ANTECEDENTS OF LIKELIHOOD OF CHEATING
ANTECEDENTS OF LIKELIHOOD OF CHEATING (Study on Undergraduate Student)
Submitted by:
Bagus Indrawan F0207044
Bachelor Thesis Submitted to Economic Faculty of Sebelas Maret University to Fulfill one of the Requirements for Achieving The Bachelor Degree of Management
FAKULTAS EKONOMI UNIVERSITAS SEBELAS MARET SURAKARTA 2012
MOTTO
Bersyukur dan Ikhlas
(Hymne HMI)
As above, so below As within, so without (Emerald Stone, Circa 3000 B.C.)
DEDICATION
For my beloved mother Liem Giok Djie
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
With deeply humble, my greatest gratitude to Allah SWT, the Grandest and Almighty, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful for giving me the chance, and ability to perform this research and for all the change, He has given to the writer until now. My greatest gratitude to Prophet Muhammad SAW for the teaching and love that he has spread to the whole world, so the writer can complete research entitled ANTECEDENTS OF LIKELIHOOD OF CHEATING (Study on Undergraduate Student).
In the process of his research, the writer received support, contribution, and assistance from many people. Thus, there are honorable people that are important to the writer to whom he can only express his gratitude:
1. My beloved parents Liem Giok Djie and Zaenuri Anwar, Mom and Dad thank you so much for every hard work and sacrifices you have done for me, and for every prayer.
2. Dr. Wisnu Untoro, M.S., Dean of Economic Faculty of University of Sebelas Maret.
3. Dr. Hunik Sri Runing S, M.Si., The Head of Management Department of Economic Faculty of University of Sebelas Maret.
4. Dr. Budhi Haryanto, M.M., the thesis advisor for his patience, guidance, and suggestions.
5. Prof. Dr. Hartono, MS. The Academy Consultant who have helped the
Maret.
6. All of The Grand Family of Economic Faculty of University of Sebelas Maret.
7. All respondents. Thank you for the cooperation.
8. And all who have assisted me to finalize this Bachelor Thesis.
The writer realizes that this thesis still has many mistakes and inaccuracies. Therefore, he accepts gratefully every suggestions, criticisms andcomments from those who concern to this thesis. Hopefully, this thesis will be able to give contribution and be useful for the readers especially for those who are interested in the similar research.
Surakarta, June 2012
The Writer
C. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................... 30
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
A. Study Scope ....................................................................................... 31
B. Data Collecting and Sampling Method ............................................. 32
C. Operational Definition and Measurement Instrument ....................... 33
D. Data Analysis Method ........................................................................ 37
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Descriptive Analysis .......................................................................... 43
B. Research Instrument Analysis ............................................................ 44
C. Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 48
D. Hypotheses Testing and Discussions ................................................ 55
E. Alternative Model Analysis ............................................................... 70
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION
A. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 74
B. Implication ......................................................................................... 77
C. Limitation .......................................................................................... 80
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 82
APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
II.1. Study Position ............................................................................................. 15
III.1. Goodness of Fit Model Criteria ................................................................... 42
IV.1. Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................... 44
IV.2. Validity Test ................................................................................................ 45
IV.3. Reliability Test Result ................................................................................. 47
IV.4. Assessment of Normality ............................................................................ 50
IV.5. Summary of Mahalanobis Distance Squared ............................................... 52
IV.6. Goodness of Fit Test Result ........................................................................ 53
IV.7. Goodness of Fit Test Result After Modified ............................................... 54
IV.8. Regression Weights ..................................................................................... 55
IV.9. Alternative Model Comparison ................................................................... 71
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure Page
II.1. Research Framework ................................................................................ 30
IV.1. Partially Mediated Model (Initial) ............................................................ 57
IV.2. Direct-Effect-Only Model ........................................................................ 72
IV.3. Fully-Mediated Model ............................................................................. 73
ANTECEDENTS OF LIKELIHOOD OF CHEATING (Study on Undergraduate Student) BAGUS INDRAWAN FO207044
The purpose of this research is to examine the variables that influence likelihood of cheating. Specifically, this research wants to examine whether learner autonomy, lecturer support, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amotivation, academic performance, prior cheating, and neutralization as considered important variables in forming the likelihood of cheating on undergraduate students.
A survey is conducted to collect the data by direct interviews with the means which are guided by questionnaire. This method is done to increase the seriousness in interpreting and filling the questionnaires, so it is expected to obtain accuracy in the data. In this research, the sample consists of 200 undergraduate students who have likelihood of cheating. Convenience sampling technique is a chosen method to make easier in getting the sample.
Reliability and validity test are conducted to make ascertain toward the quality of the data. Structural equation modeling is statistical method chosen to elaborate the relationships among variables. The result shows that learner autonomy and lecturer support have significant influence on intrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation and amotivation have significant influence on academic performance, academic performance and prior cheating have also significant influence on neutralization, and neutralization has significant influence on likelihood of cheating. In mediation role, the fully-mediated-model is accepted as the final theoretical model.
In this research, both limitation and implication are also discussed in order to give insight toward theoretical, practical and further research aspects.
Keyword: likelihood of cheating, motivation, autonomy, support, neutralization.
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Academic cheating is an interesting issue to be studied because prior research indicated that cheating had become more prevalent and more increasing (see Whitley, 1998; Crown and Spiller, 1998). It occurred on any school levels, elementary school (Tas and Tekkaya, 2010), junior high school, senior high school (Murdock et. al., 2008; Vinski and Tryon, 2009), college, and university (McCabe et. al., 2001, Stone et. al., 2007; Stone et. al., 2009). From these findings, it can be concluded that eliminating or at least diminishing student cheating is necessary.
Applying previous researches findings to reduce academic cheating does not probably reduce the number of cheating effectively because research frameworks developed in prior studies only describe phenomenon on its research settings. Hence, the findings cannot be applied on different settings appropriately
because of the difference of sample characteristics. 1 Therefore, conducting study
to develop a framework that appropriate with research setting of Indonesia is important.
1 See Rettinger and Jordan (2005), Davy et. al. (2007), Davy et. al. (2009), Rettinger and Kramer (2009), Smith et. al. (2009), Anderman et. al. (2010) 1 See Rettinger and Jordan (2005), Davy et. al. (2007), Davy et. al. (2009), Rettinger and Kramer (2009), Smith et. al. (2009), Anderman et. al. (2010)
those variables. 2 The research framework is expected to predict likelihood of
cheating accurately. Each of variables examined in this study will be explained below.
First, likelihood of cheating is defined as degree of inclination to cheat on the future (Smith et. al., 2009). In other words, likelihood of cheating is how someone is likely or unlikely to cheat on the future. This is an important construct to be examined because it will predict future cheating behavior. Thus, if formation process of this variable is recognized, it will help marketers in cheating prevention.
Second, the variable that examined in this study is neutralization. It represents the rationalization and justification for unethical behavior as a deflection from self-disapproval or disapproval from others (Sykes and Matza, 1957). This variable is important to be examined because it influenced likelihood of cheating. Study conducted by Rettinger and Jordan, (2005) and Davy et. al. (2007) proposed neutralization had positive effect to likelihood of cheating. It
2 Variable selections are based on the studies conducted by Soenens and Vansteenkiste (2005), Davy et. al. (2007), Davy, et. al. (2009), Kuvaas (2009), and Smith et. al. (2009).
be likely to cheat. Third, prior cheating is defined as perceived frequency of cheating that has been done before (Davy, et. al., 2009). This study examines prior cheating as cheating predictor variable because it can become a good predictor of likelihood of cheating. Harding et. al. (2007) found that someone who cheat on school will more likely to cheat on university. Therefore, it can be concluded that prior cheating have positive relationship with likelihood of cheating. Prior cheating is also proposed have positive relationship with neutralization because someone who usually cheats will be easier rationalizing cheating than someone who seldom cheats (see Davy et. al., 2007).
Fourth, the variable that examined is academic performance. In this context, it is defined as how someone perceives his or her competence and compares it to his or her classmates (see Davy et. al., 2007). This variable can influence cheating constructs because student who perceives his or her ability is adequate to accomplish tasks and test satisfyingly will perceive that cheating is unnecessary to do; thus, the student will not cheat. Prior research found that academic performance has negative correlation with neutralization, and likelihood of cheating (see Davy et. al., 2007; Davy, et. al., 2009; Smith et. al., 2009).
Fifth, amotivation is a condition of people that lack intention to behave and relatively absence of motivation (Deci et. al., 1991). In that condition, they are unable to regulate themselves and do not have sense of causality of their behavior to achieve desired outcomes (Deci and Ryan, 2000). This variable is Fifth, amotivation is a condition of people that lack intention to behave and relatively absence of motivation (Deci et. al., 1991). In that condition, they are unable to regulate themselves and do not have sense of causality of their behavior to achieve desired outcomes (Deci and Ryan, 2000). This variable is
Sixth, extrinsic motivation is a type of motivation that driven by external rewards (Deci et. al., 1991; Deci and Ryan, 2000). This study uses external regulation and introjected regulation as extrinsic motivation construct because
they are tend to externally driven motivation according to motivation continuum. 3
This variable is important to be examined because it has influence on cheating framework. In Davy et. al. (2007) and Smith et. al. (2009), extrinsic motivation was proposed negatively correlated with academic performance and positively correlated with neutralization, and likelihood of cheating.
Seventh, intrinsic motivation is defined as internal driving force to engage to behavior because of pleasure and satisfaction derived from it (Deci et. al., 1991). This variable has important role on research framework because it influence on academic performance and cheating behavior. Davy, et. al., (2009) and Smith et. al., (2009) proposed that intrinsic motivation positively correlated with academic performance and negatively correlated with neutralization, and likelihood of cheating.
3 In self-determination theory, motivation describes as a continuum from amotivation to intrinsic motivation. Between them, there is extrinsic motivation that divided as four type of motivation.
They are external-regulation, introjected-regulation, identified-regulation, and integrated- They are external-regulation, introjected-regulation, identified-regulation, and integrated-
Ninth, learner autonomy was defined as freedom to make important decisions for themselves that given by lecturer to student in learning process (eg. scheduling independently), which is examined from student perspective (Hassan and Rahman, 2010) Prior research found that autonomy positively correlated with intrinsic motivation (Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2005; Kuvaas, 2009). Because the context of this study is academic cheating, the autonomy that studied here is learner autonomy.
Based on relationship between variables explained before, the following are problem identifications of this study.
B. Research Problem
To conduct a good research, problem identification is an important phase.
A research cannot be conducted well if the problems are not formulated definitely (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009). Hence, this subchapter explains how research problem is identified.
neutralization and likelihood of cheating. Literature review indicated that neutralization influenced likelihood of cheating; the higher the neutralization, the
higher the likelihood of cheating 4 . This variable influenced likelihood of cheating
because someone who has neutralized guilt feeling of cheating will be likely to cheat. Thus, the first problem is:
Does neutralization influence likelihood of cheating?
The second problem is the relationship between prior cheating and likelihood of cheating. Prior research indicated that prior cheating positively influences likelihood of cheating; the higher the prior cheating, the higher the likelihood of cheating (Davy et. al., 2007; Smith et. al., 2009). Thus, the second problem is:
Does prior cheating influence likelihood of cheating?
In the relation with neutralization, prior cheating has positive relationship with neutralization; the higher the prior cheating, the higher the neutralization (Davy et. al., 2007; Smith et. al., 2009). Thus, the third problem is:
Does prior cheating influence neutralization?
4 See Rettinger and Jordan, (2005), Davy et. al. (2007), Davy, et. al. (2009), and Smith et. al.
is academic performance. Academic performance has negative influence on likelihood of cheating. Students who perceive their academic performance is good will not cheat because they feel able in completing tasks and test. It is supported with prior research that found academic performance has negative relationship with likelihood of cheating (see Davy et. al., 2007; Davy, et. al., 2009). Thus, the fourth problem is:
Does academic performance influence likelihood of cheating?
Because academic performance negatively influences likelihood of cheating, students who have high academic performance will be less likely to cheat so they have smaller needs to neutralize their behavior. Hence, academic performance also influences neutralization; the higher the academic performance, the lower the neutralization (Smith et. al., 2009). Thus, the fifth problem is:
Does academic performance influence neutralization?
Next problem is related to amotivation because students who are on the amotivation state will be likely to cheat on exams or tasks. When amotivated students face exams or tasks they will feel externally controlled (Deci et. al., 1991). They feel externally controlled because they lack of value on behavior (Standage et. al., 2005). In order to free from external control, they will do anything to complete the exams or tasks, although it is cheating. Because they cheat, they need to neutralize their behavior. Thus, amotivation is positively Next problem is related to amotivation because students who are on the amotivation state will be likely to cheat on exams or tasks. When amotivated students face exams or tasks they will feel externally controlled (Deci et. al., 1991). They feel externally controlled because they lack of value on behavior (Standage et. al., 2005). In order to free from external control, they will do anything to complete the exams or tasks, although it is cheating. Because they cheat, they need to neutralize their behavior. Thus, amotivation is positively
Does amotivation influence likelihood of cheating? Does amotivation influence neutralization? Does amotivation influence academic performance?
There are several problems related to externally driven motivation. Extrinsic motivation is positively correlated with likelihood of cheating and neutralization, and it negatively correlated with academic performance (Davy et. al., 2007; Smith et. al., 2009). It is reasonable because student who is motivated by external reward (such as: graduation, score) will do any efforts to get it, include cheating. Thus, the ninth to eleventh problems are:
Does extrinsic motivation influence likelihood of cheating?
Does extrinsic motivation influence neutralization? Does extrinsic motivation influence academic performance?
Next problem is related to intrinsic motivation. Intrinsically motivated students are not likely to cheat because they enjoy learning (Deci et. al., 1991). If students get pleasure in learning experience, they will learn lessons well and not need to cheat. Hence, intrinsic motivation positively correlated with academic performance and negatively correlated with likelihood of cheating and Next problem is related to intrinsic motivation. Intrinsically motivated students are not likely to cheat because they enjoy learning (Deci et. al., 1991). If students get pleasure in learning experience, they will learn lessons well and not need to cheat. Hence, intrinsic motivation positively correlated with academic performance and negatively correlated with likelihood of cheating and
Does intrinsic motivation influence likelihood of cheating?
Does intrinsic motivation influence neutralization? Does intrinsic motivation influence academic performance?
There are two variables that are supposed to influence intrinsic motivation; they are lecturer support and learner autonomy. First, lecturer support has relationship with intrinsic motivation. Soenens and Vansteenkiste (2005) found that teacher support enhance student self-determination. It can be concluded that lecturer support is positively correlated with intrinsic motivation because the most self-determined motivation is intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Thus, the fifteenth problem is:
Does lecturer support influence intrinsic motivation?
Second, learner autonomy influences intrinsic motivation. Prior research found that autonomy has relationship with intrinsic motivation; the higher the learner autonomy, the higher the intrinsic motivation (Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2005; Kuvaas, 2009). Thus, the sixteenth problem is:
Does learner autonomy influence intrinsic motivation?
The purpose of this study is to predict the formation process of likelihood of cheating. The findings are expected to predict the variables that influencing likelihood of cheating. Conceptual framework developed is based on frameworks from prior researches on academic cheating context. Framework feasibility on predicting likelihood of cheating is analyzed based on goodness-of-fit criteria. Therefore, the proposed model can be used as a good predictor toward university students cheating behavior in Indonesia.
Specifically, this study is aimed to examine the influences of antecedent variables of likelihood of cheating. The influences can be grouped into five categories. First, it examines the influence of neutralization on likelihood of cheating. Second, it examines the influence of prior cheating on neutralization and likelihood of cheating. Third, it examines the influence of academic performance on neutralization, and likelihood of cheating. Fourth, it examines the influence of motivation variables (intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation) on academic performance, neutralization, and likelihood of cheating. Fifth, it examines the influence of learner autonomy and lecturer support on intrinsic motivation.
D. Research Implication
There are several implications of the study that perhaps has relevance with the study purpose, such as: theoretical benefit, benefit for future research, and practical benefit. Here is the explanation of theoretical benefit of this study.
tested through rigorous procedure. The reason of this treatment is to get high accuracy of its prediction so this study is scientifically accountable. Therefore, these study results have high validity, so it can be developed on different setting.
Second, conceptual framework that is developed in this study has uniqueness compared to prior research. Research method developed in this study uses Indonesian consumer behavior background. The framework resulted from this study possibly become alternative framework that can be used to explain likelihood of cheating phenomenon in Indonesia. It can provide different perspective in other study in academic cheating context. Hence, it is possible to use this study as reference in designing research method in the future.
Besides theoretical benefit, there is benefit for future research. Here is the explanation. Research method of this study is designed on limited scope. This limitation is supposed to have impact in applying the findings of this research because the framework that is developed here only describes phenomenon on this research setting. This limitation indicates future research is necessary to generalize this study on wider context in order to enhance its external validity.
Besides theoretical benefit and benefit for future research, there is practical benefit of this research. Here is the explanation. Framework that is developed in this research has purpose to reveal the formation process of likelihood of cheating on undergraduate student. The findings of this research are expected to give understanding to educators and
Through this study, they are expected to understand factors that are supposed to reduce likelihood of cheating.
E. Study Justification
Study justification consist of five aspects, they are: research issue selection, research object, research approach, analyzing method selection, and framework generalization principle. Here are the explanations of study justifications.
This study appoints academic cheating as research issue. It is designed to build understanding about academic cheating and to provide empirical considerations to solve it. Specifically, this study will develop understanding in constructing and selecting which stimulus that can be used to reduce likelihood of cheating.
Object of this research is students that have likelihood of cheating. This research is limited on undergraduate students because of considering homogeneity of sample that analyzed. This treatment has purpose to give research boundary so that the influence of external factors that is not proposed can be reduced. Therefore, framework that is analyzed in this research can explain the occurred phenomenon (robust model).
This research depends on cognitive psychological approach that is relies on cognitive-affective-conative components to understand formation process of likelihood of cheating. Through this approach, it is expected to provide research This research depends on cognitive psychological approach that is relies on cognitive-affective-conative components to understand formation process of likelihood of cheating. Through this approach, it is expected to provide research
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is selected as analyzing method. SEM is statistic method that supposed to have ability to answer research problems identified. By using this analysis tools, there is possibility for testing complex relationships among several variables simultaneously. The analysis conducted to get whole description about entire framework because SEM can test structural and measurement frameworks.
This study follows framework generalization principle because research method of this study has limited scope characteristic. Thus, the framework that is examined only can be generalized on its setting and object that is studied. To generalize this study on different settings, it needs to pay attention to demographic profile of respondents. If this consideration is not taken, there will be misleading in understanding research findings so the marketing strategy formulated will not work effectively.
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION
This chapter provides theoretical background on this study in formulating hypothesis. Hypothesis formulations need theoretical bases to achieve a scientifically accountable research. Thus, this chapter is arranged into three aspects, they are: (1) study position, (2) variables discussions, and (3) theoretical framework. The details of each aspect will be explained below.
A. Study Position
There were various researches about academic cheating that have been conducted before. This study can be compared to previous studies from two aspects, by variables that are examined and by statistical tools that is used. Table II.1 provides comparison of variables identified from previous studies and variables constructed for this study.
Based on variable examined, this study takes likelihood of cheating as dependent variable. This variable is adopted from research conducted by Davy et. al. (2007), Davy et. al. (2009), and Smith et. al. (2009). Moreover, this study also uses eight variables that adopted from literature review. Neutralization adopted from Rettinger and Jordan (2005) and Davy et. al. (2007). Prior cheating and academic performance adopted from Davy et. al.
And, lecturer support adopted from Soenens and Vansteenkiste (2005).
Table II.1 Study Position
Author (Year)
Statistical Analysis
Moderator Variable
Dependent Variable
Rettinger and Jordan (2005)
Regression
- Religion - Neutralizing
Attitudes
- Environment - Course Structure
- Motivation
- Course Content
- Cheating
Soenens and Vansteenkiste (2005)
specific Self- Determination
- Domain- specific Outcome
Davy et. al. (2007)
SEM
- Extrinsic Motivation - Intrinsic Motivation - Alineation - Detterents
- Academic
Performance
- Prior Cheating - Neutralization
- Likelihood of Cheating
Davy et. al. (2009)
SEM
- Intrinsic Motivation - External-Identified
Regulation
- Introjected
Regulation - Amotivation
- Academic
Performance
- Prior Cheating - Neutralization
- Gender - Likelihood of Cheating
Smith et. al. (2009)
SEM
- Extrinsic Motivation - Intrinsic Motivation - Amotivation - Alineation - Detterents
- Academic
Performance
- Prior Cheating - Neutralization
- Likelihood of Cheating
This Study SEM
- Learner Autonomy - Lecturer Support - Extrinsic Motivation - Amotivation - Prior Cheating
- Likelihood of Cheating
Source: process resulted by the writer, 2011
Neutralization, academic performance, prior cheating, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amotivation, lecturer support and learner autonomy are selected because based on literature review, they are considered important in influencing likelihood of cheating. Also, these variables can be influenced directly by marketers because these variables are within reach of organizations (colleges or universities).
In contrary, autonomy-support parents is not examined in this study. Measuring this variable needs to interview the students and their parents (see Grolnick and Ryan, 1989; Klem and Connell, 2004). This method will bring this research outside of its scope because parents’ involvement will extend the research object.
Religion is another variable that probably have influence in cheating. Prior research indicates that religion has influence on cheating moderated by course content (see Rettinger and Jordan, 2005). Examining religion in Indonesia will extend the scope of the research because Indonesia admits six religions formally. In order to attain the focus in research discussions, however, religion is also not observed in this research.
Technology is often presumed as cause of cheating because advancement of technology makes cheating easier. Prior research indicates that college students had misused the technology to cheat (see Etter et. al., 2006). However, the finding does not give enough argument to propose that technology is cause of likelihood of cheating. According to Stephens et. al.
cause of cheating. These findings indicate that technology is not relevant to
be posited as an antecedent of likelihood of cheating. There are other variables that are presumed to give contribution in likelihood of cheating, they are: complicated bureaucracy, lack of procedures to give sanctions, and minimum law enforcements (see Burke et. al., 2007). These variables were posited to predict the actual cheating behavior. However, these variables are not examined in this study because there is lack of supporting theories to put these variables as predictor of likelihood of cheating. Also, instruments to measure these variables do not find in literature review. Thus, it is not possible to examine these variables in this research.
Related to statistical tools used, this study uses Structural Equation Modeling as statistical analysis tool. This method is used to analyze the structural relationship among variables. It can recognize the relationship among examined variables simultaneously.
Based on study position explained before, the following explanations are discussions of variables and hypothesis development of this study.
B. Discussions of Variables and Hypothesis Formulation
This sub-chapter discusses definitions of and relationship among observed variables. The discussions are important in order to have same perception of the observed variables.
1. Likelihood of Cheating
Likelihood of cheating is variable that represent the probability of cheating that may be done (Davy et. al., 2007). Likelihood of cheating is how someone is likely or unlikely to cheat on the future. This is an important construct to be examined because it will be positioned as future cheating predictor. Thus, if formation process of this variable is recognized, it will help marketers on cheating prevention.
2. Neutralization
This variable is important to build the framework of academic cheating predictor. It provides main influence on likelihood of cheating as dependent variable. In literature review, neutralization defined as the rationalizations and justifications for unethical behavior used to deflect self-disapproval or disapproval from others after violating an accepted social norm (see Sykes and Matza, 1957). Neutralization is used as tool to justify dishonest behavior. Through the rationalization, students feel permitted to cheat. Thus, neutralization was proposed to have positive relationship with likelihood of cheating.
On another literature review, neutralization was conceptualized as neutralizing attitudes construct (see Rettinger and Jordan, 2005). It was defined as attitudes seek to justify or minimize the harm in cheating, so
proposed as predictor of cheating. About the relationship of neutralization with cheating constructs, Rettinger and Kramer (2009) had rather different statement compared explanation before. In this study, neutralization was not considered a sufficient cause of cheating, but it would facilitate the influence of other factors, such as: situational and motivational influences. However, it still supports that neutralization have positive influence on likelihood of cheating.
This study uses concept of neutralization that used in Sykes and Matza (1957), the rationalizations and justifications for unethical behavior used to deflect self-disapproval or disapproval from others after violating an accepted social norm. Because cheating is one form of unethical behavior, it is reasonable to say that neutralization has positive relationship with likelihood of cheating; the higher the neutralization, the higher the likelihood of cheating (Davy et. al., 2007; Smith et. al., 2009). Thus, the first hypothesis formulated is:
H1: Neutralization has positive influence on likelihood of cheating
3. Prior Cheating
In Harding et. al. (2007), prior cheating was defined as frequency and number of cheating that was engaged by students. It uses an approximate number given by student in self-reported cheating. Student In Harding et. al. (2007), prior cheating was defined as frequency and number of cheating that was engaged by students. It uses an approximate number given by student in self-reported cheating. Student
This study takes the definition given by Davy et. al., (2009). Prior cheating is proposed to have positive relationship with likelihood of cheating; the higher the prior cheating, the higher the likelihood of cheating. Thus, the second hypothesis formulated is:
H2: Prior cheating has positive influence on likelihood of cheating
Prior cheating also had relationship with neutralization because students who report their prior cheating have greater need to neutralize it (Davy et. al., 2009). So that, the higher the prior cheating, the higher the neutralization. Thus, the third hypothesis formulated is:
H3: Prior cheating has positive influence on neutralization
4. Academic Performance
Academic performance it is defined as how someone perceived his own academic competence (see Davy et. al., 2007). It is proposed to have negative influence on likelihood of cheating because students who have Academic performance it is defined as how someone perceived his own academic competence (see Davy et. al., 2007). It is proposed to have negative influence on likelihood of cheating because students who have
H4: Academic performance has negative influence on likelihood of
cheating
Because academic performance negatively influences likelihood of cheating, students who have high academic performance will likely not cheat. Because they do not cheat, they do not need to neutralize their behavior. Hence, academic performance also influences neutralization; the higher the academic performance, the lower the neutralization (Smith et. al., 2009). Thus, the fifth hypothesis formulated is:
H5: Academic performance has negative influence on neutralization
5. Motivation
This study uses motivation construct that based on self- determination theory (SDT) because it addressed the issue of energization of behavior. It means, SDT not only concerned on what but also why certain goals are desired (Deci et. al.,1991). Hence, this theory is hoped can explain why student feels motivate and energize to cheat.
motivated is amotivation, at the middle is extrinsic motivation, and the most motivated is intrinsic motivation. Through the continuum, extrinsic motivation was divided as four type of motivation. From the-least- motivated to the-most-motivated extrinsic motivation they were: external- regulation, introjected-regulation, identified-regulation, and integrated- regulation (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Here is the explanation of each type of extrinsic motivation.
First, external-regulation is a type of motivation appeared because of specific external contingencies. This behavior is aimed to attain a desired consequence such as tangible rewards or to avoid a threatened punishment. Hence, in motivation continuum, external-regulation is considered as externally regulated extrinsic motivation.
Second, introjected-regulation is a type of motivation performed to avoid guilt or anxiety or to attain ego enhancements. Although internally driven, introjected behaviors still have an external cause to occur. Thus, in motivation continuum, introjected-regulation is considered as extrinsic motivation that somewhat externally regulated.
Third, identified-regulation is a type of motivation performed when someone recognize and accept the underlying value of a behavior. The behaviors caused by identified-regulation were more volitional although there was external driving force. Hence, in motivation continuum, Third, identified-regulation is a type of motivation performed when someone recognize and accept the underlying value of a behavior. The behaviors caused by identified-regulation were more volitional although there was external driving force. Hence, in motivation continuum,
Motivation construct examined in this study is amotivation, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation. Here is further explanation of each motivation construct.
a. Amotivation
Amotivation is a condition of people that lack intention to behave and relatively absence of motivation (Deci et. al., 1991). When amotivated students face exams or tasks they will feel externally controlled because they lack of value on behavior. To free from feeling externally controlled, they will do anything to complete the exams or tasks, although it is cheating. Because they cheat, they need to neutralize their behavior. Thus, amotivation was positively correlated with likelihood of cheating and neutralization, and it was negatively correlated with academic performance.
This study takes the definition of amotivation provided by Deci et. al. (1991), amotivation is a condition of people that lack intention to This study takes the definition of amotivation provided by Deci et. al. (1991), amotivation is a condition of people that lack intention to
H6: Amotivation has positive influence on likelihood of cheating H7: Amotivation has positive influence on neutralization H8: Amotivation has negative influence on academic performance
b. Extrinsic Motivation.
Extrinsic motivation is motivation that exists caused by external stimulus (Deci et. al., 1991). It is a type of motivation that more internally regulated than amotivation but do not fully internalized like intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation examined here is external- regulation and introjected-regulation because according to motivation continuum their regulations are external and somewhat external respectively. This variable is positively correlated with likelihood of cheating and neutralization, and it negatively correlated with academic performance. It is reasonable because student who motivated by external reward (such as: graduation, score) will do any efforts to get it, include cheating.
This study takes the definition of extrinsic motivation provided by Deci et. al. (1991), extrinsic motivation is motivation that exists This study takes the definition of extrinsic motivation provided by Deci et. al. (1991), extrinsic motivation is motivation that exists
H9: Extrinsic motivation has positive influence on likelihood of
cheating H10: Extrinsic motivation has positive influence on neutralization H11: Extrinsic motivation has negative influence on academic
performance
c. Intrinsic Motivation.
Intrinsic motivation is defined as internal driving force to engage to behavior because of pleasure and satisfaction derived from it (Deci et. al., 1991). Intrinsically motivated students are not likely to cheat because they enjoy learning. If student enjoy learning they will learn lessons well and not need to cheat. Hence, intrinsic motivation positively correlated with academic performance, and negatively correlated with likelihood of cheating and neutralization.
According to Vallerand et. al. (1992), intrinsic motivation is divided into three types. They are intrinsic motivation to know, intrinsic motivation to accomplish, and intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation. The following is the explanation of each type of intrinsic motivation.
performing an activity for the pleasure and the satisfaction that experienced while learning, exploring, or trying to understand something new. Intrinsic-motivation-to-accomplish is defined as the internal driving of engaging in activity for the pleasure and the satisfaction experienced when one attempts to accomplish or create something. Intrinsic-motivation-to-experience-stimulation is defined as the internal driving that operative when someone engages in an activity in order to experience stimulating sensations.
This study takes the definition of intrinsic motivation provided by Deci et. al. (1991), internal driving force to engage to behavior because of pleasure and satisfaction derived from it. In the type of intrinsic motivation, this study examined intrinsic motivation as a whole construct because the intrinsic motivation are considered have relation each other. Intrinsic motivation is proposed to have positive relationship with likelihood of cheating and neutralization, and has negative relationship with academic performance (Smith et. al., 2009).
Furthermore, Noels et. al. (1999) said that students, who are intrinsically motivated, feel that they are doing an activity because they have chosen to do so voluntarily and because the activity represents a challenge to their existing competencies and requires them to use their creative capabilities. This kind of motivation is considered to be highly self-determined in the sense that the reason for doing the activity is Furthermore, Noels et. al. (1999) said that students, who are intrinsically motivated, feel that they are doing an activity because they have chosen to do so voluntarily and because the activity represents a challenge to their existing competencies and requires them to use their creative capabilities. This kind of motivation is considered to be highly self-determined in the sense that the reason for doing the activity is
H12: Intrinsic motivation has positive influence on likelihood of
cheating H13: Intrinsic motivation has positive influence on neutralization H14: Intrinsic motivation has negative influence on academic
performance
6. Autonomy and Support in Lecturer-Student Relationship
Autonomy and support are important factors to enhance intrinsic motivation because they suffice the three innate psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Ryan and Deci, 2000). In learning process, it is important to suffice the needs of the students to enhance their intrinsic motivation. Lecturers hold the important role in providing autonomy and support to the students.
a. Lecturer Support
Klem and Connell (2004) defined lecturer support as caring and attention that is given by lecturers so the students feel lecturers are involved with them, know and care them. It was said that students with caring and supportive interpersonal relationships in school report more satisfaction toward school. The satisfaction toward activities is related to intrinsic motivation, especially intrinsic motivation to experience
intrinsic motivation. Soenens and Vansteenkiste (2005) explains lecturer support as supports examined from student perspective that given by lecturer to student in learning process. Lecturer support has relationship with intrinsic motivation. There is a finding that teacher supports enhance student self-determination. Because the most self-determined motivation is intrinsic motivation, it can be concluded that lecturer support is positively correlated with intrinsic motivation.
This research takes stand on lecturer support definition given by Klem and Connell (2004). Lecturer support is proposed to have positive relationship with intrinsic motivation; the higher the lecturer support, the higher the intrinsic motivation. Thus, the fifteenth hypothesis formulated is:
H15: Lecturer support has positive influence on intrinsic motivation
b. Learner Autonomy
Hassan and Rahman (2010), described the learner autonomy as freedom to make important decisions for themselves that given by lecturer to student in learning process (eg. scheduling independently), which is examined from student perspective. Soenens and Vansteenkiste (2005) found that autonomy had positive relationship with self-determination. When someone had more autonomy in some
intrinsic motivation are enhanced. In Little (2004), learner autonomy was defined as one’s ability to responsible of their own learning process. Although Little (2004) provided different definition, the relationship of learner autonomy and intrinsic motivation is similar, learner autonomy has positive relationship with intrinsic motivation. As a result, autonomous learners draw on their intrinsic motivation when they accept responsibility for their own learning and commit themselves to develop the skills of self- management in learning.
This research uses definition of learner autonomy that used on Hassan and Rahman (2010). In the relationship with intrinsic motivation, learner autonomy has positive relationship with intrinsic motivation; the higher the learner autonomy, the higher the intrinsic motivation. Thus, the sixteenth hypothesis formulated is:
H16: Learner autonomy has positive influence on intrinsic
motivation
C. Theoretical Framework
Based on sixteen hypotheses formulated, the relationships among concepted variables can be arranged in a theoretical framework. The framework describes the formation process of likelihood of cheating. Research framework that describes the relationships among hypothesized variables can be seen on following figure.
Figure II.1 Research Framework
Source: Construction resulted by author.
Lecturer
Support
Intrinsic Motivation
Learner Autonomy
Extrinsic Motivation
Academic Performance
Likelihood of Cheating
Prior Cheating
Neutralization
Amotivation
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
H16
H15
H14
H13
H12
H11
H10