Citation
The relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty

Material Information

Title:
The relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty
Creator:
Storch, Jason Brian
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic education ( jstor )
Academic learning ( jstor )
Cheating ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Grade levels ( jstor )
Graduate schools ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
Honesty ( jstor )
Young offenders ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
24908638 ( ALEPH )
45805669 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEUTRALIZATION THEORY AND ACADEMIC
DISHONESTY: A COMPARISON OF ATHLETES AND NON-ATHLETES














By

JASON BRIAN STORCH












A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2000















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the completion of this dissertation. I thank and appreciate all of those who contributed with specialized help and those who pushed me toward graduation. Specifically, I would like to thank my wife, Amy, for her continued support, dedication, and editing, regardless of my demeanor or attitude. I would also like to thank my son, Andrew, for providing ideal windows of time to complete this dissertation.

I would also like to thank my brother, Eric, for his desire and expertise in the

areas of statistical analysis, editing, and overall dissertation writing. I am truly fortunate to have such a learned brother. I would also like to thank my parents for continuing to support my work and instilling in me the necessity for completing this project. I would also like to thank my sister-in-law, Beth, for her editing work. I thank the rest of my family, sisters, Deborah and Alexis and mother-in-law, Rachelle, for their encouragement, support, and genuine excitement over this dissertation. I am honored to have such a wonderful family and sincerely appreciate all that they have done for me; this dissertation is completed in their honor. I would also like to thank the University Athletic Association, Office of Student Life, and especially Keith Carodine and Ann Hughes, for encouraging me to complete this project and providing me with the resources to make it a reality.

Finally, I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Paula Welch, Art

Sandeen, David Honeyman, and my chair Phil Clark, for their expertise and willingness to listen, suggest, and encourage. I have used their services immensely and am greatly appreciative of their assistance.


11















TABLE OF CONTENTS




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................... ii

ABSRACT ................................................................................................... v

CHAPTERS

I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1

Statement of the Problem................................................ 12
Purpose of Study.................................... ............................................... 14
Glossary of Terms............................................................................. 15
Delimitations and Limitations ........................................ ............ 16
Significance of Study ..................................................................... .......... 17
O rganization of Study .............................................................................. 21

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE........................................................... 22

Responsibility of Higher Education............................. 22
Academic Dishonesty ........................................................................ 29
Theories of Delinquency .................................................................... 43
Neutralization Theory ........................................................................ 52
Intercollegiate Athletics .......................................... ................ 63
C onclusion......................................... ................................................... 71

III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...................................... ........ 75

Introduction ....................................................................................... 75
Methodology ....................... .................................... 76
Research Design ............................................................................... 84
D ata Analysis......................................................... ................................. 86
Summary ................................................................ 87

IV PRESENTATION OF DATA..................................... .............. 88

Introduction ....................................................................................... 88
Results of Study...................................................... ................................ 90
Research Questions................................................................................. 109


iii









Additional Analyses................................................................................... 115
Sum m ary ............................................................................................ .. 116

V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 118

Introduction .......................................................................................... .. 118
Conclusions ........................................ 119
Im plications ............................................................................................. 124
Recommendations for Future Study ................................................ ........ 130
Summary ............................................... 131

APPENDIX A LETTER TO PROFESSORS ................................................... 133

APPENDIX B ACADEMIC DISHONESTY STATEMENTS ....................... 135

APPENDIX C NEUTRALIZATION STATEMENTS ................................... 136

APPENDIX D SURVEY.................................. 138

R EFER EN C ES...................................................................................................... 147

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................................... 155






























iv














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEUTRALIZATION THEORY AND ACADEMIC
DISHONESTY: A COMPARISON OF ATHLETES AND NON-ATHLETES By

Jason Brian Storch

August, 2000

Chair: Phillip A. Clark
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy and Foundations

Academic dishonesty represents a severe threat to an institution's integrity by contradicting the principles and values students should obtain and strengthen while in college. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education by addressing three questions. (a) Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level? (b) Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level? (c) Does the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level?

This study surveyed a sample (N = 244) of 80 athletes and 164 non-athletes.

Respondents were administered a self-report questionnaire that examined their attitudes and beliefs which characterized neutralization statements, beliefs and reactions towards



V








academic dishonesty, and the reportage of any acts of academic dishonesty either witnessed or participated in over the course of the studied academic semester.

This study found 80% of overall respondents (85% of the athletes and 78% of the non-athletes) had committed acts of academic dishonesty at least one time over the course of the studied semester. This study provided information into the incidence of cheating, the frequency of being caught committing acts of cheating, the perceived effectiveness of various countermeasures to cheating, and the predictability of various social activities on cheating. This study calculated no significant differences for the utilization of neutralization techniques between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level or in the incidence of cheating between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level. The relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty was significantly different when compared by athletic participation and college grade level.

The significance of this relationship as well as the predictability of neutralization theory on academic dishonesty provided insight into how students were able to effectively justify their deviant acts. This information, in addition to the identified effective countermeasures and the probability of being caught cheating, could serve as the foundation for developing a comprehensive approach to combating this problem within higher education.











vi















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Institutions of higher learning have long been responsible for the task of

disseminating knowledge and developing intellectual competence. These goals, which enhance religious, moral, and emotional interests, and improve performance in practical matters, have long been the foundation of higher education (Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, & Pavela, 1988).

The college experience enables students to progress through various stages of moral development. Chickering and Reisser (1993) proposed seven vectors that categorized an individual's maturity and growth. Kohlberg's (1971) theory of moral development also had roots in an individual's college environment. However, in the 1980's, reports were released which questioned and challenged the quality of higher education (National Institute of Education, 1984; The Association of American Colleges, 1985; The Newman Report, 1985). Each of these reports expressed concern over the condition of higher education and stressed the importance of integrity and quality among academic programs. Questions about the ability of college graduates led to the deterioration of public confidence and support in higher education. Reports of academic dishonesty within these institutions of higher learning have only strengthened these complaints.

Academic dishonesty has been a persistent problem for educational administrators who strived to build an ethical and educated work force. The Carnegie Council (1979)

1






2


reported that there was a "ethical deterioration" in academic life and many students were being forced to cheat in order to obtain the grades they desire. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching later reported that the academic integrity of college students had continued to deteriorate (Aaron & Georgia, 1994).

Many studies have concluded that cheating in college was epidemic (LaBeff,

Clark, Haines, & Diekhoff, 1990). Early research on the subject of academic dishonesty dates back to the 1920's when Hartshorne and May (1928) determined that academic dishonesty depended more on the given situation than on the strength of character. Parr (1936) concluded that under certain circumstances, 42% of students would cheat. In 1941, Drake determined the primary reason associated with cheating involved the students' competition for grades. This notion that achievement and successful competition were of greater importance than independent scholarship has gained recent support (Kibler, 1993b). It appeared as though the academic community was failing to instill the values of honesty, tolerance, respect, truth, rigor, and fairness in its students (Morrill, 1980).

While the Carnegie Council and others claimed that there has been an increase in the prevalence of cheating and other forms of dishonesty in academia, some researchers have disagreed. McCabe and Bowers (1994) noted a stable rate of occurrence in the prevalence of cheating over thirty years. Whether the rate of academic dishonesty among college students increased or remained at a similarly high rate, the issue still remains at the forefront for those concerned about the integrity of higher education.

Cheating has been defined in a variety of ways (Pavela, 1978; Barnett & Dalton, 1981; Kibler, 1993a; Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, & Pavela, 1988; Michaels & Miethe, 1989).








It may refer to the copying of another student's homework, the passing along of answers during an exam, or plagiarism. These definitions represent only a few of the many forms of academic dishonesty rampant across colleges and universities today. "Academic dishonesty refers to the forms of cheating and plagiarism which result in students giving or receiving unauthorized assistance in an academic exercise or receiving credit for work which is not their own" (Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, & Pavela, 1988, p. 1). Reports estimated that between 67% and 90% of college students have been involved in at least one cheating incident (Pavela & McCabe, 1993; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995).

Academic dishonesty remains a significant problem on many college campuses. According to Kibler (1993a), widespread academic dishonesty posed a serious threat to higher education in the following ways.

1. A campus climate tolerant of academic dishonesty could lead to an increase in the prevalence of cheating by all students.

2. Faculty indifference towards academic dishonesty could communicate to students the lack of concern towards the values of integrity and honesty.

3. Instances of ignored cheating could damage the sense of community at the institution and consequently alienate the honest students from the campus.

4. Academic dishonesty could deceive those who will ultimately depend on the knowledge and integrity of the institution's graduates.

Administrators have made attempts to curb instances of academic dishonesty on their campuses. For example, some schools have investigated the benefits of academic integrity classes, while others have stressed the need to involve and convince faculty members to report cheating activities. Other schools have shifted their focus to the





4


creation and implementation of honor codes. Honor codes usually contained the following minimum criteria: non-proctored examinations, an honor pledge, student reporting, and the existence of a judicial panel. Honor codes were only reportedly effective when they were operated under a system of honor, trust, responsibility, and loyalty. It has been reported that students under an honor code were less likely to cheat than those students without the impact of an honor code. McCabe & Trevino (1993) also reported that the length of time an honor code had been in effect was inversely related to the incidence of academic dishonesty.

Furthermore, McCabe & Trevino (1993) found that schools with an honor code were less likely to experience acts of cheating due to the following reasons.

1. Students pledged to abide by a code that clarified expectations regarding appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Therefore, no questions pertaining to wrongdoing would occur. Also, potential cheaters had a more difficult time rationalizing and justifying dishonest behaviors. Since cheating was not socially acceptable, there was peer pressure not to cheat.

2. The responsibility of reporting was shifted from the administration to the

student, such that students were responsible for monitoring and enforcing the honor code. Students would be in a better position to report cheating among other students.

3. Students were given new privileges due to the honor code and, on many

occasions, students were reluctant to lose these privileges because of unwise decisions.

Other studies, however, have concluded that no consistent evidence existed as to how the honor code affected the frequency and/or seriousness of academic dishonesty. In addition, the policy of having students report other students' actions, referred to as








nontoleration, has not received much support from students (Fass, 1986). Although useful, these practices have not been widely accepted as viable methods to combat cheating.

Researchers have claimed that the impetus of a solution to academic dishonesty lies within institutional administration (Cole & McCabe, 1996; Cole & Conklin, 1996; Aaron, 1992; Pavela & McCabe, 1993). Kibler and Kibler (1993) posited that institutions must focus on preventing and detecting academic dishonesty in order to promote academic integrity. Programs should be designed and available to address the emotional, disciplinary, and educational needs of the students. Students should be evaluated on the motives that caused them to cheat and then should receive the necessary counseling to combat such issues. Through a combination of counseling and other educational programs, (e.g., judicial court, lectures, and discussions) students would become aware of the possible consequences of their cheating behavior. Comprehensive educational sessions should be offered in an attempt to enhance academic skills and ethical values and to offer the student alternatives to academic dishonesty (Kibler, 1993; Kibler, 1994).

The nationwide effort to control the prevalence of cheating has led to the

development and investigation of various theories (Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Among these theories, the disciplines of sociology and criminology have attempted to understand cheating as a delinquent behavior. Academic dishonesty could be so categorized and studied due to its similarity with other deviant behaviors. Researchers claimed that cheating involved the use of fraudulent means to achieve valued resources allocated within a given setting. Cheaters incorporated the learning mechanisms and evaluation of








costs and benefits, while also being motivated by external pressures and the desire for achievement (Michaels & Miethe, 1989).

Gibbs (1975) hypothesized that certain behavior was deterred in direct proportion to the perceived probability and severity of punishment for the behavior. Deterrence theory and the principles of certainty, severity, and immediacy of punishment have gained acceptance by many investigators (Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Deterrence theory has been criticized for its omission of the reward, returns, and opportunity components. Rational choice theory addressed the perceived probabilities and magnitudes of both rewards and punishments. The combination of these anticipated rewards and punishments, as outlined in deterrence and rational choice theories, created the model utilized by many researchers to study deviant behavior (Michael & Miethe, 1989).

Social bond theory (Hirschi, 1969) claimed that deviant behavior was the result of the weakening of the social bonds to society. It was proposed that the following four major social bonds existed to constrain a human's natural capacity to commit criminal acts: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Attachment served to insulate the individual from crime, with parents and peers being the most influential. Commitment focused on the involvement of personal resources in conventional activities. Involvement referred to the amount of time spent in these conventional activities. It was posited that active participants in conventional activities would have little time available for deviant activities. Finally, belief represented the acceptance of the moral validity of conventional norms and laws (Hirschi, 1969).

Sutherland (1947) formulated the theory of differential association in which the delinquent behavior involved the learning of techniques for committing crimes and the





7


motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes favorable to this violation of law. The basis of differential association theory was that "crime is rooted in the social organization and is an expression of that organization" (Sutherland, 1947, p. 7).

Although social bond theory has been used to explain various forms of deviant and delinquent conduct, Akers (1985) incorporated Sutherland's differential association theory of deviance with the principles of social learning theory. This combination of theories revolved around the notion that the reinforcement of deviant behavior from primary groups was more influential than the threat of formal punishment from conventional society. The two interrelated components of social learning theory involved the perceived support from deviant primary groups and the subsequent development of favorable definitions or attitudes concerning deviant behavior. It has been found that if close friends perceived cheating negatively, the probability of cheating was reduced regardless of their conventionality (Eve & Bromley, 1981).

It has been argued that a delinquent sub-culture was a system of values that

represented an inversion of the values held by a respectable, law-abiding society (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Cohen (1955) viewed the process of developing this delinquent subculture as a matter of building, maintaining, and reinforcing a code of behavior that contradicted dominant, often middle class values. However, the notion that juvenile delinquency was based on competing values and norms has not been totally accepted (Sykes & Matza, 1957).

Sykes and Matza (1957) examined Sutherland's (1947) differential association theory and proposed that although deviant and non-deviant individuals could share similar norms and values, they were not permanently released from moral constraints.





8


This notion of "drift" (Matza, 1964, p. 28) prohibited social controls from serving as inhibitors of deviant behaviors, so that the individual was able to engage in deviant activities without damaging self-image. Sykes and Matza in turn concluded that this ability to adhere to conventional norms, as opposed to delinquent values, was fostered by an individual's ability to justify these acts of deviance. These justifications were termed "techniques of neutralization" (1957, p. 667).

Sykes and Matza (1957) outlined five techniques of neutralization to describe this drift from conventional to delinquent norms. Denial of responsibility was based on the belief that delinquent acts were due to either forces outside of the individual's control or the results of accidents. Denial of injury revolved around the notion that no one was injured by the delinquent acts. Denial of the victim was premised on the idea that the injury was not wrong in light of given circumstances. This act was viewed as warranted retaliation and/or punishment. Condemnation of the condemners occurred when the individual was able to shift attention from his/her own deviant acts toward the motives and behavior of those that disapproved of his/her violations, referring to them as hypocrites. Appeal to higher loyalties occurred when offenders were caught in the dilemma in which being loyal to their own peer groups was more important than abiding by the norms of the larger society.

Since the development of these five techniques of neutralization, two additional methods have been formulated. The first, denial of necessity, stated that one should not feel guilty about a deviant act, even if it was considered morally wrong, so long as it was deemed necessary (Minor, 1981). Klockars (1974) and Minor defined the technique of neutralization known as the metaphor of ledger. This technique allowed individuals to








accumulate "good credits," which could be substituted for guilt-free deviant acts. That is, once an individual had performed enough good deeds, he/she believed that he/she was then owed and free to commit deviant acts without feeling remorse. It was through the utilization of these seven neutralization techniques which comprise neutralization theory, that individuals could justify their involvement in deviant actions.

Intercollegiate athletics have long been present within higher education. During the end of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries, intercollegiate sports grew in popularity. In an attempt to infiltrate the athletic culture, college presidents from the large Midwestern universities of Chicago, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Minnesota, and Northwestern created the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives in 1895. However, some years before this, Princeton and Harvard independently formed faculty athletic committees. While these first attempts to gain control of athletics were met with resistance, students reluctantly accepted the formation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (hereinafter "NCAA") in 1905 (Rader, 1999).

Although sports were not widely accepted among faculty members, some

administrators observed the need for institutional control. The NCAA was formed in an attempt to create an intervening governing body, opposite of the then current laissez-faire approach utilized by the students. The rising complaints of brutality, questionable ethics, and the need for universal rules and regulations, specifically within football, ultimately led to the formation of the NCAA (Smith, 1995).

This initial desire to create rules and regulations to govern competition in the

sport of football has grown into a massive organization that controls all major and minor happenings in the world of intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA has continued to set and





10


enforce the rules and regulations for member institutions, which center around the academic standards necessary for athletes to be eligible to compete in intercollegiate athletics and the athletic responsibilities of the athletic department, including boosters, coaches, staff, faculty, and fans. These rules, which are consistent with the founding principles of the NCAA, attempt to ensure fair competition among all member institutions.

The welfare and integrity of the athlete and athletic department have continued to be primary concerns for many institutions. Problems associated with the ethical violations committed by coaches and players continue to occur and negatively affect the public support of and confidence in intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA has continued to enforce its rules and investigate violations and other dishonest practices. Intercollegiate athletics has grown into an enormous enterprise worthy of dishonesty but willing to fight this problem (Sperber, 1990).

The NCAA has created many rules that deal with the academic requirements of all athletes. These requirements vary as an athlete progresses from the status of recruit (pre-college) to first year, and ultimately to exhausted eligibility and graduation. These rules require athletes to satisfy a certain grade point average (hereinafter "GPA") and complete a percentage of degree requirements. These benchmarks were created to ensure all athletes were continuing to make acceptable progress toward their degree. Failure to obtain these standards would result in the forfeiture of part or the complete athletic season due to ineligibility for academic reasons. It is therefore extremely important that athletes continue to make progress toward their degree and remain in good standing at








their given institution. The 1999-00 NCAA Manual specified academic regulations that

athletes must follow.

A student-athlete who is entering his or her third year of
collegiate enrollment shall have completed successfully at least 25 percent of the course requirements in the student's specific degree program. A student-athlete who is entering
his or her fourth year of collegiate enrollment shall have completed successfully at least 50 percent of the course
requirements in the student's specific degree program. A
student-athlete who is entering his or her fifth year of
collegiate enrollment shall have completed successfully at least 75 percent of the course requirements in the student's specific degree program. The course requirements must be
in the student's specific degree program. (p. 155)

Furthermore, all athletes must abide by the following rule.

A student-athlete who is entering his or her third year of
collegiate enrollment shall present a cumulative minimum
grade-point average (based upon a maximum of 4.000) that
equals at least 90 percent of the institution's overall
cumulative minimum grade-point average required for
graduation. A student-athlete who is entering his or her fourth or subsequent year of collegiate enrollment shall
present a cumulative minimum grade-point average (based
upon a maximum of 4.000) that equals 95 percent of the
institution's overall cumulative minimum grade-point
average required for graduation. (p. 156)

Many athletic departments have formed offices or units responsible for

monitoring the academic progress of athletes. These units must not only be

knowledgeable of the many NCAA rules in place, but they must also monitor and

account for the progress of the institutions' athletes. These programs usually supply

academic resources in the form of tutors, mentors, computer assistance, and counselors

who are all trained to best assist the athlete. Regardless of the resources available, some

athletes experience difficulty satisfying the requirements established by the NCAA.





12


The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship existed between

neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education, which could allow for an impact on the incidence of cheating. Neutralization theory and its subsequent extensions suggested that delinquents moved from stages of conventional wisdom to unconventional, or delinquent stages. It was during these delinquent stages that deviant activities occurred. Individuals were free to drift back and forth between the stages because they neutralized the effects of their deviant acts. This ability to rationalize enabled students to commit forms of academic dishonesty while attending institutions of higher learning.

The primary focus of this study was to examine if there was a significant difference in not only the prevalence of academic dishonesty, but also the use of neutralization techniques between Division I athletes and non-athletes, as well as differences based on college grade level. Results of this study provide information that will allow administrators to develop and implement intervention programs in an effort to minimize, and ultimately cease, instances of academic dishonesty on higher education campuses.

Statement of the Problem

Educational administrators have witnessed the continuation of a serious problem within higher education. Academic dishonesty represents a severe threat to an institution's integrity. It contradicts the principles and values that students should obtain and strengthen while in college. Regardless of the magnitude of the problem of academic dishonesty over the last century, it has been documented as a widescale problem that must be addressed in order to reduce or eliminate the threat it poses to higher education.





13


A problem exists within the boundaries of higher education. This problem can be attributed to the erosion of academic integrity (Carnegie Council Report, 1979; Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; Nuss, 1984). Students are turning to cheating tactics to obtain necessary grades, stay in school, find the easiest solution, or simply for the thrill of deception. Cheating behaviors are not specific to one demographic group. It has been stated that men are more likely to cheat than women; that certain majors promote varying levels of academic dishonesty; and that fraternity or sorority membership, as well as extracurricular participation, may influence the level of dishonest behavior (Baird, 1980; McCabe & Trevino, 1997).

Intercollegiate athletes must adhere to various institutional and NCAA policies including minimum grade point averages and minimum requirements for the number of credit hours passed in an academic year and career. These regulations and other factors may influence an athlete to resort to cheating tactics in order to satisfy coaches, parents, teammates, or fans. This study examined whether athletes and non-athletes were utilizing the techniques outlined in neutralization theory, as a means of rationalizing cheating, ultimately affecting the prevalence of academic dishonesty. That is, did their inclusion in intercollegiate athletics affect the relationship between the utilization of neutralization techniques and the incidence of academic dishonesty. For the purpose of this study, the terms academic dishonesty and cheating were used interchangeably to describe actions "which result in students giving or receiving unauthorized assistance in an academic exercise or receiving credit for work which is not their own" (Kibler et al., 1988, p. 1).

Sykes and Matza (1957) concluded that neutralization techniques were employed before engaging in deviant acts. They suggested that cheaters would evaluate the





14


situation and the grades they needed in order to maintain their eligibility before committing cheating acts. Individuals who committed these deviant actions typically abided by the norms established by society and specifically, to the rules established for their various sports. It was on certain occasions, where the rewards greatly outweighed the risks, that these athletes were presented with the opportunity to commit delinquent acts.

The problem appears to center around the lack of institutional control regarding academic dishonesty (Aaron, 1992; Fass, 1986; Haines et al., 1986). Boundaries need to be established in order to preserve the integrity and values that have long been attributed to higher education (Fishbein, 1993; Kibler, 1993b, 1994; Pavela & McCabe, 1993). Kibler & Kibler (1993) claimed that "colleges need a comprehensive approach to the problem of academic dishonesty" (p. B1). The understanding of neutralization theory should provide refortification of the original ideals encompassing institutions of higher learning.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between

neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education. Specifically, this study addressed the following questions.

1. Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level?

2. Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level?





15


3. Does the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differ between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level?

Glossary of Terms

Academic dishonesty refers to the forms of cheating and plagiarism that involve students giving or receiving unauthorized assistance in an academic exercise or receiving credit for work that is not their own (Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, & Pavela 1988). Intercollegiate athletics distinguishes athletic competition between teams representing various institutions of higher learning. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) represents the governing body that formulates and polices numerous rules pertaining to the recruitment and retention of athletes.

Neutralization theory refers to the seven rationalizations utilized by individuals as justification for their deviant actions (Sykes & Matza, 1957; Klockars, 1974; Minor, 1981).

Non-athlete refers to a college student who does not participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics.

Athlete refers to a college student who participates in intercollegiate varsity athletics. Techniques of neutralization will be used to describe any of the justifications utilized by delinquents.





16


Delimitations & Limitations

The following represent the delimitations and limitations of this study. Delimitations

1. This study only tested the deviant behavior of academic dishonesty. Results from this study should not be used to determine if neutralization theory could be applied to study other forms of deviant behavior.

2. Academic dishonesty was operationally defined for the purpose of this study. Since different definitions of academic dishonesty exist, caution should be used when comparing the results of this study to other studies that utilize different definitions for investigating academic dishonesty.

Limitations

1. The study was conducted at a large public university located in the

southeastern portion of the United States. Results may not generalize to other areas of the United States.

2. The findings of this study may not be generalizable to athletes at other institutions.

3. The study utilized a convenient sample. In order to assure that a proportionate number of athletes were represented in the study, certain classes with higher athletic enrollment, as well as various introductory level courses, were utilized in the study.

4. The questionnaire required the anonymous self-reporting of respondents. It has been suggested that the method of self-reporting may lead to underestimation (Scheers & Dayton, 1987). However, other researchers have maintained that self-





17


reporting is an accurate method to collect data (Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981; Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996).

5. The questionnaire was administered under the assumption that respondents would report on both the incidence of academic dishonesty and their ability to utilize various techniques of neutralization. The temporal occurrence of neutralization theory in relation to the delinquent act has been debated (Haines et al., 1986; Hamlin, 1988; Hirschi, 1969; LaBeff et al., 1990; Minor, 1984).

Significance of the Study

Researchers have found academic dishonesty to be rampant within institutions of higher learning (Davis et al., 1992; Kibler, 1993b; LaBeffet al., 1990; Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Tom & Borin, 1988). It has been reported that between 40% to 90% of all college students participated in various cheating acts (Jendrek, 1992; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995; Sims, 1995). Recently, McCabe and Trevino (1997) claimed that the number of students who cheated could be as high as 95%. Unfortunately, this trend of cheating practices was not new to institutions of higher education (Baird, 1980; McCabe, 1993; McCabe & Bowers, 1994; Michaels & Miethe, 1989). The statistics have been confirmed across different disciplines and throughout the country (Haines et al., 1986; Singhal, 1982; Tom & Borin, 1988). McCabe (1992) reported that 67% of students in selective colleges and universities throughout the country engaged in various forms of academic dishonesty. Mitchell and Wisbey (1995) reaffirmed this amount stating that 75% to 90% admitted to cheating in college on at least one occasion. This high percentage has forced many campuses to examine their policies regarding academic dishonesty and the ways in which these behaviors could be deterred.





18


The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Boyer, 1990)

determined that academic dishonesty posed a serious threat to the educational community by undermining the integrity of the institution. Institutions should enforce adequate penalties and could not afford to ignore academic dishonesty or students could assume these types of behaviors to be acceptable. These problems should be dealt with so that public support and confidence is not destroyed.

Academic dishonesty research has typically fallen into two distinct categories of thought. The first area studied the personal characteristics of the cheaters. These factors have included gender, age, year in school, grade point average, academic major, parents' education, membership in a fraternity or sorority, and participation in extracurricular activities (Baird, 1980; Barnett & Dalton, 1981; Haines et al., 1986; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995). The second area of research examined various situational or contextual factors that could influence the prevalence of academic dishonesty (Kibler, 1993a; LaBeff et al., 1990; McCabe, 1992; McCabe & Trevino, 1997).

College students are faced with many rigors of academic life. They are expected to balance academics and social and extracurricular activities equally in order to remain in school and to continue toward the pursuit of their degree. Instead of turning toward acceptable academic solutions, such as improving study skills or utilizing tutors or mentors, many students are choosing to utilize various forms of academic dishonesty as the solution to their academic problems. Some students are forced and persuaded to obtain and maintain good grades. Some researchers believed that higher education has created a "survival of the fittest" (Kibler & Kibler, 1993, p. BB1) atmosphere where good grades served as the focal point of the educational experience (Drake, 1941).





19


It has also been suggested that the widespread use of methods of academic

dishonesty resulted from the student's own decision to value achievement and successful competition more than the desire to value independent scholarship (Kibler, 1993a). This has consequently led to the continued usage of dishonest measures because the academic community has failed to illustrate the value of independent scholarship to its students (Nuss, 1984).

Students have also been reported to partake in academically dishonest acts as a method of coping with stress or other emotional problems. The pressure to obtain good grades from parents, relatives, coaches, friends and the institution itself has been cited as the leading reason many students turn to cheating (Barnett & Dalton, 1981). Students have also been reported to cheat because the opportunity existed, benefits outweighed risks, peer pressure, and/or low levels of academic achievement (Baird, 1980; Barnett & Dalton, 1988; Davis et al., 1992; Fass, 1986; Graham, Monday, O'Brien, & Steffen, 1994; Hartshorne & May, 1928; LaBeffet al., 1990; Leming, 1980; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995).

Students on large campuses have indicated that they tended to cheat due to their inability to identify with the institution, accompanied by feelings of diminished responsibility toward the institution and its codes of conduct. These negative images resulted in a decreased tendency to worry about cheating. "Some students assigned to classes beyond their actual competence cheat to survive" (Fishbein, 1993, p. A52).

Other reasons may have existed behind the student's decision to cheat. In

addition to the pressure to obtain good grades and compete, students may have cheated if there was an inconsistent application of academic regulations. Students also reported





20


increased levels of cheating when they believed grading or course work procedures to be unfair, or when a high level of cheating by other classmates was perceived (Fass, 1986).

This study investigated if this reported pressure to succeed in both academics and athletics, coupled with stringent NCAA academic regulations, had any bearing on the prevalence of academic dishonesty among Division I athletes. The results of this study provide information for educational administrators so that intervention programs can be established and maintained at various educational institutions.

This study also investigated whether neutralization theory, could in fact be applied to the educational environment. This research examined whether cheating behavior can be rationalized by neutralization theory and what intervention methods should be taken to curb this delinquent behavior. This study investigated if this reported pressure to succeed, accompanied with various NCAA academic regulations, had any bearing on the prevalence of academic dishonesty among Division I athletes.

A primary premise of Sykes and Matza's (1957) neutralization theory involved the notion that individuals had the ability to drift from moral commitment and conventional norms to deviant activities. It was not that the individual knew that these acts were deviant, it was that they chose to justify their tactics to cope with this drift. Instead of focusing on the negative aspects of academic dishonesty, educational administrators need to thoroughly investigate why students are able to justify cheating. Understanding neutralization theory may provide solutions to curbing the prevalence of academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning.





21


Organization of Study

Chapter I has included an introduction of the study, statement of the problem,

purpose of the study, glossary of terms, delimitations and limitations, and the significance of the study. Chapter II provides a detailed review of the literature pertaining to neutralization theory and academic dishonesty, as well as a discussion on the inclusion of the athlete in the study. Chapter III provides an overview of the methodology and design utilized to study the research questions. Chapter IV reports the results and analyses of the obtained data. Chapter V provides a conclusion of the study, with a discussion of the results, implications for the educational field, and suggestions for future research.














CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE


The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between

neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education. Specifically, this study addressed the following questions.

1. Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level?

2. Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level?

3. Does the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differ between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level?

This review of literature will recount the research detailing the responsibilities of institutions of higher education. Once these responsibilities have been established, this chapter will present an overview of the investigation into academic dishonesty. Also, a review of applicable theories of criminology will be presented, with special attention given to the theory of neutralization. Inclusive in this review will be the examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and techniques of neutralization. Finally, a brief overview of the history of the NCAA and intercollegiate athletics will be provided.

Responsibility of Higher Education

Colleges and universities have long been entrusted with the responsibility of

providing its students will certain basic skills of scholarship. This educational purpose 22





23


has been directed by the following responsibilities: (a) the university must allow for the identification, maturation, and enrichment of selfhood; (b) the discovery/construction, extension, and dissemination of knowledge and culture; and, (c) the well being of society (Long, 1992). The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1973) identified five purposes of higher education in the United States.

(1) The provision of opportunities for the intellectual, aesthetic, ethical, and skill
development of individual students, and the provision of campus environments
which can constructively assist students in their more general developmental
growth;
(2) The advancement of human capability in society at large;
(3) The enlargement of educational justice for the postsecondary age group;
(4) The transmission and advancement of learning and wisdom; and,
(5) The critical evaluation of society--through individual thought and persuasionfor the sake of society's self-renewal. (p. 1)

The collegiate experience should provide students with the opportunity to mature and grow as individuals. Academic integrity was cited as being essential to achieve this goal of knowledge, development, intellectual competence, and moral development (Nuss, 1984).

The moral and ethical development of students has been a paramount

responsibility of educational administrators. Reynolds and Smith (1990) offered five responsibilities that professionals associated with colleges or universities were expected to perform. They should have assisted in the fulfillment of the educational mission. They should have strived to enhance the personal and educational development of other persons. Professionals needed to be compassionate, thorough, and fair when assessing the performance of others. Professionals were expected to exercise the authority of their office with respect to others, but without abusing power. Finally, professionals must





24


have conducted their practices while upholding virtue and competence. The moral and ethical development associated with college may also elicit changes within students.

Chickering and Reisser (1993) identified seven vectors of development to explain the changes, as a result of college, that occurred within the student. These vectors, so named because of their direction and magnitude were developing competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose and, developing integrity.

Vector 1, Developing Competence, involved an individual's quest to obtain

competence in intellectual, manual or physical, and interpersonal relations. This vector enabled students to possess a sense of confidence in their ability to handle any situation that may arise and to successfully achieve goals.

Vector 2, Managing Emotions, relied upon the individual's ability to manage various emotions involving sex, aggression, commitment, anxiety, depression, anger, shame, guilt and positive emotions. This understanding of emotions allowed an individual to develop and implement an internally adopted set of emotions separate from original reflexive responses.

Vector 3, Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence, afforded the

individual the opportunity to develop competence without seeking approval or assistance from family or friends. Instead the individual recognized the importance of others and developed relationships based on mutual respect and helpfulness, ultimately resulting in a sense of interdependence.





25


Vector 4, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships, allowed individuals to increase their level of tolerance and respect for others of differing characteristics. Individuals possessed the capacity to maintain quality interpersonal relationships. This ability to experience these relationships, along with the capacity to be tolerant, was the key component of this fourth vector.

Vector 5, Establishing Identity, served as the pivotal vector between the growth along the vectors of competence, emotions, autonomy, and positive relationships and the facilitation to the remaining two vectors. Within this vector, individuals defined themselves and their roles and behaviors in relation to others.

Vector 6, Developing Purpose, was required in order to expand competencies, identity, and interpersonal relationships. Chickering and Reisser (1993) theorized that individuals have computed future plans, goals, and interests. It was through the development of this plan that an individual was able to function within the sixth vector.

Vector 7, Developing Integrity, involved the clarification of personal ideals,

values, and morals. Once the clarification and understanding of an individual's beliefs had been obtained, the personal and ingrained system of values and principles was developed and incorporated into an individual's behaviors, actions, thoughts, and everyday life.

Chickering and Reisser's (1993) theory examined the various changes in students that may be attributed to college. It was through the progression of these vectors that students were able to develop and formulate an identity of their own (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).





26

The historical development of moral education and the subsequent development of an appropriate mode of reasoning originated approximately thirty years ago. Kohlberg (1971) introduced the idea of moral development as a cross-cultural theory, which could be utilized to understand the method in which people constructed their social or interpersonal reality. The basis for moral development functioned around sequential, hierarchical, and invariant stages. That is, individuals were able to move through the stages from beginning to end once the previous stage had been satisfied and by utilizing various traits from earlier stages. Kohlberg developed six cognitive stages of moral development to describe the modes of reasoning that directed various moral choices. These stages were divided into three levels, preconventional, conventional, and postconventional (Kohlberg, 1971, 1975). Kohlberg's primary concern throughout the six stages of moral development was justice. According to Kohlberg, moral judgment was a necessary but not sufficient condition for moral action.

The first level, Preconventional, consisted of the first two stages. Stage 1 allowed an individual to rely upon physical consequences to determine whether behavior was good or bad. The morality of this stage, referred to as the Obedience and Punishment Orientation," was punitive. That is, moral action was only the result of the abiding of various rules or laws in order to avoid the consequences of these violations. The second stage enabled an individual to decipher correct action as those that satisfy one's needs. It was through this "Naively Egoistic Orientation," where morality was instrumental, that the individual relied upon some sense of mutual assistance (Kohlberg, 1971, 1975).

The second level, Conventional, contained stages three and four. At Stage 3, the expectations of family and friends were taken into consideration without regard for the





27

immediate consequences. This stage, referred to as the "The 'Good Boy' Orientation," allowed an individual to conform to the expectations of family, friends, and/or society. Although these expectations did not form a binding system of regulations, they allowed for the maintenance of trust and loyalty. Stage 4, referred to as the "Law and Order Orientation," allowed the individual to accept the authority of the system, including various rules and roles. Social order was paramount to this stage based on its reliability of an authoritarian position (Kohlberg, 1971, 1975).

The Postconventional level, consisted of stages five and six and occurred only in those individuals and cultures that valued morality and actions separate from personal interests or the authority of society. Stage 5, termed the "Contractual Legalistic Orientation," viewed morality as utilitarian. Individuals possessed a social contract that enabled them to challenge and change fixed laws for the larger good of the society. Moral obligation arose from a sense of duty to family, friends, and/or society. Stage 6, the highest level on the moral development continuum, allowed individuals to function in an autonomous manner. At this stage, also referred to as the "Conscience or Principle Orientation," the highest value was placed on human life, equality, and dignity. Proper decisions were guided by personally directed ethical principles (Kohlberg, 1971, 1975).

Kohlberg's theory provided the framework in which to conceptualize an individual's progression of moral development and in deciphering the modes of reasoning that were utilized when moral choices were made (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Kliever (1990) connected the issue of moral development to fair play within intercollegiate athletics. It could be assumed that intercollegiate athletics should attempt to operate at the highest postconventional level of moral development. However, the





28


moral ambivalence of the sports world and its participants has demonstrated a willingness to operate far beneath this level of moral development. The low morality commonly characterizing intercollegiate athletics has been the cornerstone for various ethical dilemmas and has caused concern within institutions of higher learning.

The study of moral development as a primary responsibility of higher education has continued to receive attention. Rest (1979, 1985) proposed a four-prong framework for considering moral behavior and action in a particular situation. The model examined morality as a function of the cognitive, affective, and behavior processes. Component I, Moral Sensitivity, involved the interpretation of a given situation and identification of possible courses of action. Component II, Moral Judgment, referred to an individual's ability to make moral choices once alternative courses of action have been identified. Component III, Moral Motivation, allowed an individual to prioritize values and to choose a morally acceptable course of action. Component IV, Moral Behavior, involved the execution and implementation of a plan of action that results in one's moral behavior.

It was through this understanding of Chickering and Reisser's (1993) seven

vectors, Kohlberg's (1971) theory of moral development, and Rest's (1979, 1985) theory of moral behavior that the concept of morality and integrity facing many college students today could be adequately appreciated. This ability to function at various ethical levels or stages while in college has led to many problems within higher education. A serious problem that has confronted and confounded administrators for many years and has continued to persist has been the issue of academic dishonesty. The capacity to value achievement and individual success should be balanced with the value of academic integrity in order to combat academic dishonesty. The value of independent scholarship





29


should be identified, communicated, and appreciated (Aaron, 1992; Aaron & Georgia, 1994; Carnegie Council, 1979; Kibler, 1993a, b; Kibler, 1994; McCabe & Bowers, 1994; Nuss, 1984).

Academic Dishonesty

Introduction

For many decades administrators have been baffled by the incidence of academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning. The Carnegie Council (1979) and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Boyer, 1990) concluded that academia was experiencing an ethical deterioration within its boundaries. Furthermore, "academic dishonesty is considered a significant problem because of its frequency, and because it interferes with conventional learning and evaluation processes" (Michaels & Miethe, 1989, p. 870).

Academic dishonesty has been characterized as epidemic and endemic (Haines, Diekhoff, LaBeff, & Clark, 1986). It has been a constant problem on campuses across the United States, with no decline in prevalence noted. Some researchers have claimed that the problem of academic dishonesty within higher education was growing; however, others have argued that cheating has long been a issue within higher education (Baird, 1980; Jendrek, 1992; McCabe & Bowers, 1994; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Sims, 1995). Regardless of the exact calculation of its occurrence, students have turned to various measures of academic dishonesty as a means of progressing through their college careers.

Nuss (1984) claimed that students were more concerned with achievement and the ability to compete successfully than with the principles of academic integrity. The following has also been proposed.






30


Academic dishonesty poses a serious threat to an
educationally purposeful community by undermining
an institution's integrity. Failure to provide and enforce adequate penalties in effect communicates a sanction to
students, especially those who enter college with cheating
patterns already in place. (Kibler, 1993a, p. 254)

Opportunities in which the violation of moral and ethical expectations could occur were prevalent within institutions of higher learning (Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996). It has been stated that this problem of academic dishonesty was relevant to the entire academic environment:

Universities need to consider the larger campus environment beyond the classroom. An obvious step in this direction is to
have rules that prohibit lying, cheating, stealing, violent behavior,
interference with free expression, or other acts that breach
fundamental norms. Such rules not only protect the rights and responsibilities of everyone in the community; they also signal
the importance of basic obligations and strengthen habits of ethical
behavior. (Bok, 1990, pp. 84-85) Academic Dishonesty Defined

Although this study utilized Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, and Pavela's (1988)

definition to describe academic dishonesty, many different definitions of academic dishonesty have been provided throughout the literature (Barnett & Dalton, 1981; Fass, 1986; Graham, Monday, O'Brien, & Steffen, 1994; Hetherington & Feldman, 1964; Kibler, 1993a; Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Pavela, 1978). A commonly accepted definition, that has been utilized in this study, referred to academic dishonesty as "forms of cheating and plagiarism which result in students giving or receiving unauthorized assistance in an academic exercise or receiving credit for work which is not their own" (Kibler et al., 1988, p. 1). Generally, cheating has been described as a wide variety of behaviors that were deemed unethical (Barnett & Dalton, 1981). Academic cheating has






31


also been referred to as "the fraudulent means of achieving scarce valued resources" (Michaels & Miethe, 1989, p. 870).

The concept of academic dishonesty has historically received much attention. Hetherington and Feldman (1964) identified several different activities that may have constituted academic dishonesty, concluding that cheating could be categorized into four sections. The first of these sections, individualistic-opportunistic, represented cheating acts that were unplanned and impulsive. The second designation, individualistic-planned, referred to cheating that was a planned act. The third section, social-active, involved two or more people who instigated the act of cheating. Finally, the fourth category, socialpassive, involved two or more people with at least one allowing the other(s) to copy from his/her work.

Pavela (1978) examined a code of academic honesty and proposed the following definitions in an attempt to unify types of academic dishonesty.

Cheating: intentionally using or attempting to use
unauthorized materials, information, or study aids in any
academic exercise;

Fabrication: intentional and unauthorized falsification or
invention of any information or citation in an academic
exercise;

Facilitation Academic Dishonesty: intentionally or
knowingly helping or attempting to help another to violate
a provision of this Code; and,

Plagiarism: deliberate adoption or reproduction of ideas or
words or statements of another person as one's own work
without acknowledgment. (pp. 72-73)

In order to clearly comprehend the threat that academic dishonesty has posed to higher education, researchers have stressed the importance of having a uniform definition





32


and understanding of the actions and practices that constituted academic dishonesty. Once academic dishonesty has been defined, the variety of methods that constituted cheating must be identified. The most commonly viewed forms of cheating involved copying someone else's exam, turning in a paper that one did not write, looking at notes during an exam, taking an exam for someone else, and copying someone else's homework (Graham, Monday, O'Brien, & Steffen, 1994). Other incidents of academic dishonesty included altering or forging an official document, making prior arrangements to give or receive answers during an exam, padding items on a bibliography, plagiarizing, "using cribsheets," and obtaining an advance copy of the exam (Barnett & Dalton, 1981; Kibler, 1993a).

These definitions, regardless of their disparity, all described techniques for

obtaining information in an unethical manner. Since the threat of academic dishonesty has continued to pose a serious problem to the foundation of morality within higher education, colleges and universities have been forced to implement and maintain an environment that has promoted a sense of responsibility, morality, values and ethics in an attempt to educate students about the moral and ethical issues associated with cheating (Kibler, 1993b; Kibler et al., 1988). Research in the area of academic dishonesty has led to an increased understanding in combating this persistent problem. History of Academic Dishonesty

Extensive research has been conducted in the area of academic dishonesty. The majority of the literature has focused on two distinct areas, the first examined both individual differences or characteristics that cheaters possessed and the second studied





33


the contextual or situational attributes of those who admitted to cheating (McCabe & Trevino, 1993).

Research that examined the individual differences of cheaters assumed that

students cheated because of their personal dispositions. The research has investigated various personal characteristics of cheaters. The personal factors which have been investigated for their influence on cheating behavior included gender, grade point average, work ethic, Type A behavior, academic major, membership in a fraternal organization, and self-esteem (McCabe, 1993; McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995).

Baird (1980), a pioneer in the study of academic dishonesty, examined the

relationship between sex, year in school, grade-point average, academic major, fraternitysorority membership, and extracurricular activities and the incidence of academic dishonesty in higher education. Baird concluded that males participated in cheating at a higher rate than females and that academic achievement was inversely related to the prevalence of academic dishonesty. It was also noted that fraternity and sorority members were more likely than non-members to participate in cheating, while active participants in extracurricular activities were more likely than infrequent participants to disapprove of dishonest acts.

McCabe and Trevino (1997) proposed various hypotheses in an attempt to explain the individual differences among cheaters. For example, age and gender served as a factor in academic dishonesty. It was determined that academic dishonesty was inversely related to age and that males reported higher incidences of academic dishonesty than females. It was also concluded that academic dishonesty was inversely related to






34


academic achievement. Finally, the researchers examined the affect of extracurricular activities on the prevalence of academic dishonesty, determining that the incidence of academic dishonesty was greater in those students that participate in intercollegiate athletics and other extracurricular activities than in students that were non-participants (McCabe & Trevino, 1997).

Research has also focused on various personal characteristics of cheaters. It has been proposed that academic achievement was related to the incidence of academic dishonesty. In one of the earliest studies involving academic dishonesty, Drake (1941) found that an inverse relationship existed between cheaters and academic achievement. It was also concluded that fraternity and sorority members reported higher incidences of cheating than nonmembers (Drake, 1941; Parr, 1936). The results of these earlier studies were extended to examine academic achievement, personality, and fraternity or sorority membership (Barnett & Dalton, 1981; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995). The impact of religious participation on the incidence of academic dishonesty has also been examined (Sutton & Huba, 1995; Guttmann, 1984).

The issue of extracurricular activities including athletics and their relationship

with academic dishonesty has been explored (Bowers, 1964; Haines et al., 1986; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Bowers, and Haines et al., reported that athletes maintained a higher level of academic dishonesty than non-athletes. Bowers concluded that because intercollegiate athletes were in school and receiving athletic scholarship based on athletic abilities as opposed to academic abilities, they would be more likely to participate in acts of academic dishonesty.






35


The second branch of academic dishonesty research has focused on the contextual aspects of academic dishonesty. In one of the earliest studies involving academic dishonesty, Hartshorne and May (1928) examined various situational aspects that may have promoted deception. Recent literature, which has investigated these contextual factors, has examined the presence of an honor code, faculty response to cheating, threat of sanctions, and social learning (McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Other situational characteristics that have been investigated included the size of the institution, seat location in class, difficulty of assignment, exam, or class, and teaching methods (Baird, 1980; Barnett & Dalton, 1981; LaBeff, Clark, Haines, & Diekhoff, 1990; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995; Nuss, 1984).

Barnett and Dalton (1981) examined the various reasons that caused students to resort to cheating. They identified six factors that have been reported as having a significant influence on cheating behavior: (a) stress and the pressure to obtain good grades; (b) the environment; (c) intelligence levels; (d) personality; (e) lack of a clear, understood, and comprehensive definition of cheating; and, (f) moral judgement and will. It was believed that the contextual or situational aspects, which were open to administrative influence, could be altered and redefined to better reduce the occurrence of academic dishonesty. It was hoped that this area of research would open new doors toward the understanding of, and possible solutions to the current problem (McCabe & Trevino, 1993).

Researchers have examined the impact of peer behavior on academic dishonesty. Since students were more likely to witness cheating acts than faculty members, it has been implied that the reactions and actions of observing students would have a bearing on





36


the decision of students to partake in acts of academic dishonesty (Jendrek, 1989, 1992). It has been concluded that misconduct would be deterred if a high level of risk was perceived (Leming, 1980; McCabe & Trevino, 1997).

This notion of high risk has also been examined as a situational aspect that could affect the prevalence of academic dishonesty. Michaels and Miethe (1989) and Mitchell and Wisbey (1995) suggested that potential cheaters evaluated both the risks and the rewards of cheating and made decisions whether or not to participate in these deviant acts. If, in the opinion of the cheater, the situation was ideal for cheating, the cheater would have the inclination to commit acts of academic dishonesty. Students would evaluate the possible penalties they would face if their cheating was discovered and then, based on the fear of these penalties and the chances of being punished, they would choose to commit acts of academic dishonesty (Leming, 1980; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995).

Research on academic dishonesty has revealed two categories of thought: demographic, representing the personal characteristics of cheaters, and situational documenting various contextual circumstances that caused individuals to participate in instances of academic dishonesty. Both branches of research have concluded that cheating behavior has been rampant in institutions of higher learning. The prevalence of academic dishonesty among college students has been reported to be as high as 95% (McCabe & Trevino, 1997). While other surveys have obtained varying results, all agreed that the problem has continued and should to be addressed through various solutions.





37


Early research by Drake (1941) and Parr (1936) calculated a cheating rate of

students of 23% and 42%, respectively. Bowers (1964) tabulated a rate of 50% among college students whereas Hetherington and Feldman (1964) recorded a cheating rate of 59%. Baird (1980) later surveyed college students and reported the rate of academic dishonesty to reach 76%. Most recently, Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce (1996) reported a cheating rate of 68% and LaBeff et al. (1990) discovered a rate of 54% in their self-report survey that measured cheating over the course of one college semester. Although it has appeared that the incidence of academic dishonesty has been increasing in recent years, other researchers have stated that the prevalence of academic dishonesty has continued to be a widespread problem while remaining at a consistent rate (McCabe & Bowers, 1994). Regardless of the incidence of cheating within higher education, the issue has been prevalent and should be addressed. The magnitude of this problem has forced the investigation to determine why college students resorted to cheating tactics. Also, many institutions have developed and implemented strategies and educational programs to assist with the burden of academic dishonesty. Factors and Reasons for Academic Dishonesty

Students have cited many different factors and reasons for committing acts of academic dishonesty. Early research by Drake (1941) investigated the explanations students gave for committing dishonest acts, and concluded that the competitive system of higher education forced students to cheat. The pressure and stress necessary to compete and succeed in this educational environment led many students to resort to academic dishonesty. In addition, Drake determined that interest in the specific class may have had an impact on the incidence of cheating. Based on these findings, Drake





38


suggested an academic utopia void of stress, strain, and competition would lead to a desire to learn and enjoy the college experience, thereby eliminating the need for academic dishonesty.

Research has examined other reasons students give for committing acts of

academic dishonesty. One reason commonly cited was the absence of any sort of fear of being caught and punished (Haines et al., 1986; LaBeff et al., 1990; Kibler, 1993a; Nuss, 1984). Another reason given by students as a rationale for cheating was the pressure to obtain good grades from one's parents, family, or friends (Barnett & Dalton, 1981; Davis & Ludvigson, 1995; Fass, 1986; Kibler, 1993a; Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, & Pavela, 1988). A review of literature also suggested that students may have cheated due to the following reasons: failure to study, inconsistent institutional policies, class or professor difficulty, and/or fear of flunking the class or exercise (Kibler, 1993a; Fass, 1986; Fishbein, 1993; Davis & Ludvigson, 1995).

In an attempt to assist educational administrations as they dealt with the problem of academic dishonesty, several factors that could contribute to the frequency of academic dishonesty have been identified (Kibler, 1993a). First, no clear definition of the behaviors and actions that constitute academic dishonesty existed. Second, the relevancy and importance of the material attempting to be learned has not been comprehended by the student. Third, the desire for the student to succeed at any and all costs was paramount. Fourth, the competitive nature of many graduate programs, disciplines, or professions required good grades for admission. Fifth, faculty members failed to adequately proctor exams or deviate assignments, providing a tempting situation for many students. Finally, many faculty members failed to properly comply with





39


institutional disciplinary policies, thus reducing the risks associated with academic dishonesty and the threat of getting punished.

Vague policies, lax testing procedures, and lenient penalties have increased the willingness of students to participate in cheating practices. Moreover, the academic community has failed to recognize and discuss the values of moral, personal, and academic integrity. This misunderstanding among students, faculty, and administrators has created an environment that failed to properly address academic dishonesty. Without reevaluating these values, students have continued to partake in dishonest behaviors, which has resulted in a failure to obtain effective scholarship (Kibler, 1993a). Preventions and Solutions

In order to develop an effective and comprehensive approach to address this problem, institutions needed to profess the importance of academic integrity and individual scholarship (Aaron & Georgia, 1994; Boyer, 1990; Fass, 1986). A comprehensive approach was required to incorporate all constituents of the academic community in an attempt to effectively combat the problem of academic dishonesty (Kibler & Kibler, 1993).

Researchers have suggested that institutions should have developed a clearly written academic dishonesty policy, offered opportunities to discuss such policies, established and publicized sanctions, and emphasized the importance of instructional settings (Kibler, 1993b). It has also been suggested that institutions "should design programs that address the emotional, as well as the disciplinary and educational, needs of student cheaters" (Kibler & Kibler, 1993, p. B2). These programs could be utilized to determine internal and external motivators utilized by cheaters. Discipline must be





40


established to enforce the importance that the academic community places on integrity and also to contribute to the students' understanding of the community's standards. Educational programs would allow institutions to offer seminars and other classes that could assist in the enhancement of academic skills and would allow students to be better equipped to handle future ethical dilemmas. This comprehensive approach would not only allow students to understand why they may be tempted to cheat, but also to build self-esteem and to be prepared to succeed without the crutch of academic dishonesty.

A modified model of the honor code system was employed at some institutions in an attempt to promote integrity and to reduce the incidence of academic dishonesty (Pavela & McCabe, 1993). This code called for the following guidelines.

(1) Develop clear, specific definition of academic dishonesty
and employ them uniformly in all parts of the institutions.
(2) Involve students in educating their peers about the importance
of academic integrity, as well as in reporting and resolving
academic dishonesty allegations.
(3) Appeal to the students' sense of honor and personal integrity.
(4) Reduce the temptations to engage in academic dishonesty.
(5) Encourage teaching styles and examinations that call for active
student classroom participation, and critical thinking rather
than memorization.
(6) Impose reasonable, but strict, penalties when academic
dishonesty does occur.
(7) Eliminate proceduralism in the resolution of academic
dishonesty cases. (pp. 28-29)

Institutions of higher learning have attempted to combat the difficulty of

academic dishonesty by implementing honor codes. Research on the efficacy of the honor code in preventing academic dishonesty has found the lowest rates of cheating (McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Pavela & Trevino, 1993). A traditional honor code required students to pledge to abide by the honor code, as well as take responsibility for detection and sanctioning of academic dishonesty (Bowers, 1964). Furthermore, some researchers





41


have proposed that honor codes may be an effective strategy for dealing with issues of academic dishonesty in both short term and long term situations (McCabe, 1993; McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Pavela & Trevino, 1993).

The traditional honor code employed a variety of characteristics to combat the problem of academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning. Honor code systems included unproctored exams, pledges by students that they will conduct themselves in an honorable fashion, reportage of any situations which constitute academic dishonesty, and judicial procedures, led by students empowered with the responsibility of dealing with any infractions (McCabe & Trevino, 1993).

McCabe and Trevino (1993) offered suggestions as to why cheating occurred less frequently at institutions that employed an honor code. First, because students usually pledged to abide by a specific code that clarified expectations and defined behaviors that constituted academic dishonesty, they were less likely to rationalize or justify cheating behavior. Secondly, the presence of an honor code shifted the crux of the responsibility from the faculty and administrators to the students. Students were usually given the responsibility to report and detect instances of academic dishonesty, as well as to assign appropriate penalties. The presence of this level of academic responsibility may have reduced the incidence of academic dishonesty. Finally, honor codes afforded students various privileges that they would be unwilling to forfeit. The desire to maintain these privileges may have affected the prevalence of academic dishonesty under honor code systems.

Students and faculty must be cognizant and prepared to follow the ethical policies established by the institution. The differences in the perceptions and comprehension of





42


academic dishonesty must be bridged between students and faculty. Researchers have attempted to examine the need for effective communication strategies between students and faculty members (Nuss, 1984; Roth & McCabe, 1995). Other studies have attempted to evaluate and comprehend differing perceptions of academic dishonesty between students and faculty members (Jendrek, 1989, 1992; Sims, 1995). So that the problem of academic dishonesty could be adequately addressed, researchers have attempted to compare and integrate these two differing viewpoints. Jendrek (1989) concluded that regardless of the academic dishonesty code in place, faculty members preferred to handle incidents of academic dishonesty in a private manner, usually in an informal, one-on-one basis. In an attempt to explain such responses to incidences of trivial cheating, the following has been offered: "the number who do nothing is very small, but the number who do very little is very large" (Schneider, 1999, p. A8).

In order to effectively combat the problem of academic dishonesty and enhance academic integrity on campus, the Carnegie Council (1979) and Nuss (1984) have suggested that institutions should develop a clearly defined code of rights and responsibilities. They also proposed the development and publishing of sanctions and procedures to be utilized when resolving issues of academic dishonesty. Finally, after instances of academic dishonesty have been identified, corrective procedures should be in place to handle these problems. Pavela and McCabe (1993) proposed the following recommendations in an attempt to address the problem of academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning.





43


(1) Education must extend beyond the boundaries of the classroom
and into questions of values and ethics;
(2) Consideration of ethical issues must include all campus
constituencies, especially students;
(3) Communication between students, faculty members, and
administrators about academic integrity must be open and riskfree;
(4) There must be a sense of shared values or responsibility for
academic integrity among students and faculty;
(5) Honor codes are only part of the answer and will not work on
every campus.
(6) A unique institutional character that is highly valued by
students, faculty, and administrators alike is essential for
promoting academic integrity;
(7) Colleges and universities should concentrate on teaching
values of integrity and honesty to their students rather than
using resources only to 'police' student dishonesty;
(8) The academic community must be supportive of students who
choose to challenge academic dishonesty; and,
(9) Although there is a place for punishment, the emphasis should
be on counseling and rehabilitation for most students.
(pp. 31-32)

The importance of understanding and controlling academic dishonesty has led to

the development of various investigations into the attributes of the cheater, as well as the

situations which promote academic dishonesty. The development of comprehensive

educational programs and active participation by the entire academic community was

necessary to address the deviant behavior of academic dishonesty within academia.

Theories of Delinquency

Social Bond Theory

Over thirty years ago, Hirschi (1969) developed social bond theory as a method to

investigate the relationship between the individual and society. Hirschi stated that

deviant behavior was a result of the weakening of the individual's social bonds to society.

The more weakened the groups to which [the individual]
belongs, the less he depends on them, the more he
consequently depends only on himself and recognizes no





44


other rules of conduct than what are founded on his private
intellect. (p. 16)

Thus, individuals with strong bonds to societal groups were less likely to engage in deviant behaviors. Hirschi identified four interrelated attributes of the social bond: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. The stronger these elements of social bonding with family and peers, the more an individual's behavior would be controlled by societal conformity. However, the weaker this bond, the more likely an individual would be to violate the law (Hirschi, 1969).

Attachment referred to the psychological and emotional connection between an individual and significant others or groups. This connection involved the individual's sensitivity to the feelings of others. The second element, commitment, involved the personal investment of resources in conventional activities. This "rational component in conformity," (Hirschi, 1969, p. 20) relied upon the notion that individuals became vested in abiding by the rules of society. They devoted time, energy, finances, and emotions in order to pursue and ultimately obtain various tasks. When deciding to commit a crime, the individual must have evaluated potential risks and costs associated with nonconformity. The third element, involvement, operated on the principle that the more time allotted to the participation in conventional activities, the less time there would be for the individual to be involved in deviant activities. Individuals participated in academic, athletic, religious, and/or other conventional activities as an alternative to delinquent behavior. The fourth element, belief, referred to the acceptance of the moral validity of conventional norms and values. That is, because of the existence and acceptance of a common system of values, an individual would abide by the norms of





45


society. It was assumed that individuals would not violate standards once they believed in their present system of values.

Social bond theory proposed that through the attachment component, individuals would have the ability to internalize societal norms and develop a conscience. The likelihood of deviancy decreased when the bond of attachment existed between friends or family, regardless of the character of those individuals. Thus, as long as attachment existed, the violation of conventional norms would be minimal. The commitment attribute of the theory supported the notion that in an attempt to remain within the good graces of society and maintain a respectable reputation, individuals were expected to refrain from committing deviant activities. The assumption that individuals were too busy to commit deviant actions was the basis of the involvement element of social bond theory. Finally, the belief element concluded that the less an individual believed a rule should be obeyed, the lower his/her moral validity of the rule, and consequently, the greater the probability of violating that rule (Akers, 1997; Curran & Renzetti, 1994; Michaels & Miethe, 1989).

Theory of Differential Association

Differential association theory was initially presented to explain the procedures individuals utilized to commit crimes. The theory implied that conflict and social disorganization were the underlying causes of crime, and that they determined the patterns of differential association. Sutherland (1947) elaborated on this original proposal, while disregarding the concepts of conflict and social disorganization. The result was the development of nine statements utilized to refer to the process by which an individual could have the ability to engage in criminal behavior.





46


1. Criminal behavior is learned.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with
other persons in a process of communication.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal
behavior occurs within intimate groups.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning
includes (a) techniques of committing the crime,
which are sometimes very complicated,
sometimes very simple, and (b) the specific
direction of motives, drives, rationalizations,
and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is
learned from definitions of the legal codes as
favorable or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an
excess of definitions favorable to violation of
law over definitions unfavorable to violation of
law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency,
duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by
association with criminal and anti-criminal
patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are
involved in any other learning.
9. Although criminal behavior is an expression of
general needs and values, it is not explained by
those general needs and values, because noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same
needs and values. (pp. 6-7)

Sutherland's theory of differential association was considered to be the most

systematic and influential interpersonal theory of deviant behavior as it integrated the

basic concepts of sociology and criminology (Curran & Renzetti, 1994). The theory

utilized the concept of cultural conflict in which discrepancies in the conduct norms of

various cultures may have caused the violation of certain laws. When individuals in

subcultures followed the conduct of their groups as opposed to the conduct of the

dominant culture, they were acting in violation to the law while following the

unacceptable conduct of their subculture (Curran & Renzetti).





47


The term differential association referred to the discrepancy between two types of existing definitions of desirable behaviors. In any society, two different codes existed presenting contradictory definitions at different times and situations. These associations were consequently unequal and may have varied in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. The theory of differential association explained not only an individual's participation in delinquent activities, but also the groups' and societal variations in criminal activity (Curran & Renzetti, 1994). Social Learning Theory

Akers (1985) adapted social learning theory to explain delinquent behaviors.

Social learning theory retained all of the differential association processes in Sutherland's theory and integrated such ideas "with differential reinforcement and other principles of behavioral acquisition, continuation, and cessation" (Akers, 1997, p. 62). Social learning theory "emphasized the reinforcement of deviant behavior in primary groups rather than the threat of formal punishment from conventional society" (Michaels & Miethe, 1989, p. 873).

It has been postulated that social learning theory consisted of two interrelated

components. The first was dependent upon the perceived support obtained from primary groups for deviant behaviors. The second was related to individuals' definitions, perceptions, or attitudes concerning deviant behavior. It could then be expected that deviant behavior would form from the reinforcement and support of deviant members of an individual's group.

Akers capsulized social learning theory as follows.

[T]he principal behavioral effects come from interaction in or under the influence of those groups with which one is in





48


differential association and which control sources and
patterns of reinforcement, provide normative definitions,
and expose one to behavioral models....
Deviant behavior can be expected to the extent that it has
been differentially reinforced over alternative behavior
(conforming or other deviant behavior) and is defined as desirable or justified when the individual is in a situation
discriminative for the behavior. (Akers, 1985, p. 58)

Akers (1997) hypothesized that the probability of criminal behavior was a result of the dysfunctional balance among variables that motivated and controlled deviant behavior and those variables that promoted and undermined conformity. Akers identified four major concepts when explaining the learning process: differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation.

Differential association referred to the process in which individuals were exposed to favorable or unfavorable definitions of behaviors which would affect the priority, duration, frequency, and intensity of academic dishonesty. Within this process, two dimensions existed. The interactional dimension referred to the direct or indirect contact and identification with individuals or groups that engaged in various types of behavior. The normative dimension described the varying patterns of norms and behaviors that individuals could be exposed to through this association. These groups provided the social contexts in which the mechanisms of social learning operated.

Akers' concept of definitions referred to an individual's personal attitudes or meanings that were associated with a given behavior. Definitions represented the rationalizations, orientations, situational definitions, and other evaluative and moral attitudes that determined if the commission of an act was good or bad, right or wrong, justified or unjustified, and desirable or undesirable (Akers, 1997). These definitions included both general and specific beliefs. General beliefs referred to the conventional





49


values and norms that were in accordance with conforming behavior but unfavorable to the commission of deviant acts. Specific definitions corresponded to particular actions or behaviors. It was through the understanding of these negative and positive beliefs that individuals had the ability to engage in conventional behaviors as well as neutralize deviant behaviors.

The third concept, differential reinforcement, referred to the consequences of certain behaviors. A balance existed between the anticipated or actual rewards and punishments. The probability that an individual committed a deviant act was based on the past, present, and future rewards and punishments. This probability may have been increased if various delinquent behaviors were rewarded through positive reinforcement. The amount, frequency, and probability of these methods of reinforcement may have affected the possibility of future deviant activities.

Finally, imitation referred to the participating or modeling of behavior as it was

viewed in others. The behavior would be based on the characteristics of these models, of observed behavior, and the observed consequences of the specific behavior. These models played an important role in the initial development of behaviors as well as in the maintenance of these behaviors (Akers, 1997). Deterrence Theory

Almost twenty-five years ago, Gibbs (1975) examined deterrence theory to

comprehend the relationship between the principles of celerity, certainty, and severity of punishments with the commission rates for particular crimes. It has been suggested that the crime rate varied inversely with these aforementioned principles of deterrence theory. Gibbs suggested that behavior was inhibited or deterred based on the actual or perceived





50


probability and severity of punishment. Deterrence theory utilized two approaches to measure the severity and certainty of deviant penalties. The first approach involved objective indicators to evaluate and document the rate and existence of penalty. The severity of this punishment may be examined by comprehending past penalties or sentences. Deterrence theory claimed that when the objective severity and certainty of criminal punishments were high, actual crime rates would be low (Gibbs, 1975).

The second measurement technique explored an individual's subjective

perceptions of legal sanctions. This approach relied on the belief that if individuals were fearful of the potential punishments, regardless of accuracy, they would be less likely to commit delinquent acts. That is, it was more common for individuals to perceive sanctions than to know exactly what these punishments would be. It was this threat of what potentially could happen that prevented individuals from the commission of deviant activities.

In short, deterrence theory referred to the potential threat of punishment. It was this objective or subjective threat that deterred individuals from committing deviant acts. If the perceived threat of punishment and consequences prevented the commission of delinquent behavior, then individuals had effectively utilized the principles of deterrence theory (Akers, 1997). The notion that delinquent actions, including academic dishonesty, were inversely related to the risk of detection has received much support (LaBeff, Clark, Haines, & Diekhoff, 1990; Michael & Miethe, 1989). Rational Choice Theory

Researchers have claimed that deterrence theory failed to address the rewards, returns, and opportunities component in determining whether individuals committed





51


deviant activities (Akers, 1997; Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Rational choice theory evaluated both the perceived probabilities and magnitudes of both rewards and punishments. An individual must have evaluated and balanced these factors when determining whether to commit a deviant act (Akers, 1997; Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Rational choice theory has led to the development of "models of partial rationality that incorporate limitations and constraints on choices through lack of information, moral values, and other influences of criminal behavior" (Akers, 1997, p. 25). This economic theory provided some insight into the thought processes associated with certain criminals.

These aforementioned five criminological theories have attempted to explain why deviant persons committed criminal behaviors. These theories have addressed the influence of peer groups or subcultures, reinforcement, risks and rewards, and the potential for punishment, as well as other factors that may have influenced or prohibited delinquent behaviors. These theories of delinquency have presented valuable information that could be applied to a variety of situations including those within institutions of higher learning. The following theory attempted to provide some additional insight into the justifications that deviants utilized when participating in delinquent behavior.

The foundation of neutralization originated as a means for examining and

understanding the various rationalizations utilized by individuals before they committed deviant acts (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Contained within the original discussion of neutralization theory were five techniques of neutralization that individuals utilized to justify their deviant behaviors. Neutralization theory has been investigated extensively and was re-examined by Klockars (1974) and Minor (1981) who amended the original theory by offering two additional techniques of neutralization.





52


Neutralization Theory

Neutralization theory was classified as a social learning theory, in that the deviant behavior was learned through observing and understanding the norms and values associated with this type of behavior. The foundation for neutralization theory was developed over forty years ago as an attempt to clarify and comprehend both Sutherland's (1947) differential association theory and Cohen's (1955) subcultural theory of juvenile delinquency. The historical framework of neutralization theory was derived from the proposition that delinquent individuals learned these deviant behaviors through the process of social interaction. The notion that criminals learned various techniques for committing crimes, as well as the motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes associated with these violations, was adapted from Sutherland's theory of differential association. Cohen proposed that a delinquent subculture existed in which the laws, norms, and values held by conventional society were reversed. This "delinquent subculture" facilitated non-conventional and counterproductive values and norms. Consequently, this delinquent subculture resulted in the building, maintaining, and reinforcing of a code of behavior which existed in opposition to the dominant values of society (Sykes & Matza, 1957).

In an attempt to further explore and expound upon the principles set forth by

Sutherland and Cohen, Sykes and Matza (1957) proposed some questions pertaining to differential association theory and the theory of a deviant subculture. First, within the confines of the delinquent subculture, the absence of guilt or shame was often replaced with a sense of martyrdom. However, because it was common to feel guilt or shame after committing a deviant activity, the idea of a deviant subculture was questioned. Second, it






53


had been observed that delinquents may admire or respect law-abiding members of conventional society. It appeared as though these delinquents could recognize moral validity contained within conventional society. Third, delinquents differentiated between those individuals that could be victimized and those that could not. It was believed that certain individuals or groups should not be victimized. The potential for victimization could be directly related to the relationship with the delinquent. That is, the stronger the relationship that existed between a potential victim and the delinquent, the less likely that the delinquent would commit the deviant act on that person. The fact that delinquent behavior was often directed against only certain types of societal groups supported the notion that delinquents understood and recognized the wrongdoing associated with delinquent behavior. Fourth, it was expected that the delinquent would not be totally immune from the demands of conformity associated with conventional society. In short, Sykes and Matza (1957) claimed the following.

[T]he juvenile delinquent would appear to be at least
partially committed to the dominant social order in that he
frequency exhibits guilt or shame when he violates its proscriptions, accords approval to certain conforming
figures, and distinguishes between appropriate and
inappropriate targets for his deviance. (p. 666)

Furthermore, Sykes and Matza (1957) made the following argument in an attempt to understand and explain juvenile delinquency.

Delinquency is based on what is essentially an
unrecognized extension of defenses to crimes, in the form of justifications for deviance that are seen as valid by the delinquent but not by the legal system or society at large.
(p. 666)

Neutralization theory suggested that these justifications allowed individuals to

deflect or neutralize disapproval prior to the commission of delinquent behaviors, which





54


in effect released them from blame or guilt. Consequently, these neutralization techniques facilitated deviation by weakening moral constraints on individuals. These techniques of neutralization, which represented an individuals' system of beliefs and values, allowed an individual to become deviant within a moral and dominant society without experiencing incidences of blame or guilt while also maintaining an adequate perception of self-image. Sykes and Matza (1957) identified the following five techniques of neutralization theory: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties.

Denial of responsibility allowed delinquents to claim that their actions were the result of forces beyond their control. The delinquent refused to accept responsibility for his/her actions, claiming that the delinquent behavior was a result of external factors (e.g., unloving parents, bad companions, or a poor neighborhood). "By learning to view himself as more acted upon than acting, the delinquent prepares the way for deviance from the dominant normative system without the necessity of a frontal assault on the norms themselves" (Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 667).

Denial of injury, focused on the injury or harm associated with the delinquent act. It was assumed that the delinquent differentiated between acts that were wrong and those that were illegal but not immoral. The delinquent may have determined whether anyone had in fact been injured. It was expected that although the delinquent determined that the deviant behavior was against the law, the absence of any great harm to others allowed the act to be committed without guilt. This type of deviant behavior would not cause any great harm even though it ran counter to the law.






55


Denial of victim, asserted that delinquent behavior was acceptable under certain circumstances. The behavior may be viewed as a form of rightful retaliation or punishment. The lack of a concrete victim would also increase the existence of this neutralization technique.

Condemnation of the condemners, occurred when the delinquent shifted attention from personal motives and behavior to the motives and behavior of those that disapproved of the delinquent actions. These condemners were viewed as hypocrites, due to their own deviant behavior. In essence, delinquents effectively reversed or deflected the negative sanctions associated with their deviant behavior. For example, delinquents may have claimed that society consisted of hypocrites, that the police were corrupt, stupid, and brutal, that teachers exhibited favoritism, and that parents "take it out" on their children. The motives and actions of others were questioned allowing the wrongfulness of the delinquent's behavior to be repressed (Sykes & Matza, 1957).

Appeal to higher loyalties, involved the possible sacrificing of conventional

norms and behavior in place of the accepted norms and behavior of a delinquent's social group or peers. It was expected that the delinquent would define the deviant behavior in a manner that would result in a justifiable act. The delinquent would not necessarily refuse conventional norms; instead, the delinquent would feel obligated to abide by the norms of these social groups which took precedence regardless of their conventionality. This dichotomy between claims of friendship and belonging and claims of law resulted in the neutralization of delinquent behaviors (Sykes & Matza, 1957).

It was through the utilization of these five techniques of neutralization that

delinquents have had the ability to be productive members of conventional society while





56


they continued to exhibit and justify their deviant behaviors. As a result of their use, these techniques of neutralization enabled individuals to have the ability to lessen the effectiveness of societal controls (Sykes & Matza, 1957).

Other researchers have suggested amendments to these techniques developed by Sykes and Matza (1957). Klockars (1974) suggested that deviants might have justified their delinquent acts through a process referred to as the metaphor of ledger. This technique focused on the notion that deviants accumulated credit by participating in various good deeds. Once enough good credit had been earned, the delinquent had the right to commit a deviant activity. It was through this counterbalancing between good and evil that an individual was allowed to commit a deviant act (Klockars, 1974; Minor, 1981).

Minor (1981) added a seventh technique of neutralization, defense of necessity, to the original theory of neutralization. Through this method of justification, delinquents viewed their deviant activities as being necessary. Even if the act was considered morally wrong, the deviant would not experience guilt or remorse since the commission was considered to be a necessity. This may have included instances of white-collar crime, business dealings, or beliefs associated with abortion (Minor, 1981).

Neutralization theory may be viewed as an extension of various defenses to

crimes. The criminal accepted these techniques as justifications for the commission of deviant activities, whereas the legal system, as well as society as a whole, viewed the acts as unacceptable and morally wrong (Hirschi, 1969). This absence of moral commitment enabled the delinquent to overlook pre-existing values and to participate in deviant acts or exhibit delinquent behavior (Thurman, 1984). Delinquents had the ability to violate





57


the norms of society without experiencing any blame or guilt, while they maintained a proper perception of self-image (Ball, 1966; Friedman, 1974; Mitchell & Dodder, 1983). On some occasions, the delinquent was transformed into the avenger whereas, the victim was viewed as the wrongdoer. In turn, the delinquent viewed the victim as morally inferior and deserving of the deviant behavior (Hollinger, 1991). It was through the utilization of these techniques of neutralization that delinquents released any associations with the law (Austin, 1977).

In order to properly understand neutralization theory, two underlying principles must be addressed. First, it has been hypothesized that techniques of neutralization occurred prior to the commission of deviant activities. These justifications enabled the deviant to alleviate moral constraints that served as both motivators and facilitators of the delinquent acts. Second, there was a similarity between techniques of neutralization and mitigating circumstances such as self-defense, accident, and insanity. Neutralization theory proposed that delinquents usually understood and abided by the laws and norms of society, but were likely to commit deviant acts due to extenuating circumstances. It was the utilization of these techniques of neutralization that permitted delinquents to negate various offenses and avoid accepting responsibility for their actions. Once various attitudes and behaviors were neutralized, individuals were free to drift into delinquency, experiencing the motivation to commit deviant acts (Curran & Renzetti, 1994).

Although individuals had the capacity to commit delinquent acts, the question of why delinquency initially appeared attractive has been tendered. It appeared that delinquents possessed a set of subterranean values that were in conflict with other dominant values but were supported by other subgroups (Curran & Renzetti, 1994).





58


Agnew and Peters (1986) hypothesized that in order for techniques of neutralization to lead to deviance, individuals must have accepted these various techniques and perceived that they were in a situation that required the use of these chosen techniques. It has been stated that the "first dimension can be viewed as a predisposing factor toward deviance; the second dimension can be viewed as the situational factor that ignites the deviant act" (Agnew & Peters, 1986, p. 83).

Criticism of Neutralization Theory

Neutralization theory has received extensive attention from researchers. The

original theory as proposed by Sykes & Matza (1957) has been criticized in its principles and basis as an adequate model to describe the delinquent. Minor (1984) and Hirschi (1969) claimed that a "hardening process" occurred in which the development of excuses led to the facilitation of future delinquency. It was the utilization of these post hoc rationalizations that may have served as the foundation for neutralization in future instances of delinquency. It has been suggested that earlier research supporting the empirical value of neutralization theory failed to differentiate between the effects of neutralization from the effects of general moral evaluations. Deviance may have occurred because of an absence of moral beliefs as well as through the usage of neutralization techniques. Some studies have failed to collect data in a temporal sequence, since current moral beliefs were related to past deviant behavior (Minor, 1980, 1981). These studies failed to address the notion that techniques of neutralization preceded the commission of deviant acts. However, the notion that the relationship between neutralization and excusing verbalization was unidirectional has been scrutinized (Hirschi, 1969; Minor, 1984).





59


The notion that the temporal relationship between moral beliefs and deviant acts may in fact be reversed from the order originally proposed by neutralization theory was supported by Hirschi (1969).

[T]he assumption that delinquent acts come before justifying beliefs is the more plausible causal ordering with respect to many of the techniques of neutralization. (p. 208)

Hirschi further concluded, "since a boy may commit delinquent acts episodically over an extended period of time, there is every reason to believe that neutralizations in some sense resulting from the earlier acts are causes of later acts" (Hirschi, 1969, p. 208). That is, an individual developed a series of neutralizing beliefs that resulted in the "hardening process" (p. 208).

Hamlin (1988) claimed that neutralization techniques would be more likely to

occur after the commission of the deviant act. Additionally, Hamlin posited that behavior "may be more controlled by structure and habit than by reason" (p. 429). It was deduced that rationality may not be necessary since individuals were expected to drift from delinquent and non-delinquent behavioral patterns (Hamlin, 1988). Also, a discrepancy was noted between the rate of commitment to deviant acts between delinquents and nondelinquents (Curran & Renzetti, 1994).

The discussed criticisms primarily focused on the debate surrounding the

occurrence of various techniques of neutralization. Regardless of which actually occurred first, the neutralization technique or the deviant act, it was evident that neutralization theory provided an in-depth foundation into the rationalizations that delinquents utilized in an effort to free themselves from blame and conventional norms so they could have committed acts of delinquency.





60


Originally, Sykes and Matza (1957) developed the theory in an attempt to explain juvenile delinquency. Neutralization theory, however, has also been studied regarding to other areas of society. Dodder and Hughes (1987, 1993) attempted to explain the justification procedures in instances of collegiate drinking. Hollinger (1991) examined neutralization theory as it relates to workplace theft and production deviance. Neutralization theory has also been examined as it related to acts of violence (Agnew, 1994). Neutralization theory was also investigated in an attempt to better understand abortion (Brennan, 1974). Finally, the relationship between neutralization theory and the examination of the various methods utilized to justify and calculate the prevalence of academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning has also been examined. This research has focused on the relationship between the incidence of academic dishonesty and the utilization of neutralization theory (Haines et al., 1986; LaBeff et al., 1990; McCabe, 1992; Polding, 1995).

Academic Dishonesty and Neutralization Theory

Few researchers have examined the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty. The research has examined either the demographic characteristics of cheaters or the situational aspects that influenced cheating among college students. Both areas of research involved the examination of neutralization theory and any potential affect it may have had on the prevention of academic dishonesty (Haines et al., 1986; LaBeffet al., 1990; Liska, 1978; McCabe, 1992; Polding, 1995).

Over twenty years ago, Liska (1978) set the foundation for research examining the relationship between deviant attitudes, associations, and behaviors within college cheating. The models examined in Liska's study relied on various social processes,





61

including socialization, interpersonal social control, and social selection, as well as psychological processes, which examined the attitudinal impact on behavior. Socialization referred to the process of learning attitudes through group interaction. Interpersonal social control consisted of behaviors that were influenced by various cost and rewards. Social selection referred to the process of selecting associations based on individual attitudes or behavior. It was suggested that "the effect of attitudes on deviant behavior increases as the level of neutralization decreases" (Liska, 1978, p. 75).

Liska (1978) measured deviant associations by examining the approval rate of

parents, faculty, and peers in regard to cheating behavior. Personal attitude was obtained by tabulating responses on the basis of individual approval or disapproval patterns. Liska determined that social and psychological processes provided valuable insight into the specific patterns of deviancy. These associations should be examined in order to comprehend the causal relationships between deviant behavior and associations and attitudes.

Polding (1995) concluded that the utilization of neutralization techniques differed between gender, as males reported a higher degree of cheating than females. Polding also found a positive relationship existed between neutralization and cheating. It was also suggested that student affairs administrators should make accommodations to deal with the problem of academic dishonesty. It would be through the implementation and maintenance of various educational programs, that collegiate students would be directed on the moral, conventional, and honest path.

Other researchers have examined the influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students (Haines et al., 1986; LaBeffet al., 1990; McCabe, 1992).





62


Situational ethics may be utilized to explain the relationship between academic dishonesty and neutralization theory. LaBeff et al. (1990) examined these situational ethics in a population of college students. They concluded that the utilization of neutralization technique[s] "convey the message that students recognize and accept cheating as an undesirable behavior, which, nonetheless, can be excused under certain circumstances" (p. 196). Neutralization theory afforded cheaters the opportunity to believe that although academic dishonesty was morally wrong it may have been acceptable or necessary in a given situation.

In a study of situational ethics and academic dishonesty, LaBeff et al. (1990)

found that deviants utilized the following techniques of neutralization at higher rates than non-deviants: denial of responsibility, appeal to higher loyalties, and condemnation of the condemners. The authors hypothesized that since academic dishonesty did not require any "real" targets or victims, the justifications, denial of injury and denial of victim, would not be utilized.

Nonetheless, McCabe (1992) proposed that college cheaters might have utilized the original techniques of neutralization because academic dishonesty represented a victimless crime. The notion that neutralization theory provided viable justifications for academic dishonesty was supported among college students.

Haines et al. (1986) determined that neutralization theory was fundamental to cheating and could be characterized as a common attribute found among cheaters. Cheaters were also more likely to lack investment in their education. Students who did not pay for their tuition and/or books were more likely to commit acts of academic dishonesty. An explanation for this relationship may be due to the high participation in





63


extracurricular activities or a minimal amount of time devoted toward studying, which usually resulted in a low grade point average. Consequently, it has been recommended that future research examine factors that contributed toward the lack of commitment to academics (Haines et al., 1986).

In summary, neutralization theory has received extensive scrutiny within the arena of higher education. Researchers have concluded that college students utilized techniques of neutralization in an attempt to justify their commission of deviant activities (Haines et al., 1986; LaBeffet al., 1990; Liska, 1978; McCabe, 1992; Polding, 1995). In each study, students were aware that academic dishonesty was wrong; however, they persisted in their deviant behavior in an attempt to satisfy their drives and attitudes, while minimizing any feelings of guilt or blame.

Intercollegiate Athletics

Intercollegiate athletics have long been a principle extracurricular activity within higher education. During the end of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries, intercollegiate sports continued to gain popularity. In an attempt to infiltrate the athletic culture, college presidents from the large Midwestern universities of Chicago, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Minnesota, and Northwestern created the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives in 1895. Some years prior to this, however, Princeton and Harvard independently formed faculty athletic committees. While these early attempts to gain control of athletics were met with resistance, students reluctantly accepted the formation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA, in 1905 (Gerdy, 1997; Rader, 1999; Smith, 1995).





64


Intercollegiate athletics were initially incorporated into higher education because of the belief that the existence of such programs, legitimized the institution as a major, "big-time," university (Gerdy, 1997). The expanding market provided institutions with the opportunity to gain national prestige and notoriety. The notion that a successful athletic program could lead to important publicity and increased financial revenue for the institution became a cornerstone for many college administrators. Sports also assisted in the unification of an ever-increasingly diverse student population.

Researchers have argued that participation in intercollegiate athletics may have led to the development of certain skills that may not be accessible in the classroom or through the use of textbooks (Gerdy, 1997). These scholars claimed that athletes utilized sports as a vehicle to acquire the principles of teamwork, discipline, and perseverance. Although these attributes of higher education were initially accepted, the reason for incorporating athletics into higher education dealt primarily with the generating of additional revenues for the institution (Gerdy, 1997).

Gerdy (1997) described three foundational reasons for incorporating athletics into higher education: (1) to generate revenue, visibility, and prestige; (2) to provide entertainment and unification of the student population; and, (3) to develop character among the athletes. First, intercollegiate athletics often increased visibility and prestige. However, this did not necessarily lead to an increase in financial revenues. While it has been documented that all athletic departments did not make money, the visibility that certain schools received was not entirely positive (Gerdy, 1997). Second, athletics provided a popular form of entertainment. However, the notion that athletics unified an institution has been questioned. That is, a quality educational program should not be






65


entirely defined by a winning athletic team (Gerdy, 1997). Finally, the notion that character was built through participation in sports must be promoted regardless of its validity in order to ensure the continued placement of intercollegiate athletics. While, studies have suggested that athletes may have lower moral and ethical reasoning skills than their non-athlete counterparts, Gerdy stated that revenue-producing athletes have a significantly lower level of moral development than their peers or non-revenue generating athletes. Moreover, these revenue-generating athletes were not dysfunctional in athletic terms; rather, they had the ability to mask their moral reasoning processes (Gerdy).

Kliever (1990) incorporated Kohlberg's theory of moral development into the intercollegiate athletic arena to address deficits in moral development.

Competitive sports can be carried out quite effectively at
the lower levels of moral maturity. Sports participants and
spectators need know nothing of higher fundamental ethical
principles provided they have a lively fear of punishment (stage 1) or a prudent sense of reciprocity (stage 2). Even at its best, the morality of competitive sports seldom offers
more than the reinforcement for a conformist morality of system maintenance (stage 3) or an authoritarian morality
of fixed rules (stage 4). (p. 109)

The degree of moral development within intercollegiate athletics suggested that a level of reform was needed. Regardless of the moral level in which sport was carried out, "current systems of institutional control and sanctions for rules violations must be strengthened" (Kliever, 1990, p. 115). In order to be successful, the responsibility for institutional control must involve all represented parties, including the president of the institution and its athletic director, administrators, and coaches. Enforcement of rules violations was the responsibility of the athletic program and must be solidified. It was





66


also suggested that the common perpetrators of these transgressions, the athletes, needed to be more accountable for their wrong-doings and subjected to increased punishments. Only with the threat of losing athletic eligibility or financial aid would cheating among athletes begin to subside (Kliever, 1990).

At the end of the twentieth century, as intercollegiate sports continued to increase in popularity, the place of athletics in higher education needed resolution (Smith, 1988). The Brown Conference of 1898 was convened in an attempt to organize intercollegiate athletics. Faculty, alumni, and undergraduate representatives from seven colleges met to discuss various issues prevalent within athletics. Through this meeting, a special committee composed of seven faculty members was developed to address issues of eligibility, transfer policies, payment, and other items prevalent within intercollegiate athletics. In turn, this committee developed twenty rules that gave "colleges throughout the United States athletic guidelines as they worked toward faculty athletic control" (Smith, 1988, p. 142).

The Brown Conference Committee Report attempted to ensure (a) institutional control with faculty direction; (b) utilization of authentic college students; (c) length of athletic eligibility; (d) control of practices and contests; and (e) the development of an amateur code to combat professionalism in college athletics. "In general, the Brown Conference Report of 1898 came out strongly in favor of faculty and athletic committee control of truly amateur contests, in which bona fide athletes would participate without excessive commercialism" (Smith, 1988, pp. 143-144).

In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt invited selected coaches, faculty, and

alumni from the Big Three (Harvard, Yale, and Princeton) to attend a conference at the





67


White House with the intent of "teach[ing] young men to play football honesty" (Rader, 1999, p. 180). Although Roosevelt was an advocate of "manly" sports, he demanded that the brutality and foul play be removed from the game (Baker, 1982, p. 201). However, even after the conference, brutality in football continued. During the 1905 season, it was reported that 18 college and secondary students had lost their lives and 159 individuals had been injured competing in football (Rader, 1999). In response, some schools abolished the sport altogether, others choose to institute athletic alternatives, or restrict competition. After the death of a football player during competition, the chancellor of New York University, Henry McCracken called for a conference mandating the abolition or reformation of football. McCracken was under the opinion that the reformation of the game would not occur under the current Rules Committee (Rader, 1999).

The committee decided to reform football within intercollegiate athletics. Rule changes were discussed to end dangerous, brutal, and mass plays. The committee also expanded its membership by adding more representative and national groups, including players, coaches, umpires, directors, committeemen, and faculty members (Smith, 1988). This group of reformers representing 62 colleges met in New York City on December 28, 1905 and organized the Intercollegiate Athletic Association (hereinafter "IAA") with Captain Palmer E. Pierce of West Point Academy as chairman and established its own rules committee. It was in 1910 that the IAA became the National Collegiate Athletic Association (Rader, 1999).

The need for institutional control has been a persistent problem within

intercollegiate athletics. Schools should be held accountable for these "failures of






68


omission as well as commission" (Kliever, 1990, p. 115). It was due to this paramount need for institutional control, as well as the establishment and maintenance of fair practices, that the NCAA was developed. The NCAA was formed in an attempt to create an intervening governing body, opposite of the once laissez-faire approach utilized by the students. The complaints of brutality, questionable ethics, and the need for universal rules and regulations, specifically within football, led to the formation of the NCAA (Smith, 1995).

This initial desire to create rules and regulations in an attempt to govern and

regulate competition in football has grown into a massive organization that controls all major and minor happenings in the world of intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA became a sports governing body with the ability to set and enforce the rules and regulations for member institutions on a regular basis. These rules focused on the academic standards necessary for athletes to be eligible to compete in intercollegiate athletics, as well as the athletic responsibilities of the athletic department, including boosters, coaches, staff, faculty, and fans. These rules, which were consistent with the founding principles of the NCAA, attempted to ensure fair competition among all member institutions.

The welfare and integrity of the athlete and athletic department were the concern for many institutions. Problems associated with the ethical violations committed by coaches and players have continued to occur and negatively affected the public support of and confidence in intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA has continued to enforce its rules and investigate violations and other dishonest practices. While intercollegiate athletics have grown into an enormous enterprise capable of dishonesty, the NCAA has continued to be willing to fight this problem (Sperber, 1990).





69


The NCAA has created many rules that deal with the academic requirements of

athletes. These requirements varied as a athlete progressed from recruit, or pre-college,

to first year and, ultimately, to exhausted eligibility and graduation. These rules required

athletes to satisfy certain grade point average, or GPA, and percentage toward degree

requirements. These benchmarks ensured all athletes were making acceptable progress

toward their individual degrees. Failure to obtain these standards resulted in the

forfeiture of part or complete athletic season due to ineligibility for academic reasons. It

was therefore extremely important that athletes continued to make progress toward their

degrees and remained in good standing at their given institution. The 1999-00 NCAA

Manual specifies academic regulations that athletes were required to follow.

A student-athlete who is entering his or her third year of
collegiate enrollment shall have completed successfully at least 25 percent of the course requirements in the student's specific degree program. A student-athlete who is entering
his or her fourth year of collegiate enrollment shall have completed successfully at least 50 percent of the course
requirements in the student's specific degree program. A
student-athlete who is entering his or her fifth year of
collegiate enrollment shall have completed successfully at least 75 percent of the course requirements in the student's specific degree program. The course requirements must be
in the student's specific degree program. (p. 155)

Furthermore, all athletes were required to abide by the following rule.

A student-athlete who is entering his or her third year of
collegiate enrollment shall present a cumulative minimum
grade-point average (based upon a maximum of 4.000) that
equals at least 90 percent of the institution's overall
cumulative minimum grade-point average required for
graduation. A student-athlete who is entering his or her fourth or subsequent year of collegiate enrollment shall
present a cumulative minimum grade-point average (based
upon a maximum of 4.000) that equals 95 percent of the
institution's overall cumulative minimum grade-point
average required for graduation. (p. 156)





70


Many athletic departments have formed specialized offices or units that were responsible for monitoring the academic progress of athletes. The individuals in these units were knowledgeable of the many NCAA rules in place. They also monitored and accounted for the progress of their institutions' athletes. These programs usually supplied academic resources in the form of tutors, mentors, computer assistance, and counselors, who were all trained to best assist the athlete. Regardless of the resources available, some athletes experienced difficulty satisfying the requirements established by the NCAA.

In order to obtain eligibility standards and to continue participating at the

intercollegiate level, some athletes may have been compelled to commit acts of academic dishonesty. Research supported this hypothesis as athletes have reported a higher level of cheating than non-athletes (Haines et al., 1986; McCabe, 1992; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Haines et al. (1986) reported that those students that did not pay for their tuition and/or books, common among athletes, were more likely to cheat. This lack of education investment impacted the incidence of academic dishonesty.

It has also been claimed that due to the large amount of time devoted to extracurricular activities, such as intercollegiate athletics, studying time was compromised. Thus, these students were less than adequately prepared for the upcoming assignments or exams and were forced to commit acts of dishonesty. This notion, coupled with the fact that some athletes were already ill-prepared for college academics, caused the athlete to resort to delinquent acts in order to remain eligible to compete (Gerdy, 1997; Sperber, 1990).





71


McCabe (1992) suggested that athletes and other students that participated in

extracurricular activities may have utilized various techniques of neutralization in order to participate in cheating acts. The appeal to higher loyalties occurred when the individual sacrificed the demands of the larger society in exchange for the demands emphasized by the smaller group. McCabe believed that the norms of this subgroup provided the foundation for some students to cheat. Athletes may have also utilized the neutralization technique defense of necessity. In an attempt to maintain eligibility for competition or to remain at the institution, some athletes determined that the delinquent act of cheating was necessary. Since there was no apparent victim, denial of victim, and injury was usually avoided, denial of injury, the athlete may be persuaded to commit the deviant activity.

This study investigated if Division I athletes utilized techniques of neutralization in order to justify acts of academic dishonesty within higher education. The utilization of neutralization, in which delinquents were able to move from stages of conventional wisdom to unconventional or delinquent stages, may have allowed for an impact on the incidence of cheating. It was through this process that individuals were free to drift back and forth between the stages because they neutralized the effects of their deviant acts. This ability to rationalize enabled students to commit forms of academic dishonesty while attending institutions of higher learning.

Conclusion

This review of literature has recounted the importance of academic excellence as a primary principle and purpose within institutions of higher learning. The motivation associated with this foundational goal of higher education, however, has led to the





72


increase in popularity of academic dishonesty (Davis, Grover, Becker & McGregor, 1992; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Nuss, 1984; Sims, 1995).

The extent of the problem of academic dishonesty has been discussed, and

solutions and possible prevention methods have also been discussed and evaluated. The various characteristics of cheaters, as well as the contextual differences common among cheaters, have been identified. Research in both these areas has been extensive and comprehensive.

In relation to the problem of academic dishonesty within higher education,

various theories of delinquency have been examined. It has been suggested that certain theories of delinquent behavior may have provided insight into understanding the behavior associated with delinquent acts in higher education, including the behavior of academic dishonesty (Haines et al., 1986; LaBeff et al., 1990; Liska, 1978; McCabe, 1992; Michael & Miethe, 1989; Polding, 1995). Among these theories of delinquency, the following theories were examined in the above discussion: social bond theory, social learning theory, deterrence theory, rational choice theory, the theory of differential association, and neutralization theory. Certain criminological theories were also examined in order to provide a basis for the comprehension of neutralization theory. Through the development of these theories of deviant behavior, institutions of higher learning may be able to find answers to the threat of academic dishonesty and other potentially devastating problems within higher education.

Neutralization theory, as originally proposed by Sykes and Matza (1957), has been examined as an explanation for the ability of individuals to commit deviants acts. Delinquents had the ability to abide by conventional norms but still could commit deviant





73


acts through the utilization of five techniques of neutralization that enabled them to drift between morally accepted behaviors and acts of delinquency by justifying their acts of delinquency. These techniques of neutralization, as identified by Sykes and Matza, were: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties. Additionally, Klockars (1974) and Minor (1981) have amended the theory by offering the following two techniques of neutralization: metaphor of ledger and defense of necessity.

Research has supported the utilization of neutralization theory as a method to explain academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning (Haines et al., 1986; LaBeff et al., 1990; Liska, 1978; McCabe, 1992; Polding, 1995). It was through the comprehension of these techniques of neutralization that institutions of higher learning and specifically, educational administrators, may be able to explore methods to effectively combat the problem of academic dishonesty in higher education. This threat to the integrity of higher learning should to be examined and solutions should be offered (Aaron, 1992; Aaron & Georgia, 1994; Barnett & Dalton, 1981; Fass, 1986; Haines et al., 1986; Kibler, 1993a; Kibler & Kibler, 1993; LaBeff et al., 1990; Pavela & McCabe, 1993).

Finally, the incorporation and influence of intercollegiate athletics has also been discussed. College sports have gained increased popularity since the inception of the NCAA in 1905 (Gerdy, 1997; Rader, 1999; Smith, 1988, 1995; Sperber, 1990). Beside the supposed increase in financial gains, teamwork, school spirit, publicity, and sportsmanship, issues of unethical and dishonest practices have been discussed (Gerdy, 1997; Kliever, 1990). It was through the unethical and morally unacceptable behaviors





74


that the techniques of neutralization may be utilized. Neutralization theory may be utilized by athletes to rationalize deviant behaviors, including academic dishonesty. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education in a sample of intercollegiate Division I athletes and non-athletes.

The design and methodology utilized in this study is outlined in Chapter III.

Specifically, Chapter III defines the sample of student participants and the questionnaire for this study. In addition, the research design and data analysis for the study are discussed, including an examination of the research procedures that guided this study.














CHAPTER III
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY


Introduction

Educational administrators have witnessed the continuation of a serious problem within higher education. Academic dishonesty represents a severe threat to an institution's integrity. It contradicts the principles and values that students should obtain and strengthen while in college (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973; Nuss, 1984; Long, 1992). Academic dishonesty has been documented as a widescale problem that must be addressed in order to reduce or eliminate the threat it poses to higher education (Carnegie Council Report, 1979; Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; Kibler, 1993a).

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between

neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education. Specifically, this study addressed the following questions.

1. Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level?

2. Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level?

3. Does the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differ between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level?




75





76


Methodology

Overview

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between various

techniques of neutralization and academic dishonesty. This study examined if athletic participation and college grade level affected the relationship between operationalized measures of neutralization and cheating. The study also investigated differences in the prevalence of academic dishonesty between Division I athletes and non-athletes.

This study examined a sample of 80 athletes and 164 non-athletes representing various college grade levels from classes within the college of education. The sample was obtained from a large public research university located in the southeastern United States. Specific classes that were mandatory for athletes who received athletic scholarships were examined in order to obtain a substantial number of athletes. The required courses utilized to obtain the athlete portion of the research sample were identified in the policy and procedure manual of the academic component of the university's athletic department. These classes that were required for athletes were taught by a member of the department of counselor education within the college of education. These classes were matched with similar grade level courses that were taught by the department of counselor education. This provided representation of various college grade levels for this study. In this study, all respondents were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. The questionnaire was administered near the end of the Fall 1999 academic term, specifically, during the month of November.

Students were administered a self-report questionnaire that examined their

attitudes and beliefs which characterized neutralization statements, as well as statements





77


that represented beliefs and reactions towards academic dishonesty. Respondents were also asked to report any acts of academic dishonesty that they have either witnessed or participated in over the course of the studied academic semester. The questionnaire also inquired about specific demographic characteristics that assisted in the categorization of respondents, as well as provided information that may be utilized in the examination of various relationships among other variables.

A two-fold evaluation occurred in which (a) descriptive data were analyzed using measures of central tendency and self-reported responses; and, (b) multiple regression analyses, univariate analyses of variance and a multivariate analysis of variance examined the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty. The results obtained from these statistical tests provided institutions of higher learning with information into the student's rationale behind his/her acts of academic dishonesty. Once these motivators and distracters have been identified, the problems associated with academic dishonesty may be accurately and efficiently addressed. Population and Sample

The population for this study consisted of approximately 31,000 undergraduate

students from a large research public university located in the southeastern United States. The sample for the study was comprised of a total of 244 students, divided into groups of 80 athletes and 164 non-athletes. The results from 13 questionnaires were not analyzed due to incomplete data. Respondents for the study were selected from various undergraduate courses chosen by the researcher for convenience and availability of a perspective sample. Undergraduate students were administered the questionnaire in





78

classes that were taught by members of the department of counselor education within the college of education.

Responses were obtained from 244 students (N = 244). Of this total, 91 (37.30%) were male and 153 (62.70%) were female. The research sample consisted of 80 athletes (32.79%) and 164 non-athletes (67.21%). The research sample represented various college grade levels throughout college, 27 (11.07%) freshman, 34 (13.93%) sophomore, 44 (18.03%) junior, 136 (55.74%) senior, and three respondents (1.23%) categorized themselves as other. Also included in the research sample were 163 (66.80%) white, 34 (13.93%) black, 11 (4.51%) Asian, 25 (10.25%) Hispanic, and 11 (4.51%) other.

Specific classes were chosen to ensure that an adequate number of athletes and college grade levels would be represented within the study. The use of a convenient sample was accomplished by administering the questionnaire in classes required of athletes and in specific undergraduate courses found within the department of counselor education. Those classes that were required of athletes were identified in the policy and procedure manual of the academic advising component of the university's athletic department. The courses for non-athletes were chosen based on their diverse student representation and accessibility to undergraduate students. That is, students from three classes that were required of all scholarship athletes were compared, based on athletic participation, gender, race, and college grade level, to students enrolled in three classes that were taught by the department of counselor education within the college of education. Students that were enrolled in more than one class in which the questionnaire was administered were allowed to complete the questionnaire once.





79


All athletes who received athletic based scholarship at the university were required to complete three different courses involving issues prevalent for college students. The courses outlined in the policy and procedures manual of the athletic academic advising office, were found within the department of counselor education and were titled: "Student and the University Setting," "Alcohol and Drug Abuse," and "Career and Life-Span Planning." The first course, "Student and the University Setting," was primarily a course for freshman athletes. The second course, "Alcohol and Drug Abuse," was a course usually comprised of sophomores. This course was open to both athletes and non-athletes. The final course, "Career and Life-Span Planning," was open to both junior and senior level athletes.

Other pre-selected education classes were selected for this study in order to collect the non-athlete portion of the sample. These classes did not have any prerequisites for enrollment and were open to students of all majors and colleges. These preselected courses were also taught by the department of counselor education and enrollment in these courses represented various college grade levels. "Alcohol and Drug Abuse," had enrollment that was open to all students regardless of college grade level. This course was identical to the course required of athletes. The two sections of this course that were utilized in this study had enrollment consisting of both athletes and nonathletes. This class satisfied elective credit and graduation requirements for non-athletes enrolled in the course. "Stress and Anxiety Management," was a junior level course, but was open to students of all majors and college grade levels. There were no prerequisites for this course and it satisfied elective credit and graduation requirements. Finally, "Career and Life-Span Planning," was generally a junior or senior level course. This





80


course was similar to the career course required of athletes. However, this section of the course was open to all students regardless of major or athlete status, and this course satisfied elective credit and graduation requirements. Instrumentation

An amended version of Polding's (1995) self-report questionnaire measured

neutralization statements and attitudes toward academic dishonesty. Respondents were required to answer each statement based on their level of agreement using the following five-point scale: (a) strongly agree, (b) agree, (c) undecided, (d) disagree, or, (e) strongly disagree. The 170-item questionnaire also consisted of various questions used to evaluate different demographic information including (a) gender; (b) college grade level; (c) age;

(d) registered credit hours; (e) race; (f) athletic participation, and; (g) college classification.

A set of neutralization statements identified by Polding (1995) represented descriptions of the various rationalizations that certain students may utilize as mechanisms for explaining their frequency of academic dishonesty. Respondents were required to answer each statement based on their level of agreement using the following five-point scale: (a) strongly agree, (b) agree, (c) undecided, (d) disagree, or, (e) strongly disagree. A composite score was derived for each of the seven techniques of neutralization by averaging responses to various statements that characterized the specific neutralization technique. This score was then reported as the average level of agreement possessed by respondents to the identified neutralization technique. These statements could consequently be categorized into the following seven neutralization techniques: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim condemnation of the





81


condemners, appeal to higher loyalties, metaphor of ledger, and defense of necessity (Klockars, 1974; Minor, 1981; Sykes & Matza, 1957).

The first technique, denial of responsibility; was identified by the following three statements, "cheating is OK if you are not given reasonable time to prepare", "cheating is better than failing", and "cheating is OK if you cannot study because of other commitments." The second technique of neutralization, denial of injury; was identified by the following statement, "if the curve goes up because a number of students have cheated, cheating really does not give you an unfair advantage." The third technique, denial of victim; was categorized by the following two statements, "cheating must not be too wrong or instructors would try harder to 'catch' cheaters", and "grades really do not reflect what you know about a subject."

The fourth technique of neutralization, condemnation of the condemners; was described by the following three statements, "there would be less cheating if teaching were better", professors should not complain about cheating because they do not assign grades fairly anyway", and "at this school a 'double standard' exists; cheating by athletes is tolerated, but for other students it is not." The fifth technique of neutralization, appeal to higher loyalties: was identified in the study by the following four statements, "helping someone to cheat on exams and assignments is OK because students should stick together and help one another", "students would not cheat so much if parents would not put so much pressure on them to get good grades, cheating is not so bad if you are helping a friend", and "sometimes you have to cheat to help a fraternity brother or sorority sister."

The following statement described the sixth technique of neutralization, metaphor of ledger "it is not so bad to cheat if you have studied hard and attended class." Finally,





82


the seventh techniques of neutralization, defense of necessity; was identified by the following five statements, "cheating is OK if others in the class are doing it", "cheating is OK if you are not given reasonable time to prepare", "cheating is OK if the professor gives unreasonably difficult assignments or tests", "cheating is OK if you studied the wrong material or did the wrong assignment", and finally "cheating is sometimes necessary to get the GPA you need to get into a college, graduate program, professional school, or to participate in extracurricular activities."

In order to measure the prevalence and types of cheating committed by college students, ten operationalized definitions used to categorize academic dishonesty were developed by Polding (1995) and a panel of experts in the area of criminology, sociology, and student affairs. These ten statements were included in the survey and categorized cheating into four different types that were forbidden at most universities: taking of information, tendering of information, plagiarism, and misrepresentation. The operational definition, taking of information, included the following statements: "copied someone else's homework or lab assignments," "copied answers from someone else taking the exam," "used notes, books, 'cheat/crib sheets,' or other unallowed materials during an examination," "secretly got access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam," and "studied from a 'hot' copy of an exam before it was given to the rest of your class." The following statement represented the operational definition for the tendering of information: "knowingly allowed someone to copy answers to an exam."

Plagiarism was operationally defined by the following two statements: "turned in another student's work as your own," and "copied published material and turned it in as your own." Finally, two statements were utilized in the questionnaire to operationalize





83


forms of misrepresentation: "copied a few sentences of material from a reference without footnoting or giving credit to the original author," and "made up a false excuse to delay or put off taking an exam or turning in an assignment." Respondents were requested to indicate the number of times they have engaged in the aforementioned cheating behaviors during the course of the academic semester using the following answers: (a) none, (b) once or twice, (c) three or four times, (d) five or six times, or, (e) seven or more times. Validity

Polding (1995) and a panel of experts examined the content validity of the instrument. The wording, structure, and appropriateness of the questionnaire was analyzed to examine the clarity of the instrument as well as to validate the appropriateness of the instrument for this study by establishing content validity. The panel of experts unanimously concluded that the measure had strong content validity (Polding). Additionally, Polding reported that the measure contained adequate construct validity.

Reliability

Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The following alpha coefficients were reported for the neutralization techniques studied in this measure: denial of victim (0.361), condemnation of the condemners (0.413), appeal to higher loyalties (0.759), denial of responsibility (0.813), and defense of necessity (0.917). The final two techniques of neutralization, denial of injury and metaphor of ledger were not analyzed because only one statement defined these techniques. Polding (1995) also addressed the reliability of the measure through the analysis of the multiple





84

R2 of each of the observed variables. It was concluded that neutralization statements adequately explained these observed variables.

Research Design

The following procedures dictated the guidelines that were utilized in the collection of responses for this study.

1. The survey was administered to undergraduate students that were enrolled in a variety of classes representing different grade levels within the department of counselor education in the college of education. Prior arrangements were made with professors to allow for the investigator to utilize a selected class time for the administration of the questionnaire. A letter of request was sent to pre-selected instructors in order to gain permission to query students in certain classes for the purpose of collecting data for the research study.

Specific classes were selected in order to ensure proper representation of intercollegiate athletes. The use of a convenient sample was accomplished by administering the questionnaire in classes required of athletes. All scholarship athletes at the university were required to complete three different courses involving issues prevalent for college students throughout their college careers. The courses were found within the department of counselor education and were titled: "Student and the University Setting," "Alcohol and Drug Abuse," and "Career and Life-Span Planning."

Other education classes were selected for this study in order to collect the nonathlete portion of the sample. These selected education classes were also taught by the department of counselor education, did not have any prerequisites for enrollment, were open to students in any majors and colleges, and satisfied elective credit and graduation





85


requirements. These courses were titled: "Stress and Anxiety Management," "Alcohol and Drug Abuse," and "Career and Life-Span Planning." Since the "Alcohol and Drug Abuse" course was open to both athletes and non-athletes, respondents from two different sections of this course were evaluated in this study. Respondents were categorized based on their involvement in intercollegiate athletics and college grade level. The "Career and Life-Span Planning" course operated a distinct section for athlete enrollment. Consequently, the members from the two sections of this course were evaluated by distinguishing their involvement in intercollegiate athletics and their college grade level. A total of six classes were evaluated for this study. Once data had been collected, respondents were categorized based on their involvement in intercollegiate athletics and college grade level.

2. This investigator administered the survey during one class session in November of the Fall 1999 semester.

3. Respondents were assured anonymity and confidentiality of their responses through a verbal statement, as well as a written statement contained within the questionnaire. The questionnaire was voluntary and all respondents were given the opportunity to refuse participation at any point in the survey.

4. Once all selected classes had been administered the survey, questionnaire responses were recorded, tabulated, and formatted in preparation for the statistical analysis of the data.

5. A statistical analysis of the data was conducted in order to report statistical measures of the research design.





86


Data Analysis

The independent variables examined in this study included (a) gender;

(b) participation in intercollegiate athletics; (c) race; (d) college grade level; and,

(e) neutralization theory. The dependent variables studied were the frequency of the selfreported acts of academic dishonesty committed over the course of the studied semester and the utilization of various neutralization techniques as identified by averaging level of agreement scores from statements that characterized each of the seven techniques of neutralization.

The research design required the use of analyses of variance (ANOVA) and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine differences between athletes and non-athletes, as well as differences among college grade levels in regards to the utilization of neutralization techniques and the incidence of academic dishonesty. The vectors of dependent variables utilized in the MANOVA were 1 and -1. Multiple regression analyses were also utilized to determine the effects the following interactions:

(a) athletic participation, (b) college grade level, (c) neutralization, and, (d) various social activities, may have had on academic dishonesty. Statistical models were designed to explain gender, race, and college grade level as they related to neutralization theory and academic dishonesty. An additional statistical model designed to measure the total amount of cheating acts was evaluated. The analysis of these statistical models was utilized to determine the following: (a) whether the use of neutralization techniques differed between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level; (b) whether differences in the prevalence of academic dishonesty existed between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level; and, (c) whether differences





87


existed in the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level.

Summary

Chapter III has included a detailed description of the methodology and design utilized within this study. The population and sample that defined the respondents for this study have been examined and identified. The instrument utilized in the study has been discussed. The operational definitions of neutralization statements and academic dishonesty have been addressed, as have the validity and reliability of the instrument. The research design that guided the collection of data has been detailed, and finally, the strategies and statistical tests that were utilized to properly analyze the data have been outlined. The information derived from this chapter provides the basis for the analysis of data reported in Chapter IV.














CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA


Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between

neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education. Specifically, this study addressed the following questions.

1. Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level?

2. Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level?

3. Does the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differ between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level?

The questionnaire examined the techniques of neutralization identified by Sykes and Matza (1975) and later amended by Klockars (1974) and Minor (1981). These techniques of neutralization were contained within various statements found within the instrument. A composite score was derived for each of the seven techniques of neutralization by averaging responses to various statements that characterized that specific neutralization technique. This score was then reported as the average level of agreement possessed by respondents to the identified neutralization technique. The first technique, denial of responsibility; was identified by the following three statements, "cheating is OK if you are not given reasonable time to prepare", "cheating is better than 88





89


failing", and "cheating is OK if you cannot study because of other commitments." The second technique of neutralization, denial of injury; was identified by the following statement, "if the curve goes up because a number of students have cheated, cheating really does not give you an unfair advantage." The third technique, denial of victim; was categorized by the following two statements, "cheating must not be too wrong or instructors would try harder to 'catch' cheaters", and "grades really do not reflect what you know about a subject."

The fourth technique of neutralization, condemnation of the condemners; was described by the following three statements, "there would be less cheating if teaching were better", professors should not complain about cheating because they do not assign grades fairly anyway", and "at this school a 'double standard' exists; cheating by athletes is tolerated, but for other students it is not." The fifth technique of neutralization, appeal to higher loyalties; was identified in the study by the following four statements, "helping someone to cheat on exams and assignments is OK because students should stick together and help one another", "students would not cheat so much if parents would not put so much pressure on them to get good grades, cheating is not so bad if you are helping a friend", and "sometimes you have to cheat to help a fraternity brother or sorority sister."

The following statement described the sixth technique of neutralization, metaphor of ledger: "it is not so bad to cheat if you have studied hard and attended class." Finally, the seventh techniques of neutralization, defense of necessity; was identified by the following five statements, "cheating is OK if others in the class are doing it", "cheating is OK if you are not given reasonable time to prepare", "cheating is OK if the professor gives unreasonably difficult assignments or tests", "cheating is OK if you studied the





90


wrong material or did the wrong assignment", and finally "cheating is sometimes necessary to get the GPA you need to get into a college, graduate program, professional school, or to participate in extracurricular activities."

Results of Study

Table 4-1 illustrates the means, standard deviations, and F values when comparing males and females by their utilization of neutralization techniques. Significant differences were found between males and females and their utilization of the following techniques of neutralization: appeal to higher loyalties, F (1, 242) = 6.225, p < .05 defense of necessity, F (1, 242) = 14.916, p < .001 denial of responsibility, F (1, 242) = 18.178, p <.001, and denial of injury F (1, 242) = 4.054, p <.05. Also, a trend towards significance was recorded in regards to the metaphor of ledger technique of neutralization F (1, 242) = 3.732, p < .10.

Table 4-2 illustrates the means, standard deviations, and F values when athletic

participation is considered. Accordingly, significant differences among the utilization of specific neutralization techniques were determined between athletes and non-athletes for the following techniques: appeal to higher loyalties F (1, 242) = 9.365, p < .005, defense of necessity F (1, 242) = 11.604, p < .001, denial of responsibility F (1, 242) = 10.912, p < .001, denial of injury E (1, 242) = 11.648, p < .001, condemnation of the condemners F (1, 242) = 9.673, p <.005, and metaphor of ledger F (1, 242) = 10.265, p < .005.

Table 4-3 illustrates the means, standard deviations, and F values when race is evaluated. Significant main effects were found between races and neutralization techniques for the following: denial of responsibility F (4, 239) = 2.449, p < .05, and metaphor of ledger F (4, 239) = 2.422, p < .05. A trend toward significance was noted





91


when examining the techniques of neutralization, the appeal to higher loyalties F (4, 239) = 2.295, p < .10 and defense of necessity F (4, 239) = 2.341, p < .10.

Table 4-4 illustrates differences in the utilization of neutralization techniques

when respondents were compared by college grade level. Significant differences within different college grade levels were recorded for the following techniques of neutralization: appeal to higher loyalties F (4, 239) = 4.743, p < .001, defense of necessity F (4, 239) = 4.215, p < .005, denial of responsibility F (4, 239) = 3.583, p < .01, denial of injury F (4, 239) = 3.782, p < .005, denial of victim F (4, 239) = 2.708, p < .05, and metaphor of ledger F (4, 239) = 2.650, p < .05. A trend towards significance was noted in regards to condemnation of the condemners, F (4, 239) = 2.402, p < .10.

Independent T-tests were performed to evaluate differences between the

utilization of neutralization techniques when compared by college grade levels. Table 4-5 illustrates the findings of these various T-tests. No significant differences were reported in any of the seven neutralization techniques when comparing freshmen and sophomore students (p > .05). A significant difference was found in the utilization of the neutralization technique, condemnation of the condemners, when comparing freshmen and juniors t (1,243) = 2.186, p < .05. When comparing freshman and senior respondents, five techniques of neutralization were reported with significant differences. Appeal to higher loyalties t (1,243) = -3.052, p < .005, defense of necessity t (1,243) = -3.043, p < .005, denial of responsibility t (1,243) = -2.576, p < .05, denial of injury t (1,243) = -2.379, p < .05, and metaphor of ledger, t (1,243) = 2.375, P < .05 all represented significant differences.









Table 4-1

Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for Neutralization Techniques--By Gender N = 244)


Appeal Necessity Responsibility Injury Condemnation Victim Metaphor Male Mean 3.640 3.479 3.319 3.429 3.429 3.066 3.528 n = 91 S.D. .877 1.142 1.076 1.146 .904 .854 1.186 Female Mean 3.897 3.954 3.848 3.719 3.447 3.226 3.804 n= 153 S.D. .713 .777 .844 1.05 .725 .825 1.014

Total Mean 3.801 3.777 3.650 3.610 3.440 3.166 3.701

S.D. .786 .956 .970 1.096 .795 .838 1.087 F Value 6.225** 14.916***** 18.178***** 4.054** .029 2.079 3.732*
Note. 1= strongly agree 2= agree 3= undecided 4= disagree 5= strongly disagree
* p <.10 ** 1 <.05 ***** o <.001









Table 4-2

Means, Standard deviations, and F Values for Neutralization Techniques--By Athletic Participation N = 244)


Appeal Necessity Responsibility Injury Condemnation Victim Metaphor Athlete Mean 3.584 3.485 3.363 3.275 3.663 3.093 3.388 n= 80 S.D. .813 1.104 1.049 1.102 .793 .893 1.196

Non-athlete Mean 3.907 3.920 3.791 3.774 3.331 3.201 3.854 n = 164 S.D. .753 .841 .899 1.059 .775 .810 .998 F Value 9.365**** 11.604***** 10.912***** 11.648***** 9.673**** .885 10.265****
Note. 1= strongly agree 2= agree 3= undecided 4= disagree 5= strongly disagree
**** < .005 **** p <.001









Table 4-3

Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for Neutralization Technique--By Race (N 244)


Race Appeal Necessity Responsibility Injury Condemnation Victim Metaphor White Mean 3.853 3.848 3.683 3.650 3.429 3.196 3.712

_n= 163 S.D. .725 .875 .933 1.147 .759 .827 1.058 Black Mean 3.478 3.341 3.255 3.471 3.598 3.074 3.265 n = 34 S.D. .962 1.236 1.058 .861 .795 .880 1.355 Asian Mean 4.136 4.000 4.152 3.727 3.515 3.455 4.091 n= 11 S.D. .736 .7746 .766 1.009 .993 .907 1.045 Hispanic Mean 3.710 3.720 3.640 3.400 3.200 2.960 3.840 n= 25 S.D. .812 .929 .947 1.155 .957 .721 .746 Other Mean 3.909 3.982 3.909 3.818 3.576 3.182 4.182 n= 11 S.D. .882 1.104 1.184 .982 3.440 1.055 .982 F Value 2.295* 2.341* 2.449** .548 1.018 .860 2.422**
Note. 1= strongly agree 2= agree 3= undecided 4= disagree 5= strongly disagree
* 2 <.10 ** p <.05




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EUUOI0PDI_HVD5I6 INGEST_TIME 2014-12-15T21:25:27Z PACKAGE AA00026500_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

THE RELATIONSfflP BETWEEN NEUTRALIZATION THEORY AND ACADEMIC DISHONESTY: A COMPARISON OF ATHLETES AND NON-ATHLETES By JASON BRIAN STORCH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2000

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the completion of this dissertation. I thank and appreciate all of those who contributed with specialized help and those who pushed me toward graduation. Specifically, I would like to thank my wife. Amy, for her continued support, dedication, and editing, regardless of my demeanor or attitude. I would also like to thank my son, Andrew, for providing ideal windows of time to complete this dissertation. I would also like to thank my brother, Eric, for his desire and expertise in the areas of statistical analysis, editing, and overall dissertation writing. I am truly fortunate to have such a learned brother. I would also like to thank my parents for continuing to support my work and instilling in me the necessity for completing this project. I would also like to thank my sistermlaw, Beth, for her editmg work. I thank the rest of my family, sisters, Deborah and Alexis and mother-in-law, Rachelle, for their encouragement, support, and genuine excitement over this dissertation. I am honored to have such a wonderful family and sincerely appreciate all that they have done for me; this dissertation is completed in their honor. I would also like to thank the University Athletic Association, Office of Student Life, and especially Keith Carodine and Ann Hughes, for encouraging me to complete this project and providing me with the resources to make it a reality. Finally, I would Uke to thank my dissertation committee, Paula Welch, Art Sandeen, David Honeyman, and my chair Phil Clark, for their expertise and willingness to hsten, suggest, and encourage. I have used their services immensely and am greatly appreciative of their assistance. ii

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii ABSRACT V CHAPTERS I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 12 Purpo se of Study 14 Glossary of Terms 15 Delimitations and Limitations 16 Significance of Study 1 7 Organization of Study 21 II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 22 Responsibility of Higher Education 22 Academic Dishonesty 29 Theories of Delinquency 43 Neutralization Theory 52 Intercollegiate Athletics 63 Conclusion 71 in DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 75 Introduction 75 Methodology 76 Research Design 84 Data Analysis 86 Summary 87 IV PRESENTATION OF DATA 88 Introduction 88 Results of Study 90 Research Questions 109 iii

PAGE 4

Additional Analyses 1 1 5 Summary 116 V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 118 Introduction 118 Conclusions 119 Implications 124 Recommendations for Future Study 130 Summary 131 APPENDIX A LETTER TO PROFESSORS 133 APPENDIX B ACADEMIC DISHONESTY STATEMENTS 135 APPENDIX C NEUTRALIZATION STATEMENTS 136 APPENDIX D SURVEY 138 REFERENCES 147 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 155 iv

PAGE 5

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE RELATIONSfflP BETWEEN NEUTRALIZATION THEORY AND ACADEMIC DISHONESTY: A COMPARISON OF ATHLETES AND NONATHLETES By Jason Brian Storch August, 2000 Chair: Phillip A. Clark Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy and Foundations Academic dishonesty represents a severe threat to an institution's integrity by contradicting the principles and values students should obtain and strengthen while in college. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education by addressing three questions, (a) Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level? (b) Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level? (c) Does the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level? This study surveyed a sample (N = 244) of 80 athletes and 164 non-athletes. Respondents were administered a self-report questionnaire that examined their attitudes and beliefs which characterized neutralization statements, beliefs and reactions towards

PAGE 6

academic dishonesty, and the reportage of any acts of academic dishonesty either witnessed or participated in over the course of the studied academic semester. This study found 80% of overall respondents (85% of the athletes and 78% of the non-athletes) had committed acts of academic dishonesty at least one time over the course of the studied semester. This study provided information into the incidence of cheating, the frequency of being caught committing acts of cheating, the perceived effectiveness of various coimtermeasures to cheating, and the predictability of various social activities on cheating. This study calculated no significant differences for the utilization of neutralization techniques between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level or in the incidence of cheating between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level. The relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty was significantly different when compared by athletic participation and college grade level. The significance of this relationship as well as the predictability of neutralization theory on academic dishonesty provided insight into how students were able to effectively justify their deviant acts. This information, in addition to the identified effective countermeasures and the probability of being caught cheatmg, could serve as the foundation for developing a comprehensive approach to combating this problem within higher education. vi

PAGE 7

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Institutions of higher learning have long been responsible for the task of disseminating knowledge and developing intellectual competence. These goals, which enhance reUgious, moral, and emotional interests, and improve performance in practical matters, have long been the foundation of higher education (Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, & Pavela, 1988). The college experience enables students to progress through various stages of moral development. Chickering and Reisser (1993) proposed seven vectors that categorized an individual's maturity and growth. Kohlberg's (1971) theory of moral development also had roots in an individual's college envirormient. However, m the 1980's, reports were released which questioned and challenged the quality of higher education (National Institute of Education, 1984; The Association of American Colleges, 1985; The Newman Report, 1985). Each of these reports expressed concern over the condition of higher education and stressed the importance of integrity and quality among academic programs. Questions about the ability of college graduates led to the deterioration of public confidence and support in higher education. Reports of academic dishonesty within these institutions of higher learning have only strengthened these complaints. Academic dishonesty has been a persistent problem for educational administrators vAio strived to build an ethical and educated work force. The Carnegie Council (1979) 1

PAGE 8

2 reported that there was a "ethical deterioration" m academic life and many students were being forced to cheat in order to obtain the grades they desire. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching later reported that the academic integrity of college students had continued to deteriorate (Aaron & Georgia, 1994). Many studies have concluded that cheating in college was epidemic (LaBeff, Clark, Haines, & Diekhoff, 1990). Early research on the subject of academic dishonesty dates back to the 1920's when Hartshorne and May (1928) determined that academic dishonesty depended more on the given situation than on the strength of character. Parr (1936) concluded that under certain circumstances, 42% of students would cheat. In 1941, Drake determined the primary reason associated with cheating involved the students' competition for grades. This notion that achievement and successfiil competition were of greater importance than independent scholarship has gained recent support (Kibler, 1993b). It appeared as though the academic community was failing to instill the values of honesty, tolerance, respect, truth, rigor, and fairness in its students (Morrill, 1980). While the Carnegie Council and others claimed that there has been an increase in the prevalence of cheating and other forms of dishonesty in academia, some researchers have disagreed. McCabe and Bowers (1994) noted a stable rate of occurrence in the prevalence of cheating over thirty years. Whether the rate of academic dishonesty among college students increased or remained at a similarly high rate, the issue still remains at the forefront for those concerned about the integrity of higher education. Cheating has been defined in a variety of ways (Pavela, 1978; Bamett & Dalton, 1981; Kibler, 1993a; Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, & Pavela, 1988; Michaels & Miethe, 1989).

PAGE 9

3 It may refer to the copying of another student's homework, the passing along of answers during an exam, or plagiarism. These defmitions represent only a few of the many forms of academic dishonesty rampant across colleges and universities today. "Academic dishonesty refers to the forms of cheating and plagiarism which result in students giving or receiving unauthorized assistance in an academic exercise or receiving credit for work which is not their own" (Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, & Pavela, 1988, p. 1). Reports estimated that between 67% and 90% of college students have been involved in at least one cheating incident (Pavela & McCabe, 1993; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995). Academic dishonesty remains a significant problem on many college campuses. According to Kibler (1993a), widespread academic dishonesty posed a serious threat to higher education in the following ways. 1 A campus climate tolerant of academic dishonesty could lead to an increase in the prevalence of cheating by all students. 2. Faculty indifference towards academic dishonesty could communicate to students the lack of concern towards the values of integrity and honesty. 3. Instances of ignored cheating could damage the sense of community at the institution and consequently alienate the honest students from the campus. 4. Academic dishonesty could deceive those who will ultimately depend on the knowledge and integrity of the institution's graduates. Administrators have made attempts to curb instances of academic dishonesty on their campuses. For example, some schools have investigated the benefits of academic integrity classes, while others have stressed the need to involve and convince faculty members to report cheating activities. Other schools have shifted their focus to the

PAGE 10

4 creation and implementation of honor codes. Honor codes usually contained the following minimum criteria: non-proctored examinations, an honor pledge, student reporting, and the existence of a judicial panel. Honor codes were only reportedly effective when they were operated under a system of honor, trust, responsibility, and loyalty. It has been reported that students under an honor code were less likely to cheat than those students without the impact of an honor code. McCabe & Trevino (1993) also reported that the length of time an honor code had been in effect was inversely related to the incidence of academic dishonesty. Furthermore, McCabe & Trevino (1993) found that schools with an honor code were less likely to experience acts of cheating due to the following reasons. 1 Students pledged to abide by a code that clarified expectations regarding appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Therefore, no questions pertaining to wrongdoing would occur. Also, potential cheaters had a more difficult time rationalizing and justifying dishonest behaviors. Since cheating was not socially acceptable, there was peer pressure not to cheat. 2. The responsibility of reporting was shifted from the administration to the student, such that students were responsible for monitoring and enforcing the honor code. Students would be in a better position to report cheating among other students. 3. Students were given new privileges due to the honor code and, on many occasions, students were reluctant to lose these privileges because of unwise decisions. Other studies, however, have concluded that no consistent evidence existed as to how the honor code affected the frequency and/or seriousness of academic dishonesty. In addition, the policy of having students report other students' actions, referred to as

PAGE 11

5 nontoleration, has not received much support from students (Pass, 1986). Although useful, these practices have not been widely accepted as viable methods to combat cheating. Researchers have claimed that the impetus of a solution to academic dishonesty lies within institutional administration (Cole & McCabe, 1996; Cole & Conklin, 1996; Aaron, 1992; Pavela & McCabe, 1993). Kibler and Kibler (1993) posited that institutions must focus on preventing and detecting academic dishonesty in order to promote academic integrity. Programs should be designed and available to address the emotional, disciplinary, and educational needs of the students. Students should be evaluated on the motives that caused them to cheat and then should receive the necessary counseling to combat such issues. Through a combination of counseling and other educational programs, (e.g., judicial court, lectures, and discussions) students would become aware of the possible consequences of their cheating behavior. Comprehensive educational sessions should be offered in an attempt to enhance academic skills and ethical values and to offer the student alternatives to academic dishonesty (Kibler, 1993; Kibler, 1994). The nationwide effort to control the prevalence of cheating has led to the development and investigation of various theories (Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Among these theories, the disciplines of sociology and criminology have attempted to understand cheating as a delinquent behavior. Academic dishonesty could be so categorized and studied due to its similarity with other deviant behaviors. Researchers claimed that cheating involved the use of fraudulent means to achieve valued resources allocated within a given setting. Cheaters incorporated the learning mechanisms and evaluation of

PAGE 12

6 costs and benefits, while also being motivated by external pressures and the desire for achievement (Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Gibbs (1975) hypothesized that certain behavior was deterred in direct proportion to the perceived probability and severity of punishment for the behavior. Deterrence theory and the principles of certainty, severity, and immediacy of punishment have gained acceptance by many investigators (Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Deterrence theory has been criticized for its omission of the reward, returns, and opportunity components. Rational choice theory addressed the perceived probabilities and magnitudes of both rewards and punishments. The combination of these anticipated rewards and punishments, as outlined in deterrence and rational choice theories, created the model utilized by many researchers to study deviant behavior (Michael & Miethe, 1989). Social bond theory (Hirschi, 1969) claimed that deviant behavior was the resuh of the weakening of the social bonds to society. It was proposed that the following four major social bonds existed to constrain a hiunan's natural capacity to commit criminal acts: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief Attachment served to insulate the individual from crime, with parents and peers being the most influential. Commitment focused on the involvement of personal resources in conventional activities. Involvement referred to the amount of time spent in these conventional activities. It was posited that active participants in conventional activities would have little time available for deviant activities. Finally, belief represented the acceptance of the moral validity of conventional norms and laws (Hirschi, 1969). Sutherland (1947) formulated the theory of differential association in which the delinquent behavior involved the learning of techniques for committing crimes and the

PAGE 13

7 motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes favorable to this violation of law. The basis of differential association theory was that "crime is rooted in the social organization and is an expression of that organization" (Sutherland, 1947, p. 7). Although social bond theory has been used to explain various forms of deviant and delinquent conduct, Akers (1985) incorporated Sutherland's differential association theory of deviance with the principles of social learning theory. This combination of theories revolved around the notion that the reinforcement of deviant behavior from primary groups was more influential than the threat of formal punishment from conventional society. The two interrelated components of social learning theory involved the perceived support from deviant primary groups and the subsequent development of favorable defmitions or attitudes concerning deviant behavior. It has been found that if close friends perceived cheatmg negatively, the probability of cheating was reduced regardless of their conventionality (Eve & Bromley, 1981). It has been argued that a delinquent sub-culture was a system of values that represented an inversion of the values held by a respectable, law-abiding society (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Cohen (1955) viewed the process of developing this delinquent subculture as a matter of building, maintaining, and reinforcing a code of behavior that contradicted dominant, often middle class values. However, the notion that juvenile delinquency was based on competing values and norms has not been totally accepted (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Sykes and Matza (1957) examined Sutherland's (1947) differential association theory and proposed that although deviant and non-deviant individuals could share similar norms and values, they were not permanently released from moral constraints.

PAGE 14

8 This notion of "drift" (Matza, 1964, p. 28) prohibited social controls from serving as inhibitors of deviant behaviors, so that the individual was able to engage in deviant activities without damaging self-image. Sykes and Matza in turn concluded that this ability to adhere to conventional norms, as opposed to delinquent values, was fostered by an individual's ability to justify these acts of deviance. These justifications were termed "techniques of neutralization" (1957, p. 667). Sykes and Matza (1957) outlined five techniques of neutralization to describe this drift from conventional to delinquent norms. Denial of responsibility was based on the belief that delinquent acts were due to either forces outside of the individual's control or the results of accidents. Denial of iniurv revolved around the notion that no one was injured by the delinquent acts. Denial of the victim was premised on the idea that the injury was not wrong in light of given circumstances. This act was viewed as warranted retaliation and/or punishment. Condemnation of the condemners occurred when the individual was able to shift attention from his/her own deviant acts toward the motives and behavior of those that disapproved of his/her violations, referring to them as hypocrites. Appeal to higher loyalties occurred when offenders were caught in the dilemma in which being loyal to their own peer groups was more important than abiding by the norms of the larger society. Since the development of these five techniques of neutralization, two additional methods have been formulated. The first, denial of necessity stated that one should not feel guilty about a deviant act, even if it was considered morally wrong, so long as it was deemed necessary (Minor, 1981). Klockars (1974) and Minor defined the technique of neutralization known as the metaphor of ledger This technique allowed individuals to

PAGE 15

9 accumulate "good credits," which could be substituted for guilt-free deviant acts. That is, once an individual had performed enough good deeds, he/she beUeved that he/she was then owed and free to commit deviant acts without feeling remorse. It was through the utilization of these seven neutralization techniques which comprise neutralization theory, that individuals could justify their involvement in deviant actions. Intercollegiate athletics have long been present within higher education. During the end of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries, intercollegiate sports grew in popularity. In an attempt to infiltrate the athletic culture, college presidents from the large Midwestern universities of Chicago, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Mirmesota, and Northwestern created the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives in 1895. However, some years before this, Princeton and Harvard independently formed faculty athletic committees. While these first attempts to gain control of athletics were met with resistance, students reluctantly accepted the formation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (hereinafter "NCAA") in 1905 (Rader, 1999). Although sports were not widely accepted among faculty members, some administrators observed the need for institutional control. The NCAA was formed in an attempt to create an intervening governing body, opposite of the then current laissez-faire approach utilized by the students. The rising complaints of brutality, questionable ethics, and the need for universal rules and regulations, specifically within football, ultimately led to the formation of the NCAA (Smith, 1995). This initial desire to create rules and regulations to govern competition in the sport of football has grown into a massive organization that controls all major and minor happenings m the world of intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA has continued to set and

PAGE 16

10 enforce the rules and regulations for member institutions, which center around the academic standards necessary for athletes to be eligible to compete in intercollegiate athletics and the athletic responsibilities of the athletic department, including boosters, coaches, staff, faculty, and fans. These rules, which are consistent with the founding principles of the NCAA, attempt to ensure fair competition among all member institutions. The welfare and integrity of the athlete and athletic department have continued to be primary concerns for many institutions. Problems associated with the ethical violations committed by coaches and players continue to occur and negatively affect the public support of and confidence in intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA has continued to enforce its rules and investigate violations and other dishonest practices. Intercollegiate athletics has grown into an enormous enterprise worthy of dishonesty but willing to fight this problem (Sperber, 1990). The NCAA has created many rules that deal with the academic requirements of all athletes. These requirements vary as an athlete progresses fi-om the status of recruit (pre-college) to first year, and ultimately to exhausted eligibility and graduation. These rules require athletes to satisfy a certain grade point average (hereinafter "GPA") and complete a percentage of degree requirements. These benchmarks were created to ensure all athletes were continuing to make acceptable progress toward their degree. Failure to obtain these standards would result in the forfeiture of part or the complete athletic season due to ineligibility for academic reasons. It is therefore extremely important that athletes continue to make progress toward their degree and remain in good standing at

PAGE 17

11 their given institution. The 1999-00 NCAA Manual specified academic regulations that athletes must follow. A student-athlete who is entering his or her third year of collegiate enroUment shall have completed successfully at least 25 percent of the course requirements in the student's specific degree program. A student-athlete who is entering his or her fourth year of collegiate enrollment shall have completed successfully at least 50 percent of the course requirements in the student's specific degree program. A student-athlete who is entering his or her fifth year of collegiate enrolhnent shall have completed successfially at least 75 percent of the course requirements in the student's specific degree program. The course requirements must be in the student's specific degree program, (p. 155) Furthermore, all athletes must abide by the following rule. A student-athlete who is entering his or her third year of collegiate enrollment shall present a cumulative minimum grade-point average (based upon a maximum of 4.000) that equals at least 90 percent of the institution's overall cumulative minimum grade-point average required for graduation. A student-athlete who is entering his or her fourth or subsequent year of collegiate enrolhnent shall present a cumulative minimum grade-point average (based upon a maximum of 4.000) that equals 95 percent of the institution's overall cumulative minimum grade-point average required for graduation, (p. 156) Many athletic departments have formed offices or units responsible for monitoring the academic progress of athletes. These units must not only be knowledgeable of the many NCAA rules in place, but they must also monitor and account for the progress of the institutions' athletes. These programs usually supply academic resources in the form of tutors, mentors, computer assistance, and counselors who are all trained to best assist the athlete. Regardless of the resources available, some athletes experience difficulty satisfying the requirements established by the NCAA.

PAGE 18

12 The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship existed between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education, which could allow for an impact on the incidence of cheating. Neutralization theory and its subsequent extensions suggested that delinquents moved from stages of conventional wisdom to unconventional, or delinquent stages. It was during these delinquent stages that deviant activities occurred. Individuals were free to drift back and forth between the stages because they neutralized the effects of their deviant acts. This ability to rationalize enabled students to commit forms of academic dishonesty while attending institutions of higher learning. The primary focus of this study was to examme if there was a significant difference in not only the prevalence of academic dishonesty, but also the use of neutralization techniques between Division I athletes and non-athletes, as well as dilferences based on college grade level. Results of this study provide information that will allow administrators to develop and implement intervention programs in an effort to minimize, and ultimately cease, instances of academic dishonesty on higher education campuses. Statement of the Problem Educational administrators have witnessed the continuation of a serious problem within higher education. Academic dishonesty represents a severe threat to an institution's integrity. It contradicts the principles and values that students should obtain and strengthen while in college. Regardless of the magnitude of the problem of academic dishonesty over the last century, it has been documented as a widescale problem that must be addressed in order to reduce or eliminate the threat it poses to higher education.

PAGE 19

13 A problem exists within the boundaries of higher education. This problem can be attributed to the erosion of academic integrity (Carnegie Council Report, 1979; Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; Nuss, 1984). Students are turning to cheating tactics to obtain necessary grades, stay in school, find the easiest solution, or simply for the thrill of deception. Cheating behaviors are not specific to one demographic group. It has been stated that men are more likely to cheat than women; that certain majors promote varying levels of academic dishonesty; and that fraternity or sorority membership, as well as extracurricular participation, may influence the level of dishonest behavior (Baird, 1980; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Intercollegiate athletes must adhere to various institutional and NCAA policies including minimum grade point averages and minimum requirements for the number of credit hours passed in an academic year and career. These regulations and other factors may influence an athlete to resort to cheating tactics in order to satisfy coaches, parents, teammates, or fans. This study examined whether athletes and non-athletes were utilizing the techniques outlined in neutralization theory, as a means of rationalizing cheating, ultimately affecting the prevalence of academic dishonesty. That is, did their inclusion in intercollegiate athletics affect the relationship between the utilization of neutralization techniques and the incidence of academic dishonesty. For the purpose of this study, the terms academic dishonesty and cheating were used interchangeably to describe actions "which result in students giving or receiving unauthorized assistance in an academic exercise or receiving credit for work which is not their own" (Kibler et al., 1988, p. 1). Sykes and Matza (1957) concluded that neutralization techniques were employed before engaging in deviant acts. They suggested that cheaters would evaluate the

PAGE 20

situation and the grades they needed in order to maintain their eligibility before committing cheating acts. Individuals who committed these deviant actions typically abided by the norms established by society and specifically, to the rules established for their various sports. It was on certain occasions, where the rewards greatly outweighed the risks, that these athletes were presented with the opportunity to commit delinquent acts. The problem appears to center around the lack of institutional control regarding academic dishonesty (Aaron, 1992; Fass, 1986; Haines et al., 1986). Boundaries need to be established in order to preserve the integrity and values that have long been attributed to higher education (Fishbein, 1993; Kibler, 1993b, 1994; Pavela & McCabe, 1993). Kibler & Kibler (1993) claimed that "colleges need a comprehensive approach to the problem of academic dishonesty" (p. Bl). The understanding of neutralization theory should provide refortification of the original ideals encompassing institutions of higher learning. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education. Specifically, this study addressed the following questions. 1 Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level? 2. Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level?

PAGE 21

3. Does the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differ between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level? Glossary of Terms Academic dishonesty refers to the forms of cheating and plagiarism that involve students giving or receiving unauthorized assistance in an academic exercise or receiving credit for work that is not their own (Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, & Pavela 1988). Intercollegiate athletics distinguishes athletic competition between teams representing various institutions of higher learning. National Collegiate Athletic Association fNCAA) represents the governing body that formulates and polices numerous rules pertaining to the recruitment and retention of athletes. Neutralization theory refers to the seven rationalizations utilized by individuals as justification for their deviant actions (Sykes & Matza, 1957; Klockars, 1974; Minor, 1981). Non-athlete refers to a college student who does not participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics. Athlete refers to a college student who participates in intercollegiate varsity athletics. Techniques of neutralization will be used to describe any of the justifications utilized by delinquents.

PAGE 22

Delimitations & Limitations The following represent the delimitations and limitations of this study. Delimitations 1 This study only tested the deviant behavior of academic dishonesty. Results from this study should not be used to determine if neutralization theory could be applied to study other forms of deviant behavior. 2. Academic dishonesty was operationally defmed for the purpose of this study. Since different definitions of academic dishonesty exist, caution should be used when comparing the results of this study to other studies that utilize different defmitions for investigating academic dishonesty. Limitations 1 The study was conducted at a large public university located in the southeastern portion of the United States. Results may not generalize to other areas of the United States. 2. The fmdings of this study may not be generalizable to athletes at other institutions. 3. The study utilized a convenient sample. In order to assure that a proportionate number of athletes were represented in the study, certain classes with higher athletic enrollment, as well as various introductory level courses, were utilized in the study. 4. The questionnaire required the anonymous self-reporting of respondents. It has been suggested that the method of self-reporting may lead to underestimation (Scheers & Dayton, 1987). However, other researchers have maintained that self-

PAGE 23

17 reporting is an accurate method to collect data (Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981 ; HoUinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996). 5. The questionnaire was administered under the assumption that respondents would report on both the incidence of academic dishonesty and their ability to utilize various techniques of neutralization. The temporal occurrence of neutralization theory in relation to the delinquent act has been debated (Hames et al., 1986; Hamlin, 1988; Hirschi, 1969; LaBeffet al., 1990; Minor, 1984). Significance of the Study Researchers have found academic dishonesty to be rampant within institutions of higher learning (Davis et al, 1992; Kibler, 1993b; LaBeffet al., 1990; Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Tom & Borin, 1988). It has been reported that between 40% to 90% of all college students participated in various cheating acts (Jendrek, 1992; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995; Sims, 1995). Recently, McCabe and Trevino (1997) claimed that the number of students who cheated could be as high as 95%. Unfortunately, this trend of cheating practices was not new to institutions of higher education (Baird, 1980; McCabe, 1993; McCabe & Bowers, 1994; Michaels & Miethe, 1989). The statistics have been confirmed across different disciplines and throughout the country (Haines et al., 1986; Singhal, 1982; Tom & Borin, 1988). McCabe (1992) reported that 67% of students in selective colleges and universities throughout the country engaged in various forms of academic dishonesty. Mitchell and Wisbey (1995) reaffirmed this amount stating that 75% to 90% admitted to cheating in college on at least one occasion. This high percentage has forced many campuses to examine their pohcies regarding academic dishonesty and the ways in which these behaviors could be deterred.

PAGE 24

18 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Boyer, 1990) determined that academic dishonesty posed a serious threat to the educational community by undermining the integrity of the institution. Institutions should enforce adequate penalties and could not afford to ignore academic dishonesty or students could assume these types of behaviors to be acceptable. These problems should be deah with so that public support and confidence is not destroyed. Academic dishonesty research has typically fallen into two distinct categories of thought. The first area studied the personal characteristics of the cheaters. These factors have included gender, age, year in school, grade point average, academic major, parents' education, membership in a fraternity or sorority, and participation in extracurricular activities (Baird, 1980; Bamett & Dalton, 1981; Haines et al., 1986; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995). The second area of research examined various situational or contextual factors that could influence the prevalence of academic dishonesty (Kibler, 1993a; LaBeff et al, 1990; McCabe, 1992; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). College students are faced with many rigors of academic life. They are expected to balance academics and social and extracurricular activities equally in order to remain in school and to continue toward the pursuit of their degree. Instead of tummg toward acceptable academic solutions, such as improving study skills or utilizing tutors or mentors, many students are choosing to utilize various forms of academic dishonesty as the solution to their academic problems. Some students are forced and persuaded to obtain and maintain good grades. Some researchers believed that higher education has created a "survival of the fittest" (Kibler & Kibler, 1993, p. Bl) atmosphere where good grades served as the focal point of the educational experience (Drake, 1941).

PAGE 25

19 It has also been suggested that the widespread use of methods of academic dishonesty resulted from the student's own decision to value achievement and successful competition more than the desire to value independent scholarship (Kibler, 1993a). This has consequently led to the continued usage of dishonest measures because the academic community has failed to illustrate the value of independent scholarship to its students (Nuss, 1984). Students have also been reported to partake in academically dishonest acts as a method of coping with stress or other emotional problems. The pressure to obtain good grades from parents, relatives, coaches, friends and the institution itself has been cited as the leading reason many students turn to cheating (Bamett & Dalton, 1981). Students have also been reported to cheat because the opportunity existed, benefits outweighed risks, peer pressure, and/or low levels of academic achievement (Baird, 1980; Bamett & Dalton, 1988; Davis et al., 1992; Pass, 1986; Graham, Monday, O'Brien, & Steffen, 1994; Hartshome & May, 1928; LaBeffet al., 1990; Leming, 1980; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995). Students on large campuses have indicated that they tended to cheat due to their inability to identify with the institution, accompanied by feelings of diminished responsibility toward the institution and its codes of conduct. These negative images resulted m a decreased tendency to worry about cheating. "Some students assigned to classes beyond their actual competence cheat to survive" (Fishbein, 1993, p. A52). Other reasons may have existed behind the student's decision to cheat. In addition to the pressure to obtain good grades and compete, students may have cheated if there was an inconsistent application of academic regulations. Students also reported

PAGE 26

20 increased levels of cheating when they believed grading or course work procedures to be unfair, or when a high level of cheating by other classmates was perceived (Fass, 1 986). This study investigated if this reported pressure to succeed in both academics and athletics, coupled with strmgent NCAA academic regulations, had any bearing on the prevalence of academic dishonesty among Division I athletes. The results of this study provide information for educational administrators so that intervention programs can be established and maintained at various educational institutions. This study also investigated whether neutralization theory, could in fact be applied to the educational environment. This research examined whether cheating behavior can be rationalized by neutralization theory and what intervention methods should be taken to curb this delinquent behavior. This study investigated if this reported pressure to succeed, accompanied with various NCAA academic regulations, had any bearing on the prevalence of academic dishonesty among Division I athletes. A primary premise of Sykes and Matza's (1957) neutralization theory involved the notion that individuals had the ability to drift from moral commitment and conventional norms to deviant activities. It was not that the individual knew that these acts were deviant, it was that they chose to justify their tactics to cope with this drift. Instead of focusing on the negative aspects of academic dishonesty, educational administrators need to thoroughly mvestigate why students are able to justify cheating. Understanding neutralization theory may provide solutions to curbing the prevalence of academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning.

PAGE 27

21 Organization of Study Chapter I has included an introduction of the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, glossary of terms, delimitations and limitations, and the significance of the study. Chapter II provides a detailed review of the literature pertaining to neutralization theory and academic dishonesty, as well as a discussion on the inclusion of the athlete in the study. Chapter III provides an overview of the methodology and design utilized to study the research questions. Chapter IV reports the results and analyses of the obtained data. Chapter V provides a conclusion of the study, with a discussion of the results, implications for the educational field, and suggestions for future research.

PAGE 28

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education. Specifically, this study addressed the following questions. 1 Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level? 2. Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level? 3. Does the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differ between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level? This review of literature will recount the research detailing the responsibilities of institutions of higher education. Once these responsibilities have been established, this chapter will present an overview of the investigation into academic dishonesty. Also, a review of applicable theories of criminology will be presented, with special attention given to the theory of neutralization. Inclusive in this review will be the examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and techniques of neutralization. Finally, a brief overview of the history of the NCAA and intercollegiate athletics will be provided. Responsibility of Higher Education Colleges and universities have long been entrusted with the responsibility of providing its students will certain basic skills of scholarship. This educational purpose 22

PAGE 29

23 has been directed by the following responsibilities: (a) the university must allow for the identification, maturation, and enrichment of selfhood; (b) the discovery/construction, extension, and dissemination of knowledge and culture; and, (c) the well being of society (Long, 1992). The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1973) identified five purposes of higher education in the United States. (1) The provision of opportunities for the intellectual, aesthetic, ethical, and skill development of individual students, and the provision of campus environments which can constructively assist students in their more general developmental growth; (2) The advancement of human capability in society at large; (3) The enlargement of educational justice for the postsecondary age group; (4) The transmission and advancement of learning and wisdom; and, (5) The critical evaluation of society—through individual thought and persuasionfor the sake of society's self-renewal, (p. 1) The collegiate experience should provide students with the opportunity to mature and grow as individuals. Academic integrity was cited as being essential to achieve this goal of knowledge, development, intellectual competence, and moral development (Nuss, 1984). The moral and ethical development of students has been a paramount responsibility of educational administrators. Reynolds and Smith (1990) offered five responsibilities that professionals associated with colleges or universities were expected to perform. They should have assisted in the fulfillment of the educational mission. They should have strived to enhance the personal and educational development of other persons. Professionals needed to be compassionate, thorough, and fair when assessing the performance of others. Professionals were expected to exercise the authority of their ofiice with respect to others, but without abusing power. Finally, professionals must

PAGE 30

24 have conducted their practices while upholding virtue and competence. The moral and ethical development associated with college may also elicit changes within students. Chickering and Reisser (1993) identified seven vectors of development to explain the changes, as a result of college, that occurred within the student. These vectors, so named because of their direction and magnitude were developing competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose and, developmg integrity. Vector 1, Developing Competence involved an individual's quest to obtain competence in intellectual, manual or physical, and interpersonal relations. This vector enabled students to possess a sense of confidence in their ability to handle any situation that may arise and to successfully achieve goals. Vector 2, Managing Emotions, relied upon the individual's ability to manage various emotions involving sex, aggression, commitment, anxiety, depression, anger, shame, guilt and positive emotions. This understanding of emotions allowed an individual to develop and implement an internally adopted set of emotions separate from original reflexive responses. Vector 3, Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence afforded the individual the opportunity to develop competence without seeking approval or assistance from family or friends. Instead the individual recognized the importance of others and developed relationships based on mutual respect and helpfulness, ultimately resulting in a sense of interdependence.

PAGE 31

Vector 4, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships allowed individuals to increase their level of tolerance and respect for others of differing characteristics. Individuals possessed the capacity to mamtam quality interpersonal relationships. This ability to experience these relationships, along with the capacity to be tolerant, was the key component of this fourth vector. Vector 5, Establishing Identity served as the pivotal vector between the growth along the vectors of competence, emotions, autonomy, and positive relationships and the facilitation to the remaining two vectors. Within this vector, individuals defined themselves and their roles and behaviors in relation to others. Vector 6, Developing Purpose was required in order to expand competencies, identity, and interpersonal relationships. Chickering and Reisser (1993) theorized that individuals have computed future plans, goals, and interests. It was through the development of this plan that an individual was able to function within the sixth vector. Vector 7, Developing Integrity involved the clarification of personal ideals, values, and morals. Once the clarification and understandmg of an individual's beliefs had been obtained, the personal and ingrained system of values and principles was developed and incorporated into an individual's behaviors, actions, thoughts, and everyday life. Chickering and Reisser's (1993) theory examined the various changes in students that may be attributed to college. It was through the progression of these vectors that students were able to develop and formulate an identity of their own (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).

PAGE 32

26 The historical development of moral education and the subsequent development of an appropriate mode of reasoning originated approximately thirty years ago. Kohlberg (1971) introduced the idea of moral development as a cross-cultural theory, which could be utilized to understand the method in which people constructed their social or interpersonal reality. The basis for moral development functioned around sequential, hierarchical, and invariant stages. That is, individuals were able to move through the stages from beginning to end once the previous stage had been satisfied and by utilizing various traits from earlier stages. Kohlberg developed six cognitive stages of moral development to describe the modes of reasoning that directed various moral choices. These stages were divided into three levels, preconventional, conventional, and postconventional (Kohlberg, 1971, 1975). Kohlberg's primary concern throughout the six stages of moral development was justice. According to Kohlberg, moral judgment was a necessary but not sufficient condition for moral action. The first level, Preconventional consisted of the first two stages. Stage 1 allowed an individual to rely upon physical consequences to determine whether behavior was good or bad. The morality of this stage, referred to as the Obedience and Punishment Orientation," was punitive. That is, moral action was only the resuh of the abiding of various rules or laws in order to avoid the consequences of these violations. The second stage enabled an individual to decipher correct action as those that satisfy one's needs. It was through this "Naively Egoistic Orientation," where moraUty was instrumental, that the individual relied upon some sense of mutual assistance (Kohlberg, 1971, 1975). The second level. Conventional contained stages three and four. At Stage 3, the expectations of family and friends were taken into consideration without regard for the

PAGE 33

immediate consequences. This stage, referred to as the "The 'Good Boy' Orientation," allowed an individual to conform to the expectations of family, friends, and/or society. Although these expectations did not form a binding system of regulations, they allowed for the maintenance of trust and loyalty. Stage 4, referred to as the "Law and Order Orientation," allowed the individual to accept the authority of the system, including various rules and roles. Social order was paramount to this stage based on its reliability of an authoritarian position (Kohlberg, 1971, 1975). The Postconventional level, consisted of stages five and six and occurred only in those individuals and cuhures that valued morality and actions separate from personal interests or the authority of society. Stage 5, termed the "Contractual Legalistic Orientation," viewed morality as utilitarian. Individuals possessed a social contract that enabled them to challenge and change fixed laws for the larger good of the society. Moral obUgation arose from a sense of duty to family, friends, and/or society. Stage 6, the highest level on the moral development continuum, allowed individuals to fimction in an autonomous manner. At this stage, also referred to as the "Conscience or Principle Orientation," the highest value was placed on human life, equality, and dignity. Proper decisions were guided by personally directed ethical principles (Kohlberg, 1971, 1975). Kohlberg 's theory provided the framework in which to conceptualize an individual's progression of moral development and in deciphering the modes of reasoning that were utilized when moral choices were made (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Kliever (1990) connected the issue of moral development to fair play within intercollegiate athletics. It could be assumed that intercollegiate athletics should attempt to operate at the highest postconventional level of moral development. However, the

PAGE 34

moral ambivalence of the sports world and its participants has demonstrated a willingness to operate far beneath this level of moral development. The low morality commonly characterizing intercollegiate athletics has been the cornerstone for various ethical dilemmas and has caused concern within institutions of higher learning. The study of moral development as a primary responsibility of higher education has continued to receive attention. Rest (1979, 1985) proposed a four-prong framework for considering moral behavior and action in a particular situation. The model examined morality as a function of the cognitive, affective, and behavior processes. Component I, Moral Sensitivity involved the interpretation of a given situation and identification of possible courses of action. Component II, Moral Judgment referred to an individual's ability to make moral choices once ahernative courses of action have been identified. Component III, Moral Motivation allowed an individual to prioritize values and to choose a morally acceptable course of action. Component IV, Moral Behavior involved the execution and implementation of a plan of action that results in one's moral behavior. It was through this understanding of Chickering and Reisser's (1993) seven vectors, Kohlberg's (1971) theory of moral development, and Rest's (1979, 1985) theory of moral behavior that the concept of morality and integrity facing many college students today could be adequately appreciated. This ability to function at various ethical levels or stages while in college has led to many problems within higher education. A serious problem that has confronted and confounded administrators for many years and has continued to persist has been the issue of academic dishonesty. The capacity to value achievement and individual success should be balanced with the value of academic integrity in order to combat academic dishonesty. The value of independent scholarship

PAGE 35

should be identified, communicated, and appreciated (Aaron, 1992; Aaron & Georgia, 1994; Carnegie Council, 1979; Kibler, 1993a, b; Kibler, 1994; McCabe & Bowers, 1994; Nuss, 1984). Academic Dishonesty Introduction For many decades administrators have been baffled by the incidence of academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning. The Carnegie Council (1979) and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Boyer, 1990) concluded that academia was experiencing an ethical deterioration within its boundaries. Furthermore, "academic dishonesty is considered a significant problem because of its frequency, and because it interferes with conventional learning and evaluation processes" (Michaels & Miethe, 1989, p. 870). Academic dishonesty has been characterized as epidemic and endemic (Haines, Diekhofif, LaBeff, & Clark, 1986). It has been a constant problem on campuses across the United States, with no decline in prevalence noted. Some researchers have claimed that the problem of academic dishonesty within higher education was growing; however, others have argued that cheating has long been a issue within higher education (Baird, 1980; Jendrek, 1992; McCabe & Bowers, 1994; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Sims, 1995). Regardless of the exact calculation of its occurrence, students have turned to various measures of academic dishonesty as a means of progressing through their college cai-eers. Nuss (1984) claimed that students were more concerned with achievement and the ability to compete successfully than with the principles of academic integrity. The following has also been proposed.

PAGE 36

30 Academic dishonesty poses a serious threat to an educationally purposeful community by undermining an institution's integrity. Failure to provide and enforce adequate penalties in effect communicates a sanction to students, especially those who enter college with cheating patterns already m place. (Kibler, 1993a, p. 254) Opportunities in which the violation of moral and ethical expectations could occur were prevalent within institutions of higher learning (Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996). It has been stated that this problem of academic dishonesty was relevant to the entire academic environment: Universities need to consider the larger campus environment beyond the classroom An obvious step in this direction is to have rules that prohibit lying, cheating, stealing, violent behavior, interference with free expression, or other acts that breach fundamental norms. Such rules not only protect the rights and responsibilities of everyone in the community; they also signal the importance of basic obligations and strengthen habits of ethical behavior. (Bok, 1990, pp. 84-85) Academic Dishonesty Defined Although this study utilized Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, and Pave la's (1988) definition to describe academic dishonesty, many different definitions of academic dishonesty have been provided throughout the literature (Bamett & Dalton, 1981; Pass, 1986; Graham, Monday, O'Brien, & Steflfen, 1994; Hetherington & Feldman, 1964; Kibler, 1993a; Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Pavela, 1978). A commonly accepted definition, that has been utilized in this study, referred to academic dishonesty as "forms of cheating and plagiarism which result in students giving or receiving unauthorized assistance in an academic exercise or receiving credit for work which is not their own" (Kibler et al., 1988, p. 1). Generally, cheating has been described as a wide variety of behaviors that were deemed unethical (Bamett & Dalton, 1981). Academic cheating has

PAGE 37

31 also been referred to as "the fraudulent means of achieving scarce valued resources" (Michaels & Miethe, 1989, p. 870). The concept of academic dishonesty has historically received much attention. Hetherington and Feldman (1964) identified several different activities that may have constituted academic dishonesty, concluding that cheating could be categorized into four sections. The first of these sections, individualistic-opportunistic, represented cheating acts that were unplanned and impulsive. The second designation, individualistic-plarmed, referred to cheating that was a planned act. The third section, social-active, involved two or more people who instigated the act of cheating. Finally, the fourth category, socialpassive, mvolved two or more people with at least one allowing the other(s) to copy from his/her work. Pavela (1978) examined a code of academic honesty and proposed the following definitions in an attempt to unify types of academic dishonesty. Cheating : intentionally using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise; Fabrication : intentional and unauthorized falsification or invention of any information or citation in an academic exercise; Facilitation Academic Dishonestv : intentionally or knowingly helping or attempting to help another to violate a provision of this Code; and. Plagiarism : deliberate adoption or reproduction of ideas or words or statements of another person as one's own work without acknowledgment, (pp. 72-73) In order to clearly comprehend the threat that academic dishonesty has posed to higher education, researchers have stressed the importance of having a uniform definition

PAGE 38

32 and understanding of the actions and practices that constituted academic dishonesty. Once academic dishonesty has been defined, the variety of methods that constituted cheating must be identified. The most commonly viewed forms of cheating involved copying someone else's exam, turning in a paper that one did not write, looking at notes during an exam, taking an exam for someone else, and copying someone else's homework (Graham, Monday, O'Brien, & Steffen, 1994). Other incidents of academic dishonesty included alteriQg or forging an official document, making prior arrangements to give or receive answers during an exam, padding items on a bibliography, plagiarizing, "using cribsheets," and obtaining an advance copy of the exam (Barnett & Dalton, 1981; Kibler, 1993a). These definitions, regardless of their disparity, all described techniques for obtaining information in an unethical manner. Since the threat of academic dishonesty has continued to pose a serious problem to the foundation of morality within higher education, colleges and universities have been forced to implement and maintain an environment that has promoted a sense of responsibility, morality, values and ethics in an attempt to educate students about the moral and ethical issues associated with cheating (Kibler, 1993b; Kibler et al., 1988). Research in the area of academic dishonesty has led to an increased understanding in combating this persistent problem. History of Academic Dishonesty Extensive research has been conducted in the area of academic dishonesty. The majority of the literature has focused on two distinct areas, the first examined both individual differences or characteristics that cheaters possessed and the second studied

PAGE 39

33 the contextual or situational attributes of those who admitted to cheating (McCabe & Trevino, 1993). Research that examined the individual differences of cheaters assumed that students cheated because of their personal dispositions. The research has investigated various personal characteristics of cheaters. The personal factors which have been investigated for their influence on cheating behavior included gender, grade point average, work ethic. Type A behavior, academic major, membership in a fraternal organization, and self-esteem (McCabe, 1993; McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995). Baird (1980), a pioneer in the study of academic dishonesty, examined the relationship between sex, year in school, grade-point average, academic major, fraternitysorority membership, and extracurricular activities and the incidence of academic dishonesty in higher education. Baird concluded that males participated in cheating at a higher rate than females and that academic achievement was inversely related to the prevalence of academic dishonesty. It was also noted that fraternity and sorority members were more likely than non-members to participate in cheating, while active participants in extracurricular activities were more likely than infrequent participants to disapprove of dishonest acts. McCabe and Trevino (1997) proposed various hypotheses in an attempt to explain the individual differences among cheaters. For example, age and gender served as a factor in academic dishonesty. It was determined that academic dishonesty was inversely related to age and that males reported higher incidences of academic dishonesty than females. It was also concluded that academic dishonesty was inversely related to

PAGE 40

34 academic achievement. Finally, the researchers examined the affect of extracurricular activities on the prevalence of academic dishonesty, determining that the incidence of academic dishonesty was greater in those students that participate in intercollegiate athletics and other extracurricular activities than in students that were non-participants (McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Research has also focused on various personal characteristics of cheaters. It has been proposed that academic achievement was related to the incidence of academic dishonesty. In one of the earliest studies involving academic dishonesty, Drake (1941) found that an inverse relationship existed between cheaters and academic achievement. It was also concluded that fraternity and sorority members reported higher incidences of cheating than nonmembers (Drake, 1941; Parr, 1936). The results of these earlier studies were extended to examine academic achievement, personality, and fraternity or sorority membership (Bamett & Dalton, 1981; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995). The impact of religious participation on the incidence of academic dishonesty has also been examined (Sutton & Huba, 1995; Guttmann, 1984). The issue of extracurricular activities including athletics and their relationship with academic dishonesty has been explored (Bowers, 1964; Haines et al., 1986; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Bowers, and Haines et al., reported that athletes maintained a higher level of academic dishonesty than non-athletes. Bowers concluded that because intercollegiate athletes were in school and receiving athletic scholarship based on athletic abilities as opposed to academic abiUties, they would be more likely to participate in acts of academic dishonesty.

PAGE 41

35 The second branch of academic dishonesty research has focused on the contextual aspects of academic dishonesty. In one of the earhest studies involving academic dishonesty, Hartshome and May (1928) examined various situational aspects that may have promoted deception. Recent literature, which has investigated these contextual factors, has examined the presence of an honor code, faculty response to cheating, threat of sanctions, and social learning (McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Other situational characteristics that have been investigated included the size of the institution, seat location in class, difficulty of assignment, exam, or class, and teaching methods (Baird, 1980; Bamett & Dalton, 1981; LaBeff", Clark, Haines, & Diekhoff, 1990; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995; Nuss, 1984). Bamett and Dalton (1981) examined the various reasons that caused students to resort to cheating. They identified six factors that have been reported as having a significant influence on cheating behavior: (a) stress and the pressure to obtain good grades; (b) the environment; (c) intelligence levels; (d) personality; (e) lack of a clear, understood, and comprehensive defmition of cheating; and, (f) moral judgement and will. It was beheved that the contextual or situational aspects, which were open to administrative influence, could be altered and redefmed to better reduce the occurrence of academic dishonesty. It was hoped that this area of research would open new doors toward the imderstanding of, and possible solutions to the current problem (McCabe & Trevino, 1993). Researchers have examined the impact of peer behavior on academic dishonesty. Since students were more likely to witness cheating acts than faculty members, it has been implied that the reactions and actions of observing students would have a bearing on

PAGE 42

36 the decision of students to partake in acts of academic dishonesty (Jendrek, 1989, 1992). It has been concluded that misconduct would be deterred if a high level of risk was perceived (Leming, 1980; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). This notion of high risk has also been examined as a situational aspect that could affect the prevalence of academic dishonesty. Michaels and Miethe (1989) and Mitchell and Wisbey (1995) suggested that potential cheaters evaluated both the risks and the rewards of cheating and made decisions whether or not to participate in these deviant acts. If, in the opinion of the cheater, the situation was ideal for cheating, the cheater would have the inclination to commit acts of academic dishonesty. Students would evaluate the possible penalties they would face if their cheating was discovered and then, based on the fear of these penalties and the chances of being punished, they would choose to commit acts of academic dishonesty (Leming, 1980; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995). Research on academic dishonesty has revealed two categories of thought: demographic, representing the personal characteristics of cheaters, and situational documenting various contextual circumstances that caused individuals to participate in instances of academic dishonesty. Both branches of research have concluded that cheating behavior has been rampant in institutions of higher learning. The prevalence of academic dishonesty among college students has been reported to be as high as 95% (McCabe & Trevino, 1997). While other surveys have obtained varying results, all agreed that the problem has continued and should to be addressed through various solutions.

PAGE 43

Early research by Drake (1941) and Parr (1936) calculated a cheating rate of students of 23% and 42%, respectively. Bowers (1964) tabulated a rate of 50% among college students whereas Hetherington and Feldman (1964) recorded a cheating rate of 59%. Baird (1980) later surveyed college students and reported the rate of academic dishonesty to reach 76%. Most recently, HoUinger and Lanza-Kaduce (1996) reported a cheating rate of 68% and LaBeff et al. ( 1 990) discovered a rate of 54% in their self-report survey that measured cheating over the course of one college semester. Although it has appeared that the incidence of academic dishonesty has been increasing in recent years, other researchers have stated that the prevalence of academic dishonesty has continued to be a widespread problem while remaining at a consistent rate (McCabe & Bowers, 1 994). Regardless of the incidence of cheating within higher education, the issue has been prevalent and should be addressed. The magnitude of this problem has forced the investigation to determine why college students resorted to cheatmg tactics. Also, many institutions have developed and implemented strategies and educational programs to assist with the burden of academic dishonesty. Factors and Reasons for Academic Dishonesty Students have cited many different factors and reasons for committing acts of academic dishonesty. Early research by Drake (1941) investigated the explanations students gave for committing dishonest acts, and concluded that the competitive system of higher education forced students to cheat. The pressure and stress necessary to compete and succeed in this educational environment led many students to resort to academic dishonesty. In addition, Drake determined that interest in the specific class may have had an impact on the incidence of cheating. Based on these findings, Drake

PAGE 44

suggested an academic Utopia void of stress, strain, and competition would lead to a desire to learn and enjoy the college experience, thereby eliminating the need for academic dishonesty. Research has examined other reasons students give for committing acts of academic dishonesty. One reason commonly cited was the absence of any sort of fear of being caught and punished (Haines et al., 1986; LaBeflfet al., 1990; Kibler, 1993a; Nuss, 1984). Another reason given by students as a rationale for cheating was the pressure to obtain good grades from one's parents, family, or friends (Barnett & Dalton, 1981 ; Davis & Ludvigson, 1995; Pass, 1986; Kibler, 1993a; Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, & Pavela, 1988). A review of literature also suggested that students may have cheated due to the following reasons: failure to study, inconsistent institutional policies, class or professor difficulty, and/or fear of flunking the class or exercise (Kibler, 1993a; Pass, 1986; Fishbein, 1993; Davis & Ludvigson, 1995). In an attempt to assist educational administrations as they dealt with the problem of academic dishonesty, several factors that could contribute to the frequency of academic dishonesty have been identified (Kibler, 1993a). First, no clear definition of the behaviors and actions that constitute academic dishonesty existed. Second, the relevancy and importance of the material attempting to be learned has not been comprehended by the student. Third, the desire for the student to succeed at any and all costs was paramount. Fourth, the competitive nature of many graduate programs, disciplines, or professions required good grades for admission. Fifth, faculty members failed to adequately proctor exams or deviate assignments, providing a tempting situation for many students. Finally, many faculty members failed to properly comply with

PAGE 45

39 institutional disciplinary policies, thus reducing the risks associated with academic dishonesty and the threat of getting punished. Vague policies, lax testing procedures, and lenient penalties have increased the willingness of students to participate in cheating practices. Moreover, the academic community has failed to recognize and discuss the values of moral, personal, and academic integrity. This misunderstanding among students, faculty, and administrators has created an environment that failed to properly address academic dishonesty. Without reevaluating these values, students have continued to partake in dishonest behaviors, which has resulted in a failure to obtain effective scholarship (Kibler, 1993a). Preventions and Solutions In order to develop an effective and comprehensive approach to address this problem, institutions needed to profess the importance of academic integrity and individual scholarship (Aaron & Georgia, 1994; Boyer, 1990; Pass, 1986). A comprehensive approach was required to incorporate all constituents of the academic community in an attempt to effectively combat the problem of academic dishonesty (Kibler & Kibler, 1993). Researchers have suggested that institutions should have developed a clearly written academic dishonesty poUcy, offered opportimities to discuss such policies, established and publicized sanctions, and emphasized the importance of instructional settings (Kibler, 1993b). It has also been suggested that institutions "should design programs that address the emotional, as well as the disciplinary and educational, needs of student cheaters" (Kibler & Kibler, 1993, p. B2). These programs could be utilized to determine internal and external motivators utilized by cheaters. Discipline must be

PAGE 46

40 established to enforce the importance that the academic community places on integrity and also to contribute to the students' understanding of the community's standards. Educational programs would allow institutions to offer seminars and other classes that could assist in the enhancement of academic skills and would allow students to be better equipped to handle future ethical dilemmas. This comprehensive approach would not only allow students to imderstand why they may be tempted to cheat, but also to build self-esteem and to be prepared to succeed without the crutch of academic dishonesty. A modified model of the honor code system was employed at some institutions in an attempt to promote integrity and to reduce the incidence of academic dishonesty (Pavela & McCabe, 1993). This code called for the following guidelines. (1) Develop clear, specific defmition of academic dishonesty and employ them uniformly in all parts of the institutions. (2) Involve students in educating their peers about the importance of academic integrity, as well as in reporting and resolving academic dishonesty allegations. (3) Appeal to the students' sense of honor and personal integrity. (4) Reduce the temptations to engage in academic dishonesty. (5) Encourage teaching styles and examinations that call for active student classroom participation, and critical thinkmg rather than memorization. (6) Impose reasonable, but strict, penalties when academic dishonesty does occur. (7) Eliminate proceduralism in the resolution of academic dishonesty cases, (pp. 28-29) Institutions of higher learning have attempted to combat the difficulty of academic dishonesty by implementing honor codes. Research on the efficacy of the honor code in preventing academic dishonesty has found the lowest rates of cheating (McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Pavela & Trevino, 1993). A traditional honor code required students to pledge to abide by the honor code, as well as take responsibility for detection and sanctioning of academic dishonesty (Bowers, 1964). Furthermore, some researchers

PAGE 47

41 have proposed that honor codes may be an effective strategy for dealing with issues of academic dishonesty in both short term and long term sitixations (McCabe, 1993; McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Pavela & Trevino, 1993). The traditional honor code employed a variety of characteristics to combat the problem of academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning. Honor code systems included unproctored exams, pledges by students that they will conduct themselves in an honorable fashion, reportage of any situations which constitute academic dishonesty, and judicial procedures, led by students empowered with the responsibility of dealing with any infractions (McCabe & Trevino, 1993). McCabe and Trevino (1993) offered suggestions as to why cheating occurred less frequently at institutions that employed an honor code. First, because students usually pledged to abide by a specific code that clarified expectations and defined behaviors that constituted academic dishonesty, they were less likely to rationalize or justify cheating behavior. Secondly, the presence of an honor code shifted the crux of the responsibility from the faculty and administrators to the students. Students were usually given the responsibility to report and detect instances of academic dishonesty, as well as to assign appropriate penalties. The presence of this level of academic responsibility may have reduced the incidence of academic dishonesty. Finally, honor codes afforded students various privileges that they would be unwilling to forfeit. The desire to maintain these privileges may have affected the prevalence of academic dishonesty under honor code systems. Students and faculty must be cognizant and prepared to follow the ethical policies estabUshed by the institution. The differences in the perceptions and comprehension of

PAGE 48

42 academic dishonesty must be bridged between students and faculty. Researchers have attempted to examine the need for effective commimication strategies between students and faculty members (Nuss, 1984; Roth & McCabe, 1995). Other studies have attempted to evaluate and comprehend differing perceptions of academic dishonesty between students and faculty members (Jendrek, 1989, 1992; Sims, 1995). So that the problem of academic dishonesty could be adequately addressed, researchers have attempted to compare and integrate these two differing viewpoints. Jendrek (1989) concluded that regardless of the academic dishonesty code in place, faculty members preferred to handle incidents of academic dishonesty in a private manner, usually in an informal, one-on-one basis. In an attempt to explain such responses to incidences of trivial cheating, the following has been offered: "the number who do nothing is very small, but the number who do very little is very large" (Schneider, 1999, p. A8). In order to effectively combat the problem of academic dishonesty and enhance academic integrity on campus, the Carnegie Council (1979) and Nuss (1984) have suggested that institutions should develop a clearly defmed code of rights and responsibilities. They also proposed the development and publishing of sanctions and procedures to be utilized when resolving issues of academic dishonesty. Finally, after instances of academic dishonesty have been identified, corrective procedures should be in place to handle these problems. Pavela and McCabe (1993) proposed the following recommendations in an attempt to address the problem of academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning.

PAGE 49

43 (1) Education must extend beyond the boundaries of the classroom and into questions of values and ethics; (2) Consideration of ethical issues must include all campus constituencies, especially students; (3) Communication between students, faculty members, and administrators about academic integrity must be open and riskfree; (4) There must be a sense of shared values or responsibility for academic integrity among students and faculty; (5) Honor codes are only part of the answer and will not work on every campus. (6) A unique institutional character that is highly valued by students, faculty, and administrators alike is essential for promoting academic integrity; (7) Colleges and universities should concentrate on teaching values of integrity and honesty to their students rather than using resources only to 'police' student dishonesty; (8) The academic community must be supportive of students who choose to challenge academic dishonesty; and, (9) Although there is a place for pimishment, the emphasis should be on counseling and rehabilitation for most students. (pp. 31-32) The importance of understanding and controlling academic dishonesty has led to the development of various investigations into the attributes of the cheater, as well as the situations which promote academic dishonesty. The development of comprehensive educational programs and active participation by the entire academic community was necessary to address the deviant behavior of academic dishonesty within academia. Theories of Delinquency Social Bond Theory Over thirty years ago, Hirschi (1969) developed social bond theory as a method to investigate the relationship between the individual and society. Hirschi stated that deviant behavior was a result of the weakening of the individual's social bonds to society. The more weakened the groups to which [the individual] belongs, the less he depends on them, the more he consequently depends only on himself and recognizes no

PAGE 50

44 Other rules of conduct than what are founded on his private intellect, (p. 16) Thus, individuals with strong bonds to societal groups were less likely to engage in deviant behaviors. Hirschi identified four interrelated attributes of the social bond: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief The stronger these elements of social bonding with family and peers, the more an individual's behavior would be controlled by societal conformity. However, the weaker this bond, the more likely an individual would be to violate the law (Hirschi, 1969). Attachment referred to the psychological and emotional connection between an individual and significant others or groups. This connection involved the individual's sensitivity to the feelings of others. The second element, commitment, involved the personal investment of resources in conventional activities. This "rational component in conformity," (Hirschi, 1969, p. 20) reUed upon the notion that individuals became vested in abiding by the rules of society. They devoted time, energy, finances, and emotions in order to pursue and ultimately obtain various tasks. When deciding to commit a crime, the individual must have evaluated potential risks and costs associated with nonconformity. The third element, involvement, operated on the principle that the more tune allotted to the participation in conventional activities, the less time there would be for the individual to be involved in deviant activities. Individuals participated in academic, athletic, religious, and/or other conventional activities as an alternative to delinquent behavior. The fourth element, belief, referred to the acceptance of the moral validity of conventional norms and values. That is, because of the existence and acceptance of a common system of values, an individual would abide by the norms of

PAGE 51

45 society. It was assumed that individuals would not violate standards once they believed in their present system of values. Social bond theory proposed that through the attachment component, individuals would have the ability to internalize societal norms and develop a conscience. The likelihood of deviancy decreased when the bond of attachment existed between friends or family, regardless of the character of those individuals. Thus, as long as attachment existed, the violation of conventional norms would be minimal. The commitment attribute of the theory supported the notion that in an attempt to remain within the good graces of society and maintain a respectable reputation, individuals were expected to refrain from committing deviant activities. The assumption that individuals were too busy to commit deviant actions was the basis of the involvement element of social bond theory. Finally, the belief element concluded that the less an individual believed a rule should be obeyed, the lower his/her moral validity of the rule, and consequently, the greater the probability of violating that rule (Akers, 1997; Curran & Renzetti, 1994; Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Theory of Differential Association Differential association theory was initially presented to explain the procedures individuals utilized to commit crimes. The theory implied that conflict and social disorganization were the underlying causes of crime, and that they determined the patterns of differential association. Sutherland (1947) elaborated on this original proposal, while disregarding the concepts of conflict and social disorganization. The result was the development of nine statements utilized to refer to the process by which an individual could have the ability to engage in crimmal behavior.

PAGE 52

46 1 Criminal behavior is learned. 2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. 3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate groups. 4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple, and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. 5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from defmitions of the legal codes as favorable or imfavorable. 6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. 7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. 8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. 9. Although criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, because noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values, (pp. 6-7) Sutherland's theory of differential association was considered to be the most systematic and influential interpersonal theory of deviant behavior as it integrated the basic concepts of sociology and criminology (Curran & Renzetti, 1994). The theory utilized the concept of cultural conflict in which discrepancies in the conduct norms of various cultures may have caused the violation of certain laws. When individuals in subcultures followed the conduct of their groups as opposed to the conduct of the dominant culture, they were acting in violation to the law while following the unacceptable conduct of their subculture (Curran & Renzetti).

PAGE 53

47 The term differential association referred to the discrepancy between two types of existing definitions of desirable behaviors. In any society, two different codes existed presenting contradictory definitions at different times and situations. These associations were consequently unequal and may have varied in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. The theory of differential association explained not only an individual's participation in delinquent activities, but also the groups' and societal variations in criminal activity (Curran & Renzetti, 1994). Social Learning Theory Akers (1985) adapted social learning theory to explain delinquent behaviors. Social learning theory retained all of the differential association processes in Sutherland's theory and integrated such ideas "with differential reinforcement and other principles of behavioral acquisition, continuation, and cessation" (Akers, 1997, p. 62). Social learning theory "emphasized the reinforcement of deviant behavior in primary groups rather than the threat of formal punishment from conventional society" (Michaels & Miethe, 1 989, p. 873). It has been postulated that social learning theory consisted of two interrelated components. The first was dependent upon the perceived support obtained from primary groups for deviant behaviors. The second was related to individuals' definitions, perceptions, or attitudes concerning deviant behavior. It could then be expected that deviant behavior would form from the reinforcement and support of deviant members of an individual's group. Akers capsulized social learning theory as follows. [T]he principal behavioral effects come from interaction in or under the influence of those groups with which one is in

PAGE 54

48 differential association and which control sources and patterns of reinforcement, provide normative definitions, and expose one to behavioral models. ... Deviant behavior can be expected to the extent that it has been differentially reinforced over alternative behavior (conforming or other deviant behavior) and is defmed as desirable or justified when the individual is in a situation discriminative for the behavior. (Akers, 1985, p. 58) Akers (1997) hypothesized that the probability of criminal behavior was a result of the dysfiinctional balance among variables that motivated and controlled deviant behavior and those variables that promoted and undermined conformity. Akers identified four major concepts when explaining the learning process: differential association, defmitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation. Differential association referred to the process in which individuals were exposed to favorable or unfavorable definitions of behaviors which would affect the priority, duration, frequency, and intensity of academic dishonesty. Within this process, two dimensions existed. The interactional dimension referred to the direct or indirect contact and identification with individuals or groups that engaged in various types of behavior. The normative dimension described the varying patterns of norms and behaviors that individuals could be exposed to through this association. These groups provided the social contexts in which the mechanisms of social learning operated. Akers' concept of defmitions referred to an individual's personal attitudes or meanings that were associated with a given behavior. Definitions represented the rationalizations, orientations, situational definitions, and other evaluative and moral attitudes that determined if the commission of an act was good or bad, right or wrong, justified or unjustified, and desirable or undesirable (Akers, 1997). These defmitions included both general and specific beliefs. General beliefs referred to the conventional

PAGE 55

49 values and norms that were in accordance with conforming behavior but unfavorable to the commission of deviant acts. Specific defmitions corresponded to particular actions or behaviors. It was through the understanding of these negative and positive beliefs that individuals had the ability to engage in conventional behaviors as well as neutralize deviant behaviors. The third concept, differential reinforcement, referred to the consequences of certain behaviors. A balance existed between the anticipated or actual rewards and punishments. The probability that an mdividual committed a deviant act was based on the past, present, and future rewards and punishments. This probability may have been increased if various delinquent behaviors were rewarded through positive reinforcement. The amount, frequency, and probability of these methods of reinforcement may have affected the possibility of future deviant activities. Finally, imitation referred to the participating or modeling of behavior as it was viewed in others. The behavior would be based on the characteristics of these models, of observed behavior, and the observed consequences of the specific behavior. These models played an important role in the initial development of behaviors as well as in the maintenance of these behaviors (Akers, 1997). Deterrence Theory Almost twentyfive years ago, Gibbs (1975) examined deterrence theory to comprehend the relationship between the principles of celerity, certainty, and severity of punishments with the commission rates for particular crimes. It has been suggested that the crime rate varied inversely with these aforementioned principles of deterrence theory. Gibbs suggested that behavior was inhibited or deterred based on the actual or perceived

PAGE 56

50 probability and severity of punishment. Deterrence theory utilized two approaches to measure the severity and certainty of deviant penalties. The first approach involved objective indicators to evaluate and document the rate and existence of penalty. The severity of this punishment may be examined by comprehending past penalties or sentences. Deterrence theory claimed that when the objective severity and certainty of criminal punishments were high, actual crime rates would be low (Gibbs, 1975). The second measurement technique explored an individual's subjective perceptions of legal sanctions. This approach relied on the belief that if individuals were fearful of the potential punishments, regardless of accuracy, they would be less likely to commit delinquent acts. That is, it was more common for individuals to perceive sanctions than to know exactly what these punishments would be. It was this threat of what potentially could happen that prevented individuals from the commission of deviant activities. In short, deterrence theory referred to the potential threat of punishment. It was this objective or subjective threat that deterred individuals from committing deviant acts. If the perceived threat of punishment and consequences prevented the commission of delinquent behavior, then individuals had effectively utilized the principles of deterrence theory (Akers, 1997). The notion that delinquent actions, including academic dishonesty, were inversely related to the risk of detection has received much support (LaBeflf, Clark, Haines, & Diekhofif, 1990; Michael & Miethe, 1989). Rational Choice Theory Researchers have claimed that deterrence theory failed to address the rewards, returns, and opportunities component in determining whether individuals committed

PAGE 57

51 deviant activities (Akers, 1997; Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Rational choice theory evaluated both the perceived probabilities and magnitudes of both rewards and punishments. An individual must have evaluated and balanced these factors when determining whether to commit a deviant act (Akers, 1997; Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Rational choice theory has led to the development of "models of partial rationality that incorporate limitations and constraints on choices through lack of information, moral values, and other influences of criminal behavior" (Akers, 1997, p. 25). This economic theory provided some insight into the thought processes associated vnth certain crimmals. These aforementioned five criminological theories have attempted to explain why deviant persons committed criminal behaviors. These theories have addressed the influence of peer groups or subcultures, reinforcement, risks and rewards, and the potential for punishment, as well as other factors that may have influenced or prohibited delinquent behaviors. These theories of delinquency have presented valuable information that could be applied to a variety of situations including those within institutions of higher learning. The following theory attempted to provide some additional insight into the justifications that deviants utilized when participating in delmquent behavior. The foundation of neutralization originated as a means for examining and understanding the various rationalizations utilized by individuals before they committed deviant acts (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Contained within the origmal discussion of neutralization theory were five techniques of neutralization that individuals utilized to justify their deviant behaviors. Neutralization theory has been investigated extensively and was re-examined by Klockars (1974) and Minor (1981) who amended the original theory by offering two additional techniques of neutralization.

PAGE 58

52 Neutralization Theory Neutralization theory was classified as a social learning theory, in that the deviant behavior was learned through observing and understanding the norms and values associated with this type of behavior. The foundation for neutralization theory was developed over forty years ago as an attempt to clarify and comprehend both Sutherland's (1947) differential association theory and Cohen's (1955) subcultural theory of juvenile delinquency. The historical framework of neutralization theory was derived from the proposition that delinquent individuals learned these deviant behaviors through the process of social interaction. The notion that criminals learned various techniques for committing crimes, as well as the motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes associated with these violations, was adapted from Sutherland's theory of differential association. Cohen proposed that a delmquent subculture existed in which the laws, norms, and values held by conventional society were reversed. This "delmquent subcuhure" facilitated non-conventional and counterproductive values and norms. Consequently, this delinquent subcuhure resuhed in the building, mamtaining, and reinforcing of a code of behavior which existed in opposition to the dominant values of society (Sykes & Matza, 1957). In an attempt to further explore and expound upon the principles set forth by Sutherland and Cohen, Sykes and Matza (1957) proposed some questions pertaining to differential association theory and the theory of a deviant subculture. First, within the confines of the delinquent subcuhure, the absence of guilt or shame was often replaced with a sense of martyrdom. However, because it was common to feel guih or shame after committmg a deviant activity, the idea of a deviant subculture was questioned. Second, it

PAGE 59

53 had been observed that delinquents may admire or respect law-abiding members of conventional society. It appeared as though these delinquents could recognize moral validity contained within conventional society. Third, delinquents differentiated between those individuals that could be victunized and those that could not. It was beUeved that certain individuals or groups should not be victimized. The potential for victimization could be directly related to the relationship with the delinquent. That is, the stronger the relationship that existed between a potential victim and the delinquent, the less likely that the delinquent would commit the deviant act on that person. The fact that delinquent behavior was often directed against only certain types of societal groups supported the notion that delinquents understood and recognized the wrongdoing associated wdth delinquent behavior. Fourth, it was expected that the delinquent would not be totally immune from the demands of conformity associated with conventional society. In short, Sykes and Matza (1957) claimed the following. [T]he juvenile delinquent would appear to be at least partially committed to the dominant social order in that he frequency exhibits guilt or shame when he violates its proscriptions, accords approval to certain conforming figures, and distinguishes between appropriate and inappropriate targets for his deviance, (p. 666) Furthermore, Sykes and Matza (1957) made the following argument in an attempt to understand and explam juvenile delinquency. Delinquency is based on what is essentially an unrecognized extension of defenses to crimes, in the form of justifications for deviance that are seen as valid by the delinquent but not by the legal system or society at large, (p. 666) Neutralization theory suggested that these justifications allowed individuals to deflect or neutralize disapproval prior to the commission of delinquent behaviors, which

PAGE 60

54 in effect released them from blame or guilt. Consequently, these neutralization techniques facilitated deviation by weakening moral constraints on individuals. These techniques of neutralization, which represented an individuals' system of beliefs and values, allowed an individual to become deviant within a moral and dominant society without experiencing incidences of blame or guilt while also maintaining an adequate perception of self-image. Sykes and Matza (1957) identified the following five techniques of neutralization theory: denial of responsibility denial of injury denial of victim condemnation of the condemners and appeal to higher loyalties Denial of responsibility allowed delinquents to claim that their actions were the result of forces beyond their control. The delinquent refused to accept responsibility for his/her actions, claiming that the delinquent behavior was a result of external factors (e.g., unloving parents, bad companions, or a poor neighborhood). "By learning to view himself as more acted upon than acting, the delinquent prepares the way for deviance from the dominant normative system without the necessity of a frontal assault on the norms themselves" (Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 667). Denial of injury focused on the injury or harm associated with the delinquent act. It was assumed that the delinquent differentiated between acts that were wrong and those that were illegal but not immoral. The delinquent may have determined whether anyone had in fact been injured. It was expected that although the delinquent determined that the deviant behavior was against the law, the absence of any great harm to others allowed the act to be committed without guilt. This type of deviant behavior would not cause any great harm even though it ran counter to the law.

PAGE 61

55 D enial of victim asserted that delinquent behavior was acceptable under certain circumstances. The behavior may be viewed as a form of rightful retaUation or punishment. The lack of a concrete victim would also increase the existence of this neutralization technique. Condemnation of the condemners occurred when the delinquent shifted attention from personal motives and behavior to the motives and behavior of those that disapproved of the delinquent actions. These condemners were viewed as hypocrites, due to their own deviant behavior. In essence, delinquents effectively reversed or deflected the negative sanctions associated with their deviant behavior. For example, delinquents may have claimed that society consisted of hypocrites, that the police were corrupt, stupid, and brutal, that teachers exhibited favoritism, and that parents "take it out" on their children. The motives and actions of others were questioned allowing the wrongfixlness of the delinquent's behavior to be repressed (Sykes & Matza, 1957). A ppeal to higher loyalties involved the possible sacrificing of conventional norms and behavior in place of the accepted norms and behavior of a delinquent's social group or peers. It was expected that the delinquent would define the deviant behavior in a manner that would result in a justifiable act. The delinquent would not necessarily refuse conventional norms; instead, the delinquent would feel obligated to abide by the norms of these social groups which took precedence regardless of their conventionality. This dichotomy between claims of friendship and belonging and claims of law resulted in the neutralization of delmquent behaviors (Sykes & Matza, 1957). It was through the utilization of these five techniques of neutralization that delinquents have had the ability to be productive members of conventional society while

PAGE 62

56 they continued to exhibit and justify their deviant behaviors. As a result of their use, these techniques of neutraUzation enabled individuals to have the ability to lessen the effectiveness of societal controls (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Other researchers have suggested amendments to these techniques developed by Sykes and Matza (1957). Klockars (1974) suggested that deviants might have justified their delinquent acts through a process referred to as the metaphor of ledger This technique focused on the notion that deviants accumulated credit by participating in various good deeds. Once enough good credit had been earned, the delinquent had the right to commit a deviant activity. It was through this counterbalancing between good and evil that an individual was allowed to commit a deviant act (Klockars, 1974; Minor, 1981). Minor (1981) added a seventh technique of neutralization, defense of necessity to the original theory of neutralization. Through this method of justification, delinquents viewed their deviant activities as being necessary. Even if the act was considered morally wrong, the deviant would not experience guilt or remorse since the commission was considered to be a necessity. This may have included instances of white-collar crime, business dealings, or beliefs associated with abortion (Minor, 1981). Neutralization theory may be viewed as an extension of various defenses to crimes. The criminal accepted these techniques as justifications for the commission of deviant activities, whereas the legal system, as well as society as a whole, viewed the acts as unacceptable and morally wrong (Hirschi, 1969). This absence of moral commitment enabled the delinquent to overlook pre-existing values and to participate in deviant acts or exhibit delinquent behavior (Thurman, 1984). Delinquents had the ability to violate

PAGE 63

57 the norms of society without experiencing any blame or guilt, while they maintained a proper perception of self-image (Ball, 1966; Friedman, 1974; Mitchell & Dodder, 1983). On some occasions, the delinquent was transformed into the avenger whereas, the victim was viewed as the wrongdoer. In turn, the delinquent viewed the victim as morally inferior and deserving of the deviant behavior (Hollinger, 1991). It was through the utilization of these techniques of neutralization that delinquents released any associations with the law (Austin, 1977). In order to properly understand neutralization theory, two underlying principles must be addressed. First, it has been hypothesized that techniques of neutralization occurred prior to the commission of deviant activities. These justifications enabled the deviant to alleviate moral constraints that served as both motivators and fecilitators of the delinquent acts. Second, there was a sknilarity between techniques of neutralization and mitigating circumstances such as self-defense, accident, and insanity. Neutralization theory proposed that delinquents usually understood and abided by the laws and norms of society, but were likely to commit deviant acts due to extenuating circumstances. It was the utilization of these techniques of neutralization that permitted delinquents to negate various offenses and avoid accepting responsibility for their actions. Once various attitudes and behaviors were neutralized, individuals were free to drift into deUnquency, experiencing the motivation to commit deviant acts (Curran & Renzetti, 1994), Although individuals had the capacity to commit delinquent acts, the question of why delinquency initially appeared attractive has been tendered. It appeared that deUnquents possessed a set of subterranean values that were in conflict with other dominant values but were supported by other subgroups (Curran & Renzetti, 1994).

PAGE 64

Agnew and Peters (1986) hypothesized that in order for techniques of neutralization to lead to deviance, individuals must have accepted these various techniques and perceived that they were in a situation that required the use of these chosen techniques. It has been stated that the "first dimension can be viewed as a predisposing factor toward deviance; the second dimension can be viewed as the situational factor that ignites the deviant act" (Agnew & Peters, 1986, p. 83). Criticism of Neutralization Theory Neutralization theory has received extensive attention from researchers. The original theory as proposed by Sykes & Matza (1957) has been criticized in its principles and basis as an adequate model to describe the delinquent. Minor (1984) and Hirschi (1969) claimed that a "hardening process" occurred in which the development of excuses led to the facilitation of future delinquency. It was the utilization of these post hoc rationalizations that may have served as the foundation for neutralization in future instances of delinquency. It has been suggested that earlier research supporting the empirical value of neutralization theory failed to differentiate between the effects of neutralization from the effects of general moral evaluations. Deviance may have occurred because of an absence of moral beliefs as well as through the usage of neutralization techniques. Some studies have failed to collect data in a temporal sequence, since current moral beliefs were related to past deviant behavior (Minor, 1980, 1981). These studies failed to address the notion that techniques of neutralization preceded the commission of deviant acts. However, the notion that the relationship between neutralization and excusing verbalization was unidirectional has been scrutinized (Hirschi, 1969; Minor, 1984).

PAGE 65

59 The notion that the temporal relationship between moral beliefs and deviant acts may in fact be reversed from the order originally proposed by neutralization theory was supported by Hirschi (1969). [T]he assumption that delinquent acts come before justifying beliefs is the more plausible causal ordering with respect to many of the techniques of neutralization, (p. 208) Hirschi flirther concluded, "since a boy may commit delinquent acts episodically over an extended period of time, there is every reason to believe that neutralizations in some sense resulting from the earlier acts are causes of later acts" (Hirschi, 1969, p. 208). That is, an individual developed a series of neutralizing beliefs that resulted in the "hardening process" (p. 208). Hamlin (1988) claimed that neutralization techniques would be more likely to occur after the commission of the deviant act. Additionally, Hamlin posited that behavior "may be more controlled by structure and habit than by reason" (p. 429). It was deduced that rationality may not be necessary since individuals were expected to drift from delinquent and non-delinquent behavioral patterns (Hamlin, 1988). Also, a discrepancy was noted between the rate of commitment to deviant acts between delinquents and nondehnquents (Curran & Renzetti, 1994). The discussed criticisms primarily focused on the debate surrounding the occurrence of various techniques of neutralization. Regardless of which actually occurred first, the neutralization technique or the deviant act, it was evident that neutrahzation theory provided an in-depth foundation into the rationalizations that delmquents utilized in an effort to free themselves from blame and conventional norms so they could have committed acts of delinquency.

PAGE 66

60 Originally, Sykes and Matza (1957) developed the theory in an attempt to explain juvenile delinquency. Neutralization theory, however, has also been studied regarding to other areas of society. Dodder and Hughes (1987, 1993) attempted to explain the justification procedures in instances of collegiate drinking. HoUinger (1991) examined neutralization theory as it relates to workplace theft and production deviance. Neutralization theory has also been examined as it related to acts of violence (Agnew, 1994). Neutralization theory was also investigated in an attempt to better understand abortion (Brennan, 1974). Finally, the relationship between neutralization theory and the examination of the various methods utihzed to justify and calculate the prevalence of academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning has also been examined. This research has focused on the relationship between the incidence of academic dishonesty and the utilization of neutralization theory (Haines et al., 1986; LaBefif et al., 1990; McCabe, 1992; Folding, 1995). Academic Dishonesty and Neutralization Theory Few researchers have examined the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty. The research has examined either the demographic characteristics of cheaters or the situational aspects that influenced cheating among college students. Both areas of research involved the examination of neutrahzation theory and any potential affect it may have had on the prevention of academic dishonesty (Haines et al., 1986; LaBefif et al., 1990; Liska, 1978; McCabe, 1992; Folding, 1995). Over twenty years ago, Liska (1978) set the foundation for research examming the relationship between deviant attitudes, associations, and behaviors within college cheating. The models examined in Liska's study rehed on various social processes,

PAGE 67

61 including socialization, interpersonal social control, and social selection, as well as psychological processes, which examined the attitudinal impact on behavior. Socialization referred to the process of learning attitudes through group interaction. Interpersonal social control consisted of behaviors that were influenced by various cost and rewards. Social selection referred to the process of selecting associations based on individual attitudes or behavior. It was suggested that "the effect of attitudes on deviant behavior increases as the level of neutralization decreases" (Liska, 1978, p. 75). Liska (1978) measured deviant associations by examinmg the approval rate of parents, faculty, and peers in regard to cheating behavior. Personal attitude was obtained by tabulating responses on the basis of individual approval or disapproval patterns. Liska determined that social and psychological processes provided valuable insight into the specific patterns of deviancy. These associations should be examined in order to comprehend the causal relationships between deviant behavior and associations and attitudes. Folding (1995) concluded that the utilization of neutrahzation techniques differed between gender, as males reported a higher degree of cheating than females. Folding also found a positive relationship existed between neutralization and cheating. It was also suggested that student affairs administrators should make accommodations to deal with the problem of academic dishonesty. It would be through the implementation and maintenance of various educational programs, that collegiate students would be directed on the moral, conventional, and honest path. Other researchers have examined the influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students (Haines et al., 1986; LaBeffet al, 1990; McCabe, 1992).

PAGE 68

Situational ethics may be utilized to explain the relationship between academic dishonesty and neutralization theory. LaBeff et al. (1990) examined these situational ethics in a population of college students. They concluded that the utilization of neutralization technique[s] "convey the message that students recognize and accept cheating as an undesirable behavior, which, nonetheless, can be excused under certain circumstances" (p. 196). Neutralization theory afforded cheaters the opportunity to believe that although academic dishonesty was morally wrong it may have been acceptable or necessary in a given situation. In a study of situational ethics and academic dishonesty, LaBeff et al. (1990) found that deviants utilized the following techniques of neutralization at higher rates than non-deviants: denial of responsibility appeal to higher loyalties and condemnation of the condemners. The authors hypothesized that since academic dishonesty did not require any "real" targets or victims, the justifications, denial of injury and denial of victim would not be utilized. Nonetheless, McCabe (1992) proposed that college cheaters might have utilized the original techniques of neutralization because academic dishonesty represented a victimless crime. The notion that neutralization theory provided viable justifications for academic dishonesty was supported among college students. Haines et al. (1986) determined that neutralization theory was fundamental to cheating and could be characterized as a common attribute found among cheaters. Cheaters were also more likely to lack investment in their education. Students who did not pay for their tuition and/or books were more likely to commit acts of academic dishonesty. An explanation for this relationship may be due to the high participation in

PAGE 69

extracurricular activities or a minimal amount of time devoted toward studying, which usually resulted in a low grade point average. Consequently, it has been recommended that future research examine factors that contributed toward the lack of commitment to academics (Haines et al., 1986). In summary, neutralization theory has received extensive scrutiny within the arena of higher education. Researchers have concluded that college students utilized techniques of neutralization in an attempt to justify their commission of deviant activities (Haines et al, 1986; LaBefifet al., 1990; Liska, 1978; McCabe, 1992; Folding, 1995). In each study, students were aware that academic dishonesty was wrong; however, they persisted in their deviant behavior in an attempt to satisfy their drives and attitudes, while minimizing any feelings of guilt or blame. Intercollegiate Athletics Intercollegiate athletics have long been a principle extracurricular activity within higher education. During the end of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries, intercollegiate sports continued to gain popularity. In an attempt to infiltrate the athletic culture, college presidents from the large Midwestern imiversities of Chicago, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Minnesota, and Northwestern created the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives in 1895. Some years prior to this, however, Princeton and Harvard independently formed faculty athletic committees. While these early attempts to gain control of athletics were met with resistance, students reluctantly accepted the formation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA, in 1905 (Gerdy, 1997; Rader, 1999; Smith, 1995).

PAGE 70

64 Intercollegiate athletics were initially incorporated into higher education because of the belief that the existence of such programs, legitimized the institution as a major, "big-time," university (Gerdy, 1997). The expanding market provided institutions with the opportunity to gain national prestige and notoriety. The notion that a successful athletic program could lead to important publicity and increased financial revenue for the institution became a cornerstone for many college administrators. Sports also assisted in the unification of an ever-increasmgly diverse student population. Researchers have argued that participation in intercollegiate athletics may have led to the development of certain skills that may not be accessible in the classroom or through the use of textbooks (Gerdy, 1 997). These scholars claimed that athletes utilized sports as a vehicle to acquire the principles of teamwork, discipline, and perseverance. Although these attributes of higher education were initially accepted, the reason for incorporating athletics into higher education dealt prunarily with the generating of additional revenues for the institution (Gerdy, 1997). Gerdy (1997) described three foundational reasons for incorporating athletics into higher education: (1) to generate revenue, visibility, and prestige; (2) to provide entertainment and unification of the student population; and, (3) to develop character among the athletes. First, intercollegiate athletics often increased visibility and prestige. However, this did not necessarily lead to an increase in financial revenues. While it has been documented that all athletic departments did not make money, the visibility that certain schools received was not entirely positive (Gerdy, 1997). Second, athletics provided a popular form of entertainment. However, the notion that athletics unified an institution has been questioned. That is, a quality educational program should not be

PAGE 71

65 entirely defined by a winning athletic team (Gerdy, 1997). Finally, the notion that character was built through participation in sports must be promoted regardless of its validity in order to ensure the continued placement of intercollegiate athletics. While, studies have suggested that athletes may have lower moral and ethical reasoning skills than their non-athlete counterparts, Gerdy stated that revenue-producing athletes have a significantly lower level of moral development than their peers or non-revenue generating athletes. Moreover, these revenue-generating athletes were not dysfunctional in athletic terms; rather, they had the ability to mask their moral reasoning processes (Gerdy). Kliever (1990) incorporated Kohlberg's theory of moral development mto the intercollegiate athletic arena to address deficits in moral development. Competitive sports can be carried out quite effectively at the lower levels of moral maturity. Sports participants and spectators need know nothing of higher fundamental ethical principles provided they have a lively fear of punishment (stage 1) or a prudent sense of reciprocity (stage 2). Even at its best, the morality of competitive sports seldom offers more than the reinforcement for a conformist morality of system maintenance (stage 3) or an authoritarian morality of fixed rules (stage 4). (p. 109) The degree of moral development within intercollegiate athletics suggested that a level of reform was needed. Regardless of the moral level in which sport was carried out, "current systems of institutional control and sanctions for rules violations must be strengthened" (Kliever, 1990, p. 115). In order to be successful, the responsibility for institutional control must involve all represented parties, including the president of the institution and its athletic director, administrators, and coaches. Enforcement of rules violations was the responsibility of the athletic program and must be solidified. It was

PAGE 72

also suggested that the common perpetrators of these transgressions, the athletes, needed to be more accountable for their wrong-doings and subjected to increased punishments. Only with the threat of losing athletic eligibility or financial aid would cheating among athletes begin to subside (Kliever, 1990). At the end of the twentieth century, as intercollegiate sports continued to increase in popularity, the place of athletics in higher education needed resolution (Smith, 1988). The Brown Conference of 1 898 was convened in an attempt to organize intercollegiate athletics. Faculty, alumni, and undergraduate representatives from seven colleges met to discuss various issues prevalent within athletics. Through this meeting, a special committee composed of seven facuhy members was developed to address issues of eligibility, transfer poUcies, payment, and other items prevalent within intercollegiate athletics. In turn, this committee developed twenty rules that gave "colleges throughout the United States athletic guidelines as they worked toward faculty athletic control" (Smith, 1988, p. 142). The Brown Conference Committee Report attempted to ensure (a) institutional control with faculty direction; (b) utilization of authentic college students; (c) length of athletic eligibility; (d) control of practices and contests; and (e) the development of an amateur code to combat professionalism in college athletics. "In general, the Brown Conference Report of 1 898 came out strongly in favor of faculty and athletic committee control of truly amateur contests, in which bona fide athletes would participate without excessive commercialism" (Smith, 1988, pp. 143-144). In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt invited selected coaches, faculty, and alumni from the Big Three (Harvard, Yale, and Princeton) to attend a conference at the

PAGE 73

67 White House with the intent of "teach[ing] young men to play football honesty" (Rader, 1999, p. 180). Although Roosevelt was an advocate of "manly" sports, he demanded that the brutality and foul play be removed from the game (Baker, 1982, p. 201). However, even after the conference, brutality in football continued. During the 1905 season, it was reported that 18 college and secondary students had lost their lives and 159 individuals had been injured competing in football (Rader, 1999). In response, some schools aboUshed the sport ahogether, others choose to institute athletic alternatives, or restrict competition. After the death of a football player during competition, the chancellor of New York University, Henry McCracken called for a conference mandating the abolition or reformation of football. McCracken was imder the opinion that the reformation of the game would not occur under the current Rules Committee (Rader, 1999). The committee decided to reform football within intercollegiate athletics. Rule changes were discussed to end dangerous, brutal, and mass plays. The committee also expanded its membership by adding more representative and national groups, including players, coaches, umpires, directors, committeemen, and faculty members (Smith, 1988). This group of reformers representing 62 colleges met in New York City on December 28, 1905 and organized the Intercollegiate Athletic Association (hereinafter "lAA") with Captain Palmer E. Pierce of West Point Academy as chairman and established its own rules committee. It was in 1910 that the lAA became the National Collegiate Athletic Association (Rader, 1999). The need for institutional control has been a persistent problem within intercollegiate athletics. Schools should be held accountable for these "failures of

PAGE 74

68 omission as well as commission" (Kliever, 1990, p. 115). It was due to this paramount need for institutional control, as well as the establishment and maintenance of fair practices, that the NCAA was developed. The NCAA was formed in an attempt to create an intervening governing body, opposite of the once laissez-faire approach utilized by the students. The complaints of brutality, questionable ethics, and the need for universal rules and regulations, specifically within football, led to the formation of the NCAA (Smith, 1995). This initial desire to create rules and regulations in an attempt to govern and regulate competition in football has grown into a massive organization that controls all major and minor happenings in the world of intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA became a sports governing body with the ability to set and enforce the rules and regulations for member institutions on a regular basis. These rules focused on the academic standards necessary for athletes to be eligible to compete in intercollegiate athletics, as well as the athletic responsibilities of the athletic department, including boosters, coaches, staff, facuhy, and fans. These rules, which were consistent with the founding principles of the NCAA, attempted to ensure fair competition among all member institutions. The welfare and integrity of the athlete and athletic department were the concern for many institutions. Problems associated with the ethical violations committed by coaches and players have continued to occur and negatively affected the public support of and confidence in intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA has continued to enforce its rules and investigate violations and other dishonest practices. While intercollegiate athletics have grown into an enormous enterprise capable of dishonesty, the NCAA has continued to be willing to fight this problem (Sperber, 1990).

PAGE 75

69 The NCAA has created many rules that deal with the academic requirements of athletes. These requirements varied as a athlete progressed from recruit, or pre-coUege, to first year and, ultimately, to exhausted eUgibility and graduation. These rules required athletes to satisfy certain grade point average, or GPA, and percentage toward degree requirements. These benchmarks ensured all athletes were making acceptable progress toward their individual degrees. Failure to obtain these standards resulted in the forfeiture of part or complete athletic season due to ineligibility for academic reasons. It was therefore extremely important that athletes continued to make progress toward their degrees and remained in good standing at their given institution. The 1999-00 NCAA Manual specifies academic regulations that athletes were required to follow. A student-athlete who is entering his or her third year of collegiate enrollment shall have completed successfully at least 25 percent of the course requirements in the student's specific degree program. A student-athlete who is entering his or her fourth year of collegiate enrollment shall have completed successfully at least 50 percent of the course requirements in the student's specific degree program. A student-athlete who is entering his or her fifth year of collegiate enrolhnent shall have completed successfully at least 75 percent of the course requirements in the student's specific degree program. The course requirements must be in the student's specific degree program, (p. 155) Furthermore, all athletes were required to abide by the following rule. A student-athlete who is entering his or her third year of collegiate enrollment shall present a cumulative mmimum grade-point average (based upon a maximum of 4.000) that equals at least 90 percent of the institution's overall cumulative minimum grade-point average required for graduation. A student-athlete who is entering his or her fourth or subsequent year of collegiate enrollment shall present a cumulative minimum grade-point average (based upon a maximum of 4.000) that equals 95 percent of the institution's overall cumulative minimum grade-point average required for graduation, (p. 156)

PAGE 76

70 Many athletic departments have formed specialized offices or units that were responsible for monitoring the academic progress of athletes. The individuals in these units were knowledgeable of the many NCAA rules in place. They also monitored and accounted for the progress of their institutions' athletes. These programs usually supplied academic resources in the form of tutors, mentors, computer assistance, and counselors, who were all trained to best assist the athlete. Regardless of the resources available, some athletes experienced difficulty satisfying the requirements established by the NCAA. In order to obtain eligibility standards and to continue participating at the intercollegiate level, some athletes may have been compelled to commit acts of academic dishonesty. Research supported this hypothesis as athletes have reported a higher level of cheating than non-athletes (Haines et al., 1986; McCabe, 1992; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Haines et al. (1986) reported that those students that did not pay for their tuition and/or books, common among athletes, were more likely to cheat. This lack of education investment impacted the incidence of academic dishonesty. It has also been claimed that due to the large amount of time devoted to extracurricular activities, such as intercollegiate athletics, studying time was compromised. Thus, these students were less than adequately prepared for the upcoming assignments or exams and were forced to commit acts of dishonesty. This notion, coupled with the fact that some athletes were already ill-prepared for college academics, caused the athlete to resort to delmquent acts in order to remain eligible to compete (Gerdy, 1997; Sperber, 1990).

PAGE 77

71 McCabe (1992) suggested that athletes and other students that participated in extracurricular activities may have utilized various techniques of neutralization in order to participate in cheating acts. The appeal to higher loyalties occurred when the individual sacrificed the demands of the larger society in exchange for the demands emphasized by the smaller group. McCabe believed that the norms of this subgroup provided the foundation for some students to cheat. Athletes may have also utilized the neutralization technique defense of necessity In an attempt to maintain eligibility for competition or to remain at the institution, some athletes determined that the delinquent act of cheating was necessary. Since there was no apparent victim, denial of victim and injury was usually avoided, denial of injury the athlete may be persuaded to commit the deviant activity. This study investigated if Division I athletes utilized techniques of neutralization in order to justify acts of academic dishonesty within higher education. The utilization of neutralization, in which delinquents were able to move from stages of conventional wisdom to unconventional or delinquent stages, may have allowed for an impact on the incidence of cheating. It was through this process that individuals were free to drift back and forth between the stages because they neutralized the effects of their deviant acts. This ability to rationalize enabled students to commit forms of academic dishonesty while attending institutions of higher learning. Conclusion This review of literature has recounted the importance of academic excellence as a primary principle and purpose within institutions of higher learning. The motivation associated with this foundational goal of higher education, however, has led to the

PAGE 78

72 increase in popularity of academic dishonesty (Davis, Grover, Becker & McGregor, 1992; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Nuss, 1984; Sims, 1995). The extent of the problem of academic dishonesty has been discussed, and solutions and possible prevention methods have also been discussed and evaluated. The various characteristics of cheaters, as well as the contextual differences common among cheaters, have been identified. Research in both these areas has been extensive and comprehensive. In relation to the problem of academic dishonesty within higher education, various theories of delinquency have been examined. It has been suggested that certain theories of delinquent behavior may have provided insight into understanding the behavior associated with delinquent acts in higher education, including the behavior of academic dishonesty (Haines et al, 1986; LaBeff et al., 1990; Liska, 1978; McCabe, 1992; Michael & Miethe, 1989; Folding, 1995). Among these theories of delinquency, the following theories were examined in the above discussion: social bond theory, social learning theory, deterrence theory, rational choice theory, the theory of differential association, and neutralization theory. Certain crknmological theories were also examined in order to provide a basis for the comprehension of neutralization theory. Through the development of these theories of deviant behavior, institutions of higher learning may be able to find answers to the threat of academic dishonesty and other potentially devastating problems within higher education. Neutralization theory, as originally proposed by Sykes and Matza (1957), has been examined as an explanation for the ability of individuals to commit deviants acts. Delinquents had the ability to abide by conventional norms but still could commit deviant

PAGE 79

73 acts through the utilization of five techniques of neutralization that enabled them to drift between morally accepted behaviors and acts of delinquency by justifying their acts of delinquency. These techniques of neutralization, as identified by Sykes and Matza, were: denial of responsibility denial of injury denial of victim condemnation of the condemners and appeal to higher loyalties Additionally, Klockars (1974) and Minor (1981) have amended the theory by offering the following two techniques of neutralization: metaphor of ledger and defense of necessity Research has supported the utilization of neutralization theory as a method to explain academic dishonesty within institutions of higher learning (Haines et al., 1986; LaBeff et al, 1990; Liska, 1978; McCabe, 1992; Folding, 1995). It was through the comprehension of these techniques of neutralization that institutions of higher learning and specifically, educational administrators, may be able to explore methods to effectively combat the problem of academic dishonesty in higher education. This threat to the integrity of higher learning should to be examined and solutions should be offered (Aaron, 1992; Aaron & Georgia, 1994; Bamett & Dalton, 1981; Pass, 1986; Haines et al., 1986; Kibler, 1993a; Kibler & Kibler, 1993; LaBeflFet al., 1990; Pavela & McCabe, 1993). Finally, the incorporation and influence of intercollegiate athletics has also been discussed. College sports have gained increased popularity since the inception of the NCAA in 1905 (Gerdy, 1997; Rader, 1999; Smith, 1988, 1995; Sperber, 1990). Beside the supposed increase in fmancial gains, teamwork, school spirit, publicity, and sportsmanship, issues of unethical and dishonest practices have been discussed (Gerdy, 1997; Kliever, 1990). It was through the unethical and morally unacceptable behaviors

PAGE 80

74 that the techniques of neutralization may be utilized. Neutralization theory may be utilized by athletes to rationalize deviant behaviors, including academic dishonesty. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education in a sample of intercollegiate Division I athletes and non-athletes. The design and methodology utilized in this study is outlined in Chapter III. Specifically, Chapter III defmes the sample of student participants and the questionnaire for this study. In addition, the research design and data analysis for the study are discussed, including an examination of the research procedures that guided this study.

PAGE 81

CHAPTER m DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Introduction Educational administrators have witnessed the continuation of a serious problem within higher education. Academic dishonesty represents a severe threat to an institution's integrity. It contradicts the principles and values that students should obtain and strengthen while in college (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973; Nuss, 1984; Long, 1992). Academic dishonesty has been documented as a widescale problem that must be addressed in order to reduce or eliminate the threat it poses to higher education (Carnegie Council Report, 1979; Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; Kibler, 1993a). The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education. Specifically, this study addressed the following questions. 1 Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level? 2. Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level? 3. Does the relationship between neutraUzation theory and cheating differ between athletes and non-athJetes when compared by college grade level? 75

PAGE 82

76 Methodology Overview The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between various techniques of neutralization and academic dishonesty. This study examined if athletic participation and college grade level affected the relationship between operationalized measures of neutralization and cheating. The study also investigated differences in the prevalence of academic dishonesty between Division I athletes and non-athletes. This study examined a sample of 80 athletes and 164 non-athletes representing various college grade levels from classes within the college of education. The sample was obtained from a large public research university located in the southeastern United States. Specific classes that were mandatory for athletes who received athletic scholarships were examined in order to obtain a substantial number of athletes. The required courses utilized to obtain the athlete portion of the research sample were identified in the policy and procedure manual of the academic component of the university's athletic department. These classes that were required for athletes were taught by a member of the department of counselor education within the college of education. These classes were matched with similar grade level courses that were taught by the department of counselor education. This provided representation of various college grade levels for this study. In this study, all respondents were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. The questionnaire was administered near the end of the Fall 1999 academic term, specifically, during the month of November. Students were administered a self-report questionnaire that examined their attitudes and beliefs which characterized neutralization statements, as well as statements

PAGE 83

77 that represented beliefs and reactions towards academic dishonesty. Respondents were also asked to report any acts of academic dishonesty that they have either witnessed or participated in over the course of the studied academic semester. The questionnaire also inquired about specific demographic characteristics that assisted in the categorization of respondents, as well as provided information that may be utilized in the examination of various relationships among other variables. A two-fold evaluation occurred in which (a) descriptive data were analyzed using measures of central tendency and self-reported responses; and, (b) multiple regression analyses, univariate analyses of variance and a muhivariate analysis of variance examined the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty. The results obtained from these statistical tests provided institutions of higher learning with information into the student's rationale behind his/her acts of academic dishonesty. Once these motivators and distracters have been identified, the problems associated with academic dishonesty may be accurately and efficiently addressed. Population and Sample The population for this study consisted of approximately 31,000 undergraduate students from a large research public university located in the southeastern United States. The sample for the study was comprised of a total of 244 students, divided into groups of 80 athletes and 164 non-athletes. The results from 13 questionnaires were not analyzed due to incomplete data Respondents for the study were selected from various undergraduate courses chosen by the researcher for convenience and availability of a perspective sample. Undergraduate students were administered the questionnaire in

PAGE 84

classes that were taught by members of the department of counselor education within the college of education. Responses were obtained from 244 students (N = 244). Of this total, 91 (37.30%) were male and 153 (62.70%) were female. The research sample consisted of 80 athletes (32.79%) and 164 non-athletes (67.21%). The research sample represented various college grade levels throughout college, 27 (1 1.07%) freshman, 34 (13.93%) sophomore, 44 (18.03%) junior, 136 (55.74%) senior, and three respondents (1.23%) categorized themselves as other. Also included in the research sample were 163 (66.80%) white, 34 (13.93%) black, 11 (4.51%) Asian, 25 (10.25%) Hispanic, and 11 (4.51%) other. Specific classes were chosen to ensure that an adequate number of athletes and college grade levels would be represented within the study. The use of a convenient sample was accomplished by administering the questionnaire in classes required of athletes and in specific undergraduate courses found within the department of counselor education. Those classes that were required of athletes were identified in the policy and procedure manual of the academic advising component of the university's athletic department. The courses for non-athletes were chosen based on their diverse student representation and accessibility to undergraduate students. That is, students from three classes that were required of all scholarship athletes were compared, based on athletic participation, gender, race, and college grade level, to students enrolled m three classes that were taught by the department of counselor education within the college of education. Students that were enrolled in more than one class in which the questionnaire was administered were allowed to complete the questionnaire once.

PAGE 85

79 All athletes who received athletic based scholarship at the university were required to complete three different courses involving issues prevalent for college students. The courses outlined in the policy and procedures manual of the athletic academic advising office, were found within the department of coimselor education and were titled: "Student and the University Setting," "Alcohol and Drug Abuse," and "Career and Life-Span Plannmg." The first course, "Student and the University Setting," was primarily a course for freshman athletes. The second course, "Alcohol and Drug Abuse," was a course usually comprised of sophomores. This course was open to both athletes and non-athletes. The final course, "Career and Life-Span Plarming," was open to both junior and senior level athletes. Other pre-selected education classes were selected for this study in order to collect the non-athlete portion of the sample. These classes did not have any prerequisites for enrollment and were open to students of all majors and colleges. These preselected courses were also taught by the department of counselor education and enrollment in these courses represented various college grade levels. "Alcohol and Drug Abuse," had enrollment that was open to all students regardless of college grade level. This course was identical to the course required of athletes. The two sections of this course that were utilized in this study had enrollment consisting of both athletes and nonathletes. This class satisfied elective credit and graduation requirements for non-athletes enrolled in the course. "Stress and Anxiety Management," was a junior level course, but was open to students of all majors and college grade levels. There were no prerequisites for this course and it satisfied elective credit and graduation requirements. Finally, "Career and Life-Span Planning," was generally a junior or senior level course. This

PAGE 86

80 course was similar to the career course required of athletes. However, this section of the course was open to all students regardless of major or athlete status, and this course satisfied elective credit and graduation requirements. Instrumentation An amended version of Folding's (1995) self-report questiormaire measured neutralization statements and attitudes toward academic dishonesty. Respondents were required to answer each statement based on their level of agreement using the following five-point scale: (a) strongly agree, (b) agree, (c) undecided, (d) disagree, or, (e) strongly disagree. The 170-item questionnaire also consisted of various questions used to evaluate different demographic information including (a) gender; (b) college grade level; (c) age; (d) registered credit hours; (e) race; (f) athletic participation, and; (g) college classification. A set of neutralization statements identified by Folding (1995) represented descriptions of the various rationalizations that certain students may utilize as mechanisms for explaining their frequency of academic dishonesty. Respondents were required to answer each statement based on their level of agreement using the following five-point scale: (a) strongly agree, (b) agree, (c) undecided, (d) disagree, or, (e) strongly disagree. A composite score was derived for each of the seven techniques of neutralization by averaging responses to various statements that characterized the specific neutralization technique. This score was then reported as the average level of agreement possessed by respondents to the identified neutralization technique. These statements could consequently be categorized into the following seven neutralization techniques: denial of responsibility denial of injury denial of victim condemnation of the

PAGE 87

81 condemners a ppeal to higher loyalties metaphor of ledger and defense of necessity (Klockars, 1974; Minor, 1981; Sykes & Matza, 1957). The first technique, denial of responsibility ; was identified by the following three statements, "cheating is OK if you are not given reasonable time to prepare", "cheating is better than failing", and "cheating is OK if you cannot study because of other commitments." The second technique of neutralization, denial of injury : was identified by the following statement, "if the curve goes up because a number of students have cheated, cheating really does not give you an unfair advantage." The third technique, denial of victim : was categorized by the following two statements, "cheating must not be too wrong or instructors would try harder to 'catch' cheaters", and "grades really do not reflect what you know about a subject." The fourth technique of neutralization, condemnation of the condemners : was described by the following three statements, "there would be less cheating if teaching were better", professors should not complain about cheating because they do not assign grades fairly anyway", and "at this school a 'double standard' exists; cheating by athletes is tolerated, but for other students it is not." The fifth technique of neutralization, app eal to higher lovalties: was identified in the study by the followmg four statements, "helping someone to cheat on exams and assignments is OK because students should stick together and help one another", "students would not cheat so much if parents would not put so much pressure on them to get good grades, cheating is not so bad if you are helping a fi-iend", and "sometimes you have to cheat to help a fi-atemity brother or sorority sister." The following statement described the sixth technique of neutralization, metaphor of ledger; "it is not so bad to cheat if you have studied hard and attended class." Finally,

PAGE 88

the seventh techniques of neutralization, defense of necessity: was identified by the following five statements, "cheating is OK if others in the class are doing it", "cheating is OK if you are not given reasonable time to prepare", "cheating is OK if the professor gives unreasonably difficult assignments or tests", "cheating is OK if you studied the wrong material or did the wrong assignment", and fmally "cheating is sometimes necessary to get the GPA you need to get into a college, graduate program, professional school, or to participate in extracurricular activities." In order to measure the prevalence and types of cheating committed by college students, ten operationalized definitions used to categorize academic dishonesty were developed by Folding (1995) and a panel of experts in the area of criminology, sociology, and student affairs. These ten statements were included in the survey and categorized cheating into four different types that were forbidden at most universities: taking of information, tendering of information, plagiarism, and misrepresentation. The operational definition, taking of information, included the following statements: "copied someone else's homework or lab assignments," "copied answers from someone else taking the exam," "used notes, books, 'cheat/crib sheets,' or other unallowed materials during an examination," "secretly got access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam," and "studied from a 'hot' copy of an exam before it was given to the rest of your class." The following statement represented the operational definition for the tendering of information: "knowingly allowed someone to copy answers to an exam." Plagiarism was operationally defmed by the following two statements: "turned in another student's work as your ovra," and "copied published material and turned it in as your own." Finally, two statements were utilized in the questionnaire to operationalize

PAGE 89

83 forms of misrepresentation: "copied a few sentences of material from a reference without footnoting or giving credit to the original author," and "made up a false excuse to delay or put off taking an exam or turning in an assignment." Respondents were requested to indicate the number of times they have engaged in the aforementioned cheating behaviors during the course of the academic semester using the following answers: (a) none, (b) once or twice, (c) three or four times, (d) five or six times, or, (e) seven or more times. Validitv Folding (1995) and a panel of experts examined the content validity of the instrument. The wording, structure, and appropriateness of the questiormaire was analyzed to examine the clarity of the instrument as well as to vahdate the appropriateness of the instrument for this study by establishing content vaUdity. The panel of experts unanimously concluded that the measure had strong content validity (Folding). Additionally, Folding reported that the measure contained adequate construct validity. Reliability Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The following alpha coefficients were reported for the neutralization techniques studied in this measure: denial of victim (0.361), condemnation of the condemners (0.413), appeal to higher loyahies (0.759), denial of responsibility (0.813), and defense of necessity (0.91 7). The final two techniques of neutralization, denial of injury and metaphor of ledger were not analyzed because only one statement defined these techniques. Foldmg (1995) also addressed the reliability of the measure through the analysis of the multiple

PAGE 90

84 R of each of the observed variables. It was concluded that neutralization statements adequately explained these observed variables. Research Design The following procedures dictated the guidelines that were utilized in the collection of responses for this study. 1 The survey was administered to undergraduate students that were enrolled in a variety of classes representing different grade levels within the department of counselor education in the college of education. Prior arrangements were made with professors to allow for the investigator to utilize a selected class time for the administration of the questioimaire. A letter of request was sent to pre-selected instructors in order to gain permission to query students in certain classes for the purpose of collecting data for the research study. Specific classes were selected in order to ensure proper representation of intercollegiate athletes. The use of a convenient sample was accomplished by administering the questioimaire in classes required of athletes. All scholarship athletes at the university were required to complete three different courses involving issues prevalent for college students throughout their college careers. The courses were found within the department of counselor education and were titled: "Student and the University Settmg," "Alcohol and Drug Abuse," and "Career and Life-Span Planning." Other education classes were selected for this study in order to collect the nonathlete portion of the sample. These selected education classes were also taught by the department of counselor education, did not have any prerequisites for enrollment, were open to students in any majors and colleges, and satisfied elective credit and graduation

PAGE 91

85 requirements. These courses were titled: "Stress and Anxiety Management," "Alcohol and Drug Abuse," and "Career and Life-Span Planning." Since the "Alcohol and Drug Abuse" course was open to both athletes and non-athletes, respondents from two different sections of this course were evaluated in this study. Respondents were categorized based on their involvement in intercollegiate athletics and college grade level. The "Career and Life-Span Plaiming" course operated a distinct section for athlete enrollment. Consequently, the members from the two sections of this course were evaluated by distinguishing their involvement m mtercollegiate athletics and their college grade level. A total of six classes were evaluated for this study. Once data had been collected, respondents were categorized based on their involvement in intercollegiate athletics and college grade level. 2. This investigator administered the survey during one class session in November of the Fall 1999 semester. 3. Respondents were assured anonymity and confidentiality of their responses through a verbal statement, as well as a written statement contained within the questionnaire. The questionnaire was voluntary and all respondents were given the opportunity to refuse participation at any point in the survey. 4. Once all selected classes had been administered the survey, questionnaire responses were recorded, tabulated, and formatted m preparation for the statistical analysis of the data. 5. A statistical analysis of the data was conducted in order to report statistical measures of the research desigiL

PAGE 92

Data Analysis The independent variables examined in this study included (a) gender; (b) participation in intercollegiate athletics; (c) race; (d) college grade level; and, (e) neutralization theory. The dependent variables studied were the frequency of the selfreported acts of academic dishonesty committed over the course of the studied semester and the utilization of various neutralization techniques as identified by averaging level of agreement scores from statements that characterized each of the seven techniques of neutralization. The research design required the use of analyses of variance (ANOVA) and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine differences between athletes and non-athletes, as well as differences among college grade levels in regards to the utilization of neutralization techniques and the incidence of academic dishonesty. The vectors of dependent variables utilized in the MANOVA were 1 and -1. Multiple regression analyses were also utilized to determine the effects the following interactions: (a) athletic participation, (b) college grade level, (c) neutralization, and, (d) various social activities, may have had on academic dishonesty. Statistical models were designed to explain gender, race, and college grade level as they related to neutralization theory and academic dishonesty. An additional statistical model designed to measure the total amount of cheating acts was evaluated. The analysis of these statistical models was utilized to determine the following: (a) whether the use of neutralization techniques differed between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level; (b) whether differences in the prevalence of academic dishonesty existed between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level; and, (c) whether differences

PAGE 93

87 existed in the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level. Summary Chapter III has mcluded a detailed description of the methodology and design utilized within this study. The population and sample that defined the respondents for this study have been examined and identified. The instrument utilized in the study has been discussed. The operational defmitions of neutralization statements and academic dishonesty have been addressed, as have the validity and reUability of the instrument. The research design that guided the collection of data has been detailed, and fmally, the strategies and statistical tests that were utilized to properly analyze the data have been outlined. The information derived fi-om this chapter provides the basis for the analysis of data reported in Chapter IV.

PAGE 94

CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF DATA Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education. Specifically, this study addressed the following questions. 1. Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and nonathletes when compared by college grade level? 2. Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level? 3. Does the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differ between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level? The questionnaire examined the techniques of neutralization identified by Sykes and Matza (1975) and later amended by Klockars (1974) and Minor (1981). These techniques of neutralization were contained within various statements found within the instrument. A composite score was derived for each of the seven techniques of neutralization by averaging responses to various statements that characterized that specific neutralization technique. This score was then reported as the average level of agreement possessed by respondents to the identified neutraUzation technique. The first technique, denial of responsibility : was identified by the following three statements, "cheating is OK if you are not given reasonable time to prepare", "cheating is better than 88

PAGE 95

89 failing", and "cheating is OK if you cannot study because of other commitments." The second technique of neutraUzation, denial of injury ; was identified by the following statement, "if the curve goes up because a number of students have cheated, cheating really does not give you an unfair advantage." The third technique, denial of victim : was categorized by the following two statements, "cheating must not be too wrong or instructors would try harder to 'catch' cheaters", and "grades really do not reflect what you know about a subject." The fourth technique of neutralization, condemnation of the condemners : was described by the following three statements, "there would be less cheating if teaching were better", professors should not corr^lain about cheating because they do not assign grades fairly anyway", and "at this school a 'double standard' exists; cheating by athletes is tolerated, but for other students it is not." The fifth technique of neutralization, appeal to higher loyahies; was identified in the study by the following four statements, "helping someone to cheat on exams and assignments is OK because students should stick together and help one another", "students would not cheat so much if parents would not put so much pressure on them to get good grades, cheating is not so bad if you are helping a friend", and "sometimes you have to cheat to help a fraternity brother or sorority sister." The following statement described the sixth technique of neutralization, metaphor of ledger; "it is not so bad to cheat if you have studied hard and attended class." Finally, the seventh techniques of neutralization, defense of necessity; was identified by the following five statements, "cheating is OK if others in the class are doing it", "cheatmg is OK if you are not given reasonable time to prepare", "cheating is OK if the professor gives unreasonably difficult assignments or tests", "cheating is OK if you studied the

PAGE 96

90 wrong material or did the wrong assignment", and finally "cheating is sometimes necessary to get the GPA you need to get into a coUege, graduate program, professional school, or to participate in extracurricular activities." Results of Study Table 4-1 illustrates the means, standard deviations, and F values when comparing males and females by their utilization of neutralization techniques. Significant dilferences were found between males and females and their utilization of the following techniques of neutraUzation: appeal to higher loyalties, F (1, 242) = 6.225, p < .05 defense of necessity, F (1, 242) = 14.916, p < .001 denial of responsibility, F (1, 242) = 18.178, p < .001, and denial of injury F (1, 242) = 4.054, p < .05. Also, a trend towards significance was recorded in regards to the metaphor of ledger technique of neutralization F (1, 242) = 3.732, p < .10. Table 4-2 illustrates the means, standard deviations, and F values when athletic participation is considered. Accordingly, significant differences among the utilization of specific neutralization techniques were determined between athletes and non-athletes for the following techniques: appeal to higher loyalties F (1, 242) = 9.365, p < .005, defense of necessity F (1, 242) = 1 1.604, p < .001, denial of responsibility F (1, 242) = 10.912, p < .001, denial of injury F (1, 242) = 1 1.648, p < .001, condemnation of the condemners F (1, 242) = 9.673, p < .005, and metaphor of ledger F (1, 242) = 10.265, p < .005. Table 4-3 illustrates the means, standard deviations, and F values when race is evaluated. Significant main effects were found between races and neutralization techniques for the followmg: denial of responsibility F (4, 239) = 2.449, p < .05, and metaphor of ledger F (4, 239) = 2.422, p < .05. A trend toward significance was noted

PAGE 97

91 when examining the techniques of neutralization, the appeal to higher loyalties F (4, 239) = 2.295, p < .10 and defense of necessity F (4, 239) 2.341, p < .10. Table 4-4 illustrates differences in the utilization of neutralization techniques when respondents were compared by college grade level. Significant differences within different college grade levels were recorded for the following techniques of neutralization: appeal to higher loyalties F (4, 239) 4.743, p < .001, defense of necessity F (4, 239) = 4.215, p < .005, denial of responsibility F (4, 239) = 3.583, p < .01, denial of injury F (4, 239) = 3.782, p < .005, denial of victim F (4, 239) = 2.708, P < .05, and metaphor of ledger F (4, 239) = 2.650, p < .05. A trend towards significance was noted m regards to condemnation of the condemners, F (4, 239) = 2.402, p < .10. Independent T-tests were performed to evaluate differences between the utilization of neutralization techniques when compared by college grade levels. Table 4-5 illustrates the fmdings of these various T-tests. No significant differences were reported in any of the seven neutralization techniques when comparing freshmen and sophomore students (p > .05). A significant difference was found in the utilization of the neutralization technique, condemnation of the condemners, when comparing freshmen and juniors t ( 1 ,243) = 2. 1 86, p < .05. When comparing freshman and senior respondents, five techniques of neutralization were reported with significant differences. Appeal to higher loyalties t (1,243) -3.052, p < .005, defense of necessity t (1,243) = -3.043, p < .005, denial of responsibility t (1,243) = -2.576, p < .05, denial of injury t (1,243) = -2.379, p < .05, and metaphor of ledger, t (1,243) = 2.375, p < .05 aU represented significant differences.

PAGE 98

92 5 00 (N 00 o o oo in 00 o r~ o m <^ o 00 00 00 00 m o m u 3 g ON o ON m o ON ON O On NO On in o o NO NO ON o CO o 0) I •5 II o I a Pi! ON NO 00 'It o 00 rn 00 o >n NO o ON 00 00 3 > 13 1/3 o (U 0\ rlin On rn NO m On NO On O O 00 II t 03 T3 u C3 o NO 00 00 On 00 en c Q C/3 c ON II CI E U-i CO CI NO 00 fN NO > go 00 V OO c o V

PAGE 99

o 00 00 00 00 ON OS p OS 00 o O 00 m oo 00 a, •4-1 2 > ffl 0\ OS O cs p O OS 00 c/2 1) 3 O o (L> c .o £ > I O 1 C/2 1/1 c o a CO CO CO (U u CO a & m OS so Tlrn o OS OS OS 00 o 00 o Tj; f— 4 OS rn 00 00 c CO 00 t/3 o OS c S3 I q C/3 OS d o so OS 1> rS II < CI 93 x: c o so II CI >

PAGE 100

5 > CQ 3 o .0 I VI u s ed > •T3 C CS s o 1 > u Q T5 > o a CO .ts M u CO u D. rM 00 0 ir> OS 0 m 0 q — 1 ON OS 00 OS m 00 Os in 0 r-rn 00 00 00 00 m m OS Q c o 00 00 o OS o 00 00 (N 00 OS o n in rn m OS 0\ o o in OS 0 00 n q on 00 OS 0 m 00 0 0 in 0 rl00 m m 00 o\ 00 m m 00 in m in (N q o 0^ OS 0 00 OS OS rrj 0 0 0 m 0 (N rn 0 rrn rn in 00 ?S N (N ^ VO ^ OS m q 1/5 M5 C ^ 2 m Q c OS OS 00 Q 06 00 OS 0 rn OS O Os rn 00 00 q 00 in OS II CI n m II CI c .2 < 0 1 ;q 1/3 CI CI CI >

PAGE 101

95 at U > PQ I 4> 3 O c o .a *- 3 (L> "3 > 2 I en > >1 o a CO as O m o o CO o OS O £3 On OS n Os t-; O O so 00 o O 00 00 in (U ;-i (50 03 O q "3) V c a 2 CO II IT) o q l-H 00 V isa 11 c CO Q en c CI i a, o C/3 CI so CI m II CI > T3
PAGE 102

5} (U (U -a a l-H o "o o > CQ I I 3 (U 3 a c o I "3 3 J 2 > o u :2 (X > -a o BO C o u o 2 00 ^ ^ ^ ^ On '^'I — 00 o ^ O bO CO V5 '•3 O o >^ 1^ V Ol 2 V5 II U-1

PAGE 103

97 No significant differences were identified when independent T-tests were performed on the utilization of neutralization techniques between sophomores and juniors as illustrated in Table 4-5. However, when examining the data with regards to sophomores and seniors, the following significant differences were found: appeal to higher loyalties t (1,243) = -2.624, p < .01, defense of necessity t (1,243) = -2.934, P < .005, denial of responsibility t (1,243) = -3.1 12, p < .005, and denial of injury t (1,243 ) = -2.644, p < .01. A trend approaching significance was found in the neutralization techniques, denial of victim t (1,243) = -1.936, p < .10, and metaphor of ledger t (1,243) = 1.775, p < .10. No other significant differences were found (p < .05). Independent T-tests were performed with regards to junior and senior level students. Significant differences were fovmd for the following techniques of neutralization: appeal to higher loyalties t (1,243) = -2.018, p < .05, denial of injury t (1,243) = -2.559, p < .05, and denial of victim t (1,243) = -2.130, p < .05. A trend towards significance was reported for the following three techniques of neutrahzation, defense of necessity, t (1,243) = -1.700, p < .10, denial of responsibility, t (1,243) = -1.763, p < .10, and condemnation of the condemners, t (1,243) = -1.942, P < 10. Independent Ttests were not conducted with regards to the "other" category due to the small size of respondents (n = 3). The main effects for gender, athletic participation, race, and college grade level were examined with regards to their impact on the utilization of neutralization techniques. These significant differences were reported in the Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4. This study also examined the incidence of academic dishonesty as self-reported by respondents. In order to measure the prevalence and types of cheating committed by

PAGE 104

98 college students, ten operationalized definitions used to categorize academic dishonesty were developed by Folding (1995) and a panel of experts in the area of criminology, sociology, and student affairs. These ten statements were included in the survey and categorized cheating into four different types that are forbidden at most universities: taking of information, tendering of information, plagiarism, and misrepresentation. These statements which described academic dishonesty were classified into four categories (Folding, 1995). Taking of information included the following statements: "copied someone else's homework or lab assignments," "copied answers from someone else taking the exam," "used notes, books, 'cheat/crib sheets,' or other unallowed materials during an examination," "secretly got access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam," and "studied from a 'hot' copy of an exam before it was given to the rest of your class." Tendering of information measured the degree to which one, "knowingly allowed someone to copy answers to an exam." Flagiarism was operationally defmed in the questionnaire by the following two statements: "turned in another student's work as your own," and "copied published material and turned it in as your own." Finally, two statements operationalized forms of misrepresentation: "copied a few sentences of material from a reference without footnoting or giving credit to the original author," and "made up a felse excuse to delay or put off taking an exam or turning in an assignment." Tables 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 report differences in the self-reported incidence of academic dishonesty by gender, athletic status, race and college grade level. Table 4-6 reports gender differences in the self-reported acts of academic dishonesty. A significant difference was calculated with a F (1, 242) = 20.571, p < .001 No other significant differences were found (p > .05).

PAGE 105

99 Table 4-6 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for Cheating-Bv Gender = 244) Male Female FValue Mean 1.613 1.284 20.571***** S.D. .726 .405 Note. l=none 2= once or twice 3= three or four times 4= five or six times 5= seven or more times ***** p<.001 Table 4-7 illustrates differences in the prevalence of academic dishonesty based on athletic participation. For this measure a significant difference was found jF (1, 242) = 13.235, p < .001. No other significant differences were found (p > .05). Table 4-7 Means. Standard Deviations, and F Values for Cheating-Bv Athletic Participation (N = 244) Athlete Non-athlete F-Value Mean 1.592 1.317 13.235***** S.D. .701 .468 Note. l=none 2= once or twice 3= three or four times 4= five or six times 5= seven or more times *****p < .001 Table 4-8 examines racial differences in the prevalence of academic dishonesty. No significant differences were found with regards to the race of respondents (p > .05).

PAGE 106

100 Table 4-8 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for Cheating-By Race rN= 244) White Black Asian Hispanic Other F value Mean 1.366 1.615 1.311 1.460 1.311 1.536 S.D. .538 .697 .271 .643 .511 Note. l=none 2= once or twice 3= three or four times 4= five or six times 5= seven or more times Table 4-9 illustrates differences in the self-reported incidence of cheating based on college grade level. A significant difference in the level of academic dishonesty was found between college grade levels F (4, 239) = 3.695, p < .01. Table 4-9 Means. Standard Deviation, and F Values for Cheating-By College Grade Level rN = 244) Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other F value Mean 1.682 1.603 1.377 1.315 1.305 3.695*** S.D. .777 .770 .464 .465 .293 Note. l=none 2= once or twice 3= three or four times 4= five or six times 5= seven or more times *** E<.01 Table 4-10 illustrates the fi-equencies and means as reported for each individual cheating statement. The statements asked the respondents to self-report the number of

PAGE 107

times they had committed the specific act of academic dishonesty during the Fall 1999 semester using a 5-point scale (1 = none, 2 = once or twice, 3 = three or four times, 4 = five or six times, or, 5 = seven or more times. This study examined the results as reported by an N = 244. Table 4-10 illustrates the various cheating statements that students could have committed over the course of the semester. According to selfreported responses, students reported the highest level of commission in regards to "copied a few sentences of material from a reference without footnoting or giving proper credit to the original author in a paper" (M 1 .758). Other statements that received high responses included "copied someone else's homework or lab assignment" (M = 1 -639), "copied answers from someone else taking the exam" (M = 1 .648). Additionally, a high number of students reported that they "failed to report someone else who you definitely knew cheated" (M = 1 .782). Table 4-10 Frequencies and Means of the Incidence of Cheating (N = 244) Cheating Statements 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Copied someone else's homework or lab 147 59 22 11 5 1.639 assignment Knowingly allowed someone to copy your 168 49 20 3 4 1.467 answers to an exam Copied answers from someone else taking the 143 65 22 7 7 1.648 exam Copied a few sentences of material from a reference without footnoting or giving proper credit to the original author in a paper 128 74 21 15 6 1.758 Copied published material and turned it in as 206 23 8 5 2 1.254 your own Turned in another student's work as yoiuown 207 24 9 1 3 1.234 Made up a false excuse to delay or put off 160 61 14 8 1 1.480 taking an exam or turning in an assignment

PAGE 108

102 Table 4-10~Continued Cheating Statements 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Secretly got access to exam questions or 211 20 6 4 3 1.230 answers prior to the exam Studied from a "hot" copy of an exam before it 213 13 12 2 4 1.242 was given to the rest of your class Used notes, books, "cheat/crib sheets", or other 197 29 9 7 2 1.312 unallowed materials during an examination Received or gave a "pirated" copy of commercially-sold computer software to someone else 179 43 13 4 5 1.414 Accessed another's computer account or files without his/her knowledge or permission 215 15 9 3 2 1.205 Reported another student who was cheating to the instructor 222 12 5 3 2 1.160 Failed to report someone else who you definitely knew cheated 152 44 15 12 20 1.782 Note. 1 = none 2= once or twice 3= three or four times 4= five or six times 5= seven or more times Respondents also reported the number of times in which they had been caught committing various acts of academic dishonesty. Table 4-1 1 illustrates the number of students who admitted that they had been caught committing the various acts of academic dishonesty. Additionally the number of students who self-reported that they had participated in those specific acts was also listed in Table 4-11. The resulting percentage of students caught committing these acts was also calculated. The percentage of students caught committmg various acts of academic dishonesty ranged from 4 %, ("copied someone else's homework or lab assignment") to 30% ("failed to report someone else who you definitely knew cheated"). The most frequently reported acts of academic dishonesty, "copied a few sentences of material from a reference without footnoting or giving proper credit to the original author in a paper" (9%), copied answers from

PAGE 109

103 someone else taking the exam" (7%), and "copied someone else's homework or lab assignment" (4%) were the least likely cheating acts to be detected. Table 4-11 Frequencies and Percentages of Students Caught Cheating (N = 244) Cheating Statements Students Caught Students Cheating Percentage Caught Cheating Copied someone else's homework or lab 4 97 4% assignment Knowingly allowed someone to copy your 10 76 13% answers to an exam Copied answers from someone else taking the exam 7 101 7% Copied a few sentences of material from a reference without footnoting or giving proper credit to the original author in a 10 116 9% paper Copied published material and turned it in 5 38 13% as your own Turned in another student's work as your 3 37 8% own Made up a false excuse to delay or put off 10 84 12% taking an exam or turning in an assignment Secretly got access to exam questions or 5 33 15% answers prior to the exam Studied from a "hot" copy of an exam before it was given to the rest of your class 5 31 16% Used notes, books, "cheat/crib sheets", or 10 47 21% other unallowed materials during an examination Received or gave a "pirated" copy of commercially-sold computer software to someone else 12 65 18% Accessed another's computer account or files without his/her knowledge or 4 29 14% permission Reported another student who was cheating to the instructor 4 22 18%

PAGE 110

104 Table 4-1 1 -Continued Cheating Statements Students Students Percentage Caught Cheating Caught Cheating Failed to report someone else who you 27 91 30% definitely knew cheated When subjects were questioned as to the percentage of college students that were involved in cheating, more than 99% believed that some portion of college students were involved in acts of academic dishonesty. Twenty-five percent stated that this number of college cheaters represented 10-30% of the population. Fortytwo percent claimed that the population of college cheaters was in the 40-60% range. Twenty-two percent believed that the number of college student that participated in acts of academic dishonesty was in the 70-90% range. Finally, only one percent stated that "almost 100%" of students commit acts of academic dishonesty. Instructors take a variety of steps to curb cheating. Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of various strategies that may be utilized to minimize the prevalence of academic dishonesty on campuses across America. Table 4-12 illustrates each of these strategies and depicts the students' perception of their effectiveness based on the following five point scale: (1 = not at all effective in reducing cheating, 2 = reduces cheating a little, 3 = no opinion one way or the other, 4 = reduces cheating quite a lot, and 5 = very effective in reducmg cheating). Many students felt that "having the computer scramble the items on an exam so that no two exams are the same" (M = 3.881), having small classes rather than auditorium sections" (M = 3.533), and "using more essays and fewer objective questions (e.g., multiple choice, true-false) on tests" (M = 3.480) would be effective in reducing the incidence of cheating. However,

PAGE 111

105 very few students believed that "allowing nothing but pencils or pens to be brought into the exam" (M = 2.340) or "having an anonymous telephone 'Hot Line' to report students who have cheated" (M = 2.205) would effective reduce the incidence of cheating. Table 4-12 Frequencies for the Effectiveness of Reducing Cheating (N = 244) Cheating Deterrents 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Having two or more forms of an exam 14 93 21 94 22 3.070 Having several proctors or monitors to watch for cheating 14 72 18 109 31 3.291 Checking identifications of those taking an exam 33 77 38 68 28 2.922 Having small classes rather than auditorium 11 46 36 104 47 3.533 sections Assigning seats in exams so students will not know who they sit beside 43 80 43 59 19 2.717 Having the computer scramble the items on an 13 30 23 85 93 3.881 exam so that no two exams are the same Using more essays and fewer objective questions (e.g., multiple choice, true-false) on tests 21 36 48 83 56 3.480 Giving writing assignments on specific topics rather than assigning general term papers 22 56 69 62 35 3.131 Randomly selecting term papers to check all of the footnotes and references 28 85 59 51 21 2.803 Giving each student or lab team a different 18 67 52 80 27 3.127 assignment Requiring students to write essay exams in marked and specially provided answer books 29 60 64 64 27 3.000 Using more exams and fewer take-home 41 67 70 45 21 2.746 assignments and projects Permitting no one to leave during an exam 65 71 47 46 15 2.488 Allowing nothing but pencils or pens to be brought into the exam 61 90 50 35 8 2.340 Putting names on each exam booklet before handing them out so they can be checked to 40 106 47 38 13 2.500 make sure they have all been returned Having an anonymous telephone "Hot Line" to report students who have cheated 77 75 65 19 8 2.205 Using a completely different exam for make-ups 16 63 31 100 34 3.299 Handing out study sheets before the exam to help prepare for it 28 69 49 68 30 3.012

PAGE 112

106 Table 4-12--Contmued Cheating Deterrents 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Giving a copy of an old exam to everyone to help them study 27 65 53 69 30 3.041 Using fewer exams and more take-home 62 55 81 28 18 2.529 assignments Note. 1 = not at all effective in reducing cheating 2 = reduces cheating a little 3 = no opinion one way or the other 4 = reduces cheating quite a lot 5 = very effective in reducing cheating An item on the questionnaire, asked respondents to report their level of agreeability to the following statement, "at this school a 'double standard' exists; cheating by athletes is tolerated, but for other students it is not." Students rated their level of agreement usmg a 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree). A comparison of means, as illustrated in Table 4-13, determined that athletes (M = 4.013) significantly disagreed with this statement more than non-athletes (M = 2.616). Additionally, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the statement, "at this school a 'double standard' exists; cheating by athletes is tolerated, but for other students it is not". In order to measure the validity of this statement, the frequency of cheating was held constant. A significant difference was calculated between the number of times athletes and non-athletes were caught over the past semester committing acts of academic dishonesty, F = 54.739, g < .001. That is, athletes were caught committing acts of academic dishonesty more often than nonathletes.

PAGE 113

107 Table 4-13 Analysis of Variance-For a Double Standard of Cheating Students (N = 244) Means F-Value Athletes 4.013 54 739***** n-80 NonAthletes 2.616 n=164 Note. 1= strongly agree 2= agree 3undecided 4= disagree 5= strongly disagree ******p<.001 Students were also asked to report their level of participation in various social activities to examine if any activities predicted rates of academic dishonesty. Table 4-14 lists the examined activities and illustrates the F values as calculated through multiple regression analyses. Table 4-14 Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis and F Values for Activities Predicting Cheating (N = 244^ Activities B SEB P F Value Church or reUgious activities -.004 .031 -.009 .019 School work -.106 .036 -.187 8.747**** Part-time job -.045 .021 -.132 4.315** Full-time job .084 .042 .127 3.923** Sorority or fraternity social functions .058 .030 .124 3.795* Partying .109 .034 .204 10.517***** Dating .080 .029 .176 7.775*** Physical exercise .063 .030 .132 4.278** Interscholastic competition .070 .021 .210 11.196***** Sorority or fraternity duties (other than social fimction) .040 .033 .079 1.515

PAGE 114

108 Table 4-14~Contmued Activities B SE B P F Value Student groups .029 .030 .006 .009 Political action groups .106 .048 .141 4.913** Community service clubs .005 .028 .012 .033 Musical, theatrical, or other .090 .037 .153 5.838** performing art groups Painting, sculpting, or other fine arts .008 .040 .013 .042 *E<.10 **E<.05 ***e<.01 **** p < .005 ****p< .001 Significant differences were calculated for students with part-time jobs, F = 4.315, P < .05 and full-time jobs, F = 3.923, p < .05. Additionally, participation in political action groups, F = 4.913, p < .05, musical, theatrical, or other performing art groups, F 5.838, E < .05, and physical exercise, F = 4.278, p < .05 were able to significantly predict the prevalence of academic dishonesty. Dating, F = 7.775, p < .01, and partying, F = 10.517, p < .001 were able to significantly predict the incidence of academic dishonesty. The more students participated in these activities, the more likely they were to commit acts of academic dishonesty. The amount of time a student devoted to school work was able to significantly predict, F = 8.747, p < .005 the incidence of cheating. That is, the less time students reportedly devoted to school work, the more likely they were to commit acts of academic dishonesty. Participation in interscholastic competition, F = 1 1.196, p < .001 was able to significantly predict the prevalence of academic dishonesty among students. Students who participated in interscholastic competition at high levels were more likely to commit acts of academic dishonesty. Finally, a trend toward significance, F = 3.795, p < .10 was calculated for the participation in sorority or fraternity social fiinctions as a predictor for the incidence of academic dishonesty.

PAGE 115

109 Research Questions Research Question #1 Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level? An Analysis of Variance (ANQVA) was conducted to examine potential interactions between athletic participation and college grade level. Previous analyses, as illustrated in Table 4-2, concluded that significant differences existed when examining the utilization of these techniques between athletes and non-athletes. Additionally significant differences, as illustrated in Table 4-4, were calculated among college grade level. This research question examined whether significant differences in the utilization of the various neutralization techniques existed between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level. As detailed in Table 4-15, no significant differences were calculated. Significant differences were found when only examining the main effects of athletic participation and college grade year. Table 4-15 Analysis of Variance for the Utilization of Neutralization Techniques-Bv Athletic Participation and College Grade Level CN = 244) Source df F Value Appeal to Higher Loyalties Athlete (A) 1 .948 Year (Y) 4 2.744** Ax Y 4 1.521 Error 234 (.574)

PAGE 116

110 Table 4-15~Continued Source Af F Value Defense of Necessity Athlete (A) 1 .053 Year (Y) 4 2.629** Ax Y 4 .918 Error 234 (.862) Denial of Responsibility Athlete (A) 1 .017 Year (Y) 4 2.019* Ax Y 4 .792 Error 234 (.897) Denial of Injury Athlete (A) 1 .239 Year (Y) 4 1.747 Ax Y 4 .742 Error 234 (1.135) Condemnation of the Condemners Athlete (A) 1 7.299** Year (Y) 4 2.020* Ax Y 4 1.147 Error 234 (.594) Denial of Victim Athlete (A) 1 .036 Year (Y) 4 1.715 A X Y 4 .075 Error 234 (.695) Metaphor of Ledger Athlete (A) 1 .213 Year (Y) 4 1.735 Ax Y 4 .785 Error 234 (1.139) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. *p<.10. **p<.05. Research Question #2 Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level?

PAGE 117

Ill An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the data to detect if differences in the incidence of cheating existed when differentiating between athletic participation as compared by college grade level. Previous analyses concluded that significant differences existed in the incidence of cheating between athletes and nonathletes. These results were illustrated in Table 4-7. Additionally, significant differences in the incidence of academic dishonesty among various college grade levels were documented in Table 4-9. Although significant differences existed when examining the prevalence of cheating in regards to athletic participation and college grade level, the interaction between these two variables did not produce any significant differences as illustrated in Table 4-16. Table 4-16 Analvsis of Variance for the Incidence of Cheating— By Athletic Participation and College Grade Level (N 244) Source df F Value Cheating Athlete (A) 1 1.207 Year (Y) 4 1.206 Ax Y 4 .753 Error 234 (.308) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. Research Question #3 Does the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differ between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level?

PAGE 118

112 Certain techniques of neutralization predicted cheating without regard to athletic status or college grade level. Significant differences were found with regards to the following neutralization techniques: denial of responsibility, F (7, 236) = 9.370, p < .005 and denial of injury, F (7, 236) = 4.203, p < .05. A trend towards significance was found for the following two neutralization techniques: appeal to higher loyalties, F (7, 236) = 3.744, p < .10 and metaphor of ledger, F (7, 236) = 3.133, p < .10. Multiple regression analyses and correlations utilizing the Pearson Product Moment were conducted on the data to examine any significant differences between the relationship of neutralization theory and academic dishonesty. A composite score of all seven neutralization techniques was compared to the self-reported incidence of academic dishonesty. As illustrated in Table 4-17, significant differences were found as neutralization predicts cheating when all respondents were compared together, F (1,242) = 57.666, p<. 001. Table 4-17 Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis and F Values for Variables Predicting Neutralization Theory on Academic Dishonesty fN = 244) Variable B SEB P F Value Overall -.330 .043 -.439 57.666***** Athletes -.399 .083 -.479 23.229***** Non-Athletes -.248 .049 -.369 25.612***** Freshman -.448 .163 .483 7.597** Sophomores -.426 .134 -.491 10.188**** Juniors -.190 .100 -.281 3.600* Seniors -.277 .053 -.413 27.587***** Other .433 .899 .433 .231 *E<.10 **E<.05 **** P < .005 ***** p < .001

PAGE 119

113 Significant differences in the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty were calculated when athletes were examined, F (1,78) = 23.229, p < .001, and for non-athletes, F (1,162) = 25.612, p < .001. Significant differences in the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty were calculated for freshman, F (1,25) = 7.597, p < .05, sophomores F (1,32) = 10.188, p < .005, and seniors F (1,134) = 27.587, p < .001. A trend towards significance was calculated with regards to junior level students, F (1,42) = 3.600, p < .10. No significance was calculated for those students classified as "other" with regards to their college grade level. Correlations were conducted on the data to examine the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty as illustrated in Table 4-18. A Pearson Product Moment was calculated for athletes (-.479) and non athletes (-.369). Both of these correlations were significant at the .001 level. When examining differences in college grade level, a Pearson Product Moment was calculated for freshman (-.483, significant at the .05 level), sophomores (-.491, significant at the .01 level), and senior (-.413, significant at the .001 level). A trend towards significance was calculated for junior level students (-.281, significant at the .10 level). No significance was calculated for students who were classified as "other" with regard to their college grade level.

PAGE 120

114 Table 4-18 Pearson Product Moment: Neutralization Theory and Academic Dishonesty (N 244) Variable Pearson Product Moment Athlete (n = 80) A ^ f\ 4 ^ ^ 4 ^ ^TMsf 3p Jft )|t 5|t NonAthlete (n= 164) -.369***** Freshman (n = 27) -.483** Sophomore (n = 34) -.491***** Junior (n = 44) -.281* Senior (n.= 136) 413***** Other (n 3) .433 *E<.10, two-tailed. **E<. 05, two-tailed. **** 2 <. 005., two-tailed. ***** 2 <. 001, two-tailed. Tables 41 7 and 41 8 illustrated the predictability and relationship that existed between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty. These separate analyses concluded that significant differences existed in this relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty when examining athletic participation and various college grade levels. The third research question attempted to fiuther examine this relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty by investigating differences between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level. The relationship between neutralization theory and cheating by athletic status and college grade level was examined through the utilization of a Muhivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) as illustrated in Table 4-19. The relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty was significantly different when compared by athletic status and college grade level, F (2,91) = 3.677, p < .05.

PAGE 121

115 Table 4-19 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Neutralization Theory and Academic Dishonesty (N 244) Source df F Value Neutralization (N) 58 3.488***** Athlete (A) 1 13.235***** Year (Y) 4 3.695*** NxA 16 .282 NxY 53 .191 AxY 2 .343 NxAxY 2 3.677** Error 91 (.202) Note. Value enclosed in parentheses represent mean square error **E<.05 ***p<.01 *****p<.001 Additional Analyses The questionnaire as originally constructed by Folding (1995) contained questions that were not analyzed for significance in this study. These questions that were not reported involved respondents level of approval and agreement to various cheating statements and to ones' fathers/head of households or friends reaction to cheating. Additionally, questions that were not reported in this study included items that measured levels of agreement to certain personality statements, the probability of being caught committmg acts of academic dishonesty, the perceived sanctions if caught, and the perceived frequency of commission of acts of academic dishonesty by respondents' best friends. Although this study utilized an amended version of Folding's (1995) questionnaire, certain questions that failed to address the studied research questions, which involved the utihzation of neutralization and academic dishonesty, could have been eliminated.

PAGE 122

116 Summary This chapter has documented the results obtained in regards to the association with the techniques of neutralization. Significant differences were noted in the utilization of neutralization techniques based on differences in gender, athletic participation, race, and college grade level as outlined in Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4. The effects of college grade level were fiirther analyzed through the utilization of independent sample T-tests as illustrated in Table 4-5. Also reported were significant differences in the incidence of cheating as compared by gender, athletic participation, and college grade level as detailed in Tables 4-6, 4-7, and 4-9. After examining the significance of the main effect variables in regards to neutralization techniques and academic dishonesty, this chapter provided insight into the incidence of cheating over the coiirse of an academic semester as self-reported by 244 respondents as illustrated in Table 4-10. After reporting on the fi^equency of the commission of various acts of academic dishonesty, the number and percentage of students caught cheating was documented in Table 4-11. Table 4-12 illustrated the reported effectiveness, as reported by the students, of various strategies to prevent cheating. Table 4-13 illustrated the discrepancies between athletes and non-athletes in the belief that a double standard existed at the studied institution in which cheating by athletes was tolerated, but not for non-athletes. Also, Table 4-14 reported if participation in various activities could accurately predict the incidence of academic dishonesty. The absence of a significant difference when comparing the use of neutralization techniques between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level was documented m Table 4-15. Also, as illustrated in Table 4-16, no significance difference

PAGE 123

117 was reported when examining if athletes reported a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level. Finally, Tables 4-17, 4-18, and 4-19 detailed the predictability of neutralization theory on the incidence of academic dishonesty, the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty, and if the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differed between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level.

PAGE 124

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This study was conducted with the purpose of determining the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher educatioa Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions: (a) Does the use of neutralization techniques differ between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level? (b) Do athletes report a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes when compared by college grade level? (c) Does the relationship between neutralization theory and cheating differ between athletes and non-athletes when compared by college grade level? Also of interest were the perceptions, and attitudes associated with academic dishonesty. It can be deduced that academic dishonesty is a serious issue within institutions of higher learning. This study has provided insight into this issue and has offered strategies that may provide guidance into reducing this problem which exists on many campuses across the country. Educational administrators have witnessed the continuation of a serious problem within higher education. Academic dishonesty represents a severe threat to an institution's integrity. It contradicts the principles and values that students should obtain and strengthen while in college. Regardless of the magnitude of the problem of academic dishonesty over the last century, it has been documented as a widescale problem that 118

PAGE 125

119 must be addressed in order to reduce or eliminate the threat it poses to higher education (Carnegie Council Report, 1979; Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; Nuss, 1984). Sykes and Matza (1957) concluded that neutralization techniques were employed before engaging m deviant acts. They suggested that cheaters evaluated the given situation and identified various neutralization techniques before committing acts of academic dishonesty. It was through the utilization of these techniques that cheaters were able to justify their deviant behavior. Additionally, individuals who committed these deviant actions typically abided to the norms established by society. The problem appears to center around the lack of institutional control regardii^ academic dishonesty (Aaron, 1992; Pass, 1986; Haines et al, 1986). Boundaries need to be established m order to preserve the mtegrity and values that have long been attributed to higher education (Fishbein, 1993; Kibler, 1993b, 1994; Pavela & McCabe, 1993). Kibler & Kibler (1993) claim that colleges need a comprehensive approach to the problem of academic dishonesty" (p. Bl). The understandmg of neutralization theory should provide refortification of the original ideals encompassing institutions of higher learning. Conclusions The threat that academic dishonesty poses on higher education has been documented by previous researchers (Boyer, 1990; Haines, Diekhoff, LaBeff, & Clark, 1986; Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Reported rates of the incidence of academic dishonesty has been calculated as high as 95% (McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Consistent with these fmdings, this study found 80% of the respondents reported that they had committed an

PAGE 126

120 act of academic dishonesty at least one time over the course of the studied semester. This rate is considerable higher than previous rates reported by Baird (1980), Hetherington and Feldman (1964), and HoUinger and LanzaKaduce (1996). This study established a difference in the commission of academic dishonesty when distinguishing between genders. Males reported a higher incidence of cheating (89%) than females (75%). These differences are in accord with previous research which stipulates that males cheat at a higher rate than females (Baird, 1980; Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992 Hetherington & Feldman, 1964). Also of interest were the differences between self-reported acts of academic dishonesty between athletes (85%) and non-athletes (78%). Once again, these current fmdings are consistent with the findings of Haines, Diekhofif, LaBefC & Clark (1986) and McCabe and Trevino (1997) in which athletes reported a higher incidence of cheating than non-athletes. Differences in the prevalence of academic dishonesty by college grade level have been discussed in previous research, although the exact relationship has been debated. In this study, freshman cheated more often than seniors. This is consistent with previous studies that identified differences by college grade level (Baird, 1980; Cizek, 1999; MitcheU & Wisby, 1995). In this study, the incidence of cheating was examined by requesting respondents to report the frequency of specific cheating acts. The statements, "copied someone else's homework or lab assignment", "copied answers from someone else taking the exam", and "copied a few sentences of material from a reference without footnoting or giving proper credit to the original author in a paper" received the highest level of frequency. These

PAGE 127

121 findings are consistent with previous research (Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce, 1996; Folding, 1995), where these specific forms of academic dishonesty involving plagiarism and the taking of information were found to be the most frequent. In this study, students admitted being caught committing acts of academic dishonesty only 85 times. Additionally, the specific cheating acts with the highest frequency of commission, "copied someone else's homework or lab assignment" (4%), "copied answers from someone else taking the exam" (7%), and "copied a few sentences of material from a reference without footnoting or giving proper credit to the original author in a paper" (9%) were the least likely to be detected. The majority of the studied acts of academic dishonesty were detected less than 1 5% of the time. These findmgs were consistent with previous research in which the rates of detection were analyzed (Haines, Diekhoflf, LaBeff, & Clark, 1986). Additionally, the fear of failing an assignment or exam without unauthorized assistance, greatly outweighed the anticipated sanctions associated with detection, including the probability of being caught. The notion that cheating carries minimal sanctions makes the act more appealing to desperate students (Davis & Ludvigson, 1995; Kibler, 1993a; Sims, 1995). The perception that cheating exists across capipuses was supported in the current study. When asked to report the percentage of students that were believed to commit acts of academic dishonesty, an astounding 99% reported that at least some percentage of students were involved in these acts. This problem is compounded with the lack of student reportage of acts of academic dishonesty. This study concurred with previous research in which students did not have the desire to "turn in" student cheaters (Aaron & Georgia, 1994; Jendrek, 1992).

PAGE 128

122 The need for comprehensive reform has been suggested by many researchers (Aaron, 1992, Aaron & Georgia, 1994; Cizek, 1999; Cole & Conklin, 1996; Kibler, 1993a, b, 1994; McCabe, 1993; McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Mitchell & Wisby, 1995; Pavela & McCabe, 1993). The common theme to these previous studies centers around the total involvement and commitment of the entire institutional community. This study concluded that certain prevention measures may be effective in deterring the incidence of academic dishonesty. Consistent with previous research (Cizek, 1999; HoUinger & LanzaKaduce, 1996 Folding, 1995), students believed that smaller class size may help to reduce the incidence of cheating as well as administering computer scrambled versions of exams. However, in order to effectively combat this threat to higher education, students must not only possess an internalized code of ethics which opposes cheating, they must also be committed to the educational process (Mitchell & Wisbey, 1995). This idea for the shared responsibility of academic integrity has led to the mtegration of honor codes. These codes required students to pledge to abide by the code, be responsible for enforcing and governing the code, and discipline students who failed to follow the code (McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Pavela & McCabe, 1993). Some schools have shifted to an ideal code in which academic dishonesty was properly defined, penalties for infractions outlined, and procedures for addressing cases of academic dishonesty were developed, inclusive of an appeal process (Jendrek, 1989). NeutraUzation theory (Klockars, 1974; Minor, 1981; Sykes and Matza 1957) may provide some insight into the commission of various acts of academic dishonesty. As previously reported, students utilized these techniques while enrolled in college courses.

PAGE 129

123 It has also been ascertained that these same students are committing acts of academic dishonesty. Respondents in this study agreed with the denial of victim neutralization statement. That is, under certain circumstances, cheating or other delinquent acts could be considered acceptable. The act may have served as a form of retaUation or punishment that was owed to the aggressor. Respondents also reported some level of agreeability to the notion of condemnation of the condemners. This technique involves the belief that teachers exhibit favoritism and the cheater is successfully able to shift attention jfrom personal motives and behavior to the motives and behaviors of those that disapprove of their delinquent actions. Respondents to this study also utilized the techniques, appeal to higher loyalties, denial of responsibility, and metaphor of ledger to justify their self-reported acts of academic dishonesty. These techniques support the notion that students are loyal to their friends, classmates, and teammates, that they should not be held accountable for their transgressions which, consequently are a result of influence obtained from outside forces, and that good credit or deeds can warrant delinquent activities. Additionally, respondents utilized the neutralization technique, defense of necessity believing that their deviant behavior was necessary or required. Also, students utilized the neutralization technique, denial of injury to justify deviant behavior that was absence of any great harm or injury. The utilization of various techniques of neutralization to rationalize acts of academic dishonesty has been supported by previous research. McCabe (1992) also noted a high level of reUance on the techniques, condemnation of the condemners and denial of responsibility. Furthermore, LaBefif,

PAGE 130

124 Clark, Haines, and Diekhofif (1990) experienced an abundance of justifications utilizing the techniques, condemnation of the condemners, denial of responsibility, appeal to higher loyalties, denial of victim, and denial of injviry. Folding (1995) reported a relationship between neutralization techniques and academic dishonesty with regards to denial of responsibility, condemnation of the condemners, appeal to higher loyalties, and defense of necessity. Associated with this neutralization technique, condemnation of the condemners, was the statement mvolving the existence of a double standard, in which athletes received leniency in regards to the frequency of being caught cheating. Contrary to this assumption by non-athletes, this study determined that non-athletes were in fact caught less committing acts of academic dishonesty than their athletic counterparts when the frequency of cheating was held constant. In turn, this perception of the existence of a double standard was proven to be inaccurate. Furthermore, the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty supported previous research (LaBeff et al., 1990; McCabe, 1992; Folding, 1995) in which neutralization techniques were said to occur prior to the deviant act and able to predict these acts. In this study, neutralization was able to predict academic dishonesty among athletic status and for all college grade levels with the exception of junior level students. Implications The incidence of cheating reported in this study was extremely high (80%). Furthermore, athletes reported that they had committed acts of academic dishonesty at a higher rate (85%) than non-athletes (78%). It may be speculated that the higher rates of

PAGE 131

125 academic dishonesty in athletes were due to the limited amount of time allotted for class attendance, review sessions, and studying as a result of the substantial amount of time that must be devoted to practice, travel, and competition. It also may become necessary for athletes to resort to cheating in order to remain eligible and receive acceptable grades as dictated by their institution and the NCAA. Also, on many occasions athletes are in situations in which the mentality of "its only illegal if you get caught" is acceptable. For example, basketball players may attempt to draw fouls on opposing players by exaggerating minor contact and football players may act as though they have made a reception, when in fact the ball was not legally caught. Other intercollegiate sports call into play the morality and integrity of its participants (tennis or golf) as athletes are responsible for abidmg by the rules of the sport and personally ruling on any violations during the course of play. The rules, actions, and mentality that govern play on the athletic field may filter over into the classroom explaining the high level of athlete participation in academic dishonesty. Additionally, many athletes possess a feeling that they are "untouchable." This belief that their athletic ability or notoriety will prevent them from any form of punishment may facilitate the commission of deviant acts such as cheatmg. This mentality needs to be addressed as there is an increase in the amount of athletes receiving negative publicity due to their off-the-field behavior. Furthermore, the overall incidence of cheating suggests that strategies were not being effectively utilized by institutions to combat academic dishonesty. It is only through adequate prevention measures and campus wide approaches that this problem can be addressed.

PAGE 132

126 Additionally, this research concluded that freshman cheated more often than seniors. This may be due to their lack of college preparation or understanding of the actions that constitute academic dishonesty. Furthermore, this implies that cheating behavior was permitted in the high school or learned early in ones' college career. However, it may also be proposed that since junior and senior level students were already admitted into a major, their need to cheat would be reduced. Additionally, these students have successfully progressed through school utilizing honest methods. Regardless of the exact time a student learns to cheat, institutions of higher learning need to take effective strategies in order to reduce the incidence of academic dishonesty. This study concluded that cheating acts were rarely detected. Additionally, many students beUeved that such detection would only lead to minimal punishment. In many cases, cheaters felt the odds of them successfully cheating greatly outweighed the risks and potential punishments of failing the assigimient or exam or by actually being caught. This low risk and high reward equation, may lead many students to commit acts of academic dishonesty. These findings also suggested that professors did not create an envirormient in which academic dishonesty was prohibited. This notion may also be supported by the high level of dishonest behavior reported. Students identified many prevention methods that professors and administrators could utilize to combat the issue of academic dishonesty. Students suggested that "having smaller classes rather than auditorium sections", "having computers scramble the items on an exam so that no two exams were the same", "using more essays, and fewer objective questions (e.g., multiple choice, true-false) on tests", and "having several proctors or monitors to watch for cheating" would be effective measures for reducmg

PAGE 133

127 cheating. These prevention measures would specifically combat the acts of academic dishonesty, plagiarism and taking of information, which many respondents claimed they had committed. Once these prevention methods have been identified and incorporated by professors, it is the responsibility of the institutions to foster an educational enviroimient in which cheating is deterred. Countermeasures should serve as the foundation for developing a more comprehensive approach to effectively addressing the problem of academic dishonesty across imiversity campuses. Models have been proposed that may etfectively combat the problem of academic dishonesty across university campuses (Cizek, 1999; Jendrek, 1989; Kibler, 1993a; Kibler, 1993b; Kibler, 1994; Pavela & McCabe, 1993). The common theme of these programs of intervention involved a clearly written policy detailing academic dishonesty, opportunities for discussion, an adequate adjudication procedure, worthy sanctions, accordance throughout instructional settings. Unfortunately, it is not until students pledge to abide by a moral standard in which academic dishonesty is not accepted or tolerated that this problem will be adequately addressed. In this study the least supported countermeasure was having an anonymous telephone 'Hot Line' to report students who have cheated." This implied that students were not willing or able to accept the challenge of combating academic dishonesty. The studied institution does address academic dishonesty in the student handbook and has procedures in place to deal with acts of cheating. The institution also expects students to have prior knowledge about the unacceptability of academic dishonesty. However, the unwillingness to abide by this code of conduct may suggest the need for a stronger code. It has been suggested that an honor code would reduce the incidence of cheating (Jendrek, 1989; Kibler, 1994; McCabe & Trevino, 1993; McCabe, 1993; Mitchell &

PAGE 134

128 Wisbey, 1995; Pavela & McCabe, 1993). However, in order for an honor code to be effective, students must support and comply with its regulations and ideals. This study concluded that non-athletes believed that a double standard existed at the institution, in which cheating was tolerated by athletes but not by non-athletes. Further analysis determined that athletes were caught more frequently than non-athletes. Based on the finding that athletes cheated more often than non-athletes, this discrepancy should have been expected. However, this erroneous behef that athletes abide by a different set of rules and regulations needs to be addressed. It therefore becomes apparent that education needs to take place in which the general student population is assured that athletes are not only treated equally, but are required to abide by additional academic requirements as implemented by the university and NCAA. Neutralization techniques have been documented to provide some msight into the prevalence of academic dishonesty (LaBeflf, Clark, Haines & Diekhofif, 1990; McCabe, 1992; Folding, 1995). This study concluded that these techniques were being utilized as a means for neutralizing cheating behavior. The technique, denial of victim, was utilized by students before the commission of cheating acts. It was possible that students observed no victim and felt that their behavior was a form of retaliation against the professor, or university. Furthermore, cheating may be deemed acceptable because professors did very little to prevent or detect the cheating acts. The technique, condemnation of the condemners, occurred when student would view professors, administrators, or other students as hypocrites. Students were able to deflect any negative thoughts or sanctions from these groups. That is, their cheatmg behavior was the result of poor teaching and inaccurate assignment of grades.

PAGE 135

129 The technique, appeal to higher loyalties was especially common among athletes as they exhibited a sense of belonging to a team and camaraderie that may tempt them to help out a teammate. Athletes may also develop a sense if elitism in which they are competing against other students and feel the urge to help out a fellow athlete. Denial of responsibility occurred when students believed that forces outside of their control caused them to cheat. This inability to accept responsibility for their actions is common among athletes. The technique, metaphor of ledger allowed students to accumulate credit, or good deeds, which they believed entitled them to commit acts of academic dishonesty. It was possible that students, especially athletes utilized this technique to explain their cheating behavior. That is, athletes may view the financial and entertainment value of their athletic services as affording them the opportimity to commit various acts of academic dishonesty. The technique, defense of necessity was popular among students who believed that their cheating behavior was necessary. They may have studied the wrong material, witnessed other students cheating, felt as though the course material was too difficult, needed the necessary grades for admission into graduate or professional school, or possibly to maintain their athletic eligibility. The technique, denial of injury occurred when the deviant was able to ignore guilt, due to the absence of any great harm or injury associated with the delinquent act. This technique was commonly utilized due to the actual absence of injury associated with academic dishonesty. The utilization of these techniques of neutralization, by students, especially athletes suggests that they will not only provide insight into why people cheat, but will potentially provide relief to this problem that threatens higher education.

PAGE 136

130 Finally, significant differences in the relationship between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty between athletes and non athletes when compared by college grade levels suggest that the problem can be alleviated with proper intervention. It is through the understanding of the facets that drive a student to commit acts of academic dishonesty that this problem needs to be addressed. If prevention factors are being met, the level of academic dishonesty should diminish. Recommendations for Future Study The following recommendations for future research are offered based on the results obtained in this study. 1 RepHcate this study utilizing a larger sample size to examine the interaction between athletic participation and college grade level with regards to the utilization of neutralization techniques and the incidence of cheating. 2. Examine the impact of the threat of academic dishonesty on a campus in which a honor code is m place to analyze the level of awareness it fosters on a university's campus. 3. Examine the relationship of neutralization theory and academic dishonesty at an institution that has an honor code in place. 4. Examine the differences in the frequency of cheating by college grade level to provide methods for assisting in the deterrence of cheating by new college students. 5. Conduct a longitudinal study in which respondents are first asked to report their beliefs and attitudes in response to the various neutralization techniques and then at a later date asked to self-report their incidence of academic dishonesty.

PAGE 137

131 6. Examine if neutralization theory is an accurate predictor of other deviant activities, besides academic dishonesty, that occur on university campuses. 7. Examine the impact of religious activity, fraternity or sorority membership, political action, and participation in other extracurricular activities, on reducing the incidence of academic dishonesty. 8. Examine the utilization of neutralization techniques by both athletes and non-athletes across college grade levels, to rationalize their cheating behaviors. 9. Examine the incidence of academic dishonesty on standardized college admission tests or high school coiarses, which enable high level athletes to gain admission into colleges and universities. 10. Examine rational choice theory as a basis for the decision-making process that occurs prior to the commission academic dishonesty. 1 1 Analyze the mentality, behefs, attitudes, and actions, of intercollegiate athletes so that administrators, especially athletic administrators may be better prepared to combat transgressions that seem to plague athletics. Summary This chapter has examined the implications of this study as well as provided recommendations for future research. This study has provided a plethora of research that can be utilized in the continued attempt to reduce the threat academic dishonesty poses on higher education. Academic dishonesty is a serious problem within higher education. It is imperative that educational admmistrators take steps to actively combat this problem within higher education so that institutions are able to adequately impart knowledge and develop intellectual competence among their students. These goals of higher education,

PAGE 138

132 which enable students to expand their knowledge and intellect, enhance religious, moral, and emotional interests, and improve performance in practical matters, have long been the foundation of higher education (Kibler, Nuss, Paterson, & Pavela, 1988).

PAGE 139

APPENDIX A PERMISSION REQUEST OF PROFESSORS November 2, 1999 Dear Professor: My name is Jason Storch and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida, in the College of Education, Department of Educational Leadership, Policy and Foundations. The chairman of my committee is Phillip A. Clark, Professor. The title of my study is: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEUTRALIZATION THEORY AND ACADEMIC DISHONESTY IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS Academic dishonesty is a serious threat to the integrity of higher education. Neutralization theory is a criminological theory that explains the techniques that individuals utilize in order to justify their delinquent behavior. The purpose of this study is to determine whether a relationship exists between neutralization theory and academic dishonesty in higher education. In addition, this study will examine this relationship by comparing responses of intercollegiate varsity athletes to non-athletes. The results of this study will provide information on cheating behavior in college students and, assist in the development of inter\'ention programs to combat the problem of academic dishonesty. In order to obtain the necessary sample for this study, your class has been selected due to its appropriateness of respondents. I would Uke to administer the questionnaire during a class session in November, 1999. The questionnaire will take not more than 30 minutes 133

PAGE 140

134 to complete. To ensure the confidentiality of all participants, the data obtained will be recorded anonymously and participation will remain voluntary at all times. If you could please contact me as soon as possible to set up a time when I can administer the questionnaire, it would be greatly appreciated. I can be contacted at (352) 375-4683 x5870 or jasons@gators.uaa.ufl.edu Sincerely, Jason Storch

PAGE 141

APPENDIX B ACADEMIC DISHONESTY STATEMENTS In this study, the following statements were utilized to operationally define academic dishonesty (Polding, 1995). TAKING OF INFORMATION Copied someone else's homework or lab assignments Copied answers from someone else taking the exam Used notes, books, 'cheat/crib sheets,' or other unallowed materials during an exammation Secretly got access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam Studied from a 'hot' copy of an exam before it was given to the rest of your class TENDERING OF INFORMATION Knowingly allowed someone to copy answers to an exam PLAGIARISM Turned in another student's work as your own Copied published material and turned it in as your own FORMS OF MISREPRESENTATTION Copied a few sentences of material from a reference without footnoting or giving credit to the original author Made up a felse excuse to delay or put off taking an exam or turning in an assignment 135

PAGE 142

APPENDIX C NEUTRALIZATION STATEMENTS In this study, the following statements were utilized to operationally define techniques of neutralization (Folding, 1995). DENIAL OF RESPONSIBILITY Cheating is OK if you are not given reasonable time to prepare Cheating is better than failing Cheating is OK if you carmot study because of other commitments DENIAL OF INJURY If the curve goes up because a number of students have cheated, cheating really does not give you an unfair advantage DENIAL OF VICTIM Cheating must not be too wrong or instructors would try harder to 'catch' cheaters Grades really do not reflect what you know about a subject CONDEMNATION OF THE CONDEMNERS There would be less cheating if teaching were better Professors should not complain about cheating because they do not assign grades feirly anyway At this school a 'double standard' exists; cheating by athletes is tolerated, but for other students it is not 136

PAGE 143

137 APPEAL TO fflGHER LOYALTIES Helping someone to cheat on exams and assignments is OK because students should stick together and help one another Students would not cheat so much if parents would not put so much pressure on them to get good grades Cheating is not so bad if you are helping a friend Sometimes you have to cheat to help a fraternity brother or sorority sister METAPHOR OF LEDGER It is not so bad to cheat if you have studied hard and attended class DEFENSE OF NECESSITY Cheating is OK if others in the class are doing it Cheating is OK if you are not given reasonable time to prepare Cheating is OK if the professor gives unreasonably difficult assignments or tests Cheating is OK if you studied the wrong material or did the wrong assignment Cheating is sometimes necessary to get the GPA you need to get into a college, graduate program, professional school, or to participate in extracurricular activities

PAGE 144

APPENDIX D SURVEY Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. It should take no longer than 30 minutes to complete. Please answer truthfully to the following questions. If a question does not fit your situation, please answer NA (for Not Applicable). Nowhere on this survey do we ask for your name or identification number. It is impossible to correspond any answers you may give to your identity. You may decide to discontinue your participation of this survey at any time. DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ANYWHERE ON TfflS SURVEY AS IT IS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY AND ANONYMOUS. DIRECTIONS: Please answer the following questions by selecting the appropriate number. 1 What is your sex? ( 1 ) male (2) female 2. What is your present age? (1) under 18 (2)18-19 (3)20-21 (4) 22-23 (5) over 23 3. What is your race or ethnic background? (1) White (2) Black (3) Asian (4) Hispanic (5) Other 4. At the beginning of the current semester, what was your classification at the university? (1) Freshman (2) Sophomore (3) Junior (4) Senior (5) aher 5. At the beginning of the current semester, what college were you in? (1) Liberal Arts & Sciences (2) Business (3) Journalism (4) Health & Human Performance (5) Other 6. How many credit hours are you registered for this semester? (l)Under 12 (2) 12-13 (3) 14-15 (4) 16-17 (5) Over 17 7. Are you an intercollegiate athlete at the university? (1) Yes (2) No How much do you AGREE or DISAGREE with the following statements? (Use the responses below for your answers to items 8-41) (l)strongly agree (2)agree (3)undecided (4)disagree (5)strongly disagree 8. Helping someone to cheat on exams and assignments is OK because students should stick together and help one another. 138

PAGE 145

139 (l)strongly agree (2)agree (3)neutral (4)disagree (5)strongly disagree 9. Cheating is OK if others in the class are doing it. 1 0. Cheating is OK if you are not given reasonable time to prepare. 1 1 Cheating is OK if the instructor speaks English poorly. 12. If the curve goes up because a number of students have cheated, cheating really does not give you an unfair advantage. 13. There would be less cheating if teaching were better. 14. Cheating is OK if the professor gives unreasonably difficult assignments or tests. 15. Cheating is OK because no one ever gets caught. 16. Professors should not complain about cheating because they do not assign grades fairly anyway. 17. At this school a "double standard" exists; cheating by athletes is tolerated, but for other students it is not. 1 8. Cheating must not be too wrong or instructors would try harder to catch cheaters. 19. Students would not cheat so much if parents would not put so much pressure on them to get good grades. 20. Cheating is not so bad if you are helping a friend. 21. Cheating is OK if you studied the wrong material or did the wrong assigrmient. 22. Cheating is sometimes necessary to get the GPA you need to get into a college, graduate program, professional school, or to participate in extracurricular activities. 23. Cheating is better than failing. 24. It is not so bad to cheat if you have studied hard and attended class. 25. Sometimes you have to cheat to help a fraternity brother or sorority sister. 26. Cheating is OK if you cannot study because of other commitments. 27. Grades really do not reflect what you know about a subject. 28. Most people do not realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings. 29. Cheating is seen as a very serious matter by university officials, 30. My mother really understands me. 3 1 I admire and respect my father. 32. Getting good grades is very important to me. 33. I can share my iimermost thoughts and feelings with my mother. 34. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. 35. Cheating is seen as a very serious matter by most students. 36. My father really understands me. 37. I am confident that my college education will prepare me for the job or career that I want. 38. I can share my innermost thoughts and feelings with my father. 39. Most of the time what happens to me is of my own doing. 40. I admire and respect my mother. 41 Cheating is seen as a very serious matter in our society.

PAGE 146

140 How much do you APPROVE or DISAPPROVE of the following behaviors? (Use the response codes below for your answers to items 4249 (l)strongly approve (2)approve (3)neutral (4)disapprove (5)strongly disapprove 42. Knowingly allowing someone to copy your answers to an exam. 43. Copying answers from someone else taking the exam. 44. Copying published material and turning it in as your own. 45. Turning in another student's work as your own. 46. Secretly getting access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam. 47. Accessing another's con^uter account or files without his/her knowledge or permission. 48. Receiving or giving a "pirated" copy of commercially-sold computer software to someone else. 49. Reporting another student who was cheating to the instructor. IF you were to do the following, what do you think are the CHANCES of your GETTING CAUGHT by an INSTRUCTOR or SCHOOL OFFICIAL? (use the response codes below for your answers to items 50-56.) (1) Ahnost none (2)10-30% (3)40-60% (4)70-90% (5) Ahnost 100% 50. Knowingly allowing someone to copy your answers to an exam. 5 1 Copying answers from someone else taking the exam. 52. Copying published material and turning it in as your own. 53. Turning m another student's work as your own. 54. Secretly getting access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam. 55. Accessing another's computer account or files without his/her knowledge or permission. 56. Receiving or giving a "pirated" copy of commercially-sold computer software to someone else. If you were to do the following, what do you think are the CHANCES that ANOTHER STUDENT would TURN YOU IN? (Use the response codes below for your answers to items 57-63.) (1) Almost none (2)10-30% (3)40-60% (4) 70-90% (5) Almost 1 00% 57. Knowingly allowing someone to copy your answers to an exam. 58. Copying answers from someone else taking the exam. 59. Copying published material and turning it in as your own. 60. Turning in another student's work as your own. 61 Secretly getting access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam.

PAGE 147

141 (1) Almost none (2)10-30% (3)40-60% (4)70-90% (5) Almost 100% 62. Accessing another's computer accovmt or files without his/her knowledge or permission. 63. Receiving or giving a "pirated"copy of commercially-sold computer software to someone else. What do you think would be the most serious sanction you would suffer if you were caught doing the following? (Use the response codes below to answer items 64-70.) (1) Nothing (2) Redo or receive a grade penalty on the assignment or test (3) Fail the assigrmient, test or course (4) Receive conduct probation (i.e., student activities limited, athletics limited, community service required, etc.) (5) Be kicked out of the university permanently 64. Knowingly allowing someone to copy your answers to an exam. 65. Copying answers from someone else taking the exam. 66. Copying published material and turning it in as your own. 67. Turning in another student's work as your own. 68. Secretly getting access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam. 69. Accessing another's computer account or files without his/her knowledge or permission. 70. Receiving or giving a "pirated"copy of commercially-sold computer software to someone else. How much do you AGREE or DISAGREE with the following statements? (Use the response codes below for your answers to items 7075.) (l)strongly agree (2)agree (3)neutral (4)disagree (5)strongly disagree 71 My best friends really understand me. 72. We have a moral duty to abide by the law, even when we disagree with it. 73. I would like to be the kind of people my best friends are. 74. I can share my innermost thoughts and feelings with my best friends. 75. Honest people finish last. 76. I feel a lot of pressure to get good grades.

PAGE 148

142 If your FATHER learned that you were doing the following, what would be his most likely REACTION? (If you did not live with your father prior to entering college, answer using "head of household.") (Use the response codes below for your answers to items 77-84.) (1) Withdraw financial support or other privileges (2) Be ashamed or disappointed (3) Not react either pro or con (4) Praise or encourage you (5) Other 77. Knowingly allowed someone to copy your answers to an exam. 78. Copied answers from someone else taking the exam,. 79. Copied published material and turning it in as your own. 80. Turned in another student's work as your own. 8 1 Secretly received access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam. 82. Accessed another's computer account or files without his/her knowledge or permission. 83. Received or gave a "pirated"copy of commercially-sold computer software to someone else. 84. Reported another student who was cheating to the instructor. If your BEST FRIENDS learned that you were doing the following, what would be their most common REACTION? (Use the response codes below for your answers to items 85-91.) ( 1 ) Turn you in (2) Criticize or discourage you (3) Not react pro or con (4) Praise or encourage you (5) Other 85. Knowingly allowing someone to copy your answers to an exam. 86. Copied answers from someone else taking the exam,. 87. Copied published material and turning it in as your own. 88. Turned in another student's work as your own. 89. Secretly received access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam. 90. Accessed another's computer account or files without his/her knowledge or permission. 91. Received or gave a "pirated"copy of commercially-sold computer software to someone else. 92. Reported another student who was cheating to the instructor. 93. How many CLOSE FRIENDS would you say that you have? (1) none (2) one or two (3) three or four (4) five or six (5) seven or more

PAGE 149

143 Please indicate how often you participate in the following activities? (Use the response codes below for your answers to items 94-108.) (1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) Often (5) Always 94. church or religious activities 95. ^ school work 96. part-time job (this semester) 97. fiiU-time job (this semester) 98. sorority or fraternity social fimctions 99. partying 100. dating 101. physical exercise (e.g., jogging, aerobics, tennis, etc.) 102. interscholastic competition (e.g. sports, debate, chess, etc.) 103. sorority or fraternity duties (other than social function) 1 04. student groups (e.g. student government, BSU, etc.) 105. poUtical action groups 106. commimity service clubs 107. musical, theatrical, or other performing art groups 108. painting, sculpting, or other fine arts. How many of your BEST FRIENDS DO THE FOLLOWING at least occasionally? (Use the response codes below for your answers to items 109-1 16.) (1) Almost none (2) A few (3) About half (4) More than half (5) Almost all 1 09. Knowingly allowed someone to copy your answers to an exam. 1 10. Copied answers from someone else taking the exam,. 111. Copied published material and turning it in as your own. 112. Turned in another student's work as your own. 113. Secretly received access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam. 1 14. Accessed another's computer account or files without his/her knowledge or permission. 115. Received or gave a "pirated"copy of commercially-sold computer software to someone else. 116. Reported another student who was cheating to the instructor.

PAGE 150

144 Since the beginning of the Fall Semester 1999, about HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU DO each of the following? (Please remember that your responses are completely anonymous.) (Use the response codes below to answer items 1 17-130.) (1 ) None (2) Once or twice (3) Three or four times (4) Five or six times (5) Seven or more times 117. copied someone else's homework or lab assignment. 1 1 8. Knowingly allowed someone to copy your answers to an exam. 1 1 9. Copied answers from someone else taking the exam. 120. Copied a few sentences of material form a reference without footnoting or given proper credit to the original author in a paper. 121. Copied published material and turned it in as your own. 122. Turned in another student's work as your own. 1 23. Made up a false excuse to delay or put off taking an exam or turning in an assigimient. 124. Secretly got access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam. 125. Studied from a "hot" copy of an exam before it was given to the rest of your class. 126. Used notes, books, "cheat/crib sheets", or other imallowed materials during an examination. 127. Received or gave a "pirated" copy of commercially-sold computer software to someone else. 128. Accessed another's computer account or files without his/her knowledge or permission. 129. Reported another student who was cheating to the instructor. 130. Failed to report someone else who you definitely knew cheated. During this past semester HAVE YOU BEEN CAUGHT domg any of the following. (Use the response codes below for your answers to items 131144) ( 1 ) Yes (2) No (3) Not applicable 131. copied someone else's homework or lab assigrmient. 132. Knowingly allowed someone to copy your answers to an exam. 133. Copied answers from someone else taking the exam. 134. Copied a few sentences of material form a reference without footnoting or given proper credit to the original author m a paper. 135. Copied published material and turned it in as your own, 136. Turned in another student's work as your own. 137. Made up a false excuse to delay or put off taking an exam or turning in an assigimient. 138. Secretly got access to exam questions or answers prior to the exam 139. Studied from a "hot" copy of an exam before it was given to the rest of your class.

PAGE 151

145 ( 1 ) Yes (2) No (3) Not applicable 140. Used notes, books, "cheat/crib sheets", or other unallowed materials during an examination. 141. Received or gave a "pirated" copy of commercially-sold computer software to someone else. 142. Accessed another's computer account or files without his/her knowledge or permission. 143. Reported another student who was cheating to the instructor. 144. Failed to report someone else who you definitely knew cheated. 145. In your opinion WHAT PERCENTAGE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE INVOLVED in cheating? (1) Almost none (2)10-30% (3)40-60% (4)70-90% (5) Almost 100% Instructors take a variety of steps to limit cheating. Indicate HOW EFFECTIVE you believe each of the following tactic to be. (Use the response codes below for your answers to items 146-165.) (1) Not at all effective in reducing cheating (2) Reduces cheating a little (3) No opinion one way or the other (4) Reduces cheating quite a lot (5) Very effective in reducing cheating 146. Having two or more forms of an exam (e.g., Form A & Form B). 147. Having several proctors or monitors to watch for cheating. 148. Checking identifications of those taking an exam. 149. Having small classes rather than auditorium sections. 150. Assigning seats in exams so students will not know who they sit beside. 1 5 1 Having the computer scramble the items on an exam so that no two exam are the same. 152. Using more essays and fewer objective questions (e.g., multiple choice, truefalse) on tests. 153. Giving writing assignments on specific topics rather than assigning general term papers. 154. Randomly selecting term papers to check all of the footnotes and references. 155. Giving each student or lab team a different assignment. 1 56. Requiring students to write essay exams in marked and specially provided answer books. 157. Using more exams and fewer take-home assignments and projects. 158. Permitting no one to leave during an exam.

PAGE 152

146 (1) Not at all efifective in reducing cheating (2) Reduces cheating a little (3) No opinion one way or the other (4) Reduces cheating quite a lot (5) Very effective in reducing cheating 159. Allowing nothing but pencils or pens to be brought into the exam. 1 60. Putting names on each exam booklet before handing them out so they can be checked to make sure they have all been returned. 161. Having an anonymous telephone "Hot Line" to report students who have cheated. 162. Using a completely different exam for make-ups. 163. Handing out study sheets before the exam to help prepare for it. 1 64. Giving a copy of an old exam to everyone to help them study. 165. Using fewer exams and more take-home assigrmients. 166. How often do you attend church, synagogue, or other religious meetings? (1) never (2) once a year or less (3) a few times a year (4) a few times a month (5) once a week (6) more than once a week 167. How often do you spend time in private religious activities, such as prayer, meditation or Bible study? (1) never (2) a few times a year (3) a few times a month (4) a few times a week (5) once a day (6) more than once a day (Use the response codes below for your answers to items 168-170.) (1) definitely not true (2) somewhat not true (3) undecided (4) somewhat true (5) definitely true 168. In my life I experience the presence of the Divine 169. ___ My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life. 170. I try hard to carry my religion over into all other dealings in life. Thank you for your time and consideration in completing this survey.

PAGE 153

REFERENCES Aaron, R. M. (1992). Student academic dishonesty: Are collegiate institutions addressing the issue? NASPA Journal. 29. 107-113. Aaron, R. M. & Georgia, R. T. (1994). Administrator perceptions of student academic dishonesty in collegiate institutions. NASPA Journal. 31. 83-91. Agnew, R. & Peters, A. R. (1986). The techniques of neutralization: An analysis of predisposing and situational factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 1 3. 8197. Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (3^''ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Akers, R. L. (1997). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation (2™* ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Association of American Colleges. (1985). Integrity in the college curriculum: A report to the academic community. Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass. Austin, R. L. (1977). Commitment, neutralization, and delinquency. In T. N. Ferdinand (Ed.), Juvenile delinquency: Little brother grows up (pp. 121137). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Baird, J. S. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools. 17. 515-522. Baker, W. J. (1982). Sports in the western world. Totowa,NJ: Rowmanand Littlefield. Ball, R. A. (1966). An empirical exploration of neutralization theory. Criminologica. 4 22-32. Bamett, D. C. & Dalton, J. C. (1981). Why college students cheat. Journal of College Student Personnel. 22. 545-551. Bok, D. (1990). Universities and the future of America. Durham, NC: Duke University. 147

PAGE 154

148 Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York, NY: Bureau of Applied Research, Columbia University. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Campus life: In search of community. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Brennan, W. C. (1974). Abortion and the techniques of neutralization. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 15, 358-365. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1973). The purposes and the performance of higher education in the United States. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. (1979). Fair practices in higher education: Rights and responsibilities of students and their colleges in a period of intensified competition for enrollments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. (2"*'ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it. detect it, and prevent it Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Cole, S., & Conklin, D. (1996). Academic integrity policies and procedures: Opportunities to teach students about moral leadership and personal ethics. College Student Affairs JoumaL 15. 30-39. Cole, S. & McCabe, D. L. (1996). Issues in academic integrity. InW. L. Mercer (Ed.), Critical issues in judicial affaks: Current trends in practice (pp. 67-77). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Curran, D. J. & Renzetti, C. M. (1994). Theories of crime. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Davis, S. F. Grover, C. A. Becker, A. H. & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology. 19. 16-20. Davis, S. F. fe Ludvigson, H. W. (1995). Additional data on academic dishonesty and a proposal for remediation. Teaching of Psychology. 22. 119-121. Dodder, R. & Hughes, S. P. (1987). Collegiate drinking behavior: A test of neutralization theory. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. 33. 73-85.

PAGE 155

149 Dodder, R. A., & Hughes, S. P. (1993). Neutralization of drinking behavior. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 14. 65-79. Drake, C. A. (1941). Why students cheat. Journal of Higher Education. 12. 418-420. Eve, R. A. & Bromley, D. G. (1981). Scholastic dishonesty among college undergraduates: Parallel tests of two sociological explanations. Youth and Societv. 13. 3-22. Pass, R. A. (1986). By honor bound: Encouraging academic honesty. Educational Record. 67. 32-36. Fishbein, L. (1993, December 1). Curbing cheating and restoring academic integrity. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 40. A52. Friedman, N. L. (1974). Cookies and contests: Notes on ordinary occupational deviance and its neutralization. Sociological Symposium. 11. 1-9. Gerdy, J. R. (1997). The successful college athletic program. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx. Gibbs, J. P. (1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence. New York, NY: Elsevier. Graham, M. A. Monday, J. O'Brien, K. Steffen, S. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Development. 35. 255-260. Guttmann, J. (1984). Cognitive morahty and cheating behavior m religious and secular school children. Journal of Educational Research. 77. 249-254. Haines, V. J. Diekhoff, G. M. LaBeff, E. E. & Clark, R. E. (1986). College cheating: Immaturity, lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitude. Research in Higher Education. 25. 342-354. Hamlin, J. E. (1988). The misplaced role of rational choice in neutralization theory. Criminologv. 26. 425-438. Hartshome, H. & May, M. A. (1928). Studies in deceit. New York, NY: Macmillan. Hetherington, E. M. & Feldman, S. E. (1964). College cheating as a function of subject and situational variables. Journal of Educational Psvchology. 55. 212-218.

PAGE 156

150 Hindelang, M. J. Hirschi, T. & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, C A: University of California. HoUinger, R. C. (1991). Neutralizing in the workplace: An empirical analysis of property theft and production deviance. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 12, 169-202. HoUinger, R. C. & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (1996). Academic dishonesty and the perceived effectiveness of countermeasures: An empirical study of cheating at a major public university. N ASP A Journal. 33. 292-306. Jendrek, M, P. (1989). Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development. 30 401-406. Jendrek, M. P. (1992). Students' reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development. 33. 260-273. Kibler, W. L. (1993a). Academic dishonesty: A student development dUemma. NASPA Journal. 30. 252-267. Kibler, W. L. (1993b). A framework for addressing academic dishonesty from a student development perspective. NASPA Journal. 31. 8-18. Kibler, W. L. (1994). Addressing academic dishonesty: What are institutions of higher education doing and not doing? NASPA Journal. 31. 92-101. Kibler, W. L. & Kibler, P. V. (1993, July, 14). When students resort to cheating. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 39. B1-B2. Kibler, W. L. Nuss, E. M. Paterson, B. G. & Pavela, G. (1988). Academic integrity and student development. Asheville, NC: College Administration. Kliever, L. D. (1990). Ethical issues in intercollegiate athletics. In W. W. May (Ed.), Ethics and higher education (pp. 103-118). New York, NY: Macmillan. Klockars, C. B. (1974). The professional fence. New York, NY: Macmillan. Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. In C. M. Beck, B. S. Crittenden, & E. V. Sullivan (Eds.), Moral education: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 23-92). New York, NY: Newman.

PAGE 157

151 Kohlberg, L. (1975). The cognitive-developmental approach to moral education. Phi Delta Kappan. 56, 670-676. LaBeff, E. E. Clark, R. E. Haines, V. J. & Diekhoff, G. M. (1990). Situational ethics and college student cheating. Sociologicallnquirv, 60, 190-198. Leming, J. S. (1980). Cheating behavior, subject variables, and components of the internal-external scale under high and low risk conditions. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 83-87. Liska, A. E. (1978). Deviant involvement, associations and attitudes: Specifying the underlying causal structures. Sociology and Social Research. 63. 73-88. Long, E. L., Jr. (1992). Higher education as a moral enterprise. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York, NY: Wiley. McCabe, D. L. (1992). The mfluence of situational ethics on cheating among college students. Sociological Inquiry. 62. 365-374. McCabe, D. L. (1993). Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student honor codes. Research in Higher Education, 34, 647-658. McCabe, D. L. & Bowers, W. J. (1994). Academic dishonesty among males in college: A thirty year perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 5-10. 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 contextiial influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education. 38. 379-396. Michaels, J. W. & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Applying theories of deviance to academic cheating. Social Science Quarterly, 70. 870-885. Minor, W. W. (1980). The neutralization of criminal offense. Criminology. 18, 103-120. Minor, W. W. (1981). Techniques of neutralization: A reconceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 18. 295-318.

PAGE 158

152 Minor, W. W. (1984). Neutralization as a hardening process: Considerations in the modeling of change. Social Forces. 62. 995-1019. Mitchell, C. M. & Wisbey, M. E. (1995). Cheaters never prosper, but do they get college degrees? College Student Affairs Journal 15. 87-93. Mitchell, J., & Dodder, R. A. (1983). Types of neutralization and types of delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1 2. 307-318. Morrill, R. L. (1980). Teaching values in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (1999). 1999-00 NCAA Division I Manual. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA. National Institute of Education, Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in Learning. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Newman, F. (1985). Higher education and the American resurgence. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1999-00 NCAA Division I Manual. The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Indianapolis, IN. Nuss, E. M. (1984). Academic integrity: Comparing faculty and student attitudes. Improving College and University Teaching. 32. 140-144. Parr, F. W. (1936). The problem of student honesty. Journal of Higher Education. 7. 318-326. Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pavela, G. (1978). Judicial review of academic decisionmaking after Horowitz. School Law Journal. 55. 71-75. Pavela, G. & McCabe, D. (1993). The surprising return of honor codes. Planning for Higher Education. 21. 27-32. Folding, B. E. (1995). The extension of neutralization theory to the academic dishonesty of college students. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International. 57. 0540. Rader, B. G. (1999). American Sport: From the age of folk games to the age of televised sports (4"" ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. I

PAGE 159

153 Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Rest, J. R. (1985). Evaluating moral development. In J. C. Dalton (Ed.), Promoting values development in college students. Columbus, OH: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Reynolds, C. H. & Smith, D. C. (1990). Academic principles of responsibility. In W. W. May (Ed.) Ethics and higher education (pp. 32-48). New York, NY: Macmillan. Roth, N. L. & McCabe, D. L. (1995). Communication strategies for addressing academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development. 36. 531-541. Scheers, N. J. & Dayton, C. M. (1987). Improved estimation of academic cheating behavior using the randomized response technique. Research in Higher Education, 26. 61-69. Schneider, A. (1999, January 22). Why professors don't do more to stop students who cheat. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 45. A8-A10. Sims, R. L. (1995). The severity of academic dishonesty: A comparison of faculty and student views. Psychology in the Schools. 32. 233-238. Singhal, A. C. (1982). Factors in students' dishonesty. Psychological Reports. 51. 775-780. Smith, R. A. (1988). Sports and Freedom: The rise of big-time college athletics. New York, NY: Oxford University. Smith, R. A. (1995). Preludes to the NCAA: Early failures of faculty intercollegiate athletic control. InD. K. Wiggins (Ed.), Sport in America: From wicked amusement to national obsession (pp. 151-162). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Sperber, M. (1990). College Sports Inc. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4*ed.). Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott. Sutton, E. M. & Huba, M. E. (1995). Undergraduate student perceptions of academic dishonesty as a function of ethnicity and religious participation. NASPA Journal 33. 19-34.

PAGE 160

154 Sykes, G. M. & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review. 22. 664-670. Thurman, Q. C. (1984). Deviance and the neutralization of moral commitment: An enpirical analysis. Deviant Behavior. 5. 291-304. Tom, G. & Borin, N. (1988). Cheating m academe. Journal of Education for Business. 63. 153-157.

PAGE 161

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jason B. Storch hails from a small town in western New York, Olean. Jason is the oldest of four children. His brother, Eric, is currently obtaining his Ph.D. in child clinical psychology at Columbia University. His sister, Deborah, is planning on starting her master's degree in school psychology this fell at the Marywood University. Jason's youngest sibling, Alexis, will matriculate to the University of Pittsburgh this fall, affording his parents their first opportunity to have an empty home, where they can finally enjoy their own priorities. Jason started his academic career at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts in psychology in 1994 and continued his studies at the University of Florida where he received a Master of Exercise and Sport Sciences while studying sports administration. Jason Storch is currently an academic counselor with the University of Florida's University Athletic Association, Inc. where he assists athletes throughout their collegiate careers. He has been working in this capacity since 1997 and will continue to provide insight and direction to these individuals. Jason is married to Amy Storch whom he met while they were both studying at Brandeis University. They have one child, Andrew, who was bom January 28, 2000. 155

PAGE 162

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quaUty, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Professor of Educational Leadership, Policy and Foundations I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, yi-^cope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. )avid S. Honeyman Professor of Educational Leadership, Policy and Foundations I certify that I have read this study and that in my opmion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fiilly adequate, m scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. C. Arthur Sandeen Professor of Educational Leadership, PoUcy and Foundations I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Paula D. Welch Professor of Exercise and Sport Sciences

PAGE 163

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August, 2000 Dean, College of Education Dean, Graduate School