Collaborative cheating and group confession: Findings from a natural experiment

This study is based on an incident of collaborative cheating by a group of postgraduate management students during an online quiz. There was direct evidence against eight students. Circumstantial evidence was found against another 49 in a class of 184 students (52.72% women, average age 24.03 years)...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cogent social sciences 2022-12, Vol.8 (1)
1. Verfasser: Sarkar, Sumit
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page
container_title Cogent social sciences
container_volume 8
creator Sarkar, Sumit
description This study is based on an incident of collaborative cheating by a group of postgraduate management students during an online quiz. There was direct evidence against eight students. Circumstantial evidence was found against another 49 in a class of 184 students (52.72% women, average age 24.03 years), and 28 of them confessed during the post-facto investigation. Gender and age were not significant factors for either cheating or confession. The students came from various educational backgrounds, which turned out as a significant factor in both cheating and confession. The results indicate that the likelihood of cheating in that course (Managerial Economics), and confessing after being charged, was significantly lower for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) graduates. Based on the content analysis of the confessors, I have developed a model of the decision-process accounting for self-conscious negative affect, and decision dilemmas owing to the anxiety of getting implicated and fear of social exclusion by peers. Negative affect has impacted everyone. Eight students confessed independently possibly because of overpowering anxiety. Others confessed in six groups to avoid social exclusion. The study highlights the importance of experimental research, as some of the findings differ from those obtained in surveys where the participants self-report dishonesty.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/23311886.2022.2069909
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2755673973</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_b9dd5ad874424116aeef52366f8187be</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2755673973</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-a0ecd027d0d724cb19a4fcc6931de1c4558b98f0889baaecf0718237fb1230453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UctKA0EQXETBoPkEYcBz4jx25-FJCUYDgVz0PPTOI27YzMSZjZq_d2OiePLS3VRVVzdUUVwRPCZY4hvKGCFS8jHFlPaFK4XVSTHY46M9cfpnPi-GOa8wxqQUWHA-KBaT2LZQxwRd8-6QeXX9EJYIgkXLFLcbZGLwLucmhls0bYLt2Yx8imsEKEC3TdAi97lxqVm70F0WZx7a7IbHflG8TB-eJ0-j-eJxNrmfjwyTpBsBdsZiKiy2gpamJgpKbwxXjFhHTFlVslbSYylVDeCMx4JIyoSvCWW4rNhFMTv42ggrvemPQ9rpCI3-BmJaakhdY1qna2VtBVaKsqQlIRyc8xVlnHtJpKhd73V98Nqk-LZ1udOruE2hf19TUVVcMCVYr6oOKpNizsn536sE630U-icKvY9CH6Po9-4Oe03wMa3hI6bW6g52bUw-QTBN1ux_iy-kEY9p</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2755673973</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Collaborative cheating and group confession: Findings from a natural experiment</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Access via Taylor &amp; Francis (Open Access Collection)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Sarkar, Sumit</creator><creatorcontrib>Sarkar, Sumit</creatorcontrib><description>This study is based on an incident of collaborative cheating by a group of postgraduate management students during an online quiz. There was direct evidence against eight students. Circumstantial evidence was found against another 49 in a class of 184 students (52.72% women, average age 24.03 years), and 28 of them confessed during the post-facto investigation. Gender and age were not significant factors for either cheating or confession. The students came from various educational backgrounds, which turned out as a significant factor in both cheating and confession. The results indicate that the likelihood of cheating in that course (Managerial Economics), and confessing after being charged, was significantly lower for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) graduates. Based on the content analysis of the confessors, I have developed a model of the decision-process accounting for self-conscious negative affect, and decision dilemmas owing to the anxiety of getting implicated and fear of social exclusion by peers. Negative affect has impacted everyone. Eight students confessed independently possibly because of overpowering anxiety. Others confessed in six groups to avoid social exclusion. The study highlights the importance of experimental research, as some of the findings differ from those obtained in surveys where the participants self-report dishonesty.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2331-1886</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2331-1886</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2022.2069909</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Cogent</publisher><subject>Academic dishonesty ; Anxiety ; Cheating ; Circumstantial evidence ; Collaboration ; Confession ; Confessions ; Content analysis ; Dishonesty ; Economics ; educational background ; Mathematics ; Negative emotions ; Peers ; Science and technology ; Self report ; Social exclusion ; Students ; Women</subject><ispartof>Cogent social sciences, 2022-12, Vol.8 (1)</ispartof><rights>2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. 2022</rights><rights>2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-a0ecd027d0d724cb19a4fcc6931de1c4558b98f0889baaecf0718237fb1230453</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-a0ecd027d0d724cb19a4fcc6931de1c4558b98f0889baaecf0718237fb1230453</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7959-5657</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23311886.2022.2069909$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2022.2069909$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,2102,27344,27502,27924,27925,33774,59143,59144</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sarkar, Sumit</creatorcontrib><title>Collaborative cheating and group confession: Findings from a natural experiment</title><title>Cogent social sciences</title><description>This study is based on an incident of collaborative cheating by a group of postgraduate management students during an online quiz. There was direct evidence against eight students. Circumstantial evidence was found against another 49 in a class of 184 students (52.72% women, average age 24.03 years), and 28 of them confessed during the post-facto investigation. Gender and age were not significant factors for either cheating or confession. The students came from various educational backgrounds, which turned out as a significant factor in both cheating and confession. The results indicate that the likelihood of cheating in that course (Managerial Economics), and confessing after being charged, was significantly lower for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) graduates. Based on the content analysis of the confessors, I have developed a model of the decision-process accounting for self-conscious negative affect, and decision dilemmas owing to the anxiety of getting implicated and fear of social exclusion by peers. Negative affect has impacted everyone. Eight students confessed independently possibly because of overpowering anxiety. Others confessed in six groups to avoid social exclusion. The study highlights the importance of experimental research, as some of the findings differ from those obtained in surveys where the participants self-report dishonesty.</description><subject>Academic dishonesty</subject><subject>Anxiety</subject><subject>Cheating</subject><subject>Circumstantial evidence</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Confession</subject><subject>Confessions</subject><subject>Content analysis</subject><subject>Dishonesty</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>educational background</subject><subject>Mathematics</subject><subject>Negative emotions</subject><subject>Peers</subject><subject>Science and technology</subject><subject>Self report</subject><subject>Social exclusion</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>2331-1886</issn><issn>2331-1886</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>0YH</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UctKA0EQXETBoPkEYcBz4jx25-FJCUYDgVz0PPTOI27YzMSZjZq_d2OiePLS3VRVVzdUUVwRPCZY4hvKGCFS8jHFlPaFK4XVSTHY46M9cfpnPi-GOa8wxqQUWHA-KBaT2LZQxwRd8-6QeXX9EJYIgkXLFLcbZGLwLucmhls0bYLt2Yx8imsEKEC3TdAi97lxqVm70F0WZx7a7IbHflG8TB-eJ0-j-eJxNrmfjwyTpBsBdsZiKiy2gpamJgpKbwxXjFhHTFlVslbSYylVDeCMx4JIyoSvCWW4rNhFMTv42ggrvemPQ9rpCI3-BmJaakhdY1qna2VtBVaKsqQlIRyc8xVlnHtJpKhd73V98Nqk-LZ1udOruE2hf19TUVVcMCVYr6oOKpNizsn536sE630U-icKvY9CH6Po9-4Oe03wMa3hI6bW6g52bUw-QTBN1ux_iy-kEY9p</recordid><startdate>20221231</startdate><enddate>20221231</enddate><creator>Sarkar, Sumit</creator><general>Cogent</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</general><scope>0YH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7959-5657</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221231</creationdate><title>Collaborative cheating and group confession: Findings from a natural experiment</title><author>Sarkar, Sumit</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-a0ecd027d0d724cb19a4fcc6931de1c4558b98f0889baaecf0718237fb1230453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Academic dishonesty</topic><topic>Anxiety</topic><topic>Cheating</topic><topic>Circumstantial evidence</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Confession</topic><topic>Confessions</topic><topic>Content analysis</topic><topic>Dishonesty</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>educational background</topic><topic>Mathematics</topic><topic>Negative emotions</topic><topic>Peers</topic><topic>Science and technology</topic><topic>Self report</topic><topic>Social exclusion</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sarkar, Sumit</creatorcontrib><collection>Access via Taylor &amp; Francis (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Cogent social sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sarkar, Sumit</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Collaborative cheating and group confession: Findings from a natural experiment</atitle><jtitle>Cogent social sciences</jtitle><date>2022-12-31</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><issn>2331-1886</issn><eissn>2331-1886</eissn><abstract>This study is based on an incident of collaborative cheating by a group of postgraduate management students during an online quiz. There was direct evidence against eight students. Circumstantial evidence was found against another 49 in a class of 184 students (52.72% women, average age 24.03 years), and 28 of them confessed during the post-facto investigation. Gender and age were not significant factors for either cheating or confession. The students came from various educational backgrounds, which turned out as a significant factor in both cheating and confession. The results indicate that the likelihood of cheating in that course (Managerial Economics), and confessing after being charged, was significantly lower for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) graduates. Based on the content analysis of the confessors, I have developed a model of the decision-process accounting for self-conscious negative affect, and decision dilemmas owing to the anxiety of getting implicated and fear of social exclusion by peers. Negative affect has impacted everyone. Eight students confessed independently possibly because of overpowering anxiety. Others confessed in six groups to avoid social exclusion. The study highlights the importance of experimental research, as some of the findings differ from those obtained in surveys where the participants self-report dishonesty.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Cogent</pub><doi>10.1080/23311886.2022.2069909</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7959-5657</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2331-1886
ispartof Cogent social sciences, 2022-12, Vol.8 (1)
issn 2331-1886
2331-1886
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2755673973
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Sociological Abstracts; Access via Taylor & Francis (Open Access Collection); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Academic dishonesty
Anxiety
Cheating
Circumstantial evidence
Collaboration
Confession
Confessions
Content analysis
Dishonesty
Economics
educational background
Mathematics
Negative emotions
Peers
Science and technology
Self report
Social exclusion
Students
Women
title Collaborative cheating and group confession: Findings from a natural experiment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T03%3A30%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Collaborative%20cheating%20and%20group%20confession:%20Findings%20from%20a%20natural%20experiment&rft.jtitle=Cogent%20social%20sciences&rft.au=Sarkar,%20Sumit&rft.date=2022-12-31&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=1&rft.issn=2331-1886&rft.eissn=2331-1886&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/23311886.2022.2069909&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2755673973%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2755673973&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_b9dd5ad874424116aeef52366f8187be&rfr_iscdi=true