The increase in online instruction makes business schools vulnerable to a surge in cheating behavior and in need of a framework to assess the potential effectiveness of exam proctoring conditions. A social facilitation theory framework was developed to assess how four prototypical proctoring conditions (1. web recording, 2. video summarization, 3. live online, 4. in-person) should be associated with decreasing levels of cheating. The framework was investigated with three studies. Study 1 assessed students’ (n = 395) perceptions of being watched and monitored and instructors’ (n = 113) perceptions of being able to control and monitor the testing environment. Study 2 showed students (n = 397) had weaker intentions to cheat for proctoring conditions posited as more actively watched and monitored. Consistent with social facilitation theory, evaluation apprehension and self-awareness were motivational deterrents to cheating. Study 3 replicated and extended prior findings of higher student scores for unproctored versus proctored exams with a field study (n = 224) of actual exam results for the same four proctoring conditions. Results were mostly consistent with the framework, with interesting asymmetries in how students and instructors perceived live online versus in-person proctoring conditions. This framework can help researchers classify proctoring effectiveness and help instructors align proctoring approaches with their assessment goals.
AbabnehK. I.AhmedK.DedousisE. (2022). Predictors of cheating in online exams among business students during the Covid pandemic: Testing the theory of planned behavior. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), Article 100713.
2.
AboodH.MaizerM. A. (2022). Strategies to address cheating in online exams. International Journal of Technology in Education, 5(4), 608–662.
3.
AielloJ. R.DouthittE. A. (2001). Social facilitation from Triplett to electronic performance monitoring. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(3), 163.
4.
AielloJ. R.SvecC. M. (1993). Computer monitoring of work performance: Extending the social facilitation framework to electronic presence 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(7), 537–548.
5.
AkaabouneO.BlixL. H.CarringtonL. G.HendersonC. D. (2022). Accountability in distance learning: The effect of remote proctoring on performance in online accounting courses. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 19(1), 121–131.
6.
ArnoldI. J. (2022). Online proctored assessment during COVID-19: Has cheating increased?The Journal of Economic Education, 53(4), 277–295.
7.
BashirS.LapshunA. L. (2025). E-learning future trends in higher education in the 2020s and beyond. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2445331.
8.
BierstakerJ.BrinkW. D.KhatoonS.ThorneL. (2024). Academic fraud and remote evaluation of accounting students: An application of the fraud triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, 195, 425–447.
BingM. N.DavisonH. K.VitellS. J.AmmeterA. P.GarnerB. L.NovicevicM. M. (2012). An experimental investigation of an interactive model of academic cheating among business school students. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 28–48.
11.
BollenK. A.StineR. A. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140.
12.
BrallierS.PalmL. (2015). Proctored and unproctored test performance. InternationalJournal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(2), 221–226.
13.
CarverC. S.ScheierM. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 111.
14.
ClaypooleV. L.NeigelA. R.WaldfogleG. E.SzalmaJ. L. (2019). Evaluative social presence can improve vigilance performance, but vigilance is still hard work and is stressful. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(5), 616.
15.
CohenJ. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101.
16.
ConoverW. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
17.
DaffinL. W.Jr.JonesA. A. (2018). Comparing student performance on proctored and non-proctored exams in online psychology courses. Online Learning, 22(1), 131–145.
18.
DendirS.MaxwellR. S. (2020). Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, Article 100033.
19.
D’SouzaK. A.SiegfeldtD. V. (2017). A conceptual framework for detecting cheating in online and take-home exams. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 15(4), 370–391.
20.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215.
21.
FaskA.EnglanderF.WangZ. (2014). Do online exams facilitate cheating? An experiment designed to separate possible cheating from the effect of the online test taking environment. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(2), 101–112.
22.
FeinbergJ. M.AielloJ. R. (2006). Social facilitation: A test of competing theories 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(5), 1087–1109.
23.
GoedlP. A.MallaG. B. (2020). A study of grade equivalency between proctored and unproctored exams in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(4), 280–289.
24.
GoffD.JohnstonJ.BouboulisB. S. (2020). Maintaining academic standards and integrity in online business courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(2), 248–257.
25.
GoldenJ.KohlbeckM. (2020). Addressing cheating when using test bank questions in online classes. Journal of Accounting Education, 52, Article 100671.
26.
Gudiño ParedesS.Jasso PeñaF. D. J.de La Fuente AlcazarJ. M. (2021). Remote proctored exams: Integrity assurance in online education?. Distance Education, 42(2), 200–218.
27.
GuerinB.InnesJ. (1982). Social facilitation and social monitoring: A new look at Zajonc’s mere presence hypothesis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21(1), 7–18.
28.
HanS.NikouS.AyeleW. Y. (2024). Digital proctoring in higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(1), 265–285.
29.
HarmonO. R.LambrinosJ. (2008). Are online exams an invitation to cheat?The Journal of Economic Education, 39(2), 116–125.
30.
HendersonE.McKinnonJ. (2021). The integrity of online exams during Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19). International Journal of Education Research, 16(1), 52–64.
31.
HigginsE. T.CornwellJ. F. (2016). Securing foundations and advancing frontiers: Prevention and promotion effects on judgment & decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 56–67.
32.
HoldenO. L.NorrisM. E.KuhlmeierV. A. (2021, July). Academic integrity in online assessment: A research review. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 639814.
33.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
34.
KalischkoT.RiedlR. (2021). Electronic performance monitoring in the digital workplace: Conceptualization, review of effects and moderators, and future research opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 633031.
35.
KhanN. (2024). Assessing the effectiveness of multimodal data fusion techniques for automated proctoring system of malpractice in computer-based exams: A systematic review and meta-analysis of proctoring systems (SSRN 4969247). SSRN.
36.
KharbatF. F.DaabesA. S. A. (2021). E-proctored exams during the COVID-19 pandemic: A close understanding. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6589–6605.
37.
KimH.MillsapR. (2014). Using the Bollen-Stine bootstrapping method for evaluating approximate fit indices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(6), 581–596.
38.
LiH.XuM.WangY.WeiH.QuH. (2021, May8–13). A visual analytics approach to facilitate the proctoring of online exams [Conference session]. 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan.
39.
MaranoE.NewtonP. M.BirchZ.CroombsM.GilbertC.DraperM. J. (2024). What is the student experience of remote proctoring? A pragmatic scoping review. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(3), 1031–1047.
40.
McCabeD. L.ButterfieldK. D.TrevinoL. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 294–305.
41.
National Center for Education Statistics, (2023). Undergraduate enrollment. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institution of Education Sciences. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_311.15.asp
42.
NewtonP. M.EssexK. (2024). How common is cheating in online exams and did it increase during the COVID-19 pandemic? A systematic review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(2), 323–343.
43.
NoorbehbahaniF.MohammadiA.AminazadehM. (2022). A systematic review of research on cheating in online exams from 2010 to 2021. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 8413–8460.
44.
OnculB. (2021). Dealing with cheating in online exams: A systematic review of proctored and non-proctored exams. International Technology and Education Journal, 5(2), 45–54.
45.
OryD. T.MokhtarianP. L. (2010). The impact of non-normality, sample size and estimation technique on goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation modeling: Evidence from ten empirical models of travel behavior. Quality & Quantity, 44(3), 427–445.
46.
RasmussenJ. L.DunlapW. P. (1991). Dealing with nonnormal data: Parametric analysis of transformed data vs nonparametric analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(4), 809–820.
47.
ReisenwitzT. H. (2020). Examining the necessity of proctoring online exams. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(1), 118–124.
48.
SiegelR.KönigC. J.LazarV. (2022). The impact of electronic monitoring on employees’ job satisfaction, stress, performance, and counterproductive work behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 8, Article 100227.
49.
StegerD.SchroedersU.GnambsT. (2020). A meta-analysis of test scores in proctored and unproctored ability assessments. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(1), 174–184.
50.
UzielL. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 579–601.
51.
VanceA.LowryP. B.EggettD. (2013). Using accountability to reduce access policy violations in 43 information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 263–290.
52.
WeinerJ. A.HurtzG. M. (2017). A comparative study of online remote proctored versus onsite proctored high-stakes exams. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 18, 13–20.
53.
WhisenhuntB. L.CatheyC. L.HudsonD. L.NeedyL. M. (2022). Maximizing learning while minimizing cheating: New evidence and advice for online multiple-choice exams. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 8(2), 140.
54.
ZajoncR. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274.
55.
ZajoncR. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151.
56.
ZimmermanD. W.ZumboB. D. (1993). Relative power of the Wilcoxon test, the Friedman test, and repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(1), 75–86.
