what is academic dishonesty essay

Prevent plagiarism, run a free plagiarism check.

• Knowledge Base

Academic Integrity vs. Academic Dishonesty

Published on March 10, 2022 by Tegan George and Jack Caulfield. Revised on April 13, 2023.

Academic integrity  is the value of being honest, ethical, and thorough in your academic work. It allows readers to trust that you aren’t misrepresenting your findings or taking credit for the work of others.

Academic dishonesty (or academic misconduct) refers to actions that undermine academic integrity. It typically refers to some form of plagiarism , ranging from serious offenses like purchasing a pre-written essay to milder ones like accidental citation errors. Most of which are easy to detect with a plagiarism checker .

These concepts are also essential in the world of professional academic research and publishing. In this context, accusations of misconduct can have serious legal and reputational consequences.

Table of contents

Types of academic dishonesty, why does academic integrity matter, examples of academic dishonesty, frequently asked questions about plagiarism.

While plagiarism is the main offense you’ll hear about, academic dishonesty comes in many forms that vary extensively in severity, from faking an illness to buying an essay.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Most students are clear that academic integrity is important, but dishonesty is still common.

There are various reasons you might be tempted to resort to academic dishonesty: pressure to achieve, time management struggles, or difficulty with a course. But academic dishonesty hurts you, your peers, and the learning process. It’s:

• Unfair to the plagiarized author
• Unfair to other students who did not cheat
• Damaging to your own learning
• Harmful if published research contains misleading information
• Dangerous if you don’t properly learn the fundamentals in some contexts (e.g., lab work)

The consequences depend on the severity of the offense and your institution’s policies. They can range from a warning for a first offense to a failing grade in a course to expulsion from your university.

• Faking illness to skip a class
• Asking for a classmate’s notes from a special review session held by your professor that you did not attend
• Crowdsourcing or collaborating with others on a homework assignment
• Citing a source you didn’t actually read in a paper
• Cheating on a pop quiz
• Peeking at your notes on a take-home exam that was supposed to be closed-book
• Resubmitting a paper that you had already submitted for a different course (self-plagiarism)
• Forging a doctor’s note to get an extension on an assignment
• Fabricating experimental results or data to prove your hypothesis in a lab environment
• Buying a pre-written essay online or answers to a test
• Falsifying a family emergency to get out of taking a final exam
• Taking a test for a friend

Academic integrity means being honest, ethical, and thorough in your academic work. To maintain academic integrity, you should avoid misleading your readers about any part of your research and refrain from offenses like plagiarism and contract cheating, which are examples of academic misconduct.

Academic dishonesty refers to deceitful or misleading behavior in an academic setting. Academic dishonesty can occur intentionally or unintentionally, and varies in severity.

It can encompass paying for a pre-written essay, cheating on an exam, or committing plagiarism . It can also include helping others cheat, copying a friend’s homework answers, or even pretending to be sick to miss an exam.

Academic dishonesty doesn’t just occur in a classroom setting, but also in research and other academic-adjacent fields.

Consequences of academic dishonesty depend on the severity of the offense and your institution’s policy. They can range from a warning for a first offense to a failing grade in a course to expulsion from your university.

For those in certain fields, such as nursing, engineering, or lab sciences, not learning fundamentals properly can directly impact the health and safety of others. For those working in academia or research, academic dishonesty impacts your professional reputation, leading others to doubt your future work.

Academic dishonesty can be intentional or unintentional, ranging from something as simple as claiming to have read something you didn’t to copying your neighbor’s answers on an exam.

You can commit academic dishonesty with the best of intentions, such as helping a friend cheat on a paper. Severe academic dishonesty can include buying a pre-written essay or the answers to a multiple-choice test, or falsifying a medical emergency to avoid taking a final exam.

The consequences of plagiarism vary depending on the type of plagiarism and the context in which it occurs. For example, submitting a whole paper by someone else will have the most severe consequences, while accidental citation errors are considered less serious.

If you’re a student, then you might fail the course, be suspended or expelled, or be obligated to attend a workshop on plagiarism. It depends on whether it’s your first offense or you’ve done it before.

As an academic or professional, plagiarizing seriously damages your reputation. You might also lose your research funding or your job, and you could even face legal consequences for copyright infringement.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. & Caulfield, J. (2023, April 13). Academic Integrity vs. Academic Dishonesty. Scribbr. Retrieved March 25, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/plagiarism/academic-dishonesty/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, consequences of mild, moderate & severe plagiarism, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, what is your plagiarism score.

• MC3 Library

Academic Honesty and Avoiding Plagiarism

What is academic dishonesty.

• Introduction
• What is Plagiarism?
• What is Citation?
• When Do You Need to Cite?
• What Citation Style Do I Use?
• Citation in speeches and presentations
• To Cite or Not Cite? That is the Question!

Example #1: Cheating

Example #2: collusion, example #3: falsifying results & misrepresenting, why do students commit academically dishonest acts.

• How Do I Avoid Academic Dishonesty?
• What are the Consequences of Academic Dishonesty?
• Test Your Knowledge
• Questions? Ask a Librarian!

Plagiarism is a type of academic dishonesty. In all academic work, students are expected to submit materials that are their own and are to include attribution for any ideas or language that are not their own.

Additional examples of dishonest conduct include, but are not limited to:

• Cheating including giving and receiving information in examinations.
• Falsification of data, results or sources.
• Collusion, such as working with another person when independent work is assigned.
• Submitting the same paper or report for assignments in more than one course without permission (self-plagiarism).

Cheating  is the most well-known academically dishonest behavior.

But cheating includes more than just copying a neighbor’s answers on an exam or peeking at a cheat sheet or storing answers on your phone. Giving or offering information in examinations is also dishonest.

Turning in someone else’s work as your own is also considered cheating.

Ed Dante (a pseudonym) makes a living writing custom essays that unscrupulous students buy online. You can read his story at  The Chronicle of Higher Education . Purchasing someone else’s work and turning it in as your own is cheating.

Collusion , such as working with another person or persons when independent work is assigned is considered academically dishonesty.

While it is fine to work in a team if your faculty member specifically requires or allows it, be sure to communicate with your faculty about guidelines on permissible collaboration (including how to attribute the contributions of others).

In 2012,  125 Harvard students  were investigated for working together on a take-home final exam. The only rule on the exam was not to work together. Almost half of those students were determined to have cheated, and forced to withdraw from school for a year.

Falsifying results in studies or experiments is a serious breach of academic honesty.

Students are sometimes tempted to make up results if their study or experiment does not produce the results they hoped for. But getting caught has major consequences.  

Misrepresenting  yourself or your research is, by definition, dishonest.

Misrepresentation might include inflating credentials, claiming that a study proves something that it does not, or leaving out inconvenient and/or contradictory results.

An undergraduate at the University of Kansas claimed to be a researcher and promoted his (unfortunately incorrect) research on how much a Big Mac would cost if the U.S. raised minimum wage. His study was picked up by the Huffington Post, NY Times, and other major news outlets, who then had to publish retractions.

PRESSURE & OPPORTUNITIES

Pressure  is the most common reason students act dishonestly.  Situations include students feeling in danger of failing a course, financial pressure and fear of losing parental approval (Malgwi and Rakovski 14).

Opportunities  to cheat also influence students to act dishonestly including friends sharing information, the ease of storing information on devices, and lack of supervision in the classroom (Malgwi and Rakovski 14).

Malgwi, Charles A., and Carter Rakovski. " Behavioral Implications of Evaluating Determinants of Academic Fraud Risk Factors ."  Journal of Forensic & investigative Accounting,  vol. 1, no. 2,  2009, pp. 1-37. (pdf file)

• << Previous: To Cite or Not Cite? That is the Question!
• Next: How Do I Avoid Academic Dishonesty? >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 9:58 AM
• URL: https://library.mc3.edu/plagiarism

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Harvard Graduate School of Design - Frances Loeb Library

Write and Cite

• Academic Integrity

Responsible research and writing habits

Generative ai (artificial intelligence).

• Citing Sources
• Fair Use, Permissions, and Copyright
• Writing Resources
• Grants and Fellowships

Need Help? Be in Touch.

•   Ask a Design Librarian
•  Call 617-495-9163
•  Text 617-237-6641
•   Consult a Librarian
•   Workshop Calendar
•   Library Hours

Central to any academic writing project is crediting (or citing) someone else' words or ideas. The following sites will help you understand academic writing expectations.

Academic integrity is truthful and responsible representation of yourself and your work by taking credit only for your own ideas and creations and giving credit to the work and ideas of other people. It involves providing attribution (citations and acknowledgments) whenever you include the intellectual property of others—and even your own if it is from a previous project or assignment. Academic integrity also means generating and using accurate data.

Responsible and ethical use of information is foundational to a successful teaching, learning, and research community. Not only does it promote an environment of trust and respect, it also facilitates intellectual conversations and inquiry. Citing your sources shows your expertise and assists others in their research by enabling them to find the original material. It is unfair and wrong to claim or imply that someone else’s work is your own.

Failure to uphold the values of academic integrity at the GSD can result in serious consequences, ranging from re-doing an assignment to expulsion from the program with a sanction on the student’s permanent record and transcript. Outside of academia, such infractions can result in lawsuits and damage to the perpetrator’s reputation and the reputation of their firm/organization. For more details see the Academic Integrity Policy at the GSD. 

The GSD’s Academic Integrity Tutorial can help build proficiency in recognizing and practicing ways to avoid plagiarism.

• Avoiding Plagiarism (Purdue OWL) This site has a useful summary with tips on how to avoid accidental plagiarism and a list of what does (and does not) need to be cited. It also includes suggestions of best practices for research and writing.
• How Not to Plagiarize (University of Toronto) Concise explanation and useful Q&A with examples of citing and integrating sources.

This fast-evolving technology is changing academia in ways we are still trying to understand, and both the GSD and Harvard more broadly are working to develop policies and procedures based on careful thought and exploration. At the moment, whether and how AI may be used in student work is left mostly to the discretion of individual instructors. There are some emerging guidelines, however, based on overarching values.

Since policies are changing rapidly, we recommend checking the links below often for new developments, and this page will continue to update as we learn more.

• Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) from HUIT Harvard's Information Technology team has put together this webpage explaining AI and curating resources about initial guidelines, recommendations for prompts, and recommendations of tools with a section specifically on image-based tools.
• Generative AI in Teaching and Learning at the GSD The GSD's evolving policies, information, and guidance for the use of generative AI in teaching and learning at the GSD are detailed here. The policies section includes questions to keep in mind about privacy and copyright, and the section on tools lists AI tools supported at the GSD.
• AI Code of Conduct by MetaLAB A Harvard-affiliated collaborative comprised of faculty and students sets out recommendations for guidelines for the use of AI in courses. The policies set out here are not necessarily adopted by the GSD, but they serve as a good framework for your own thinking about academic integrity and the ethical use of AI.
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 1:18 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/gsd/write

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Table of Contents

Collaboration, information literacy, writing process, what is academic dishonesty, academic dishonesty.

Academic dishonesty is synonymous with cheating. Cheating can refer to a situation in which authors ask others to write a part of a document or the entire document.

High schools and colleges in the U.S. have unique policies for addressing plagiarism. Some colleges, for example, expel students after their first offense; others place an “FF” on the student’s transcript, creating a permanent blemish on the student’s academic record.

Students are guilty of academic dishonesty when they

• Secretly arrange to have an entire document written for them by other individuals and then submit the ghost-written material to their instructor.
• Copy all or part of passages from a work written by others without properly attributing sources.
• Receive unacknowledged assistance from others.
• Submit the same paper to multiple courses (without permission).

Web sites that sell student essays are increasingly popular. Sites such as SchoolSucks.Com receive over 40,000 hits a day, and there are literally dozens of such sites. In a recent national survey of 4,500 students conducted by the Rutgers Management Education Center, 75 percent of the students report they routinely cheat. In a survey of students at Penn State, 44 percent of the students reported cheating on college assignments.

In response, educators are fighting back. Many instructors now:

• Require students to visit Web sites that define plagiarism and review conventions for citing sources.
• Require students to sign honor codes.
• Use software tools to check documents that seem questionable.
• Design writing assignments that are so specialized that substitutes are not easily found online.

Brevity - Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence - How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow - How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity - Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style - The DNA of Powerful Writing

Suggested Edits

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Other Topics:

Citation - Definition - Introduction to Citation in Academic & Professional Writing

• Joseph M. Moxley

Explore the different ways to cite sources in academic and professional writing, including in-text (Parenthetical), numerical, and note citations.

Collaboration - What is the Role of Collaboration in Academic & Professional Writing?

Collaboration refers to the act of working with others or AI to solve problems, coauthor texts, and develop products and services. Collaboration is a highly prized workplace competency in academic...

Genre may reference a type of writing, art, or musical composition; socially-agreed upon expectations about how writers and speakers should respond to particular rhetorical situations; the cultural values; the epistemological assumptions...

Grammar refers to the rules that inform how people and discourse communities use language (e.g., written or spoken English, body language, or visual language) to communicate. Learn about the rhetorical...

Information Literacy - Discerning Quality Information from Noise

Information Literacy refers to the competencies associated with locating, evaluating, using, and archiving information. In order to thrive, much less survive in a global information economy — an economy where information functions as a...

Mindset refers to a person or community’s way of feeling, thinking, and acting about a topic. The mindsets you hold, consciously or subconsciously, shape how you feel, think, and act–and...

Rhetoric: Exploring Its Definition and Impact on Modern Communication

Learn about rhetoric and rhetorical practices (e.g., rhetorical analysis, rhetorical reasoning,  rhetorical situation, and rhetorical stance) so that you can strategically manage how you compose and subsequently produce a text...

Style, most simply, refers to how you say something as opposed to what you say. The style of your writing matters because audiences are unlikely to read your work or...

The Writing Process - Research on Composing

The writing process refers to everything you do in order to complete a writing project. Over the last six decades, researchers have studied and theorized about how writers go about...

Writing Studies

Writing studies refers to an interdisciplinary community of scholars and researchers who study writing. Writing studies also refers to an academic, interdisciplinary discipline – a subject of study. Students in...

Featured Articles

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Authority – How to Establish Credibility in Speech & Writing

Understanding Academic Dishonesty: What is Academic Dishonesty?

• Why We Cite
• What is Academic Dishonesty?
• Tips for Avoiding Plagiarism

Definitions

Academic dishonesty .

Academic dishonesty, academic misconduct, academic fraud and academic integrity are related concepts that refer to various actions on the part of students that go against the expected norms of a learning institution.  (Source:  W ikipedia )

an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author  (Source: Dictionary.com )

a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording. (Source: Dictionary.com )

Intellectual property

Law - property that results from original creative thought, as patents, copyright material, and trademarks. (Source: Dictionary.com )

What is Plagiarism?

Plagiarism is making use of other people's ideas, words, creative works and expressions without giving credit or otherwise listing the source of the information..

Plagiarism is also misrepresentation and includes handing in someone else's work, ideas, or answers as your own. Regardless of whether it happens inadvertently through hasty research or on purpose through unethical choices , it is plagiarism just the same. 

Examples of Academic Dishonesty

Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to the following:

• Obtaining information from another student during an examination
• Communicating information to another student during an examination
• Knowingly allowing another student to copy one's own work
• Offering another person's work as one's own
• Taking an examination for another student or having someone take an examination for one's self
• Sharing answers for a collaborative project and take-home examination unless specifically authorized by the instructor
• Using unauthorized material during an examination
• Altering a graded examination or assignment and returning it for additional credit
• Having another person or a company do the research, writing and/or rewriting of an assigned paper or report
• Misreporting or altering the data in laboratory or research projects

Plagiarism is to present as one's own, the ideas, words, or creative product of another. Credit must be given to the source for direct quotations, paraphrases, ideas, and facts, which are not common knowledge. Plagiarism also includes using print, electronic, or other source material without acknowledgment or in any way that makes such material appear as one's own.

Other Dishonest Conduct

• Stealing or attempting to steal an examination or answer key
• Stealing or attempting to change official academic records
• Submitting all or parts of the same work for credit in more than one course without consulting all instructors involved
• Intentionally impairing the performance of other students and/or a faculty member, for example, by adulterating lab equipment, by creating a distraction meant to impair performance, or by theft or mutilation of library material.
• Forging or altering attendance records

Collusion occurs when any student knowingly or intentionally helps another student perform an act of academic dishonesty. Collusion in an act of academic dishonesty and will be disciplined in the same manner as the act itself.

Source: OCC 2018-2019 Faculty Handbook. 

• << Previous: Why We Cite
• Next: Tips for Avoiding Plagiarism >>
• Last Updated: Sep 6, 2023 5:39 PM
• URL: https://libguides.orangecoastcollege.edu/plagiarism

What Is Academic Dishonesty?

• Poor time management
• Academic overload
• Lack of interest in a certain subject
• Desire to live up to high expectations
• Fear of failure

What Is Academic Integrity and Why Does It Matter?

• Expressing individually developed ideas
• Citing all sources of information
• Being honest during exams and other assignments
• Working individually unless being asked to complete the assignment in a group
• Protects reputation. Ethical behavior helps students gain trust and respect among their peers and educators. Academic misconduct may not only leave a stain on a student’s reputation but also become a serious obstacle in their professional career.
• Provides knowledge. Academic work usually involves many challenges, thus helping students to master analytical, problem-solving, and other important skills, while developing individual ideas. By opting for shortcutting, they may not acquire the necessary knowledge to effectively continue their learning journey or be successful in their future job.
• Delivers value. Integrity provides value to academic works and degrees. It allows students to develop authentic ideas and feel proud of their academic accomplishments.

Types of Academic Dishonesty

• a clone copy of materials created by other authors
• a mixed copy of material from different sources
• citation errors
• replacing some words to bypass plagiarism control
• fabrication of sources, etc.
• using personal notes, course books, or mobile phones during a closed-book examination
• copying answers from other students
• letting somebody copy answers from you
• communicating with other students during a test

Contract Cheating

Facilitation of academic dishonesty.

• unauthorized assistance on an exam or test
• completing academic work for another student
• taking an exam for another person
• providing other students with answers to an assignment

Data Fabrication

• Inventing data to support theories in a research paper
• Falsifying sources used in academic work
• Falsifying grades
• Changing academic records

Conclusion 

What are some examples of academic dishonesty, what happens if you commit academic dishonesty, is academic dishonesty illegal, what is the major cause of academic cheating.

• Auto proctoring
• Live proctoring
• AI Proctoring
• Exam Monitoring Software
• For Higher education
• Corporate Certification
• Professional Certification
• Olympiad Exams
• Language Certification
• Test Platforms
• Online Proctoring Software for Pre-Employment Testing
• HR-training
• Case studies
• YouTestMe Partner
• Our Partners
• Documentation
• For students
• Computer check
• Terms of service
• Accessibility statement
• Privacy policy
• Regulations for technical support
• General data protection regulation

• Columbia University in the City of New York
• Office of Teaching, Learning, and Innovation
• University Policies
• Columbia Online
• Academic Calendar
• Resources and Technology
• Resources and Guides

Promoting Academic Integrity 

While it is each student’s responsibility to understand and abide by university standards towards individual work and academic integrity, instructors can help students understand their responsibilities through frank classroom conversations that go beyond policy language to shared values. By creating a learning environment that stimulates engagement and designing assessments that are authentic, instructors can minimize the incidence of academic dishonesty.

Academic dishonesty often takes place because students are overwhelmed with the assignments and they don’t have enough time to complete them. So, in addition to being clear about expectations and responsibilities related to academic integrity, instructors should also invite students to  plan accordingly and communicate with them in the event of an emergency. Instructors can arrange extensions and offer solutions in case that students have an emergency. Communication between instructors and students is vital to avoid bad practices and contribute to hold on to the academic integrity values. 

The guidance and strategies included in this resource are applicable to courses in any modality (in-person, online, and hybrid) and includes a discussion of addressing generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT with students. 

On this page:

What is academic integrity, why does academic dishonesty occur, strategies for promoting academic integrity, academic integrity in the age of artificial intelligence, columbia university resources.

• References and Additional Resources
• Acknowledgment

Cite this resource: Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (2020). Promoting Academic Integrity. Columbia University. Retrieved [today’s date] from https://ctl.columbia.edu/resources-and-technology/resources/academic-integrity/

According to the  International Center for Academic Integrity , academic integrity is “a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage.” We commit to these values to honor the intellectual efforts of the global academic community, of which Columbia University is an integral part.

Academic dishonesty in the classroom occurs when one or more values of academic integrity are violated. While some cases of academic dishonesty are committed intentionally, other cases may be a reflection of something deeper that a student is experiencing, such as language or cultural misunderstandings, insufficient or misguided preparation for exams or papers, a lack of confidence in their ability to learn the subject, or perception that course policies are unfair (Bernard and Keith-Spiegel, 2002).

Some other reasons why students may commit academic dishonesty include:

• Cultural or regional differences in what comprises academic dishonesty
• Lack or poor understanding on how to cite sources correctly
• Misunderstanding directions and/or expectations
• Poor time management, procrastination, or disorganization
• Feeling disconnected from the course, subject, instructor, or material
• Fear of failure or lack of confidence in one’s ability
• Anxiety, depression, other mental health problems
• Peer/family pressure to meet unrealistic expectations

Understanding some of these common reasons can help instructors intentionally design their courses and assessments to pre-empt, and hopefully avoid, instances of academic dishonesty. As Thomas Keith states in “Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 1 – Understanding the Problem.” faculty and administrators should direct their steps towards a “thoughtful, compassionate pedagogy.”

The CTL is here to help!

The CTL can help you think through your course policies and ways to create community, design course assessments, and set up CourseWorks to promote academic integrity. Email [email protected] to schedule your 1-1 consultation .

In his research on cheating in the college classroom, James Lang argues that “the amount of cheating that takes place on our campuses may well depend on the structures of the learning environment” (Lang, 2013a; Lang, 2013b). Instructors have agency in shaping the classroom learning experience; thus, instances of academic dishonesty can be mitigated by efforts to design a supportive, learning-oriented environment (Bertam, 2017 and 2008).

Understanding Student’s Perceptions about Cheating 

It is important to know how students understand critical concepts related to academic integrity such as: cheating, transparency, attribution, intellectual property, etc. As much as they know and understand these concepts, they will be able to show good academic integrity practices.

1. Acknowledge the importance of the research process, not only the outcome, during student learning.

Although the research process is slow and arduous, students should understand the value of the different processes involved during academic writing: investigation, reading, drafting, revising, editing and proof-reading. For Natalie Wexler, using generative Artificial Intelligence tools like ChatGPT as a substitute of writing itself is beyond cheating, an act of self cheating: “The process of writing itself can and should deepen that knowledge and possibly spark new insights” (“‘ Bots’ Can Write Good Essays, But That Doesn’t Make Writing Obsolete” ).

Ways to understand the value of writing their own work without external help, either from external sources, peers or AI, hinge on prioritizing the process over the product:

• Asking students to present drafts of their work and receive feedback can help students to gain confidence to continue researching and writing.
• Allowing students the freedom to choose or change their research topic can increase their investment in an assignment, which can motivate them to conduct their own writing and research rather than relying on AI tools. 

2. Create a supportive learning environment

When students feel supported in a course and connected to instructors and/or TAs and their peers, they may be more comfortable asking for help when they don’t understand course material or if they have fallen behind with an assignment.

Ways to support student learning include:

• Convey confidence  in your students’ ability to succeed in your course from day one of the course (this may ease student anxiety or  imposter syndrome ) and through timely and regular feedback on what they are doing well and areas they can improve on. 
• Explain the relevance  of the course to students; tell them why it is important that they actually learn the material and develop the skills for themselves. Invite students to connect the course to their goals, studies, or intended career trajectories. Research shows that students’ motivation to learn can help deter instances of academic dishonesty (Lang, 2013a). 
• Teach important skills  such as taking notes, summarizing arguments, and citing sources. Students may not have developed these skills, or they may bring bad habits from previous learning experiences. Have students practice these skills through exercises (Gonzalez, 2017). 
• Provide students multiple opportunities to practice challenging skills  and receive immediate feedback in class (e.g., polls, writing activities, “boardwork”). These frequent low-stakes assessments across the semester can “[improve] students’ metacognitive awareness of their learning in the course” (Lang, 2013a, pp. 145). 
• Help students manage their time  on course tasks by scheduling regular check-ins to reduce students’ last minute efforts or frantic emails about assignment requirements. Establish weekly online office hours and/or be open to appointments outside of standard working hours. This is especially important if students are learning in different time zones. Normalize the use of campus resources and academic support resources that can help address issues or anxieties they may be facing.  (See the Columbia University Resources section below for a list of support resources.)
• Provide lists of approved websites and resources  that can be used for additional help or research. This is especially important if on-campus materials are not available to online learners. Articulate permitted online “study” resources to be used as learning tools (and not cheating aids – see McKenzie, 2018) and how to cite those in homework, writing assignments or problem sets. 
• Encourage TAs (if applicable) to establish good relationships  with students and to check-in with you about concerns they may have about students in the course. (Explore the  Working with TAs Online  resource to learn more about partnering with TAs.)

3. Clarify expectations and establish shared values

In addition to including Columbia’s  academic integrity policy  on syllabi, go a step further by creating space in the classroom to discuss your expectations regarding academic integrity and what that looks like in your course context. After all, “what reduces cheating on an honor code campus is not the code itself, but  the dialogue about academic honesty that the code inspires. ” (Lang, 2013a, pp. 172)

Ways to cultivate a shared sense of responsibility for upholding academic integrity include: 

• Ask students to identify goals and expectations  around academic integrity in relation to course learning objectives. 
• Communicate your expectations  and explain your rationale for course policies on artificial intelligence tools, collaborative assignments, late work, proctored exams, missed tests, attendance, extra credit, the use of plagiarism detection software or proctoring software, etc. It will make a difference to take the time at the beginning of the course to explain differences between quoting, summarizing and paraphrasing. Providing examples of good and bad quotation/paraphrasing will help students to know what constitutes good academic writing. 
• Define and provide examples  for what constitutes plagiarism or other forms of academic dishonesty in your course.
• Invite students to generate ideas  for responding to scenarios where they may be pressured to violate the values of academic integrity (e.g.: a friend asks to see their homework, or a friend suggests using chat apps during exams), so students are prepared to react with integrity when suddenly faced with these situations. 
• State clearly when collaboration and group learning is permitted  and when independent work is expected. Collaboration and group work provide great opportunities to build student-student rapport and classroom community, but at the same time, it can lead students to fall into academic misconduct due to unintended collaboration/failure to safeguard their work.
• Discuss the ethical, academic, and legal repercussions  of posting class recordings, notes and/or class materials online (e.g., to sites such as Chegg, GitHub, CourseHero – see Lederman, 2020).
• Partner with TAs  (if applicable) and clarify your expectations of them, how they can help promote shared values around academic integrity, and what they should do in cases of suspected cheating or classroom difficulties

4. Design assessments to maximize learning and minimize pressure

High stakes course assessments can be a source of student anxiety. Creating multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning, and spreading assessments  throughout  the semester can lessen student stress and keep the focus on student learning (see  Darby, 2020  for strategies on assessing students online). As Lang explains, “The more assessments you provide, the less pressure you put on students to do well on any single assignment or exam. If you maintain a clear and consistent academic integrity policy, and ensure that all students caught cheating receive an immediate and substantive penalty, the benefit of cheating on any one assessment will be small, while the potential consequences will be high” (Lang, 2013a and Lang, 2013c). For support with creating online exams, please please refer to our  Creating Online Exams resource .

Ways to enhance one’s assessment approach:

• Design assignments  based on authentic problems in your discipline. Ask students to  apply  course concepts and materials to a problem or concept. 
• Structure assignments into smaller parts  (“scaffolding”) that will be submitted and checked throughout the semester. This scaffolding can also help students learn how to tackle large projects by breaking down the tasks. 
• Break up a single high-stakes exam  into smaller, weekly tests. This can help distribute the weight of grades, and will lessen the pressure students feel when an exam accounts for a large portion of their grade. 
• Give students options  in how their learning is assessed and/or invite students to present their learning in creative ways (e.g., as a poster, video, story, art project, presentation, or oral exam).
• Provide feedback prior to grading  student work. Give students the opportunity to implement the feedback. The revision process encourages student learning, while also lowering the anxiety around any one assignment. 
• Utilize multiple low-stakes assignments  that prepare students for high-stakes assignments or exams to reduce anxiety (e.g., in-class activities, in-class or online discussions)
• Create grading rubrics and share them  with your students and TAs (if applicable) so that expectations are clear, to guide student work, and aid with the feedback process.  
• Use individual student portfolio folders  and provide tailored feedback to students throughout the semester. This can help foster positive relationships, as well as allow you to watch students’ progress on drafts and outlines. You can also ask students to describe how their drafts have changed and offer rationales for those decisions.
• For exams , consider refreshing tests every term, both in terms of organization and content. Additionally, ground your assignments by having students draw connections between course content and the unique experience of your course in terms of time (unique to the semester), place (unique to campus, local community, etc. ), personal (specific student experiences), and interdisciplinary opportunities (other courses students have taken, co-curricular activities, campus events, etc.). (Lang, 2013a, pp. 77).

Since its release, ChatGPT has raised concern in universities across the country about the opportunity it presents for students to cheat and appropriate AI ideas, texts, and even code as their own work. However, there are also potential positive uses of this tool in the learning process–including as a tool for teachers to rely on when creating assessments or working with repetitive and time-consuming tasks.

Possible Advantages of ChatGPT

Due to the novelty of this tool, the possible advantages that might present in the teaching-learning process should be under the control of each instructor since they know exactly what they expect from students’ work. 

Prof. Ethan Mollick teaches innovation and entrepreneurship at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and has been openly sharing on his Twitter account his journey incorporating ChatGPT into his classes. Prof. Mollick advises his students to experiment with this tool, trying and retrying prompts. He recognizes the importance of acknowledging its limits and the risks of violating academic honesty guidelines if the use of this tool is not stated at the end of the assignment.

Prof. Mollick uncovers four possible uses of this AI tool, ranging from using ChatGPT as an all-knowing intern, as a game designer, as an assistant to launch a business, or even to “hallucinate” together ( “Four Paths to the Revelation” ). For Prof. Mollick, ChatGPT is a useful technology to craft initial ideas, as long as the prompts are given within a specific field, include proper context, step-by-step directions and have the proper changes and edits.

Resources for faculty: 

• Academic Integrity Best Practices for Faculty (Columbia College & School of Engineering and Applied Sciences)
• Faculty Statement on Academic Integrity (Columbia College)
• FAQs: Academic Integrity from Columbia Student Conduct and Community Standards 
• Ombuds Office for assistance with academic dishonesty issues. 
• Columbia Center of Artificial Intelligence Technology

Resources for students: 

• Policies from Columbia Student Conduct and Community Standards
• Understanding the Academic Integrity Policy (Columbia College & School of Engineering and Applied Sciences)

Student support resources:

• Maximizing Student Learning Online (Columbia Online)
• Center for Student Advising Tutoring Service (Berick Center for Student Advising)
• Help Rooms and Private Tutors by Department (Berick Center for Student Advising
• Peer Academic Skills Consultants (Berick Center for Student Advising)
• Academic Resource Center (ARC) for School of General Studies
• Center for Engaged Pedagogy (Barnard College)
• Writing Center (for Columbia undergraduate and graduate students)
• Counseling and Psychological Services
• Disability Services

For graduate students: 

• Writing Studio (Graduate School of Arts and Sciences)
• Student Center (Graduate School of Arts and Sciences)
• Teachers College

Columbia University Information Technology (CUIT) CUIT’s Academic Services provides services that can be used by instructors in their courses such as Turnitin , a plagiarism detection service and online proctoring services such as Proctorio , a remote proctoring service that monitors students taking virtual exams through CourseWorks. 

Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) The CTL can help you think through your course policies, ways to create community, design course assessments, and setting up CourseWorks to promote integrity, among other teaching and learning facets. To schedule a one-on-one consultation, please contact the CTL at [email protected] . 

References 

Bernard, W. Jr. and Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002).  Academic Dishonesty: An Educator’s Guide . Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.

Bertram Gallant, T. (2017).  Academic Integrity as a Teaching and Learning Issue: From Theory to Practice .  Theory Into Practice,  56(2), 88-94.

Bertram Gallant, T. (Ed.). (2008).  Academic Integrity in the Twenty-First Century: A Teaching and Learning Imperative .  ASHE Higher Education Report . 33(5), 1-143. 

Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (2020).  Creating Online Exams . 

Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (2020).  Working with TAs online . 

Darby, F. (2020).  7 Ways to Assess Students Online and Minimize Cheating .  The Chronicle of Higher Education.  

Gonzalez, J. (2017, February).  Teaching Students to Avoid Plagiarism . Cult of Pedagogy, 26.

International Center for Academic Integrity (2023).  Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity .

International Center on Academic Integrity (2023).  https://academicintegrity.org/

Keith, T. Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 1 – Understanding the Problem. The University of Chicago. (2022, Feb 16).

Lang, J.M. (2013a).  Cheating Lessons: Learning from Academic Dishonesty . Harvard University Press.

Lang, J. M. (2013b).  Cheating Lessons, Part 1 .  The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

Lang, J. M. (2013c).  Cheating Lessons, Part 2 .  The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

Lederman, D. (2020, February 19).  Course Hero Woos Professors . Inside Higher Ed. 

McKenzie, L. (2018, May 8).  Learning Tool or Cheating Aid?   Inside Higher Ed.

Marche, S. (2022, Dec 6). The College Essay is Dead. The Atlantic.

Mollick, E. (2023, Jan 17). All my Classes Suddenly Became AI Classes. One Useful Thing.

Mollick, Ethan. (2022, Dic 8). Four Paths to the Revelation. One Useful Thing.

Wexler, N. Bots’ Can Write Good Essays, But That Doesn’t Make Writing Obsolete. Minding the Gap.

Additional Resources

Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of Academic Integrity. Singapore: Springer Publishing.

Ormand, C. (2017 March 6).  SAGE Musings: Minimizing and Dealing with Academic Dishonesty . SAGE 2YC: 2YC Faculty as Agents of Change.

WCET (2009).  Best Practice Strategies to Promote Academic Integrity in Online Education .

Thomas, K.  (2022 February 16). Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 1 – Understanding the Problem. The University of Chicago. Academic Technology Solutions.

______. (2022 February 25). Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 2: Small Steps to Discourage Academic Dishonesty. The University of Chicago. Academic Technology Solutions.

______.  (2022 April 28). Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 3: Towards a Pedagogy of Academic Integrity. The University of Chicago. Academic Technology Solutions.

______.  (2022 June 7). Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 4: Library Services to Support Academic Honesty. The University of Chicago. Academic Technology Solutions.

Acknowledgement

This resource was adapted from the faculty booklet  Promoting Academic Integrity & Preventing Academic Dishonesty: Best Practices at Columbia University  developed by Victoria Malaney Brown, Director of Academic Integrity at Columbia College and Columbia Engineering, Abigail MacBain and Ramón Flores Pinedo, PhD students in GSAS. We would like to thank them for their extensive support in creating this academic integrity resource.

Want to communicate your expectations around AI tools?

See the CTL’s resource “Considerations for AI Tools in the Classroom.”

This website uses cookies to identify users, improve the user experience and requires cookies to work. By continuing to use this website, you consent to Columbia University's use of cookies and similar technologies, in accordance with the Columbia University Website Cookie Notice .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Academic dishonesty among university students: The roles of the psychopathy, motivation, and self-efficacy

Lidia baran.

1 Institute of Psychology, University of Silesia in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

Peter K. Jonason

2 Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

3 Institute of Psychology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Associated Data

The database was uploaded to Open Science Framework and is available under the following address: https://osf.io/frq9v/ .

Academic dishonesty is a common problem at universities around the world, leading to undesirable consequences for both students and the education system. To effectively address this problem, it is necessary to identify specific predispositions that promote cheating. In Polish undergraduate students ( N = 390), we examined the role of psychopathy, achievement goals, and self-efficacy as predictors of academic dishonesty. We found that the disinhibition aspect of psychopathy and mastery-goal orientation predicted the frequency of students’ academic dishonesty and mastery-goal orientation mediated the relationship between the disinhibition and meanness aspects of psychopathy and dishonesty. Furthermore, general self-efficacy moderated the indirect effect of disinhibition on academic dishonesty through mastery-goal orientation. The practical implications of the study include the identification of risk factors and potential mechanisms leading to students’ dishonest behavior that can be used to plan personalized interventions to prevent or deal with academic dishonesty.

Introduction

Academic dishonesty refers to behaviors aimed at giving or receiving information from others, using unauthorized materials, and circumventing the sanctioned assessment process in an academic context [ 1 ]. The frequency of academic dishonesty reported in research indicates the global nature of this phenomenon. For example, in a study by Ternes, Babin, Woodworth, and Stephens [ 2 ] 57.3% of post-secondary students in Canada allowed another student to copy their work. Similarly, 61% of undergraduate students in Sweden copied material for coursework from a book or other publication without acknowledging the source [ 3 ]. Working together on an assignment when it should be completed as an individual was reported by 53% of students from four different Australian universities [ 4 ], and copying from someone’s paper in exams at least once was done by 36% of students from four German universities [ 5 ]. Research shows that academic dishonesty is also a major problem at Polish universities. In the study by Lupton, Chapman, and Weiss [ 6 ] 59% of the students admitted to cheating in the current class, and 83.7% to cheating at some point during college. According to a report on the plagiarism in Poland, prepared by IPPHEAE Project Consortium, 31% of students reported plagiarizing accidentally or deliberately during their studies [ 7 ].

Existing academic dishonesty prevention systems include using punishments and supervision [ 8 ], informing students about differences between honest and dishonest academic actions [ 9 ], adopting university honor codes [ 10 ], and educating students on how to write papers and conduct research correctly [ 11 ]. Although these methods lead to a reduction of academic dishonesty (see [ 12 ]), their problematic aspects include the possibility of achieving only a temporary change in behavior, limited impact on students' attitudes towards cheating, and a long implementation period [ 13 , 14 ]. Possible reasons for these difficulties include the fact that conventional prevention methods rarely address differences in students’ personality and academic motivations, which may be associated with a tendency to cheat. For example, previous studies have reported that negative emotionality was associated with positive attitudes toward plagiarism [ 15 ]; intrinsic motivation was associated with lower self-reported cheating [ 16 ]; and socially orientated human values were negatively, while personally focused values were positively correlated with academic dishonesty [ 17 ].

It is also important to remember that implementing the aforementioned methods of prevention will not lead to a reduction in academic dishonesty if faculty members do not follow and apply the established rules [ 18 ]. Faculty members often prefer not to take formal actions against dishonest students [ 19 ], and in many cases do not use the methods available to them to detect and prevent cheating [ 20 ]. However, when they do respond to academic dishonesty it is often in inconsistent ways [ 21 ]. This might suggest that, while dealing with students’ dishonesty, faculty members prefer to choose their own punitive and preventative methods, which may differ depending on the particular student and professor. If that is the case, then examining the role of individual differences in academic dishonesty could be useful not only to better understand the nature of academic transgressions but also to address faculty's informal ways of dealing with students' cheating.

The aim of the current study was to investigate relationships between personality, motivation, and academic dishonesty to understand the likelihood of cheating in academia more effectively and potentially inform faculty's personalized interventions. Of all the personality traits under investigation, psychopathy appears to be useful for this purpose, because it includes a tendency to be impulsive, to engage in sensation-seeking, and resistance to stress, all of which are associated with academic dishonesty [ 2 ]. Indeed, psychopathy is the strongest—albeit moderate in size ( r = .27)—predictor of academic dishonesty according to a recent meta-analysis of 89 effects and 50 studies [ 22 ]. In the present study, we wanted to further examine the relationship between academic dishonesty and psychopathy by using the triarchic model of psychopathy distinguishing its three phenotypic facets: boldness, meanness, and disinhibition [ 23 ] which may reveal added nuance to how this personality trait relates to academic dishonesty.

Within the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy, boldness represents self-assurance, fearlessness, and a high tolerance for stress and unfamiliarity; meanness captures interpersonal deficits such as lack of empathy, callousness and exploitativeness; and disinhibition represents the tendency towards impulsivity, poor self-regulation and focus on immediate gratification. Because of the different neurobiological mechanisms leading to the shaping of those aspects [ 24 ], it seems likely that the tendency towards academic dishonesty may have a different etiology depending on their levels. For students with high disinhibition, cheating may result from low self-control; for those with high meanness from rebelliousness with propensity to use others; and for bold ones from emotional resiliency and sensation-seeking [ 25 – 27 ]. However, because boldness constitutes fearlessness without failed socialization [ 28 ], breaking academic rules might not be the preferred way to look for excitement among bold students. Thus, our first goal was to examine the predictive power of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition in academic dishonesty.

Furthermore, we were interested if the relationships between the psychopathy facets and academic dishonesty would be mediated by individual differences in motivations for mastery and performance. Mastery motivation is fostered by the need for achievement and associated with learning to acquire knowledge, whereas performance motivation is geared towards reducing anxiety and related to learning to prove oneself to others [ 29 ]. We expect mediation for several reasons. First, undertaking actions motivated by achievement goals is predicted by the level of positive and negative emotionality and also by activity of the behavioral activation and inhibition system [ 30 ], which also correlate with the dimensions of the triarchic model of psychopathy [ 31 ]. Second, unrestrained achievement motivation partially mediates the relationship between psychopathy and academic dishonesty, suggesting a role of achievement in understanding the relationship between psychopathy and individual differences in the propensity to cheat [ 32 ]. Third, meanness and disinhibition are negatively and boldness positively correlated with conscientiousness and its facets [ 33 , 34 ]. This fact may play an important role in students’ willingness to exert and control themselves to achieve academic goals and the particular way to do it [ 35 ]. Moreover, research on mastery-goal orientation suggests it is correlated negatively with academic dishonesty and views of the acceptability of academic dishonesty [ 36 – 38 ] and that the change from mastery to performance-based learning environment lead to increased levels of dishonesty [ 39 ].

Therefore, we hypothesized that students with a high level of disinhibition may have difficulties studying because of their need for immediate gratification and lack of impulse control, and in turn, cheat to pass classes. Bold students could want to acquire vast knowledge and high competences because of their high self-assurance, social dominance, and a high tolerance for stress without resorting to fraud. Lastly, students with a high level of meanness may be less prone towards mastery through hard work and learning because of their susceptibility to boredom, tendency to break the rules, and to exploit others to their advantage, perhaps by copying or using other students’ work. Because performance-goal orientation can be driven by the fear of performing worse than others, no specific hypothesis was generated regarding its relation to psychopathy (characterized by a lack of fear).

Besides behavioral tendencies based on personality traits and specific motives to learn, another closely related predictor of academic dishonesty is general self-efficacy. People with high levels of general self-efficacy exercise control over challenging demands and their behavior [ 40 ] and perform better in academic context because of their heightened ability to solve problems and process information [ 41 ]. On the other hand, low levels of general self-efficacy in the academic context can lead to reduced effort and attention focused on the task, which may result in a higher probability of frauds to achieve or maintain a certain level of academic performance [ 42 , 43 ]. Because competence expectancies are important antecedents of holding an achievement goal orientation [ 44 , 45 ] it seems possible that general self-efficacy might moderate the relation between psychopathy facets and academic dishonesty mediated by achievement goals. Thus, we hypothesize that high general self-efficacy will reduce the indirect effects for disinhibition and meanness (i.e., negative moderation effect) and amplify it for boldness (i.e., positive moderation effect).

In sum, we examine the relationships between three facets of psychopathy and academic dishonesty, the possible role of achievement goals as a mediators for those relations, and lastly the possible role of general self-efficacy as a moderator of those mediation models. By analyzing the facets of psychopathy independently, we can determine their unique relationship with the tendency to cheat and thus more accurately predict the risk of dishonest behavior for students with a high level of each of the facet. In addition, investigating indirect effects and interactions between personality and motivation may describe the psychological processes that may lead to cheating and can potentially be used in planning preventive actions.

Materials and methods

Participants and procedure.

The participants were 390 Polish university students and residents (100% White, 74% female) with an average age of 23 ( SD = 3.39, Range = 19–56) years. Participants self-identified as students in social sciences (17%), humanities (12%), science and technology (24%), law and administration (22%), and medical sciences (23%); 7 failed to respond (2%). In addition, participants were first-year (19%), second-year (16%), third-year (31%), fourth-year (13%), fifth-year (13%), and doctoral students (2%); 23 failed to respond (6%).

We established the required sample size as 290 participants, following Tabachnick and Fidell [ 46 ] guidelines and gave ourselves three months to collect it to avoid concerns with power and p- hacking, respectively. The study was approved by Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology (University of Silesia in Katowice) and was conducted online through the Webankieta platform to maximize the anonymity and security of the participants. An invitation to participate in the project was sent to 28 largest Polish universities by enrollment, with a request to publish it on the universities' websites. The link to the survey directed the participants to a detailed description of the research and the rules of participation. After consenting to participate, students completed online questionnaires and, at the end, they were asked if they wanted to receive a summary of the general results and take part in a prize drawing (after the end of the study, five randomly chosen participants received vouchers for online personal development courses). The present study was part of a larger investigation that aimed to examine psychological determinants and predictors of academic dishonesty.

Psychopathy was measured with the TriPM-41 [ 34 ], the shortened Polish adaptation of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure [ 47 ]. Participants rated statements on a 4-point scale (0 = completely false ; 1 = somewhat false ; 2 = somewhat true ; 3 = completely true ). Items were summed to create indexes for three subscales: disinhibition (16 items, e.g., “I jump into things without thinking”; Cronbach’s α = .83), meanness (10 items, e.g., “I don't have much sympathy for people”; α = .92), and boldness (15 items, e.g., “I'm a born leader”; α = .88).

Achievement goals were measured with the Polish translation of the Achievement Goals Questionnaire-Revised [ 29 ]. Participants reported their agreement (1 = strongly disagree ; 5 = strongly agree ) with statements such as “My aim is to completely master the material presented in this class” (i.e., mastery-goal orientation, 6 items) or “My aim is to perform well relative to other students” (i.e., performance-goal orientation, 6 items). Items were summed to calculate mastery (α = .80) and performance (α = .87) goal orientation indexes.

The Polish translation of the New General Self-Efficacy Scale [ 48 ] was used to measure general self-efficacy (e.g., “Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well”). Participants were asked how much they agreed (1 = strongly disagree ; 5 = strongly agree ) with eight items, which were summed to create the general self-efficacy index (α = .89).

Academic dishonesty was estimated with the Academic Dishonesty Scale [ 49 ], which is a list of 16 academically dishonest behaviors (e.g., “Using crib notes during test or exam” or “Falsifying bibliography”). Participants rate the frequency (0 = never ; 4 = many times ) of committing each behavior during their years of studies. Items were summed to create the academic dishonesty index (α = .83).

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated with JASP (v0.9.0.0), correlations with STATISTICA (v13.1), and regression, mediation, and moderated mediation with SPSS (v25). In the mediation analysis we used model 4 in macro PROCESS 2.16.3 (10,000 bootstrapped samples) and for the moderated mediations model 7 in macro PROCESS 2.16.3 (10,000 bootstrapped samples). Analyzes were carried out on the responses from 390 fully completed surveys. Because of mixed results in previous studies concerning psychopathy and academic dishonesty levels in men and women (see [ 50 , 51 ]) we conducted analyses on the overall results and also separately in each sex. The database was uploaded to Open Science Framework and is available under the following address: https://osf.io/frq9v/

Descriptive statistics, sex differences tests (see Bottom Panel), and correlations (see Top Panel) for all measured variables are presented in Table 1 . Academic dishonesty was positively correlated with meanness and disinhibition, and negatively correlated with mastery-goal orientation and general self-efficacy. Mastery-goal orientation was positively correlated with boldness and general self-efficacy, and negatively correlated with meanness and disinhibition. Performance-goal orientation was positively correlated with meanness. General self-efficacy was positively correlated with boldness and negatively correlated with meanness and disinhibition. We found only three cases where these correlations were moderated by participant’s sex. The correlation between performance and mastery-goal orientation was stronger ( z = -1.85, p = .03) in men ( r = .51, p < .01) than in women ( r = .34, p < .01). The correlation between mastery-goal orientation and meanness was stronger ( z = 2.00, p = .02) in men ( r = -.28, p < .01) than in women ( r = -.05, ns ). And the correlation between disinhibition and academic dishonesty was stronger ( z = 1.72, p = .04) in women ( r = .39, p < .01) than in men ( r = .20, p < .01). If we adjust for error inflation for multiple comparisons ( p < .007) for these moderation tests, none of the Fisher’s z tests were significant. Therefore, we conclude the correlations were generally similar in the sexes. Men scored higher than women on meanness and disinhibition.

We report Hedges’ g for effect size to adjust for unequal group sizes. Its interpretation is the same as the more common Cohen’s d .

* p < .05

** p < .01

To test the contribution of personality and motivation variables in predicting academic dishonesty, we conducted a standard multiple regression where the model explained 23% of the variance in academic dishonesty [ F (6, 383) = 18.60, p < .001]. The residuals for boldness ( β = .12, p = .04), disinhibition ( β = .27, p < .01), and a mastery-goal orientation ( β = -.39, p < .01) were correlated with academic dishonesty. Additional regression analysis revealed that both mastery-goal orientation and disinhibition strengthened the association between boldness and academic dishonesty, which on its own was not a predictor of the frequency of cheating–suppressor effect (results of hierarchical regression showed that after adding boldness to the model explained variance increased by 1% [Δ F (1, 383) = 4.40, p = .04]).

To examine whether achievement goals mediated the associations between psychopathy and academic dishonesty we conducted a series of mediation analyses.

As shown in Table 2 (see Left Panel), mastery-goal orientation mediated the relation between facets of psychopathy and academic dishonesty (i.e., none of the indirect effects CIs contained zero), and performance-goal orientation was not a mediator of those relations (see Right Panel; all of the indirect effects CIs contained zero). Mastery-goal orientation mediated relation between disinhibition and academic dishonesty (i.e., initial 𝛽 Step 1 = .32, p < .001; 𝛽 Step 2 = .24, p < .001), and the relationship between meanness and academic dishonesty (i.e., 𝛽 Step 1 = .10, p < .05; 𝛽 Step 2 = .05, p = .29). Initial non-significant negative relation between boldness and academic dishonesty (𝛽 = -.0001, p = .99) stayed unrelated after adding mastery-goal orientation to the model, but the value for the relation coefficient was higher and positive (𝛽 = .07, p = .12) suggesting a nonsignificant suppression effect.

ab = coefficient for the indirect effect; 95%CI = 95% confidence intervals; z = Sobel’s test for indirect effect.

* p < .01

To test if the level of general self-efficacy moderated the aforementioned relationships between psychopathy, achievement goals, and academic dishonesty we ran a series of moderated mediations. Index for moderated mediation was significant only for the model with disinhibition and mastery-goal orientation ( - 0.03; 95% CI: -0.70, -0.003), however, the same analyses ran separately for men ( - 0.03; 95% CI: -0.13, 0.05) and women ( - 0.04; 95% CI: -0.08, -0.01) revealed moderated mediation only in women (therefore, we do not report these analyses in men; they can be obtained from the first author). Estimates for that model are presented in Table 3 .

B = regression coefficients; SE = standard error; 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals; A1, A2, A3, B, and C’ are the paths in the moderated mediation model.

* * p < .001

Women with high levels of disinhibition manifesting low level of mastery-goal orientation (see Left Panel, line A1) declared higher levels of academic dishonesty (see Right Panel, line B). An interaction between disinhibition and general self-efficacy (see Left Panel, line A3) with the significant, negative index for moderated mediation means that the indirect effect of disinhibition on academic dishonesty through mastery-goal orientation is negatively moderated by general self-efficacy. The higher the level of the moderator, the weaker the effect of mediation, and for moderator values above one standard deviation from mean mediation become non-significant (95% CI: -0.01, 0.09). In sum, the mastery-goal orientation partially mediated the associations that disinhibition had with academic dishonesty, however, this effect was absent for people with high levels of general self-efficacy.

Discussion and limitations

Psychopathy is an important predictor of engaging in unethical behaviors [ 52 ], including in an academic context [ 53 ]. In the present study, we examined the relationships between facets of psychopathy, as described in the triarchic model of psychopathy (i.e. disinhibition, meanness, and boldness), and the frequency of academic dishonesty among students. We revealed that students with higher levels of meanness and disinhibition, but not boldness, reported more frequent academic dishonesty during their tertiary study.

In the case of meanness, this relationship may indicate a tendency for dishonesty resulting from a lack of fear and, consequently, a diminished impact of the perceived risk of being caught cheating, sensation-seeking that involves engaging in destructive behavior regardless of possible negative consequences of such actions, and a propensity to exploit other student’s work or knowledge to pass classes [ 23 , 54 ]. The association between disinhibition and academic dishonesty may indicate impulsive cheating resulting from self-control problems (see [ 55 ]), and an inability to predict possible negative consequences of cheating [ 26 ]. The fact that academic dishonesty and boldness were uncorrelated may indicate that even though bold students can perform successfully in stressful situations and have high levels of sensation-seeking, those features are unrelated to the tendency to cheat in the academic context. It confirms that the “successful psychopath” [ 56 ] may be characterized by boldness but not antisocial behavior. Of all the facets of psychopathy, disinhibition was the strongest predictor of academic dishonesty, which confirms the role of impulsivity in predicting risky behavior [ 57 , 58 ], and the role of delaying gratification in refraining from academic transgressions [ 59 ].

Beyond these basic associations, we also examined the role of achievement goals as mediators for the relationships between psychopathy facets and academic dishonesty. Mastery-goal orientation mediated the relationships between two psychopathy facets and academic dishonesty. Both meanness and disinhibition led to low levels of students’ mastery-goal orientation which, in turn, contributed to cheating in the academic context. Low mastery-goal orientation might result from the fact that those who are characterized by meanness may have a propensity to be rebellious (e.g., disregard for formal responsibilities, low diligence, and sensitivity to rewards) and those who are characterized by disinhibition may have a propensity for impulsivity (e.g., inability to postpone gratification or control impulses, high behavioral activation system). Without motivation to acquire knowledge, students may cheat to achieve academic goals with no regard to the fairness (i.e., high meanness) or the consequences (i.e., high disinhibition) of their actions [ 31 – 33 ]. In the case of boldness, the result of the mediation analysis might indicate a cooperative or reciprocal suppression effect, however, it should not be trusted because the main effect path did not pass the null hypothesis threshold when the potential suppressor was included in the model. Nonetheless, it seems possible that a particular configuration of boldness and disinhibition could lead to the interactive effect of those facets on the other variables [ 26 ]. Performance-goal orientation did not mediate the relationships between psychopathy facets and academic dishonesty, probably because bold, mean, and disinhibited students are not motivated by the fear to perform worse than others [ 60 ].

Lastly, we tested if general self-efficacy acts as a moderator of these mediation models and found evidence that it moderated the indirect effect of disinhibition on academic dishonesty through mastery-goal orientation. This means that disinhibited students who have a high sense of perceived ability to control their chances for success or failure, might be able to overcome the tendency to cheat resulting from their personality (i.e., high impulsiveness), and motivational (i.e., low motivation to learn) predispositions. However, that effect was found only for women, limiting any insights that can be drawn about men. Previous research showed that an increase in general self-efficacy reduced the risk of suicide among women [ 61 ]. Moreover, Portnoy, Legee, Raine, Choy, and Rudo-Hutt [ 62 ] found that low resting heart rate was associated with more frequent academic dishonesty in female students, and that self-control and sensation-seeking mediated this relationship. Thus, along with the observed lower level of disinhibition for female students, it appears that self-regulation abilities may play a different role for men and women’s performance, and also that deficits in self-control might not lead to the same behavioral tendencies in the sexes (see [ 63 ]). However, because of the cross-sectional nature of our study and an uneven number of men and women in the sample, this needs to be investigated further.

In the present study, we aimed to combine personality and motivation variables to describe the possible process leading to academic dishonesty assessed with a behavioral measure. Because Polish students do not constitute a typical W.E.I.R.D. sample (i.e., Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), presented results can be used to generalize conclusions from research on academic dishonesty beyond typical W.E.I.R.D cultures. However, our study is not without limitations. First, the measurement of academic dishonesty was based on self-report, which, even after maximizing anonymity of the measurement, might have attenuated our results concerning the frequency of cheating. Thus, future studies should focus on measuring actual dishonest academic behavior. Second, we examined academic dishonesty as an overall frequency of committing different acts of cheating, which reflects the general propensity to cheat. It could be useful to further investigate the predictive power of described models in experiments, focused on the specific type of dishonest behavior. Third, the obtained range of academic dishonesty scores might result from sampling bias, which would require using different sampling procedure in future studies, or from non-normal distribution of academic dishonesty, which would be consistent with the results of the previous studies [ 2 – 4 ]. Fourth, we tested mediation models in a cross-sectional study with a one-time point measurement, which require cautious interpretation. Future studies could use longitudinal methods; starting at the beginning of the first year and continuing over the course of their studies to capture the influence of personality, achievement goals, and general self-efficacy on the academic dishonesty of students in a more robust manner. Despite these shortcomings, our study is the first attempt (we know of) to integrate the triarchic model of psychopathy, general self-efficacy, and achievement goals to predict academic dishonesty, showing potential for further investigation in this area.

Implications and conclusions

Preventing academic dishonesty is often made difficult by the lack of centralized and formalized university policies concerning cheating, faculty reluctance to take formal action against dishonest students, and limited attention paid to students’ personal characteristics associated with a tendency to cheat [ 64 ]. Based on the results of our study, lecturers might overcome those difficulties by: maximizing the amount of oral examinations to deal with the risk of cheating by disinhibited and mean students; enhancing students’ mastery-goal orientation, for example, by increasing use of competency-based assessment; enhancing students’ self-efficacy in academic context, for example, by providing spaced assessed tasks, and the opportunity to practice skills needed for their fulfillment. In the case of dealing with actual dishonest behavior, the fact that teachers prefer to warn students rather than fail them [ 19 ] might suggest indifference to academic integrity rules, reluctance to initiate time-consuming formal procedures against cheating, or teachers’ preference toward autonomy to deal with dishonesty. Therefore, a useful solution could be to assess which areas need to be improved for a particular student (e.g., knowledge about plagiarism, ability to delay gratification, or treating acquisition of knowledge as a value) and to allow the teacher to choose an effective way to remedy them.

In sum, we presented evidence that disinhibition and meanness are associated with the frequency of committing academic dishonesty. We described the possible underlying mechanism of those relations involving mediation effects of the mastery-goal orientation and, in the case of disinhibition, also a moderation effect of the general self-efficacy. Our research can be used by teachers to better identify factors conducive to dishonesty and to modulate their responses to fraud based on the personality and motivational predispositions of students.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank Dr Guy Curtis for his comments and suggestions on the article.

Funding Statement

Funding was provided by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange ( https://nawa.gov.pl/en/ ) to P.K.J under Grant number PPN/ULM/2019/1/00019/U/00001. This funding source had no role in the study conception, design, analysis, interpretation, or decision to submit for publication.

Data Availability

77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best academic dishonesty topic ideas & essay examples, 🎓 good research topics about academic dishonesty, ⭐ simple & easy academic dishonesty essay titles, ❓ academic dishonesty research questions.

• Academic Integrity: Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty Some of the most significant issues he highlights include the following: The quality of information on the web varies significantly While internet search may help to narrow down on a topic, it may erode the […]
• Academic Dishonesty in Psychologist’s Ethics However, in the case of school authorities, there should be rules and regulations that define the limits of confidentiality and give a counselor the consent to breach the oath of secrecy. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Moral Identities, Social Anxiety, and Academic Dishonesty In his works, the scholar establishes two explanations for why students indulge in malpractices; the Social anxiety hypothesis and the moral anxiety hypothesis.
• Academic Dishonesty Classification The definition of academic dishonesty is as follows: “The first type of academic dishonesty is cheating, which includes the intentional use or attempted use of unauthorized materials or information in an examination.
• Understanding of Academic Integrity and Academic Dishonesty It has been argued that more people are being released into the job market in the US and as such the reputation of the academic institutions is facing lots of challenges.
• Analysis of trends of Academic Dishonesty He concluded that academic dishonesty is on the rise and students perceived that most institutions and faculties had failed to institute a strong culture of integrity.
• Academic Integrity and Academic Dishonesty It is very often that leadership and integrity are regarded as two incompatible things, since the majority of people use the easiest way to cope with difficulties, violating the main principles of the right and […]
• Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty
• Academic Dishonesty and Factors That Have Contributed to This
• Prevalent Cheating Strategy and Academic Dishonesty
• Academic Dishonesty and the Internet in Higher Education
• Bridging the Divide: The Role of Motivation and Self-Regulation in Explaining the Judgment-Action Gap Related to Academic Dishonesty
• Academic Dishonesty and Language Department Student
• The Relationship Between Attitudes Towards Academic Dishonesty, Infidelity, and Normalization of Unethical Behavior
• Academic Dishonesty on the Internet and Suggested Strategies
• Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism to a Significantly Higher Level
• The Fundamental Mission of Education and Academic Dishonesty
• Ethics and the College Student Composition – Education, Academic Dishonesty
• The Public School System and Academic Dishonesty
• Academic Dishonesty Among High School Students and College Students
• Plagiarism: The Most Common Form of Academic Dishonesty
• Academic Dishonesty, Material Assignment, and Its Causes
• Academic Dishonesty: The Relationship Between the Internet and Academic Fraud
• Cheating: Academic Dishonesty and Honor Code
• Narcissism and Academic Dishonesty: The Exhibitionism Dimension and the Lack of Guilt
• Academic Dishonesty and Academic Integrity
• Academic Dishonesty Among Public School Teachers
• Academic Dishonesty and the Impact on Higher Education
• The Impact of Technology on the Academic Dishonesty
• Academic Dishonesty and Strategic Sourcing Process
• The Learning Process and Academic Dishonesty
• Academic Dishonesty and Designated Rescue Area
• Sex-Role Socialization and Perceptions of Student Academic Dishonesty by Male and Female Faculty
• Academic Dishonesty and Finding Assignment Answers
• Secondary Education and Academic Dishonesty
• Academic Dishonesty and Studies on Cyber-Plagiarism in Higher Education
• Friendship and In-Class Academic Dishonesty
• Internet and Used by Academic Staff to Minimize the Trend of Academic Dishonesty
• Never-Ending Dilemma in All Institution: Academic Dishonesty
• Academic Dishonesty and Fraud: Discussion Among Universities Faculties
• Cheating: Academic Dishonesty and Academic Misconduct
• Academic Dishonesty: Applying Technology in Plagiarism
• Cheating: Academic Dishonesty and Strict Christian Household
• Academic Dishonesty and an Attempt to Gain Academic Advantage by Doing Something Misleading or Unfair
• Cyber-Plagiarism Amongst Students: Academic Dishonesty and the Internet
• Academic Writing and the Internet: Cyber-Plagiarism Amongst University Students
• Academic Dishonesty: Decreasing Cheating in Classrooms
• Is Academic Dishonesty a Crime?
• What Can Professors Do to Decrease Academic Dishonesty in Their Class?
• How Would You Convince People Not to Plagiarize?
• What Are Reasons People Commit Academic Dishonesty?
• Is Academic Dishonesty Morally Wrong?
• How Does Cheating Affect the College’s Reputation?
• What Are the Ethical Issues Associated With Academic Dishonesty?
• How Would Academic Dishonesty Help the Development of the Students?
• What Are the Form of Academic Dishonesty?
• Why Is Cheating in School a Moral Issue?
• What Are the Most Common Reasons Students Plagiarize?
• Is Academic Dishonesty the First Step in Corruption?
• How Can We Improve Honesty Among Students?
• What Are the Possible Effects of Academic Dishonesty?
• How Can We Avoid Different Forms of Dishonesty?
• Is There a Way to Promote Academic Honesty in Schools?
• Why Do We Care About Academic Dishonesty?
• How Does Cheating Affect Everyone?
• Can Cheating in School Be Justified?
• How Does Cheating Affect Learning?
• Why Do Students Cheat in Research?
• How Does Academic Integrity Impact Students?
• What Are 3 Reasons That Students May Be Tempted to Be Academically Dishonest Quizlet?
• How Can You Improve Your Academic Integrity?
• Can Academic Dishonesty Affect Your Career?
• How Common Is Academic Dishonesty?
• What Do You Think Should Be Done About Cheating or Academic Honesty?
• How Can You Encourage Students to Maintain Their Integrity?
• Why Should Cheating Be Allowed?
• How Many Students Plagiarize Each Year?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 26). 77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/academic-dishonesty-essay-topics/

"77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/academic-dishonesty-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/academic-dishonesty-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/academic-dishonesty-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "77 Academic Dishonesty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/academic-dishonesty-essay-topics/.

• Cheating Questions
• Plagiarism Research Ideas
• Honesty Essay Ideas
• College Students Research Ideas
• Academic Achievements Research Topics
• Bilingual Education Essay Ideas
• Classroom Management Essay Topics
• Brain-Based Learning Essay Titles
• Communication Research Ideas
• Distance Education Topics
• Competitiveness Topics
• Homeschooling Ideas
• Learning Styles Essay Topics
• Service Learning Essay Titles
• Moral Development Essay Topics

Northern Illinois University Academic Integrity Tutorials

• Make a Gift
• MyScholarships
• Huskie Link
• Anywhere Apps
• Huskies Get Hired
• Student Email
• Password Self-Service
• Quick Links
• Academic Integrity Tutorials
• Student Tutorial

Causes of Academic Dishonesty

Literature on academic dishonesty cites a number of factors that contribute to dishonest academic practices (Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2002). Contributing factors include:

Peer pressure

Performance anxiety, excuse making.

• Inability to manage the demands of student life

Situations that encourage academic dishonesty

Self-justification habits, unfamiliarity with what constitutes academic dishonesty.

• Lack of understanding about consequences

Check Your Understanding

What is one common cause for academic dishonesty?

Reveal Answer

A lack of familiarity with what constitutes academic dishonesty is one common cause.

Students can pressure other students to commit acts of academic dishonesty in many ways: pressuring others to work together or split assignments when course policies prohibit collaboration, seeing other students cheat and then joining them, engaging in academic dishonesty as a group and helping friends on assignments or exams when the professor has prohibited collaboration.

Anxiety about academic performance can cause some students to cheat in academic activities. Students may cheat to avoid failing a course or receiving a bad grade. Some students may use cheating as a way to cope with poor test-taking skills.

Some students blame their professors for their cheating, complaining that the professors expect too much or are too difficult to understand. Students also may use the excuse that the exams were unfair or a course was not in their major. Occasionally, students reason that other students are cheating, so they have no alternative but to cheat as well.

Inability to manage demands of student life

One of the most common reasons for academic dishonesty is students' inability to manage the pressures of their social and academic lives. Students who cannot plan and manage their workload and other activities and are usually behind in meeting their deadlines and can at times resort to cheating or plagiarism as an easy solution.

When course policies do not spell out clearly what students can and cannot do, or when an instructor is not careful in enforcing academic integrity standards, some students may use the situation to commit acts of academic dishonesty. If the penalties for violating academic integrity standards are minimal, some students may consider cheating to be worth the risk of being caught.

Some students engage in self-talk in order to justify their actions to themselves, even though those actions may not be appropriate. For example, they justify cheating by telling themselves that they were cheating:

• Only in one academic activity
• Because they were sick and couldn't catch up
• "This particular assignment is not very important"
• "I do not need this particular course for graduation, so it's okay"
• "No one will get hurt by this"
• "I had to help a friend in need"
• "The instructor doesn't really care"
• "Everyone cheats in this class"

When a course policy is not clear, what can I do to ensure my academic integrity?

Request from the instructor clarification on that course policy.

Some students genuinely may not know what constitutes cheating or plagiarism and may not ask the course instructor for clarification. Some instructors may assume students understand the guidelines already. As a result, students can unintentionally commit acts of academic dishonesty. Further, uncertainty about technological issues and, particularly, international students' unfamiliarity with American standards of academic integrity, can also lead to problems involving questions of academic integrity.

It is also important to mention that many students resist committing acts of academic dishonesty for a variety of reasons. These reasons include the recognition of the fact that it is wrong, desire to earn their grades, genuine interest in learning, concern about how they would feel in the long run if they cheat, fear of getting caught and the associated embarrassment and penalties, respect for course instructor and classmates, ability to manage their workload well, and religious beliefs.

Academic dishonesty can not be justified under any circumstances. A damaged academic reputation may take many years of ethical behavior to repair.

Take Quiz 2

• Definition and Types
• Consequences
• Cheating, Falsification, Fabrication and Sabotage
• Protecting Yourself

What is academic misconduct? Cheating, plagiarizing, and other shortcut solutions

The importance of terminology

How students from diverse backgrounds bring different perspectives on plagiarism to the classroom

Academic integrity is key to an accurate assessment of student knowledge. Promoting integrity begins with building awareness of forms of academic misconduct.

The consequences of not addressing misinformation and missing the opportunity to teach critical thinking are many. And it’s important to address the difference between fact and opinion early on. Here, guest blogger Lisa Macdonald discusses a lesson plan that helps students discern fact from opinion.

By completing this form, you agree to Turnitin's Privacy Policy . Turnitin uses the information you provide to contact you with relevant information. You may unsubscribe from these communications at any time.

Aligning our understanding of definitions of academic integrity is important to promoting lifelong learning throughout the world in a post-industrial marketplace of ideas. Schools used to prepare students for jobs in an industrial world, ensuring that they understood procedures and hierarchy. But these days, the goals are different: academic institutions want graduates to display higher-order thinking, and employers want to hire people who can communicate original, innovative ideas. It may feel like a leap to link academic integrity terminology to learning outcomes and global equity, but in this post, we examine the connection between terminology and equity.

To start, academic integrity is important to teaching and learning . It ensures that feedback loops between students and teachers are based on accurate data. It promotes respect for learning. And it supports a life of honest workplace behavior.

Synchronizing terminology (such as the ENAI's Glossary for Academic Integrity 's work) and understanding the pedagogical context for evolving vocabulary are also components in supporting positive outcomes.

“Academic integrity,” a term popularized by researcher Dr. Donald McCabe in the early 1990s, describes work that displays honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage per the ICAI . However, these values are dependent on cultural context –and the fact that academic integrity has been defined by the West must be acknowledged. In cultures that focus on rote memorization as a learning methodology, mimicry (repeating what is learned, often without attribution) may be a form of respect.

The nuances of cultural context play into terminology. For instance, while in the West “academic integrity” is an oft-used term, it isn’t as common in many regions where mimicry and respect go hand-in-hand, thus clouding the definition of plagiarism. According to research, for example, “the Latvian academic terminology database AkadTerm does not include terms such as academic integrity,’ ‘academic honesty,’ and ‘academic misconduct’” ( Tauginiené, et al. 2019 ).

As recently as 2016, Wheeler states, “Although ‘morality’ has long been taught in the Japanese educational system, academic integrity is a concept that has only recently received much attention and one that is not altogether well understood” ( Wheeler, 2016 ).

Professor Tosh Yamamoto’s 2021 Turnitin interview verifies that finding when he states, “Academic integrity is, I believe, a philosophical mindset to reflect the learning mind to the mirror of honesty, sincerity, contribution to the future society, and also scientific attitude and ethics and morals. However, on the other hand, education in Japan is focused on rote memorization and regurgitation and understanding” ( Yamamoto, 2021 ).

At the same time, contextual knowledge also drives the content of academic integrity. As research into academic integrity and pedagogy expands, so does terminology to match evolving mindsets and approaches. One pedagogical trend is an attempt to be more holistic about why and how these behaviors occur and to stop “blaming students” for these outcomes. Thus, “cheating,” while widely used as a synonym for academic misconduct, is going out of vogue as pedagogy pivots away from a “blaming” and “policing” culture towards more neutral terminology. When someone breaches academic integrity, it is called academic misconduct or academic dishonesty, which Allemand describes as “any sort of unfair advantage” ( 2012 ). These words have supplanted older terms like “cheating.”

One of the largest shifts in pedagogy has been a pivot towards collaboration between teachers and students. Helping students feel seen and supported is the opposite of an adversarial, hierarchical, blaming culture. Helping students feel seen and supported also increases learning outcomes.

The word cheating, for instance, falls into the “Us versus Them”-themed terminology. As Zachek describes in their research, “One student in Helgeson’s (2002) study incorporates this concept into their response about how faculty handle cheating, stating, ‘It’s kind of like ‘students vs. teachers’ and we help each other out’” ( Zachek 2020, p. 110 ).

Shortcut solutions is also a term that leaves room for understanding pressured, struggling students. Cheating, for instance, is a “shortcut solution,” which is a milder term to define when students shortchange learning, whether via contract cheating, plagiarism, or getting the answers to a test before the assessment date. In the realm of research, it includes ghostwriting, removing authors, and self-citation with the intent of boosting one’s own impact factor.

Understanding why and how students cheat has become a part of the discussion around academic integrity. Terminology has, as a result, become more neutral, and reflects the way educators have approached misconduct. The current understanding is that sometimes, people don’t set out to cheat, plagiarize, or otherwise misrepresent their work. And that ultimately, plagiarism can become a teachable moment .

Academic integrity is linked to education integrity. The following are some examples of academic integrity’s importance:

• We need accurate measurements of student learning (i.e., to ensure the student’s answers are their own), not only to foster their next steps but also to inform curriculum
• Research is a cumulative, interactive process—we must ensure that research is honest to promote innovation and void of fraud.
• Respect for the learning process is critical for life-long learning.

In a day and age when education leads to opportunity, and where students, post-education, have goals of entering a marketplace of ideas , original thinking is critical to success for both students and institutions. Academic integrity is an indicator of future workplace success and honesty–and thus a proven starting point for a life-long journey of learning. It is necessary to ensure that academic integrity terminology follows current pedagogy and that it not be entirely punitive, because learning must happen at all points of learning, even at instances of misconduct.

What is the consequence of not having aligned definitions of academic integrity terminology? Global inequity.

When definitions aren’t aligned, international students, or those students who come from cultures that operate under different definitions, suffer.

According to Zachek’s research, “In looking at the demographics of who cheats, one of Beasley’s (2016) primary concerns is if students of minoritized racial backgrounds are more likely to be reported due to institutionalized racism. To this end, Beasley (2009) reports that, ‘International undergraduates were much more likely to get reported for academic dishonesty than were domestic students’” ( Zachek 2020, p. 113 ).

Specific studies focusing on Japan indicate that these differing definitions and cultural contexts impact attitudes and instances of misconduct. “Terminology is always cultural [sic] specific, and it often [sic] impossible for words to be perfectly translated across languages. Furthermore, it may be the case that some cross-cultural studies have inconsistent results if they neglect to take into consideration the varying lifestyles, societies, and cultures of the participants when making comparisons. Therefore, it is likely more valuable to conduct surveys of attitudes within one cultural setting” ( Teeter, 2014, p. 104 ).

East Asia is no exception; studies focused on Turkey also reflect cultural differences. “Returning to the subject of cultural differences, academic integrity may be associated with community values. To demonstrate this, we provide an example from Turkey, where it is a not [sic] an uncommon practice in recent times to deal with ‘academic integrity’ under the umbrella term ‘values education’, especially in the case of providing awareness of ethical issues (e.g. Cihan 2014 )” ( Tauginiené, et al., 2019 ).

Thus, academic integrity terminology is critical to academic success. And ensuring inclusive terminology is critical to creating equal opportunities for academic success and upholding the reputation of institutions everywhere.

According to an article in the Journal of Academic Ethics, “A consistent understanding and the use of agreed terms allows the prospect of a shared set of values. It also allows a possibility of developing internationally acceptable common solutions relating to teaching methods, content and preventative strategies for academic misconduct. Reaching agreement on these fundamental concepts would in turn lead to alliances between various fields of science. However, to achieve this, variations in the conceptualization and use of key terms need to be discussed and agreed” ( Tauginiené, et al. 2019 ).

Taking into consideration cultural norms and differences, and ensuring that terminology is widely agreed upon would promote a shared understanding and positive learning outcomes so that international students and researchers alike readily and more easily adhere to global standards. “Academic integrity” is a starting point for lifelong learning, so it’s essential to understand exactly what it means and looks like, and to leave little room for interpretation.

Likewise, terminology for “academic misconduct” can also decriminalize language. This shift is important in ensuring that academic misconduct is not merely punitive but an opportunity for further learning and corrective action.

Doing so advances humanity. Original ideas and respect for attributing ideas is critical to the global, post-industrial world in which we live today; when we share ideas, we need to do so with the assurance that credit is given where necessary. Together, as a community, we can move forward together with comfort and confidence in academic integrity.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free plagiarism check.

• Knowledge Base

Academic Integrity vs Academic Dishonesty

Published on 15 July 2022 by Tegan George and Jack Caulfield. Revised on 13 April 2023.

Academic integrity  is the value of being honest, ethical, and thorough in your academic work. It allows readers to trust that you aren’t misrepresenting your findings or taking credit for the work of others.

Academic dishonesty (or academic misconduct) refers to actions that undermine academic integrity. It typically refers to some form of plagiarism , ranging from serious offences like purchasing a pre-written essay to milder ones like accidental citation errors – most of which are easy to detect with a plagiarism checker .

These concepts are also essential in the world of professional academic research and publishing. In this context, accusations of misconduct can have serious legal and reputational consequences.

Table of contents

Types of academic dishonesty, why does academic integrity matter, examples of academic dishonesty, frequently asked questions about plagiarism.

While plagiarism is the main offence you’ll hear about, academic dishonesty comes in many forms that vary extensively in severity, from faking an illness to buying an essay.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Most students are clear that academic integrity is important, but dishonesty is still common.

There are various reasons you might be tempted to resort to academic dishonesty: pressure to achieve, time management struggles, or difficulty with a course. But academic dishonesty hurts you, your peers, and the learning process. It’s:

• Unfair to the plagiarised author
• Unfair to other students who did not cheat
• Damaging to your own learning
• Harmful if published research contains misleading information
• Dangerous if you don’t properly learn the fundamentals in some contexts (e.g., lab work)

The consequences depend on the severity of the offence and your institution’s policies. They can range from a warning for a first offence to a failing grade in a course to expulsion from your university.

• Faking illness to skip a class
• Asking for a classmate’s notes from a special review session held by your professor that you did not attend
• Crowdsourcing or collaborating with others on a homework assignment
• Citing a source you didn’t actually read in a paper
• Cheating on a test
• Peeking at your notes on a take-home exam that was supposed to be closed-book
• Resubmitting a paper that you had already submitted for a different course (self-plagiarism)
• Forging a doctor’s note to get an extension on an assignment
• Fabricating experimental results or data to prove your hypothesis in a lab environment
• Buying a pre-written essay online or answers to a test
• Falsifying a family emergency to get out of taking a final exam
• Taking a test for a friend

Academic integrity means being honest, ethical, and thorough in your academic work. To maintain academic integrity, you should avoid misleading your readers about any part of your research and refrain from offences like plagiarism and contract cheating, which are examples of academic misconduct.

Academic dishonesty refers to deceitful or misleading behavior in an academic setting. Academic dishonesty can occur intentionally or unintentionally, and it varies in severity.

It can encompass paying for a pre-written essay, cheating on an exam, or committing plagiarism . It can also include helping others cheat, copying a friend’s homework answers, or even pretending to be sick to miss an exam.

Academic dishonesty doesn’t just occur in a classroom setting, but also in research and other academic-adjacent fields.

Consequences of academic dishonesty depend on the severity of the offence and your institution’s policy. They can range from a warning for a first offence to a failing grade in a course to expulsion from your university.

For those in certain fields, such as nursing, engineering, or lab sciences, not learning fundamentals properly can directly impact the health and safety of others. For those working in academia or research, academic dishonesty impacts your professional reputation, leading others to doubt your future work.

Academic dishonesty can be intentional or unintentional, ranging from something as simple as claiming to have read something you didn’t to copying your neighbour’s answers on an exam.

You can commit academic dishonesty with the best of intentions, such as helping a friend cheat on a paper. Severe academic dishonesty can include buying a pre-written essay or the answers to a multiple-choice test, or falsifying a medical emergency to avoid taking a final exam.

The consequences of plagiarism vary depending on the type of plagiarism and the context in which it occurs. For example, submitting a whole paper by someone else will have the most severe consequences, while accidental citation errors are considered less serious.

If you’re a student, then you might fail the course, be suspended or expelled, or be obligated to attend a workshop on plagiarism. It depends on whether it’s your first offence or you’ve done it before.

As an academic or professional, plagiarising seriously damages your reputation. You might also lose your research funding or your job, and you could even face legal consequences for copyright infringement.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

George, T. & Caulfield, J. (2023, April 13). Academic Integrity vs Academic Dishonesty. Scribbr. Retrieved 25 March 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/preventing-plagiarism/academic-integrity/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, consequences of mild, moderate & severe plagiarism, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it.

Academic Integrity at MIT

A handbook for students, search form, what are the consequences.

The consequences for cheating, plagiarism, unauthorized collaboration, and other forms of academic dishonesty can be very serious, possibly including suspension or expulsion from the Institute. Any violation of the rules outlined in this handbook, established by the instructor of the class, or deviating from responsible conduct of research, may be considered violations of academic integrity. The MIT Policy on Student Academic Dishonesty is outlined in MIT’s Policies and Procedures 10.2 .

Instructors, research or thesis supervisors decide how to handle violations of academic integrity on a case-by-case basis, and three options exist. Questions about these options should be directed to the Office of Student conduct ( [email protected] ).

Academic consequences within a class or research project

Within a class, the instructor determines what action is appropriate to take. Such action may include:

requiring the student to redo the assignment for a reduced grade.

assigning the student a failing grade for the assignment.

assigning the student a failing grade for the class.

For a research project, the supervisor determines what action is appropriate to take. Such action may include:

• terminating the student's participation in the research project.

The instructor or supervisor may also submit documentation to the Office of Student Citizenship in the form of a letter to file or a formal complaint. These options are outlined below.

Letter to file

The instructor or supervisor writes a letter describing the nature of the academic integrity violation, which is placed in the student’s discipline file. The student’s discipline file is maintained by the Office of Student Citizenship (OSC) and is not associated with the student’s academic record .

A letter may be filed with the OSC in addition to the action already taken in the class or research project.

If a student receives a letter to file, s/he has the right to:

submit a reply, that is added to the student’s file.

appeal the letter to the Committee on Discipline (COD) for a full hearing.

In resolving the violation described in the letter, the OSC reviews any previous violations which are documented in the student’s discipline file.

Committee on Discipline (COD) complaint

The instructor or supervisor submits a formal complaint to the COD, which resolves cases of alleged student misconduct.

This complaint may be filed with the OSC in addition to the action already taken in the class or research project.

A COD complaint is reviewed by the COD Chair and considered for a hearing. Any previous violations documented in the student’s discipline file are reviewed as part of this process.

Cases resulting in a hearing are subject to a full range of sanctions, including probation, suspension, dismissal, or other educational sanctions.

Policies, Procedures, and Contacts

• MIT Policy on Student Academic Dishonesty
• Typical MIT Student Discipline Process Outline
• Committee on Discipline Rules and Regulations
• Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards
• For Faculty and Staff: What You Should Know about Academic Integrity

• Staff Directory
• Workshops and Events
• For Students

Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 6: ChatGPT, AI, and Academic Integrity

by Thomas Keith | Jan 23, 2023 | Instructional design , Services

Author’s Note: This is the latest installment in an ongoing series of articles about issues pertaining to academic integrity in higher education. For earlier installments, please see: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

ATS instructional designers Mohammad Ahmed and Michael Hernandez contributed content to this article.

Introduction

The state of the tool, issues for academic integrity, technological prevention, non-technological prevention, creative adaptation, further resources.

There are few current issues in education that have provoked more interest – or sounded more alarms – than artificial intelligence (AI) technology. While the issue has simmered for some time, it burst into the forefront of debate following OpenAI’s public release of ChatGPT . When given a prompt – e.g. “What were the causes of World War I?” or “How does the Krebs cycle work?” – ChatGPT (the acronym stands for “Generative Pretrained Transformer”) can generate text that reads, at least on superficial examination, like that written by a human – the basis of the famed Turing Test for machine intelligence.

Once the tool’s capabilities became known, it did not take long for fears to be voiced that students would turn to ChatGPT to write their assignments for them. Eye-grabbing headlines began to appear, not only in sensationalist newspapers like the New York Post ( which dubbed the tool “CheatGPT” ) but in more sober publications like the Atlantic , where an opinion piece bluntly claimed that “the college essay is dead”. Advocates for the worst-case scenario see a future in which human-generated and computer-generated text are indistinguishable, essay assignments are meaningless, and the very skill of academic writing is lost.

One need not accept this doomsday proposition to recognize that ChatGPT raises legitimate concerns for academic integrity. But if we are to address such concerns, we must first answer several key questions: what is ChatGPT, exactly? What are its affordances and limitations? And, assuming that ChatGPT and tools like it are here to stay (as seems overwhelmingly likely), how should we rethink pedagogy to address this new reality?

At this time, ChatGPT is essentially an information aggregator. It trawls vast quantities of human-produced texts and extracts data, which it then synthesizes into a response to a given prompt. As noted above, its responses on many topics are at least coherent enough that they may be superficially indistinguishable from student writing.

As with all AI tools, though, ChatGPT’s capacity to give responses depends upon what, and how much, it is “fed”. Its lack of data on current events, for example, limits its capacity to respond to prompts such as “How is the war in Ukraine progressing today?” There are also guardrails in place to prevent the tool’s being used for nefarious purposes (though cybercriminals are already seeking to circumvent these ).

There are other significant limitations to the tool as well. It cannot cite sources correctly – any request for a bibliography produces false and/or irrelevant citations. Nor is it error-free: users have run across blatant, even comical, mistakes when ChatGPT is asked a question as straightforward as “How do you work?” Like all AI, it is subject to the biases of those who supply its data . And, most fundamentally, it is not true artificial intelligence. There are no indications that ChatGPT understands the questions it is being asked or what it is producing in answer; simply put, it is not sapient. This is worth keeping in mind as the debate rages over whether such tools are capable of supplanting human creativity.

It is, without question, too early in the game to expound upon all the possible difficulties ChatGPT and similar generative AI tools could pose for academic integrity. Already, however, ChatGPT-generated text has proved itself capable of evading plagiarism checkers such as Turnitin. Plagiarism detection software relies on comparing student work to a database of pre-existing work and identifying identical phrases, sentences, etc. to produce an “originality score”. Because the text generated by ChatGPT is (in some sense, anyway) “original,” it renders this technique useless.

ChatGPT also ties into the broader issue of contract cheating – hiring a third party to do work, such as writing an essay or taking an exam, on a student’s behalf. Contract cheating is already a severe problem worldwide, and with the widespread availability of AI writing tools, students can now generate “original” written work for free, without the need to involve a human agent who might betray the student’s confidence.

How Do We Deal with the Problem?

As the New York Times has noted , many faculty and instructors already feel the need to adjust their pedagogy to account for the existence of ChatGPT. Their strategies, actual and proposed, for coping with the tool can be divided into three categories: technological prevention; non-technological prevention; and creative adaptation. We shall consider each of these in turn below.

It will come as no surprise that technological counters to ChatGPT are already in play. A 22-year-old computer science student at Princeton named Edward Tian has introduced GPTZero , which claims to distinguish human- and computer-generated text with a high degree of accuracy. Meanwhile, other plagiarism tools, such as Turnitin, offer their own AI-detection tools and are rapidly working to detect the newest generation of generative AI text. And finally, the makers of ChatGPT are themselves exploring “watermarking” technology to indicate when a document has been generated by the software.

Some experts foresee an “arms race” between AI writing tools and AI detection tools. If this scenario comes to pass, faculty and instructors will be hard-pressed to keep up with the bleeding-edge software needed to counter the newest writing tools. But more fundamentally, we might ask: is technology always the best solution to the problems it creates? Or are there other, perhaps less involved, means of addressing the questions raised by AI?

At the other end of the spectrum, some faculty and instructors have sought to neutralize ChatGPT entirely. This may entail banning ChatGPT specifically; banning all computers in the classroom; supervising student essay-writing, whether in class or via monitoring software such as Proctorio; or even requiring writing assignments to be handwritten.

The concern that underlies such measures is understandable, and they can be effective in the short-term, but they come at a cost: aside from the anxiety that can be provoked by being under surveillance, accessibility issues that may be raised by requiring handwritten work, and the legal/ethical issues raised by video proctoring, students miss the opportunity to learn about the tool and its implications. As we confront the likelihood of a future with ubiquitous AI technology, those students who have never experienced tools like ChatGPT and who know nothing about their uses may well find themselves at a professional disadvantage.

At this point in time, it seems most productive to take a third path – one that balances the need to safeguard academic integrity with the reality that ChatGPT and its like are here to stay. Here are some suggestions for methods to integrate AI tools like ChatGPT into your pedagogy in a productive, rather than destructive, fashion.

• Clarify expectations at the outset. As early in your course as possible – ideally within the syllabus itself – you should specify whether, and under what circumstances, the use of AI tools is permissible. It may help to think of ChatGPT as similar to peer assistance, group work, or outside tutoring: in all these cases, your students should understand where the boundaries lie, when help is permissible, and when they must rely on their own resources. You might also discuss with your students how they feel about AI and its ability (or lack thereof) to convey their ideas. Emergent research suggests that at least some students feel dissatisfied with the results when they entrust expression of their ideas to AI.
• Craft writing prompts that require creative thought. A tool like ChatGPT can easily respond to a simple prompt such as “What are the causes of inflation?”, but it is likely to have trouble with a prompt such as “Compare and contrast inflation in the present-day American economy with that in the late 1970s”. The more in-depth and thought out the prompt, the more it will demand critical reasoning – not simply regurgitation – to answer.
• Run your prompts through ChatGPT. Related to the point above, actually using ChatGPT on a draft of your writing prompt can be an illuminating exercise. Successive iterations may help you to clarify your thinking and add nuances to your prompt that were not present in the initial draft.
• Scaffold your writing assignments. This is a time-honored technique for combating plagiarism of any kind in academic writing. It will be much harder for a student to submit a final draft generated by AI and get away with it if you have observed that student’s thinking and writing process throughout the course.
• Promote library resources. As mentioned previously, ChatGPT is not presently able to generate an accurate bibliography, nor does it understand the concept of citation. This shortcoming can be a good jumping-off point for you to explain to your students how to cite properly, why citation is important, and how they can use available resources to do their own research.
• Model productive use of AI tools. For all its hazards, ChatGPT also offers promising possibilities. A “dialogue” between the user and the tool can help the user to probe deeper into the subject matter, become familiar with mainstream scholarship on the topic, and push beyond “easy answers” toward original work. To promote such dialogue, you might, for example, assign your students to come up with their own prompts, post them to ChatGPT, and then comment on the answers, finding the strengths and weaknesses of the “argument” that the tool generates.

In a field evolving by the day, no article, this one included, can hope to offer definite answers. What we have presented here are points we hope will contextualize the debate and provide a framework for further discussion. In the end, what AI tools will mean for higher education – and for society as a whole – remains to be seen.

To learn more about AI in the classroom, we recommend the excellent page on AI Guidance from Yale’s Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning. Turnitin also offers a concise but helpful Guide for approaching AI-generated text in your classroom .

If you have further questions, Academic Technology Solutions is here to help. You can schedule a consultation with us or drop by our office hours (virtual and in-person, no appointment needed). We also offer a range of workshops on topics in teaching with technology.

(Cover Photo by Possessed Photography on Unsplash )

Search Blog

Subscribe by email.

Please, insert a valid email.

Thank you, your email will be added to the mailing list once you click on the link in the confirmation email.

Spam protection has stopped this request. Please contact site owner for help.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Recent Posts

• Learn How UChicago Instructors Promote Learning with Social Annotation
• Explore “Hallucinations” to Better Understand AI’s Affordances and Risks: Part One
• Instructors: Participate in Our Academic Technology Survey
• Digital Tools and Critical Pedagogy: Compassionate Pedagogy as a Classroom Practice
• Unlock the Capabilities of the UChicago Lightboard
• A/V Equipment
• Accessibility
• Canvas Features/Functions
• Digital Accessibility
• Faculty Success Stories
• Instructional design
• Multimedia Development
• Surveys and Feedback
• Symposium for Teaching with Technology
• Uncategorized
• Universal Design for Learning
• Visualization

Is there a foreign language effect on academic integrity?

• Published: 04 December 2023

Cite this article

• Adam John Privitera   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1486-8954 1  

191 Accesses

Explore all metrics

In China, the prevalence of academic dishonesty has attracted considerable negative attention. One explanation for observed differences is found in cultural norms around the acceptability of individual unethical academic behaviors. The establishment of international cooperative universities in China presents a unique challenge for educators and administrators due to cultural differences in practices around academic integrity. This is especially relevant in the context of Sino-American universities due to increased tolerance and decreased training concerning plagiarism in Chinese education relative to the USA. The unique academic experience of bilingual Chinese students enrolled in Sino-American universities presents an opportunity to investigate whether academic experience in English influences attitudes and behaviors around academic integrity. Drawing from research on the foreign language effect, the present study tested the hypothesis that knowledge, and by extension behavior, associated with academic integrity is bound to the English language. Mandarin-English bilingual university students ( n  = 106) completed both objective and self-report assessments of language experience and responded to two dilemmas designed to mirror commonly experienced academic scenarios presented in either Mandarin or English. We identified a modulatory role of English proficiency with higher levels associated with a lower likelihood of academically dishonest behavior. Additional findings support that separable dimensions of English experience interact to modulate responses to academic dilemmas. Findings suggest that higher levels of English proficiency may reflect higher access to Western norms around academic integrity.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

‘when in rome, do as the romans do’ do international students’ acculturation attitudes impact their ethical academic conduct.

Azadeh Shafaei, Mehran Nejati, … Tania von der Heidt

Academic Integrity and International Students: An Inclusive Approach

Data availability.

The data that support the findings of this study, all code used in analyses, and complete model results are available on OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RT8VP ) or from the corresponding author ([email protected]).

Ako, J. (2011, March 28). Unraveling Plagiarism in China . Retrieved September 12, 2023, from http://www.uschina.usc.edu/w_usct/showarticle.aspx?articleID=16527&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Allen, S. E., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2023). A systemic model of academic (mis) conduct tocurb cheating in higher education. Higher Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01077-x

Anderson, D., & Burnham, K. (2004). Model selection and multi-model inference. Second. NY: Springer-Verlag, 63 (2020), 10.

Google Scholar  

Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonnié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N., & Evershed, J. K. (2020). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52 (1), 388–407.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bereby-Meyer, Y., Hayakawa, S., Shalvi, S., Corey, J. D., Costa, A., & Keysar, B. (2020). Honesty speaks a second language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12 (2), 632–643.

Bretag, T. (2013). Challenges in addressing plagiarism in education. PLoS Medicine, 10 (12), e1001574.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Campus collaboration: Foreign universities find working in China harder than they expected. (2013, January 5). The Economist , 33.

Christensen, J. F., & Gomila, A. (2012). Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36 (4), 1249–1264.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Christensen, J. F., Flexas, A., Calabrese, M., Gut, N. K., & Gomila, A. (2014). Moral judgment reloaded: A moral dilemma validation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 , 607.

Costa, A., Foucart, A., Hayakawa, S., Aparici, M., Apesteguia, J., Heafner, J., & Keysar, B. (2014). Your morals depend on language. PLoS ONE, 9 (4), e94842.

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Costa, A., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Keysar, B. (2019). Language context and decision-making: Challenges and advances. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72 (1), 1–2.

Article   Google Scholar  

Craney, T. A., & Surles, J. G. (2002). Model-dependent variance inflation factor cutoff values. Quality Engineering, 14 (3), 391–403.

Dash, T., Joanette, Y., & Ansaldo, A. I. (2022). Multifactorial approaches to study bilingualism in the aging population: Past, present, future. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , 917959.

Del Maschio, N., Crespi, F., Peressotti, F., Abutalebi, J., & Sulpizio, S. (2022a). Decision-making depends on language: A meta-analysis of the Foreign Language Effect (pp. 1–14). Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

Del Maschio, N., Del Mauro, G., Bellini, C., Abutalebi, J., & Sulpizio, S. (2022b). Foreign to whom? Constraining the moral foreign language effect on bilinguals’ language experience. Language and Cognition, 14 (4), 511–533.

Del Maschio, N., & Abutalebi, J. (2019). Language organization in the bilingual and multilingual brain. In J. W. Schwieter (Ed.), The Handbook of the neuroscience of multilingualism (pp. 199–213). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39 (2), 175–191.

Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. (2015). The foreign language effect on moral judgment: The role of emotions and norms. PLoS ONE, 10 (7), e0131529.

Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. (2015). How foreign language shapes moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59 , 8–17.

Gold, N., Colman, A. M., & Pulford, B. D. (2014). Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems. Judgment and Decision Making, 9 (1), 65–76.

Greene, J. D., Cushman, F. A., Stewart, L. E., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2009). Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition, 111 (3), 364–371.

Grimes, P. W. (2004). Dishonesty in academics and business: A cross-cultural evaluation of student attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 49 , 273–290.

Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual . Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Grosjean, F., & Li, P. (2013). The psycholinguistics of bilingualism . John Wiley & Sons.

Gullifer, J. W., Kousaie, S., Gilbert, A. C., Grant, A., Giroud, N., Coulter, K., Klein, D., Baum, S., Phillips, N., & Titone, D. (2021). Bilingual language experience as a multidimensional spectrum: Associations with objective and subjective language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42 , 1–34.

Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2015). Chinese university students’ perceptions of plagiarism. Ethics & Behavior, 25 (3), 233–255.

Hu, G., & Sun, X. (2017). Institutional policies on plagiarism: The case of eight Chinese universities of foreign languages/international studies. System, 66 , 56–68.

Ives, B., & Cazan, A.-M. (2023). Did the COVID-19 pandemic lead to an increase in academic misconduct in higher education? Higher Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-00996-z

Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23 (6), 661–668.

Kremin, L. V., & Byers-Heinlein, K. (2020). Why not both? PsyArXiv: Rethinking categorical and continuous approaches to bilingualism.

Li, P., Zhang, F., Yuo, A., & Zhao, X. (2020). Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3): An enhanced tool for assessing multilingual experience. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23 (5), 938–944.

Liu, D. (2005). Plagiarism in ESOL students: Is cultural conditioning truly the major culprit? ELT Journal, 59 (3), 234–241.

Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 (5), 605–621.

Ma, Y., McCabe, D. L., & Liu, R. (2013). Students’ academic cheating in Chinese universities: Prevalence, influencing factors, and proposed action. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11 (3), 169–184.

McKenna, S. (2022). Plagiarism and the commodification of knowledge. Higher Education, 84 (6), 1283–1298.

Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students–literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (5), 471–488.

Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20 (2), 07.

Privitera, A. J., Li, S., Zhou, Y., & Wang, M. (2023). Modulatory role of foreign language experience on the moral foreign language effect . Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing . Austria: In Vienna.

Shafaei, A., Nejati, M., Quazi, A., & Von der Heidt, T. (2016). ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do’Do international students’ acculturation attitudes impact their ethical academic conduct? Higher Education, 71 , 651–666.

Stankovic, M., Biedermann, B., & Hamamura, T. (2022). Not all bilinguals are the same: A meta-analysis of the moral foreign language effect. Brain and Language, 227 , 105082.

Stoica, P., & Selen, Y. (2004). Model-order selection: A review of information criterion rules. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 21 (4), 36–47.

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Sun, X., & Hu, G. (2020). What do academics know and do about plagiarism? An interview study with Chinese university teachers of English. Ethics & Behavior, 30 (6), 459–479.

Surrain, S., & Luk, G. (2017). Describing bilinguals: A systematic review of labels and descriptions used in the literature between 2005–2015. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22 (2), 401–415.

Swain, M. K. (1972). Bilingualism as a first language . University of California.

Tassy, S., Oullier, O., Mancini, J., & Wicker, B. (2013). Discrepancies between judgment and choice of action in moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 , 250.

The jamovi project. (2020). Jamovi . In (Version 1.2) https://www.jamovi.org

Thomson, J. J. (1984). The trolley problem. Yale LJ, 94 , 1395.

Tsui, A. P. Y., & Ngo, H.-Y. (2016). Social-motivational factors affecting business students’ cheating behavior in Hong Kong and China. Journal of Education for Business, 91 (7), 365–373.

Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2013). Modern applied statistics with S-PLUS (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3121-7

Winskel, H., & Bhatt, D. (2020). The role of culture and language in moral decision-making. Culture and Brain, 8 (2), 207–225.

Wong, G., & Ng, B. C. (2018). Moral judgement in early bilinguals: Language dominance influences responses to moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 1070.

Yang, M., Cooc, N., & Sheng, L. (2017). An investigation of cross-linguistic transfer between Chinese and English: A meta-analysis. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2 (1), 1–21.

Yang, S. C., Chiang, F. K., & Huang, C. L. (2017). A comparative study of academic dishonesty among university students in Mainland China and Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 18 , 385–399.

Zhang, C. (2014). Plagiarism in their own words: What Chinese and American students say about academic dishonesty. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 37 (3), 373–391.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to T. Walker (American School Foundation of Monterrey) for helpful comments on early drafts of this paper.

This work was supported by an internal research grant from Wenzhou-Kean University awarded to AJP (grant number WKUSSPF202206).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Research and Development in Learning, Nanyang Technological University, Academic Building North, 61 Nanyang Drive, ABN-01B-10, Singapore, 637335, Singapore

Adam John Privitera

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam John Privitera .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

This study was approved by the Wenzhou-Kean University Institutional Review Board (#WKUIRB2022-006).

Conflict of interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. Dilemmas

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Privitera, A.J. Is there a foreign language effect on academic integrity?. High Educ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01134-5

Download citation

Accepted : 24 October 2023

Published : 04 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01134-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic integrity
• Foreign language effect
• Language proficiency
• Bilingualism
• Sino-American universities
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Is a robot writing your kids’ essays? We asked educators to weigh in on the growing role of AI in classrooms.

Educators weigh in on the growing role of ai and chatgpt in classrooms..

Remember writing essays in high school? Chances are you had to look up stuff in an encyclopedia — an actual one, not Wikipedia — or else connect to AOL via a modem bigger than your parents’ Taurus station wagon.

Now, of course, there’s artificial intelligence. According to new research from Pew, about 1 in 5 US teens who’ve heard of ChatGPT have used it for schoolwork. Kids in upper grades are more apt to have used the chatbot: About a quarter of 11th- and 12th-graders who know about ChatGPT have tried it.

For the uninitiated, ChatGPT arrived on the scene in late 2022, and educators continue to grapple with the ethics surrounding its growing popularity. Essentially, it generates free, human-like responses based on commands. (I’m sure this sentence will look antiquated in about six months, like when people described the internet as the “information superhighway.”)

Advertisement

I used ChatGPT to plug in this prompt: “Write an essay on ‘The Scarlet Letter.’” Within moments, ChatGPT created an essay as thorough as anything I’d labored over in AP English.

Is this cheating? Is it just part of our strange new world? I talked to several educators about what they’re seeing in classrooms and how they’re monitoring it. Before you berate your child over how you wrote essays with a No. 2 pencil, here are some things to consider.

Adapting to new technology isn’t immoral. “We have to recalibrate our sense of what’s acceptable. There was a time when every teacher said: ‘Oh, it’s cheating to use Wikipedia.’ And guess what? We got used to it, we decided it’s reputable enough, and we cite Wikipedia all the time,” says Noah Giansiracusa, an associate math professor at Bentley University who hosts the podcast “ AI in Academia: Navigating the Future .”

“There’s a calibration period where a technology is new and untested. It’s good to be cautious and to treat it with trepidation. Then, over time, the norms kind of adapt,” he says — just like new-fangled graphing calculators or the internet in days of yore.

“I think the current conversation around AI should not be centered on an issue with plagiarism. It should be centered on how AI will alter methods for learning and expressing oneself. ‘Catching’ students who use fully AI-generated products ... implies a ‘gotcha’ atmosphere,” says Jim Nagle, a history teacher at Bedford High School. “Since AI is already a huge part of our day-to-day lives, it’s no surprise our students are making it a part of their academic tool kit. Teachers and students should be at the forefront of discussions about responsible and ethical use.”

Teachers and parents could use AI to think about education at a higher level. Really, learning is about more than regurgitating information — or it should be, anyway. But regurgitation is what AI does best.

“If our system is just for students to write a bunch of essays and then grade the results? Something’s missing. We need to really talk about their purpose and what they’re getting out of this, and maybe think about different forms of assignments and grading,” Giansiracusa says.

After all, while AI aggregates and organizes ideas, the quality of its responses depends on the users’ prompts. Instead of recoiling from it, use it as a conversation-starter.

“What parents and teachers can do is to start the conversation with kids: ‘What are we trying to learn here? Is it even something that ChatGPT could answer? Why did your assignment not convince you that you need to do this thinking on your own when a tool can do it for you?’” says Houman Harouni , a lecturer on education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Harouni urges parents to read an essay written by ChatGPT alongside their student. Was it good? What could be done better? Did it feel like a short cut?

“What they’re going to remember is that you had that conversation with them; that someone thought, at some point in their lives, that taking a shortcut is not the best way ... especially if you do it with the tool right in front of you, because you have something real to talk about,” he says.

Harouni hopes teachers think about its implications, too. Consider math: So much grunt work has been eliminated by calculators and computers. Yet kids are still tested as in days of old, when perhaps they could expand their learning to be assessed in ways that are more personal and human-centric, leaving the rote stuff to AI.

“We could take this moment of confusion and loss of certainty seriously, at least in some small pockets, and start thinking about what a different kind of school would look like. Five years from now, we might have the beginnings of some very interesting exploration. Five years from now, you and I might be talking about schools wherein teaching and learning is happening in a very self-directed way, in a way that’s more based on … igniting the kid’s interest and seeing where they go and supporting them to go deeper and to go wider,” Harouni says.

Teachers have the chance to offer assignments with more intentionality.

“Really think about the purpose of the assignments. Don’t just think of the outcome and the deliverable: ‘I need a student to produce a document.’ Why are we getting students to write? Why are we doing all these things in the first place? If teachers are more mindful, and maybe parents can also be more mindful, I think it pushes us away from this dangerous trap of thinking about in terms of ‘cheating,’ which, to me, is a really slippery path,” Giansiracusa says.

AI can boost confidence and reduce procrastination. Sometimes, a robot can do something better than a human, such as writing a dreaded resume and cover letter. And that’s OK; it’s useful, even.

“Often, students avoid applying to internships because they’re just overwhelmed at the thought of writing a cover letter, or they’re afraid their resume isn’t good enough. I think that tools like this can help them feel more confident. They may be more likely to do it sooner and have more organized and better applications,” says Kristin Casasanto, director of post-graduate planning at Olin College of Engineering.

Casasanto says that AI is also useful for de-stressing during interview prep.

“Students can use generative AI to plug in a job description and say, ‘Come up with a list of interview questions based on the job description,’ which will give them an idea of what may be asked, and they can even then say, ‘Here’s my resume. Give me answers to these questions based on my skills and experience.’ They’re going to really build their confidence around that,” Casasanto says.

Plus, when students use AI for basics, it frees up more time to meet with career counselors about substantive issues.

“It will help us as far as scalability. … Career services staff can then utilize our personal time in much more meaningful ways with students,” Casasanto says.

We need to remember: These kids grew up during a pandemic. We can’t expect kids to resist technology when they’ve been forced to learn in new ways since COVID hit.

“Now we’re seeing pandemic-era high school students come into college. They’ve been channeled through Google Classroom their whole career,” says Katherine Jewell, a history professor at Fitchburg State University.

“They need to have technology management and information literacy built into the curriculum,” Jewell says.

Jewell recently graded a paper on the history of college sports. It was obvious which papers were written by AI: They didn’t address the question. In her syllabus, Jewell defines plagiarism as “any attempt by a student to represent the work of another, including computers, as their own.”

This means that AI qualifies, but she also has an open mind, given students’ circumstances.

“My students want to do the right thing, for the most part. They don’t want to get away with stuff. I understand why they turned to these tools; I really do. I try to reassure them that I’m here to help them learn systems. I’m focusing much more on the learning process. I incentivize them to improve, and I acknowledge: ‘You don’t know how to do this the first time out of the gate,’” Jewell says. “I try to incentivize them so that they’re improving their confidence in their abilities, so they don’t feel the need to turn to these tools.”

Understand the forces that make kids resort to AI in the first place . Clubs, sports, homework: Kids are busy and under pressure. Why not do what’s easy?

“Kids are so overscheduled in their day-to-day lives. I think there’s so much enormous pressure on these kids, whether it’s self-inflicted, parent-inflicted, or school-culture inflicted. It’s on them to maximize their schedule. They’ve learned that AI can be a way to take an assignment that would take five hours and cut it down to one,” says a teacher at a competitive high school outside Boston who asked to remain anonymous.

Recently, this teacher says, “I got papers back that were just so robotic and so cold. I had to tell [students]: ‘I understand that you tried to use a tool to help you. I’m not going to penalize you, but what I am going to penalize you for is that you didn’t actually answer the prompt.”

Afterward, more students felt safe to come forward to say they’d used AI. This teacher hopes that age restrictions become implemented for these programs, similar to apps such as Snapchat. Educationally and developmentally, they say, high-schoolers are still finding their voice — a voice that could be easily thwarted by a robot.

“Part of high school writing is to figure out who you are, and what is your voice as a writer. And I think, developmentally, that takes all of high school to figure out,” they say.

And AI can’t replicate voice and personality — for now, at least.

Kara Baskin can be reached at [email protected] . Follow her @kcbaskin .