Premium
What motivates academic dishonesty in students? A reinforcement sensitivity theory explanation
Author(s) -
Bacon Alison M.,
McDaid Chloe,
Williams Natasha,
Corr Philip J.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
british journal of educational psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.557
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 2044-8279
pISSN - 0007-0998
DOI - 10.1111/bjep.12269
Subject(s) - psychology , reinforcement , academic dishonesty , dishonesty , sensitivity (control systems) , social psychology , cheating , mathematics education , electronic engineering , engineering
Background Academic dishonesty ( AD ) is an increasing challenge for universities worldwide. The rise of the Internet has further increased opportunities for students to cheat. Aims In this study, we investigate the role of personality traits defined within Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ( RST ) as potential determinants of AD . RST defines behaviour as resulting from approach (Reward Interest/reactivity, goal‐drive, and Impulsivity) and avoidance (behavioural inhibition and Fight–Flight–Freeze) motivations. We further consider the role of deep, surface, or achieving study motivations in mediating/moderating the relationship between personality and AD . Sample A sample of UK undergraduates ( N = 240). Method All participants completed the RST Personality Questionnaire, a short‐form version of the study process questionnaire and a measure of engagement in AD , its perceived prevalence, and seriousness. Results Results showed that RST traits account for additional variance in AD . Mediation analysis suggested that GDP predicted dishonesty indirectly via a surface study approach while the indirect effect via deep study processes suggested dishonesty was not likely. Likelihood of engagement in AD was positively associated with personality traits reflecting Impulsivity and Fight–Flight–Freeze behaviours. Surface study motivation moderated the Impulsivity effect and achieving motivation the FFFS effect such that cheating was even more likely when high levels of these processes were used. Conclusions The findings suggest that motivational personality traits defined within RST can explain variance in the likelihood of engaging in dishonest academic behaviours.