Running Head: Academic Dishonesty and Applicant Dishonesty. Richard L. Frei. Community College of Philadelphia

Transcription

1 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 1 Running Head: Academic Dishonesty and Applicant Dishonesty Exploring the Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Applicant Dishonesty Richard L. Frei Community College of Philadelphia Mitchell H. Peterson, Joshua A. Isaacson, & Richard L. Griffith The Florida Institute of Technology Margaret Jenkins Community College of Philadelphia Address Correspondence Concerning This Paper To: Mitchell H. Peterson College of Psychology and Liberal Arts The Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, FL mpeterso@fit.edu

2 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 2 Abstract This study explored the relationship between academic dishonesty and applicant dishonesty. Using a simulated applicant setting, students who reported higher levels of academic dishonesty were also more likely to fake on various subscales of the NEO-FFI. Both academic dishonesty and faking were significantly correlated with integrity.

3 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 3 Exploring the Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Applicant Dishonesty Academic dishonesty, also known as cheating, has been and continues to be a topic of great concern for both psychologists and those in the educational community. Cheating encompasses a wide range of behaviors, including (but not limited to) copying from another person s examination, using crib notes to improve exam scores, falsifying references in a research paper, and plagiarism (Finn & Frone, 2004). The literature on academic dishonesty goes back nearly 70 years to E.R. Groves (1936) early essay entitled Let s Face the Problem of Cheating. Groves, one of the pioneers in marriage and family research, implied in his writing that academic dishonesty may be an indicator of future immoral behavior. In his book Personality and Social Adjustment (1923), he highlighted this idea in the first chapter entitled The New Understanding of Conduct and argued that schools were important institutions for teaching moral values, such as honesty and good citizenship. Much of the subsequent research on cheating has focused on one of two questions: 1) Why do students cheat? 2) Is academic dishonesty related to any other deviant behaviors, such as drug use, illegal driving behaviors, or counterproductive work behaviors? As to why students cheat, a number of researchers have focused on antecedents of academic dishonesty, including individual differences variables (such as sex, year in school, age, locus of control) and situational variables (such as fraternity membership or public vs. private school attendance), which may influence a students propensity to cheat and attitudes towards academic dishonesty in general. Review articles on academic dishonesty (see McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001) have generally concluded that the effects of contextual variables are usually larger and more consistent than individual differences. However, Lucas and Friedrich (2005) argued that, for a number of reasons, the effects of individual differences may be underestimated. For example,

4 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 4 perceptions of situations are often categorized as contextual variables, even though perceptions are obviously influenced by individual differences. Also, including such seemingly trivial demographic variables such as age and sex in with other, more theory-driven personality variables or cognitive ability may further minimize the overall effect of important individual differences. The second question of academic dishonesty being related to other deviant behaviors in other settings (especially professional settings, such as the workplace) has been studied by a number of authors. For example, Harding, Carpenter, Finelli, and Passow (2004) examined the relationship between academic dishonesty and propensity to engage in unethical professional practices in engineering students, a majority of whom had already worked (average six months) in the engineering profession. The authors found relationship between cheating in high school and college with violating workplace policies (i.e., using company supplies improperly, falsifying records, ignoring safety problems). Nonis and Swift (2001) looked at the relationship between academic dishonesty and dishonest acts in the workplace (which they oddly label workplace cheating ), including taking money from the company, coming to work under the influence of drugs, and stealing merchandise. They found a positive correlation between academic cheating and workplace cheating (r =.61). Sims (1993) reported a similar relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices in a sample of MBA students. Results indicated that those students who engaged in a wider variety of academically dishonest behaviors also engaged in a wider variety of unethical workplace behaviors. Further, those who engaged in the most severe academically dishonest behavior also engaged in the most unethical business practices.

5 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 5 Although the aforementioned studies have linked cheating in academic settings to dishonest acts in the workplace, no research to date has looked at the relationship between academic dishonesty and dishonesty that occurs during the hiring process itself. This applicant dishonesty may include such behaviors as fabricating work or educational experience on a resume, lying about a past criminal record, inflating the duties or responsibilities of previous jobs during an interview, or faking on non-cognitive selection tests. Faking is generally defined as a deliberate attempt to elevate personality test scores under motivated applicant conditions (Griffith & McDaniel, 2006). A number of researchers have hypothesized a possible link between academic dishonesty and faking of personality measures used for job selection. Frei, Yoshita, and Isaacson (2006) proposed that potential cross-cultural differences in applicant faking may be reflected in differing cultural attitudes towards academic dishonesty and testtaking in general. Snell, Sydell, and Leuke (1999) included academic dishonesty in their proposed integrative model of applicant faking. Both imply a general deviance model, in which deviance is a dispositional characteristic that should be relatively stable across situations. Blankenship and Whitley (2000) looked at the relationship between general deviance and academic dishonesty. The authors argued that strong correlations between relatively unrelated forms of deviance (such as substance abuse, risky driving behavior) and academic dishonesty would support the idea that deviance is largely a personality-driven individual difference variable. In partial support of their hypothesis, cheaters scored higher than non-cheaters on measures of unreliability and risky driving behavior, but not on measures of substance abuse or illegal behaviors, and students who engaged in false excuse-making (i.e., lying about why they missed a class or exam) scored higher than those who did not on all four measures of deviant

6 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 6 behavior. While the results may suggest a general deviance factor, the effect sizes were relatively small. Another similarity between academic dishonesty and faking is their relationship to the construct of integrity. Researchers in personality testing have suggested that integrity may be related to faking. McFarland and Ryan (2000) found that respondents with higher integrity scores were less likely to increase their scores on other personality tests through faking. Snell and Fluckinger (2006) proposed an applicant response model based on James (1998) model of conditioned behavior. They argued that the relationship between dispositional biases and applicant response choice on non-cognitive selection tests is moderated by various justification mechanisms (JMs), or the reasons why applicants choose to give accurate or inaccurate responses. One important mechanism is a morality JM, the belief that response behavior is influenced by personal orientations regarding morals, values, integrity, or ethics (Snell & Fluckinger, 2006, p. 198). The authors contend that those who are low in morality JM are more likely to assume that everyone is faking on personality tests, making their own faking behavior more justifiable. In a recent survey, English, Griffith, Graseck, and Steelman (2005) found that 74% of applicants believed that other applicants were engaging in faking behavior. Likewise, many integrity tests (e.g., Griffith, 1997) use covert questions that tap into this idea that most people engage in certain negative behaviors (e.g. How many people give their friends items from work without their boss s permission? ). Lucas and Friedrich (2005) looked at individual differences in workplace deviance and integrity as predictors of academic dishonesty. The authors theorized that, to the extent that academic cheating is a form of counterproductive work behavior (with the work role being that of student ), integrity tests should be a strong predictor of academic dishonesty. Results

7 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 7 indicated that integrity test scores were moderate to strong correlates of self-reported academic dishonesty, even after controlling for item format similarity, concurrent assessment, and socially desirable responding. Current Study and Hypotheses: The current study attempted to expand our existing knowledge of academic dishonesty and applicant faking. This study is an improvement on previous studies of academic dishonesty in that it employed a multiple-item scale of cheating, rather than the typical single item assessments used in past research. It also used an experimental methodology that closely mimics an actual employment selection situation. If the general deviance model is correct, both academic dishonesty and integrity should be related to the amount of faking on non-cognitive selection tests: H1: There will be a significant correlation between academic dishonesty and the amount of faking on measures of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. H2: There will be a significant correlation between integrity and the amount of faking on measures of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Likewise, as previously reported by Lucas and Friedrich (2005), academic dishonesty should be significantly related to integrity: H3: There will be a significant correlation between academic dishonesty and integrity.

8 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 8 Finally, those who are categorized as fakers should report higher levels of academic dishonesty than non-fakers, similar to Sims (1993) findings that students who engaged in the most severe academically dishonest behavior also engaged in the most unethical business practices. H4: Respondents categorized as fakers will score significantly higher on the academic dishonesty measure than non-fakers. Method Participants The sample for the current study consisted of 216 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology courses at a group of southeastern universities and community colleges. The sample was comprised of 68% females, with a mean age of 22 years. All participants were treated in accordance with the American Psychological Association s ethical guidelines. Participants level of interest in the job was examined as an indication of one s motivation to obtain the job. In order to replicate a realistic applicant pool, participants were asked to indicate their level of interest in the position being offered on a scale from 1 = Not Interested to 5 = Very Interested. Data from participants who indicated no interest in the job (i.e. those that marked a 1 on the interest item) were discarded. After removing participants who had not expressed interest in the position, a final sample of 139 remained for subsequent analyses. Measures Personality. The NEO-FFI, which is a shortened and validated form of the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), was used in order to assess the personality variables of interest to the

9 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 9 present study. The NEO-FFI is a 60-item measure of the Big Five personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992), comprised of the 12-items with the strongest (positive or negative) loadings for each factor from the NEO-PI-R. For the purpose of this study, response behavior on only the Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness scales was examined. Items were administered using a 5-point Likert scale, with anchors ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. The Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness scales have previously demonstrated internal consistency reliabilities of.77,.68,.81, respectively (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-FFI was administered twice to all participants; once while participants were under the assumption that they were applying for a job, and again under special instructions to respond as honestly as possible. Academic Dishonesty. A 15-item measure of academic dishonesty was developed for the purposes of the present study. The items pertained to a range of behaviors indicative of academic dishonesty. The behaviors assessed ranged from a relatively low level of severity (e.g. It is acceptable to lie to a professor about missing class ), to relatively severe dishonest behaviors (e.g. I have copied parts of a paper because I knew there was no chance of getting caught ). Participants rated the items on a 5-point Likert scale, with anchors ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. Integrity. An 8-item version of the Applicant Integrity Scale (AIS; Griffith, 1997) was used as an assessment of participants integrity in the current study. The scale is comprised of covert (e.g. How many people give their friends items from work without their boss s permission? ) integrity items. All items were rated on a 5-point frequency-based Likert scale with response anchors ranging from 1 = None to 5 = All. The scale was scored in a summated

10 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 10 fashion, with higher scores indicating lower levels of integrity. Griffith (1997) reported an internal consistency of α =.87 for a subset of the AIS scale items. Faking Behavior. In the current study, faking behavior was operationalized as a change score between participants personality scores in the applicant condition, and their scores when the NEO-FFI was completed under instructions to respond honestly. Therefore, an amount of faking score was calculated for each participant by subtracting his or her honest score from their applicant score for each personality construct. This allowed for the creation of a continuous faking variable to be used in correlational analyses. The methodology suggested by Griffith et al. (in press) was used to categorize individuals as fakers or non-fakers for the purpose of testing of Hypotheses 4. This methodology involved calculating a 95% confidence interval around respondents personality scores from the honest condition for each of the three scales. If a respondent s score in the applicant condition exceeded the upper bound of this interval, he or she was categorized as having faked that personality scale. Manipulation Check. A brief manipulation check survey was included in order to assess whether participants believed they were applying for a real position. The survey asked participants to rate the study s believability on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = Not Believable to 5 = Very Believable. Procedure Researchers have argued that laboratory study designs are not adequate to assess true applicant behavior due to the use of non-realistic experimental environments (Smith and Ellingson, 2002; Hough, 1997). Thus, to simulate an applicant condition, deception was utilized

11 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 11 in the current study design. The following section describes each step of the study s administration. Acting as research consultants for a local, university-based consulting firm, the experimenters entered the students classrooms for a scheduled research day. The experimenters informed the students that prior to conducting the research; they would be given the opportunity to apply for a customer service representative position at the firm. This procedure was expected to replicate the psychological state of an individual applying for a job and elicit similar behavioral patterns, as most participants should have been motivated to present themselves in a positive fashion and increase their chances of obtaining the position. During the introduction, participants were told that a research study was being conducted to help improve the firm s selection measures, and that the firm was also recruiting for entrylevel positions. Following the introduction, a job description was provided and participants were instructed to complete materials in the applicant packets, which contained a job application and the NEO-FFI. The job application form allowed participants the opportunity to indicate their interest in the current position, which served as the mechanism for removing data from participants who were not interested in obtaining the job. Following the applicant condition, participants were debriefed, and informed there was no job opportunity. They were also informed that all information obtained was to be used for research purposes only. At this point, the participants were informed that they would be asked to complete some additional measures as a part of the research study, and reminded that their participation would result in extra credit points and help advance the research being conducted.

12 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 12 The second half of the study was administered under an honest condition, where participants were instructed to answer all items as truthfully as possible. The honest condition included the NEO-FFI, Academic Dishonesty Measure, and the Applicant Integrity Scale. The special honest instructions reminded participants that they were taking part in a research study for which they would be receiving extra-credit, and that they should answer the remaining items as honestly as possible. This procedure allowed for the collection of both honest and applicant scores for each individual, which could then be used to assess applicant faking behavior. Results Descriptive statistics and reliabilities for the study scales for the full sample are presented in Table 1, while descriptives for the interested participants are displayed in Table 2. While the NEO-FFI and AIS scales were used in previous research, special attention was paid to the psychometric characteristics of the Academic Dishonesty Scale, which was developed for the purposes of the present study. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency as measured by Cronbach s Alpha (α =.87). Data gathered from the manipulation check scale indicated that most participants believed that they were applying for a real customer service position, with 88% of participants giving the study a believability rating of at least 3 on a 5-point scale (M = 3.80). This finding suggests that a majority of the participants believed they were applying for a real position. The results of the correlational analyses are presented in Table 3. As expected, academic dishonesty was significantly related to applicant faking on two out of the three personality scales. Participants scores on the academic dishonesty measure were positively related to faking on the agreeableness (r =.21, p <.05) and conscientiousness (r =.20, p <.05) scales of the NEO-FFI.

13 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 13 The relationship between academic dishonesty and faking on the extraversion scale was not significant (r =.14, ns). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 received partial support. The integrity scale tended to demonstrate less consistent relationships with applicant faking behavior in that the measure was significantly related to faking only for the conscientiousness scale of the NEO-FFI (r =.19, p <.05). In contrast, scores on the integrity measure were not significantly related to faking on the extraversion (r =.01, ns) or agreeableness (r =.11, ns) scales. This finding provides limited support for Hypothesis 2. However, there was a significant correlation between academic dishonesty and integrity (r =.39, p <.01), supporting Hypothesis 3. It is important to note that the positive relationship between the two scales was a function of their scoring scheme in that high scores on the integrity items indicate a lack of integrity, while high scores on the academic dishonesty measure indicate a high degree of dishonest behavior. In addition to investigating the relationship between academic dishonesty and faking, it was expected that individuals categorized as extreme fakers (using the methodology of Griffith et al., in press) would score significantly higher on the academic dishonesty measure. In order to test this assertion, three one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted (See Table 4). Individuals categorized as having faked the extraversion scale did not have significantly higher academic dishonesty scores than the group of non-fakers (F (1, 137) = 1.64, p =.20). Conversely, individuals identified as having faked the conscientiousness measure score significantly higher on the academic dishonesty scale than those who didn t fake (F (1, 137) = 4.47, p <.05). A similar pattern was found for the agreeableness scale (F (1, 137) = 6.59, p <.05). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 received partial support.

14 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 14 Discussion As predicted, academic dishonesty was found to be related to both integrity and applicant faking. The relationship between academic dishonesty and faking were significant for two of the three subscales of the NEO-FFI. Academic dishonesty was also related to integrity. The relationship between integrity and faking was also significant for one of the three subscales of the NEO-FFI. Interestingly, faking on the NEO-FFI subscale of extraversion was related to neither academic dishonesty nor integrity. That leaves open the possibility that people who are lower in integrity or higher in academic dishonesty fake less on scales of extraversion because they are already high on that trait. Research has shown that individuals who are high in integrity tend to be reserved, responsible, and moderate, while those low in integrity are more likely to be impulsive, spontaneous, and emotional (Sackett and Wanek, 1996). More research is needed into the relationship between faking and various personality traits that fakers may possess. Likewise, more research is needed to determine whether academic dishonesty and faking are correlated with other forms of applicant dishonesty or counterproductive work behavior. In general, academic dishonesty has been ignored as a predictor variable in job selection, and this study will hopefully encourage more researchers to look into utilizing the construct in job application settings, either through self-report biodata inventories or the checking of academic records. We found that fakers (as categorized by Griffith et al., in press) reported being more academically dishonest than non-fakers. Such a link could also potentially impact behavior in employment training programs. For example, personality tests are commonly used to pick candidates for the police academy because they result in less adverse impact. But if applicants get into the program because they faked these tests, they may also be more likely to

15 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 15 cheat in order to graduate. More research is needed on the impact of academic dishonesty and cheating on work-related learning environments. Researchers have argued that the faking of non-cognitive selection tests may result in two negative consequences for the organization: 1) hiring applicants whose personalities are not compatible with the job and 2) hiring applicants who are more deceptive and may engage in other deviant behaviors at work. In addressing this issue, Griffith and McDaniel (2006) stated that, At the present time, little is known about the characteristics of individuals who choose to elevate their scores (p. 9). This study, while exploratory, provides some preliminary evidence for the second of these two suppositions.

16 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 16 References Blankenship, K. L. & Whitley, B. E. (2000). Relation of general deviance to academic dishonesty. Ethics and Business, 10, Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The Revised NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa, FL. English, A., Griffith, R.L., Graseck, M., & Steelman, L.A. (2005). Frame of reference, applicant faking, and the predictive validity of non-cognitive measures. Manuscript submitted for publication. Finn, K. V. & Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating: Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 3, Frei, R. L., Yoshita, Y. & Isaacson, J. (2006). Let s go faking! Culture and response distortion in international employment testing. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A Closer Examination of Applicant Faking Behavior, , Information Age Publishing. Griffith, R.L. (1997). Faking of non-cognitive selection devices: Red herring is hard to swallow. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Akron, Akron, OH. Griffith, R.L., Chmielowski, T.S., & Yoshita, Y. (in press). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review. Griffith, R. L. & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). The nature of deception and applicant faking behavior. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A Closer Examination of Applicant Faking Behavior, 1-19, Information Age Publishing. Groves, E. R. (1936). Let s face the problem of cheating. The National Parent-Teacher Magazine, 24, 6-7.

17 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 17 Groves, E. R. (1923). Personality and social adjustment. New York: Longmans, Green, and Conpany. Harding, T.S., Carpenter, D.D., Finelli, C.J., & Passow, H.J. (2004) The influence of academic dishonesty on ethical decision making in the workplace: A study of engineering students. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education National Meeting, Washington D.C.: ASEE (in print). Hough, L. M. (1997). The millennium for personality psychology: New horizons or good old daze. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1, Lucas, G. M. & Friedrich, J. (2005). Individual differences in workplace deviance and integrity as predictors of academic dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 15(1), McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., and Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating at academic institutions: A decade of research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11, McFarland, L. A. & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across non-cognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, Nonis, S. & Swift, C. O. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for Business, Sackett, P.R., & Wanek, J.E. (1996). New developments in the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 49,

18 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 18 Sims, R. L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68, 4, Smith, D. B. & Ellingson, J. E. (2002). Substance vs. style: A new look at social desirability in motivating contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 2, Snell, A. F. & Fluckinger, C. D. (2006). Understanding resonses to personality selection measures. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A Closer Examination of Applicant Faking Behavior, , Information Age Publishing. Snell, A. F., Sydell, E. J., & Leuke, S. B. (1999). Towards a theory of applicant faking: Integrating studies of deception. Human Resource Management Review, 9,

19 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 19 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for Study Scales Scale Mean SD α 1. Applicant Extraversion Applicant Agreeableness Applicant Conscientiousness Honest Extraversion Honest Agreeableness Honest Conscientiousness Applicant Integrity Scale Academic Dishonesty Measure Note: N = 216

20 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 20 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Interested Sub-Sample (n = 139) Scale Mean SD 1. Applicant Extraversion Applicant Agreeableness Applicant Conscientiousness Honest Extraversion Honest Agreeableness Honest Conscientiousness Applicant Integrity Scale Academic Dishonesty Measure Amount of Faking Extraversion Amount of Faking Agreeableness Amount of Faking Conscientiousness

21 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 21 Table 3. Correlations Among Study Variables Measure Amount of Faking - Extraversion Amount of Faking - Agreeableness.58** Amount of Faking - Conscientiousness.60**.72** Academic Dishonesty.14.21*.20* Integrity Measure *.39** - Note: * = p <.05; ** = p <.01

22 Faking and Academic Dishonesty 22 Table 4. Mean-Level Comparisons of Academic Dishonesty Scores Between Fakers and Non-Fakers M df F p Faker Extraversion , Non-Faker Extraversion Faker Agreeableness , Non-Faker Agreeableness Faker Conscientiousness , Non-Faker Conscientiousness