Broadly speaking, the students gave three different types of reasons for not reporting. Some were indeed driven by fear of retaliation, and others failed to see that they had any responsibility for the actions of their peers. We thus confirmed the existence of the two major types of reasoning mentioned in the literature. However, we also saw something entirely different. The students in our study often combined group loyalty with a deep sense of responsibility when they explained why they wouldn’t report peer dishonesty. The latter type of reason had not previously been documented in the literature.

To the students, transparency and honesty are strong moral values, but so is loyalty, and the students generally recognized the internal tension between these values and expressed how they struggled to navigate them.

Imagine that you are a student. What would you do if you knew that another student, whose mother just got hospitalized with a critical illness, had partially copied her homework for this week from a friend? Or what would you do if a student, that you know will be punished by her parents if she fails, has cheated on a minor test? The answer to these questions are in our view not straightforward. On the one hand you ought to report dishonesty, but on the other you may recognize a responsibility for fellow students who are in need.

The students in our study would try to navigate such dilemmas by assessing the specific situation instead of relying on simplistic, general rules (such as: you should always report peer cheating). To them there is a difference between cheating because you are lazy and cheating because you are ill, and a difference between cheating on a random assignment and cheating on an important exam, and the students would adjust their actions accordingly.

In some cases, the students would simply turn the blind eye to a peer transgressing the rules, but more often they would show a remarkable level of responsibility by getting directly involved. This could play out in several different ways. If a student is aware that a peer has done something dishonest, the student may confront the peer instead of reporting her and make her aware of the risks and possible detrimental consequences of the dishonest actions. Similarly, if a student knows that a peer is in trouble for a worthy reason (such as illness or family problems) she might accept that the peer breaks some rules, but might also assume responsibility for the learning of the peer in trouble e.g. by helping with homework or by arranging tuition sessions in the next break. In such cases the student might even assist the peer with breaking the rules. As we see it, this is not moral indifference or lack of responsibility, but rather an expression of a high level of responsibility.

In cases like the ones here described there seems to be a mistrust in the ability of the institution to handle the situation appropriately. The students fear that minor transgressions will be treated too harshly by the institution or that fellow students who are in trouble will be punished instead of getting the help they needed.

So, in sum what we see here is that the students recognize the tension between the obligations they have to the academic institution and the obligations they have to their peers, and they handle this tension but assuming personal responsibility of the situation.

This more detailed understanding of students’ reluctancy to report each other has some clear educational implications. Promising anonymity will probably not change things. Strengthening the feeling of moral obligation to the institution through the introduction of honor codes might lead to more reporting of peer dishonesty, but it will also increase the tension felt by the students.