Eddy M. Elmer
Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, November 2002
"Two dorms in which the GPAs were exceedingly high were known as
the Ritalin dorms. It was said that the kids in those dorms were using
Ritalin as a study aid. It was a big joke" (Jaffe, 2002, p. 133).
§
Media stories abound of both professional and amateur athletes using licit and illicit substances to increase their chances of winning competitions and coveting much-vaunted medals and awards. One need only recall the stories of Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson (Benjamin, 1988), Russian skiers Larisa Lazutina and Olga Danilova (Wong, 2002), or German wrestler Alexander Leipold (Sandomir, 2000) to gauge the seriousness with which this issue is dealt. Recently, media attention has also turned to the use of so-called performance enhancing substances—particularly psychostimulants1—by college students in an attempt to improve their academic performance (Zeilabuer, 2000, Jaffe, 2002). Aside from the potential health concerns this may pose, some educators have asked whether these substances give certain students academic advantages over others (Jaffe, 2000). In other words, the issue is quietly being raised of whether substance use constitutes a subtle form of academic "cheating".
This paper will briefly explore the issue in light of epidemiological and clinical evidence and in the context of rules and regulations that stipulate which behaviours are considered "cheating". First, what does the evidence suggest about the prevalence of stimulant use—both licit and illicit—among college students for academic purposes? Second, what do colleges and universities actually consider "cheating" to be? Third, do stimulants truly give students an academic "edge" as defined by the schools? Finally, if this is the case, does attaining this edge qualify as "cheating"?
Before exploring the issue of cheating, we must ask two important questions. First, is stimulant use common among college students? Second, do students say they are using stimulants for academic purposes?
Caffeine is undoubtedly one of the world's most widely used substances (Gilbert, 1986) and its use is significant on college campuses. A representative sample of Canadian college students found that 42% drank coffee and 29% drank tea on a regular basis (Mathieson et al., 1992). In another study, Shohet and Landrum (2001) found that the average weekly intake of caffeine was 1600 mg, with an average of 228 mg per day (about three cups of coffee). Anecdotal evidence based on my own conversations with peers shows that use of caffeine-containing substances such as hyper-caffeinated sodas (e.g., Jolt) and caffeine pills (e.g., No-Doz, Vivarin, with recommended doses of about 200 mg [see Gilbert, 1986]) is not uncommon. At lower doses, nicotine in cigarettes is also used as a stimulant. Rigotti, Lee, and Wechsler (2000) found that about 33% of college students are regular smokers.
Use of illicit substances is not uncommon. One recent study of students from a small American liberal arts college found that 35% had used prescription amphetamines at least once in the past year, without a prescription (Gendaszek & Graffe, 2002). 34% of the sample had used cocaine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), or both in the past year. 10% were monthly stimulant users and 8% were weekly users. In the Mathieson et al. (1992) Canadian study, 3% of students used stimulants infrequently (1-2 times in the past year) and 1% used them frequently (at least 40 times). 5% had taken cocaine at least once in the past year. In a study of British medical students, 8% had tried amphetamines at least once, but less than 1% used them regularly (Webb et al., 1998).
Evidence suggests that use of two particular amphetamines used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder—methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) and amphetamine-dextroamphetamine (Adderall)—are being used without a prescription2. Quinton and Byrne's (2000) study of students at a pubic liberal arts college found that 16% had tried Ritalin—far more than would be expected if only those with ADHD used it. As one student says, "Half of my friends use Ritty. . .Everybody's familiar with it, and it's real easy to get" (Jaffe, 2002, p. 130). Another says that "[a]nyone with a prescription has to guard it pretty carefully" (p. 131).
Only a few studies have attempted to determine whether stimulants are being used for academic purposes. In Gendaszek and Graffe's (2002) study, 23% of stimulant users said they used the drugs to "improve intellectual performance" and 22% said they used them to "be more efficient on academic assignments". In a study of 2,921 students at a large Spanish university, 80% of those using amphetamines said they did so as a "study aid" (Queipo, Alvarez, & Velasco, 1988). According to Gendaszek and Graffe (2000), "[g]iven the increasing number of amphetamine prescriptions for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in older adolescents, nonmedical use seems likely to occur" (p. 282). Anecdotal evidence seems to support this. One student says the following: "I guess I'm embarrassed about taking [Ritalin]. . .It's pretty sick, but it's real. Ritty got me through. You can quote me" (Jaffe, 2002, p. 130). The director of a university health service had this to say:
I have seen a huge number of students who are prescribed these medications—every year, more and more. We have no data, but we know it's used. Amphetamines enhance student performance when they're crashing for finals. Since that many students have the medications, we figure some will give them to friends (Jaffe, 2002, p. 133).
The potential effects of stimulants are wide and varied and certainly beyond the scope of this paper. For present purposes, we are interested mainly in those effects which may qualify stimulant use as a "cheating" behaviour. To determine which of these effects to discuss, we must examine official definitions of "cheating". According to Simon Fraser University, cheating refers to "academic dishonesty" which includes "misrepresentation with intent to deceive or without regard to the source or the accuracy of statements or findings" (Simon Fraser University, 2002). According to the Cambridge Dictionary of American English (Cambridge University Press, 1999), "dishonest" means "to act contrary to truth", with "truth" defined as "the real facts about a situation, event, or person" (Cambridge University Press, 2001). Finally, the International Olympic Committee (2000) defines cheating (or at least the most common kind, "doping") as "the use of an expedient (substance or method) which is potentially. . .capable of enhancing their performance" (p. 6).
If we take these three definitions collectively, "cheating"—broadly defined—can include taking substances which enhance one's performance for the purpose of misrepresenting facts concerning oneself. A "fact" concerning oneself can be one's natural (i.e., unaided) academic abilities. If substances interfere with a realistic assessment of this fact, "cheating" might be said to occur. Criteria for this assessment will be discussed more fully later, but before we do this we need to know whether stimulant substances are even capable of exaggerating one's "natural academic abilities".
This question is difficult to answer because we are unsure of which skills, abilities, and practices specifically correlate with academic performance and success. Furthermore, academic "performance" and "success" are themselves difficult terms to define. Broadly speaking, academic success means (or should mean) expanding one's intellect. But the measures we use to gauge such success—namely examinations and written assignments—do not always reflect this. Nevertheless, for many students, success does, indeed mean "getting good grades" on tests and papers. Let us turn, therefore, to the students themselves to explore those skills and abilities which their own experience tells them lead to improved academic performance. From my own conversations with students, many believe that being able to stay awake longer, getting more things done in the same amount of time, thinking clearly, and improving efficiency of cognitive processes (e.g., arithmetic ability) are associated with better academic performance and success. If stimulants help with these tasks, we can then go on to discuss whether these improvements do indeed provide a net academic advantage, and whether gaining that advantage is considered "cheating".
Caffeine and amphetamines can be quite helpful in helping people stay awake (Maggini et al., 1988) and alert (Smith et al., 1999). As one student writes, "[Ritalin] is one of the most stimulating things. I can take it and stay up all night, zipping through stuff" (Jaffe, 2002, p. 130). However, just because one is able to get more work done does not mean that the work is of quality. Furthermore, although staying awake longer may allow one to get more studying done, the end results may be fruitless. As Maquet (2000) reminds us, staying up interferes with the REM sleep that is critical for learning of new tasks.
The effects of stimulants on memory and cognitive process are mixed. Philip and Fox (1998) found that using nicotine helped enhance short-term memory. We must remember, however, that at higher doses, nicotine actually acts as a depressant and this may, therefore, interfere with academic performance. Keleman and Creeley (2001) found that giving students 4 mg/kg of caffeine modestly improved sustained attention and free recall but did not affect cued recall or recognition. Scott et al. (2002) found that after administration of 5 mg/kg of caffeine to college students, there was no significant improvement in basic math, logical reasoning, or spatial abilities compared to placebo. However, Smith et al. (1999) found that 40 mg of caffeine given to college students improved attention and led to increased scores on categoric search and semantic memory tasks as compared with placebo. Furthermore, although it seems that moderate doses (40-80 mg) of caffeine are useful—at least in the short term and for specific tasks—high doses (600 mg / 8 cups of coffee) can lead to impaired performance (Watters, Martin, & Schreter, 1997; Loke, 1990). If students use moderate doses, they may be giving themselves an advantage. However, since tolerance to caffeine can occur quickly (Levinthal, 2002; Curatolo & Robertson, 1983), many students will unwittingly take so much that their cognitive abilities may actually suffer. Furthermore, stimulants of all sorts can lead to significant increases in anxiety (Smith et al., 1999; Scott et al., 2000)—an emotion not particularly conducive to effective learning.
Amphetamines have been shown to improve concentration in up to 75% of children diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Whalen & Henker, 1998) and if college students' self-reports are any indication, they might do so for non-clinical populations too. One student says Ritalin gives him "no jitters and better focus" (Jaffe, 2002, p. 130). Furthermore, because Ritalin does not have the addicting potential of other stimulants, it may be an effective "study aid" because a student can stay up longer and complete more work. However, these effects may be cancelled out by the fact that amphetamines impair accuracy and efficiency on complex intellectual tasks (e.g., Nicholi, 1984). In essence, the student who stays up all night while high on amphetamines is not necessarily doing himself a favour unless the tasks he needs to accomplish are mindless and mundane (which for most students is not the case) (see also Durlach, 1998, for similar findings on caffeine). Nevertheless, if stimulants do lead to some improvements in functioning (even if just for the short-term and with simple, mundane tasks), does this constitute "cheating"?
The above evidence suggests that stimulants may provide some academic benefits. We must, however, look at those "benefits" in the context of each student's life. If a student is taking stimulants to stay up later and, presumably, get more assignments completed, we must ask why this student does not have enough hours in his day. Are there occupational, emotional, or interpersonal issues which are taking time from his studies? If so, the short-term benefits afforded by stimulants are probably not enough to make up for the poor academic performance that will occur in the long term as a result of these other difficulties. Indeed, this puts the student at a distinct disadvantage compared to his peers. All of this is compounded when the student uses a stimulant long enough that significant withdrawal symptoms occur when he quits. Withdrawal from methamphetamines, for instance, can take from 6-18 weeks (Levinthal, 2002)—long enough to significantly interfere with an entire semester. Finally, from the point of view of the nature of schoolwork itself, we must also ask what kind of benefit there is in doing work in "fits and spurts". The student who works in such a pattern is unlikely to integrate large amounts of material and will, therefore, be unable to perform well on examinations and written assignments.
However, let us say that under the right circumstances and with the right dose, stimulants can indeed provide some net advantage—however short—lived and dubious-for students. Is this cheating? Allow us to return to the broad definition suggested above. "Cheating" can include taking substances which enhance one's performance for the purpose of misrepresenting facts concerning oneself. A "fact" concerning oneself can be one's natural (i.e., unaided) academic abilities. If substances interfere with a realistic assessment of this fact, "cheating" might be said to occur. If this is, indeed, cheating, should it be punishable? At this point the debate becomes philosophical. First, we must consider that the effects of many substances are (either partially or completely) placebo effects. For instance, Fillmore, Mulvihill, and Vogel-Sprott (1994) demonstrated that expectations of caffeine's effects accounted for some of the variation on tests of cognitive performance. Thus, if mere perceptions of a substance can give students an "edge" over others, do we blame them for their fancies? Furthermore, if we are to ban any substance that gives students an academic advantage over others (indeed, Brigham Young University [2002] prohibits caffeine and Trinity Western University [2002] prohibits tobacco), we will also have to ban certain foods because they, too, contain such substances. Fish, for instance, contains docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), a fatty acid that may actually help enhance cognitive function (Horrocks & Yeo, 1999). Should students be prohibited from eating sardines before exams?
But lest we become flippant about this issue, we must consider something else. So long as modern education maintains (unfortunately) an emphasis on comparison between students, use of exogenous mind-altering substances is, indeed, unethical because it obscures evaluation of students' own, natural abilities. This evaluation is particularly important to employers, who have every right to know whether the person they are hiring will be able to function at peak performance even when that person cannot procure substances—for there is no guarantee that in the "real world" one will be able to steal a few Ritalin tablets from a friend before delivering that account-winning presentation or finishing that quarterly report.
This paper has explored a new debate about whether the use of exogenous substances—stimulants in particular—give students an unfair academic advantage over their peers. It was noted that a significant proportion of college students use licit substances such as caffeine to stay awake and improve cognitive functioning. The evidence suggests that there may be modest benefits in using these substances, but that the net benefit may be negligible (if it exists at all) given their brief effectiveness, their dependence potential, and the non-academic circumstances which lead some students to use them. Nonetheless, in cases where there is a net academic benefit, stimulant use can, indeed, constitute "cheating".
From my own perspective as a student who
values education in its own right, the determination of whether this kind of cheating is
unethical is, in the end, up to each individual student. If the highest possible goal in
school is to become a well-educated citizen and to expand one's intellectual horizons,
then the use of exogenous substances should be avoided whenever they threaten to interfere
with this goal. Considering the dubious effect of drugs on enhancing academic performance
and the side effects of many of them, substance use does not really benefit the student's
education in the long term. Furthermore, those who find that education is merely about
short-term successes and the attainment of good grades are probably misunderstanding what
a true education—and the lifelong learning it inspires—is really about.
[1] Due to space constraints, this paper will not explore the use of non-stimulant substances. We could, of course, discuss the use of any class of drugs. For instance, we could explore whether the depressant properties of such drugs as alcohol and marijuana provide an academic advantage in terms of "relieving stress" associated with academic work, and, therefore, providing some students an "advantage" over others.
[2] This is considered illicit use, but so too is obtaining a prescription for such stimulants by malingering with ADHD symptoms. The latter practice is not unknown amongst college healthcare professionals, as stated in the paper.
[3] Naturally, we could conduct correlational studies to see to whether students who take stimulants also tend to get good grades. This would be very difficult, however, given the fact that non-drug related factors may be promoting those students' academic success (or lack thereof).
[4] Unlike such substances as cocaine, Ritalin does not lead to such fast and dramatic increases in dopamine that can produce a potentially addicting "euphoria".
[5] The reasons for these prohibitions are mainly religious, as spelled out in the
schools' respective codes of conduct. However, religious teachings are often aimed at
promoting fairness and equality in daily conduct. Thus, substance use of even the most
benign kind can be seen as unfair and suspect.
Benjamin, D. (1988, October 10). Shame of the Games: Ben Johnson is stripped of his gold in the Olympics' worst drug scandal. Time, 74-77.
Brigham Young University (2002). Church educational system honor code. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University. [Online]. Available: http://campuslife.byu.edu/honorcode/honor_code.htm
Cambridge University Press (1999). Cambridge dictionary of American English. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. [Online]. Available: dictionary.cambridge.org
Cambridge University Press (2001). Cambridge international dictionary of English. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. [Online]. Available: dictionary.cambridge.org
Curatolo, P.W., & Robertson, D. (1983). The health consequences of caffeine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 98, 641-653.
Durlach, P.J. (1998). The effects of a low dose of caffeine on cognitive performance. Psychopharmacology, 140, 116-119.
Fillmore, M.T., Mulvihill, L.E., & Vogel-Sprott, M. (1994). The expected drug and its expected effect interact to determine placebo response to alcohol and caffeine. Psychopharmacology, 115 (3), 383-388.
Gendaszek, K., & Graffe, A.E. (2002). Illicit use of psychostimulants among college students: A preliminary study. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 7 (3), 283-287.
Gilbert, R.J. (1986). Caffeine: The most popular stimulant. New York: Chelsea House Publishers.
Horrocks, L.A., & Yeo, Y.K. (1999). Health benefits of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Pharmacology Research, 40 (3), 211-225.
International Olympic Committee (2000). Olympic movement anti-doping code. Lausanne, Switzerland: International Olympic Committee.
Jaffe, H. (2002, June). New coke: It was the pill that helped hyper kids calm down, and millions of families signed on. Now Ritalin is the big, black-market drug on campus, for anyone who wants to work or play harder. Men's Health, 128-133.
Keleman, W.L., & Creeley, C.E. (2001). Caffeine (4 mg/kg) influences sustained attention and delayed free recall but not memory predictions. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical & Experimental, 16 (4), 309-319.
Levinthal, C.F. (2002). Drugs, behavior, and modern society [3rd ed.]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Loke, W.H. (1990). Effects of repeated caffeine administration on cognition and mood. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical & Experimental, 5 (4), 339-348.
Maggini, C., Guazzelli, M., Ciapparelli, A., & Starnini, S. (1988). The effects of oxiracetam and d-amphetamine on all-night electroencephalogram sleep in young healthy subjects. Current Therapeutic Research, 43 (5), 979-990.
Maquet, P. (2000). Sleep on it. Nature Neuroscience, 3 (12), 1235-1236.
Mathieson, C.M., Faris, P.D., Stam, H.J., & Egger, L.A. (1992). Health behaviours in a Canadian community college sample: Prevalence of drug use and interrelationships among behaviour. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 83 (4), 264-267.
Nicholi, A.M. (1984). The nonmedical use of amphetamine among the college age group: Recent research concerning epidemiology and toxicity. Journal of American College Health 33 (1), 39-43.
Phillip, S. & Fox, P. (1998). An investigation of the effects of nicotine gum on short-term memory. Psychopharmacology, 140, 429-433.
Queipo, D., Alvarez, F.J., & Velasco, A. (1988). Drug consumption among university students in Spain. British Journal of Addiction, 83 (1), 91-98.
Quinton, B., & Byrne, T. (2000). Student perceptions of methylphenidate abuse at a public liberal arts college. Journal of American College Health, 49 (3), 143-145.
Rigotti, N.A., Lee, J.E., & Wechsler, H. (2000). US college students' use of tobacco products: Results of a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 699-705.
Sandomir, R. (2000, November 16). Wrestler's Gold is late, but also right on time. New York Times, 150 (51574), p. D2.
Scott, W.H. Jr., Coyne, K.M., Johnson, M.M., Laursted, C.G., Sahota, M., & Johnson, A.T. (2002). Effects of caffeine on performance of low intensity tasks. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 94 (2), 521-532.
Shohet, K.L., & Landrum, R.E. (2001). Caffeine Consumption Questionnaire: A standardized measure for caffeine consumption in undergraduate students. Psychological Reports, 89 (3), 521-526.
Simon Fraser University (2002). Code of academic honesty. Burnaby, British Columbia. [Online]. Available: http://www.sfu.ca/policies/teaching/t10-02.htm
Smith, A., Sturgess, W., & Gallagher, J. (1999). Effects of a low dose of caffeine given in different drinks on mood and performance. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical & Experimental, 14 (7), 473-482.
Trinity Western University (2002). Academic calendar: General university policies. Langley, British Columbia: Trinity Western University. [Online]. Available: http://www.twu.ca/ac/Archive/20032004/policies.asp
Watters, P.A., Martin, F., & Schreter, Z. (1997). Caffeine and cognitive performance: The nonlinear Yerkes-Dodson law. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical & Experimental, 12 (3), 249-257.
Webb, E., Ashton, C.H., Kelly, P., & Kamali, F. (1998). An update on British medical students' lifestyles. Medical Education, 32, 325-331.
Whalen, C.K., & Henker, B. (1998). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders. In T.H. Ollendick & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of child psychopathology. New York: Plenum Press.
Wong, E. (2002, February 25). 3 skiers fail doping tests and forfeit 2 Gold medals. New York Times, 151 (52040), p. D1.
Zeilbauer, P. (2000, March 24). New campus high: Illicit prescription drugs. New
York Times, 149 (51337), p. A1 [Front Page].
Home
| Contact | Search
Guest Book | Simon
Fraser University Home | Personal
Interests
Curriculum Vitae | Articles | Psychology
Resources | Tools
| Internet Help
Site best viewed using Netscape Navigator 3.0 or above,
or Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 or above.
Text on this site copyright © 1998-2003 by Eddy M. Elmer.