Research Paper Continuation: Follow Paper 2 Instructions and write according to instructions (I have attached a sample paper and structured out the format for Paper 2). - I have attached Paper 1 inst

CHEATING AND PERSPECTIVE TAKING

Cheaters and Non-Cheaters' Feelings Throughout Assessment: Perspective Taking

Methods

Participants

There were 143 participants within the study, between the ages of 16 and 59 years old representing the age scope of the university, with the average age being M=26.35 and a standard deviation (SD = 9.65). Out of the 143 participants, 48.3% (n=69) were male, 47.6% (n= 68) were female, 0.7% (n = 1) were nonbinary, 1.4% (n = 2) identified as other. In terms of racial/ethnic diversity, the participants were somewhat diverse as 31.5% ((n=45) were white, 43.4% (n = 62) we 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, 4.2% (n = 6) were from Other races.

Materials and Procedure

Results

The Chi-square was significant χ2(2) = 157.67, P < 0.001. The results indicate that most participants in the Eager-Cheater category 84.8% (n = 39) identified their correct condition. In the Hesitant-Cheater category, 73.4% (n = 36) recalled their assigned condition. Finally, in the Non-cheater condition, 87.5% (n = 42) identified their condition correctly. This indicates that most participants were found attentive.

We ran a One-Way ANOVA with perspective condition as our IV (Eager vs. Hesitant vs. Non-Cheater) and “Using an answer key is cheating” as our DV, which was significant, F (2, 140) = 10.55, p <.01. The Turkey post hoc test showed that participants provided different views on whether using answer key is cheating where eager-cheater group (M = 3.43, SD = 1.24) differed from hesitant-cheater (M = 3.65, SD = 1.03) and the non-cheater (M = 4.60, SD = 1.62) conditions.

We ran a One-Way ANOVA with perspective condition as our IV (Eager vs. Hesitant vs. Non-Cheater) and “I found it easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user” as our DV, which was significant, F (2, 140) = 15.12, p <.01. The Turkey post hoc test revealed that participants provided different agreement with taking the user’s perspective and that the eager-cheater group (M = 3.72, SD = 1.58) significantly differed from the hesitant-cheater (M = 4.59, SD = 1.15) and the non-cheater (M = 5.06, SD = 0.73) conditions.

Discussion

Appendix A

Appendix B