Deterring Cheating Online
A Framework for Proctoring Effectiveness
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22420141 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gerard Beenen (0000-0002-4503-3688, California State University, Fullerton, corresponding author), Sinjini Mitra (0000-0002-6099-2465, California State University, Fullerton) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-15 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Management Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1052-5629 • E-ISSN: 1552-6658 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/10525629261432187 |
| OpenAlex | W7154445584 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 49 |
The increase in online instruction makes business schools vulnerable to a surge in cheating behavior and in need of a framework to assess the potential effectiveness of exam proctoring conditions. A social facilitation theory framework was developed to assess how four prototypical proctoring conditions (1. web recording, 2. video summarization, 3. live online, 4. in-person) should be associated with decreasing levels of cheating. The framework was investigated with three studies. Study 1 assessed students’ ( n = 395) perceptions of being watched and monitored and instructors’ ( n = 113) perceptions of being able to control and monitor the testing environment. Study 2 showed students ( n = 397) had weaker intentions to cheat for proctoring conditions posited as more actively watched and monitored. Consistent with social facilitation theory, evaluation apprehension and self-awareness were motivational deterrents to cheating. Study 3 replicated and extended prior findings of higher student scores for unproctored versus proctored exams with a field study ( n = 224) of actual exam results for the same four proctoring conditions. Results were mostly consistent with the framework, with interesting asymmetries in how students and instructors perceived live online versus in-person proctoring conditions. This framework can help researchers classify proctoring effectiveness and help instructors align proctoring approaches with their assessment goals.
Apprehension · Cheating · Facilitation · Perception · Social facilitation · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Communication in Education and Healthcare · Student Assessment and Feedback
Verbal reports as data.
Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business Programs
Social Facilitation
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis
Statistical Power Analysis
Academic Integrity in Online Assessment
What is the student experience of remote proctoring? A pragmatic scoping review
Digital proctoring in higher education
Academic Fraud and Remote Evaluation of Accounting Students
Dealing with Nonnormal Data
Using the Bollen-Stine Bootstrapping Method for Evaluating Approximate Fit Indices
How Common is Cheating in Online Exams and did it Increase During the Covid-19 Pandemic? A Systematic Review
Individual differences in the social facilitation effect
Do Online Exams Facilitate Cheating? An Experiment Designed to Separate Possible Cheating from the Effect of the Online Test Taking Environment
Direct and Indirect Effects
Feeling and thinking
Control theory
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |