First, management or other employees have an incentive or are under pressure, which provides a reason to commit fraud. Second, circumstances exist â for example, the absence of controls, ineffective controls, or the ability of management to override controls â that provide an opportunity for a fraud to be perpetrated. Third, those involved are able to rationalize committing a fraudulent act.
These conditions are referred to as the fraud triangle (Albrecht et al., 2020). Several studies (e.g., Becker, Connolly, Lentz & Morrison, 2006; Burke & Sanney, 2018; Choo & Tan, 2008; Little & Handel, 2016) have used the fraud triangle to examine studentsâ cheating behavior.3 For example, whereas Choo and Tan (2008) and Becker et al. (2006) found that each of the three conditions in the fraud triangle influenced studentsâ cheating behavior, Choo and Tan (2008) found that all three conditions acted jointly when predicting cheating.
Little and Handel (2016) indicate that the fraud triangleâs three conditions are similar to the conditions present when students cheat. They refer to the cheating triangleâs conditions as the pressure for grades, poor control over the testing environment and studentsâ belief that âeveryone cheatsâ (i.e., cynical attitude (Ameen et al., 1996; Bernardi & Adamaitis, 2007; Salter, Guffey & McMillan, 2001)). Wells (2005) suggests a fraud scale that adapts the conditions of the fraud triangle. This scale predicts the highest probability of cheating when situational pressures (i.e., pressure for high grades) and opportunities (i.e., lack of control of the testing environment) are high, whereas concurrently personal integrity is low.
Day, Hudson, Dobies and Waris (2011) and Van Yperen, Melvyn, van der Klauw and van der Klauw (2011) report that grade-oriented students (i.e., satisficing (Schwartz et al., 2002)) are more likely to cheat than students who focus on mastering the subject material (i.e., maximizing (Schwartz et al., 2002). Ballantine, Guo and Larres (2018, p. 247) define mastering the subject matter as ârelating and structuring ideas, thinking creatively, weighing relevant evidence and critically evaluating knowledgeâ. Schwartz et al. (2002) indicate that maximizing occurs when students are willing to put forth a significant effort to attain âhigh-standard goalsâ; however, these authors indicate that satisficing occurs when students put in only a minimum effort to attain âgood-enough goalsâ. Elias (2019) found that students who scored higher on a measure of maximizing tendencies (Lai, 2010) perceived cheating (Simha, Armstrong & Albert, 2012) as being more unethical.
Tyson (1989) found that, whereas male students had higher attitudes related to questions pertaining to competition, female students had higher attitudes related to self-satisfaction and hard work (Gneezy, Niederle & Rustichini, 2003). In a replication study of Tyson (1989), Landry and Bernardiâs (2015) students reported lower averages on questions dealing with work attitudes than those in Tysonâs (1989) sample. However, whereas not wanting to work as hard as the students in Tysonâs (1989) sample, Landry and Bernardi (2015) also found that their students expected higher grades than the students in Tysonâs (1989) sample.
Maeda (2019), McCabe, Treviño and Butterfield (1999) and Rettinger and Jordan (2005) noted that cheating on examinations resulted from the desire to excel, parental pressure for higher grades and the need to get a job. Faulkender et al. (1994) indicated that students cheat when they believe the material is too difficult, did not attend class or were too busy to study. Additionally, when students observe unethical business behavior on the nightly news (i.e., negative reinforcement), they are more likely to feel that unethical behavior in an academic setting is acceptable. Examples of negative reinforcement that students are exposed to include the âmisuse of ⊠funds, insider trading, and accusations of plagiarism and other forms of dishonesty by national leadersâ (Welsh, 1993, p. 6). Recent corporate scandals include Volkswagenâs tampering with emission testing and Valeant Pharmaceuticalsâ significant price increase of prescription drugs (IG, 2018).
In an international study of cheating in Australia, China, Ireland and the United States of America, Bernardi et al. (2008) found that the ways students cheated could be grouped into three methods: writing, visual/oral communication and other methods. Whereas the writing methods included crib notes and writing on oneâs body/cloths, visual/oral methods included copying another studentâs exam, asking for answers and having another student take your exam. The other methods included using programmable calculators and cell phone and hiding notes in a bathroom, many of which were also reported by Smith, Davy, Rosenberg and Haight (2002). Finally, Bernardi et al. (2008) noted that students from all four countries provided similar responses.
Peer behavior influenced student cheating (Bernardi et al., 2016; Cicognani, 2019; Bernardi & LaCross, 2004). MacGregor and Stuebs (2012) found that students rationalize their cheating when there is some doubt about whether cheating is permitted or when they believe their peers have an unfair advantage over them by cheating (i.e., a cynical attitude â everyone cheats) (Ameen et al., 1996; Bernardi & Adamaitis, 2007; Salter et al., 2001). Ameen et al. (1996) found that, whereas 88% of students had witnessed a peer cheating, less than 16% of students believed that cheating was a serious problem. In a large European sample, over half the sample reported having cheated in college and that cheaters were more likely to know another student who cheated (Cicognani, 2019). Not only is academic dishonesty learned from observing peers but such peer behavior may create an attitude that cheating is an acceptable way of competing in an academic environment (McCabe, Treviño & Butterfield, 2001). Smyth and Davis (2003) found that 54% of students believed that cheating was acceptable behavior. Bernardi, Banzhoff, Martino and Savasta (2012b) found that students who observed other students cheating in college were more likely to cheat, which suggests the need to emphasize ethical behavior throughout a studentâs academic experience in college. Lawson (2004) noted that studentsâ propensity to cheat in college associates with attitudes toward unethical behavior in the business.
