Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Further Understanding Factors that Explain Freshman Business Students’ Academic Integrity Intention and Behavior: Plagiarism and Sharing Homework

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Academic integrity (AI) violations on college campuses continue to be a significant concern that draws public attention. Even though AI has been the subject of numerous studies offering explanations and recommendations, academic dishonesty persists. Consequently, this has rekindled interest in understanding AI behavior and its influencers. This paper focuses on the AI violations of plagiarism and sharing homework for freshman business students, examining the factors that influence a student’s intention to plagiarize or share homework with others. Using a sample of more than 1300 freshman business students over 2 years, we modeled intent to plagiarize and intent to share homework using factors in the Theory of Planned Behavior in addition to past violation behavior and moral obligation (feelings of guilt). Based on the results of this study, attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, and in addition past behavior and moral obligation, were found to significantly influence an individual’s intention to violate academic integrity (for plagiarism and sharing homework when asked not to do so), explaining 33 and 35 % of the variance in intention to commit an AI violation for sharing homework and plagiarism, respectively. These results contribute to a better understanding of individuals’ motivations for plagiarizing and sharing homework, which is a necessary step toward reducing academic integrity violations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Justifications presented are similar to those presented those in Cronan and Al-Rafee (2008).

References

  • Aasheim, C. L., Rutner, P. S., et al. (2012). Plagiarism and programming: A survey of student attitudes. Journal of Information Systems Education, 23(3), 297–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to behavior: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-Control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Spinger.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2002a). Perceived behavioral control, self efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2002b). Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. (1986). Perceived goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, dimensions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 798–844). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (2002). Nicomachean ethics (J. Sachs, Trans.). Newburyport, MA: Focus Philosophical Library, Pullins Press.

  • Arlow, P., & Ulrich, T. A. (1985). Business ethics and business school graduates: A longitudinal study. Akron Business and Economic Review, 16(1), 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R., Baumgartner, H., & Yi, L. (1992). State versus action orientation and the theory of reasoned action: An application to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 505–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(3), 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, D., Cronan, T. P., & Jones, T. W. (1998). Modeling IT ethics: A study in situational ethics. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 31–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, K. L., & Whitley, B. E. (2000). Relation of general deviance to academic dishonesty. Ethics and Behavior, 10(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodur, H., & Brinberg, D. (2000). Belief, affect, and attitude: Alternative models of the determinants of attitude. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2004). Ethical misconduct in the business school: A case of plagiarism that turned bitter. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassel, C., Hackl, P., & Westlund, A. H. (1999). Robustness of partial least-squares methods for estimating latent variable quality structures. Journal of Applied Statistics, 26(4), 435–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, M. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: A comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(16), 1825–1834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (1998a). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii–xvi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (1998b). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 1295–1336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, M., & Armitage, C. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronan, T., & Al-Rafee, S. (2008). Factors that influence the intention to pirate software and media. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(4), 527–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronan, T. P., Douglas, D. E., et al. (2015). Influencing academic integrity awareness and attitudes: A study of freshmen and international students. In Paper presented at the international conference on Academic Integrity, Vancouver, CA.

  • Dubinsky, A., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 19(2), 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elias, R. Z. (2009). The impact of anti-intellectualism attitudes and academic self-efficacy on business students’ perceptions of cheating. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, B., & May, D. (2000). Environmental ethical decision making in the U.S. metal-finishing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 642–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagger, M., Chatzisarantis, N., & Biddle, S. (2002). A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: Predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2013). The righteous man; Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., et al. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, D. R., & Flowers, C. P. (2001). Comparing social desirability responding on world-wide web and paper-administered surveys. Educational Technology Research & Developments, 49, 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, T. S., Mayhew, M. J., et al. (2007). The theory of planned behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities undergraduates. Ethics and Behavior, 17(3), 255–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T. (2004). Social desirability and self-reports: Testing models of socially desirable responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2), 161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kisamore, J. L., Stone, T. H., & Jawahar, I. M. (2007). Academic integrity: The relationship between individual and situational factors on misconduct contemplation. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3), 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. A., Levenburg, N. M., et al. (2007). Cheating during the college years: How do business school students compare? Journal of Business Ethics, 72(2), 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurland, N. (1995). Ethical intentions and the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(4), 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, J. M. (2013). Cheating lessons: Learning from academic dishonesty. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, R. A. (2004). Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the real world? Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, L., & Cronan, T. P. (2001). Illegal, inappropriate, and unethical behavior in an information technology context: A study to explain influence. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1(12), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmöller, J. B. (1989). Latent variable modelling with partial least squares. Heidelberg: PhysicaVerlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Madden, T., Ellen, P., et al. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, M. J., Hubbard, S. M., et al. (2009). Using structural equation modeling to validate the theory of planned behavior as a model for predicting student cheating. The Review of Higher Education, 32(4), 441–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minarcik, J., & Bridges, A. J. (2015). Psychology graduate students weigh in: Qualitative analysis of academic dishonesty and suggestion prevention strategies. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(2), 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, K. K., Kletke, M. G., & Chongwatpol, J. (2008). Ethics vs. IT ethics: Do undergraduate students perceive a difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 657–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J., & Zanna, M. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R., & Wegener, D. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Present Author(s)—a citation to a conference Proceedings with pre-T/F scores from the study.

  • RAISE Survey Assessment Data. (2015). Raising academic standards in education (RAISE), TLS Online Solutions.

  • Randall, D., & Gibson, A. (1991). Ethical decision making in the medical profession: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(2), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, J. J. (1984). The reliability of short social desirability scales. The Journal of Social Psychology, 123, 133–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 3.0. Hamburg: SmartPLS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B. M., Tatum, H. E., & Hageman, M. C. (2013). College students’ responses to cheating at traditional, modified, and non-honor system institutions. Ethics and Behavior, 23(6), 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S., & Tessler, R. (1972). A test of a model for reducing measured attitude-behavior discrepancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(2), 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, G., & O’Keefe, D. (1984). Separability of attitudinal and normative influences on behavioral intentions in the Fishbein-Ajzen model. The Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 287–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimp, T. A., & Kavas, A. (1984). The theory of reasoned action applied to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(3), 795–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2010). Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stripling, J. (2014). Widespread nature of Chapel Hill’s academic fraud is laid bare. Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(2), A26–A27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. C. (2010). Crisis on campus: A bold plan for reforming our colleges and universities. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trafimow, D. (1996). The importance of attitudes in the prediction of college students’ intention to drink. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(24), 2167–2188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallerand, R. J., & Pelletier, L. G. (1992). Ajzen and Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action as applied to moral behavior: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), 98–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 235–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. A. (2008). Predicting intended unethical behavior of business students. Journal of Education for Business, 83(4), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, C. (2011). Ethical decision-making in the internet context: Development and test of an initial model based on moral philosophy. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2401–2409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. WCOB 204, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA

    Timothy Paul Cronan, Jeffrey K. Mullins & David E. Douglas

Authors
  1. Timothy Paul Cronan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey K. Mullins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David E. Douglas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy Paul Cronan.

Appendices

Some survey items are based on research by Donald McCabe studies (McCabe et al. 2012) and Trevor Harding studies (Harding et al. 2007).

Appendix 1—Survey Items Used

Some survey items are based on research by Donald McCabe studies (McCabe et al. 2012) and Trevor Harding studies (Harding et al. 2007).

The following set of questions are general and relate to cheating on Homework and plagiarism in Papers (your overall attitude and intentions, as well as your ability to do these).

Appendix 2

See Tables 10, 11, 12, 13.

Table 10 Extended TPB AI violation intention model results (years 1 & 2 combined)
Full size table
Table 11 Possibility of AI violation-extended TPB AI violation intention model results (years 1 & 2 combined)
Full size table
Table 12 Extended TPB AI violation intention model results (homework)
Full size table
Table 13 Extended TPB AI violation intention model results (plagiarism)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cronan, T.P., Mullins, J.K. & Douglas, D.E. Further Understanding Factors that Explain Freshman Business Students’ Academic Integrity Intention and Behavior: Plagiarism and Sharing Homework. J Bus Ethics 147, 197–220 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2988-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2988-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation