Anti-social behaviour among students is a pertinent societal issue that is a topic of discussion among many sociologists. According to Wowra’s (2007) findings, many students indulge in anti-social behaviour. In his works, the scholar establishes two explanations for why students indulge in malpractices; the Social anxiety hypothesis (SAH) and the moral anxiety hypothesis (MAH). Among the vital anti-social behaviours of focus in this study are academic dishonesty, social anxiety, and moral identity. Academic dishonesty is the involvement in dubious acts by people in a learning process and involves both learners and instructors, social anxiety is the phobia of being perceived negatively by others which often leads to having low self-esteem and a feeling of inadequacy and moral identity is the extent to which an individual morality influences their identity. Students can either be principled if they follow the rules or expedient if they usually stray from the expectations.
Several studies like those by Josephson (n.d) and Lapsley and Narvaez (2004) have established linkages between moral identities, social anxiety, academic dishonesty, and anti-social behaviour among students. Similarly, Wowra (2007) realized that students who recorded cases of anxiety were more likely to be involved in academic dishonesty, while those with commendable moral identities recorded fewer cases of indulging in the vice. In a snippet, principled students with high moral identities and less social anxiety are less likely to involve themselves in academic dishonesty.
The current study is complementary and not a substitute for the works of Wowra (2007). The research replicates the analysis further and supports MIH and SAH of academic cheating and anti-social behaviours. It strengthens the limitations of the previous studies. Some of the findings include a larger sample size, a wider range of ages, time spent in college, and considering participants beyond psych students. The research questions were to determine if there was a difference in recall of academic dishonesty between expedient students and principled students, to determine the difference in frequency of recalling other ASBS when comparing principled and expedient students, to establish the relationship between social anxiety and academic cheating, with academic cheating to find out if there was a relationship between social anxiety and other ASB such as lying. Lastly, it was to determine whether the expedient and principled samples showed any significant differences, and the hypothesis was that there were no differences between the samples.
Methods
The study employed random probabilistic sampling techniques where 1725 participants were involved, with 44.9 % being males and 55% of them being females. Their age ranges were 18-69, with 43.4 % below 21. Other data collected for the students included the number of semesters they had attended, their GPA, which ranged from 0 to 4, whether they were part-time (18%) or full-time students (82%), and whether they were principled (48.3%) or expedient students (50%). The data collection was done using questionnaires that were administered to learners. The responses from the participants were then keyed in SPSS software for analysis. Collected data was added to a previously collected data set to allow more participants to be included in the analysis.
Measures
Integrity Scale – High scores represent a strong endorsement of a principled ethics, whereas low scores represent a strong endorsement of an ethic of expediency (Schlenker, 2006). Integrity Scale items are measured on a 5-point agree-disagree scale with potential scores ranging from 18-90. In the current study, participants with scores less than or equal to 58 are labelled expedient, and those with scores greater than or equal to 59 are principled. The ALPHA for the current study is 0.05, which suggests that the study results will be dependable 95% of the time.
Social Phobia Symptoms Checklist – Differences in social anxiety were measured with the Social Phobia subscale of the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (Zimmerman, 2002), a self-report symptom checklist of emotional and behavioural problems defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The social phobia subscale contains 15 true-false items that ask participants to recall symptoms of social anxiety they may have experienced over the past six months. Social anxiety scores were calculated by summing all true responses (range = 0 [low social anxiety] to 15 [high social anxiety]). The ALPHA for the current study is 0.05, which suggests that the study results will be dependable 95% of the time.
Anti-social behavior scale (ASBS) – The ASBS measures the frequency of committing unethical behaviors for the prior five years on 9 point scale: 0 (never), 1 (once or twice), 2 (about once a year), 3 (a few times a year), 4 (nearly every month), 5 (nearly every week), 6 (several times a week), 7 (nearly every day), and 8 (several times a day). The ASBS includes seven reliable subscales (Lying, Aggression, Broken Promises, Academic Dishonesty, Alcohol and Drugs, Stealing, and Fraud) and one item measuring infidelity. The Alphas for the current study are ASBS =.000, Lying =.000, Stealing =.000, Alcohol and Drugs =.000, Aggression =.000, Academic Dishonesty =.000, Fraud =.000, and Broken Promises =.000
Results
In determining the social anxiety hypothesis (SAH) and the moral anxiety hypothesis (MAH), several analyses included descriptive statistics, correlations, and ANOVA. The results are presented below.
Preliminary: Table 1 below shows the descriptive statistic of ASBS, and it suggests that almost all of the participants (99.1) had been involved in some form of ASBS. Some of the notable subsets of ASBS were realized lying (97%), aggression (82%), and broken promises (71%). A majority of the students had also been involved in examination irregularities, with three-quarters (75%) of the students reporting positive cases. About half (54%) of the participants admitted to having been involved in stealing, with the cases of fraud and infidelity reported being 39% and 36%, respectively.
Table #1 – Descriptives of ASBS
Table #2 below shows the correlations between academic dishonesty and other forms of ASBS in order to establish the linkages between the individual cases. The results suggest that there are weak positive correlations for all the antisocial behaviors that were studied. Academic dishonesty is positively correlated to ASBS (r =.685, p <.01), lying (r =.406, p <.01), stealing (r =.414, p <.01), alcohol and drugs (r =.481, p <.01), aggression (r =.527, p <.01), fraud (r =.586, p =.01), broken promises (r =.579, p =.001) and infidelity (r=.462, p=.01).
Table #2 – Correlations of individual scales on ASBS
MIH
Table #3 compares principle and expedient participants on the anti-social behaviour scales and the subscales. For all the observations, the expedient students registered higher scores than the principled students, and all the ANOVA were significant at the.000 level. In the various categories expedient students registered higher mean scores in comparison to principled students, ASBS (1.42,.96), lying (2.41, 1.84), stealing (.72,.35), alcohol and drugs (1.51, 1.18), aggression (1.22,.78) academic dishonesty (1.70, 1.10), broken promises (1.26,.76), infidelity (1.08,.48) and fraud (1.05,.49).
Table #3 – Group comparisons on ASB scales
SAH
Table #5 shows the correlations between ASBS and its subscales to social anxiety. In all the observations, there is a weak correlation between ASBS and its subscales to social anxiety. Academic dishonesty is positively correlated to social anxiety (r =.093, p <.000), lying (r =.229, p <.000), stealing (r =.102, p <.000), alcohol and drugs (r =.051, p <.000), aggression (r =.043, p <.000), fraud (r =.069, p =.000), broken promises (r =.093, p =.000) and infidelity (r=.068, p=.000).
Table #4 – Correlations of ASBS and subscales to Social Anxiety
ANOVA for Lying
Table #5 shows the ANOVA for the responses under the subscale ‘lying’. The sum of squares between groups is 133.762, whereas that for within groups is 3895.862, and the F-ration is 57.407
Table #5 – ANOVA for the cases of lying
Discussion
In investigating differences in recall of academic cheating between Principled and Expedient students, it was found that there were significant differences. This is consistent with the current hypothesis. It is also consistent with previous research done by Wowra (2007). These findings provide further support for the Moral Identity Hypothesis of Academic Cheating. Expanding the Moral Identity Hypothesis to other anti-social behaviours, the results indicate significant differences in how Expedient and Principled participants responded to the Anti-So cial Behavior Scale. Expedient students indicated higher levels of engaging in anti-social behaviours when compared to Principled. When looking at the subscales of the Anti-social Behavior scale, differences were found between Expedient and Principled participants on lying, stealing, alcohol and drugs, aggression, academic dishonesty, fraud, broken promises, and infidelity.
In investigating the relationship between social anxiety and academic cheating, it was found that there was a statistically significant relationship between scores on the Social Anxiety Scale and scores on the Academic Dishonesty Scale. The correlation between Social Anxiety and Academic Dishonesty was weak and positive. This is consistent with the current hypotheses and consistent with previous research done by Wowra (2007). These findings provide weak support for the Social Anxiety Hypothesis of Academic Cheating. Expanding the Social Anxiety Hypothesis to other Anti-social behaviours, the results indicate a statistically significant relationship between Social Anxiety and the Anti-Social Behavior Scale. The correlation between Social Anxiety and the Anti-social Behavior Scale was weak and positive. Looking at other individual subscales, all the scales were significantly related to social anxiety: lying, stealing, alcohol and drugs, aggression, academic dishonesty, fraud, broken promises, and infidelity.
ANOVA was performed on lying as a subscale of ASBS to test if there were any significant differences between the groups under study. The findings suggest that the samples expedient and principled participants were not significantly different. This is in tandem with the hypothesis and the findings by Wowra (2007). ANOVA was necessary to determine how much difference was a result of the grouping rather than the individual responses.
The data collection involved a single learning institution that might not represent other learning institutions. Moreover, adding the data to previously existing datasets can impact the reliability and validity of the study. Further studies should focus on diversifying their samples by including several institutions in the study. In addition, the current study only focused on establishing the correlation between the various parameters; future studies should be divergent to determine a cause-effect relationship. A causal relationship will be handy in finding the solution behind some of these pertinent societal issues.
References
Josephson, M. (n.d.). The ethics of American youth. Los Angeles, CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics.
Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.). Moral development, self, and identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Web.
Schlenker, B. R. (2006). Principled and expedient ideologies: The Integrity Scale as a measure of ethical orientations. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Wowra, S. A. (2007). Moral identities, social anxiety, and academic dishonesty among American college students. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 303-321.
Zimmerman, M. & Sheeran, T. (2002). Social phobia: still a neglected anxiety disorder? The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 190(11), 786-788.