U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List

Logo of plosone

Academic dishonesty among university students: The roles of the psychopathy, motivation, and self-efficacy

Lidia baran.

1 Institute of Psychology, University of Silesia in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

Peter K. Jonason

2 Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

3 Institute of Psychology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Associated Data

The database was uploaded to Open Science Framework and is available under the following address: https://osf.io/frq9v/ .

Academic dishonesty is a common problem at universities around the world, leading to undesirable consequences for both students and the education system. To effectively address this problem, it is necessary to identify specific predispositions that promote cheating. In Polish undergraduate students ( N = 390), we examined the role of psychopathy, achievement goals, and self-efficacy as predictors of academic dishonesty. We found that the disinhibition aspect of psychopathy and mastery-goal orientation predicted the frequency of students’ academic dishonesty and mastery-goal orientation mediated the relationship between the disinhibition and meanness aspects of psychopathy and dishonesty. Furthermore, general self-efficacy moderated the indirect effect of disinhibition on academic dishonesty through mastery-goal orientation. The practical implications of the study include the identification of risk factors and potential mechanisms leading to students’ dishonest behavior that can be used to plan personalized interventions to prevent or deal with academic dishonesty.

Introduction

Academic dishonesty refers to behaviors aimed at giving or receiving information from others, using unauthorized materials, and circumventing the sanctioned assessment process in an academic context [ 1 ]. The frequency of academic dishonesty reported in research indicates the global nature of this phenomenon. For example, in a study by Ternes, Babin, Woodworth, and Stephens [ 2 ] 57.3% of post-secondary students in Canada allowed another student to copy their work. Similarly, 61% of undergraduate students in Sweden copied material for coursework from a book or other publication without acknowledging the source [ 3 ]. Working together on an assignment when it should be completed as an individual was reported by 53% of students from four different Australian universities [ 4 ], and copying from someone’s paper in exams at least once was done by 36% of students from four German universities [ 5 ]. Research shows that academic dishonesty is also a major problem at Polish universities. In the study by Lupton, Chapman, and Weiss [ 6 ] 59% of the students admitted to cheating in the current class, and 83.7% to cheating at some point during college. According to a report on the plagiarism in Poland, prepared by IPPHEAE Project Consortium, 31% of students reported plagiarizing accidentally or deliberately during their studies [ 7 ].

Existing academic dishonesty prevention systems include using punishments and supervision [ 8 ], informing students about differences between honest and dishonest academic actions [ 9 ], adopting university honor codes [ 10 ], and educating students on how to write papers and conduct research correctly [ 11 ]. Although these methods lead to a reduction of academic dishonesty (see [ 12 ]), their problematic aspects include the possibility of achieving only a temporary change in behavior, limited impact on students' attitudes towards cheating, and a long implementation period [ 13 , 14 ]. Possible reasons for these difficulties include the fact that conventional prevention methods rarely address differences in students’ personality and academic motivations, which may be associated with a tendency to cheat. For example, previous studies have reported that negative emotionality was associated with positive attitudes toward plagiarism [ 15 ]; intrinsic motivation was associated with lower self-reported cheating [ 16 ]; and socially orientated human values were negatively, while personally focused values were positively correlated with academic dishonesty [ 17 ].

It is also important to remember that implementing the aforementioned methods of prevention will not lead to a reduction in academic dishonesty if faculty members do not follow and apply the established rules [ 18 ]. Faculty members often prefer not to take formal actions against dishonest students [ 19 ], and in many cases do not use the methods available to them to detect and prevent cheating [ 20 ]. However, when they do respond to academic dishonesty it is often in inconsistent ways [ 21 ]. This might suggest that, while dealing with students’ dishonesty, faculty members prefer to choose their own punitive and preventative methods, which may differ depending on the particular student and professor. If that is the case, then examining the role of individual differences in academic dishonesty could be useful not only to better understand the nature of academic transgressions but also to address faculty's informal ways of dealing with students' cheating.

The aim of the current study was to investigate relationships between personality, motivation, and academic dishonesty to understand the likelihood of cheating in academia more effectively and potentially inform faculty's personalized interventions. Of all the personality traits under investigation, psychopathy appears to be useful for this purpose, because it includes a tendency to be impulsive, to engage in sensation-seeking, and resistance to stress, all of which are associated with academic dishonesty [ 2 ]. Indeed, psychopathy is the strongest—albeit moderate in size ( r = .27)—predictor of academic dishonesty according to a recent meta-analysis of 89 effects and 50 studies [ 22 ]. In the present study, we wanted to further examine the relationship between academic dishonesty and psychopathy by using the triarchic model of psychopathy distinguishing its three phenotypic facets: boldness, meanness, and disinhibition [ 23 ] which may reveal added nuance to how this personality trait relates to academic dishonesty.

Within the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy, boldness represents self-assurance, fearlessness, and a high tolerance for stress and unfamiliarity; meanness captures interpersonal deficits such as lack of empathy, callousness and exploitativeness; and disinhibition represents the tendency towards impulsivity, poor self-regulation and focus on immediate gratification. Because of the different neurobiological mechanisms leading to the shaping of those aspects [ 24 ], it seems likely that the tendency towards academic dishonesty may have a different etiology depending on their levels. For students with high disinhibition, cheating may result from low self-control; for those with high meanness from rebelliousness with propensity to use others; and for bold ones from emotional resiliency and sensation-seeking [ 25 – 27 ]. However, because boldness constitutes fearlessness without failed socialization [ 28 ], breaking academic rules might not be the preferred way to look for excitement among bold students. Thus, our first goal was to examine the predictive power of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition in academic dishonesty.

Furthermore, we were interested if the relationships between the psychopathy facets and academic dishonesty would be mediated by individual differences in motivations for mastery and performance. Mastery motivation is fostered by the need for achievement and associated with learning to acquire knowledge, whereas performance motivation is geared towards reducing anxiety and related to learning to prove oneself to others [ 29 ]. We expect mediation for several reasons. First, undertaking actions motivated by achievement goals is predicted by the level of positive and negative emotionality and also by activity of the behavioral activation and inhibition system [ 30 ], which also correlate with the dimensions of the triarchic model of psychopathy [ 31 ]. Second, unrestrained achievement motivation partially mediates the relationship between psychopathy and academic dishonesty, suggesting a role of achievement in understanding the relationship between psychopathy and individual differences in the propensity to cheat [ 32 ]. Third, meanness and disinhibition are negatively and boldness positively correlated with conscientiousness and its facets [ 33 , 34 ]. This fact may play an important role in students’ willingness to exert and control themselves to achieve academic goals and the particular way to do it [ 35 ]. Moreover, research on mastery-goal orientation suggests it is correlated negatively with academic dishonesty and views of the acceptability of academic dishonesty [ 36 – 38 ] and that the change from mastery to performance-based learning environment lead to increased levels of dishonesty [ 39 ].

Therefore, we hypothesized that students with a high level of disinhibition may have difficulties studying because of their need for immediate gratification and lack of impulse control, and in turn, cheat to pass classes. Bold students could want to acquire vast knowledge and high competences because of their high self-assurance, social dominance, and a high tolerance for stress without resorting to fraud. Lastly, students with a high level of meanness may be less prone towards mastery through hard work and learning because of their susceptibility to boredom, tendency to break the rules, and to exploit others to their advantage, perhaps by copying or using other students’ work. Because performance-goal orientation can be driven by the fear of performing worse than others, no specific hypothesis was generated regarding its relation to psychopathy (characterized by a lack of fear).

Besides behavioral tendencies based on personality traits and specific motives to learn, another closely related predictor of academic dishonesty is general self-efficacy. People with high levels of general self-efficacy exercise control over challenging demands and their behavior [ 40 ] and perform better in academic context because of their heightened ability to solve problems and process information [ 41 ]. On the other hand, low levels of general self-efficacy in the academic context can lead to reduced effort and attention focused on the task, which may result in a higher probability of frauds to achieve or maintain a certain level of academic performance [ 42 , 43 ]. Because competence expectancies are important antecedents of holding an achievement goal orientation [ 44 , 45 ] it seems possible that general self-efficacy might moderate the relation between psychopathy facets and academic dishonesty mediated by achievement goals. Thus, we hypothesize that high general self-efficacy will reduce the indirect effects for disinhibition and meanness (i.e., negative moderation effect) and amplify it for boldness (i.e., positive moderation effect).

In sum, we examine the relationships between three facets of psychopathy and academic dishonesty, the possible role of achievement goals as a mediators for those relations, and lastly the possible role of general self-efficacy as a moderator of those mediation models. By analyzing the facets of psychopathy independently, we can determine their unique relationship with the tendency to cheat and thus more accurately predict the risk of dishonest behavior for students with a high level of each of the facet. In addition, investigating indirect effects and interactions between personality and motivation may describe the psychological processes that may lead to cheating and can potentially be used in planning preventive actions.

Materials and methods

Participants and procedure.

The participants were 390 Polish university students and residents (100% White, 74% female) with an average age of 23 ( SD = 3.39, Range = 19–56) years. Participants self-identified as students in social sciences (17%), humanities (12%), science and technology (24%), law and administration (22%), and medical sciences (23%); 7 failed to respond (2%). In addition, participants were first-year (19%), second-year (16%), third-year (31%), fourth-year (13%), fifth-year (13%), and doctoral students (2%); 23 failed to respond (6%).

We established the required sample size as 290 participants, following Tabachnick and Fidell [ 46 ] guidelines and gave ourselves three months to collect it to avoid concerns with power and p- hacking, respectively. The study was approved by Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology (University of Silesia in Katowice) and was conducted online through the Webankieta platform to maximize the anonymity and security of the participants. An invitation to participate in the project was sent to 28 largest Polish universities by enrollment, with a request to publish it on the universities' websites. The link to the survey directed the participants to a detailed description of the research and the rules of participation. After consenting to participate, students completed online questionnaires and, at the end, they were asked if they wanted to receive a summary of the general results and take part in a prize drawing (after the end of the study, five randomly chosen participants received vouchers for online personal development courses). The present study was part of a larger investigation that aimed to examine psychological determinants and predictors of academic dishonesty.

Psychopathy was measured with the TriPM-41 [ 34 ], the shortened Polish adaptation of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure [ 47 ]. Participants rated statements on a 4-point scale (0 = completely false ; 1 = somewhat false ; 2 = somewhat true ; 3 = completely true ). Items were summed to create indexes for three subscales: disinhibition (16 items, e.g., “I jump into things without thinking”; Cronbach’s α = .83), meanness (10 items, e.g., “I don't have much sympathy for people”; α = .92), and boldness (15 items, e.g., “I'm a born leader”; α = .88).

Achievement goals were measured with the Polish translation of the Achievement Goals Questionnaire-Revised [ 29 ]. Participants reported their agreement (1 = strongly disagree ; 5 = strongly agree ) with statements such as “My aim is to completely master the material presented in this class” (i.e., mastery-goal orientation, 6 items) or “My aim is to perform well relative to other students” (i.e., performance-goal orientation, 6 items). Items were summed to calculate mastery (α = .80) and performance (α = .87) goal orientation indexes.

The Polish translation of the New General Self-Efficacy Scale [ 48 ] was used to measure general self-efficacy (e.g., “Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well”). Participants were asked how much they agreed (1 = strongly disagree ; 5 = strongly agree ) with eight items, which were summed to create the general self-efficacy index (α = .89).

Academic dishonesty was estimated with the Academic Dishonesty Scale [ 49 ], which is a list of 16 academically dishonest behaviors (e.g., “Using crib notes during test or exam” or “Falsifying bibliography”). Participants rate the frequency (0 = never ; 4 = many times ) of committing each behavior during their years of studies. Items were summed to create the academic dishonesty index (α = .83).

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated with JASP (v0.9.0.0), correlations with STATISTICA (v13.1), and regression, mediation, and moderated mediation with SPSS (v25). In the mediation analysis we used model 4 in macro PROCESS 2.16.3 (10,000 bootstrapped samples) and for the moderated mediations model 7 in macro PROCESS 2.16.3 (10,000 bootstrapped samples). Analyzes were carried out on the responses from 390 fully completed surveys. Because of mixed results in previous studies concerning psychopathy and academic dishonesty levels in men and women (see [ 50 , 51 ]) we conducted analyses on the overall results and also separately in each sex. The database was uploaded to Open Science Framework and is available under the following address: https://osf.io/frq9v/

Descriptive statistics, sex differences tests (see Bottom Panel), and correlations (see Top Panel) for all measured variables are presented in Table 1 . Academic dishonesty was positively correlated with meanness and disinhibition, and negatively correlated with mastery-goal orientation and general self-efficacy. Mastery-goal orientation was positively correlated with boldness and general self-efficacy, and negatively correlated with meanness and disinhibition. Performance-goal orientation was positively correlated with meanness. General self-efficacy was positively correlated with boldness and negatively correlated with meanness and disinhibition. We found only three cases where these correlations were moderated by participant’s sex. The correlation between performance and mastery-goal orientation was stronger ( z = -1.85, p = .03) in men ( r = .51, p < .01) than in women ( r = .34, p < .01). The correlation between mastery-goal orientation and meanness was stronger ( z = 2.00, p = .02) in men ( r = -.28, p < .01) than in women ( r = -.05, ns ). And the correlation between disinhibition and academic dishonesty was stronger ( z = 1.72, p = .04) in women ( r = .39, p < .01) than in men ( r = .20, p < .01). If we adjust for error inflation for multiple comparisons ( p < .007) for these moderation tests, none of the Fisher’s z tests were significant. Therefore, we conclude the correlations were generally similar in the sexes. Men scored higher than women on meanness and disinhibition.

We report Hedges’ g for effect size to adjust for unequal group sizes. Its interpretation is the same as the more common Cohen’s d .

* p < .05

** p < .01

To test the contribution of personality and motivation variables in predicting academic dishonesty, we conducted a standard multiple regression where the model explained 23% of the variance in academic dishonesty [ F (6, 383) = 18.60, p < .001]. The residuals for boldness ( β = .12, p = .04), disinhibition ( β = .27, p < .01), and a mastery-goal orientation ( β = -.39, p < .01) were correlated with academic dishonesty. Additional regression analysis revealed that both mastery-goal orientation and disinhibition strengthened the association between boldness and academic dishonesty, which on its own was not a predictor of the frequency of cheating–suppressor effect (results of hierarchical regression showed that after adding boldness to the model explained variance increased by 1% [Δ F (1, 383) = 4.40, p = .04]).

To examine whether achievement goals mediated the associations between psychopathy and academic dishonesty we conducted a series of mediation analyses.

As shown in Table 2 (see Left Panel), mastery-goal orientation mediated the relation between facets of psychopathy and academic dishonesty (i.e., none of the indirect effects CIs contained zero), and performance-goal orientation was not a mediator of those relations (see Right Panel; all of the indirect effects CIs contained zero). Mastery-goal orientation mediated relation between disinhibition and academic dishonesty (i.e., initial 𝛽 Step 1 = .32, p < .001; 𝛽 Step 2 = .24, p < .001), and the relationship between meanness and academic dishonesty (i.e., 𝛽 Step 1 = .10, p < .05; 𝛽 Step 2 = .05, p = .29). Initial non-significant negative relation between boldness and academic dishonesty (𝛽 = -.0001, p = .99) stayed unrelated after adding mastery-goal orientation to the model, but the value for the relation coefficient was higher and positive (𝛽 = .07, p = .12) suggesting a nonsignificant suppression effect.

ab = coefficient for the indirect effect; 95%CI = 95% confidence intervals; z = Sobel’s test for indirect effect.

* p < .01

To test if the level of general self-efficacy moderated the aforementioned relationships between psychopathy, achievement goals, and academic dishonesty we ran a series of moderated mediations. Index for moderated mediation was significant only for the model with disinhibition and mastery-goal orientation ( - 0.03; 95% CI: -0.70, -0.003), however, the same analyses ran separately for men ( - 0.03; 95% CI: -0.13, 0.05) and women ( - 0.04; 95% CI: -0.08, -0.01) revealed moderated mediation only in women (therefore, we do not report these analyses in men; they can be obtained from the first author). Estimates for that model are presented in Table 3 .

B = regression coefficients; SE = standard error; 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals; A1, A2, A3, B, and C’ are the paths in the moderated mediation model.

* * p < .001

Women with high levels of disinhibition manifesting low level of mastery-goal orientation (see Left Panel, line A1) declared higher levels of academic dishonesty (see Right Panel, line B). An interaction between disinhibition and general self-efficacy (see Left Panel, line A3) with the significant, negative index for moderated mediation means that the indirect effect of disinhibition on academic dishonesty through mastery-goal orientation is negatively moderated by general self-efficacy. The higher the level of the moderator, the weaker the effect of mediation, and for moderator values above one standard deviation from mean mediation become non-significant (95% CI: -0.01, 0.09). In sum, the mastery-goal orientation partially mediated the associations that disinhibition had with academic dishonesty, however, this effect was absent for people with high levels of general self-efficacy.

Discussion and limitations

Psychopathy is an important predictor of engaging in unethical behaviors [ 52 ], including in an academic context [ 53 ]. In the present study, we examined the relationships between facets of psychopathy, as described in the triarchic model of psychopathy (i.e. disinhibition, meanness, and boldness), and the frequency of academic dishonesty among students. We revealed that students with higher levels of meanness and disinhibition, but not boldness, reported more frequent academic dishonesty during their tertiary study.

In the case of meanness, this relationship may indicate a tendency for dishonesty resulting from a lack of fear and, consequently, a diminished impact of the perceived risk of being caught cheating, sensation-seeking that involves engaging in destructive behavior regardless of possible negative consequences of such actions, and a propensity to exploit other student’s work or knowledge to pass classes [ 23 , 54 ]. The association between disinhibition and academic dishonesty may indicate impulsive cheating resulting from self-control problems (see [ 55 ]), and an inability to predict possible negative consequences of cheating [ 26 ]. The fact that academic dishonesty and boldness were uncorrelated may indicate that even though bold students can perform successfully in stressful situations and have high levels of sensation-seeking, those features are unrelated to the tendency to cheat in the academic context. It confirms that the “successful psychopath” [ 56 ] may be characterized by boldness but not antisocial behavior. Of all the facets of psychopathy, disinhibition was the strongest predictor of academic dishonesty, which confirms the role of impulsivity in predicting risky behavior [ 57 , 58 ], and the role of delaying gratification in refraining from academic transgressions [ 59 ].

Beyond these basic associations, we also examined the role of achievement goals as mediators for the relationships between psychopathy facets and academic dishonesty. Mastery-goal orientation mediated the relationships between two psychopathy facets and academic dishonesty. Both meanness and disinhibition led to low levels of students’ mastery-goal orientation which, in turn, contributed to cheating in the academic context. Low mastery-goal orientation might result from the fact that those who are characterized by meanness may have a propensity to be rebellious (e.g., disregard for formal responsibilities, low diligence, and sensitivity to rewards) and those who are characterized by disinhibition may have a propensity for impulsivity (e.g., inability to postpone gratification or control impulses, high behavioral activation system). Without motivation to acquire knowledge, students may cheat to achieve academic goals with no regard to the fairness (i.e., high meanness) or the consequences (i.e., high disinhibition) of their actions [ 31 – 33 ]. In the case of boldness, the result of the mediation analysis might indicate a cooperative or reciprocal suppression effect, however, it should not be trusted because the main effect path did not pass the null hypothesis threshold when the potential suppressor was included in the model. Nonetheless, it seems possible that a particular configuration of boldness and disinhibition could lead to the interactive effect of those facets on the other variables [ 26 ]. Performance-goal orientation did not mediate the relationships between psychopathy facets and academic dishonesty, probably because bold, mean, and disinhibited students are not motivated by the fear to perform worse than others [ 60 ].

Lastly, we tested if general self-efficacy acts as a moderator of these mediation models and found evidence that it moderated the indirect effect of disinhibition on academic dishonesty through mastery-goal orientation. This means that disinhibited students who have a high sense of perceived ability to control their chances for success or failure, might be able to overcome the tendency to cheat resulting from their personality (i.e., high impulsiveness), and motivational (i.e., low motivation to learn) predispositions. However, that effect was found only for women, limiting any insights that can be drawn about men. Previous research showed that an increase in general self-efficacy reduced the risk of suicide among women [ 61 ]. Moreover, Portnoy, Legee, Raine, Choy, and Rudo-Hutt [ 62 ] found that low resting heart rate was associated with more frequent academic dishonesty in female students, and that self-control and sensation-seeking mediated this relationship. Thus, along with the observed lower level of disinhibition for female students, it appears that self-regulation abilities may play a different role for men and women’s performance, and also that deficits in self-control might not lead to the same behavioral tendencies in the sexes (see [ 63 ]). However, because of the cross-sectional nature of our study and an uneven number of men and women in the sample, this needs to be investigated further.

In the present study, we aimed to combine personality and motivation variables to describe the possible process leading to academic dishonesty assessed with a behavioral measure. Because Polish students do not constitute a typical W.E.I.R.D. sample (i.e., Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), presented results can be used to generalize conclusions from research on academic dishonesty beyond typical W.E.I.R.D cultures. However, our study is not without limitations. First, the measurement of academic dishonesty was based on self-report, which, even after maximizing anonymity of the measurement, might have attenuated our results concerning the frequency of cheating. Thus, future studies should focus on measuring actual dishonest academic behavior. Second, we examined academic dishonesty as an overall frequency of committing different acts of cheating, which reflects the general propensity to cheat. It could be useful to further investigate the predictive power of described models in experiments, focused on the specific type of dishonest behavior. Third, the obtained range of academic dishonesty scores might result from sampling bias, which would require using different sampling procedure in future studies, or from non-normal distribution of academic dishonesty, which would be consistent with the results of the previous studies [ 2 – 4 ]. Fourth, we tested mediation models in a cross-sectional study with a one-time point measurement, which require cautious interpretation. Future studies could use longitudinal methods; starting at the beginning of the first year and continuing over the course of their studies to capture the influence of personality, achievement goals, and general self-efficacy on the academic dishonesty of students in a more robust manner. Despite these shortcomings, our study is the first attempt (we know of) to integrate the triarchic model of psychopathy, general self-efficacy, and achievement goals to predict academic dishonesty, showing potential for further investigation in this area.

Implications and conclusions

Preventing academic dishonesty is often made difficult by the lack of centralized and formalized university policies concerning cheating, faculty reluctance to take formal action against dishonest students, and limited attention paid to students’ personal characteristics associated with a tendency to cheat [ 64 ]. Based on the results of our study, lecturers might overcome those difficulties by: maximizing the amount of oral examinations to deal with the risk of cheating by disinhibited and mean students; enhancing students’ mastery-goal orientation, for example, by increasing use of competency-based assessment; enhancing students’ self-efficacy in academic context, for example, by providing spaced assessed tasks, and the opportunity to practice skills needed for their fulfillment. In the case of dealing with actual dishonest behavior, the fact that teachers prefer to warn students rather than fail them [ 19 ] might suggest indifference to academic integrity rules, reluctance to initiate time-consuming formal procedures against cheating, or teachers’ preference toward autonomy to deal with dishonesty. Therefore, a useful solution could be to assess which areas need to be improved for a particular student (e.g., knowledge about plagiarism, ability to delay gratification, or treating acquisition of knowledge as a value) and to allow the teacher to choose an effective way to remedy them.

In sum, we presented evidence that disinhibition and meanness are associated with the frequency of committing academic dishonesty. We described the possible underlying mechanism of those relations involving mediation effects of the mastery-goal orientation and, in the case of disinhibition, also a moderation effect of the general self-efficacy. Our research can be used by teachers to better identify factors conducive to dishonesty and to modulate their responses to fraud based on the personality and motivational predispositions of students.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank Dr Guy Curtis for his comments and suggestions on the article.

Funding Statement

Funding was provided by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange ( https://nawa.gov.pl/en/ ) to P.K.J under Grant number PPN/ULM/2019/1/00019/U/00001. This funding source had no role in the study conception, design, analysis, interpretation, or decision to submit for publication.

Data Availability

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • My Account Login
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • Open access
  • Published: 05 May 2022

Reconceptualizing academic dishonesty as a struggle for intersubjective recognition: a new theoretical model

  • Jasper Roe 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  9 , Article number:  157 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

5906 Accesses

9 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

  • Cultural and media studies

Renewed interest in academic dishonesty (AD) has occurred as a result of the changes to society and higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite a broad body of research investigating why and how students engage in intentional violations of principles of academic integrity, the causes of these behaviors remain uncertain. In order to fully address the overarching issue of why students engage in academically dishonest practices, social philosophy can be invoked. This article reviews the current research on AD in higher education, and then seeks to develop a new theoretical understanding based on Axel Honneth’s (1995) Theory of Recognition, positing that it is not a moral deficit that drives students to commit such acts, but a struggle for intersubjective recognition and a subtle form of privatized resistance. This offers a universal model for interpreting and understanding the position of the student in higher education, while offering insight into a social pathology, namely, the social pressure that requires higher education to be viewed as an instrumental rather than intrinsic value.

Introduction

Violations of academic norms and standards can be a cause of “moral panic” among those working in academia (Venera-Mihaela and Mares, 2021 ), and such acts have the potential to cause great societal damage. Students who reported committing such acts also expressed likelihood to be dishonest in other areas of life (Guerrero-Dib et al., 2020 ). Lynch et al. ( 2021 ) found that in nursing education, dishonest behaviors may continue into clinical practice, potentially causing grave consequences. There is also a widespread understanding outside of academia that such behaviors are socially intolerable. As an example, in 2021 three German ministers were pushed to leave their office as the result of plagiarism in their respective Ph.D theses (Oltermann, 2021 ).

This article describes the current state of the research base in relation to these concepts, before seeking to reinterpret the root causes of transgressions against the norms of academia through application of Honneth’s ( 1995 ) Theory of Recognition. Prior to doing so, the difference between academic integrity (AI) and academic dishonesty (AD) needs to be clarified. As the “moral code” of academia, AI is built on the dedication to values of honesty, fairness, trust, respect, and responsibility (Lynch et al., 2021 ). AD on the other hand, refers to behaviors which seek to violate the code of AI. The International Center for Academic Integrity ( 2022 ) includes plagiarism, cheating, lying, and deception under the umbrella of AD. A distinction must be made when considering cases in which students have unintentionally violated principles of AI, for example using patchwriting or misquotation. As AI is reliant on an understanding of explicit and implicit norms (Venera-Mihaela and Mares, 2021 ) many students may inadvertently violate such norms while engaged in the learning process. In this article I seek to focus not on such cases, but on intentional cases of AD, in which the student aims to deliberately violate rules in order to gain an advantage by deception, defrauding, or misleading the assessor(s).

Many of those working in higher education will have encountered AD. DiPaulo ( 2022 ) found that 80% of preservice teachers surveyed undertook AD behaviors while engaged in their course of study, including sharing information among peer groups, and 68% engaged in more formalized “cheating”. Large-scale follow up studies over ten years have found that over 60% of students have cheated in some form in their academic study (International Center for Academic Integrity, 2022 ). Some authors have reported figures as high as 95% ( N  = 1127) of students engaging in forms of cheating (Ives et al., 2017 ). In the USA, the figure of 68% was reported for students who had cheated in the past, rising to 75% when asked if they would cheat in the future (Chapman et al., 2004 ). In short, AD is firmly embedded in higher education, and although studies on AI and AD have been published since the 1940s, for example Drake ( 1941 ), the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in an increased focus on this topic. It has been reported that AI violations have increased directly due to online learning instituted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and empirical research has demonstrated that students may also believe this to be the case, with 81% of STEM students surveyed ( N  = 299) believing that online learning caused an increase in cheating (Walsh et al., 2021 ). In the mainstream media, it has been claimed that occurrences of cheating are “soaring” during the online era of the pandemic (Dey, 2021 ).

How educators and institutions are dealing with these increases in AI violations and AD varies. High-technology methods include the expanded use of new software for online proctoring and “lockdown” browsers to limit students’ access to external sources on a personal computer, and over 20 different forms of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies are now available to detect cheating, including those using advanced techniques to maintain integrity such as biometric systems of identification, multi-factor authentication, and blockchain applications (Slusky, 2020 ). Walsh et al. ( 2021 ) point out that this is not the only solution to perceived increases in AI and AD violations, as low-technology methods, such as altering summative assessments and using open-book examinations are also in use. These tools tend to focus on attacking the symptoms of AD, rather than the cause. Consequently, focus needs to be redirected away from locating and combating AD, and towards understanding the social and moral reasoning that underpins these behaviors. Following this, I will analyze the current understanding of AD, and then seek to reinterpret AD through the moral philosophy and social Theory of Recognition developed by Axel Honneth ( 1995 ).

Why students commit AD: current theories and understanding

In the context of COVID-19, Walsh et al. ( 2021 ) found that students surveyed attributed a perceived increase in AD behaviors to four social and psychological theories: Game Theory, Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development, Neutralization Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991 ). Each of these theories posits a philosophy that explains why the student commits AD, for example through playing a “game” of cat and mouse between student and teacher (Game Theory), developing a stronger set of moral beliefs over time (Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development), rationalization of the violations (Neutralization Theory), and the combination of the intention to commit AD combined with a perceived opportunity (TPB) (Walsh et al., 2021 )

The theories above may then explain some factors or motivations for engaging in AD, but do not tell the entire story. Taking TPB as an example, this theory may explain why cheating occurs when it occurs (for example, when the opportunity arises coupled with the intention), but does not explain how the positive attitude towards AD was formed initially. To this end, research has aimed to identify relationships between certain factors and the likelihood of committing AD. These can be described as belonging to four overarching categories: attitudes, traits, language and culture, and student experience.

Category 1: attitudes towards AD among students, peers, and instructors

One of the most clearly established factors which predict AD is the student’s attitude towards cheating in general (which under TPB, may form part of the “intention” to cheat). A large body of research supports this point (Eriksson and McGee, 2015 ; Ives et al., 2017 ; Hendy and Montargot, 2019 ; Peled et al., 2019 ; Zhang et al., 2021 ; DiPaulo, 2022 ). Whitley et al. ( 1999 ) equally found through a review of 107 studies that viewing cheating positively was a causative factor for AD, along with expectations of the outcome of cheating, prior history of cheating, and perceived rewards. More recently Zhang et al. ( 2018 ) studied 2009 students across eastern China, finding that those who viewed AD as less serious or unimportant were more likely to engage in it.

Teachers’ and peers’ personal attitudes towards AD have also been shown to have an effect on the likelihood of engaging in acts of AD (McCabe et al., 2001 , 2012 ; Maloshonok and Shmeleva, 2019 ). McCabe et al. ( 2001 ) found that when AD behaviors are tolerated by instructors, cheating can increase, and Anderman et al. ( 2009 ) and Yu et al. ( 2018 ) equally found that the students’ opinion of the teacher, and the teacher’s view of AD inversely correlated with its occurrence, while Robinson-Zanartu et al. ( 2005 ) surveyed 270 faculty members, finding that how severely the faculty viewed the violation strongly influenced the severity of the consequences they would seek to impose on the violator.

The effect of peer influence is also clearly established as a causative factor, and as a result AD is more likely to increase when students perceive that others are acting similarly (McCabe, 2016 ). This finding is also important in demonstrating a principle of social solidarity among peers. For example, in a survey assessing student behavior at a small liberal arts university, Papp and Wertz ( 2009 ) found that over 75% of students would not report a witnessed occurrence of cheating, and over 80% would not report a friend.

Category 2: personality traits, gender, and age

Other factors have equally been attributed to the likelihood of engaging in AD. Students who are highly achieving may be less likely to commit acts of AD (McCabe and Trevino, 1997 ; McCabe and Pavela, 2004 ; McCabe et al., 2012 ). How students view themselves (Ng, 2020 ) plays a role, as does students’ self-efficacy (Marsden et al., 2005 ). Students who are excitement-seeking may engage in AD more often (de Bruin and Rudnick, 2007 ) and students who demonstrate personality traits of deviance and low self-restraint may similarly be more inclined to cheat (Jensen and Jetten, 2018 ).

Some studies have focused on gender and age (McCabe and Trevino, 1997 ). Males have been more commonly identified as likely to engage in AD. Szabo and Underwood ( 2004 ) found that 68% of males cheated in assessments compared to just 39% of females, and those in their third year of study were less inclined to cheat in assessment than those in their second or initial year, while (Yang, 2012 ) found that female graduate students were more likely to hold critical views of AD than males, and that doctoral students were less likely to commit AD than master’s students. However, this is by no means certain, as other studies, for example Ives et al. ( 2017 ) found no association between academic achievement, field of study, or year of study.

Finally, the relationship between the learning space and the student may play a role in causes of AD, particularly as technology disrupts the traditional classroom experience (Venera-Mihaela and Mares, 2021 ). In terms of the impact of COVID-19, although the move to online learning has resulted in perceived increases in AD among students (Walsh et al., 2021 ). In sum, there is little clear evidence of a definite pattern concerning these variables.

Category 3: international students: language, culture, or none of the above?

Another area that has commanded attention in the literature is that of international students and students who speak English as a foreign or second language, along with the cultural background of these groups, presented here as two closely related subjects. Language proficiency has been implicated in AD and correlations have been identified between ability, training, and occurrences of AD (Bretag, 2007 ; Perkins et al., 2018 ; 2020 ), although further research is needed in this area. Bertram Gallant et al. ( 2014 ) posit that in regards to AD, the international student population may display greater vulnerability due to a lack of knowledge on behavioral standards in Western universities, or may not have the same fear of consequences, whereas Hendy et al. ( 2021 ) found that the wide variance between AD behaviors among French students, U.S. students and Greek students could be explained by cultural differences, and McCabe et al. ( 2008 ) found that Lebanese university students are influenced by collectivist societal norms in comparison the individual-centric society in the USA. International students or students from non-North American cultural backgrounds may also demonstrate a higher rate of AD (Park, 2003 ). Among doctoral students Cutri et al. ( 2021 ) identify that both feelings of inadequacy (“imposter syndrome”) and cultural differences explain the causes of AD. As with other affecting factors, the research is conflicting. Marshall et al. ( 2022 ) for example found that among Vietnamese students studying abroad and local PG students in New Zealand, both groups held significant understanding of plagiarism and held negative attitudes towards plagiarism, suggesting that culture is not an acceptable explanation for plagiarism behaviors and results in a simplistic approach and potential bias. Equally scholars such as Phan ( 2004 ) have posited that such cultural notions for how students behave in university are often based on inaccurate stereotypes. In such a case “culture” as a category can be seen as misrecognition itself, categorizing the individual and explaining complex behaviors in a simplistic manner.

Category 4: stress and the student experience

A wide range of research describing the causes and variables predicting student engagement in AD is available, but with no single thread of agreement and little large-scale replication of results. There is however, a more universal factor posited for engagement in AD, and it is in this factor that I ground the use of the Theory of Recognition. This is the pressures, stresses, and struggles of participating in higher education, and the societal pressure to complete education as quickly as possible, with as high a mark as possible. It is well established that participating in higher education can be a challenging experience. Tindall et al. ( 2021 ) point out that HE students demonstrate above-average levels of mental illness and nervous disorders as evidence of this. The authors identify that this may link to the likelihood of cheating or other academically dishonest acts, as “negative emotionality” in this sense may drive AD (Tindall et al., 2021 ). Other research has similarly found a link between mental health and likelihood to engage in AD, with a focus on the pressurized, high-stress student experience as a causative factor (Devlin and Gray, 2007 ). In the media this is also commonly recognized. Lodhia ( 2018 ) writes in The Guardian that today’s HE students must focus on obtaining a qualification and their subsequent recognition in the labor market, rather than focusing on their education. This is fundamentally the driving force in which recognition theory can be applied in understanding the motivation for AD. This interpretation could also help to explain why there is a perceived increase in AD among international students, as it has also been argued that cases among this group could stem from dealing with a broader range of issues resulting from cultural adjustment, living abroad, and other social and financial issues, which lead to “out of character” decision making as a result of emotional distress (Lynch et al., 2021 ).

In summarizing the research based so far, there are no firm answers as to why students commit AD, although some factors may point to circumstances in which the opportunity for AD is more likely to be taken. I argue in the following section that all of the factors discussed, and the theories posited, may be contributory—but that the overarching cause of AD behaviors is driven by the stressors placed on students to view education as instrumental in achieving recognition, and that this emphasis on completion of HE study at the fastest rate possible, with the highest grades possible, is itself a social pathology, as it fits Honneth’s ( 2014 ) definition, as a social development, which “significantly impairs the ability to take part rationally in important forms of social cooperation”—in this case, formal education.

Recognition theory and education

The Theory of Recognition described in Honneth’s ( 1995 ) work focuses on the role of recognition and disrespect as aspects of common moral experience between individuals. Honneth ( 1995 ) postulates that to attain freedom, humans must develop stable self-relation by achieving intersubjective recognition. If the individual is unable to achieve such recognition despite it being deserved, the result is that of suffering disrespect, which can impact upon and even lead to the destruction of the self. Further to this, recognition is not given freely; subjects must participate in a struggle, which can take various forms, ranging from verbal discussion all the way to entering into violent conflict, or fighting in a war (Huttunen and Murphy, 2012 ). In the context of academia, students may struggle for recognition through the achievement of grades, through discussion, criticism, or even through subtle movements and motions; a nod of agreement or look of disdain can similarly function as an action, which defines an attempt to gain intersubjective recognition or protest against disrespect.

To date, despite its importance and application in sociology and philosophy, recognition theory has received limited attention in education. Sandberg ( 2016 ) envisioned adult learners re-entering the workforce through adult education as engaged in a struggle for recognition, stuck between the isolation and disconnection from society that results from being excluded from the workforce, and the struggle of engaging in further learning to rejoin and experience stability and participation in the labor market. Sandberg and Kubiak ( 2013 ) also argue that in higher education, Honneth’s theory can be used to develop transformative learning, through the identification that teachers must develop respect for themselves primarily, as this is a condition of the ability to recognize rights in others, in order to imbue self-confidence in students. The results of this, it is argued, would produce democracy in classrooms and then in society as a result (Sandberg and Kubiak, 2013 ).

There are three areas of self-relation that must be developed under this theory in order to achieve positive self-relation, including self-confidence, self-respect, and self-esteem, and these are developed at three different sites of struggle for recognition (Huttunen and Murphy, 2012 ). Self-confidence develops through the individual’s primary relationships. Self-respect is found in the acknowledgement of a person as having legal rights. Self-esteem on the other hand, is gained from understanding that work or actions are acknowledged, and this is the highest form of recognition (Huttunen and Murphy, 2012 ). In relation to higher education, the recognition of passing an assessment, gaining a degree, or succeeding in an element of study can provide this form of intersubjective recognition in the domain of self-esteem, in the form of approval from peers, instructors, or parents, mentors and guardians. An acknowledgement from a teacher that an examination is unfair, or the remediation of an unjust punishment can equally function in this manner.

The struggle for recognition can also be a struggle against ideologies that are present in education and society at large. Honneth ( 2014 ) states that education is a process of internalizing norms, including of the performance-orientation required in the labor market. One example of an ideology that supports this is the merit principle (Herzog, 2016 ), which leads to the subordination of enjoyment of learning to the obtaining of as high a “score” as possible in assessment and outcome. Lodhia ( 2018 ) equally identifies this ideology as leading to greater numbers of students engaging in AD, as results must be prioritized over the engagement and enjoyment of learning. Students who feel that this ideology is unjust, whether consciously or unconsciously, may then feel jaded at the imposition of this ideology by society-at-large and may suffer from disrespect (Herzog, 2016 ), or suffer from great psychological stress, which forces the actions of AD. In this sense, AD can be viewed as part of a social process described by Honneth ( 2014 ), in which a social group (students) develop moral doubts about an aspect or element of the social order—in this case comprising assessment, the institution, the program, the teacher, or instrumental ideology of education, i.e., the merit principle ideology. The committing of transgressions against established norms of academic integrity can then be viewed as a struggle against this - with the result of such behaviors being “for the right reasons” but in a way that unintentionally causes the potential for social harm.

Understanding academic dishonesty as a struggle for recognition

Recognition theory can help us to understand why it is that students know that AD carries severe consequences yet continue to engage in it. In relating this to a struggle for recognition, the argument is summarized by Daniel et al. ( 1994 ) who state that the role of education is to help students to self-actualize, and if that goal is impeded, then cheating or engaging in AD is the only way in which they can continue. This is especially relevant to the tendency to “privatize discontent” (Honneth, 2014 , p. 248) in modern society, and explains why such actions are completed privately rather than in mass organized groups or through raising verbal discussions; this may also explain why when students perceive that their peers are also engaging in AD, they will be more inclined to join in (McCabe, 2016 ). Petrovskaya et al. ( 2011 ) highlight through an internal critique of nursing education that the ideals of academic life include thinking in a free, creative, and critical manner, yet these values do not correlate to some institutionalized practices of academia, which are influenced by the research industry and instrumental reason. This suggests that it is the reification of academia, which results in struggles for recognition including, under this approach, acts of academic dishonesty.

Students who engage in higher education seek the “good life” (Sandberg and Kubiak, 2013 ) by hoping to gain future employment, achieve personal growth, or to please others. The “good life” then, may entail personal or financial success, or in the case of students who are encouraged or pressured into higher education as a result of societal or familial norms it may entail freedom from such pressure on completion. To gain the recognition of completion of higher education requires success in formal assessment. Students are required to view their study as instrumental in obtaining the “good life” and passing their assessments quickly and effectively becomes part of this struggle for recognition. Those who do well may receive praise from peer group members, family members, or teaching faculty in the case of unblinded assessment, thus leading to higher recognition in the dimension of esteem. On the other hand, the consequences of failure to achieve the required standard may lead to the opposite.

This may be why students understand the risk yet still commit AD. In order to achieve their goals, to attain “the good life” (Sandberg and Kubiak, 2013 ) and to get past the impediments to their self-actualization (Daniel et al., 1994 ) they must achieve recognition of their successful participation in assessment by any means, with as high a grade as possible, and as quickly as possible, following the pattern Honneth ( 2014 ) defines as internalization of norms of performance orientation. If students have doubts in their ability and lack the positive self-relation to confidently attempt an assessment by themselves, are critical of the ideology of the assessment, or are convinced of their inability to pass, then they are faced with two choices: risk the suffering of disrespect if caught engaging in AD or risk the suffering of disrespect by failing the assessment. It is also possible to view more banal motivations such as finding the subject uninteresting or not related to the student’s self-identity (Venera-Mihaela and Mares, 2021 ) as part of a struggle for recognition. To this end, it is required to reframe the students’ motivations and path to the future good life. If the subject is uninteresting or not related to what the student defines as essential for themselves, then AD is a subtle act of resistance.

To further explain why students may choose to risk the suffering of disrespect from being caught engaging in AD, versus failing an assessment, neutralization theory may play a role. In this sense, it is less threatening to self-relation to engage in rationalization of the cheating behavior, by for example blaming another party (the instructor makes the assessments too difficult) or referring to a different system of values (the assessment is not important, I do not care about it) (Walsh et al., 2021 ). This is comparatively less consequential for self-relation compared to the risk of gaining a failing grade despite trying to succeed. One additional aspect of this understanding of AD is that it results in a circular social pathology, as the act of committing AD itself entails disrespect. By deceiving the individual responsible for marking an assessment with a false promise of authenticity, the marker is disrespected. By disadvantaging others who do engage authentically in assessment, the other assessment-takers are disrespected. Committing an act of AD then is a final attempt to save the self by disrespecting others. To demonstrate the relation between AD and recognition further, the dimensions of the theory can be mapped to components of AD. Table 1 demonstrates the domains of the Theory of Disrespect, while Table 2 develops this to account for acts of AD.

In relation to Table 1 , the applicable mode of recognition regarding AD is social esteem. In this case, in higher education, we require recognition of our traits and abilities through assessment in order to develop positive self-relation, which is magnified by our overall completion of a program (such as a degree), while enabling us to achieve a version of “the good life” (for example, a stable career). If we are unable to do so, or we risk losing this possibility, then AD may become a reaction to this potential suffering of misrecognition (disrespect). The application of this dimension is demonstrated in Table 2 .

Through this application, a new understanding of intentional academic dishonesty can be formulated. A broader picture can be used to understand that when students engage in AD behaviors; it is not necessarily due to a single factor, an aspect of the individual’s personality, or their gender, field of study, age, or another characteristic. Rather, the universal and basic patterns of recognition that form social life drive students to find ways to achieve the recognition that is needed for positive relation-to-self. The social esteem mode of recognition is particularly applicable; the approval or recognition of the assessor, lecturer, community-of-practice, professional organization, and institution may hinge on the outcome of an assessment or set of assessments. Faced with this struggle, students who do not believe they are capable of achieving this themselves will seek AD behaviors to maintain a chance at recognition, rationalizing this choice if necessary. In other cases, students will seek to rebel against ideologies of assessment as a form of privatized resistance. Sandberg ( 2016 ) identifies that if a group suffers from disrespect or misrecognition, they will strive to regain it. It is in this way that we can reconceptualize AD as the struggle for recognition in the mode of self-esteem. Finally, it can be seen that certain forms of ideology in global society, for instance those based on the merit principle (Herzog, 2016 ) and internalization of performance orientation at all costs (Honneth, 2014 ) are social pathologies, in that they contribute to the instrumentality of education in society.

Implications for teaching, learning, and assessment

This paper has aimed to apply Honneth’s theory of recognition to the practice of AD among students in higher education, through the identification that the self-esteem mode of recognition is at the core of the struggle to succeed in HE to gain recognition and realize a vision of the good life (Sandberg and Kubiak, 2013 ). The stressors of being a student and the societal pressure of completing education as instrumental in achieving the good life, along with the reification of aspects of academia, are then the factors that force the student’s hand in committing AD, and such acts may also have been seen as a form of privatized resistance against perceived issues in a program of study. Current theories are not sufficient to fully explain why this happens, and research on individual and personal variables is conflicting. If AD is reexamined as the struggle for recognition, then there is a firm footing for understanding this phenomenon universally. Furthermore, following this interpretation there is no need for the “moral panic” noted among some faculty in academia (Venera-Mihaela and Mares, 2021 ). In fact, students may be behaving consciously or unconsciously in a rational manner to instinctively protect their self-relation and avoid the destruction of identity, and it is not the case that failing to follow principles of academic integrity is a correlate of a “moral deficit” (Venera-Mihaela and Mares, 2021 ), despite the fact that engaging in such acts entails an act of disrespect to others in itself. Under this interpretation, the causes of AD point to issues within the world of academia, including the reification of academia, the pressures of the student experience, and the stressors of higher education as a struggle for societal recognition. Armed with this understanding, faculty and institutions can do more to understand students’ motivations and work towards corrective action.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderman EM, Cupp PK, Lane D (2009) Impulsivity and academic cheating. J Exp Ed 78:135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903224636

Bertram Gallant T, Van Den Einde L, Ouellette S, Lee S (2014) A Systemic analysis of cheating in an undergraduate engineering mechanics course. Sci Eng Ethics 20:277–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9435-6

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bretag T (2007) The emperor’s new clothes: Yes, there is a link between English language competence and academic standards. People Place 15:13–21

Google Scholar  

Chapman KJ, Davis R, Toy D, Wright L (2004) Academic Integrity in the business school environment: i’ll get by with a little help from my friends. J Mar Ed 26:236–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475304268779

Cutri J, Abraham A, Karlina Y et al. (2021) Academic integrity at doctoral level: the influence of the imposter phenomenon and cultural differences on academic writing. Int J Educ Integr 17:8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00074-w

Daniel LG, Adams BN, Smith NM (1994) Academic misconduct among nursing students: a multivariate investigation. J Prof Nurs 10:278–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/8755-7223(94)90053-1

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

de Bruin GP, Rudnick H (2007) Examining the cheats: the role of conscientiousness and excitement seeking in academic dishonesty. South Afr J Psychol 37:153–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630703700111

Devlin M, Gray K (2007) In their own words: a qualitative study of the reasons Australian university students plagiarize. High Educ Res Dev 26:181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310805

Dey S (2021) Reports of cheating at colleges soar during the pandemic. NPR

DiPaulo D (2022) Do preservice teachers cheat in college, too? A quantitative study of academic integrity among preservice teachers. Int J Educ Integr 18:. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00097-3

Drake CA (1941) Why students cheat. J High Educ 12:418–420. https://doi.org/10.2307/1976003

Eriksson L, McGee TR (2015) Academic dishonesty amongst Australian criminal justice and policing university students: individual and contextual factors. Int J Educ Integr 11:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-015-0005-3

Guerrero-Dib JG, Portales L, Heredia-Escorza Y (2020) Impact of academic integrity on workplace ethical behaviour. Int J Educ Integr 16:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-0051-3

Hendy NT, Montargot N (2019) Understanding academic dishonesty among business school students in France using the theory of planned behavior. Int J Man Edu 17:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.12.003

Hendy NT, Montargot N, Papadimitriou A (2021) Cultural differences in academic dishonesty: a social learning perspective. J Acad Ethics 19:49–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09391-8

Herzog B (2016) Discourse analysis as social critique. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London

Herzog B (2020) Invisibilization of suffering: the moral grammar of disrespect. Springer International Publishing, Cham

Honneth A (1995) The struggle for recognition: the moral grammar of social conflicts. Polity

Honneth A (2014) Freedom’s right: the social foundations of democratic life. Columbia University Press

Huttunen R, Murphy M (2012) Discourse and recognition as normative grounds for radical pedagogy: Habermasian and Honnethian ethics in the context of education. Stud Philos Educ 31:137–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-012-9285-8

Ives B, Alama M, Mosora LC et al. (2017) Patterns and predictors of academic dishonesty in Romanian university students. High Educ 74:815–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0079-8

Jensen DH, Jetten J (2018) Exploring interpersonal recognition as a facilitator of students’ academic and professional identity formation in higher education. Eur J High Educ 8:168–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2017.1374195

Lodhia D (2018) More university students are cheating-but it’s not because they’re lazy. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/01/university-students-cheating-tuition-fees-jobs-exams . Accessed 12 Dec 2021

Lynch J, Salamonson Y, Glew P, Ramjan LM (2021) “I’m not an investigator and I’m not a police officer”-a faculty’s view on academic integrity in an undergraduate nursing degree. Int J Educ Integr 17:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00086-6

Maloshonok N, Shmeleva E (2019) Factors influencing academic dishonesty among undergraduate students at russian universities. J Acad Ethics 17:313–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-9324-y

Marsden H, Carroll M, Neill JT (2005) Who cheats at university? A self-report study of dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Aus J Psych 57:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530412331283426

Marshall S, Hogg L, Tran MN (2022) Understanding postgraduate students? perceptions of plagiarism: a case study of Vietnamese and local students in New Zealand. Int J Educ Integr 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00098-2

McCabe DL, Butterfield KD, Treviño LK (2012) Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. The Johns Hopkins University Press

McCabe DL, Feghali T, Abdallah H (2008) Academic dishonesty in the middle east: individual and contextual factors. Res High Educ 49:451–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9092-9

McCabe DL, Pavela G (2004) Ten (updated) principles of academic integrity: how faculty can foster student honesty. Change: Magaz High Learn 36:10–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380409605574

McCabe DL, Trevino LK (1997) Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: a multicampus investigation. Res Hi Ed 38:379–396. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024954224675

McCabe DL, Trevino LK, Butterfield KD (2001) Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of research. Ethics Behav 11:219–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_2

McCabe J (2016) Friends with academic benefits. Contexts 15:22–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504216662237

Ng CKC (2020) Evaluation of academic integrity of online open book assessments implemented in an undergraduate medical radiation science course during COVID-19 pandemic. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 51:610–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2020.09.009

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Oltermann, ICAI, Papp and Wertz: Oltermann P (2021) German politicians suffer higher degree of embarrassment from plagiarism than from sex scandals. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/22/german-politicians-suffer-higher-degree-of-embarrassment-from-plagiarism-than-from-sex-scandals . Accessed 13 Dec 2021

Papp R, Wertz M (2009) To pass at any cost: addressing academic integrity violations. J Acad Business Ethics 2:1–11

Park C (2003) In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students–literature and lessons. Asses Eval High Educ 28:471–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301677

Peled Y, Eshet Y, Barczyk C, Grinautski K (2019) Predictors of academic dishonesty among undergraduate students in online and face-to-face courses. Comput Educ 131:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.012

Perkins M, Gezgin UB, Roe J (2018) Understanding the relationship between language ability and plagiarism in non-native english speaking business students. J Acad Ethics 16:317–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9311-8

Perkins M, Gezgin UB, Roe J (2020) Reducing plagiarism through academic misconduct education. Int J Educ Integ 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00052-8

Petrovskaya O, McDonald C, McIntyre M (2011) Dialectic of the university: a critique of instrumental reason in graduate nursing education. Nursing Philosophy 12:239–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2010.00479.x

Phan L-H (2004) University classrooms in Vietnam: contesting the stereotypes. ELT J 58:50–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.1.50

Robinson-Zanartu C, Pena ED, Cook-Morales V et al. (2005) Academic crime and punishment: faculty members’ perceptions of and responses to plagiarism. School Psych Quart 20:318–337. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.2005.20.3.318

Sandberg F (2016) Recognition and adult education: an incongruent opportunity. Stud Contin Educ 38:265–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2016.1160881

Sandberg F, Kubiak C (2013) Recognition of prior learning, self-realisation and identity within Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition. Stud Contin Educ 35:351–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2013.768230

Slusky L (2020) Cybersecurity of online proctoring systems. J Int Tech Inf Man 29:56–83

Szabo A, Underwood J (2004) Cybercheats: is information and communication technology fuelling academic dishonesty? Act Learn High Educ 5:180–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787404043815

The International Center for Academic Integrity (2022) Core Values. https://academicintegrity.org/resources/fundamental-values . Accessed 1 Jan 2022

Tindall IK, Fu KW, Tremayne K, Curtis GJ (2021) Can negative emotions increase students’ plagiarism and cheating? Int J Educ Integr 17:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00093-7

Venera-Mihaela C, Mares G (2021) Academic integrity in the technology-driven education era. In: Mata L (ed.). Ethical use of information technology in higher education. Springer, Singapore. pp.1–16

Walsh LL, Lichti DA, Zambrano-Varghese CM et al. (2021) Why and how science students in the United States think their peers cheat more frequently online: perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Educ Integr 17:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00089-3

Whitley BE, Nelson AB, Jones CJ (1999) Gender differences in cheating attitudes and classroom cheating behavior: a meta-analysis. Sex Roles 41:657–680. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018863909149

Yang SC (2012) Attitudes and behaviors related to academic dishonesty: a survey of taiwanese graduate students. Ethics Behav 22:218–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2012.672904

Yu H, Glanzer P, Johnson B et al. (2018) Why college students cheat: a conceptual model of five factors. Rev Hi Educ 41:549–576. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0025

Zhang C, Yan X, Wang J (2021) EFL teachers’ online assessment practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: changes and mediating factors. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 30:499–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00589-3

Zhang Y, Yin H, Zheng L (2018) Investigating academic dishonesty among Chinese undergraduate students: does gender matter? Asses Eval High Educ 43:812–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1411467

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jasper Roe .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article was undertaken according to all relevant guidelines and regulations.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Roe, J. Reconceptualizing academic dishonesty as a struggle for intersubjective recognition: a new theoretical model. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9 , 157 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01182-9

Download citation

Received : 15 February 2022

Accepted : 25 April 2022

Published : 05 May 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01182-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Welcome to the university of life, can i take your order investigating life experience degree offerings in diploma mills.

  • Mike Perkins

International Journal for Educational Integrity (2023)

Academic Dishonesty Within Higher Education in Nepal: An Examination of Students’ Exam Cheating

  • Som Nath Ghimire
  • Upaj Bhattarai
  • Raj K. Baral

Journal of Academic Ethics (2023)

Detection of GPT-4 Generated Text in Higher Education: Combining Academic Judgement and Software to Identify Generative AI Tool Misuse

  • Don Hickerson

Does statistics anxiety impact academic dishonesty? Academic challenges in the age of distance learning

  • Yovav Eshet
  • Pnina Steinberger
  • Keren Grinautsky

International Journal for Educational Integrity (2022)

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

academic dishonesty cause and effect essay

Northern Illinois University Academic Integrity Tutorials

  • Make a Gift
  • MyScholarships
  • Huskie Link
  • Anywhere Apps
  • Huskies Get Hired
  • Student Email
  • Password Self-Service
  • Quick Links
  • Academic Integrity Tutorials
  • Student Tutorial

Causes of Academic Dishonesty

academic dishonesty cause and effect essay

Literature on academic dishonesty cites a number of factors that contribute to dishonest academic practices (Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2002). Contributing factors include:

Peer pressure

Performance anxiety, excuse making.

  • Inability to manage the demands of student life

Situations that encourage academic dishonesty

Self-justification habits, unfamiliarity with what constitutes academic dishonesty.

  • Lack of understanding about consequences

Check Your Understanding

What is one common cause for academic dishonesty?

Reveal Answer

A lack of familiarity with what constitutes academic dishonesty is one common cause.

Students can pressure other students to commit acts of academic dishonesty in many ways: pressuring others to work together or split assignments when course policies prohibit collaboration, seeing other students cheat and then joining them, engaging in academic dishonesty as a group and helping friends on assignments or exams when the professor has prohibited collaboration.

Anxiety about academic performance can cause some students to cheat in academic activities. Students may cheat to avoid failing a course or receiving a bad grade. Some students may use cheating as a way to cope with poor test-taking skills.

Some students blame their professors for their cheating, complaining that the professors expect too much or are too difficult to understand. Students also may use the excuse that the exams were unfair or a course was not in their major. Occasionally, students reason that other students are cheating, so they have no alternative but to cheat as well.

Inability to manage demands of student life

One of the most common reasons for academic dishonesty is students' inability to manage the pressures of their social and academic lives. Students who cannot plan and manage their workload and other activities and are usually behind in meeting their deadlines and can at times resort to cheating or plagiarism as an easy solution.

When course policies do not spell out clearly what students can and cannot do, or when an instructor is not careful in enforcing academic integrity standards, some students may use the situation to commit acts of academic dishonesty. If the penalties for violating academic integrity standards are minimal, some students may consider cheating to be worth the risk of being caught.

Some students engage in self-talk in order to justify their actions to themselves, even though those actions may not be appropriate. For example, they justify cheating by telling themselves that they were cheating:

  • Only in one academic activity
  • Because they were sick and couldn't catch up
  • "This particular assignment is not very important"
  • "I do not need this particular course for graduation, so it's okay"
  • "No one will get hurt by this"
  • "I had to help a friend in need"
  • "The instructor doesn't really care"
  • "Everyone cheats in this class"

When a course policy is not clear, what can I do to ensure my academic integrity?

Request from the instructor clarification on that course policy.

Some students genuinely may not know what constitutes cheating or plagiarism and may not ask the course instructor for clarification. Some instructors may assume students understand the guidelines already. As a result, students can unintentionally commit acts of academic dishonesty. Further, uncertainty about technological issues and, particularly, international students' unfamiliarity with American standards of academic integrity, can also lead to problems involving questions of academic integrity.

It is also important to mention that many students resist committing acts of academic dishonesty for a variety of reasons. These reasons include the recognition of the fact that it is wrong, desire to earn their grades, genuine interest in learning, concern about how they would feel in the long run if they cheat, fear of getting caught and the associated embarrassment and penalties, respect for course instructor and classmates, ability to manage their workload well, and religious beliefs.

Academic dishonesty can not be justified under any circumstances. A damaged academic reputation may take many years of ethical behavior to repair.

Take Quiz 2

  • Definition and Types
  • Consequences
  • Cheating, Falsification, Fabrication and Sabotage
  • Protecting Yourself

Creative Commons License

Frequently asked questions

What are the consequences of academic dishonesty.

Consequences of academic dishonesty depend on the severity of the offense and your institution’s policy. They can range from a warning for a first offense to a failing grade in a course to expulsion from your university.

For those in certain fields, such as nursing, engineering, or lab sciences, not learning fundamentals properly can directly impact the health and safety of others. For those working in academia or research, academic dishonesty impacts your professional reputation, leading others to doubt your future work.

Frequently asked questions: Plagiarism

Academic integrity means being honest, ethical, and thorough in your academic work. To maintain academic integrity, you should avoid misleading your readers about any part of your research and refrain from offenses like plagiarism and contract cheating, which are examples of academic misconduct.

Plagiarism is a form of theft, since it involves taking the words and ideas of others and passing them off as your own. As such, it’s academically dishonest and can have serious consequences .

Plagiarism also hinders the learning process, obscuring the sources of your ideas and usually resulting in bad writing. Even if you could get away with it, plagiarism harms your own learning.

Most online plagiarism checkers only have access to public databases, whose software doesn’t allow you to compare two documents for plagiarism.

However, in addition to our Plagiarism Checker , Scribbr also offers an Self-Plagiarism Checker . This is an add-on tool that lets you compare your paper with unpublished or private documents. This way you can rest assured that you haven’t unintentionally plagiarized or self-plagiarized .

Compare two sources for plagiarism

Rapport begrijpen OSC

Most institutions have an internal database of previously submitted student papers. Turnitin can check for self-plagiarism by comparing your paper against this database. If you’ve reused parts of an assignment you already submitted, it will flag any similarities as potential plagiarism.

Online plagiarism checkers don’t have access to your institution’s database, so they can’t detect self-plagiarism of unpublished work. If you’re worried about accidentally self-plagiarizing, you can use Scribbr’s Self-Plagiarism Checker to upload your unpublished documents and check them for similarities.

Yes, reusing your own work without acknowledgment is considered self-plagiarism . This can range from re-submitting an entire assignment to reusing passages or data from something you’ve turned in previously without citing them.

Self-plagiarism often has the same consequences as other types of plagiarism . If you want to reuse content you wrote in the past, make sure to check your university’s policy or consult your professor.

If you are reusing content or data you used in a previous assignment, make sure to cite yourself. You can cite yourself just as you would cite any other source: simply follow the directions for that source type in the citation style you are using.

Keep in mind that reusing your previous work can be considered self-plagiarism , so make sure you ask your professor or consult your university’s handbook before doing so.

Common knowledge does not need to be cited. However, you should be extra careful when deciding what counts as common knowledge.

Common knowledge encompasses information that the average educated reader would accept as true without needing the extra validation of a source or citation.

Common knowledge should be widely known, undisputed and easily verified. When in doubt, always cite your sources.

Plagiarism has serious consequences , and can indeed be illegal in certain scenarios.

While most of the time plagiarism in an undergraduate setting is not illegal, plagiarism or self-plagiarism in a professional academic setting can lead to legal action, including copyright infringement and fraud. Many scholarly journals do not allow you to submit the same work to more than one journal, and if you do not credit a co-author, you could be legally defrauding them.

Even if you aren’t breaking the law, plagiarism can seriously impact your academic career. While the exact consequences of plagiarism vary by institution and severity, common consequences include: a lower grade, automatically failing a course, academic suspension or probation, or even expulsion.

Accidental plagiarism is one of the most common examples of plagiarism . Perhaps you forgot to cite a source, or paraphrased something a bit too closely. Maybe you can’t remember where you got an idea from, and aren’t totally sure if it’s original or not.

These all count as plagiarism, even though you didn’t do it on purpose. When in doubt, make sure you’re citing your sources . Also consider running your work through a plagiarism checker tool prior to submission, which work by using advanced database software to scan for matches between your text and existing texts.

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker takes less than 10 minutes and can help you turn in your paper with confidence.

Self-plagiarism means recycling work that you’ve previously published or submitted as an assignment. It’s considered academic dishonesty to present something as brand new when you’ve already gotten credit and perhaps feedback for it in the past.

If you want to refer to ideas or data from previous work, be sure to cite yourself.

If you’re concerned that you may have self-plagiarized, Scribbr’s Self-Plagiarism Checker can help you turn in your paper with confidence. It compares your work to unpublished or private documents that you upload, so you can rest assured that you haven’t unintentionally plagiarized.

Incremental plagiarism means inserting quotes, passages, or excerpts from other works into your assignment without properly citing the original source.

Even if the vast majority of the text is yours, including any content that isn’t without citing it is plagiarism.

Consider using a plagiarism checker yourself before submitting your work. Plagiarism checkers work by scanning your document, comparing it to a database of webpages and publications, and highlighting passages that appear similar to other texts.

Patchwork plagiarism (aka mosaic plagiarism) means copying phrases, passages, or ideas from various existing sources and combining them to create a new text. While this type of plagiarism is more insidious than simply copy-pasting directly from a source, plagiarism checkers like Turnitin’s can still easily detect it.

To avoid plagiarism in any form, remember to cite your sources . Also consider running your work through a plagiarism checker tool prior to submission, which work by using advanced database software to scan for matches between your text and existing texts.

Verbatim plagiarism means copying text from a source and pasting it directly into your own document without giving proper credit.

Even if you delete a few words or replace them with synonyms, it still counts as verbatim plagiarism.

To use an author’s exact words, quote the original source by putting the copied text in quotation marks and including an in-text citation .

If you’re worried abotu plagiarism, consider running your work through a plagiarism checker tool prior to submission, which work by using advanced database software to scan for matches between your text and existing texts.

Global plagiarism means taking an entire work written by someone else and passing it off as your own. This can mean getting someone else to write an essay or assignment for you, or submitting a text you found online as your own work.

Global plagiarism is the most serious type of plagiarism because it involves deliberately and directly lying about the authorship of a work. It can have severe consequences .

To ensure you aren’t accidentally plagiarizing, consider running your work through plagiarism checker tool prior to submission. These tools work by using advanced database software to scan for matches between your text and existing texts.

Plagiarism can be detected by your professor or readers if the tone, formatting, or style of your text is different in different parts of your paper, or if they’re familiar with the plagiarized source.

Many universities also use plagiarism detection software like Turnitin’s, which compares your text to a large database of other sources, flagging any similarities that come up.

It can be easier than you think to commit plagiarism by accident. Consider using a plagiarism checker prior to submitting your paper to ensure you haven’t missed any citations.

Some examples of plagiarism include:

  • Copying and pasting a Wikipedia article into the body of an assignment
  • Quoting a source without including a citation
  • Not paraphrasing a source properly, such as maintaining wording too close to the original
  • Forgetting to cite the source of an idea

The most surefire way to avoid plagiarism is to always cite your sources . When in doubt, cite!

If you’re concerned about plagiarism, consider running your work through a plagiarism checker tool prior to submission. Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker takes less than 10 minutes and can help you turn in your paper with confidence.

Plagiarism means presenting someone else’s work as your own without giving proper credit to the original author. In academic writing, plagiarism involves using words, ideas, or information from a source without including a citation .

Plagiarism can have serious consequences , even when it’s done accidentally. To avoid plagiarism, it’s important to keep track of your sources and cite them correctly.

Academic dishonesty can be intentional or unintentional, ranging from something as simple as claiming to have read something you didn’t to copying your neighbor’s answers on an exam.

You can commit academic dishonesty with the best of intentions, such as helping a friend cheat on a paper. Severe academic dishonesty can include buying a pre-written essay or the answers to a multiple-choice test, or falsifying a medical emergency to avoid taking a final exam.

Academic dishonesty refers to deceitful or misleading behavior in an academic setting. Academic dishonesty can occur intentionally or unintentionally, and varies in severity.

It can encompass paying for a pre-written essay, cheating on an exam, or committing plagiarism . It can also include helping others cheat, copying a friend’s homework answers, or even pretending to be sick to miss an exam.

Academic dishonesty doesn’t just occur in a classroom setting, but also in research and other academic-adjacent fields.

Paraphrasing without crediting the original author is a form of plagiarism , because you’re presenting someone else’s ideas as if they were your own.

However, paraphrasing is not plagiarism if you correctly cite the source . This means including an in-text citation and a full reference, formatted according to your required citation style .

As well as citing, make sure that any paraphrased text is completely rewritten in your own words.

Plagiarism means using someone else’s words or ideas and passing them off as your own. Paraphrasing means putting someone else’s ideas in your own words.

So when does paraphrasing count as plagiarism?

  • Paraphrasing is plagiarism if you don’t properly credit the original author.
  • Paraphrasing is plagiarism if your text is too close to the original wording (even if you cite the source). If you directly copy a sentence or phrase, you should quote it instead.
  • Paraphrasing  is not plagiarism if you put the author’s ideas completely in your own words and properly cite the source .

If you’ve properly paraphrased or quoted and correctly cited the source, you are not committing plagiarism.

However, the word correctly is vital. In order to avoid plagiarism , you must adhere to the guidelines of your citation style  (e.g. APA  or MLA ).

You can use the Scribbr Plagiarism Checker to make sure you haven’t missed any citations, while our Citation Checker ensures you’ve properly formatted your citations in APA style.

The consequences of plagiarism vary depending on the type of plagiarism and the context in which it occurs. For example, submitting a whole paper by someone else will have the most severe consequences, while accidental citation errors are considered less serious.

If you’re a student, then you might fail the course, be suspended or expelled, or be obligated to attend a workshop on plagiarism. It depends on whether it’s your first offense or you’ve done it before.

As an academic or professional, plagiarizing seriously damages your reputation. You might also lose your research funding or your job, and you could even face legal consequences for copyright infringement.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

Support team - Nina

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

  • A world-class citation generator
  • Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
  • Innovative Citation Checker software
  • Professional proofreading services
  • Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

  • PhD dissertations
  • Research proposals
  • Personal statements
  • Admission essays
  • Motivation letters
  • Reflection papers
  • Journal articles
  • Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is also powered by Turnitin software and includes the Turnitin AI Writing Report.

Note that Scribbr’s free AI Detector is not powered by Turnitin, but instead by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

  • Staff Directory
  • Workshops and Events
  • For Students

Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 1 – Understanding the Problem

by Thomas Keith | Feb 16, 2022 | Instructional design , Services

academic dishonesty cause and effect essay

The Aims of This Series

Academic dishonesty – a term that encompasses a wide range of behaviors, from unauthorized collaboration and falsifying bibliographies to cheating on exams and buying pre-written essays – is a serious problem for higher education. Left unchecked, academic dishonesty can damage the culture of integrity that colleges and universities seek to promote, and it can even undermine the value of a degree from a given institution.

Not surprisingly, much attention has been paid to how to combat academic dishonesty. Literature on the subject, especially articles aimed at a general audience, tends to echo certain assumptions: that dishonest behavior is on the rise; that technologies such as the Internet and online learning have exacerbated the problem; and that technological tools for surveillance, such as online proctoring software or plagiarism checkers, are vital if the problem is to be curbed.

In this blog series, we will examine – and challenge – these assumptions. In the first installment, we will explore the scholarly literature to consider whether academic dishonesty is truly a growing problem and what its causes are. Subsequent installments will present strategies for promoting academic integrity in the classroom, with a focus on technology. We will consider what technology can do, and (just as importantly) what it cannot do, to prevent academic dishonesty.

Is the Problem Getting Worse?

Many media narratives take for granted that academic dishonesty – usually referred to by the popular term “cheating” – is worse today than it has ever been. Explanations for this include the easy availability of information on the Internet; the ubiquity of cell phones, which make sending and receiving messages easy; and, more broadly, a moral decline in society, with students taking an instrumentalist view of their education: grades are all that matter, and any method of securing a good grade is legitimate.

Going hand in hand with this narrative is a valorization of the notion of “control”. Bluntly put, if students are given the opportunity to cheat (so the thinking runs) they invariably will cheat. Thus, the key to academic integrity is hemming students in with controls that deprive them of any opportunity to behave dishonestly. Take away their laptops and cell phones; proctor them closely, whether in-person or online; check their work against databases of previous student work to find possible plagiarism; and so forth.

The COVID-19 pandemic has proven to be something of a laboratory for testing these claims. In the early days of the pandemic, when most colleges and universities made an emergency shift to remote instruction, there was an astronomical jump (nearly 200%) in questions submitted to the controversial “homework help” website Chegg (Redden 2021). Such data appeared to confirm widespread fears that students were taking advantage of the online environment to behave dishonestly. Deprived of the ability to proctor exams in-person, many institutions that had not previously used an online proctoring solution raced to adopt one (Flaherty 2020).  Their decision found support in scholarly literature that argued proctoring is necessary, as students are more likely to consider cheating acceptable when an exam is unproctored (Dyer, Pettyjohn, and Saladin 2020). The University of Chicago itself set up an agreement with the online proctoring service Proctorio , although Academic Technology Solutions did not encourage its use.

This approach, however, has not been without pushback. Advocates of “compassionate pedagogy,” such as Jesse Stommel in his keynote at the 2021 Symposium for Teaching with Technology , have pointed out that claims of rampant cheating are often based on emotion rather than evidence. Furthermore, in the unprecedented and nightmarish circumstances of the pandemic, students reaching out for help wherever they can find it should not be taken as evidence of a moral collapse, but rather as an understandable coping strategy.

There is also empirical evidence that problematizes the narrative of skyrocketing academic dishonesty. Donald McCabe and Linda Trevino, in a longitudinal study, found that the percentage of students self-reporting dishonest behavior remained fairly constant between 1963 and 1993 (McCabe and Trevino 1996). Admittedly, this study predated the Internet and other technologies that may enable academic dishonesty, and it did find that certain types of cheating (notably unauthorized collaboration, which we will delve into in greater detail in future installments) were on the rise; nonetheless, it remains suggestive.

On a more fundamental level, though, it is worth considering why students may commit acts of academic dishonesty. If we look beyond a straightforward narrative of moral decline, we see that there are contextual factors that can make academic dishonesty more or less likely; most of these factors are not new, but they have long shaped the classroom environment. This discovery has important implications for our attitude toward technology. It can be argued (and, in subsequent installments, will be argued) that while technology does have a role to play in helping to promote academic integrity, no tool or piece of software is a panacea. Furthermore, we will show that many of the most important steps faculty and administrators can take to combat academic dishonesty have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with thoughtful, compassionate pedagogy.

Why Do Students Cheat?

There is, of course, no one answer to why students may choose to engage in academically dishonest behaviors. Empirical research, however, has identified certain factors that increase the likelihood of academic dishonesty. Some of these are personal; others are contextual. Our focus here will be on the latter, inasmuch as the individual faculty member or administrator has more control over them.

It has been shown repeatedly that peer attitudes and behavior are vital. If students perceive that their peers consider academic dishonesty acceptable, they are significantly more likely to behave dishonestly themselves (McCabe and Trevino 1997). Conversely, when a college or university has a strong culture of integrity – for example, an honor code that spells out student privileges and obligations – peer pressure can be a positive force, discouraging students from behaving dishonestly (McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield 1999).

Problems of understanding what, in fact, academic dishonesty is can also lead to trouble. Many students come out of high school with a weak, if not nonexistent, understanding of such basic academic notions as how to cite sources properly. They may consider some academically dishonest behaviors as perfectly acceptable that faculty and administrators would condemn (Nelson, Nelson, and Tichenor 2013). Cultural differences can further cloud the picture. If a student is a non-native English speaker, for instance, he or she may struggle to understand the very concept of plagiarism – which, it must be borne in mind, is based upon a distinctly Western understanding of proper source usage (Click 2012).

Finally, the classroom environment itself is a powerful factor in shaping student attitudes. Student engagement is vital: if students feel that they are receiving personal attention and that the tasks their instructor assigns are meaningful, they are less likely to behave dishonestly. Conversely, if they feel a sense of alienation or “depersonalization,” or if they believe they are merely being given “busy work” with no pedagogical worth, the chances of their behaving dishonestly increase markedly (Pulvers and Diekhoff 1999). This danger is particularly acute in very large classes and in classes held online. The more a student feels that he or she is just a number (or a grade), the less restraint he or she is likely to feel about violating norms of conduct.

These conclusions will shape our analysis going forward. In Part 2, “Small Steps to Discourage Academic Dishonesty,” we will look at immediate, short-term steps that faculty and instructors can take to make academic dishonesty less likely. In Part 3, “Towards a Pedagogy of Academic Integrity,” we will step back and introduce broader pedagogical considerations, which require more time and effort to implement but which are also likely to have greater impact overall in reducing dishonest behavior.

Works Cited

Click, Amanda. “Issues of Plagiarism and Academic Integrity for Second-Language Students.” MELA Notes no. 85 (2012), pp. 44-53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23392491

Dyer, Jarrett A., Heidi C. Pettyjohn, and Steve Saladin. “Academic Dishonesty and Testing: How Student Beliefs and Test Settings Impact Decisions to Cheat”. Journal of the National College Testing Association vol. 4 issue 1 (2020), pp. 1-30. https://www.ncta-testing.org/assets/docs/JNCTA/2020%20-%20JNCTA%20-%20Academic%20Dishonesty%20and%20Testing.pdf

Flaherty, Colleen. Online proctoring is surging during COVID-19 ( Inside Higher Ed , May 11, 2020)

McCabe, Donald L., and Linda Klebe Trevino. “What We Know about Cheating in College: Longitudinal Trends and Recent Developments.” Change vol. 28 no. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 1996), pp. 28-33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40177789

McCabe, Donald L., and Linda Klebe Trevino. “Individual and Contextual Influences on Academic Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation.” Research in Higher Education vol. 38 no. 3  (Jun. 1997), pp. 379-396. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40196302

McCabe, Donald L., Linda Klebe Trevino, and Kenneth D. Butterfield. “Academic Integrity in Honor Code and Non-Honor Code Environments: A Qualitative Investigation.” Journal of Higher Education vol. 70 no. 2 (Mar.-Apr. 1999), pp. 211-234. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2649128

Nelson, Lynda P., Rodney K. Nelson, and Linda Tichenor. “Understanding Today’s Students: Entry-Level Science Student Involvement in Academic Dishonesty.” Journal of College Science Teaching vol. 42 no. 3 (Jan./Feb. 2013), pp. 52-57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43631795

Pulvers, Kim, and George M. Diekhoff. “The Relationship between Academic Dishonesty and College Classroom Environment.” Research in Higher Education vol. 40 no. 4 (Aug. 1999), pp. 487-498. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40196358

Redden, Elizabeth. Study finds nearly 200 percent jump in questions submitted to Chegg after start of pandemic ( Inside Higher Ed , Feb. 5, 2021)

(Splash image by Okta_Aderama_Putra on Pixabay )

Search Blog

Subscribe by email.

Please, insert a valid email.

Thank you, your email will be added to the mailing list once you click on the link in the confirmation email.

Spam protection has stopped this request. Please contact site owner for help.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Recent Posts

  • Zoom AI Companion – February 2024 Feature Releases
  • Beyond STEM: Ed Discussion for the Humanities and Social Sciences
  • Digital Tools for Teaching Writing, Part 3: Workshop, Feedback, and Revision
  • VR and AR Technologies for Innovative Teaching: Oculus Quest and Sketchfab
  • Leverage LinkedIn Learning as a Student
  • A/V Equipment
  • Accessibility
  • Canvas Features/Functions
  • Digital Accessibility
  • Faculty Success Stories
  • Instructional design
  • Multimedia Development
  • Surveys and Feedback
  • Symposium for Teaching with Technology
  • Uncategorized
  • Universal Design for Learning
  • Visualization

Academic Integrity at MIT logo

Academic Integrity at MIT

A handbook for students, search form, what are the consequences.

The consequences for cheating, plagiarism, unauthorized collaboration, and other forms of academic dishonesty can be very serious, possibly including suspension or expulsion from the Institute. Any violation of the rules outlined in this handbook, established by the instructor of the class, or deviating from responsible conduct of research, may be considered violations of academic integrity. The MIT Policy on Student Academic Dishonesty is outlined in MIT’s Policies and Procedures 10.2 .

Instructors, research or thesis supervisors decide how to handle violations of academic integrity on a case-by-case basis, and three options exist. Questions about these options should be directed to the Office of Student conduct ( [email protected] ).

Academic consequences within a class or research project

Within a class, the instructor determines what action is appropriate to take. Such action may include:

requiring the student to redo the assignment for a reduced grade.

assigning the student a failing grade for the assignment.

assigning the student a failing grade for the class.

For a research project, the supervisor determines what action is appropriate to take. Such action may include:

  • terminating the student's participation in the research project.

The instructor or supervisor may also submit documentation to the Office of Student Citizenship in the form of a letter to file or a formal complaint. These options are outlined below.

Letter to file

The instructor or supervisor writes a letter describing the nature of the academic integrity violation, which is placed in the student’s discipline file. The student’s discipline file is maintained by the Office of Student Citizenship (OSC) and is not associated with the student’s academic record .

A letter may be filed with the OSC in addition to the action already taken in the class or research project.

If a student receives a letter to file, s/he has the right to:

submit a reply, that is added to the student’s file.

appeal the letter to the Committee on Discipline (COD) for a full hearing.

In resolving the violation described in the letter, the OSC reviews any previous violations which are documented in the student’s discipline file.

Committee on Discipline (COD) complaint

The instructor or supervisor submits a formal complaint to the COD, which resolves cases of alleged student misconduct.

This complaint may be filed with the OSC in addition to the action already taken in the class or research project.

A COD complaint is reviewed by the COD Chair and considered for a hearing. Any previous violations documented in the student’s discipline file are reviewed as part of this process.

Cases resulting in a hearing are subject to a full range of sanctions, including probation, suspension, dismissal, or other educational sanctions.

Policies, Procedures, and Contacts

  • MIT Policy on Student Academic Dishonesty
  • Typical MIT Student Discipline Process Outline
  • Committee on Discipline Rules and Regulations
  • Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards
  • For Faculty and Staff: What You Should Know about Academic Integrity

77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best academic dishonesty topic ideas & essay examples, 🎓 good research topics about academic dishonesty, ⭐ simple & easy academic dishonesty essay titles, ❓ academic dishonesty research questions.

  • Academic Integrity and Academic Dishonesty It is very often that leadership and integrity are regarded as two incompatible things, since the majority of people use the easiest way to cope with difficulties, violating the main principles of the right and […]
  • Analysis of trends of Academic Dishonesty He concluded that academic dishonesty is on the rise and students perceived that most institutions and faculties had failed to institute a strong culture of integrity. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
  • Academic Integrity: Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty Some of the most significant issues he highlights include the following: The quality of information on the web varies significantly While internet search may help to narrow down on a topic, it may erode the […]
  • Academic Dishonesty in Psychologist’s Ethics However, in the case of school authorities, there should be rules and regulations that define the limits of confidentiality and give a counselor the consent to breach the oath of secrecy.
  • Understanding of Academic Integrity and Academic Dishonesty It has been argued that more people are being released into the job market in the US and as such the reputation of the academic institutions is facing lots of challenges.
  • Academic Dishonesty Classification The definition of academic dishonesty is as follows: “The first type of academic dishonesty is cheating, which includes the intentional use or attempted use of unauthorized materials or information in an examination.
  • Moral Identities, Social Anxiety, and Academic Dishonesty In his works, the scholar establishes two explanations for why students indulge in malpractices; the Social anxiety hypothesis and the moral anxiety hypothesis.
  • Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty
  • Academic Dishonesty and Factors That Have Contributed to This
  • Prevalent Cheating Strategy and Academic Dishonesty
  • Academic Dishonesty and the Internet in Higher Education
  • Bridging the Divide: The Role of Motivation and Self-Regulation in Explaining the Judgment-Action Gap Related to Academic Dishonesty
  • Academic Dishonesty and Language Department Student
  • The Relationship Between Attitudes Towards Academic Dishonesty, Infidelity, and Normalization of Unethical Behavior
  • Academic Dishonesty on the Internet and Suggested Strategies
  • Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism to a Significantly Higher Level
  • The Fundamental Mission of Education and Academic Dishonesty
  • Ethics and the College Student Composition – Education, Academic Dishonesty
  • The Public School System and Academic Dishonesty
  • Academic Dishonesty Among High School Students and College Students
  • Plagiarism: The Most Common Form of Academic Dishonesty
  • Academic Dishonesty, Material Assignment, and Its Causes
  • Academic Dishonesty: The Relationship Between the Internet and Academic Fraud
  • Cheating: Academic Dishonesty and Honor Code
  • Narcissism and Academic Dishonesty: The Exhibitionism Dimension and the Lack of Guilt
  • Academic Dishonesty and Academic Integrity
  • Academic Dishonesty Among Public School Teachers
  • Academic Dishonesty and the Impact on Higher Education
  • The Impact of Technology on the Academic Dishonesty
  • Academic Dishonesty and Strategic Sourcing Process
  • The Learning Process and Academic Dishonesty
  • Academic Dishonesty and Designated Rescue Area
  • Sex-Role Socialization and Perceptions of Student Academic Dishonesty by Male and Female Faculty
  • Academic Dishonesty and Finding Assignment Answers
  • Secondary Education and Academic Dishonesty
  • Academic Dishonesty and Studies on Cyber-Plagiarism in Higher Education
  • Friendship and In-Class Academic Dishonesty
  • Internet and Used by Academic Staff to Minimize the Trend of Academic Dishonesty
  • Never-Ending Dilemma in All Institution: Academic Dishonesty
  • Academic Dishonesty and Fraud: Discussion Among Universities Faculties
  • Cheating: Academic Dishonesty and Academic Misconduct
  • Academic Dishonesty: Applying Technology in Plagiarism
  • Cheating: Academic Dishonesty and Strict Christian Household
  • Academic Dishonesty and an Attempt to Gain Academic Advantage by Doing Something Misleading or Unfair
  • Cyber-Plagiarism Amongst Students: Academic Dishonesty and the Internet
  • Academic Writing and the Internet: Cyber-Plagiarism Amongst University Students
  • Academic Dishonesty: Decreasing Cheating in Classrooms
  • Is Academic Dishonesty a Crime?
  • What Can Professors Do to Decrease Academic Dishonesty in Their Class?
  • How Would You Convince People Not to Plagiarize?
  • What Are Reasons People Commit Academic Dishonesty?
  • Is Academic Dishonesty Morally Wrong?
  • How Does Cheating Affect the College’s Reputation?
  • What Are the Ethical Issues Associated With Academic Dishonesty?
  • How Would Academic Dishonesty Help the Development of the Students?
  • What Are the Form of Academic Dishonesty?
  • Why Is Cheating in School a Moral Issue?
  • What Are the Most Common Reasons Students Plagiarize?
  • Is Academic Dishonesty the First Step in Corruption?
  • How Can We Improve Honesty Among Students?
  • What Are the Possible Effects of Academic Dishonesty?
  • How Can We Avoid Different Forms of Dishonesty?
  • Is There a Way to Promote Academic Honesty in Schools?
  • Why Do We Care About Academic Dishonesty?
  • How Does Cheating Affect Everyone?
  • Can Cheating in School Be Justified?
  • How Does Cheating Affect Learning?
  • Why Do Students Cheat in Research?
  • How Does Academic Integrity Impact Students?
  • What Are 3 Reasons That Students May Be Tempted to Be Academically Dishonest Quizlet?
  • How Can You Improve Your Academic Integrity?
  • Can Academic Dishonesty Affect Your Career?
  • How Common Is Academic Dishonesty?
  • What Do You Think Should Be Done About Cheating or Academic Honesty?
  • How Can You Encourage Students to Maintain Their Integrity?
  • Why Should Cheating Be Allowed?
  • How Many Students Plagiarize Each Year?
  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 26). 77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/academic-dishonesty-essay-topics/

"77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/academic-dishonesty-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/academic-dishonesty-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/academic-dishonesty-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/academic-dishonesty-essay-topics/.

  • Cheating Questions
  • Plagiarism Research Ideas
  • Honesty Essay Ideas
  • College Students Research Ideas
  • Academic Achievements Research Topics
  • Bilingual Education Essay Ideas
  • Classroom Management Essay Topics
  • Brain-Based Learning Essay Titles
  • Communication Research Ideas
  • Distance Education Topics
  • Competitiveness Topics
  • Homeschooling Ideas
  • Learning Styles Essay Topics
  • Service Learning Essay Titles
  • Moral Development Essay Topics
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

information for practice

news, new scholarship & more from around the world

  • gary.holden@nyu.edu
  • @ Info4Practice

Predicting Academic Dishonesty: The Role of Psychopathic Traits, Perception of Academic Dishonesty, Moral Disengagement and Motivation

This study conducted on a sample of 295 Dutch and Italian undergraduate and graduate students aims to investigate how psychopathic personality traits (meanness, boldness and disinhibition) may lead to cheating behavior, and to study whether there are correlations between psychopathic traits, motivation, moral disengagement, the perception of seriousness of academic dishonesty and frequency of academic dishonesty to try to better understand what causes students to cheat and engage in dishonest conduct. Results confirmed the key role of psychopathic traits, particularly the disinhibition aspect in predicting academic dishonesty. In addition, it was shown that students’ perceptions of what constitutes academic dishonesty and what does not are also important in predicting the frequency of dishonest behavior. Furthermore, the role of motivation and moral disengagement in predicting and mediating the relationship between traits of psychopathy and academic dishonesty were analyzed through mediation and regression analysis.

Read the full article ›

Academic Dishonesty and Its Detrimental Effects

Why is academic dishonesty bad? Check out this essay to find out. It is focused on immediate consequences and long-term effects of academic dishonesty on students.

Introduction

History of academic dishonesty, detrimental effects of academic dishonesty.

Academic dishonesty is one of the contemporary challenges in the education sector. It is a multifaceted vice that occurs at individual and institution levels. Research findings indicate that cheating in academics has been increasing gradually over the past few years (Carrell, 2007). At present, lack of academic integrity is widespread in all echelons of education. For example, current studies in the US reveal that 70 percent of high school students engage in various forms of cheating (Carrell, 2007).

In Germany, about 74 percent of college students cheat in academics. Some of the common types of academic cheating include the following (Carrell, 2007). Plagiarism is an academic vice among many students. It refers to using academic publications without giving credit to authors. Cheating during examinations is another widespread type of academic dishonesty.

Other forms of cheating in academics include sabotaging students from completing their assignments, providing false references and data in research papers, and giving false excuses for not completing assignments on time. This paper argues that academic cheating causes social and moral problems at individual and society levels.

The notion of academic property was absent in the ancient period. In the past, there were no standard guidelines for publishing academic manuscripts. Thus, ancient scholars wrote books without ethical restrictions. Academics dishonesty is believed to have begun in the 19 th century when tests and evaluation programs were introduced in learning institutions (Colnerud & Rosander, 2009).

In the 20 th century, academic cheating became prevalent in many learning institutions in the US and Europe due to the clustering of students according to academic performance. The emphasis of meritocracy in academics compelled students to seek superior grades.

At present, academic misconduct is rampant in schools due to the following factors. The merit-based approach in education compels students to seek high academic grades to access high levels of education. This often leads to cheating because some students try to achieve academic excellence through unethical strategies. The social learning environment can motivate students to cheat. For instance, students that pass examinations through cheating can motivate others to do the same.

Prevalence of corruption in society influences students to be dishonest in academics. Teachers can unintentionally facilitate cheating in schools. For instance, unkind teachers often take punitive measures against students that fail to do assignments.

Hence, students can cheat to avoid punishment. Some students are oblivious of ethical measures in education. For example, some students can unconsciously commit plagiarism due to lack of proper guidance. Also, some students believe that academic cheating is not amoral behavior. Hence, they cheat regularly.

Effects of academic dishonesty on students

Academic cheating may limit a student’s ability to achieve his or her desired education goals because some universities have strict admission requirements and often refuse to admit students with cases of academic dishonesty. Also, academic records can be demanded when students apply for internships in competitive organizations such as the United Nations and banks.

Generally, students found guilty of cheating often face serious disciplinary measures such as suspension from school. Extreme cases of academic cheating can lead to the expulsion of students from the school. Moreover, once a student has been found guilty of cheating in academics, people lose trust in him (Carrell, 2007).

In some cases, dishonest students may directly or indirectly encourage their colleagues to cheat in academics (Hall, 2011). For example, students who excel in academics through unethical means may discourage honest students from working hard in academics. Therefore, the outcomes of cheating are detrimental to students.

Effects on Learning Institutions and Educators

Integrity is one of the most significant assets of any learning institution. However, academic misbehavior can damage the reputation of a learning institution. For instance, an academic institution plagued by academic dishonesty may not attract students and donors. Furthermore, employers may not wish to recruit workers trained in colleges with bad academic standing. Moreover, honest students from schools with poor academic reputation may be mistreated in society due to their education backgrounds (Carrell, 2007).

In many learning institutions, educators are often entrusted with the role of curbing cheating. Instructors can be penalized for failing to limit academic dishonesty. For example, teachers can be sacked if they fail to discipline students who consistently cheat in examinations (Hall, 2011). Cheating can make teachers less productive at work because it discourages them from doing research and disseminating knowledge. For instance, scholars whose publications are plagiarized may lose interest in doing research.

Effects on Society

Academic cheating leads to many vices in society. Dishonest students are more likely to become corrupt in the future than those who refrain from cheating in school. Indeed, some studies point out that dishonest students often engage in economic crimes such as theft and fraud because they have developed the habit of achieving their goals through unethical means (Colnerud & Rosander, 2009). Students who cheat in examinations focus much on getting high grades, but they fail to get superior knowledge needed by employers.

Hence, students who excel in academics through cheating can fail to perform well in their careers due to lack of competence. Lack of productivity among employers can be detrimental to society (Hall, 2011). Therefore, employers should take into consideration academic merit, skills, and talents when recruiting workers (Davis & Drinan, 2009).

This essay has revealed various forms of academic dishonesty such as plagiarism, bribery, and cheating during examinations. Cheating in academics creates many problems in society, such as corruption and fraud. Academic cheating makes students incompetent; hence, they become unproductive at the workplace. Academic dishonesty can ruin the reputation of a school and educators.

Ultimately, cheating undermines the domain of education because it affects the production of knowledge and skills. Moreover, cheating affects the concept of meritocracy since some learners excel in exams through unethical means.

The problem of academic dishonesty can be solved through various strategies since it is a multifaceted and dynamic challenge. First, dishonesty in academics can be mitigated by developing and implementing stringent rules to curb it. For example, dishonest students should be punished severely to deter others from being dishonest.

Second, educators should be innovative in examining the performance of students. This will make cheating difficult since learners will not predict the types of assessments that will be carried out in school. Third, some students violate ethical principles in school because they are oblivious of the moral standards required in academics (Davis & Drinan, 2009). Therefore, learners should be encouraged to uphold academic integrity.

Moreover, parents should inculcate moral values in children to make them honest and disciplined. The role of students in curbing dishonesty in academics should not be overlooked since they know dishonest learners. Therefore, students should be encouraged to provide information on the incidences of cheating in academics.

Carrell, S. (2007). Peer effects in academic cheating. Journal of Human Resources , 12 (5), 70- 176.

Colnerud, G., & Rosander, M. (2009). Academic dishonesty, ethical norms and learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 34 (5), 505-517.

Davis, S., & Drinan, P. (2009). Cheating in school: What we know and what we can do. New York: Wiley.

Hall, S. (2011). Is it Happening? How to avoid the deleterious effects of plagiarism and cheating in your courses. Business Communication Quarterly , 74 (2), 179-182.

Cite this paper

  • Chicago (N-B)
  • Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, April 5). Academic Dishonesty and Its Detrimental Effects. https://studycorgi.com/academic-dishonesty-and-its-detrimental-effects/

"Academic Dishonesty and Its Detrimental Effects." StudyCorgi , 5 Apr. 2020, studycorgi.com/academic-dishonesty-and-its-detrimental-effects/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Academic Dishonesty and Its Detrimental Effects'. 5 April.

1. StudyCorgi . "Academic Dishonesty and Its Detrimental Effects." April 5, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/academic-dishonesty-and-its-detrimental-effects/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Academic Dishonesty and Its Detrimental Effects." April 5, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/academic-dishonesty-and-its-detrimental-effects/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Academic Dishonesty and Its Detrimental Effects." April 5, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/academic-dishonesty-and-its-detrimental-effects/.

This paper, “Academic Dishonesty and Its Detrimental Effects”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 9, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Academic Concerns — Academic Dishonesty

one px

Essays on Academic Dishonesty

The differences between plagiarism and academic misconduct, plagiarism and academic dishonesty in education, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Rise of Academic Dishonesty Nowadays

Why is academic honesty so important, academic honesty – an essential part of any true educational experience, the issue of plagiarism amd what it means to students, let us write you an essay from scratch.

  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Effect of Bad Corporate Administration to The Failure of Tyco

"zero tolerance" policy to prevent plagiarism, an issue of plagiarism at school, how being honest as a student can save your life, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Plagiarism, Its Types, Detection, and Ways to Avoid

Plagiarism, its degrees and strategies to avoid, students’ integrity in education and workplace, the role of school leaders in eliminating academic dishonesty, plagiarism: robbery in the field of intellectual property, is cheating out of control: cultural perspectives on cheating, is cheating getting better or worse in school: consequences of cheating, is cheating out of control: cultural dimensions in cheating, is cheating getting better or worse in school: the issue of plagiarism, is cheating getting worse: cultural factors of plagiarism, is cheating getting worse: the growth of cheating, is cheating getting worse: criminal punishment for cheating, is cheating getting better or worse: growing concern, academic integrity: cheating getting worse, investigating the escalation of academic cheating, is cheating in school getting better or worse an argumentative analysis, is cheating out of control: academic integrity and ethical standards, relevant topics.

  • School Uniform
  • Academic Challenges
  • Inequality in Education
  • Academic Interests
  • Physical Education
  • Stem Education
  • Importance of Education

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

  • Instructions Followed To The Letter
  • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
  • Unique And Plagiarism Free

academic dishonesty cause and effect essay

Frequently asked questions

What are the consequences of academic dishonesty.

Consequences of academic dishonesty depend on the severity of the offence and your institution’s policy. They can range from a warning for a first offence to a failing grade in a course to expulsion from your university.

For those in certain fields, such as nursing, engineering, or lab sciences, not learning fundamentals properly can directly impact the health and safety of others. For those working in academia or research, academic dishonesty impacts your professional reputation, leading others to doubt your future work.

Frequently asked questions: Plagiarism

If you are reusing content or data you used in a previous assignment, make sure to cite yourself. You can cite yourself the same way you would cite any other source: simply follow the directions for the citation style you are using.

Keep in mind that reusing prior content can be considered self-plagiarism , so make sure you ask your instructor or consult your university’s handbook prior to doing so.

Most online plagiarism checkers only have access to public databases, whose software doesn’t allow you to compare two documents for plagiarism.

However, in addition to our Plagiarism Checker , Scribbr also offers an Self-Plagiarism Checker . This is an add-on tool that lets you compare your paper with unpublished or private documents. This way you can rest assured that you haven’t unintentionally plagiarised or self-plagiarised .

Compare two sources for plagiarism

Rapport begrijpen OSC

Common knowledge does not need to be cited. However, you should be extra careful when deciding what counts as common knowledge.

Common knowledge encompasses information that the average educated reader would accept as true without needing the extra validation of a source or citation.

Common knowledge should be widely known, undisputed, and easily verified. When in doubt, always cite your sources.

Plagiarism means presenting someone else’s work as your own without giving proper credit to the original author. In academic writing, plagiarism involves using words, ideas, or information from a source without including a citation .

Plagiarism can have serious consequences , even when it’s done accidentally. To avoid plagiarism, it’s important to keep track of your sources and cite them correctly.

Academic dishonesty can be intentional or unintentional, ranging from something as simple as claiming to have read something you didn’t to copying your neighbour’s answers on an exam.

You can commit academic dishonesty with the best of intentions, such as helping a friend cheat on a paper. Severe academic dishonesty can include buying a pre-written essay or the answers to a multiple-choice test, or falsifying a medical emergency to avoid taking a final exam.

Academic dishonesty refers to deceitful or misleading behavior in an academic setting. Academic dishonesty can occur intentionally or unintentionally, and it varies in severity.

It can encompass paying for a pre-written essay, cheating on an exam, or committing plagiarism . It can also include helping others cheat, copying a friend’s homework answers, or even pretending to be sick to miss an exam.

Academic dishonesty doesn’t just occur in a classroom setting, but also in research and other academic-adjacent fields.

Academic integrity means being honest, ethical, and thorough in your academic work. To maintain academic integrity, you should avoid misleading your readers about any part of your research and refrain from offences like plagiarism and contract cheating, which are examples of academic misconduct.

Self-plagiarism means recycling work that you’ve previously published or submitted as an assignment. It’s considered academic dishonesty to present something as brand new when you’ve already gotten credit and perhaps feedback for it in the past.

If you want to refer to ideas or data from previous work, be sure to cite yourself.

Plagiarism has serious consequences and can be illegal in certain scenarios.

While most of the time plagiarism in an undergraduate setting is not illegal, plagiarism or self-plagiarism in a professional academic setting can lead to legal action, including copyright infringement and fraud. Many scholarly journals do not allow you to submit the same work to more than one journal, and if you do not credit a coauthor, you could be legally defrauding them.

Even if you aren’t breaking the law, plagiarism can seriously impact your academic career. While the exact consequences of plagiarism vary by institution and severity, common consequences include a lower grade, automatically failing a course, academic suspension or probation, and even expulsion.

Most institutions have an internal database of previously submitted student assignments. Turnitin can check for self-plagiarism by comparing your paper against this database. If you’ve reused parts of an assignment you already submitted, it will flag any similarities as potential plagiarism.

Online plagiarism checkers don’t have access to your institution’s database, so they can’t detect self-plagiarism of unpublished work. If you’re worried about accidentally self-plagiarising, you can use Scribbr’s Self-Plagiarism Checker to upload your unpublished documents and check them for similarities.

The consequences of plagiarism vary depending on the type of plagiarism and the context in which it occurs. For example, submitting a whole paper by someone else will have the most severe consequences, while accidental citation errors are considered less serious.

If you’re a student, then you might fail the course, be suspended or expelled, or be obligated to attend a workshop on plagiarism. It depends on whether it’s your first offence or you’ve done it before.

As an academic or professional, plagiarising seriously damages your reputation. You might also lose your research funding or your job, and you could even face legal consequences for copyright infringement.

Yes, reusing your own work without citation is considered self-plagiarism . This can range from resubmitting an entire assignment to reusing passages or data from something you’ve handed in previously.

Self-plagiarism often has the same consequences as other types of plagiarism . If you want to reuse content you wrote in the past, make sure to check your university’s policy or consult your professor.

Patchwork plagiarism , also called mosaic plagiarism, means copying phrases, passages, or ideas from various existing sources and combining them to create a new text. This includes slightly rephrasing some of the content, while keeping many of the same words and the same structure as the original.

While this type of plagiarism is more insidious than simply copying and pasting directly from a source, plagiarism checkers like Turnitin’s can still easily detect it.

To avoid plagiarism in any form, remember to reference your sources .

Verbatim plagiarism means copying text from a source and pasting it directly into your own document without giving proper credit.

If the structure and the majority of the words are the same as in the original source, then you are committing verbatim plagiarism. This is the case even if you delete a few words or replace them with synonyms.

If you want to use an author’s exact words, you need to quote the original source by putting the copied text in quotation marks and including an   in-text citation .

Global plagiarism means taking an entire work written by someone else and passing it off as your own. This can include getting someone else to write an essay or assignment for you, or submitting a text you found online as your own work.

Global plagiarism is one of the most serious types of plagiarism because it involves deliberately and directly lying about the authorship of a work. It can have severe consequences for students and professionals alike.

Some examples of plagiarism include:

  • Copying and pasting a Wikipedia article into the body of an assignment
  • Quoting a source without including a citation
  • Not paraphrasing a source properly (e.g. maintaining wording too close to the original)
  • Forgetting to cite the source of an idea

The most surefire way to   avoid plagiarism is to always cite your sources . When in doubt, cite!

Plagiarism can be detected by your professor or readers if the tone, formatting, or style of your text is different in different parts of your paper, or if they’re familiar with the plagiarised source.

Many universities also use   plagiarism detection software like Turnitin’s, which compares your text to a large database of other sources, flagging any similarities that come up.

It can be easier than you think to commit plagiarism by accident. Consider using a   plagiarism checker prior to submitting your essay to ensure you haven’t missed any citations.

To avoid plagiarism when summarising an article or other source, follow these two rules:

  • Write the summary entirely in your own words by   paraphrasing the author’s ideas.
  • Reference the source with an in-text citation and a full reference so your reader can easily find the original text.

The accuracy depends on the plagiarism checker you use. Per our in-depth research , Scribbr is the most accurate plagiarism checker. Many free plagiarism checkers fail to detect all plagiarism or falsely flag text as plagiarism.

Plagiarism checkers work by using advanced database software to scan for matches between your text and existing texts. Their accuracy is determined by two factors: the algorithm (which recognises the plagiarism) and the size of the database (with which your document is compared).

Accidental plagiarism is one of the most common examples of plagiarism . Perhaps you forgot to cite a source, or paraphrased something a bit too closely. Maybe you can’t remember where you got an idea from, and aren’t totally sure if it’s original or not.

These all count as plagiarism, even though you didn’t do it on purpose. When in doubt, make sure you’re citing your sources . Also consider running your work through a plagiarism checker tool prior to submission, which work by using advanced database software to scan for matches between your text and existing texts.

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker takes less than 10 minutes and can help you turn in your paper with confidence.

Paraphrasing without crediting the original author is a form of plagiarism , because you’re presenting someone else’s ideas as if they were your own.

However, paraphrasing is not plagiarism if you correctly reference the source . This means including an in-text referencing and a full reference , formatted according to your required citation style (e.g., Harvard , Vancouver ).

As well as referencing your source, make sure that any paraphrased text is completely rewritten in your own words.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you.

Support team - Nina

Our support team is here to help you daily via chat, WhatsApp, email, or phone between 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. CET.

Our APA experts default to APA 7 for editing and formatting. For the Citation Editing Service you are able to choose between APA 6 and 7.

Yes, if your document is longer than 20,000 words, you will get a sample of approximately 2,000 words. This sample edit gives you a first impression of the editor’s editing style and a chance to ask questions and give feedback.

How does the sample edit work?

You will receive the sample edit within 24 hours after placing your order. You then have 24 hours to let us know if you’re happy with the sample or if there’s something you would like the editor to do differently.

Read more about how the sample edit works

Yes, you can upload your document in sections.

We try our best to ensure that the same editor checks all the different sections of your document. When you upload a new file, our system recognizes you as a returning customer, and we immediately contact the editor who helped you before.

However, we cannot guarantee that the same editor will be available. Your chances are higher if

  • You send us your text as soon as possible and
  • You can be flexible about the deadline.

Please note that the shorter your deadline is, the lower the chance that your previous editor is not available.

If your previous editor isn’t available, then we will inform you immediately and look for another qualified editor. Fear not! Every Scribbr editor follows the  Scribbr Improvement Model  and will deliver high-quality work.

Yes, our editors also work during the weekends and holidays.

Because we have many editors available, we can check your document 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, all year round.

If you choose a 72 hour deadline and upload your document on a Thursday evening, you’ll have your thesis back by Sunday evening!

Yes! Our editors are all native speakers, and they have lots of experience editing texts written by ESL students. They will make sure your grammar is perfect and point out any sentences that are difficult to understand. They’ll also notice your most common mistakes, and give you personal feedback to improve your writing in English.

Every Scribbr order comes with our award-winning Proofreading & Editing service , which combines two important stages of the revision process.

For a more comprehensive edit, you can add a Structure Check or Clarity Check to your order. With these building blocks, you can customize the kind of feedback you receive.

You might be familiar with a different set of editing terms. To help you understand what you can expect at Scribbr, we created this table:

View an example

When you place an order, you can specify your field of study and we’ll match you with an editor who has familiarity with this area.

However, our editors are language specialists, not academic experts in your field. Your editor’s job is not to comment on the content of your dissertation, but to improve your language and help you express your ideas as clearly and fluently as possible.

This means that your editor will understand your text well enough to give feedback on its clarity, logic and structure, but not on the accuracy or originality of its content.

Good academic writing should be understandable to a non-expert reader, and we believe that academic editing is a discipline in itself. The research, ideas and arguments are all yours – we’re here to make sure they shine!

After your document has been edited, you will receive an email with a link to download the document.

The editor has made changes to your document using ‘Track Changes’ in Word. This means that you only have to accept or ignore the changes that are made in the text one by one.

It is also possible to accept all changes at once. However, we strongly advise you not to do so for the following reasons:

  • You can learn a lot by looking at the mistakes you made.
  • The editors don’t only change the text – they also place comments when sentences or sometimes even entire paragraphs are unclear. You should read through these comments and take into account your editor’s tips and suggestions.
  • With a final read-through, you can make sure you’re 100% happy with your text before you submit!

You choose the turnaround time when ordering. We can return your dissertation within 24 hours , 3 days or 1 week . These timescales include weekends and holidays. As soon as you’ve paid, the deadline is set, and we guarantee to meet it! We’ll notify you by text and email when your editor has completed the job.

Very large orders might not be possible to complete in 24 hours. On average, our editors can complete around 13,000 words in a day while maintaining our high quality standards. If your order is longer than this and urgent, contact us to discuss possibilities.

Always leave yourself enough time to check through the document and accept the changes before your submission deadline.

Scribbr is specialised in editing study related documents. We check:

  • Graduation projects
  • Dissertations
  • Admissions essays
  • College essays
  • Application essays
  • Personal statements
  • Process reports
  • Reflections
  • Internship reports
  • Academic papers
  • Research proposals
  • Prospectuses

Calculate the costs

The fastest turnaround time is 24 hours.

You can upload your document at any time and choose between three deadlines:

At Scribbr, we promise to make every customer 100% happy with the service we offer. Our philosophy: Your complaint is always justified – no denial, no doubts.

Our customer support team is here to find the solution that helps you the most, whether that’s a free new edit or a refund for the service.

Yes, in the order process you can indicate your preference for American, British, or Australian English .

If you don’t choose one, your editor will follow the style of English you currently use. If your editor has any questions about this, we will contact you.

  • No category

Academic dishonesty (cause effect)

academic dishonesty cause and effect essay

Related documents

I,  _______________________________________,  have  read  the ... understand the academic dishonesty policy as described herein and by... Course Number and Name

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

Cause And Effect Essay Guide

Cause And Effect Essay Examples

Caleb S.

Best Cause and Effect Essay Examples To Get Inspiration + Simple Tips

Published on: Jan 23, 2023

Last updated on: Nov 29, 2023

cause and effect essay examples

People also read

How To Write A Cause and Effect Essay - Outline & Examples

230+ Cause and Effect Essay Topics to Boost Your Academic Writing

How to Create a Cause and Effect Outline - An Easy Guide

Share this article

You need to write a cause and effect essay for your assignment. Well, where should you start?

Establishing a relationship between causes and effects is no simple task. You need to ensure logical connections between variables with credible evidence.

However, don't get overwhelmed by the sound of it. You can start by reading some great cause and effect essay examples. 

In this blog, you can read cause and effect essays to get inspiration and learn how to write them. With these resources, you'll be able to start writing an awesome cause and effect paper.

Let’s dive in!

On This Page On This Page -->

What is a Cause and Effect Essay?

A cause and effect essay explores why things happen (causes) and what happens as a result (effects). This type of essay aims to uncover the connections between events, actions, or phenomena. It helps readers understand the reasons behind certain outcomes.

In a cause and effect essay, you typically:

  • Identify the Cause: Explain the event or action that initiates a chain of events. This is the "cause."
  • Discuss the Effect: Describe the consequences or outcomes resulting from the cause.
  • Analyze the Relationship: Clarify how the cause leads to the effect, showing the cause-and-effect link.

Cause and effect essays are common in various academic disciplines. For instance, studies in sciences, history, and the social sciences rely on essential cause and effect questions. For instance, "what are the effects of climate change?", or "what are the causes of poverty?"

Now that you know what a cause and effect is, let’s read some examples.

Cause and Effect Essay Examples for Students

Here is an example of a well-written cause and effect essay on social media. Let’s analyze it in parts to learn why it is good and how you can write an effective essay yourself. 

The essay begins with a compelling hook that grabs the reader's attention. It presents a brief overview of the topic clearly and concisely. The introduction covers the issue and ends with a strong thesis statement , stating the essay's main argument – that excessive use of social media can negatively impact mental health.

The first body paragraph sets the stage by discussing the first cause - excessive social media use. It provides data and statistics to support the claim, which makes the argument more compelling. The analysis highlights the addictive nature of social media and its impact on users. This clear and evidence-based explanation prepares the reader for the cause-and-effect relationship to be discussed.

The second body paragraph effectively explores the effect of excessive social media use, which is increased anxiety and depression. It provides a clear cause-and-effect relationship, with studies backing the claims. The paragraph is well-structured and uses relatable examples, making the argument more persuasive. 

The third body paragraph effectively introduces the second cause, which is social comparison and FOMO. It explains the concept clearly and provides relatable examples. It points out the relevance of this cause in the context of social media's impact on mental health, preparing the reader for the subsequent effect to be discussed.

The fourth body paragraph effectively explores the second effect of social comparison and FOMO, which is isolation and decreased self-esteem. It provides real-world consequences and uses relatable examples. 

The conclusion effectively summarizes the key points discussed in the essay. It restates the thesis statement and offers practical solutions, demonstrating a well-rounded understanding of the topic. The analysis emphasizes the significance of the conclusion in leaving the reader with a call to action or reflection on the essay's central theme.

This essay follows this clear cause and effect essay structure to convey the message effectively:

Read our cause and effect essay outline blog to learn more about how to structure your cause and effect essay effectively.

Free Cause and Effect Essay Samples

The analysis of the essay above is a good start to understanding how the paragraphs in a cause and effect essay are structured. You can read and analyze more examples below to improve your understanding.

Cause and Effect Essay Elementary School

Cause and Effect Essay For College Students

Short Cause and Effect Essay Sample

Cause and Effect Essay Example for High School

Cause And Effect Essay IELTS

Bullying Cause and Effect Essay Example

Cause and Effect Essay Smoking

Cause and Effect Essay Topics

Wondering which topic to write your essay on? Here is a list of cause and effect essay topic ideas to help you out.

  • The Effects of Social Media on Real Social Networks
  • The Causes And Effects of Cyberbullying
  • The Causes And Effects of Global Warming
  • The Causes And Effects of WW2
  • The Causes And Effects of Racism
  • The Causes And Effects of Homelessness
  • The Causes and Effects of Parental Divorce on Children.
  • The Causes and Effects of Drug Addiction
  • The Impact of Technology on Education
  • The Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality

Need more topics? Check out our list of 150+ cause and effect essay topics to get more interesting ideas.

Tips For Writing a Good Cause and Effect Essay

Reading and following the examples above can help you write a good essay. However, you can make your essay even better by following these tips.

  • Choose a Clear and Manageable Topic: Select a topic that you can explore thoroughly within the essay's word limit. A narrowly defined topic will make it easier to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
  • Research and Gather Evidence: Gather relevant data, statistics, examples, and expert opinions to support your arguments. Strong evidence enhances the credibility of your essay.
  • Outline Your Essay: Create a structured outline that outlines the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. This will provide a clear roadmap for your essay and help you present causes and effects clearly and coherently.
  • Transitional Phrases: Use transitional words and phrases like "because," "due to," "as a result," "consequently," and "therefore" to connect causes and effects within your sentences and paragraphs.
  • Support Each Point: Dedicate a separate paragraph to each cause and effect. Provide in-depth explanations, examples, and evidence for each point.
  • Proofread and Edit: After completing the initial draft, carefully proofread your essay for grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. Additionally, review the content for clarity, coherence, and flow.
  • Peer Review: Seek feedback from a peer or someone familiar with the topic to gain an outside perspective. They can help identify any areas that need improvement.
  • Stay Focused: Avoid going off-topic or including irrelevant information. Stick to the causes and effects you've outlined in your thesis statement.
  • Revise as Needed: Don't hesitate to make revisions and improvements as needed. The process of revising and refining your essay is essential for producing a high-quality final product. 

To Sum Up , 

Cause and effect essays are important for comprehending the intricate relationships that shape our world. With the help of the examples and tips above, you can confidently get started on your essay. 

If you still need further help, you can hire a professional writer to help you out. At MyPerfectWords.com , we’ve got experienced and qualified essay writers who can help you write an excellent essay on any topic and for all academic levels.

So contact our reliable essay writing service today!

Caleb S. (Education, Literature)

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Get Help

Keep reading

cause and effect essay examples

We value your privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience and give you personalized content. Do you agree to our cookie policy?

Website Data Collection

We use data collected by cookies and JavaScript libraries.

Are you sure you want to cancel?

Your preferences have not been saved.

IMAGES

  1. Effects of Academic Dishonesty on Higher Education Free Essay Example

    academic dishonesty cause and effect essay

  2. Cause and effect

    academic dishonesty cause and effect essay

  3. How to Write a Cause and Effect Essay (with Pictures)

    academic dishonesty cause and effect essay

  4. Useful information on writing a cause and effect essay Academic Writing

    academic dishonesty cause and effect essay

  5. (PDF) Academic dishonesty: The need for prevention and control

    academic dishonesty cause and effect essay

  6. ≫ Academic Dishonesty and Academic Integrity Free Essay Sample on

    academic dishonesty cause and effect essay

VIDEO

  1. Cause & Effect Essay for English 1301

  2. Academic Dishonesty

  3. Cause-and-Effect Essay

  4. Cause and Effect Essay

  5. Cause-Effect Essays

  6. Cause and Effect Essay

COMMENTS

  1. Literature Review: Academic Dishonesty

    Note: For further information on academic dishonesty and academic integrity, please see our series Combating Academic Dishonesty.Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3. Academic dishonesty, which encompasses behaviors such as cheating, plagiarism, and falsification of data or citations, is a widespread and troubling phenomenon in higher education.

  2. Academic dishonesty among university students: The roles of the

    Academic dishonesty refers to behaviors aimed at giving or receiving information from others, using unauthorized materials, and circumventing the sanctioned assessment process in an academic context [ 1 ]. The frequency of academic dishonesty reported in research indicates the global nature of this phenomenon.

  3. Academic Integrity vs. Academic Dishonesty

    There are various reasons you might be tempted to resort to academic dishonesty: pressure to achieve, time management struggles, or difficulty with a course. But academic dishonesty hurts you, your peers, and the learning process. It's: Unfair to the plagiarized author Unfair to other students who did not cheat Damaging to your own learning

  4. Reconceptualizing academic dishonesty as a struggle for ...

    Renewed interest in academic dishonesty (AD) has occurred as a result of the changes to society and higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite a broad body of research investigating ...

  5. Causes of Academic Dishonesty

    Student Tutorial Causes Causes of Academic Dishonesty Literature on academic dishonesty cites a number of factors that contribute to dishonest academic practices (Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2002). Contributing factors include: Peer pressure Performance anxiety Excuse making Inability to manage the demands of student life

  6. What motivates academic dishonesty in students? A reinforcement

    Academic dishonesty (AD) is an increasing challenge for universities worldwide. The rise of the Internet has further increased opportunities for students to cheat. ... Mediation analysis suggested that GDP predicted dishonesty indirectly via a surface study approach while the indirect effect via deep study processes suggested dishonesty was not ...

  7. What motivates academic dishonesty in students? A reinforcement

    Background: Academic dishonesty (AD) is an increasing challenge for universities worldwide. The rise of the Internet has further increased opportunities for students to cheat. Aims: In this study, we investigate the role of personality traits defined within Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) as potential determinants of AD. RST defines behaviour as resulting from approach (Reward Interest ...

  8. PDF The Nature, Causes and Practices of Academic Dishonesty/ Cheating in

    Abstract. The main objective of the study was to assess the perception of teachers and learners on the nature of practice, the type and the causes of academic cheating (dishonesty) in Hawassa University. The study was basically a survey which employed both qualitative and quantitative approaches to gather data.

  9. What are the consequences of academic dishonesty?

    For those in certain fields, such as nursing, engineering, or lab sciences, not learning fundamentals properly can directly impact the health and safety of others. For those working in academia or research, academic dishonesty impacts your professional reputation, leading others to doubt your future work. Frequently asked questions: Plagiarism

  10. Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 1

    Left unchecked, academic dishonesty can damage the culture of integrity that colleges and universities seek to promote, and it can even undermine the value of a degree from a given institution. Not surprisingly, much attention has been paid to how to combat academic dishonesty.

  11. What are the Consequences?

    What are the Consequences? The consequences for cheating, plagiarism, unauthorized collaboration, and other forms of academic dishonesty can be very serious, possibly including suspension or expulsion from the Institute.

  12. The Cause And Effects Of Academic Dishonesty

    176 Words 1 Pages Satisfactory Essays The Art Of College Management : Cheating Cheating has always been an issue among students. Almost everyone cheats in some fashion in classes.

  13. Academic Dishonesty: Reasons, Consequences And Preventions

    There are many forms of academic dishonesty such as cheating, bribery, misrepresentation, conspiracy, fabrication, collusion and plagiarism. However, the most famous of them all is plagiarism. In this paper I will talk about the consequences of academic dishonesty and how to avoid it.

  14. 77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

    The definition of academic dishonesty is as follows: "The first type of academic dishonesty is cheating, which includes the intentional use or attempted use of unauthorized materials or information in an examination. Moral Identities, Social Anxiety, and Academic Dishonesty

  15. Academic Integrity vs Academic Dishonesty

    Academic dishonesty refers to deceitful or misleading behavior in an academic setting. Academic dishonesty can occur intentionally or unintentionally, and it varies in severity. It can encompass paying for a pre-written essay, cheating on an exam, or committing plagiarism.It can also include helping others cheat, copying a friend's homework answers, or even pretending to be sick to miss an exam.

  16. Predicting Academic Dishonesty: The Role of Psychopathic Traits

    Abstract. This study conducted on a sample of 295 Dutch and Italian undergraduate and graduate students aims to investigate how psychopathic personality traits (meanness, boldness and disinhibition) may lead to cheating behavior, and to study whether there are correlations between psychopathic traits, motivation, moral disengagement, the perception of seriousness of academic dishonesty and ...

  17. Academic Dishonesty Effects on Students

    StudyCorgi Education Academic Dishonesty and Its Detrimental Effects Words: 1122 Pages: 5 Why is academic dishonesty bad? Check out this essay to find out. It is focused on immediate consequences and long-term effects of academic dishonesty on students. Table of Contents Introduction

  18. Essays on Academic Dishonesty

    Quickly scrolling through countless articles,... Academic Dishonesty 4 Why is Academic Honesty so Important? 1 page / 679 words Consistently, millions of students face moral and ethical predicaments and shockingly, examines have demonstrated that most students choose to plagiarize.

  19. Academic Dishonesty: Cause And Effect Of Plagiarism

    (SHashok,2011). It is understandable that this phenomenon has ever been a potential concern for academics and artwork creators. However, these days it seems that with proper and unlimited access to the internet, using polarized materials has become easier than ever before.

  20. What are the consequences of academic dishonesty?

    Academic dishonesty refers to deceitful or misleading behavior in an academic setting. Academic dishonesty can occur intentionally or unintentionally, and it varies in severity. It can encompass paying for a pre-written essay, cheating on an exam, or committing plagiarism.It can also include helping others cheat, copying a friend's homework answers, or even pretending to be sick to miss an exam.

  21. A Guide to Writing a Cause and Effect Essay

    However, within the realm of academic essay writing, a cause and effect essay is an expository piece of writing. Cause and effect essays are similar to other kinds of expository essays in that they present facts in a clear, logical format. They employ an objective, analytical tone and stay away from flowery and inciting language.

  22. Causes & Effects of Academic Cheating

    Pages: Download Dusan Micovic EN105 Prof. Rutt 13/10/2012 The Causes and Effects of Academic Cheating Cheating has been an issue for years in academic settings, whether in the primary grades, high school or college. However, definition of cheating remains unclear.

  23. Academic dishonesty (cause effect)

    Cause/Effect essay Academic dishonesty can be defined as information falsification, plagiarism, copying, and examination dishonesty. According to a Scottish university's survey, teachers reported a 50% increase in plagiarism since the rise of AI and the results indicate a grave problem. In this essay I am going to tackle the causes of this ...

  24. 8 Cause and Effect Essay Examples to Help You Get Started

    Research and Gather Evidence: Gather relevant data, statistics, examples, and expert opinions to support your arguments. Strong evidence enhances the credibility of your essay. Outline Your Essay: Create a structured outline that outlines the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. This will provide a clear roadmap for your essay and ...