The purpose of this study was to identify the relative contribution of individual and contextual predictors to students’ attitudes toward the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism. A group of 324 students from a tertiary institution in New Zealand completed an online survey. The findings indicate that gender, justice sensitivity, and understanding of university policies regarding academic dishonesty were the key predictors of the students’ attitudes toward the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism, both as agents of dishonest conduct and as witnesses (...) of misconduct among their peers. The implications of these findings for the development of policies and initiatives in tertiary institutions are discussed. (shrink)

Interventions that are designed to stem plagiarism do not always override the motivation of individuals to cheat and, therefore, may not diminish misconduct. To inform more effective approaches, we conducted a systematic review to clarify the psychological causes of plagiarism. This review of 83 empirical papers showed that a specific blend of circumstances may foster plagiarism: an emphasis on competition and success rather than development and cooperation coupled with impaired resilience, limited confidence, impulsive tendencies, and biased cognitions. Fortunately, whenever students (...) feel their life and studies align to their future aspirations, many of these circumstances tend to dissipate. (shrink)

The present study investigates Taiwanese graduate students’ general understanding and misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research. A total of 580 graduate students responded to the self-developed Responsible Conduct of Research Reasoning Test. The results reveal that, first, students did not have sufficient knowledge to reason why a particular instance of research conduct was doable or not. Second, the statistical results show that female students, students majoring in the humanities or the social sciences, doctoral-level students, and students with RCR-related training outperformed (...) others. In addition, the misbehaviors that students judged relatively uncritically comprise the following nine categories: seeing authorship as a property or power, misinterpreting research coauthors’ responsibilities, inaccurately conducting the informed-consent process, fabricating and falsifying research data, misinterpreting the correct citation of research sources, holding vague concepts of self-plagiarism, misinterpreting the Taiwan Copyright Act, accepting duplicate-publication practices, and accepting piecemeal publication practices. The present study discusses participative students’ major misunderstandings of actual RCR-related practices. The study also presents further implications and suggestions based on the findings. (shrink)

In this study, we examined the role of social learning theory in explaining academic dishonesty among 673 college students in the United States, France, and Greece. We found support for social learning theory such that perceived peer dishonesty was incrementally valid as a predictor of self-reported academic dishonesty across three countries beyond personal factor of conscientiousness and demographic factor of age. Contrary to expectation, perceived penalty for academic cheating received support in the U.S. sample only. Justification for academic dishonesty contributed (...) incremental variance after controlling for other factors including age, conscientiousness, perceived penalty for cheating and peer dishonesty across three countries. In addition, cultural differences accounted for almost 50% of the explained variance in academic dishonesty with French students reportedly engaged in significantly more academic cheating behavior than Greek and U.S. students. Discussion and implications for business ethics teaching and research were discussed. (shrink)

Academic dishonesty is a problem that continues to plague universities. Few studies have examined how mind-set and individualism contribute to academic dishonesty. Using structural equation modeling, a model was developed to explain academic dishonesty, which included mind-set, individualistic learning environment, individualism, and motivation to study. A total of 207 university students in Thailand participated. The final model explained 30% of the variance in academic dishonesty. All variables in this study had a negative relationship with academic dishonesty, indicating that improvements in (...) mind-set, learning environment, and motivation could change perceptions of academic dishonesty. (shrink)

This study investigated students? perceptions of their own and their peers? academic dishonesty (AD), their reasons for this dishonesty, their achievement goals, and their willingness to report AD (WRAD) within a Chinese cultural context. The results identified students? belief that their peers had a greater likelihood of engaging in AD and had more motivation to do so than did the students themselves. Gender and academic major did not affect students? WRAD. However, students were significantly more willing to report classmates than (...) friends. In terms of the participants? self-perceptions and peer perceptions concerning motivations for AD, more female students cited the lack of penalties as the reason for their own and their peers? AD, whereas male students more frequently cited their lack of attention to schoolwork as the reason for their own AD. In contrast to students in the social sciences, business students more frequently cited inadequate capabilities as the reason for their AD, and engineering students more frequently attributed their AD to self-interest. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that three motivations for AD (opportunism, inadequacy, and self-promotion) could positively predict AD, whereas mastery-approach goals could negatively predict AD. (shrink)

Research has found that academic dishonesty is common among college and university undergraduate students worldwide. Two variables found to have a significant effect on student cheating were students’ attitudes toward AD and perceptions of peer engagement in AD. This quantitative research study examined preservice teachers’ attitudes and behaviors related to academic dishonesty. Utilizing three parts of the Academic Integrity Survey, this study analyzed data from 62 preservice teachers enrolled at a university in the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States that (...) were preparing to teach students in pre-kindergarten through twelfth grades in both public and private schools. Data analyses examined the frequency rates at which preservice teachers self-reported engaging in academic dishonesty, as well as the relationships that existed between preservice teachers’ attitudes toward academic dishonesty, perceptions of peer engagement in AD, and self-reported engagement in AD. Results showed that rates for self-reported engagement in academic dishonesty among preservice teachers were similar to those found for undergraduates in other majors, with attitude toward behavior found to be significantly associated with and predictive of self-reported engagement in academic cheating among this group of preservice teachers. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Although much has been written about Chinese students’ understandings of illegitimate intertextual practices, few studies have investigated Chinese university teachers’ perceptions of plagiarism, let alone the effects of their disciplinary background on their knowledge of and attitudes toward plagiarism. This paper reports on a study that examined the knowledge that 128 Chinese university teachers of different disciplinary backgrounds had of plagiarism, their attitudes toward identified plagiarism, and their own ability to engage in legitimate paraphrasing. Multiple regression analyses showed that (...) disciplinary background and teaching experience were significant predictors of the participants’ knowledge of plagiarism, whereas disciplinary background and overseas experience significantly predicted their stance on plagiarism. A logistic regression analysis identified disciplinary background as a significant predictor of the participants’ ability to produce legitimate paraphrases. Qualitative analyses of the participants’ open-ended responses revealed that their criteria for plagiarism aligned with Anglo-American conceptions of plagiarism and that intertextual competence was dependent in no small measure on linguistic competence. (shrink)

BackgroundPlagiarism is considered as serious research misconduct, together with data fabrication and falsification. However, little is known about biomedical researchers’ views on plagiarism. Moreover, it has been argued – based on limited empirical evidence – that perceptions of plagiarism depend on cultural and other determinants. The authors explored, by means of an online survey among 46 reputable universities in Europe and China, how plagiarism is perceived by biomedical researchers in both regions.MethodsWe collected work e-mail addresses of biomedical researchers identified through (...) the websites of 13 reputable universities in Europe and 33 reputable universities in China and invited them to participate in an online anonymous survey. Our questionnaire was designed to assess respondents’ views about plagiarism by asking whether they considered specific practices as plagiarism. We analyzed if respondents in China and Europe responded differently, using logistic regression analysis with adjustments for demographic and other relevant factors.ResultsThe authors obtained valid responses from 204 researchers based in China (response rate 2.1%) and 826 researchers based in Europe (response rate 5.6%). Copying text from someone else’s publication without crediting the source, using idea(s) from someone else’s publication without crediting the source and republishing one’s own work in another language without crediting the source were considered as plagiarism by 98, 67 and 64%, respectively. About one-third of the respondents reported to have been unsure whether they had been plagiarizing.Overall, the pattern of responses was similar among respondents based in Europe and China. Nevertheless, for some items significant differences did occur in disadvantage of Chinese respondents.ConclusionsFindings indicate that nearly all biomedical researchers understand (and disapprove of) the most obvious forms of plagiarism, but uncertainties and doubts were apparent for many aspects. And the minority of researchers who did not recognize some types of plagiarism as plagiarism was larger among China-based respondents than among Europe-based respondents. The authors conclude that biomedical researchers need clearer working definitions of plagiarism in order to deal with grey zones. (shrink)