IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tul/wpaper/2510.html

Do Academic Honesty Statements Work?

Author

Listed:
  • James Alm

    (Tulane University)

  • Patrick Button

    (Tulane University)

  • Christine P. Smith

    (Tulane University)

  • Toni Weiss

    (Tulane University)

Abstract

Many colleges have attempted to deal with student cheating by using "academic honesty statements," or statements that students must read and acknowledge that they will follow. In this paper, we conduct a randomized controlled experiment that investigates the impact of academic honesty statements on college student examination performance, using an objective measure of student examination performance as a proxy for student cheating. Overall, we find no statistically significant differences in the test performance of students who are given the academic honesty statements and students who are not given these statements. These results indicate that academic honesty statements do not affect student performance in a significant way, so that their use is unlikely to be a reliable tool in reducing cheating. However, other explanations are possible.

Suggested Citation

  • James Alm & Patrick Button & Christine P. Smith & Toni Weiss, 2025. "Do Academic Honesty Statements Work?," Working Papers 2510, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:tul:wpaper:2510
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.tulane.edu/RePEc/pdf/tul2510.pdf
    File Function: First Version, November 2025
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Alm & Jay A. Soled & Kathleen DeLaney Thomas, 2023. "Multibillion-Dollar Tax Questions," Working Papers 2302, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    2. Joe Kerkvliet & Charles L. Sigmund, 1999. "Can We Control Cheating in the Classroom?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 331-343, December.
    3. César Martinelli & Susan W. Parker & Ana Cristina Pérez-Gea & Rodimiro Rodrigo, 2018. "Cheating and Incentives: Learning from a Policy Experiment," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 298-325, February.
    4. Gina C. Pieters, 2024. "Designing effective assessments in economics courses: Guiding principles," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(1), pages 63-76, January.
    5. Wuthisatian, Rattaphon, 2020. "Student exam performance in different proctored environments: Evidence from an online economics course," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    6. John List & Sally Sadoff & Mathis Wagner, 2011. "So you want to run an experiment, now what? Some simple rules of thumb for optimal experimental design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 439-457, November.
    7. Franklin G. Mixon, 1996. "Crime in the Classroom: An Extension," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(3), pages 195-200, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Venkat Ram Reddy Ganuthula & Manish Kumar Singh, 2025. "Strategic Interactions in Academic Dishonesty: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Exam Script Swapping Mechanism," Papers 2510.15307, arXiv.org.
    2. Yue-Yi Hwa & Clare Leaver, 2021. "Management in education systems," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 37(2), pages 367-391.
    3. Grüner Sven, 2020. "Sample Size Calculation in Economic Experiments," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 240(6), pages 791-823, December.
    4. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31.
    5. Kelum A. A. Gamage & Roshan G. G. R. Pradeep & Erandika K. de Silva, 2022. "Rethinking Assessment: The Future of Examinations in Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Aristotelis Epanomeritakis & Davide Viviano, 2025. "Learning What to Learn: Experimental Design when Combining Experimental with Observational Evidence," Papers 2510.23434, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2026.
    7. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    8. Aksoy, Billur & Palma, Marco A., 2019. "The effects of scarcity on cheating and in-group favoritism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 100-117.
    9. Johannes Ledolter, 2013. "Economic Field Experiments: Comments on Design Efficiency, Sample Size and Statistical Power," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 271-290, July.
    10. Muñoz-Izquierdo, Nora & Gil-Gómez de Liaño, Beatriz & Rin-Sánchez, Francisco Daniel & Pascual-Ezama, David, 2014. "Economists: cheaters with altruistic instincts," MPRA Paper 60678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Julianna M. Butler & Christian A. Vossler, 2018. "What is an Unregulated and Potentially Misleading Label Worth? The case of “Natural”-Labelled Groceries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 545-564, June.
    12. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    13. Charles Bellemare & Luc Bissonnette & Sabine Kröger, 2016. "Simulating power of economic experiments: the powerBBK package," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(2), pages 157-168, November.
    14. Azevedo, Eduardo M. & Mao, David & Montiel Olea, José Luis & Velez, Amilcar, 2023. "The A/B testing problem with Gaussian priors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    15. Alvaro Forteza & Irene Mussio & Juan Pereyra, 2019. "Does political gridlock undermine checks and balances? A Lab Experiment," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 0519, Department of Economics - dECON.
    16. Riccardo Vecchio, 2022. "Fostering the debate among scholars to support the advancement of knowledge in the food-related consumer research: A commentary," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 24(2), pages 1-15.
    17. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur & Oke Onemu & Joeri Sol, 2022. "Team Incentives, Social Cohesion, and Performance: A Natural Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 230-256, January.
    18. Hong, Fuhai & Hossain, Tanjim & List, John A., 2015. "Framing manipulations in contests: A natural field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 372-382.
    19. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2016. "Second and third party punishment under costly monitoring," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 124-133.
    20. Javdani, Moshen & Chang, Ha-Joon, 2019. "Who Said or What Said? Estimating Ideological Bias in Views Among Economists," MPRA Paper 91958, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • A22 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - Undergraduate
    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tul:wpaper:2510. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nicholas Lacoste (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detulus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.