Motivational Perspectives on Student Cheating: Toward an Integrated Model of Academic Dishonesty

By Tamera B. Murdock, Eric M. Anderman. 2006

392 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Information Systems and Management, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5123a4ee687e8d15619648f6bd1c8e6d31de5bb8

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

1. Céline Darnon
2. Chris S. Hulleman
3. Yaniv Kanat‐Maymon
4. Corwin Senko
5. Fabrizio Butera
6. Shu Ching Yang
7. G. Roth
8. Anat Shoshani

In Information Systems and Management

1. Céline Darnon
2. Chris S. Hulleman
3. Judith M. Harackiewicz
4. Corwin Senko
5. Benoît Dompnier
6. P. Poortvliet

In Safety Research

1. Chris S. Hulleman
2. Corwin Senko
3. Judith M. Harackiewicz
4. Céline Darnon
5. Fabrizio Butera
6. G. Roth
7. Aviva Stavsky
8. Yaniv Kanat‐Maymon

Citations in the corpus

• The interplay of mastery and performance goals in social comparison: A multiple-goal perspective. (2010, background): “…that multiple-goal students could show an adaptive pattern because performance is achieved via mastery and not via other strategies, such as cheating (Murdock & Anderman, 2006), exploitation of others (Poortvliet, Janssen, Van Yperen, & Van de Vliert, 2007), or surface processing (Nolen, 1988).”
• The role of basic need fulfillment in academic dishonesty: A self-determination theory perspective (2015, background): “Because academic dishonesty is by nature a motivational issue (Murdock & Anderman, 2006), and the evidence seems to suggest that academic dishonesty is mostly a function of contextual factors (McCabe & Treviño, 1997), the SDT framework may help clarify the contextual factors that enhance or hinder…”
• An Investigation of College Students’ Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty, Reasons for Dishonesty, Achievement Goals, and Willingness to Report Dishonest Behavior (2013, background): “However, Murdock and Anderman (2006) noted few efforts to interpret these research findings within a theoretical framework.”
• Achievement goals in educational contexts: A social psychology perspective (2012, positive): “Cheating, an outcome that is usually linked to performance goals (Anderman & Danner, 2008; Murdock & Anderman, 2006), is maladaptive for many reasons, including non-compliance to societal rules, but it might still be adaptive for receiving good grades at school.”
• To Win, or Not to Lose, At Any Cost: The Impact of Achievement Goals on Cheating (2011, neutral): “As emphasized by Murdock and Anderman (2006) in their review, little effort has been made in the cheating literature to interpret research findings within a theoretical framework, which impedes theoretical development and progress.”
• Achievement Goal Theory at the Crossroads: Old Controversies, Current Challenges, and New Directions (2011, positive): “A final interpersonal cost alleged of performance goals is that they may prime students to tolerate and perhaps engage in cheating (Murdock & Anderman, 2006).”
• What Contributes to College Students’ Cheating? A Study of Individual Factors (2017, neutral): “…Gibson, Khey, & Schreck, 2008; Hensley, Kirkpatrick, & Burgoon, 2013; Huelsman, Piroch, & Wasieleski, 2006; McCabe et al., 2012; McCabe & Treviño, 1993; Murdock & Anderman, 2006; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2005; Rettinger & Jordan, 2005; Rettinger & Kramer, 2009; Stern & Havlicek, 1986; Whitley, 1998).”
• Reasons Not to Cheat, Academic-Integrity Responsibility, and Frequency of Cheating (2011, background): “Murdock and Anderman (2006) argued that the first step students encounter when deciding whether to cheat is “What is my purpose?””