal orientations and their frequency of engaging in 17 cheating behaviors for each course they were enrolled in during a particular semester (Jordan, 2001).”
FACTORS INFLUENCING ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ DECISIONS TO CHEAT BY TYPE OF ASSESSMENT (2006, background): “In the realm of attitude toward cheating behavior, two types of attitudes have been shown to differ by type of assessment, specifically, general attitudes (Jordan, 2001; Lipson and McGavern, 1993; Michaels and Miethe, 1989; Newstead et al., 1996; Nuss, 1984; Thorpe, Pittenger, and Reed, 1999) and ev”
The Relations Among Religion, Motivation, and College Cheating: A Natural Experiment (2005, methodology): “The questions, from Jordan (2001), are intended to assess students’ neutralizing attitudes.”
College Cheating: A Twenty-Year Follow-Up and the Addition of an Honor Code (2007, background): “Jordan (2001) may offer an explanation for our findings.”
Exploring university students' perceptions of plagiarism: a focus group study (2010, background): “Jordan ( 2001 ) found that students classified as non‐cheaters reported greater understanding of institutional policy than did cheaters.”
Situational and Personal Causes of Student Cheating (2009, background): “A student who is motivated by performance is more likely to cheat, while a learning-motivated student is less likely to cheat ( Jordan 2001; Newstead et al. 1996).”
Impulsivity and Academic Cheating (2009, background): “In a similar study, Jordan (2001) examined the relations of personal and course-specific mastery and extrinsic goals to cheating in a sample of college students.”
Evaluating the Motivation of Other Students to Cheat: A Vignette Experiment (2004, methodology): “ Jordan (2001) hypothesized that student susceptibility to cheating may be, in part, a function of their motivation orientation for a particular course.”
Does Moral Judgment Go Offline When Students Are Online? A Comparative Analysis of Undergraduates' Beliefs and Behaviors Related to Conventional and Digital Cheating (2007, background): “These neutralization techniques or disengagement may, in part, explain why so many students who report that they believe cheating is wrong also report doing it anyway (Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998; Davis et al., 1992; Jordan, 2001).”
Imitation Is the Sincerest Form of Cheating: The Influence of Direct Knowledge and Attitudes on Academic Dishonesty (2010, background): “Unsurprisingly, seeing others cheat (or having direct knowledge of plagiarism or exam cheating) is an important predictor of one's own cheating behavior ( Haines et al, 1986 ; Jordan, 2001 ; McCabe & Trevino, 1997 ).”
The Fox in the Hen House: A Critical Examination of Plagiarism Among Members of the Academy of Management (2012, background): “Research on student plagiarism has shown a strong positive association between cheating and neutralizing attitudes (Daniel, 1994; Haines, 1986; Jordan, 2001).”
Autonomous and controlled regulation of performance-approach goals: Their relations to perfectionism and educational outcomes (2010, background): “Previous work within achievement goal theory has shown that students adopting a mastery approach were less likely to cheat, whereas students focused on beating others were more likely to cheat (e.g., Anderman et al. 1998; Jordan 2001).”
To Win, or Not to Lose, At Any Cost: The Impact of Achievement Goals on Cheating (2011, neutral): “…manipulated (e.g. Barron and Harackiewicz, 2001; Van Yperen, 2003a), and in field research self-reported frequencies of engaging in cheating behaviours appear to be a function of the perceived achievement goal climate within classes or schools (e.g. Anderman and Midgley, 2004; Jordan, 2001).”