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)

Students’ attitudes towards plagiarism and academic misconduct have been found to vary across national cultures, although the relationship between national culture and students’ perceptions of plagiarism policy remains unexplored. Student survey data from the UK, Czechia, Poland and Romania were analysed for differences in students’ perceptions of three specific aspects of plagiarism policy – access, support and detail – at their respective universities. Considered through the lens of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, the study found significant differences between the UK and the (...) three Eastern European countries for all measures except students’ awareness of the penalties applied for plagiarism. Low ‘power distance’ and high ‘individualism’ were related to positive perceptions of plagiarism policy and process. The findings suggest that institutional plagiarism policy and procedures need to be responsive to the unique characteristics of national cultural context. (shrink)

Academic dishonesty has serious consequences for human lives, social values, and economy. The main aim of the study was to explore a model of relations between personal and cultural variables and academic dishonesty. The participants in the study were N = 2,586 individuals from nine countries (Pakistan, Israel, Italy, India, the USA, Peru, Romania, Ghana, and Poland). The authors administered the Academic Dishonesty Scale to measure academic dishonesty, the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale to measure distress, the Almost Perfect Scale – (...) Revised to measure perfectionism, the Brief Self-Control Scale to measure self-control, and the Singelis Scale to measure independent self-construal. The results showed that the theoretical model was well fitted to the dataset in six countries: Pakistan, the United States, Romania, Ghana, Israel, and Poland. However, it was not well fitted in Italy, India, and Peru. Our results also showed that perfectionism significantly predicted academic dishonesty, but not in all countries. Self-control significantly predicted cheating, falsification, and plagiarism in the USA. Moreover, we found that distress was related to cheating o0nly in Ghana. Finally, independent self-construal predicted academic dishonesty. Our findings provide a cross-cultural contribution to the debate on academic dishonesty by highlighting its significant predictors and may inform interventions aimed at eliminating it. Our results can be used in preventing and curbing academic dishonesty. Knowledge on cross-cultural differences can be useful in international education for example, as an indicator accepting or relaxing attitude toward academic dishonesty in students from different countries. (shrink)

Using Reidenbach and Robin’s Multidimensional Ethics Scale, this study designs three scenarios related to academic dishonesty dilemmas to explore students’ moral philosophies, behavioral intentions, and ethical judgments and further examines whether students with different individual factors have differences in the above variables. A total of 605 students from two areas, Taiwan and Mainland China, participated in this study. The results indicated that Taiwanese students had stricter moral equity, relativism, and contractualism philosophies in the duplicate submission scenario than Mainland China students. (...) They also had stricter moral equity and relativism philosophies in the incomplete citation scenario. Similarly, relatively harsh relativism and contractualism philosophies accompanied by a low level of willingness to be a perpetrator in the failure to cite research published in other countries scenario were found. In addition, females applied relatively harsh moral equity and utilitarianism to all scenarios, reporting that they and their peers were less likely to engage in all AD activities. Graduates had a stricter egoism attitude toward duplicate submission and had stricter moral equity, relativism, and contractualism philosophies toward the behavior of incomplete citation. Graduate students also had strict moral equity, relativism, egoism, and contractualism beliefs in the failure to cite the foreign research scenario. Finally, regression analysis showed that moral equity, contractualism, and self-behavioral intention are significant predictors of students’ ethical evaluations in the three scenarios. (shrink)