Two studies investigated the efficacy of 3 theoretical models in explaining college students judgments of peers who cheat and of accomplices who assist cheaters. The value pluralism model predicted that accomplices who acted for money would be judged more harshly than those who acted from friendship; the attributional model predicted that cheaters whose actions were caused by internal controllable factors would be judged more harshly than those who actions were caused by external uncontrollable factors, and the relative preference model predicted that students who saw themselves as more likely to act as the cheater and accomplice did would make less harsh judgments. Overall, the results provided the best support for the relative preference model.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.