It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Academic integrity establishes a code of ethics that transfers over into the job force and is a critical characteristic in scientists in the twenty-first century. A student’s perception of cheating is influenced by both internal and external factors that develop and change through time. For students, the COVID-19 pandemic shrank their academic and social environments onto a computer screen. We surveyed science students in the United States at the end of their first COVID-interrupted semester to understand how and why they believed their peers were cheating more online during a pandemic. Almost 81% of students indicated that they believed cheating occurred more frequently online than in-person. When explaining why they believed this, students touched on proctoring, cheating influences, and extenuating circumstances due to COVID-19. When describing how they believed cheating occurred more frequently online, students touched on methods for cheating and surreptitious behavior. The student reasonings were associated with four theories (game theory, Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, neutralization theory, and planned behavior theory) that have been used to examine academic dishonesty. Our results can aid institutions in efforts to quell student concerns about their peers cheating during emergencies. Interestingly, most student beliefs were mapped to planned behavior theory while only a few students were mapped to neutralization theory, suggesting it was a novel modality of assessment rather than a pandemic that shaped student perceptions.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, USA (GRID:grid.34424.35) (ISNI:0000 0004 0466 6352)
2 University of Delaware, Interdisciplinary Science Learning Laboratories, Newark, USA (GRID:grid.33489.35) (ISNI:0000 0001 0454 4791)
3 Rutgers University-Newark, Department of Psychology, Newark, USA (GRID:grid.430387.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8796)
4 School of Applied Engineering & Technology, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, USA (GRID:grid.260896.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2166 4955)
5 New Jersey Institute of Technology, Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, Newark, USA (GRID:grid.260896.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2166 4955)
6 Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, USA (GRID:grid.34424.35) (ISNI:0000 0004 0466 6352); St. Louis University, Department of Biology, St. Louis, USA (GRID:grid.262962.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9342)