University students’ reactions to a peer’s cheating behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While academic dishonesty has been a topic of inquiry since the late 1920's, research in this area has largely focused on the perpetrators of cheating and understanding why they cheat.Relatively little consideration has been given to understanding the reactions of those who witness cheating and identifying the factors that influence student observers' decisions to either report or withhold information about this kind of transgression.The current study investigated university students' reactions to an observed act of cheating in an experimental paradigm.Participants witnessed a confederate cheat during an exam and were subsequently questioned.The results suggest that while the vast majority of students did not voluntarily report the incident, most do so once they are asked relatively direct questions about the event.The findings also reveal that different grading scenarios significantly influences students' reactions to a peer's cheating behavior; yet, additional analyses indicate that this effect applies to female students only.The current study has important implications for school professionals in that it provides greater insight into university students' actual reactions to an observed act of cheating and the factors which make their decision to report the incident more or less likely.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".