PERSPECTIVE TAKING ON ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT 1 Evaluating Perspectives on Academic Cheating: The

PERSPECTIVE TAKING ON ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT 1

Evaluating Perspectives on Academic Cheating: The Influence of Perspective-Taking and Primacy Effect on Acceptance of Cheating Behavior

First M. Last

Florida International University

Abstract

Methods One Students: Typically, authors add their abstract for the paper here on the second

page. As you can see, the abstract for this paper is missing. Your job is to supply that abstract!

Read over the following paper, which is an actual paper turned in by a former student taking

Research Methods and Design II at FIU. This is similar to a paper you will write next semester.

Review the studies in this paper, and spot the hypotheses, independent and dependent variables, participants, results, and implications, and write it up in one paragraph (no more than 250 words maximum). Make sure to include keywords as well (keywords are words or short phrases that researchers use when searching through online databases like PsycInfo – they need to be descriptive of the paper, so come up with three or four that seem to suit this paper). Good luck!

Keywords: methods, paper, abstract, assignment, preview

(note: Keywords should be words that summarize the key meaning of the paper, words you might use in a google search about that paper’s topic)

Evaluating Perspectives on Academic Cheating: The Influence of Perspective-Taking and Primacy Effect on Acceptance of Cheating Behavior

In psychological studies of perspective-taking, the perspective taker has received the most attention. The ability to cognitively adopt and comprehend the ideas, feelings, and opinions of others is known as perspective-taking. Students’ ability to empathize, comprehend others, and resolve conflicts can be enhanced by including perspective-taking exercises in the educational curriculum. The integrity of the educational system is seriously threatened by the widespread problem of academic cheating in educational institutions across the world. Academic dishonesty, mostly e-dishonesty provided by the Internet, is a global issue that has to be addressed (Akbulut et al., 2008). For the purpose of creating effective measures to stop and treat academic misconduct, it is necessary to comprehend the factors that contribute to the acceptance of cheating actions. This review of the literature intends to assess the findings of recent studies on the impact of perspective-taking on students’ acceptance of cheating conduct. The ease of access to material through the Internet has made academic dishonesty and cheating more common in recent years (MacGregor & Stuebs, 2012). Many aspects influencing cheating behavior have been the subject of research and discussion among educators and researchers. This literature review focuses on the impact of perspective-taking on the acceptability of dishonest behavior and seeks to advance our understanding of the complex relationships between cognitive processes and moral judgment.

The main objective of the study conducted by Eyal et al. (2018) is to give a complete summary of the findings on the influence of perspective-taking on egocentrism, accuracy, and confidence. The study’s findings consistently show a significant reduction in egocentrism as a result of engaging in perspective-taking. This means that those who actively practice perspective-taking have a lower tendency to perceive circumstances only from their own point of view, indicating a greater appreciation for various points of view (Eyal et al., 2018). Despite the observed drop in egocentrism, the impact of perspective-taking on accuracy was not universally evident. The authors of the article highlight the inconsistent nature of the effect of perspective-taking on accuracy across all the experiments conducted. Through a meta-analysis of experiments where participants evaluated the number of right answers as a measure of confidence, the impact of perspective-taking on confidence was investigated. The findings imply that changing perspectives may cause confidence to decline, however, this impact was only slightly significant (Eyal et al., 2018). It seems that the particular experimental conditions will determine how perspective-taking affects confidence. The researchers emphasize the need for more research to learn more about the underlying mechanisms that govern how perspective-taking affects cognitive functions like accuracy and confidence. The current study adds to the body of literature by emphasizing the consistent decline in egocentrism brought on by perspective-taking. However, it also recognizes the need for more study to clarify the intricate connections between perspective-taking, accuracy, and confidence.

In addition to examining the impact of perspective-taking on egocentrism, accuracy, and confidence, the study conducted by McTernan et al. (2014) examines the relationship between personality traits and transgressive behaviors, concentrating on different types of cheating and the underlying factors influencing acceptance of such behaviors. The researchers looked at a range of transgressive actions, such as self-cheating, cheating in competitions, cheating in relationships, cheating in school, and breaching the rules of society. These actions were selected to offer a thorough grasp of many types of cheating and its consequences in different situations. The researchers looked at a number of personality traits to learn more about the elements influencing the acceptability of dishonest conduct. Impulsivity, sensory seeking, empathy, guilt, shame, and social desirability were some of these factors (McTernan et al., 2014). Each of these qualities was thought to have the ability to predict people’s attitudes toward cheating. The study of these traits has a great deal of promise for bringing an understanding of the psychological processes that underlie attitudes toward cheating and providing insightful understandings of the complicated connection between personality traits and moral judgments in the context of transgressive behaviors. To give a thorough picture of the elements influencing the acceptance of different types of cheating, a range of transgressive behaviors and personality traits were purposefully included in the study. Participants evaluated the frequency with which they have engaged in these activities since high school. The Brief Sensation Seeking Scale, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, the Harder Personal Feelings Questionnaire-2, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, and the perspective taking subscale of Davis’ Interpersonal Reactivity Index were used to assess personality traits. According to the findings, all individuals admitted to committing at least one violation, with the most common behaviors being sneaking food into an event (85.4%) and breaching a personal budget (75.6%). Relationship cheating was reported by 30.7% of participants, whereas failing to pay for a restaurant meal was the least reported conduct (6%). In the end, this study contributes to the body of knowledge by showing the complex link between personality characteristics and transgressive actions. Impulsivity and the need for stimulation were found to be significant predictors of transgressions, while empathy and perspective-taking had a less significant part (McTernan et al., 2014). Competitive cheaters were more likely to exhibit low levels of perspective-taking, high levels of impulsivity and sensation-seeking, and consistent conduct (McTernan et al., 2014). Self-cheating actions were not highly associated with perspective-taking, rather they were associated with impulsivity and shame. Participants with lower levels of remorse and shame were more inclined to cheat in various settings (McTernan et al., 2014). This study sheds light on the impact of personality factors in decision-making processes that result in dishonest behaviors. The results cast doubt on the efficacy of emotional appeals in deterring wrongdoing and suggested an automatic component in moral decision-making.

Building on the study of the relationship between personality traits and transgressive behaviors, Goldstein et al. (2014) examine the effects of perceived perspective-taking on interpersonal relationships and the formation of shared identity. The results of the study show that people have a greater preference and like those who take other people’s perspectives when they believe that they have done so successfully. This shows that developing deeper interpersonal ties and sympathies is significantly influenced by how others are perceived to be showing empathy and understanding. The study also shows that perceived perspective-taking increases interpersonal identification related to people’s perceptions of their relationships with others. Understanding someone else’s perspective increases one’s feeling of shared identity with that person, strengthening the interpersonal connection between people. Goldstein et al. (2014) imply that people are more likely to reciprocate by providing support or assistance to the perspective taker when they feel understood and recognized, so building a mutually beneficial connection. The advantages of perceived perspective-taking may diminish or even have adverse effects if the perspective-taker is viewed as ineffective or without empathy.

In addition, the study reveals the complicated issues of ethical decision-making by looking at how perceived perspective-taking affects interpersonal relationships and shared identity, which is in line with its investigation into the rationales and encouraging aspects behind student cheating behaviors. MacGregor and Stuebs (2012) explores students’ justifications for cheating and find factors that affect their decision-making process. Academic misconduct is a problem that affects educational institutions all around the world, eroding the honesty of the classroom and depreciating the efforts of sincere students. The acceptance of academic misconduct particularly cheating was shown to be impacted by many explanations notably when students felt their peers had an unfair advantage, that they themselves were not receiving an advantage, or that their teachers didn’t care about their academic progress. The significance of ambiguity and inequality in getting resources in fostering the potential for academic fraud is also highlighted in the study. Students may turn to cheat when norms and expectations are unclear since it is unclear what constitutes appropriate behavior. According to the study, the clarity of the instructions, students’ perceptions of fairness, and the perceived magnitude of the advantage obtained by cheating can all affect their likelihood to engage in academic misconduct (MacGregor & Stuebs, 2012). For educators and institutions hoping to successfully address this prevalent problem, it is important to comprehend the underlying motivations that influence students’ decisions to participate in academic dishonesty.

Akbulut et al. (2008) look at how common e-dishonesty is among Turkish university students and determine the causes behind it. Two surveys, concentrating on individual variables, organizational policies, and peer pressure as e-dishonesty triggers, were given to 349 education faculty students. The research identified three main causes which are peer pressure, institutional policies, and individual issues such as feeling inadequate and time constraints. In order to combat e-dishonesty, the study highlights the essential to address the underlying motivations and mindsets of students. Strong institutional rules that place a priority on honesty can foster an environment where academic dishonesty is discouraged (Akbulut et al., 2008). The impact of peer pressure emphasizes the necessity of a supportive peer environment that encourages moral behavior. The significance of comprehending student attitudes and motivations about e-dishonesty is emphasized by this factor analysis study. Policymakers and administrators may identify common types of academic dishonesty and create focused policies and programs that effectively address this issue.

Study One

The presented studies highlight the significance of perspective-taking and its ability to improve students’ capacity for empathy and problem-solving. Despite the different impacts of perspective-taking on confidence, it can lessen egocentrism and encourage consideration o other people’s points of view. Transgressive activities are predicted by personality qualities including impulsivity and sensation seeking, but attitudes against cheating are less affected by sympathetic perspective-taking (McTernan et al., 2014). The increase in e-dishonesty highlights the necessity to take into account social pressure, institutional rules, and individual characteristics when avoiding online cheating (Akbulut et al., 2008). The said studies connect to the hypothesis by showing how people doing perspective-taking tend to be influenced easily by the point of view they are asked to see. The perspective somehow changes their beliefs and shows empathy effortlessly. This comes down to the hypothesis of this study which expresses that generally, if participants take the perspective of an eager cheater or a hesitant cheater, then they will more strongly disagree that using an answer key is cheating than those who take the perspective of a non-cheater, with little to no differences expected between the eager-cheater and hesitant-cheater conditions. Conversely, if participants take the perspective of an eager cheater or a hesitant cheater, then they should more strongly agree that using an answer key is more acceptable than those non-cheaters. Effective interventions against academic misconduct need an understanding of the motivations and factors that contribute to cheating acceptance, such as perceived unequal advantage and unclear rules. By providing clear policies, supportive connections, and discouragements, one may encourage moral conduct and sustain educational principles. In general, stopping students from cheating and preserving academic integrity require addressing perspective-taking and underlying issues.

Method

Participants

One hundred and thirty-five participants were surveyed for this study. The sample consisted of 53.3% females (N = 72), 29.6% males (N = 40), 2.2% non-binary (N = 3), 12.6% others (N = 17), and 2.2% chose not to disclose their gender (N = 3). The range of the age of the participants was 17 to 59 years old (M = 24.95, SD = 7.97). There were 3.7% of participants that did not mention their age (N = 5). The participants were ethnically diverse, with 43.7% participants identifying as Latino/a (N = 59), 30.4% participants as White (N = 41), 11.1% as African American/Black (N = 15), 2.2% as Indigenous (N = 3), 3.0% as Asian (N = 4), 2.2% as MENA (N = 3), 5.2% others (N = 7), and 2.2% chose not to tell their race (N = 3). The other race surveyed were 0.7% Haitian American (N = 1), 3.0% Mixed (N = 4), 0.7% Pacific Islander (N = 1), and 0.7% Pakistani (N = 1).

Materials and Procedures

The study’s goals, procedure, possible dangers, benefits, and participants’ rights were all discussed verbally with participants. The participants were advised that their participation was entirely voluntary and that they may leave the research study at any time without consequence. Before proceeding with the study, participants were asked to express verbal agreement. The material used in this study was the three different scenarios and an iPad used by the participants to read the scenario via a WhatsApp chat and answer the questions. The Perspective-Taking Study Questionnaire was used in the study, which included three versions of conversation reflecting different perspectives: Eager-Cheater, Hesitant-Cheater, and Non-Cheater. Except for the assigned perspective, which was the independent variable, the questionnaire was designed identically across all versions. The dependent variables were tested using a variety of questionnaire sections. Part D, in particular, was one of the focuses of the research, which included a manipulation check question to assess the ability of participants to retain their assigned user perspective. Part A included two questions that examined participants’ personal beliefs about cheating, and rated their acceptance of using an exam answer key. These variables were investigated in order to assess the influence of perspective-taking on participants’ attitudes and judgments about cheating or academic misconduct. To achieve an equal distribution of participants across the levels of independent variables, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. A hypothetical scenario involving a conversation with a stranger was given to participants. The scenario detailed a setting in which participants were supposed to react to a series of questions from the standpoint of the assigned perspective (Eager-Cheater, Hesitant-Cheater, or Non-Cheater).

When the researchers received the verbal consent of the participants, the researchers handed the iPad to the participants to read the scenario and answer the questionnaire. In the instructions, participants were made aware that the conversation they were about to read was between three students talking about their upcoming midterm exam. Participants were asked to imagine that they are part of the conversation and asked to imagine the user number they were assigned to take part in. Participants were asked to imagine how they would feel if they were that specific user number. After the participants were done reading the conversation, participants answered the open-ended question about summarizing the position of the user they had when it comes to using the answer key. Participants were asked what the user might be thinking, feeling, intentions, and goals during the conversation.

Part A of the survey consisted of six statements intended to gather participants’ views and ideas about the situation. Participants used a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) to express their agreement with each statement. In Part A, participants were asked if they think using an answer key is cheating, using an answer key is acceptable if it is easy to find, the professor didn’t change the answers, the exam is difficult, no need to pay for the answer key, and if other students are using the answer key too. Part B of the survey consisted of seven statements designed to gauge participants’ emotional reactions and empathy toward the scenario. Participants expressed their degree of agreement with each statement using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Part C of the survey asked four demographic questions, including gender, age, race, and English as a first language, as well as an extra relevant variable if appropriate. Participants might choose to leave any or all of these questions blank if they wished. Participants responded categorically or numerically as needed. This section sought demographic information that might potentially impact the study’s findings or give insights into the characteristics of the participants.

A manipulation check question was included in Part D of the questionnaire to assess participants’ recall of the perspective provided to them. Participants were specifically asked to recollect the final decision made by the individual they had been encouraged to envision in the WhatsApp chat scenario. The response choices were as follows: a) the user was eager to use the online answer key, b) the user was hesitant but eventually decided to use the online answer key, or c) the user refused to use the online answer key. The researchers were able to measure the success of changing the assigned perspective by examining participants’ replies to this manipulation check question.

Participants were given a summary of the study’s goal, variables, and hypothesis in the debriefing statement. The purpose of the debriefing was to ensure that participants were properly informed about the study following their participation. Participants were told that the study’s goal was to look at perspective-taking and cheating conduct. The goal was to learn how people view and assess cheating scenarios from various angles. The independent variable (IV), which was the condition allocated to each participant, was explained to them. Eager-Cheater, Hesitant-Cheater, and Non-Cheater were the three conditions. Participants’ personal thoughts on cheating (Part A Q1) and their evaluation of the acceptability of using an exam answer key (Part A Q2) were the dependent variables (DVs). Part D’s manipulation check question was also highlighted as a dependent variable.

Results

The responses from the participants in Part A were evaluated to learn more about the individuals’ individual views on whether using the answer key to an exam could be regarded as cheating. Over the course of the various scenarios, the average scores for each statement were computed. The result of a one-way ANOVA showed a significant overall condition impact on people’s views of the dishonesty of using an exam answer key as the dependent variable, F(2,132) = 13.90, p < .001. Using the Tukey post hoc test, additional analysis revealed that participants in the non-Cheater condition (M = 5.09, SD = 1.05) had a significantly higher agreement with the statement "Using an exam answer key is cheating" than did those in the Hesitant-Cheater condition (M = 3.91, SD = 0.97) and the Eager-Cheater condition (M = 4.14, SD = 1.34) did. However, there was no significant rating difference between the Hesitant-Cheater and Eager-Cheater conditions.

​​A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the effects of the three conditions (Eager-Cheater, Hesitant-Cheater, and Non-Cheater) on participants’ opinions on the acceptability of using an exam answer key under particular settings as the dependent variable. F(2, 132) = 7.37, p < .001, the results showed a significant overall impact of the condition. A Tukey post hoc test was conducted to investigate this significant effect further. Participants in the Eager-Cheater condition (M = 20.68, SD = 5.67) agreed with the statement that "Using an exam answer key is acceptable if the answer key is easy to find, the professor does not bother to change the exam answers, the exam is extremely difficult, the person using the answer key is not paying for it, and other students are likely using the answer key, too" significantly more often than those in the Non-Cheater condition (M = 20.68, SD = 5.67). There was no significant difference between the Eager-Cheater condition (M = 20.68, SD = 5.67) and Hesitant-Cheater condition (M = 20.09, SD = 4.62), and there was no significant difference between the Hesitant-Cheater condition and non-Cheater condition. The study's findings show that participants who took an eager cheater point of view were more likely to believe that using an exam answer key was acceptable under the given conditions. Participants in the Hesitant-Cheater condition did, however, show a moderate amount of agreement with the statement, but it was not significantly different from either the Eager-Cheater or Non-Cheater conditions. These results imply that individuals' judgments of whether to use an exam answer key are acceptable under particular circumstances can be influenced by taking other perspectives.

Discussion

The study’s hypothesis proposed that participants who took the position of an eager cheater or a hesitant cheater would strongly disapprove of using an exam answer key as a form of cheating as compared to those who took the role of a non-cheater. Furthermore, participants in the eager cheater and hesitant cheater situations were predicted to strongly support the use of an answer key, more so than non-cheaters. The study’s findings broadly supported the hypothesis. The manipulation check question revealed that the assigned perspectives were successfully manipulated, as a significant number of participants correctly recalled the final decision made by the user the participants were asked to envision.

According to the one-way ANOVA, the analysis of participants’ perspectives on whether using an exam answer key constitutes cheating indicated a significant main impact of the condition. The Tukey post hoc test revealed that participants in the non-Cheater condition agreed that using an answer key constitutes cheating much more than those in the Hesitant-Cheater and Eager-Cheater conditions. However, no significant difference in ratings was discovered between the Eager-Cheater and Hesitant-Cheater situations. These findings give empirical evidence for the hypothesis that participants who assumed the Eager-Cheater and Hesitant-Cheater perspectives would strongly disagree with the concept that using an answer key is deemed cheating. The one-way ANOVA indicated a significant main effect from the condition in the examination of participants’ perspectives on the acceptability of using an exam answer key. Further analysis using the Tukey post hoc test revealed that participants in the Eager-Cheater group agreed with the statement about acceptability significantly more than those in the non-Cheater condition. No significant differences in ratings were found between the Eager-Cheater and Hesitant-Cheater conditions, and between the Hesitant-Cheater and Non-Cheater conditions. These findings confirm the hypothesis in portion, demonstrating that participants who adopted the perspective of an eager cheater were more likely to see the use of an exam answer key as acceptable under the specific circumstances stated in the statement. Participants’ levels of agreement in the hesitant cheater condition did not differ significantly from those in eager cheater or non-cheater conditions. These findings suggest that participants’ attitudes and judgments about cheating and the acceptability of using an answer key were impacted by their ability to consider the perspectives of others. Participants who acted as though they were eager cheaters took a more liberal stance on cheating and thought it was more acceptable to use an answer key in specific instances. Participants in the non-cheater condition, on the other hand, had a harsher perspective of cheating and were less tolerant of using an answer key. The study’s findings show that each perspective offered to participants had an effect on their attitudes and perceptions of cheating situations.

These data generally support the hypothesis. The results of this study help to understand how different perspectives might affect people’s opinions regarding academic misconduct. These understandings can be helpful in developing educational interventions meant to encourage moral conduct among students and deter cheating. It’s important to recognize the study’s limitations, though. The results cannot be generalized to a broader population due to the small sample size. In addition, the study ignored other relevant variables that may have an influence on participants’ views regarding cheating. To address these limitations, future research might involve adding variables such as personal values, academic pressure, social standards, peer influence, and academic integrity policies. Exploring these aspects with perspective-taking allows for a full understanding of their combined effect on attitudes about cheating. The purpose of Study Two is to give further light on this matter by investigating an additional variable or creating a modification to the situation, providing deeper insights into the phenomena under examination.

Study Two

The effects of perspective-taking and the primacy effect on people’s acceptance of cheating is explored in this literature review. The primacy effect refers to the potential for the information offered first to have a greater influence on memory than the information presented later. The primacy effect can influence people’s views about cheating depending on the initial information they learn. Early exposure to knowledge regarding cheating, such as through a presentation or classmates can have a significant impact on people’s ideas and behaviors later on. Numerous research has established the primacy effect’s existence in many different kinds of cognitive processes, including decision-making and attitude development. The creation of successful treatments targeted at encouraging academic integrity and reducing cheating behavior can be guided by understanding and addressing the primacy effect’s effects. Expanding on the findings of the previous study, researchers may examine how the primacy effect emerges in attitudes and actions connected to cheating by drawing on their knowledge of different points of view on academic misconduct.

The study conducted by Eisenberg (2004) emphasized middle-school students in Israel and their opinions regarding exam cheating. The goal of the study was to investigate how these views are influenced by moral values, environmental variables, and individual characteristics. The researchers hypothesized that students with a strong sense of morality would have less favorable opinions about cheating than students with a weak moral framework. The importance of the exam, the degree of supervision provided during the exam, and the standards set by peers regarding cheating were three situational factors that were also explored in the study. The results supported the hypothesis by showing that morally upright students had negative views against both active (such as copying from others) and passive (such as enabling others to copy) academic dishonesty (Eisenberg, 2004). Moral perception and conformity beliefs impact students’ attitudes toward cheating. Exam supervision influences attitudes toward both active and passive cheating, with greater monitoring leading to less tolerance. Positive peer norms are linked to less positive views about cheating, highlighting the importance of social factors. Students with high moral standards are less likely to tolerate cheating. Furthermore, contextual factors including the importance of the exam, the quality of monitoring, and the influence of peer norms affect attitudes about cheating (Eisenberg, 2004).

Aside from researching students’ views regarding exam cheating, another field of study has focused on the occurrence of primacy effects in both humans’ and animals’ memory recall capacities. Wright (1994) examines the data that suggests that, similar to humans, other animals have primacy effects when it comes to remembering lists. Research on pigeons and monkeys has shown strong evidence that primacy effects really exist in animal memory. Further evidence for primacy effects in animals comes from research with monkeys that found a link between primacy and the length of the list. Wright (1994) emphasized that the primacy effect may dramatically impact how information is recalled, causing people to place more emphasis and memory on the first things in a series. As a result, the following information may have less weight or be completely forgotten, resulting in biased judgments based on insufficient knowledge. Recent research has called into question previous beliefs that primacy effects are mainly related to human verbal memory and rehearsal. Contrary to popular opinion, new research has confirmed the presence of primacy effects in human nonverbal memory tasks (Wright, 1994). The research used complex stimuli like as kaleidoscope or snowflake patterns to demonstrate primacy effect differences in people and animals. This refutes the notion that human primacy effects are primarily related to language memory and supports the existence of shared cognitive processes among animals. This study’s findings suggest that primacy effects are not confined to verbal memory tests but can also be exhibited in nonverbal memory tasks involving items that are difficult to express or rehearse. This shows that primacy effects are more general and can apply to many forms of memory. The dynamic character of these effects, as well as their implications for our knowledge of memory processes, necessitate additional study.

Furthermore, studies on primacy effects in memory go beyond animals to investigate encoding and top-down mechanisms in humans, offering information on how initial presentations and recurrent events impact memory recall. DiGirolamo and Hintzman (1997) investigated the encoding of repeated items and how the qualities of the initial presentation influence the processing of future recurrence. This study contributes to our knowledge of the primacy effect by investigating its impact on memory for repeated events. It provides empirical data and enhances our understanding of how the primacy effect might appear during memory encoding by exploring the role of top-down mechanisms in memory for recurrence. The researchers conducted two studies to study this specific primacy impact. In Experiment 1, participants were shown items five times each, with the first or fifth presentation having a mirror-reversed orientation relative to the other four trials (DiGirolamo & Hintzman, 1997). During the second testing phase, individuals were shown both orientations at the same time. The findings revealed that when the mirror-reverse orientation was provided as the first trial rather than the fifth trial, individuals reported detecting it more frequently. Similarly, individuals reported only noticing the conventional orientation more frequently when it was shown in the first four trials rather than the last four trials (DiGirolamo & Hintzman, 1997). The study’s findings suggest that the elements of a recurrent stimulus impact its encoding, establishing a bias for those elements. Experiment 2 indicated that the primacy effect extends to size changes, where the original example affects the encoding of subsequent presentations, resulting in an inability to notice the changed element. According to the researchers, these data indicate the prevalence of top-down biases that influence what people learn and remember. The first representation of a stimulus is likely to impact the encoding of future repeats, resulting in the development of a primacy effect in memory.

The impact of primacy effect extends beyond memory encoding to decision-making processes, as demonstrated by studies on memory for repeated events conducted by DiGirolamo and Hintzman (1997) and research on the impact of information sequence on decision outcomes conducted by Rey et al. (2020) and Vallejo et al. (2014). Rey et al. (2020) conducted two studies to investigate how the sequence in which information is presented affects decision-making processes in complicated scenarios. The results of Experiment 1 demonstrated a considerable effect of information order on participants’ decisions. Car 1, which had its good traits provided systematically at the start, was picked more frequently as the “best” automobile than Car 2, despite the fact that both cars offered identical attributes, although in the opposite order. Surprisingly, participants were unaware that both automobiles had the same characteristics. Experiment 2 revealed a similar effect of information order on decision-making results. Despite the fact that Car 1 had only three favorable features compared to the filler cars, which had six positive attributes, people preferred Car 1 more frequently. This conclusion implies that the sequence in which information is given has a greater effect on decision-making than the amount of positive and negative traits itself. The research highlights the critical importance of information organization in complicated decision-making circumstances. Rey et al. (2020) explored the ramifications of their findings, emphasizing that the order in which information is given has significant effects on decision outcomes. The researchers proposed employing mathematical modeling techniques to acquire a better understanding of the primacy order effect and advised future studies that control multiple variables such as the amount, impact, and order of positive and negative information. Vallejo et al. (2014) identified a primacy effect in three tests using sequential data-collecting tasks. The findings revealed that positive information encountered early in the series had a greater effect on decisions than information experienced later in the chain (Vallejo et al., 2014). These findings support the hypothesis that, depending on the task features and information processing processes used, both primacy and recency effects might arise in complicated decision-making scenarios. The research emphasizes the need of investigating how many components interact in order to appreciate the consequences of order. The findings of Rey et al. (2020) and Vallejo et al. (2014) both highlight the importance of information order in complicated decision-making contexts. Even when the underlying traits remain constant, the order in which features or information are presented can have a significant impact on preferences and decisions. These observed primacy effects are consistent with previous studies on impression formation, emphasizing the importance of order in decision-making.

Unlike Rey et al. (2020) and Vallejo et al. (2014), who investigated the effects of information order on decision-making, Wu et al. (2020) investigated the effectiveness of priming legal consequences and honesty in preventing cheating behavior during exams. Wu et al. (2020) studied the effectiveness of stimulating legal penalties and the notion of honesty in discouraging cheating during exams. The study included two experiments with freshman students from different classes. However, neither trial found a substantial reduction in cheating conduct when individuals were primed with the concept of legal repercussions or honesty. The study delves into several ideas of cheating, such as rational economics and risk aversion. It implies that raising the perceived danger of getting detected and the potential punishments, while simultaneously reducing the expected benefits might discourage people from cheating (Wu et al., 2020). Furthermore, the research introduces the self-concept maintenance theory, which claims that individuals consider their self-image and moral beliefs while selecting whether to cheat. According to the studies described in the paper, priming individuals with reminders of moral norms can result in a decrease in dishonest behavior (Wu et al., 2020). Based on these data, the study suggests that priming individuals with the idea of legal consequences and honesty was ineffective in reducing cheating behavior during test conditions. The data indicated no significant difference in cheating tendencies between the two groups, showing that priming the notion of honesty had no noticeable impact on lowering students’ cheating behavior. According to the findings, interventions that are simply focused on stimulating legal penalties or honesty may not yield the desired results in examination contexts (Wu et al., 2020). This underscores the need for greater study and testing of psychological therapies in real-world circumstances in order to create more effective ways of reducing dishonesty.

In Study Two, the researchers want to see how the primacy effect will affect participants’ attitudes and judgments regarding cheating by changing the sequence in which perspectives on cheating were given. The researcher predicts that the sequence in which participants were exposed to the views (eager cheater vs. non-cheater) would impact their support for cheating as well as their views of using an exam answer key. The researchers hypothesized that participants exposed to the eager cheater perspective first would approve of cheating more strongly and find it more acceptable for using an answer key than those exposed to the non-cheater perspective first. The researchers anticipated that participants’ later views and judgments regarding cheating would be shaped by their initial exposure to the eager cheater’s behavior. The researchers also hypothesized that the interaction of the primacy effect and the perspective-taking condition would have significant effects on participants’ evaluations. The researchers hypothesized that participants who assumed the eager cheater perspective and were initially exposed to the eager cheater perspective would strongly disagree with the use of an answer key as cheating. Participants who took the non-cheater perspective and were initially provided with the non-cheater perspective were predicted to interpret the use of an answer key as cheating and find it less acceptable. In general, the researchers expected that the order in which perspectives were presented would influence participants’ attitudes and judgments about cheating in Study Two.

Method

Participants.

Two hundred and sixty-four participants were surveyed for this study. The sample consisted of 53.8% females (N = 142), 31.1% males (N = 82), 1.5% non-binary (N = 4), 11.4% others (N = 30), and 2.3% chose not to disclose their gender (N = 6). The range of the age of the participants was 16 to 59 years old (M = 25.35, SD = 8.40). There were 3.8% of participants that did not mention their age (N = 10). The participants were ethnically diverse, with 43.2% participants identifying as Latino/a (N = 114), 29.2% participants as White (N = 77), 11.7% as African American/Black (N = 31), 3.0% as Indigenous (N = 8), 4.2% as Asian (N = 11), 1.9% as MENA (N = 5), 4.5% others (N = 12), and 2.3% chose not to tell their race (N = 6). The other race surveyed were 0.8% Haitian American (N = 2), 1.9% Mixed (N = 5), 0.4% Mixed Race (N = 1), 0.8% Pacific Islander (N = 2), 0.4% Pakistani (N = 1), and 0.4% White Hispanic (N = 1).

Materials and Procedures

Participants were given a thorough informed consent process prior to their participation in the study in the survey sent to them using a link from Qualtrics. The researchers thoroughly described the study’s aims, the procedures to be followed, and any potential dangers or discomforts related to their involvement. Participants were expressly advised that their participation in the study was fully voluntary, and that they may opt-out at any time without penalty. The participants’ replies were kept private and anonymous. The study used four different versions of the Perspective-Taking and Primacy Effect Study Questionnaire, each corresponding to a different experimental condition. The questionnaire was divided into sections that included a scenario, perspective-taking tasks, and survey items.

The participants were assigned at random to one of four groups, which corresponded to different versions of the survey questionnaire. Eager-Cheater user perspective + Eager-Cheater first, Eager-Cheater user perspective + non-Cheater first, Non-Cheater user perspective + Eager-Cheater first, and Non-Cheater user perspective + Non-Cheater first were the four groups. The random assignment guaranteed that an equal number of participants were assigned to each condition. User #1 was eager to use the answer key in the Eager-Cheater condition, whereas User #2 hesitated at first but later consented, and User #3 refused to use it. Participants in the Eager-Cheater condition were told to take the perspective of User #1, who was portrayed as an eager cheater. Participants in the study were told to connect with the scenario’s characters. Participants in the Eager-Cheater condition were instructed to envision themselves in the capacity of User #1, the figure who expressed a desire to use the answer key. They were then asked to examine their personal ideas on cheating as well as User #1’s possible thoughts. Similarly, under the Non-Cheater condition, participants were told to put themselves in the shoes of User #3, who refused to use the answer key. The participants were asked to consider their own ideas about cheating as well as the likely thoughts of User #3. In the Eager-Cheater first (primacy effect), the starter of the conversation was User #1, setting the tone of the conversation. In Non-Cheater first (primacy effect), the starter of the conversation was User #3, setting the tone of the conversation. User #2, the Hesitant-Cheater user, was not used for participants to take a perspective or as the starter of the conversation.

After reading the conversation, participants were asked to explain the perspective of the user they were assigned, especially about the usage of the answer key, in an open-ended question. During the conversation, participants were asked to evaluate the user’s ideas, feelings, objectives, and goals. The study questionnaire was divided into parts that focused on several issues. Part D evaluated the manipulation check, confirming that participants recognized and associated with their assigned perspective appropriately. Part A of the questionnaire included six statements concerning participants’ thoughts and viewpoints on the issue, especially their attitudes towards cheating. On a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), participants were asked to assess their degree of agreement with each statement. These statements were designed to gauge participants’ opinions on whether using an answer key is deemed cheating. Participants further evaluated the acceptability of using an answer key under specified conditions, such as the ease of obtaining the answer key, the absence of changes made to the answers by the professor, or the presence of other students using the answer key. In addition, emotional feelings and sympathy toward the scenario were assessed using seven items in Part B of the questionnaire. On a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), participants were asked to score their agreement with each statement. These sentences were developed to test participants’ emotional reactions and capacity to empathize with WhatsApp chat users. Part D’s manipulation check sought to ascertain if participants correctly grasped and associated with the given perspective. It asked participants on their level of identification and knowledge of the user’s perspective to which they were assigned to. Part A Q1 assessed participants’ views regarding cheating by asking them to score their agreement or disagreement with statements about using an exam answer key and whether or not they considered it to be cheating. Part A Q2 assessed participants’ opinions on the acceptability of using an exam answer key. They were asked to rate the acceptability of the action by indicating their level of agreement or disagreement with remarks. Part C of the questionnaire asked about demographic information such as gender, age, race, and English as a first language. Participants might choose whether or not to answer any or all of these questions. The goal of these demographic questions was to collect information that might potentially impact the study’s findings or give insights into the characteristics of the participants.

Following the completion of the questionnaire, participants received a debriefing session. Participants were given a thorough explanation of the study’s objectives, hypotheses, independent variables (perspective-taking condition and order of presentation), and dependent variables (Part D – manipulation check, Part A Q1 – cheating beliefs, and Part A Q2 – acceptability of using an answer key) during this session. Participants were given the opportunity to ask questions and seek explanations to ensure that they fully understood the study.

Results

A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate how perspective-taking and the primacy effect impacted participants’ judgements on whether using an answer key is deemed cheating. The study looked into the two independent variables which were Perspective Taking, which had two levels (Eager Cheater and Non-Cheater), and Primacy Effect, which also had two levels (Eager Cheater first and Non-Cheater first). The dependent variable was participants’ perceptions of cheating when using an exam answer key. The findings demonstrated that Perspective Taking had a significant main impact, F(1, 260) = 8.20, p =.005. When compared to participants in the Eager Cheater perspective condition (M = 3.56, SD = 1.11), participants in the Non-Cheater perspective condition (M = 3.94, SD = 1.00) regarded using an answer key as more likely to be deemed cheating. The study, however, found no significant main impact of the Primacy Effect, F(1, 260) = 0.06, p =.812. Participants in the Eager Cheater first condition (M = 3.71, SD = 1.05) and those in the Non-Cheater first condition (M = 3.79, SD = 1.10) rated using an answer key as cheating in the same way. Furthermore, no significant interaction existed between Perspective Taking and the Primacy Effect, F(1, 260) = 3.12, p = .079 (see Table 3). According to these findings, the combined influence of perspective-taking and the primacy effect had no significant impact on participants’ judgements on whether using an answer key is deemed cheating.

Table 3

2×2 ANOVA on Participants’ Answer Whether Using an Answer Key is Cheating

Source

Sum of Square

df

Mean Square

F

p

Corrected model

Intercept

Perspective Taking

Primacy Effect

Perspective Taking* Primacy Effect

Error

Total

13.007

3322.354

9.116

.063

3.466

288.989

4007.000

3

1

1

1

1

260

264

4.336

3322.354

9.116

.063

3.466

1.111

3.901

2989.085

8.202

.057

3.118

.009

<.001

.005

.812

.079

A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate the impact of perspective-taking and the primacy effect on participants’ judgments about the acceptability of using an answer key. Perspective Taking (with two levels: Eager Cheater and Non-Cheater) and Primacy Effect (with two levels: Eager Cheater first and Non-Cheater first) were included in the study as the independent variables. Participants’ opinions of the acceptability of using an answer key were the dependent variable. The main impact of Perspective Taking was not statistically significant, with F(1, 260) = 3.27, p =.072. When compared to participants in the Eager Cheater perspective condition (M = 18.02, SD = 4.96), participants in the Non-Cheater perspective condition (M = 19.11, SD = 4.90) rated using an answer key as somewhat less acceptable. The main effect of the Primacy Effect, however, was not significant, F(1, 260) = 0.12, p =.733. Participants in the Eager Cheater first condition (M = 18.49, SD = 4.94) and those in the Non-Cheater first condition (M = 18.63, SD = 4.99) rated the acceptability of using an answer key similarly. Furthermore, F(1, 260) = 3.38, p =.067, there was not significant interaction between Perspective Taking and Primacy Effect (see Table 4). This shows that the combined effects of perspective taking and the primacy effect may have little impact on participants’ perceptions of the acceptability of using an answer key, however this effect did not achieve statistical significance.

Table 4

2×2 ANOVA on Participants’ Ratings of the Acceptability of Using an Answer Key

Source

Sum of Square

df

Mean Square

F

p

Corrected model

Intercept

Perspective Taking

Primacy Effect

Perspective Taking* Primacy Effect

Error

Total

161.866

34575.394

79.035

2.814

81.714

6291.281

97363.000

3

1

1

1

1

260

264

53.955

84575.39

79.035

2.814

81.714

24.197

2.230

3495.250

3.266

.116

3.377

.085

<.001

.072

.733

.067

Discussion

Study Two sought to discover how perspective taking and the primacy effect impact participants’ perceptions of the cheating behavior of using an answer key and its acceptability. The hypotheses proposed that participants who took the perspective of an eager cheater would be more likely than those who adopted the perspective of a non-cheater to think about using an answer key as not cheating and find it more acceptable. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that participants who were first exposed to the eager cheater’s perspective would show more support for cheating and find it more acceptable than those who were first exposed to the non- cheater’s perspective. The interaction between the primacy effect and the perspective-taking condition was also expected to have significant effects on participants’ ratings.
The study’s findings supported the hypothesis partially. Participants who received the non-cheater’s perspective were more likely to regard using an answer key as cheating than those who had the eager cheater’s perspective. However, the primacy effect had no influence on participants’ perceptions of cheating. The fact that participants were originally exposed to either the eager cheater’s or the non-cheater’s perspective had no effect on their scores. In terms of acceptability, participants in the non-cheater perspective condition rated using an answer key as somewhat less acceptable than those in the eager cheater perspective condition. However, the difference was not statistically significant. The findings supported the hypothesis by indicating that adopting the perspective of a non-cheater altered participants’ evaluations of cheating. However, contrary to predictions, the primacy effect did not significantly impact participants’ acceptability ratings. These data imply that variables other than presentation order may have impacted participants’ evaluations. It is critical to recognize any confounding variables or flaws in the study design that might have influenced the results. Personal attitudes about academic integrity, for example, might have impacted participants’ judgments, resulting in less consistent effects of perspective-taking and the primacy effect. Furthermore, there was a minor interaction between perspective-taking and the primacy effect in terms of the acceptability of utilizing an answer key. This interaction had a minor effect, but it was not statistically significant. In summary, the findings show that perspective-taking impacts participants’ evaluations of cheating actions, but the primacy effect has a limited impact. To get a greater understanding of how perspective-taking, the primacy effect, and individuals’ assessments of cheating conduct and its acceptability are interrelated, future research with stronger techniques and bigger sample sizes may be required. Such understanding can help to build educational interventions and programs that promote academic integrity and ethical decision-making among students.

General Discussion

In both Study One and Two, researchers wanted to see how perspective-taking affects people’s opinions regarding cheating. Researchers predicted in Study One individual who adopted the perspective of a non-cheater would find cheating more unacceptable than those who adopted the perspective of an eager cheater. In Study Two, researchers investigated the combined effects of perspective-taking and the primacy effect on participants’ evaluations of cheating conduct. Researchers hypothesized that participants who were initially exposed to the eager cheater perspective would be more supportive of cheating and find it more acceptable than those who were first exposed to the non-cheater perspective. In addition, researchers hypothesized participants who viewed themselves as eager cheaters to be more accepting of using an answer key than those who viewed themselves as non-cheaters.

The results of this research study offered similar support for the influence of perspective-taking on attitudes regarding cheating conduct across both experiments. In Study One, those who received the non-cheater’s perspective assessed cheating as significantly less acceptable than those who took the eager cheater’s position. Both Study One and Study Two findings are consistent with earlier research on perspective-taking and its effect on attitudes regarding cheating conduct. The findings of Study One, in which participants who took the Non-Cheater perspective perceived cheating as less acceptable, are consistent with research such as the study Eisenberg (2004) conducted which discovered that students with high moral convictions had more unfavorable attitudes regarding academic dishonesty. According to previous research, considering different perspectives might influence individuals’ opinions regarding cheating. The findings of Study Two underlined the importance of perspective-taking. Cheating was evaluated as more acceptable by those who adopted the perspective of an eager cheater than by those who adopted the perspective of a non-cheater. Despite the fact that the primacy effect did not produce significant changes in participants’ perceptions, perspective-taking remained a strong predictor of attitudes about cheating. Although the primacy effect did not significantly influence participants’ opinions in this study, the wider notion of primacy effects on memory and decision-making is consistent with earlier studies by DiGirolamo and Hintzman (1997), Vallejo et al. (2014), and Rey et al. (2020). These research found that earlier information had a bigger impact on future judgements or decisions, which is important for understanding how information order influences attitudes toward cheating. This study adds to the expanding body of information on academic integrity by studying the effect of perspective-taking on attitudes about cheating. It also provides practical insights for educators to build interventions that encourage a culture of honesty and discourage cheating.

Despite the importance of this research, certain limitations should be noted. Both studies assessed participants’ attitudes about cheating using hypothetical scenarios, which may not adequately represent participants’ real-life emotions or activities in real educational settings. Future study should use more reliable in terms of ecology ways to analyze real cases of cheating, such as questionnaires or observations. Another disadvantage is that the sample was mostly composed of university undergraduates. This limits the findings’ applicability to different age groups or educational levels. A more diversified and representative sample would improve the research’s external validity and give a more thorough picture of attitudes about cheating throughout various educational stages.

Future research might use longitudinal designs to study how attitudes and actions about academic integrity develop over time to overcome constraints and increase our understanding in this topic. Furthermore, going beyond the non-cheater and eager cheater categories might give deeper insights on the intricacies of moral decision-making in academic settings. Furthermore, researchers might explore the impact of contextual elements on individuals’ attitudes and actions linked to cheating, such as peer influence, instructor feedback, and institutional regulations. Understanding how these external factors interact with perspective-taking allows us to design more effective interventions to promote academic honesty.

This study concluded, in essence, that how you feel about cheating may be significantly influenced by placing yourself in another person’s position. Contrary to those who were as enthusiastic about cheating as eager cheaters, those who viewed things from a non- cheater’s perspective were far less acceptable of cheating. This research study provides interesting new information to the body of knowledge regarding academic integrity, regardless of significant limitations. It serves as a reminder of how crucial it is to weigh several points of view while making moral judgments. Therefore, educators and decision-makers may utilize this information to develop clever techniques that motivate everyone to be truthful and upstanding in their academic life. In order to develop a thorough knowledge of moral decision-making in academic contexts, future research may build on these findings by using more ecologically robust methodologies, including varied samples, and studying other contextual variables. Overall, promoting an academic integrity culture calls for teamwork, ongoing study, and creative approaches to assure students’ ethical growth and uphold the integrity of the educational system.

References

MacGregor, J., & Stuebs, M. (2012). To cheat or not to cheat: Rationalizing academic impropriety. Accounting Education, 21(3), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2011.617174

DiGirolamo, G. J., & Hintzman, D. L. (1997). First impressions are lasting impressions: A primacy effect in memory for repetitions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(1), 121-124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210784

Eisenberg, J. (2004). To cheat or not to cheat: Effects of moral perspective and situational variables on students’ attitudes. Journal of Moral Education, 33(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724042000215276

Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000115

Akbulut, Y., Şendağ, S., Birinci, G., Kiliçer, K., Şahin, M. C., & Odabaşi, H. F. (2008). Exploring the types and reasons of Internet-triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate students: Development of Internet-Triggered Academic Dishonesty Scale (ITADS). Computers & Education, 51(1), 463-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.003

Wu, Y., Zhong, L., Ruan, Q., Liang, J., & Yan, W. (2020). Can priming legal consequences and the concept of honesty decrease cheating during examinations? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 7.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02887

Goldstein, N. J., Vezich, I. S., & Shapiro, J. R. (2014). Perceived perspective taking: When others walk in our shoes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 941-960. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036395

McTernan, M., Love, P., & Rettinger, D. (2014). The influence of personality on the decision to cheat. Ethics & Behavior, 24(1), 53-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.819783

Vallejo, C. G., Cheng, J., Phillips, N., Chimeli, J., Bellezza, F., Harman, J., Lassiter, G. D., & Lindberg, M. J. (2014). Early positive information impacts final evaluations: No deliberation‐without‐attention effect and a test of a dynamic judgment model. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(3), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1796

Wright, A. A. (1994). Primacy effects in animal memory and human nonverbal memory. Animal Learning & Behavior, 22(2), 219-223. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199923

Rey, A., Le Goff, K., Abadie, M., & Courrieu, P. (2020). The primacy order effect in complex decision making. Psychological Research, 84(6), 1739–1748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01178-2