Academic Dishonesty Intentions in the Perspectives of Higher Education in Malaysia

  • Shamshul Anaz KassimEmail author
  • Nurul Farihin Mhd Nasir
  • Nur Rashidi Johari
  • Nur Fadzliani Yusrina Razali
Conference paper


Nowadays, academic dishonesty has become an endemic academic phenomenon because students seem to be treating cheating on tests or examinations as a common thing. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the intentions for engaging in academic dishonesty among degree students in public higher education in Malaysia by explaining the most prevalent predictors of academic dishonesty, which are attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, ethical behavior, and moral reasoning. A total of 346 respondents were involved in this study, composed of degree students from accountancy, surveying, plantation, applied science, marine science, business and management, computer science, and sports science programs. Results illustrate that subjective norms were found insignificantly related to the intentions to be involved in academic dishonesty because the respondents have treated cheating as common norm and considered it not weird to be involved in cheating. Attitude, perceived behavioral control, ethical belief, and moral reasoning were found to be significantly related to academic dishonesty intentions.


Academic dishonesty intentions Attitude Subjective norms Perceived behavioral control Ethical belief Moral reasoning 


  1. Abdol Mohammadi, M. J., & Baker, C. R. (2007). The relationship between ethical reasoning and plagiarism in accounting courses: A replication study. Issues in Accounting Education, 22, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adesile, & Mohamad. (2013). Predicting the underlying factors of academic dishonesty among undergraduates in public universities: A path analysis approach. Journals of Academic Ethics, 11(2), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991a). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211 Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. (1991b). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior (Vol. 278). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Scholar
  6. Alleyne, P., & Phillips, K. (2011). Exploring academic dishonesty among university students in Barbados: An extension to the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malgwi, C. A., & Rakovski, C. C. (2008). Behavioural implications and evaluation of academic fraud risk factors. Journal of Forensic Accounting, 1, 37.Google Scholar
  10. McCabe, D. L. (2005). It takes a village: Academic dishonesty and educational opportunity. Liberal Education, 91(3), 26–31.Google Scholar
  11. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 294–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mihelič, K. K., Lipičnik, B., & Tekavčič, M. (2010). Ethical leadership. International Journal of Management & Information Systems, 14(5), 31–42.Google Scholar
  13. Rest, J., Thoma, S., & Edwards, L. (1997). Designing and validating a measure of moral judgment: Stage preference and stage consistency approaches. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shafie, L. A., & Nayan, S. (2012). The Net Generation and Academic Dishonesty in Malaysia. Technology innovation in educations. 181–186. Conference, 8th Technology innovations in education, Porto.Google Scholar
  15. Sims, R. R. (1992). The challenge of ethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(7), 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stone, T. H., Kisamore, J. L., & Jawahar, I. M. (2010). Predicting academic dishonesty: Theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shamshul Anaz Kassim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nurul Farihin Mhd Nasir
    • 1
  • Nur Rashidi Johari
    • 1
  • Nur Fadzliani Yusrina Razali
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Business and ManagementUniversiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan PerlisArauMalaysia

Personalised recommendations