Create an APA style abstract for the attached Research Paper Abstract a. The Abstract starts on its own page, with the word Abstract centered (not bolded). b. Make sure your header and page number is

Do you need academic writing help with your homework? Let us write your papers.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Create an APA style abstract for the attached Research Paper

Abstract a. The Abstract starts on its own page, with the word Abstract centered (not bolded).b. Make sure your header and page number is still on this abstract pagec. The abstract should be between 150 and 200 words, and must include all of thefollowing elementsi. Identify your general problem or research questionii. Note your participantsiii. Note your experimental methodiv. Note your findings for both studiesv. Note your conclusions about the studies as a wholed. Please include keywords for your study (at least 5 keywords or phrases)

Create an APA style abstract for the attached Research Paper Abstract a. The Abstract starts on its own page, with the word Abstract centered (not bolded). b. Make sure your header and page number is
18 CHEATING AND PERSPECTIVE TAKING Cheaters and Non-Cheaters’ Feelings Throughout Assessment: Perspective Taking Abstract Cheaters and Non-Cheaters’ Feelings Throughout Assessment: Perspective Taking Perspective-taking can be altered depending on where a person stands within a situation (Best & Shelly 2018). Just because one person feels or acts a certain way towards a situation, doesn’t mean all parties involved will feel and think the same way. One topic that may have various perspectives would be cheating; it comes in all forms, whether it’s physical or emotional. In recent years, more and more cases of academic dishonesty are now of the digital/cyber formats (Best & Shelly 2018). Academic dishonesty, particularly cheating, remains a persistent concern in educational environments. Understanding the factors that impact individuals’ attitudes towards cheating and their affective reactions during evaluation is important for effectively addressing this matter. This paper reviews studies on perspective-taking and its impact on attitudes towards cheating, the use of self-knowledge in social inference, personality traits related to cheating behavior, and the influence of self-awareness on ethical judgments. Mobile apps for social media influences academic dishonesty universally. It’s indicated that students often use social media for school-related activities but rarely use them to cheat (Best & Shelley, 2018). Specific programs, including messaging, taking screenshots, and audio recording, are more likely to be used for deceiving purposes. Even though most students see cheating as bad and may express disapproval for it, they are unlikely to intervene or prevent it within their classrooms (Xie et al., 2022). These results demonstrate how social media may encourage students to engage in different and complex forms of academic dishonesty. Apart from how influential social media may be, there is a link between inner personal flaws and cheating that finds impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and the ability to perceive things from others’ points of view major indicators of dishonest behavior. These findings state that features within personality play a fundamental role in shaping moral judgment (McTernan et al., 2014). Factors like impulsivity and empathy can play a role in mediating the choice to cheat, highlighting the importance of individual variability in moral judgement. Research also shows that impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and the ability to take the viewpoint of others are all linked to engaging in dishonest activities more often. These results highlight the importance of context in decision-making and provide insight into the possible mediation roles of empathy and impulsivity in the choice to cheat. Identifying oneself within social inferences demonstrates the flow of thought process within different perceptions. The flexible self-application hypothesis, states that the way in which one person’s self-knowledge applies to another varies depending on how similar the perspective taker and the target individual are. When people take others’ perspectives, they are more likely to project their own features and preferences onto others who are different from them while doing the opposite for those who are more like themselves; self-target similarity influences perspective-taking inferences (Todd et al., 2016). Perspective-taking improves interpersonal understanding by analyzing its effectiveness in anticipating the ideas and mental states of others (Eyal et al., 2018). Predicting emotions, identifying false grins, spotting liars, learning activity preferences, and gauging others’ feelings were all tested in trials which show that changing one’s viewpoint does not always lead to the greater good and may even have the opposite effect. Having a discussion with the person may help better understand their point of view than just reading about it. In conclusion, the reviewed journals provide a distinctive understanding of cheaters and non-cheaters’ possible feelings and reasonings, particularly in relation to perspective-taking. The findings highlight the importance of considering individual differences, such as personality traits and self-target similarity, in shaping individuals’ perspectives and behaviors. Furthermore, the influence of social factors, including moral self-awareness and technology, adds complexity to understanding academic dishonesty. Future research can expand on these insights to develop interventions and strategies to encourage academic integrity and ethical decision-making. We have several predictions in this study. Generally, if participants take the perspective of an eager-cheater or a hesitant-cheater, then they will more strongly disagree that using an answer key is cheating than if they take the perspective of a non-cheater, with little to no differences expected between the eager-cheater and hesitant-cheater conditions. Conversely, if participants take the perspective of an eager-cheater or a hesitant-cheater (compared to taking the perspective of a non-cheater), then they should more strongly agree that using an answer key is acceptable if the answers are already easy to find, if the professor does not bother to change the exam, if the exam is extremely difficult, if the person using the answer key is not paying for the answers, and if other students are likely to use the answers. Method Study One Participants The participants in the research ranged in age from 16 to 59 years old, with an average age of M = 26.35 and a standard deviation of SD = 9.65. The contestants represented the university’s age range. 48.3% (n = 69) of the participants were male, 47.6% (n = 68) were female, 0.7% (n = 1) identified as nonbinary, and 1.4% (n = 2) identified as other. In terms of racial/ethnic diversity, 31.5% (n = 45) were white, 43.4% (n = 62) were Latino/a, 2.8% (n = 4) were Indigenous, 11.2% (n = 18) were Black, 4.2% (n = 6) were Asian, 1.4% (n = 2) were MENA, and 4.2% (n = 6) were Other. Materials and Procedure A questionnaire with three variants was utilized in the research to reflect the three viewpoint conditions: Eager-Cheater, Hesitant-Cheater, and Non-Cheater. Participants were allocated to one of these conditions at random. Throughout the evaluation, the questionnaire contained various dependent variables relating to participants’ emotions and perceptions. Likert scale items and categorical answer alternatives were used to examine these factors. The approach started with an oral informed consent process in which participants were educated about the research and their rights as participants. Once permission was obtained, participants were given the questionnaire relating to their allocated viewpoint condition. They were told to study the directions and react to things carefully. The survey measured participants’ attitudes and ideas about cheating and their ability to imagine themselves as WhatsApp users. After completing the questionnaire, participants were given further information regarding the study’s goal and the manipulation of viewpoint circumstances. They were also given the chance to ask questions and get explanations. Results The association between participants’ recollection of their assigned condition and their viewpoint condition was investigated using a chi-square analysis. A significant chi-square value of χ2(2) = 157.67, p < 0.001, was found in the findings. Post-hoc analyses revealed that the majority of Eager-Cheater participants (84.8%, n = 39) correctly recognized their assigned condition. Similarly, 73.4% (n = 36) of Hesitant-Cheater participants remembered their condition properly, whereas 87.5% (n = 42) of Non-Cheater participants recognized their condition. This indicated that the majority of participants were paying attention to their allocated viewpoint condition. A one-way ANOVA test was also done to investigate participants’ perspectives on cheating and their capacity to perceive themselves as WhatsApp users depending on their viewpoint condition. The idea that “using an answer key is cheating” was shown to have a significant impact, F(2, 140) = 10.55, p < 0.01. The Eager-Cheater group (M = 3.43, SD = 1.24) varied substantially from the Hesitant-Cheater group (M = 3.65, SD = 1.03) and the Non-Cheater group (M = 4.60, SD = 1.62). Similarly, the agreement with envisioning becoming a WhatsApp user showed a significant impact, F(2, 140) =1 5.12, p < .05. The post hoc test revealed that participants in the eager-cheater group (M = 3.72, SD = 1.58) agreed with accepting the user’s viewpoint much more than those in the hesitant-cheater group (M = 4.59, SD = 1.15) and the non-cheater group (M = 5.06, SD = 0.73). Discussion This research aimed to look at how cheaters and non-cheaters felt throughout an evaluation, with a particular emphasis on perspective-taking. The findings demonstrated the participants’ identification with their assigned circumstances and their perspectives on cheating and seeing themselves as WhatsApp users. Regarding condition identification, the majority of participants (84.8%) and non-cheater (87.5%) groups properly remembered their assigned condition, showing that most participants were attentive throughout the evaluation. However, a somewhat smaller proportion of participants in the hesitant-cheater group (73.4%) correctly recognized their assigned condition. This implies that some individuals in the hesitant-cheater group were less attentive or had difficulties remembering their assigned condition appropriately. The research on cheating perception found substantial variations across the three viewpoint circumstances. The eager-cheater group had a lower average rating (M = 3.43) for the statement “Using an answer key is cheating” than the hesitant-cheater group (M = 3.65) and the non-cheater group (M = 4.60). This shows that the eager-cheater group was more accepting or tolerant of cheating than the other two groups. On the other hand, participants in the non-cheater group had the highest average rating, showing a more heightened sense that utilizing an answer key is really cheating. Furthermore, perceiving and seeing oneself as a WhatsApp user revealed substantial variations across the viewpoint circumstances. The eager-cheater group had a lower average rating (M = 3.72) than the hesitant-cheater group (M = 4.59) and the non-cheater group (M = 5.06). This means that, compared to the other two groups, participants in the eager-cheater group had more trouble or were less ready to put themselves in the shoes of the WhatsApp user. Additionally, our results stand in agreeance with our predictions and give insight into the variations in feelings and perceptions between cheaters and non-cheaters throughout the evaluation. According to the findings, individuals who are more inclined to cheat may have a more tolerant attitude about cheating and may suffer more from perspective-taking. Non-cheaters, on the other hand, have a higher judgment within cheating and a better capacity to put themselves in the shoes of others. These results have significance for understanding the psychological processes involved in dishonest behavior, as well as the need to adopt several perspectives in ethical decision-making. The sample was mainly composed of university students, which may restrict the results’ outreach to other demographics. Future studies might involve a more varied sample to improve the external validity of the findings. Furthermore, the research relied on self-report measures, which are susceptible to response bias. Future research might include more objective measurements or behavioral observations to offer complete knowledge of participants’ moods and actions during the evaluation. In conclusion, this research demonstrates the differences in emotions and attitudes between cheaters and non-cheaters throughout an examination. The findings indicate that cheaters may have a more tolerant attitudes toward cheating and difficulty with perspective-taking than non-cheaters. These results provide light on the psychological mechanisms that underpin dishonest conduct as well as the significance of perspective-taking in ethical decision-making. Study Two The study focuses on examining the thoughts and feelings that cheaters and non-cheaters have while evaluating own their actions, with a concentration on perspective-taking in relation to gender. Perspective-taking, which is connected to empathy and moral reasoning, is the capacity to take into account and comprehend the points of views of others. The goal is to find out how perspective-taking affects how people who participate in academic dishonesty (cheaters) and those who behave ethically (non-cheaters) react when evaluating their own and others’ actions. According to Wolgast et al.’s (2020) research on adults’ social perspective-taking, it may be assumed that those with greater dispositional social perspective-taking skills would feel happier while being evaluated. This idea is supported by stating that perspective-taking encourages flexible reevaluations of social circumstances, resulting in friendlier and open relationships and possibly beneficial mental health consequences. It is expected to come across gender variations in the link between guilt, perspective-taking, and cheating behavior based on Silfver and Helkama’s (2007) research on guilt, empathy, and gender disparities. Particularly, as compared to females, men may show a higher connection between cognitive perspective-taking and guilt. In contrast to men, females’ empathy scores may be more strongly correlated with remorse over cheating. These predictions are based on the idea that socialization and gender roles may have an impact on how much attention is given to certain moral principles. It may be assumed that there may be variations in the emotional experiences of cheaters and non-cheaters based on the analysis by Whitley et al. (1999) on gender differences in cheating attitudes and conduct. Although the analysis identified just a modest impact size for gender differences in cheating behavior, it is conceivable that cheaters may feel unpleasant emotions throughout the evaluation process, such as guilt, anxiety, or fear of being discovered. Contrarily, those that don’t cheat could feel better about themselves and have greater pride in their achievements. In conclusion, the studies chosen give useful insights into the fields of social perspective-taking, guilt, empathy, and cheating attitudes in relation to gender. The link between empathy, guilt, and gender differences in teenagers, suggest that the correlation between empathy and guilt changes depending on the moral context and gender. Generally, if participants take the perspective of an eager-cheater, then they will more strongly disagree that using an answer key is cheating than if they take the perspective of a non-cheater, depending on their gender. Conversely, if participants take the perspective of an eager-cheater(compared to taking the perspective of a non-cheater), then they should more strongly agree that using an answer key is acceptable if the exam is extremely difficult References Best, L. M., & Shelley, D. J. (2018). Academic dishonesty: Does social media allow for increased and more sophisticated levels of student cheating? International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 14(3), 1-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2018070101 Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 114(4), 547-571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000115 McTernan, M., Love, P., & Rettinger, D. (2014). The influence of personality on the decision to cheat. Ethics & Behavior, 24(1), 53-72. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.819783 Silfver, M., & Helkama, K. (2007). Empathy, guilt, and gender: A comparison of two measures of guilt. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 239-246. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00578.x Todd, A. R., Simpson, A. J., & Tamir, D. I. (2016). Active perspective-taking induces flexible use of self-knowledge during social inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(12), 1583-1588. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000237 Whitley, B. E., Jr., Nelson, A. B., & Jones, C. J. (1999). Gender differences in cheating attitudes and classroom cheating behavior: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 41(9-10), 657-680. https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018863909149 Wolgast, Tandler, N., Harrison, L., & Umlauft, S. (2020). Adults’ Dispositional and Situational Perspective-Taking: a Systematic Review. Educational Psychology Review., 32(2), 353–389. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09507-y Xie, G. X., Chang, H., & Rank-Christman, T. (2022). Contesting dishonesty: When and why perspective-taking decreases ethical tolerance of marketplace deception. Journal of Business Ethics, 175, 117-133. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04582-6 Appendix A Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 157.685a 4 .000 Likelihood Ratio 159.539 4 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 92.107 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 143 Appendix B Table 2. Means and standard deviations of ANOVA results for the perception of using an answer key is cheating Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 36.744 2 18.372 10.546 .000 Within Groups 243.886 140 1.742 Total 280.629 142 Table 3. Means and standard deviations of ANOVA results for the perception of Easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 43.633 2 21.817 15.122 .000 Within Groups 201.975 140 1.443 Total 245.608 142

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now

Our team of vetted writers in every subject is waiting to help you pass that class. With keen editors and a friendly customer support team, we guarantee custom-written, original, high-quality papers. Get top grades.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper