INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS IN

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY IN HUMSS STUDENTS OF STA. LUCIA

HIGH SCHOOL

A Research Paper
Presented to
the Faculty of Senior High School
in Sta. Lucia high School

In Partial  Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for Practical  Research II

By:

Liezel Domanais
Alexa Jane Delima
Allan Leyco
Charl Darwin Semblante
Jhoedy Dayto
Kristel Joy Hebres
Nelson Jath Dorado
Rich Jore Sembrano
Vlademer Valera
Nathalie Parone
Charles Noble
Kristine Redulfin
 Chapter 1

Background of the Study

Academic dishonesty is common in the country's university communities

(McCabe & Trevino, 1993). And now, with the pandemic outbreak, teachers are
being forced to teach in new ways, and students are being forced to learn in new
ways. According to previous studies, up to 80% of students cheat at least once
during their academic careers (McCabe & Trevino, 1993). This study will look into
the possible mechanisms for why cheating is so common in today's academic
society, with a particular focus on socioeconomic position as factor.

Researchers examined cheating in university students across the United

States by surveying how frequently students cheated, and their rationale behind the
behavior. They found that peers were the strongest predictor for cheating behavior,
while understanding of university policies was the least important factor. Cheating
rates were higher among participants who were younger, and those with lower
GPAs. Men were more likely to cheat than women, possibly because they are less
socialized to follow rules. Cheating rates are high, and this poses a problem for
universities nationwide (Macaulay & Lemm, 2014; McCabe & Trevino 1993;
1997). In order to reduce cheating rates, it is important to understand why students
are cheating in the first place. The present research aimed to examine the
mechanisms behind why students cheat from one perspective. This study will
examine academic dishonesty in relation to socioeconomic status as contributors to
higher levels of cheating.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this research was to look into three possible reasons why
students engage in academic dishonesty. The purpose of this research is to see if
there is a link between socioeconomic class, stress, and work pressure as factors in
academic dishonesty.

1. What is the student's reason for  cheating?

2. To what extent the student of HUMSS strand is involved in cheating?
3. How does socioeconomic status become a factor for students to cheat?
Significance of The Study

Academic performance cheating has been a concern for most universities

throughout the world. The purpose of this research is to identify and investigate the
fundamental reasons why students consider cheating in class. Also, to reveal the
link between socioeconomic status as a factor in academic dishonesty. Educators
and parents will be able to learn the reasoning behind the student's rational decision
and will gain a better understanding of why students cheat. This research will aid
them in developing a strategy for reducing cheating behaviors and assisting
students in avoiding cheating.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study is focused on why HUMSS students of Sta. Lucia High School
cheats on exams. The researchers chose one demographic variable, which is
socioeconomic status, to identify the relation of this variable for students to cheat. 
This study will be conducted in Sta. Lucia High School, Pasig City. The
selection of respondents are only with up to 15% of randomly selected HUMSS
students in Senior High of Sta. Lucia High School S.Y 2021-2022 who will
represent the population.
    This study will conducted with limited population and time framework.

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATTURE AND STUDY

This chapter summarizes the relevant literature and studies that the
researchers evaluated while determining the significance of the current
investigation. It also includes a summary of the art to fully comprehend the
research and gain a better understanding of the study.

Academic Dishonesty?

Academic dishonesty refers to people involved in teaching, learning,

research, and other academic activities committing or contributing to dishonest
conduct, and it includes not only students, but everyone in the academic
environment (Cizek, 2003; Whitley, Jr. & Keith-Spiegel, 2002). Cheating is
defined as the use of unlawful information, materials, technologies, sources, or
methods to complete academic tasks. Copying during an exam that is supposed to
be completed separately, for example, is an unapproved behavior that is considered
cheating. A student is seen to be aiding or contributing to cheating if he or she
permits another student to copy from his or her work.
The most common dishonest behavior that students engage in in various
school community circumstances is cheating on tests/exams and homework.
External factors that contribute to these misbehaviors include poor classroom
management, student and instructor ineptitude, and strong social pressure or
expectations. Furthermore, the common perception of the insignificance of certain
academically dishonest practices has led to continued participation in those actions
(Balbuena & Lamuela, 2015).

Reasons for Academic Dishonesty

Cheating by students has several causes. Stress is a common subject. There

are two main criteria that have been recognized across the board. Competition for
graduate school admittance, scholarships, and jobs after graduation are all factors
that drive today's students to cheat. Some academics argue that pupils are apathetic
to cheating because of a societal environment where authoritative persons cheat
(parents, teachers, business executives, and government officials ). Despite the fact
that many students agree that cheating is unethical, they rarely disclose another
student's misconduct. According to research, some students see cheating as a valid
way to get ahead and cope with stress, and modest or nonexistent punishments for
cheating may promote this perception (Maramark & Maline, 1993).

Though there are a variety of reasons why students engage in this type of
behavior, it has been discovered that the overwhelming workload, inability to study
independently, low support from teachers and parents, laziness, peer pressure, and
the pressure to get good grades are the primary reasons why 21 st century learners
seek the assistance of others to complete their requirements, leading to the
conclusion that online learning, a type of educational system that we now have as a
result of pandemic, is ineffective. Academic servers give their services to students
for a variety of reasons, including money and a desire to assist struggling students,
indicating that their pay is insufficient (Aguilar, 2021).

Furthermore, students who watched their classmates engage in incorrect

academic behavior likely to engage in similar behavior, as opposed to students who
did not witness such behavior (Ahmed, 2018; Barbaranelli et al., 2018; Kiekkas et
al., 2020). In other words, the pupils' behavior was impacted by a norm of suitable
or incorrect academic behavior.
 Socioeconomic Status and Education
What is economic status? In this sense, economic status refers to a person's
place in society. Others are affected based on their income, education, and
employment. Furthermore, three wealth classes or levels develop from these
positions. These are the lower or poor classes, the middle or working classes, and
the top or rich classes. This is independent of the economy's social sector.
Sociologists, economists, and other social scientists use the word "socioeconomic
status" to characterize an individual's or group's social class. It is determined by a
variety of circumstances such as income, occupation, and education, and it can
have a favorable or bad impact on a person's life (Crossman, 2019).

Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, & Maczuga (2009) observed that children from
low socioeconomic status families develop academic skills at a slower rate than
those from higher socioeconomic status families, owing to a lack of learning
materials that promote a positive literacy environment (Bradley, Corwyn,
McAdoo, & Garca, 2020).

Students' performance is influenced by socioeconomic variables. Another

finding confirms that students with higher grades come from higher socioeconomic
backgrounds, have more parental support, and have already attended preschool.
Academic performance is determined by a student's socioeconomic status.
Learning disorders or other poor psychological effects that affect academic
achievement are increasingly linked to lower socioeconomic status. Low
socioeconomic status and adversity are connected to lower educational
achievement (McLaughlin & Sheridan, 2016). Low-income communities' school
systems are frequently underfunded, significantly impacting children' academic
development and outcomes (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008).

With the aforementioned related literature and studies, it was obvious that
students' socioeconomic position has an impact on their academic achievement.
One probable effect is that students will engage in academic dishonesty. It was
emphasized that kids should come from a household with a higher socioeconomic
standing in order to achieve better academic results. Various studies on the
relationship between social position and education backed up this theory.

Conceptual Framework
 This shows the linkage between socioeconomics status of the student and
academic dishonesty. It shows the factors of socioeconomic status are an
independent variable related to the dependent variable which is the academic
dishonesty of students.

Household Income

Academic
Home resources
Dishonesty
SES

Attitude towards Cheating

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

 Participants’  Questionnaires Relation of
profile and  Survey Socioeconomic Status as
information. a Factor of Academic
 Participants’ Dishonesty
annual household
income.
 Financial Problems
in relation with
academic
dishonesty.
 Students’ cheating
attitude.
Chapter 3

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

    This chapter concentrates on the discussion of the research methods and procedures adhered to by
the researchers in order to answer systematically the specific problem posed for investigation.
Specifically, the research method, population and samples, research instrument, and data gathering
procedure were explained in this chapter.. 

Research Method and Technique Used

    This study uses a descriptive method of research. It utilized the variables of socioeconomics status to
gather the needed data essential for the study. Quantitative methods were used to observe the
relationship between the variables with the principal objective analyzed and associated mathematically
through the use of statistical analysis. The study defined the relation between the socioeconomic status
and academic dishonesty of the HUMSS students. 

Population and Sample

    Sta. Lucia High School in Pasig City is a high-performing secondary school in the Pasig City Division.
This school currently has about 3,000 students enrolled, with senior high school students accounting for
14% of the enrollment. In six sections of the Grade 11 and Grade 12 HUMSS strand, three (3) sections
each, the researcher selects 300 (three hundred) students, 50 (fifty) students for each section via
purposive sampling technique. According to Robinson (2014), purposive sampling is intentional selection
of informants based on their ability to elucidate a specific theme, concept or phenomenon. Informed
consent was obtained from all participants through a question in the online survey.

Research Instrument (Some ideas to these instruments are based on Macaulay, 2015)

     Vignettes. The vignettes for this study were written specifically for this research. Each features a
setting in which the characters, Anna and Tess, are allowed to participate in dishonesty. Anna is
presented in one vignette as a student from a wealthy household who needed to attend a party instead
of a group work meeting. Tess is characterized in the other story as a student from an underprivileged
household who is struggling financially. Both vignettes are stopped before any serious cheating occurs.
The full vignettes are included in Appendix A. 
     Dependent Measure. Following the reading of the vignettes, participants were asked to rate how
likely Anna and Tess were to cheat in the current situation. Participants rated statements on a 7-point
scale, with 1 being the least likely and 7 being the most likely. Rettinger and Kramer (2009) utilized this
question to examine student predictions of dishonest behavior. Participants were also asked to judge a
set of three statements that assessed how ethical Anna and Tess' decision would be. Each statement
was graded on a 6-point scale to indicate how much the participant agreed. One item was reverse coded
to show a negative ethical assessment of their acts, with a higher score suggesting a more favorable
ethical assessment of Anna and Tess’ actions.

Participants also rated a series of three statements assessing how ethical participants thought Anna’s
decision would be if she just paid Tess (e.g.,If Anna didn’t attend the meeting, and just pay Tess for the
project, it would have been right). Each item was rated on a 6-point scale indicating how much the
participant agreed with each statement (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Moderately Disagree, 3 = Slightly
Disagree, 4 = Slightly Agree, 5 = Moderately Agree, 6 = Strongly Agree). One item was reverse coded to
reflect a negative ethical appraisal of Jim’s actions (e.g.,If Anna didn’t attend the meeting, and just pay
Tess for the project, it would have been morally wrong). Scores were summed with a higher score
indicating a more positive ethical appraisal of Anna’s actions. These measures can also be found in
Appendix A. This can also be found in Appendix A.  

Appendix A: Vignettes And Cheating Measure

Condition 1. Paying someone to do the work. 

Anna is a HUMSS student in Grade 11. She comes from a rich family with access to the internet and
has financial means to afford everything related to academics.  They have a time-consuming school
project but she has a party to attend this weekend. Her group mates demand she  attend their
meetings but she is preoccupied with the party. And she’s well aware that the school project they
need to complete will cost a lot of money. One of her friends advised her to just give her share
through money and let her group mates do the work. 

How likely is it that Anna will skip the meeting and instead pay for the materials they’ll need to finish
their project and just let her group mates do all the work?
1

Not all likely

Very likely

Condition 2. Doing someone’s work in exchange for money.

Tess is one of Anna’s classmates. She came from a poor family and can barely afford to pay for her
studies. They don't have internet access and most of the time, her family couldn’t afford to buy food,
let alone meet her school’s requirements. Anna offered her money in exchange for her doing the
school project on her own. 

How likely is Tess to accept the offer even if she knows that she’s letting Anna cheat?
 1

Not all likely

Very likely

Ethics Questions

    After the vignette participants answered three ethics questions about the morality of the 

cheating act.
If Anna didn’t attend the meeting, and just pay Tess for the project, it would have been right,

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Slightly disagree

Slightly agree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

If Anna didn’t attend the meeting, and just pay Tess for the project, it would have been justified

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Slightly disagree
Slightly agree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

If Anna didn’t attend the meeting, and just pay Tess for the project, it would have been wrong.

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Slightly disagree

Slightly agree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

      Financial Problem Related to Academic Dishonesty. The Questionnaire on Financial Problem Related
to Academic Dishonesty is a 9-item scale that measures financial anxiety in daily life of a student. The
participant was asked to rate each statement on a 6-point scale to indicate how much they agreed with
it. Two items were reverse coded, indicating that the respondent was not concerned about money.
Higher scores indicated greater degrees of financial stress. It has also demonstrated significant construct
validity when associated with measures of subjective SES, indicating that students from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds reported higher levels of financial anxiety (Macaulay & Lemm, 2014). This
scale can be found in Appendix B.
Appendix B. Financial Difficulty in Relation to Academic Dishonesty Questionnaire

Questions
Strongly Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Slightly Disagree

Slightly Agree

Moderately Agree

Strongly Agree

My family is currently experiencing financial difficulty.

Money is an everyday stressor for our family

Money does not play a major factor in my family’s life.

Having our own internet connection makes me do my school work effectively.

having no gadgets of my own became a big obstacle for my studies.  

Being able to buy all the required tools and materials needed in school makes the work easier for me. 

Thinking about the financial problems of our family distracts me from studying. 
Having money to pay for someone to do my schoolwork’s works a lot for me. 

Making someone else’s work in exchange for money is not bad at all. 

     Monthly Household Income of Students Questionnaire. Maucalay and Lemme's prior research
inspired the query about students' annual household income (2014). We utilized a two-item scale to
determine a student's monthly household income and budget. The items were graded on a scale of one
to five, with each value indicating how much specific money the participant's household had. This scale
can be found in Appendix C.

Appendix C. Students Monthly Income and Budget Questionnaires.

What is your current  family’s monthly income?

< P 10, 000.00

P 10, 001.00 - P 30, 000.00

P 30, 001.00 - P 50, 000.00

P 50, 001.00 - P 75, 000.00

P 75, 001.00 - P 100, 000.00

What is your current family's monthly budget?

< P 10, 000.00

P 10, 001.00 - P 30, 000.00

P 30, 001.00 - P 50, 000.00

P 50, 001.00 - P 75, 000.00

P 75, 001.00 - P 100, 000.00

     Cheating Attitude Questionnaire. The Cheating Attitude Questionnaire is an 8-item measure modified
from Curasi (2013) and McCabe & Trevino (1993) that assesses how participants feel about cheating,
how often they cheat, and how often they believe others cheat at school. Curasi (2013) provided four
items to examine positive endorsement of cheating, and McCabe and Trevino provided four items to
assess peer cheating behavior (1993). Each statement will be scored on a 6-point scale to determine
how much the participant agrees with it. One of the items was reverse coded to show a negative
attitude toward cheating. This scale can be found in Appendix D. 

Appendix D. Cheating Attitude Questionnaire (This methods are from Macaulay, 2015)

Questions
Strongly Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Slightly Disagree

Slightly Agree

Moderately Agree

Strongly Agree

Cheating does not bother me.  

I would cheat if I knew I wouldn't be caught.

I have been tempted to cheat on exams and or assignments. 

I often cheat on exams.  

I never plagiarized. 

I have seen other students in my school cheat on exams frequently. 

I have seen other students in my school frequently turn in plagiarized work. 

I have known other students at my school who cheat on exams frequently.  

     Validation.

    The researchers asked for the help and assistance of their adviser to check the appropriateness and
coherence  of the questionnaires. The said questionnaire was presented to some experts including the
three advisers of the Grade 11 HUMSS sections. The recommendations of the validators are considered
in the final copy of the questionnaire. 

     Administration. 

    Researchers distribute questionnaires to respondents to determine and analyze their responses about
the relation between socioeconomic status and academic dishonesty. This was accomplished through
google form. The results of the questionnaires are examined and analyzed to learn more about the
relation between the two variables. 

     Data Gathering Procedure.

An informed permission form precedes the questionnaire, which is followed by a socioeconomic status
priming measure. Participants were asked to rate themselves in relation to people at the bottom of a
financial ladder (those who are in the worst financial situation), those at the top of the ladder (those
who are in the best financial situation), and those who did not get a SES prime measure. This metric will
be directly extracted from Adler et al (2001). This scale can be found in Appendix E. 

Participants read one of two vignettes involving distinct sorts of dishonest behavior (cheating by paying
others to work for you or completing others' work for monetary gain) after the prime. The characters in
these vignettes have the opportunity to engage in one of the dishonest activities, but the narrative ends
just as they make their choices. After that, participants were asked to rate how probable the vignette
character would engage in the behavior, as well as how ethical their decision would be. Finally,
participants filled out a questionnaire that included scales for financial anxiety, student household
monthly income and budget, attitude toward economic dishonesty, and basic demographic data.
Appendix E.  SES Manipulation

High SES (socioeconomic status) Condition.

Think of the ladder below as representing where people stand in the Philippines. Now please compare
yourself to the people at the very top of the ladder. These are the people who are best off, those who
have the most money, and the most education. In particular, We'd like you to think about how your
family is different from these people in terms of your family income. Where would you place your family
on this ladder relative to these people at the very top?

 Low SES Condition

 Think of the ladder below as representing where people stand in the Philippines. Now please compare
yourself to the people at the very bottom of the ladder. These are the people who are worst off, those
who have the least money, and the least education. In particular, We'd like you to think about how your
family is different from these people in terms of your family income. Where would you place your family
on this ladder relative to these people at the bottom?
No Prime Condition

Think of the ladder below as representing where people stand in the Philippines. Where would you
place your family on this ladder?             
REFERENCES:

 https://www.niu.edu/academic-integrity/faculty/types/index.shtml
 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=reasons+for+academic+dishonesty+of+Filipino*
+students&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1652251090100&u=%23p
%3DwGFef5njM9sJ
 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
cites=2246881361299048769&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en#d=gs_qabs
&t=1652254486812&u=%23p%3D9Tx8Cux8RCkJ
 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-021-09413-5
 https://www.thoughtco.com/socioeconomic-status-3026599
 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED607644.pdf
 https://pgc.edu/socioeconomic-status-affect-education/
 https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education
 https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/42