A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Education in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for a Master of Educational Psychology in the department of Educational Psychology and special in the Faculty of of Education at the University of Zululand, 2018. / This is a qualitative study aimed at exploring the factors influencing students to engage on risks of academic cheating and plagiarism at the University of Zululand The specific objectives of the study are: To establish the factors influencing students to take risks on academic cheating during examinations and plagiarism. To explore the extent of the awareness on the consequences of engaging in risky behaviors with regards to plagiarism and academic cheating.

Cheating in video games has been prevalent ever since the days of Pong. Games have evolved much since then and the ways in which people play together have changed as well. Older systems required people to play together in the same room, but with the advent of the internet, gaming consoles allow us to play games together with people located all over the globe. Cheating has evolved as well, since gamers no longer have the luxury of monitoring the person sitting next to them; anti-cheating mechanisms are built into most online systems and suspicious behavior is monitored by gaming companies. Most of the current research has surrounded ways in which players cheat and their reasoning for doing so. This is only half of the equation however, what happens after a gamer is caught cheating? What are the repercussions for being caught cheating and how does being caught influence future decisions to cheat? By putting gamers in a situation where they are caught cheating, three different responses were revealed: those who are determined to cheat no matter what, those who scale back their cheating in the hopes of remaining undetected, and those who stopped cheating altogether. / Master of Science

Not available / text

The purposes were (1) to determine student attitudes concerning the cause, frequency, method, and punishment of academically dishonest behavior, (2) to determine current behavioral patterns concerning the origin, method, frequency, and student reactions to academically dishonest behavior, and (3) to determine the role of denominational affiliation, religious participation, satisfaction with religious involvement, and importance of religious development in relationship to the practice of academic dishonesty.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--School of Education. University of Missouri--Kansas City, 2005. / "A dissertation in urban leadership and policy studies in education and education." Advisor: Richard Palm. Typescript. Vita. Title from "catalog record" of the print edition Description based on contents viewed March 12, 2007. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 404-419). Online version of the print edition.

Despite a wealth of studies, no consistent personality predictors of scholastic cheating have been identified. However, several highly-relevant variables have been overlooked. I address this void with a series of three studies. Study 1 was a large-scale survey of a broad range of personality predictors of self-reported scholastic cheating. The significant predictors were psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism, low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness. However, only psychopathy remained significant in a multiple regression. Study 2 replicated this pattern using a naturalistic, behavioural indicator of cheating -- plagiarism as indexed by the internet service Turn-It-In. The psychopathy association still held up after controlling for intelligence. Finally, Study 3 examined possible motivational mediators of the association between psychopathy and cheating. Unmitigated achievement and moral inhibition were successful mediators whereas fear of punishment was not. Implications for researchers and educators are discussed.

Despite a wealth of studies, no consistent personality predictors of scholastic cheating have been identified. However, several highly-relevant variables have been overlooked. I address this void with a series of three studies. Study 1 was a large-scale survey of a broad range of personality predictors of self-reported scholastic cheating. The significant predictors were psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism, low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness. However, only psychopathy remained significant in a multiple regression. Study 2 replicated this pattern using a naturalistic, behavioural indicator of cheating -- plagiarism as indexed by the internet service Turn-It-In. The psychopathy association still held up after controlling for intelligence. Finally, Study 3 examined possible motivational mediators of the association between psychopathy and cheating. Unmitigated achievement and moral inhibition were successful mediators whereas fear of punishment was not. Implications for researchers and educators are discussed.

<p>The question of what leads an individual to act dishonestly interests researchers, policy-makers, and lay-people alike. While a growing body of research suggests that dishonest behavior is typically limited, and reflects a balance of internal and external incentives, important questions remain unanswered. To what extent is honest behavior guided by stable, internal factors (i.e. moral character), and to what extent is it shaped by situational factors? This question is the subject of continuing and recently revived debate. To what extent do socio-cultural factors impact dishonesty, and to what extent is dishonesty universal? Casual observation suggests significant cross-cultural variation in terms of specific dishonest behaviors (e.g. soliciting bribes), but this source of variation has received little research attention. In five related research chapters encompassing three studies, I explore questions about character and culture using empirical research methods. Using a behavioral die task, I find similar patterns of dishonest behavior across individuals from different countries, though within-country differences are also observed. Using survey data, I find that internal sanctions are the most important deterrent of dishonesty across cultures. In addition, I find that that specific dishonest behaviors vary across cultures, and according to domains. Domain-specific dishonesty and socio-cultural influences are also evident in a study involving socially connected pairs of individuals. I conclude that dishonest tendencies may be best characterized as both universal and culturally sensitive. Furthermore, moral character may be construed as a multidimensional construct, expressed differently across different domains of life.</p> / Dissertation

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Bowling Green State University, 2009. / Document formatted into pages; contains xiv, 255 p. Includes bibliographical references.