ond study found that student academic dishonesty was prevalent across institutional types in postsecondary education (Aaron & Georgia, 1994, pp. 83-91). This second study found also that educational administrators did not think that institutional responses to student academic dishonesty were adequate. McCabe (1993, pp. 647-658) reported the results of a study of 789 faculty at 16 institutions that found that most faculty members were reluctant to report instances of student academic dishonesty even when an honor code was in place at an institution. McCabe and Trevino (pp. 522-538) reported that student behavior involving academic dishonesty was influenced by (1) the existence of a student honor code at an institution, (2) student perceptions of the likelihood of such behavior being reported if detected, (3) the severity of penalties that could be anticipated should such behavior be reported, and (4) students perceptions of the prevalence of academic misconduct among all students.
A comparison of American and Australian stude
...