Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

The NEO Personality Inventory, Attitudes, and Academic Dishonesty Fezatte, Alissa 2009-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
Thesis Alissa Fezatte.pdf [ 176.08kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0086030.json
JSON-LD: 1.0086030+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0086030.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0086030+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0086030+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0086030+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0086030 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0086030.txt
Citation
1.0086030.ris

Full Text

              NEO Personality Inventory     1                                              The NEO Personality Inventory,   Attitudes, and Academic Dishonesty     By: Alissa Fezatte   University of British Columbia Okanagan  An Honours Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of   BACHELOR OF ARTS (HONOURS)  In the Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Psychology Department  Project Supervisor:  Jan Don D. Cioe, Ph.D., R.Psych.  June 2009                 NEO Personality Inventory     2                                        Running head: NEO PERSONALITY AND ACADEMIC DISHONESTY                 The NEO Personality Inventory, Attitudes, and Academic Dishonesty  Alissa Fezatte  UBC Okanagan                                  NEO Personality Inventory     3                                         Abstract  This study examined the relationship between personality traits and academic dishonesty while controlling for the effects of self-efficacy, attitudes, and academic motivations. University students (N = 344) completed a confidential online questionnaire that assessed personality based on the five-factor model, academic self-efficacy, attitudes towards academic dishonesty, academic motivations, self and peer reports of academic dishonesty before and during university, and demographic variables. The results indicate that although personality variables are significantly related to reports of academic dishonesty (α = .05), this effect is mediated by attitudes towards academic dishonesty.  Consistent with previous research, academic self-efficacy and gender were significantly related to reports of academic dishonesty before and during university.  Current grade point average and program were predictive of reports of academic dishonesty during university. Type of motivation was not significantly related to reports of academic dishonesty. Finally, peer reports of academic dishonesty were significantly higher than self-reports.               NEO Personality Inventory     4                                        The NEO Personality Inventory, Attitudes, and Academic Dishonesty  Recent research examining the prevalence of academic dishonesty in high schools, colleges, and universities worldwide suggests that the rates of academic dishonesty have risen to epidemic proportions. Some reports claim that 74% of high school students and 95% of college students are admitting to at least one incidence of cheating (Marsden, Carroll, & Neill, 2005; McCabe 2001; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Academic dishonesty can include a variety of behaviours such as plagiarism, cheating on exams, and copying assignments from other students (Jensen, Arnett, Feldman, & Cauffman, 2002).  Studies have shown demographic variables to be related to academic dishonesty (Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; McCabe, Butterfield, & Trevino, 2006; Pino & Smith, 2003): For example, younger students, male students, business students, and students with lower GPAs have been shown to engage in more acts of academic dishonesty. These findings, however, have not been replicated across all studies and are often found to be mediated by contextual variables and personality characteristics (Anderman & Murdock, 2007). Contextual variables such as classroom setting, teacher characteristics and practices, as well as preventive measures, such as seating arrangements during tests and honour codes have also been shown to have an effect on academic dishonesty (Houston,1986; McCabe & Trevino, 1993).   Individual variables such as level of self-efficacy, type of motivation, attitudes, and general personality characteristics have also been implicated as contributing factors in a student’s decision to engage in academically dishonest behaviours (Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998; Haines et al., 1986; Murdock et al., 2001). For example, high levels of academic self-efficacy have been shown to be inversely related to academic dishonesty (Murdock et al., 2001). The more students believe they are capable of performing the required course work and               NEO Personality Inventory     5                                        successfully obtaining their academic goals, the less likely they are to cheat (Anderman & Murdock, 2007). Academic motivation has also been shown to have an effect on academic dishonesty. Students who report extrinsic academic motivations are more likely to engage in academic dishonesty than students who report intrinsic academic motivations (Anderman et al., 1998).  Student attitudes towards academic dishonesty are also predictive of academic dishonesty (Anderman et al., 1998; Whitley, 1998). Students who endorse lenient attitudes towards academic dishonesty are more likely to commit academically dishonest behaviours (Anderman et al., 1998). Furthermore, attitudes may mediate the relationship between personality variables and academic dishonesty. Bolin (2004) examined the relationship between self-control, attitudes, and academic dishonesty and found that attitudes played a meditational role in this triad. The literature on the relationship between general personality characteristics and academic dishonesty, in contrast, is sparse, and only in the exploratory stages. However, it is clear from the research that does exist that general personality characteristics have an effect on whether or not students choose to engage in academic dishonesty (e.g., DeBruin & Rudnick, 2006). Further, attitudes have been found to mediate this relationship between general personality characteristics and academic dishonesty (e.g., Bolin, 2004).   General personality characteristics that relate to time management have been shown to predict academic dishonesty. Studies have found that students most frequently self-report time pressure as the reason for engaging in academic dishonesty (Anderman & Murdock, 2007; Devlin & Gray, 2007). When students feel stressed and overwhelmed by the lack of time to complete assignments they are more likely to cheat. Time pressures may be related to contextual sources, such as classes that require a large number of assignments completed in a short amount of time and nonacademic responsibilities such as children, or they may be related to internal               NEO Personality Inventory     6                                        resources, such as the ability to manage time effectively. Academic procrastination, defined as “the purposeful delay in beginning or completing academically-related tasks” (Ferrari & Beck, 1998, p. 529), has also been shown to be related to academic cheating (Roig & DeTomasso, 1995).                DeBruin and Rudnick (2006) argue that procrastination is a stable trait that can be included under the personality factor of conscientiousness, which is part of the five-factor model of personality. The five-factor model provides a comprehensive umbrella of personality traits that encompasses virtually all traits measured by personality scales. According to De Bruin and Rudnick, the five-factor model of personality is useful in that it allows researchers to communicate effectively about personality, and it sheds light on virtually all facets of personality allowing for a greater understanding.  Conscientiousness includes traits, such as competence, dutifulness, achievement striving, deliberation, order, and self-discipline (O’Cleirigh, Ironson, Weiss, & Costa, 2007). Conscientiousness has been found to be positively related to academic success, integrity, and achievement in the workplace (Salgado, 2003; Wanek, Sacckett, & Ones, 2003). In contrast, conscientiousness has been demonstrated to be inversely related to negative work habits such as dishonesty and missed days of work (Salgado, 2003; Wanek et al., 2003). If academic dishonesty is often a result of an inability to organize one’s time effectively and prepare accordingly for exams and assignments, it follows that conscientiousness may offset these situational variables. The ability to stay organized and discipline oneself in order to achieve academic success should be related to lower levels of academic dishonesty. Other aspects of conscientiousness, such as integrity and achievement striving, should also result in lower levels of academic dishonesty. Another personality trait that falls under the umbrella of the five-factor model that may               NEO Personality Inventory     7                                        be related to academic dishonesty is excitement-seeking. Excitement-seeking is a facet of the broader personality domain of extraversion and can be described as a “need for thrills, risk-taking, and strong stimulation” (De Bruin & Rudnick, 2006, p. 156). Sensation-seeking, a trait that is highly similar to excitement-seeking, has been shown to be related to risk-taking behaviours. Academic dishonesty can be categorized as a risk-taking behavior. Students who engage in academically dishonest behaviour are often very aware of the potential risks involved and the possible consequences that may follow if they are caught. Students who are high in sensation-seeking may seek out the rush or thrill associated with the act of academic dishonesty and the possibility of avoiding detection (Anderman & Murdock, 2007).Therefore, it follows that students who score high on excitement-seeking may also report more incidences of academic dishonesty.  DeBruin and Rudnick (2006) conducted a study in South Africa which examined the role of conscientiousness and excitement-seeking on academic dishonesty. As predicted, they found that high levels of conscientiousness predicted lower levels of academic dishonesty. In contrast, they found that high levels of excitement-seeking predicted higher incidences of self-reported academic dishonesty.  The current study is a partial replication of De Bruin and Rudnick’s (2006) research. This study will examine the relationship between the five domains of personality as measured by the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and academic dishonesty. The NEO-PI-R is a validated measure of the five major dimensions of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Each domain is further divided into six sub-facets, or traits, that define each of the dimensions. The NEO-PI-R is a comprehensive, well-researched measure of normal personality that has been used in both               NEO Personality Inventory     8                                        research and clinical settings (Costa & McCrae, 1992).  The current study will control for attitudes towards cheating, academic self-efficacy, and extrinsic academic motivations as these variables have consistently been shown to be related to academic dishonesty (Anderman et al., 1998; Murdock et al., 2001). This study will also examine a broad range of cheating behaviours such as, plagiarism, test cheating, and unauthorized student collaboration on assignments. The use of a detailed measure will help to provide a uniform definition of academic dishonesty for participants, and therefore may result in a more accurate response rate. The definition of academic dishonesty may differ between students and faculty and simply asking about academic dishonesty in general without defining the term may result in inaccurate reports. Additionally, this study will include measures of academic dishonesty both before and during university. The DeBruin and Rudnick (2006) study simply asked students how many times they had ever engaged in premeditated cheating in tests or exams. Students may be academically dishonest for different reasons during different developmental periods and there may also be a difference in the incidence of academic dishonesty over time (Haines et al., 1986). Including a measure that differentiates between these two time periods will help to clarify these relationships. Furthermore, in order to partially control for under-reporting of cheating behaviours, this study will also include a measure that asks students to report incidences of academic dishonesty of a well-known peer (Miller, Shoptaugh, & Parkerson, 2008). Miller et al. (2008) argue that this measure more accurately reflects the incidence of cheating than the self-report method. Under-reporting is often an issue in self-reports of academic dishonesty due to concerns about anonymity and social desirability bias (Miller et al., 2008). It is believed that students are less likely to under-report acts of academic dishonesty committed by their peers (Miller et al., 2008). Finally, this study will examine demographic variables and their relationship to academic               NEO Personality Inventory     9                                        dishonesty as previous research has shown that these variables have an effect on academic dishonesty (Davis et al., 1992; McCabe et al., 2006; Pino & Smith, 2003). Based on the findings of the DeBruin and Rudnick (2006) study, it is predicted that participants with low scores on the conscientiousness scale of the NEO-PI-R will have engaged in more acts of academic dishonesty. It is also predicted that participants with high scores on the excitement-seeking facet of the NEO-PI-R will have engaged in more acts of academic dishonesty.  Based on the results of Murdock et al. (2001), it is predicted that participants who are high in academic self-efficacy will report lower incidences of academic dishonesty. Furthermore, we expect that students who endorse extrinsic academic motivations will report more incidences of academic dishonesty during university than participants who endorse intrinsic motivations (Anderman et al., 1998).  Additionally, based on research that has demonstrated that reports of peer cheating may be more reflective of actual incidences of academic dishonesty due to underreporting, it is predicted that participants will report a higher incidence of academic dishonesty for their peers than for themselves (Miller et al., 2008). Furthermore, it is predicted that men, business students, and participants with lower grade point averages will report a higher incidence of academic dishonesty as previous research has shown these demographic variables to be positively related to academic dishonesty (e.g., Marsden et al., 2005; McCabe et al., 2006). Finally, the relationship between all five domains of personality as measured by the NEO-PI-R and academic dishonesty will also be examined. This analysis will be largely exploratory as previous research has not fully investigated this relationship. However, based on               NEO Personality Inventory     10                                        previous research (Bolin, 2004) which has shown that attitudes toward cheating mediate the relationship between personality variables and academic dishonesty, it is predicted that attitudes will mediate the relationship between personality and academic dishonesty. Method Research Participants A total of 344 university students participated in an online survey posted on the campus research web site. Participants were not included in the final sample if they withdrew from the survey before completion (n = 10), if they indicated that they did not want their responses included (n = 6), if they completed the survey in less than 15 min (n = 3), if they reported that they did not complete the survey honestly (n = 1), or if their dishonesty responses were identified as extreme outliers (± 3.29 z) (n = 14). The final sample (N = 310) included 182 women and 128 men between the ages of 18 and 42 years (Mdn = 19, range = 24).  Participants were eligible for the study if they spoke English as their first language, were registered in classes that allowed for course credit for research, and had not previously completed the study. Students who participated in this survey were granted a 1.0% course credit for completing the 60-min online survey.  Measures Participants were asked to complete the following items: the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R), the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale, the Academic Dishonesty Scale, the Attitudes Toward Dishonesty Scale, the Academic Motivation Scale, and a demographic information survey. All of these instruments have been shown to be internally consistent and to have high reliability and validity. The NEO PI-R is a self-administered personality inventory that measures five factors of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Costa &               NEO Personality Inventory     11                                        McCrae, 1992). The NEO PI-R includes 240 items and three validity items. The Conscientiousness Facet Scale of the NEO PI-R measures six sub-facets of conscientiousness: competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Items for the NEO PI-R are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).  The Academic Self-Efficacy Scale, adapted from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales, includes four items that are designed to measure participants’ feelings of academic competence (Midgely et al., 2000). Items are rated on a 5-point numerical scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).             The Academic Dishonesty Scale includes nine behavioural items created by McCabe and Trevino (1997). Different types of academic dishonesty are listed and participants are asked to indicate how often they have engaged in each type of behaviour since beginning university and at any time before entering university. Participants respond using a 5-point scale from 1 (not even one time) to 5 (many times). Items include questions about plagiarism, cheating during tests, helping others to cheat during tests, and obtaining additional help on assignments without permission. Participants were also asked to complete this measure as a report of peer behaviour. In this version, participants were asked to think of a fellow student who they know well and to fill in the questionnaire based on that peer’s behaviour (Miller et al., 2008).  The Attitudes Toward Academic Dishonesty is a scale adapted from Davis et al. (1992) that asks four questions about moral beliefs in relation to academic cheating (Bolin, 2004). Response items are rated on a 5-point numerical scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). This test has been shown to tap into beliefs and attitudes about academic dishonesty.                NEO Personality Inventory     12                                        The Academic Motivation Scale (college version) assesses student motivations for attending college. This scale adapted from Vallerand et al. (1989) measures seven subtypes of motivation: intrinsic motivation—to know; intrinsic motivation—toward accomplishment; intrinsic motivation—to experience stimulation; extrinsic motivation—identified; extrinsic motivation—introjected; extrinsic motivation—external regulation; and finally amotivation. Response items are rated on a 7-point numerical scale ranging from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly).  Finally, the participants completed a demographic information sheet. Data were collected on the age, sex, program, year, marital status, and current GPA of participants. Participants who chose to submit their responses were asked to rate how honestly they felt they responded to the questions on the three measures on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all honestly to 5 = completely honest to the best of my knowledge).  Procedure Information regarding the study was posted on a campus research web site. Students registered in classes that allowed for course credit in return for participating were offered a 1.0 % course credit for completing the 60-min survey online. The online survey was available 24 hr a day, so that participants could complete it at a time that was convenient for them. The online description of the study stated that participants would be asked to complete a survey about academic dishonesty which would be completely confidential. The description further stated that the current research was intended to examine personality characteristics, attitudes towards academic dishonesty, and the incidence of academic dishonesty within the university population. Participants were also informed that they would be asked to answer questions regarding demographic variables. The description also included information about the need to obtain               NEO Personality Inventory     13                                        accurate data in order to further understanding of the topic. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they were free to withdraw their responses at any time without penalty. Participants were also given the opportunity to withdraw at the end of the study before submitting their responses.  The order of the measures presented were counterbalanced with the exception of the  NEO-PI-R which was presented first, and the demographic sheet which was presented last. This counterbalancing was intended to eliminate order effects.  Results SPSS 16.0 was used to calculate all statistical analyses. Unless otherwise stated, statistical tests were performed at an alpha level of .05. Transformation of NEO-PI-R Domains NEO PI-R domain scores were converted to factor scores expressed as T scores before beginning analysis. Factor scores “combine information from each of the 30 facets to estimate each of the five factors. Factor scores are more nearly orthogonal and tend to have somewhat higher validities against external criteria” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 7). Factor Analysis The dimensionality of the 10 items from the academic dishonesty during university measure was analyzed using principal components analysis. The scree plot indicated that this measure was in fact, unidimensional. Factor 1 accounted for 41.10% of the item variance. Two components were extracted based on the Kaiser’s stopping rule; however, based on a priori conceptual beliefs about the unidimensionality of the measure and the relative magnitudes of the eigenvalues, it was decided to retain only one factor. As seen in Table 1, two components were  extracted by SPSS.               NEO Personality Inventory     14                                        The dimensionality of the 10 items from the academic dishonesty before university measure was also analyzed using principal components analysis. The scree plot indicated that this measure was also unidimensional. Factor 1 accounted for 53.59% of the item variance. As seen in Table 2, only one component was extracted. The dimensionality of the 10 items from the peer ratings of academic dishonesty was also analyzed using principal components analysis. The scree plot indicated that our initial hypothesis of unidimensionality was correct. Factor 1 accounted for 63.81% of the item variance. As seen in Table 3, only one component was extracted. Assumptions An inspection of the data prior to analysis revealed that all three academic dishonesty variables were positively skewed. A logarithm (base-10) transformation was performed on all three dependent measures: academic dishonesty during university, academic dishonesty before university, and peer ratings of academic dishonesty. All analyses were conducted using both the transformed and untransformed dependent measures. Different results were obtained using the transformed data. As a result, analyses using the transformed data were retained and reported below. Fourteen cases with z scores ± 3.29 were found to be univariate outliers and were deleted. Incidence of Academic Dishonest Overall 73.9% of participants admitted to academic dishonesty during university and 92.9% of participants admitted to academic dishonesty before university. Reports of peer academic dishonesty were higher, with 90% of participants reporting that a peer they knew well had been academically dishonest during university. Conscientiousness and Excitement-Seeking Correlations were computed in order to examine the relationship between               NEO Personality Inventory     15                                        conscientiousness and academic dishonesty, both during and before university. As predicted, there was, in fact, a significant negative relationship between scores on the conscientiousness scale of the NEO PI-R and academic dishonesty before university after controlling for multiple comparisons, r(308) =  - .27, p < .001. There was also a negative relationship between scores on the conscientiousness scale and academic dishonesty during university, r(308) = -.20, p = .001. Participants who scored lower on the conscientiousness scale of the NEO-PI-R reported a greater incidence of academic dishonesty both before and during university. Correlations were computed in order to test the relationship between excitement-seeking and academic dishonesty, both during and before university. As predicted, a significant positive relationship between scores on the excitement-seeking sub-facet of the extraversion scale of the NEO-PI-R and academic dishonesty before university was found after controlling for multiple comparisons, r(308) = .24, p < .001. However, there was no significant relationship between the excitement-seeking sub-facet and academic dishonesty during university, r(308) = .09, p = .14. Participants with high scores on the excitement-seeking sub-facet, reported a greater incidence of academic dishonesty before university. However, higher levels of excitement-seeking did not predict a higher incidence of academic dishonesty during university. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict academic dishonesty before university from measures of attitudes, academic self-efficacy, conscientiousness, and excitement-seeking. The intention was to investigate if conscientiousness and excitement-seeking predicted academic dishonesty before university, with attitudes and academic self-efficacy controlled for. Extrinsic motivation was not controlled for in this analysis because this measure applied only to participants’ motivations for attending university. It was hypothesized based on the literature that academic self-efficacy and attitudes would be the strongest predictors,               NEO Personality Inventory     16                                        and were therefore, entered into the equation first, with both conscientiousness and excitement-seeking entered into the second block. The overall model was significant, R =.58, F(2, 305) = 38.63, p < .001. This model accounted for 34% of the variance in academic dishonesty before university. The addition of conscientiousness and excitement-seeking accounted for additional variance over and above self-efficacy and attitudes, R² change = .04, F(2, 305) = 9.44, p < .001. Examination of the semipartial correlations indicated that conscientiousness did not account for significant unique variance, sr = -.03. Excitement-seeking, on the other hand, accounted for significant unique variance, sr = .19.  As seen in Table 4, academic self-efficacy, β = -.11, t(305) =  -2.22, p = .027, attitudes, β = -.48, t(290) = -9.66, p < .001, and excitement-seeking, β = .20, t(305) = 4.08, p < .001, were all significant predictors of academic dishonesty before university. Participants with higher levels of academic self-efficacy reported a lower incidence of academic dishonesty before university. Participants who endorsed more negative attitudes towards academic dishonesty also reported a lower incidence of academic dishonesty before university. Participants who scored higher on the excitement-seeking sub-facet of the NEO PI-R reported a higher incidence of academic dishonesty before university. However, conscientiousness did not predict academic dishonesty before university, with academic self-efficacy and attitudes controlled for.  A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict academic dishonesty during university from measures of attitudes, academic self-efficacy, extrinsic motivations, conscientiousness, and excitement-seeking. The intention was to investigate if conscientiousness and excitement-seeking predicted academic dishonesty during university, with attitudes, academic self-efficacy, and extrinsic motivations controlled for. It was hypothesized, based on the literature, that academic self-efficacy and attitudes would be the strongest predictors, and               NEO Personality Inventory     17                                        were therefore entered into the equation first, with extrinsic motivations entered into the second block. Conscientiousness and excitement-seeking were entered into the third block. The overall model was significant, R = .47, F(2, 304) = 17.17, p < .001. This model accounted for 22% of the variance in academic dishonesty during university. However, including extrinsic motivation in the model did not account for any additional variance in academic dishonesty during university over and above attitudes and academic self-efficacy, R² change = .001, F(1, 306) = .23, p = .63. The addition of conscientiousness and excitement-seeking also did not account for any more variance in academic dishonesty over and above attitudes, academic self-efficacy, and extrinsic motivation, R²  change = .003, F(2, 304) = .52, p = .59. Examination of the semipartial correlations indicated that extrinsic motivation, conscientiousness, and excitement-seeking did not account for significant unique variance, sr = .01, sr = -.003, and sr = .05, respectively. As seen in Table 5, only attitudes, β = -.42, t(304) = -7.55, p < .001, and self-efficacy, β = -.13 , t(304) = -2.47, p = .01, were significant predictors of academic dishonesty during university. Not surprisingly, participants who endorsed more negative attitudes towards cheating reported a lower incidence of cheating. Additionally, participants who were high in academic self-efficacy reported lower incidences of cheating.  Self-efficacy and Extrinsic Motivations Correlations were computed in order to test the relationship between academic self-efficacy and academic dishonesty, both during and before university. Using the Bonferroni adjustment across the two comparisons yielded a p value of .025 to obtain significance. As predicted, the correlational analyses indicated that there was, in fact, a negative relationship between scores on the self-efficacy scale and academic dishonesty before university, r(308) =     -.21, p < .001. There was also a negative relationship between scores on the self-efficacy scale               NEO Personality Inventory     18                                        and academic dishonesty during university, r(308) = -.22, p <.001. Participants who reported higher levels of self-efficacy reported a lower incidence of academic dishonesty, both before and during university. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted in order to test the hypothesis that participants who endorsed extrinsic academic motivations would report a higher incidence of academic dishonesty during university than participants who endorsed intrinsic or balanced motivations. The ANOVA was not significant, F(2, 307) = 1.96, p = .142, η² = .013. Therefore, there did not appear to be any significant differences in academic dishonesty during university based on type of motivation. Participants with extrinsic motivations were not more likely to report being academically dishonest during university. Peer-ratings vs. Self-ratings A paired-sample t test was conducted to evaluate the hypothesis that peer ratings of academic dishonesty during university would be higher than self-ratings of academic dishonesty during university. The results indicated that peer-ratings of academic dishonesty (M = .30, SD = .20) were significantly higher than self-ratings of academic dishonesty during university (M =.12, SD =.12), t(309) = -17.94, p < .001. The effect size was very large (η² = .51). Hypothesis Testing: Demographic Variables An independent-sample t test was conducted to evaluate gender differences in academic dishonesty before university. As predicted, men (M = .30, SD = .18) reported more academic dishonesty before university than women (M = .26, SD =.15), t(308) = 2.30, p = .022. However, the effect size was small (η² = 0.02). An independent-sample t test was conducted to evaluate gender differences in academic dishonesty during university. As predicted, men (M = .15, SD = .13) reported more academic               NEO Personality Inventory     19                                        dishonesty during university than women (M = .10, SD =.11), t(245.77) = 3.17, p =.002. However, the effect size was small (η² = 0.03). A Krusak-Wallis test was conducted to evaluate the relationship between academic dishonesty during university and the program that participants were enrolled in (arts and sciences, business/management, and health studies/nursing.). Two participants were excluded from the analysis because they indicated that they were enrolled in a program “other” than those specified. This nonparametric test was used because homogeneity of variance could not be assumed. The test, which was corrected for ties, was significant, χ2(2, N =308) = 9.59, p = .008. The proportion of variability in the ranked dependent variable accounted for was small (η² = 0.03). A series of Mann-Whitney tests was then conducted to examine these differences. Using the Bonferroni adjustment across the three comparisons yielded a p value of .016 to obtain significance. As predicted, significant differences in incidence of academic dishonesty during university were found between participants enrolled in arts/sciences programs and participants enrolled in the business/management program, z = -2.92, p = .003. Participants enrolled in arts/sciences programs had an average rank of 135.04, whereas those who were enrolled in business/management programs had an average rank of 170.23. Significant differences were not found between the other two comparisons. Participants enrolled in the business/management program were more likely to report a higher incidence of academic dishonesty during university, than participants who were enrolled in arts or science programs. A Krusak-Wallis test was conducted to evaluate the relationship between academic dishonesty during university and grade point average (0-54%, 55-67%, 68-79%, and 80-100%). This nonparametric test was used because homogeneity of variance could not be assumed. The test, which was corrected for ties, was significant, χ2(3, N =310) = 9.57, p = .02. The proportion               NEO Personality Inventory     20                                        of variability in the ranked dependent variable accounted for was small (η² = 0.03). A series of Mann-Whitney tests was then conducted to examine these differences. Using the Bonferroni adjustment across the six comparisons yielded a p value of .008 to obtain significance. Significant differences in incidence of academic dishonesty during university were found between participants with grade point averages in the “A” range (80-100%) and participants with grade point averages in the “B” range (68-79%), z = -2.92, p = .003. Participants with grade point averages in the “A” range had an average rank of 108.36, whereas those with grade point averages in the “B” range had an average rank of 137.67. Significant differences were not found between the other four comparisons. Participants with grade point averages in the “A” range were less likely to report academic dishonesty during university than participants with grade point averages in the “B” range. Exploratory Data: NEO Personality Inventory and Academic dishonesty In order to determine the relationship between all five personality domains of the NEO-PI-R and academic dishonesty both before and during university, two hierarchical multiple regression equations were conducted. Bivariate correlations were first calculated in order to determine which personality domains were significantly related to academic dishonesty. Given the large number of comparisons the Holm’s sequential adjustment was calculated to obtain significance values. As seen in Table 6, the conscientiousness, r(308) = -.27, p < .001, and agreeableness, r(308) = -.24, p < .001, domains were significantly negatively correlated with academic dishonesty before university. As seen in Table 7, the conscientiousness, r(308) = -.20, p = .001, openness, r(308) = -.18, p = .002, and agreeableness, r(308) = -. 24, p < .001, domains of the NEO PI-R were significantly negatively correlated with academic dishonesty during university.                NEO Personality Inventory     21                                        Academic Dishonesty:  Before University  A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict academic dishonesty before university from measures of conscientiousness, and agreeableness with self-efficacy and attitudes controlled for. Before conducting the analysis it was ensured that all of the assumptions were fulfilled. Self-efficacy and attitudes were entered as control variables in the first block, and conscientiousness and agreeableness were entered into the second block. The overall model was significant, R = .55, F(2, 305) = 33.25, p < .001. This model accounted for 30% of the variance in academic dishonesty before university. However, the addition of conscientiousness and agreeableness did not account for additional variance over and above self-efficacy and attitudes, R² change = .008, F(2, 305) = 1.85, p = .16. Examination of the semipartial correlations indicated that self-efficacy, conscientiousness, and agreeableness did not account for any unique variance, sr = -.07, sr = -.08, and sr = -.06, respectively. As seen in Table 8, only attitudes are a significant predictor of academic dishonesty before university, β =  -.47, t (305) = -8.41, p < .001. However, our results may indicate that attitudes mediate the relationship between these personality variables and academic dishonesty given that initially conscientiousness had a significant zero-order correlation with academic dishonesty before university, r(308) = -.27, p < .001. But when the effects of attitudes were partialed out, the resulting correlation was not significant, r 01.2 = - .09. The same pattern was seen for agreeableness, which initially had a significant zero order correlation with academic dishonesty before university, r(308) = -.24, p = < .001, but when the effects of attitudes were partialed out, the resulting correlation was once again not significant, r 01.2 =  -.07.  Academic Dishonesty: During University A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict academic dishonesty               NEO Personality Inventory     22                                        during university from measures of conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness with self-efficacy and attitudes controlled for. Self-efficacy and attitudes were entered as control variables in the first block, and conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness were entered into the second block. The overall model was significant, R = .48, F(3, 304) = 18.30 , p < .001. This model accounted for 23% of the variance in academic dishonesty during university. However, the addition of conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness did not account for any additional variance over and above self-efficacy and attitudes, R² change = .01, F(3, 304) = 1.91, p = .13. Examination of the semipartial correlations indicated that self-efficacy, conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness did not account for significant unique variance, sr = -.09, sr = -.03 , sr = -.08, and sr = -.08, respectively. As seen in Table 9, our results indicate that only attitudes are a significant predictor of academic dishonesty during university, β = -.38, t(304) = -6.45, p < .001. However, as with the effect before university, our results may indicate that attitudes mediate the relationship between these personality variables and academic dishonesty because initially conscientiousness had a significant zero-order correlation with academic dishonesty during university, r(308) = -.20, p = .001.  Moreover, when the effects of attitudes were partialed out, the resulting correlation was not significant, r 01.2 =  -.03. The same pattern was seen for openness, which initially had a significant zero order correlation with academic dishonesty during university, r(308) = -. 18, p = .002, but when the effects of attitudes were partialed out, the resulting correlation was once again not significant, r 01.2 = -.09. Finally, the same pattern was seen with agreeableness, which initially had a significant zero order correlation with academic dishonesty during university, r(308) = -.24, p < .001, but when the effects of attitudes were partialed out, the resulting correlation was not significant, r 01.2 =  -.09. Attitudes               NEO Personality Inventory     23                                        In order to test the hypothesis that attitudes played a meditational role between personality traits and academic dishonesty, mediation analyses were performed using both the traditional Baron and Kenny criteria (1986) and a Sobel test, which directly tests the significance of indirect effects. The Sobel test has greater statistical power, more directly addresses the mediation hypothesis, and is less vulnerable to Type 1 and 11 errors.  See Figures 1 and 2 for a summary of the proposed relationships. SPSS macros for the Sobel test were downloaded from the Psychonomic Society’s Web archive (2009). According to the Baron and Kenny criteria, attitudes may be a mediator to the extent that attitudes account for the relationship between the stated personality variables and academic dishonesty (1986, p. 1176). Three conditions must be met in order to make a claim of mediation: First, in each case the personality variable must significantly predict academic dishonesty; second, the personality variable must significantly predict attitudes towards academic dishonesty; and finally, attitudes must significantly predict academic dishonesty after controlling for personality variables (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). If the effect of the personality variables on academic dishonesty decreases to zero with the inclusion of attitudes, then perfect mediation will have occurred. If the effect of the personality variables on academic dishonesty decreases by a nontrivial amount, but not to zero, partial mediation will have occurred (Preacher & Hayes, 2004, p. 717). According to this criterion, attitudes towards academic dishonesty perfectly mediated the relationship between conscientiousness and academic dishonesty before university. The same results were found using agreeableness as the predictor variable. See Table 10 for a summary of the direct and indirect effects. In order to test the possible mediating role of attitudes in the relationship between personality variables and academic dishonesty during university, the same criterion were used. The results of this analysis were very similar, with attitudes playing a               NEO Personality Inventory     24                                        perfect meditational role between conscientiousness and academic dishonesty, and agreeableness and academic dishonesty. The relationship between openness, attitudes, and academic dishonesty differed slightly, with attitudes only partially mediating between openness and academic dishonesty during university. See Table 11 for a summary of the direct and indirect effects. The Sobel test is a more statistically rigorous test of significance for indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). For simple meditational models, the Sobel compares the “strength of the indirect effect of x [the predictor] on y [the dependent variable] to the point null hypothesis that it equals zero” (Preacher & Hayes, 2004, p. 718). For each model tested using the Kenny and Baron criteria, a Sobel test was also conducted. As seen in Table 12, the tests for indirect effects were significant for both before university models. Attitudes towards academic dishonesty significantly mediated the relationship between conscientiousness (z = -5.28, p < .001) and academic dishonesty before university. This indirect effect accounted for 6% of the variance in academic dishonesty before university. Similarly, attitudes towards academic dishonesty significantly mediated the relationship between agreeableness (z = -5.59, p < .001) and academic dishonesty before university. This indirect effect accounted for 5% of the variance in academic dishonesty before university. This suggests that attitudes play a meditational role between personality variables and academic dishonesty before university. As seen in Table 13, the tests of indirect effects were also significant for all three university models. Attitudes towards academic dishonesty significantly mediated the relationships between all three personality variables : conscientiousness (z = - 4.92, p < .001), agreeableness (z = - 5.05, p < .001),  and openness (z = - 2.06, p < .05), and academic dishonesty during university. These indirect effects accounted for 3%, 5%, and 2% of the variance in academic dishonesty during university. Attitudes, therefore, also mediate between personality variables and academic dishonesty during               NEO Personality Inventory     25                                        university. Discussion The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the five factors of personality as measured by the Revised Neo Personality Inventory and academic dishonesty both before and during university.   Consistent with previous research (Marsden et al., 2005; McCabe 2001; McCabe & Trevino, 1997), the majority of the participants in this study admitted to some type of academic dishonesty both before university (92%) and during university (73%). Peer reports of academic dishonesty during university were similarly high (90%). Rates of peer dishonesty may be more reflective of the actual incidence of academic dishonesty than self-reports (Miller et al., 2008). The actual rates of academic dishonesty, however, were low, and most participants only admitted to a few acts of academic dishonesty. Although these numbers may appear alarmingly high, they are consistent with research in both Canada and the United states which nevertheless suggests that academic dishonesty is a problem in universities in North America (e.g., McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Miller et al., 2008; Hughes & McCabe, 2006). The findings of this study partially support DeBruin and Rudnick’s (2006) research that conscientiousness and excitement-seeking were significantly related to academic misconduct in a South African sample. Conscientiousness was significantly negatively related to reports of academic dishonesty in the current study, both before and during university. Participants with higher scores on the conscientiousness factor of the NEO-PI-R were less likely to report academic dishonesty overall. However, excitement-seeking only appeared to be positively related to reports of academic dishonesty before university in our sample. This difference in results may be due to the different time periods measured by the current study. The DeBruin and               NEO Personality Inventory     26                                        Rudnick study simply asked about lifetime incidence of academic dishonesty. Excitement-seeking may play a greater role in academic misconduct before university during early adolescence. More research is clearly needed to further our understanding of the role of excitement-seeking in academic dishonesty and how this relationship may differ during different developmental stages and across different academic settings.  Previous research has consistently demonstrated that academic self-efficacy and attitudes towards academic dishonesty are significant predictors of academic dishonesty (Murdock et al., 2001; Whitley, 1998). The current study used these variables as controls to investigate if conscientiousness and excitement-seeking would contribute significant additional variance in reports of academic dishonesty before university. Our findings indicate that attitudes towards academic dishonesty, academic self-efficacy, conscientiousness, and excitement-seeking together account for a huge proportion of the variance (34%) in reports of academic dishonesty before university. More importantly, adding conscientiousness and excitement-seeking to the model resulted in a significant improvement in predicting academic dishonesty before university. However, a closer examination suggests that excitement-seeking accounts for this significant improvement, as conscientiousness did not account for any significant unique variance over and above attitudes, academic self-efficacy, and excitement-seeking in reports of academic dishonesty before university.  Academic self-efficacy, attitudes towards academic dishonesty, and extrinsic motivations were used as controls to investigate if conscientiousness and excitement-seeking would contribute significant additional variance in reports of academic dishonesty during university. Together, attitudes, self-efficacy, extrinsic motivations, conscientiousness, and excitement-seeking accounted for a large proportion of the variance (22%) in reports of academic dishonesty               NEO Personality Inventory     27                                        during university. However, adding extrinsic motivations, conscientiousness, and excitement-seeking did not add to the predictive value of the model. Only attitudes towards academic dishonesty and academic self-efficacy accounted for significant unique variance. This finding suggests that attitudes towards academic dishonesty and academic self-efficacy are important predictors in academic dishonesty during university. After controlling for these variables, personality variables failed to contribute in any significant way. However, our results also suggest that personality variables may influence reports of academic dishonesty through their influence on attitudes. Previous research has consistently demonstrated that students who are high in academic self-efficacy are less likely to engage in academic dishonesty (Murdock et al., 2001). The findings of the current study support this conclusion. Participants who reported higher levels of academic self-efficacy reported lower levels of academic dishonesty both before and during university. It appears that the more confident students are in their abilities to reach their academic goals and perform the course work required, the less likely they are to cheat.    Although previous research (Anderman et al., 1998) has demonstrated that students with extrinsic motivations are more likely to be academically dishonest, the present study did not find any significant differences in reports of academic dishonesty during university based on motivations. Participants with extrinsic motivations were no more likely to report academic misconduct than participants with intrinsic motivations. This difference may be due to the nature of the measure used in the current study (Vallerand et al., 1992). Different operational definitions of motivation may have had an effect on the outcome measures. Recent research has suggested that peer ratings of academic dishonesty may more accurately reflect the actual incidence of academic dishonesty than self-reports. Peer ratings of               NEO Personality Inventory     28                                        academic dishonesty during university were significantly higher than self-ratings in this study. Previous research suggests that this difference may be due to students’ under-reporting their own academic dishonesty due to concerns about anonymity (Miller et al., 2008). Peer reports are less likely to be affected by this concern. Participants may also report a greater incidence of academic dishonesty of their peers in order to rationalize or justify their own academic dishonesty (Miller et al., 2008).  Previous research has also suggested that demographic variables, such as gender, program, and grade point average are related to academic misconduct (Davis et al., 1992; McCabe et al., 2006; Pino & Smith, 2003). In particular, men, business students, and students with lower grade point averages have been found to have higher rates of academic dishonesty. The results of this study partially support these conclusions. Men reported a higher incidence of academic dishonesty than women, both during and before university. Participants enrolled in the business/management program reported a higher incidence of academic dishonesty than participants enrolled in arts or science programs. However, there were no significant differences found between participants enrolled in business/ management and participants enrolled in health studies and nursing. Grade point average was also related to academic dishonesty in the present study. Participants with grade point averages in the “B” range (68-79%) were significantly more likely to admit to academic dishonesty than participants with grade point averages in the “A” range (80-100%). However, there were no significant differences found between the other four comparisons. This discrepancy between our research and previous studies (Baird, 1980; Michaels & Miethe, 1989) may be due to the method of analysis that was used in the present study. However, our findings may suggest that students with lower grade point averages (below 68%) are not particularly concerned about their grades and therefore less likely to cheat, or have               NEO Personality Inventory     29                                        simply adjusted their outlooks and accepted that they are unable to achieve competitive grades. Participants in the “B” range, in contrast, may feel that competitive grades are important and may use cheating as a method to maintain their academic standing. Participants in the “A” range, however, may not feel a need to cheat because their efforts have consistently been rewarded with competitive grades. This explanation could account for the significant differences in reports of academic dishonesty between participants with grades in the “A” and “B” range. The relationship between all five domains of personality as measured by the NEO PI-R and academic dishonesty was also explored in this study. Conscientiousness and agreeableness were both significantly negatively related to reports of academic dishonesty both before and during university.  Openness also played a role in reports of academic dishonesty during university. Participants who reported lower levels of openness were more likely to report acts of academic dishonesty. Although the role of conscientiousness in predicting acts of academic dishonesty has been explored, the mechanisms by which agreeableness and openness operate in this relationship are unknown. Agreeableness includes sub-facets such as straightforwardness and compliance which could play a role in this relationship. Participants who are high in straightforwardness may be less likely to be deceptive or manipulate others in order to gain their own ends (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Similarly, participants who are high in compliance may be more prone to defer to others, and may even be more likely to follow orders (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It is possible that this combination of traits has an effect on academic dishonesty. However, it could also be argued that participants who are high in compliance may be more likely to help a fellow student act dishonestly. This research area is clearly open for further investigation. The role played by openness in predicting reports of academic dishonesty during university may be due to this domain’s relationship with intellectual curiosity.  Participants who               NEO Personality Inventory     30                                        are high in openness are often also high in intellectual curiosity. Participants who are intellectually curious may be less likely to see cheating as a means to an end. Furthermore, intellectual curiosity may facilitate learning and lessen the students’ need to behave dishonestly in order to achieve competitive grades. Our results suggest that the role played by personality in predicting reports of academic dishonesty is complicated and may also operate through the effects that personality traits have on attitudes. When the effects of attitudes towards academic dishonesty and academic self-efficacy are partialed out, personality variables no longer have a significant influence on academic dishonesty.  Previous research (Bolin, 2004) suggests that attitudes towards academic dishonesty play a meditational role between personality traits and academic dishonesty. In accordance with Bolin’s (2004) findings, this study found that attitudes completely mediated the relationship between conscientiousness, agreeableness, and reports of academic dishonesty both before and during university. The relationship between openness and academic dishonesty during university in contrast, was only partially mediated by attitudes. These results indicate that openness also has a direct effect on academic dishonesty. It may be that openness directly affects reports of academic dishonesty through its possible role in facilitating learning.  Although our results are generally in accordance with previous research findings (Bolin, 2004; DeBruin & Rudnick, 2006; Haines et al., 1986; Miller et al., 2008), this study failed to find a relationship between academic motivations and academic dishonesty. As previously stated, this may be due to the use of different measuring instruments. Additionally, the attempt to measure differences in incidence of academic dishonesty over two separate time periods, without using a longitudinal design, may have resulted in biased reporting. Participants may have had difficulty remembering acts of academic dishonesty committed in the past. Furthermore, the reference               NEO Personality Inventory     31                                        period for academically dishonest acts committed during university was a great deal shorter than the reference period for reports of academic dishonesty before university. This may complicate direct comparisons.  Finally, people have a tendency to view their more recent selves as “better” or more reflective of who they really are when making comparisons with their past selves. This could result in higher reports of academic dishonesty before university, or conversely, lower reports of academic dishonesty during university (Wilson & Ross, 2001).  Another possible limitation of this study is the use of a self-report questionnaire. As stated previously, self-reports of sensitive behaviours are often influenced by anonymity concerns and social desirability bias. Furthermore, participants who took part in this study may have been different than students who decided not to participate. The online description of this study urged students to complete this questionnaire only if they felt that they could complete it honestly. It is possible that participants who responded felt able to do so because they had less to hide. As a result, the actual rates of academic dishonesty could be even higher than our reported rates. Peer reports were used to supplement self-reports in an attempt to overcome this limitation; however, reports of peer behaviours may also be subject to inaccurate reporting.  The present research study generally supports previous studies on academic dishonesty (Bolin, 2004; DeBruin & Rudnick, 2006; Haines et al., 1986; Miller et al., 2008), but offers a more complicated explanation of the contribution of the big-five personality traits to predictions of academic dishonesty. Furthermore, the findings suggest that attitudes play a very large role in predicting academic dishonesty, which is encouraging news for educators. If attitudes towards academic dishonesty account for a large proportion of the variance in academic dishonesty, and also play a mediating role between personality traits and academically dishonest behaviours, then it follows that attitudes will be an effective target for education and change.                NEO Personality Inventory     32                                        References Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield. (1998). Motivation and cheating during early               adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 84-93. Anderman, E. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2007). Psychology of academic cheating. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, California. Baird, J. S., Jr. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 515-522. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bolin, A. U. (2004). Self-control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as predictors of academic             dishonesty. The Journal of Psychology, 138, 101-114. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual Revised NEO Personality Inventory and Neo Five Factor Inventory. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic              dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishment. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16-20. DeBruin, G. P., & Rudnick, H. (2006). Examining the cheats: The role of conscientiousness and excitement-seeking in academic dishonesty. South African Journal of Psychology, 37, 153-164. Devlin, M., & Gray, K. (2007). In their own words: A qualitative study of the reasons Australian students plagiarize. Higher Education Research & Development, 26, 181-198. Ferrari, J. R., & Beck, B. (1998). Affective responses before and after fraudulent excuses by               NEO Personality Inventory     33                                        academic procrastinators. Education, 118, 529-537. Haines, V. J., Diekhoff, G. M., & LaBeff, E. E. (1986). College cheating: Immaturity, lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitude. Research in Higher Education, 25, 342-354. Houston, J. P. (1986). Classroom answer copying: Roles of aquaintanceship and free versus assigned seating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 230-232. Hughes, J. M., & McCabe, D. L. (2006). Academic misconduct within higher education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 36, 1-21 Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, A. (2002). It’s wrong but everybody does it: Academic dishonesty among high school and college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 209-228. Marsden, H., Carroll, M., & Neill, J. T. (2005). Who cheats at university? A self-report study of dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57, 1-10. McCabe, D. L., (2001). Cheating: Why students do it and how we can help them stop. American Educator, 25, 38-43. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning, & Education, 5, 294-305. McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522-538. McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379-397. Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Applying theories of deviance to academic cheating.               NEO Personality Inventory     34                                        Social Science Quarterly, 70, 870-885. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., et al. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. University of Michigan. Miller, A., Shoptaugh, C., & Parkerson, A. (2008). Under reporting of cheating in research using volunteer college students. College Student Journal, 42, 326-339. Murdock, T. B., Hale, N. M., & Weber, M. J. (2001). Predictors of cheating among early adolescents: Academic and social motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 96-115. O’Cleirigh, C., Ironson, G., Weiss, A., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2007). Conscientiousness predicts             disease progression (CD4 Number and Viral Load) in people living with HIV. Health            Psychology, 26, 1-12. Pino, N. W., & Smith, W. L. (2003). College students and academic dishonesty. College Student             Journal, 37, 1-10. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects           in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36,            717-731. Psychonomic Society. (2009). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimation indirect effects in simple          mediation models: Macros. Retrieved from http://brm.psychonomic-         journals.org/content/suppl/2008/11/24/36.4.717.DC1/Preacher.BRMIC-2004.zip. Roig, M., & DeTomasso, L. (1995). Are college cheating and plagiarism related to academic procrastination? Psychological Reports, 77, 691-698. Salgado, J. F. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 76, 323-346.               NEO Personality Inventory     35                                        Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G. (1989). Construction et validation de l’Echelle de Motivation en Education (EME). Revue Canadienne Des Sciences du comportement, 21, 323-349. Academic Motivation Scale (AMS-C 28). Wanek, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Ones, D. S. (2003). Towards an understanding of integrity test similarities and differences: An item-level analysis of seven tests. Personnel Psychology, 56, 873-894. Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235-274. Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2001). From chump to champ: People’s appraisals of their earlier and present selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 572-584.                NEO Personality Inventory     36                                                   Table 1 Component Matrix: 10 items from the Academic Dishonesty During University Measure Items                                                                                       Component 1    Component 2 Copied material and turned it in as your own work. .69 .19 Used unfair methods to learn what was on a test before it was given.  .52 .32 Copied a few sentences of material from a published source without giving the author credit. .55 .32 Helped someone else to cheat on a test. .63 -.50 Collaborated on an assignment when the instructor asked for individual work. .67 -.02 Copied from another student during a test. .71 -.53 Turned in work done by someone else. .55 .35 Received substantial help on an individual assignment without the instructor’s permission.  .68 .29 Cheated on a test in any way. .76 -.47 Used a textbook or notes on a test without the instructor’s permission. .62 .31  Note: Items derived from McCabe and Trevino (1997).              NEO Personality Inventory     37                                                    Table 2 Component Matrix: 10 items from the Academic Dishonesty Before University Measure Items                                                                                       Component 1    Copied material and turned it in as your own work. .76 Used unfair methods to learn what was on a test before it was given.  .72 Copied a few sentences of material from a published source without giving the author credit. .59 Helped someone else to cheat on a test. .75 Collaborated on an assignment when the instructor asked for individual work. .74 Copied from another student during a test. .81 Turned in work done by someone else. .66 Received substantial help on an individual assignment without the instructor’s permission.  .70 Cheated on a test in any way. .83 Used a textbook or notes on a test without the instructor’s permission. .75  Note: Items derived from McCabe and Trevino (1997).               NEO Personality Inventory     38                                                   Table 3 Component Matrix: 10 items from the Academic Dishonesty Peer Measure Items                                                                                       Component 1    Copied material and turned it in as their own work. .82 Used unfair methods to learn what was on a test before it was given.  .77 Copied a few sentences of material from a published source without giving the author credit. .75 Helped someone else to cheat on a test. .84 Collaborated on an assignment when the instructor asked for individual work. .71 Copied from another student during a test. .87 Turned in work done by someone else. .74 Received substantial help on an individual assignment without the instructor’s permission.  .82 Cheated on a test in any way. .88 Used a textbook or notes on a test without the instructor’s permission. .77  Note: Items derived from McCabe and Trevino (1997).              NEO Personality Inventory     39                                         Table 4 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Academic Dishonesty Before University Variable B SE B β Model 1         Academic Self- Efficacy -.02 .01 -.10*      Attitudes -.12 .01 -.51* Model 2         Academic Self-Efficacy -.03 .01 -.11*      Attitudes -.11 .01 -.48*      Excitement-Seeking .003 .001 .20*      Conscientiousness .00 .001 -.03 *p < .05.                NEO Personality Inventory     40                                        Table 5 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Academic Dishonesty During University Variable B SE B β Model 1         Academic Self- Efficacy -.02 .01 -.13*      Attitudes -.07 .01 -.42* Model 2         Academic Self-Efficacy -.02 .01 -.13*      Attitudes -.07 .01 -.43*      Extrinsic Motivation         .00 .00 .03 Model 3        Academic Self-Efficacy -.02      .01      -.13*     Attitudes -.07 .01 -.42*     Extrinsic Motivation .00 .00       .02     Excitement-Seeking .001 .001 .05     Conscientiousness -3.56E- .001 -.003 *p < .05.                NEO Personality Inventory     41                                        Table 6  Correlations Among the Five Domains of the NEO-PI-R and the Academic Dishonesty Before  University Measure   Neuroticism Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness OpennessAcademic Dishonesty      Before University -.02 .10 -.24** -.27** -.10 ** p < .01               NEO Personality Inventory     42                                         Table 7 Correlations Among the Five Domains of the NEO-PI-R and the Academic Dishonesty   University Measure  Neuroticism Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness OpennessAcademic Dishonesty      University -.04 .03 -.24** -.20** -.18** ** p < .01               NEO Personality Inventory     43                                        Table 8 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Academic Dishonesty Before University Variable B SE B β Model 1         Academic Self- Efficacy -.02 .01 -.10*      Attitudes -.12 .01 -.51* Model 2         Academic Self-Efficacy -.02 .01 -.08      Attitudes -.11 .01 -.47*      Agreeableness -.001 .001 -.07      Conscientiousness .00 .001 -.09 *p < .05.                NEO Personality Inventory     44                                        Table 9 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Academic Dishonesty During University Variable B SE B β Model 1         Academic Self- Efficacy -.02 .01 -.13*      Attitudes -.07 .01 -.42* Model 2         Academic Self-Efficacy -.02 .01 -.09      Attitudes -.06 .01 -.38*      Agreeableness -.001 .001 -.09      Conscientiousness .00 .001 -.03      Openness -.001 .001 -.08 *p < .05.                NEO Personality Inventory     45                                                   Table 10 Summary of Indirect and Total Effects: Academic Dishonesty Before University Effects Coefficient SE  t p  Conscientiousness           B (YX) -.004  .0008 -4.89 .0000       B (MX)      -.02    .004  6.30 .0000       B (YM.X)      -.11    .01    -9.83   .0000       B (YX.M)  -.002  .0008  -1.95   .053  Agreeableness           B (YX)  -.004  .0009  -4.31 .0000       B (MX)  .03    .004   6.79 .0000       B (YM.X)  -.12    .01  -9.98 .0000       B (YX.M)       -.0009  .0009    -1.02   .38  Note.  In the case of Conscientiousness: Y= Academic Dishonesty Before University; X= Conscientiousness; M= Attitudes. In the case of Agreeableness: Y= Academic Dishonesty Before University; X= Agreeableness; M= Attitudes.               NEO Personality Inventory     46                                                                 NEO Personality Inventory     47                                                   Table 11 Summary of Indirect and Total Effects: Academic Dishonesty During University Effects Coefficient SE  t p  Conscientiousness           B (YX)      -.002   .0006 -3.49 .0005       B (MX) .02 .004  6.30 .0000       B (YM.X) -.07 .009    -7.97   .0000       B (YX.M)     -.0006   .0006   -.91   .36  Agreeableness           B (YX)   -.003   .0007  -4.39 .0000       B (MX)  .03 .004   6.79 .0000       B (YM.X) -.07    .01  -7.62 .0000       B (YX.M)       -.001  .0007    -1.71   .09  Openness           B (YX)                     -.002  .0007    -3.12 .002       B (MX)        .01    .005     2.14    .03       B (YM.X)       -.07    .008    -8.51  .0000       B (YX.M)       -.001    .0007    -2.41    .02  Note.  In the case of Conscientiousness: Y= Academic Dishonesty During University; X= Conscientiousness; M= Attitudes. In the case of Agreeableness: Y= Academic Dishonesty During University; X= Agreeableness; M= Attitudes. In the case of Openness: Y= Academic Dishonesty During University; X= Openness; M= Attitudes.                NEO Personality Inventory     48                                        Table 12 Sobel: Indirect Effect and Significance: Academic Dishonesty Before University Effect Value SE  LL 95 CI  UL 95 CI z P Conscientiousness           Effect  -.003 .0005    -.004 -.0016 -5.28 .0000            Agreeableness            Effect -.0031 .0006 -.004 -.002 -5.59  .0000               NEO Personality Inventory     49                                                      NEO Personality Inventory     50                                        Table 13 Sobel: Indirect Effect and Significance: Academic Dishonesty During University  Effect Value SE  LL 95 CI  UL 95 CI z p   Conscientiousness             Effect  -.002 .0003    -.002 -.001 -4.92 .0000                Agreeableness             Effect -.002 .0004 -.003 -.001 -5.05    .0000         Openness               Effect -.0007  .0003 -.0014       .0000 -2.06 .04                 NEO Personality Inventory     51                                         Figure Captions Figure 1. Mediation model: Attitudes mediate the relationship between personality variables   and reports of academic dishonesty before university. Figure 2. Mediation model: Attitudes mediate the relationship between personality variables and  academic dishonesty during university.                NEO Personality Inventory     52                                               Conscientiousness  Agreeableness       Attitudes        Academic Dishonesty: Before University                        NEO Personality Inventory     53                                           Agreeableness ConscientiousnessOpenness Attitudes Academic Dishonesty: During University 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Croatia 8 0
United States 7 4
Germany 6 0
Canada 6 0
China 3 3
City Views Downloads
Unknown 14 1
Vernon 4 0
Shenzhen 3 3
Ashburn 3 0
Clementon 2 0
Vancouver 2 0
Mountain View 1 0
Chicago 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52966.1-0086030/manifest

Comment

Related Items