A selected bibliography of research on academic integrity.
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991). Teaching students from overseas: A brief guide for lecturers and supervisors. Longman Cheshire.
Blum, S. D. (2009). My word! Plagiarism and college culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bryan, C. J., Adams, G. S., & Monin, B. (2013). When cheating would make you a cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1001-1005. doi:10.1037/a0030655
Abstract: In 3 experiments using 2 different paradigms, people were less likely to cheat for personal gain when a subtle change in phrasing framed such behavior as diagnostic of an undesirable identity. Participants were given the opportunity to claim money they were not entitled to at the experimenters’ expense; instructions referred to cheating with either language that was designed to highlight the implications of cheating for the actor’s identity (e.g., “Please don’t be a cheater”) or language that focused on the action (e.g., “Please don’t cheat”). Participants in the “cheating” condition claimed significantly more money than did participants in the “cheater” condition, who showed no evidence of having cheated at all. This difference occurred both in a face-to-face interaction (Experiment 1) and in a private online setting (Experiments 2 and 3). These results demonstrate the power of a subtle linguistic difference to prevent even private unethical behavior by invoking people’s desire to maintain a self-image as good and honest.
Connors, R. J. (1998). The rhetoric of citation systems—Part I: The development of annotation structures from the renaissance to 1900. Rhetoric Review, 17(1), 6-48.
Connors, R. J. (1999). The rhetoric of citation systems—Part II: Competing epistemic values in citation. Rhetoric Review, 17(2), 219-245.
DiPietro, M. (2010). Research-based strategies to promote academic integrity. Essays on Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy, 21(5).
Grafton, A. (1999). The footnote: A curious history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jamieson, S. (2008). One size does not fit all: Plagiarism across the curriculum. Pluralizing plagiarism: Identities, contexts, pedagogies (pp. 77-91). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633-644.
Abstract: People like to think of themselves as honest. However, dishonesty pays—and it often pays well. How do people resolve this tension? This research shows that people behave dishonestly enough to profit but honestly enough to delude themselves of their own integrity. A little bit of dishonesty gives a taste of profit without spoiling a positive self-view. Two mechanisms allow for such self-concept maintenance: inattention to moral standards and categorization malleability. Six experiments support the authors’ theory of self-concept maintenance and offer practical applications for curbing dishonesty in everyday life.
McCabe, D. L., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219-232.
Abstract: In 1997, “Academic Integrity: Ten Principles” appeared in the AAHE Bulletin. Intended to help faculty become more involved in promoting academic integrity among students, the guidelines have been discussed on campuses across America and have functioned as a starting point for dialogue among faculty members and between faculty members and students, at least on some of these campuses. A great deal has changed since these principles were published, however. In particular, the corporate scandals of recent years have emphasized the crucial importance of honesty and integrity in the country's developing Information Age economy. The writers present an updated version of their original “Principles of Academic Integrity for Faculty” that builds on the many things they have learned over the past five years in conversations with students and faculty on dozens of campuses and that recasts the original guidelines in a way that makes more sense for the Internet Age
McCabe, D. L., & Pavela, G. (2004). Ten (updated) principles of academic Integrity: How faculty can foster student honesty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(3), 10-15. doi:10.1080/00091380409605574
Abstract: This article reviews 1 decade of research on cheating in academic institutions. This research demonstrates that cheating is prevalent and that some forms of cheating have increased dramatically in the last 30 years. This research also suggests that although both individual and contextual factors influence cheating, contextual factors, such as students’ perceptions of peers’ behavior, are the most powerful influence. In addition, an institution’s academic integrity programs and policies, such as honor codes, can have a significant influence on students’ behavior. Finally, we offer suggestions for managing cheating from students’ and faculty members’ perspectives. 4. In order to prevent cheating, faculty must respond to incidents of academic dishonesty when they occur. Students who claim they do not normally cheat feel they have no choice but to cheat when faculty allow other students to cheat without any consequences. This principle of “fairness” relates to the prevention strategies above, but also the obligation to respond to instances of cheating.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230.
Abstract: In this article, I attempt to deal with some of the complexities of text, ownership, memorization, and plagiarism. Arguing that plagiarism cannot be cast as a simple black-and-white issue, the prevention of which can be achieved via threats, warnings, and admonitions, I suggest that it needs to be understood in terms of complex relationships between text, memory, and learning. This is part of an attempt to explore more generally different relationships between learning, literacy, and cultural difference. I look first at the background to the notion of authorship and ownership of text, arguing that the way ownership and creativity are understood within European and U.S. contexts needs to be seen as a very particular cultural and historical development. By looking at shifting premodern, modern, and post-modern understandings of text and authorship, I show how the dominant modernist paradigm has always been filled with tensions and ambiguities. Then I discuss how these confusions around plagiarism lead to difficulties and hypocrisies in how textual borrowing is understood. I follow this examination of the development of the Western notion of textual ownership with a consideration of what it means to impose this view in a context where understandings of texts, ownership, and learning may be very different. By looking at learning in a Chinese context and also at the particularities of studying in Hong Kong, I show why we need much more subtle appreciations of the relationships between different approaches to texts. Finally, I discuss some general implications for understanding text, ownership, and learning.
Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience: When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 330-349. doi:10.1177/0146167211398138
Abstract: People routinely engage in dishonest acts without feeling guilty about their behavior. When and why does this occur? Across four studies, people justified their dishonest deeds through moral disengagement and exhibited motivated forgetting of information that might otherwise limit their dishonesty. Using hypothetical scenarios (Studies 1 and 2) and real tasks involving the opportunity to cheat (Studies 3 and 4), the authors find that one’s own dishonest behavior increased moral disengagement and motivated forgetting of moral rules. Such changes did not occur in the case of honest behavior or consideration of the dishonest behavior of others. In addition, increasing moral saliency by having participants read or sign an honor code significantly reduced unethical behavior and prevented subsequent moral disengagement. Although dishonest behavior motivated moral leniency and led to forgetting of moral rules, honest behavior motivated moral stringency and diligent recollection of moral rules.