The Influence of School Moral Atmosphere on Junior High School Students’ Cheating Intention: Mediating Effect of Moral Disengagement

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2026.01.016

Abstract

Abstract:

Cheating is a prevalent form of unethical behavior in school settings. This study investigated the formation mechanism of students’ cheating intention by examining both situational and individual factors. Study 1 used questionnaire to measure 413 junior high school students, examining the relationship between school moral atmosphere, moral disengagement, and junior high school students’ cheating intention; Study 2 adopted scenario-based experimental design to manipulate school moral atmosphere and further examine its causal effect on students’ cheating intention, as well as the mediating role of moral disengagement. The results consistently showed that school moral atmosphere predicted middle school students’ intention to cheat, and moral disengagement mediated the relationship between school moral atmosphere and cheating intention. These findings suggest that efforts to reduce students’ cheating behavior and prevent the formation of cheating intentions should adopt a multifaceted approach, such as fostering a positive school moral atmosphere and diminishing the influence of moral disengagement.

Key words: cheating intention, school moral atmosphere, moral disengagement, junior high school students

摘要：

考试作弊是频发的校园不道德行为，本研究从情境因素和个体因素两方面入手，探究作弊行为意向的形成机制。研究1采用问卷调查法对413名初中生进行施测，考察学校道德氛围、道德推脱与初中生作弊行为意向的关系；研究2采用情境实验法操纵学校道德氛围，验证学校道德氛围和初中生作弊行为意向的因果关系，以及道德推脱在其中的作用。结果一致表明学校道德氛围预测初中生作弊行为意向，道德推脱在学校道德氛围与作弊行为意向的关系间起中介作用。研究结果揭示，学校和教育者制止学生作弊行为和防止作弊行为意向可以从多角度入手，如营造学校良好道德氛围、弱化道德推脱的影响。

关键词: 作弊行为意向, 学校道德氛围, 道德推脱, 初中生

Hui JIN, Xue ZHANG, Yuepeng WANG, Weijie MENG. The Influence of School Moral Atmosphere on Junior High School Students’ Cheating Intention: Mediating Effect of Moral Disengagement[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2026, 24(1): 138-144.

金慧, 张雪, 王跃鹏, 孟维杰. 学校道德氛围对初中生作弊行为意向的影响：道德推脱的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2026, 24(1): 138-144.

Figures/Tables 8

References 0

	鲍振宙, 储怡佳, 王帆, 柳希希. 校园欺凌中的“袖手旁观”: 校园氛围、学校联结和道德推脱的作用. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39 (4): 580- 589. DOI
	陈海德, 张宇晗, 赵博强, 姚静静, 李伟健. 主观规范与吸烟者戒烟行动计划: 戒烟意向和关系导向特征的作用. 心理科学, 2024, 47 (4): 973- 980. DOI
	杜金, 向娟, 朱鸿, 徐云. 大学生考试作弊行为意向问卷初步编制. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2011, 19 (9): 1124- 1126. DOI
	杜秀莲, 高静. 初中生学校道德氛围与亲社会行为的关系: 道德认同的中介作用. 中国特殊教育, 2019 (8): 82- 87. DOI
	段文婷, 江光荣. 计划行为理论述评. 心理科学进展, 2008, 16 (2): 315- 320. DOI
	胡佳琪, 黄美薇, 骆方. 考试作弊甄别技术的研究进展: 个体作弊的甄别. 中国考试, 2020 (11): 32- 36. DOI
	胡颖慧. (2010). 学校道德氛围量表的编制及应用(硕士学位论文). 华东师范大学, 上海.
	李伟强. (2007). 学校道德氛围心理学研究(博士学位论文). 上海师范大学, 上海.
	潘超, 李胜豪, 杨新莉, 高冬东. 相对剥夺感对网络欺负的影响: 反刍思维和道德推脱的作用. 心理研究, 2024, 17 (4): 367- 374. DOI
	潘清泉, 周宗奎. 儿童道德脱离量表的初步修订. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2010, 18 (2): 165- 167. DOI
	舒首立, 杨沈龙, 白洁, 郭永玉. 他人作弊与自己作弊: 社会损失的中介作用和自尊的调节作用. 心理学探新, 2017, 37 (1): 48- 53.
	王小凤, 燕良轼, 丁道群, 邱小艳. 学校道德氛围感知对中学生冷漠旁观行为的影响: 一个有调节的中介模型. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2023, 31 (2): 396- 401. DOI
	徐云. 基于计划行为理论及学习倦怠感的考试作弊行为. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2012, 20 (11): 1741- 1743. DOI
	杨继平, 王兴超, 陆丽君, 张力维. 道德推脱与大学生学术欺骗行为的关系研究. 心理发展与教育, 2010, 26 (4): 364- 370. DOI
	杨文登, 梁爽. 班杜拉的道德推脱理论综述. 心理研究, 2022, 15 (2): 121- 125. DOI
	Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2020, 2 (4): 314- 324. DOI
	Bandura, A. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1999, 3 (3): 193- 209. DOI
	Bandura, A. Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 2002, 31 (2): 101- 119. DOI
	Błachnio, A., & Weremko, M. Academic cheating is contagious: The influence of the presence of others on honesty. A study report. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 2012, 1 (1): 14- 19. DOI
	Eisenberg, J. To cheat or not to cheat: Effects of moral perspective and situational variables on students’ attitudes. Journal of Moral Education, 2004, 33 (2): 163- 178. DOI
	Gini, G., Thornberg, R., & Pozzoli, T. Individual moral disengagement and bystander behavior in bullying: The role of moral distress and collective moral disengagement. Psychology of Violence, 2020, 10 (1): 38- 47. DOI
	Hayes, A. F. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 2009, 76 (4): 408- 420. DOI
	Jenkins, B. D., Golding, J. M., Le Grand, A. M., Levi, M. M., & Pals, A. M. When opportunity knocks: College students’ cheating amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Teaching of Psychology, 2023, 50 (4): 407- 419. DOI
	Kohlberg, L. (1971). From is to ought: How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get away with it in the study of moral development. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Cognitive development and epistemology (pp. 151–235). New York: Academic Press.
	Lingán-Huamán, S. K., Dominguez-Lara, S., & Carranza Esteban, R. F. Gender-based differences in the impact of dark triad traits on academic dishonesty: The mediating role of moral disengagement in college students. Heliyon, 2024, 10 (1): e23322. DOI
	Mathes, E. W. An evolutionary perspective on Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Current Psychology, 2021, 40 (8): 3908- 3921. DOI
	Ramberg, J., & Modin, B. School effectiveness and student cheating: Do students’ grades and moral standards matter for this relationship?. Social Psychology of Education, 2019, 22 (3): 517- 538. DOI
	Stoesz, B. M., Quesnel, M., & De Jaeger, A. E. Student perceptions of academic misconduct amongst their peers during the rapid transition to remote instruction. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 2023, 19 (1): 14. DOI
	Waltzer, T., DeBernardi, F. C., & Dahl, A. Student and teacher views on cheating in high school: Perceptions, evaluations, and decisions. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2023, 33 (1): 108- 126. DOI
	Zhao, L., Hong, M. J., & Lee, K. Role of moral judgments and persistence in elementary school students’ academic cheating. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2024, 93, 101676. DOI
	Zhao, L., Peng, J. J., Dong, L. D., Compton, B. J., Zhong, Z. G., Li, Y. X., … Lee, K. Academic cheating interferes with learning among middle school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2023, 226, 105566. DOI

变量	M±SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.学校道德氛围	4.14±0.56
2.道德推脱	1.81±0.49	−0.38**
3.道德合理化	1.83±0.79	−0.18**	0.73**
4.责任分散	2.97±1.06	0.06	0.42**	0.23**
5.有利对比	1.35±0.59	−0.31**	0.58**	0.35**	−0.10*
6.非人性化	1.47±0.75	−0.34**	0.70**	0.41**	−0.03	0.50**
7.结果歪曲	1.55±0.74	−0.38**	0.69**	0.41**	0.06	0.42**	0.46**
8.责任转移	1.68±0.77	−0.41**	0.65**	0.34**	0.01	0.35**	0.48**	0.40**
9.作弊行为意向	4.30±0.53	0.57**	−0.41**	−0.26**	0.05	−0.39**	−0.37**	−0.39**	−0.33**

变量	M±SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.学校道德氛围	4.14±0.56
2.道德推脱	1.81±0.49	−0.38**
3.道德合理化	1.83±0.79	−0.18**	0.73**
4.责任分散	2.97±1.06	0.06	0.42**	0.23**
5.有利对比	1.35±0.59	−0.31**	0.58**	0.35**	−0.10*
6.非人性化	1.47±0.75	−0.34**	0.70**	0.41**	−0.03	0.50**
7.结果歪曲	1.55±0.74	−0.38**	0.69**	0.41**	0.06	0.42**	0.46**
8.责任转移	1.68±0.77	−0.41**	0.65**	0.34**	0.01	0.35**	0.48**	0.40**
9.作弊行为意向	4.30±0.53	0.57**	−0.41**	−0.26**	0.05	−0.39**	−0.37**	−0.39**	−0.33**

	效应值	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI	相对效应值(%)
总效应	0.19	0.01	0.16	0.21
直接效应	0.16	0.01	0.13	0.19	84.95
间接效应	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.05	15.05

	效应值	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI	相对效应值(%)
总效应	0.19	0.01	0.16	0.21
直接效应	0.16	0.01	0.13	0.19	84.95
间接效应	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.05	15.05

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1.学校道德氛围
2.道德推脱	−0.69**
3.道德合理化	−0.35**	0.70**
4.责任分散	−0.59**	0.57**	0.20*
5.有利对比	−0.47**	0.70**	0.36**	0.15
6.非人性化	−0.59**	0.78**	0.44**	0.32**	0.59**
7.结果歪曲	−0.44**	0.72**	0.49**	0.22**	0.43**	0.52**
8.责任转移	−0.37**	0.73**	0.49**	0.23**	0.54**	0.49**	0.44**
9.主动寻求作弊	−0.64**	0.59**	0.36**	0.44**	0.35**	0.51**	0.41**	0.35**
10.协助他人作弊	−0.63**	0.67**	0.46**	0.44**	0.50**	0.52**	0.44**	0.43**	0.85**