Kuntz & Butlert 2014 Exploring Individual and Contextual Antecedents of Attitudes Toward the Acceptability of Cheating and Plagiarism

8/18/2019 Kuntz & Butlert 2014 Exploring Individual and Contextual Antecedents of Attitudes Toward the Acceptability of Che…

1/18

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20

Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] Date: 12 April 2016, At: 08:36

Ethics & Behavior

ISSN: 1050-8422 (Print) 1532-7019 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20

Exploring Individual and Contextual Antecedentsof Attitudes Toward the Acceptability of Cheatingand Plagiarism

Joana R. C. Kuntz & Chandele Butler

To cite this article: Joana R. C. Kuntz & Chandele Butler (2014) Exploring Individual and

Contextual Antecedents of Attitudes Toward the Acceptability of Cheating and Plagiarism,Ethics & Behavior, 24:6, 478-494, DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2014.908380

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.908380

Accepted author version posted online: 17Apr 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 351

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10508422.2014.908380#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10508422.2014.908380#tabModulehttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10508422.2014.908380&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-04-17http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10508422.2014.908380&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-04-17http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10508422.2014.908380http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10508422.2014.908380http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hebh20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hebh20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.908380http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10508422.2014.908380http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20


2/18

ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 24(6), 478–494

Copyright © 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 online

DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2014.908380

Exploring Individual and Contextual Antecedents of Attitudes Toward the Acceptability of Cheating

and Plagiarism

Joana R. C. Kuntz and Chandele Butler

Department of Psychology

University of Canterbury

The purpose of this study was to identify the relative contribution of individual and contextual predic-

tors to students’ attitudes toward the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism. A group of 324 students

from a tertiary institution in New Zealand completed an online survey. The findings indicate that gen-

der, justice sensitivity, and understanding of university policies regarding academic dishonesty were

the key predictors of the students’ attitudes toward the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism, both

as agents of dishonest conduct and as witnesses of misconduct among their peers. The implications

of these findings for the development of policies and initiatives in tertiary institutions are discussed.

Keywords: academic dishonesty, university policy, justice sensitivity, individual differences

Academic dishonesty is multifaceted, encompassing a wide range of deleterious behaviors

including cheating, plagiarism, and fraudulent excuses (Yazici, Yazici, & Erdem, 2011). The

consequences transcend the offense itself and include devaluation of the educational experi-

ence and undermined credibility of institutions, hindered learning, misrepresentation of student

knowledge, and inequitable grades (Granitz & Loewy, 2007; Yang, Huang, & Chen, 2013).

Of importance, a growing body of research has verified the relationship between academic dis-

honesty and subsequent ethical stance in the workplace (Harding, Carpenter, Finelli & Passow,

2004; Martin, Rao, & Lloyd, 2009; Sims, 1993; Yang et al., 2013). Hence, understanding the fac-

tors that shape students’ ethical attitudes might enable higher education institutions to delineate

more effective initiatives to model and enforce appropriate academic conduct. These standardsof conduct would expectedly carry over to occupational settings, positively impacting corporate

ethics and performance.

An overview of the research suggests that several contextual factors may account for the

upsurge of dishonest practices, including the availability of resources online, pressures associ-

ated with academic performance, and the understanding of university policy regarding academic

conduct, particularly the extent to which it is enforced (Kidwell & Kent, 2008; Molnar, Kletke,

& Chongwatpol, 2008). In addition, individual-level variables, namely, gender, personality, and

Correspondence should be addressed to Joana R. C. Kuntz, Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury,

Christchurch, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/18

ACCEPTABILITY OF CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM 479

cultural background, are also believed to account for the likelihood that students will engage

in cheating and plagiarism (Cordeiro, 1995; Guo, 2011; Szabo & Underwood, 2004). A large

number of studies have explored antecedents of academic dishonesty focusing on (a) a specificvariable (e.g., gender) and (b) small variable groups (e.g., study discipline, institutional policy),

or investigated students’ conception of dishonest practices and their degree of severity (Voelker,

Love, & Pentina, 2012; Yang, 2012). However, research testing multiple individual and contextual

predictors of attitudes toward academic dishonesty, and ascertaining their unique contributions,

is scarce (see, e.g., Marsden, Carroll, & Neill, 2005; Yang et al., 2013). Moreover, despite

general consensus with regards to the role of cultural values on attitudes toward academic dishon-

esty (Cordeiro, 1995; Guo, 2011), studies on the topic of cheating and plagiarism conducted in

Aotearoa, New Zealand, have so far largely overlooked the examination of attitudinal differences

among its main cultural groups—European, Māori, Pasifika (Pacific Islanders), and Asian (for an

exception, see Williams & Williams, 2012). Last, justice sensitivity—a multidimensional person-ality feature that strongly accounts for people’s distinct thresholds for the experience of injustice,

and subsequent behavioral responses to this experience (Schmitt, Neumann, & Montada, 1995)—

has yet to be studied as a predictor of attitudes toward academic dishonesty. Hence, the purpose of

this study is twofold: (a) to identify predictors of attitudes regarding the acceptability of cheating

and plagiarism: individual (i.e., gender, cultural group membership, and justice sensitivity) and

contextual (i.e., academic performance, understanding of university policy regarding academic

conduct, and perceptions of impunity regarding the appropriation of online resources), and (b) to

ascertain the relative contribution of each of these individual and contextual predictors to attitudes

toward academic dishonesty.

INDIVIDUAL PREDICTORS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

Gender

Studies comparing male and female students with respect to their ethical stance and academic

conduct have produced inconsistent findings. Some researchers have uncovered no significant dif-

ferences between male and female students (Allmon, Page, & Roberts, 2000; Franklyn-Stokes &

Newstead 1995), whereas others have found that male students are more inclined to engage in dis-

honest academic practices than female students (Ameen, Guffey, & McMillan, 1996; Guo, 2011;

Hendershott, Drinan, & Cross, 1999; Szabo & Underwood, 2004). Socialization and gender role

theories provide rationale for the latter findings. According to these theories, gender differences

are the upshot of unique childhood socialization processes for boys and girls, which account for

distinct moral reasoning and ethical decision-making orientations for men and women (Ward &

Beck 1990; Whitley, Nelson, & Jones, 1999). Women are socialized to hold themselves to a higher

moral standard than men (Franke, Crown, & Spake, 1997; Kristiansen & Hotte, 1996), generally

exhibit greater concern with the negative impact that their behavior might have on others, and are

less likely to violate social norms or engage in criminal behavior (Tibbetts & Herz, 1996). Women

are more intolerant of cheating behavior (Coleman & Mahaffey, 2000), experience shame when

they cheat (Cochran, Chamlin, Wood, & Sellers, 1999), and hold more negative attitudes toward

cheating (Whitley et al., 1999). In contrast, men are socialized to be more individually orientated

and perceive minor deviance and risk taking as expectations associated with their gender role


4/18

480 KUNTZ AND BUTLER

(Sinn, 1997). Given that minor social deviance is significantly related to academic dishonesty

(Blankenship & Whitley, 2000), it is conceivable that attitudes toward academic integrity will

be susceptible to gender differences. In this study, it is expected that male students will deemacademic dishonesty less objectionable than will female students, both as actors of cheating and

plagiarism behaviors (i.e., active acceptance of cheating and plagiarism) and as observers of these

behaviors when enacted by their peers (i.e., passive acceptance of cheating and plagiarism).

H1: There will be significant differences in attitudes regarding the acceptance of plagiarism and

cheating (active and passive) between male and female students. Female students will find

cheating and plagiarism significantly less acceptable than will male students.

Culture

The increasingly multicultural landscape of tertiary institutions underlines the importance of

determining whether cultural differences account for dissimilar expectations regarding what con-

stitutes appropriate academic conduct and, if that is the case, to clarify and standardize those

expectations. In some Asian cultures, for example, copying work from a reputable source reflects

reverence rather than a deliberate attempt to appropriate someone’s ideas (Guo, 2011). A study

conducted among a large group of Singaporean students revealed that the participants did not

deem the unreferenced arrogation of an author’s idea dishonest practice, even if they flagged

cheating in examinations as unethical academic conduct (Lim & See, 2001). Other researchers

have found that Asian students believe it is not their place to alter or improve upon what has been

written, and they tend to replicate the original text, in lieu of paraphrasing it (Introna, Hayes,

Blair, & Wood, 2003). Finally, the notions that published work is owned by the public and thatacademic text contains factual information rather than the views of the author are a prominent

feature in some Asian countries and account for the prevalence of plagiarism among students

sharing this cultural background (Moore, 1997; Snowden, 2005).

Although the studies summarized suggest that Asian students are more likely to unwittingly

engage in dishonest academic practices, particularly plagiarism, ethnicity must be considered in

the light of the degree of identification with, and exposure to, the values and practices espoused

by the host country. Findings from a recent study conducted in Australia show that the Asian

students surveyed had similar ability to acknowledge plagiarism and ascribed similar degrees of

severity to different forms of academic misconduct as their Australian European counterparts

(Maxwell, Curtis, & Vardanega, 2006). These findings highlight the need to define cultural mem-

bership on the basis of individual identification with a particular cultural group, rather than with

ethnicity. Overall, the extant research suggests that students who identify with their Asian cul-

ture background may hold more lenient attitudes regarding the acceptability of plagiarism than

students who identify with other cultural groups, given the formers’ general beliefs regarding the

need to maintain the integrity of an author’s work and the collective ownership of published text.

A single study was located that examines cultural differences regarding the frequency of

dishonest academic practices in Aotearoa, New Zealand (Williams & Williams, 2012), and

no research to date has contrasted attitudes toward academic dishonesty (from both agent and

observer perspectives) between the four main cultural groups in this country. This gap is partic-

ularly important to address given the growing presence of Māori, Asian, and Pasifika peoples in

New Zealand’s higher education system. The following is hypothesized:


5/18


H2: There will be significant differences in attitudes regarding the acceptability of plagiarism and

cheating (both active and passive) between the four main cultural groups in New Zealand

(European, Māori, Pasifika, and Asian). In particular, Asian students will find cheating andplagiarism significantly less objectionable than will European, Māori, and Pasifika students.

Justice Sensitivity

Schmitt et al. (1995) introduced the concept of justice sensitivity to personality research, suggest-

ing that people experience injustice and unfairness in unique ways. Since then, several studies

have shown justice sensitivity to be a relatively stable trait that predicts whether people will per-

ceive injustice and how they will react to it (Schmitt & Dörfel, 1999; Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes,

& Arbach, 2005). Given an ambiguous scenario that may depict unjust treatment, individualswith high justice sensitivity are more likely to interpret this ambiguous situation as less just than

a person with low justice sensitivity (Baumert & Schmitt, 2009).

The different outlooks regarding events that may be construed as unfair are reflected on the

following dimensions: (a) perceiving oneself as the victim of unfair behavior enacted by others

(victim sensitivity), (b) being the observer of unfair behavior without being personally involved

(observer sensitivity), and (c) acting as beneficiary (i.e., benefiting from unfair treatment of oth-

ers without engaging in said treatment; beneficiary sensitivity; Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004).

Individuals with high victim sensitivity will more often perceive that they are being short-changed

and generally experience persistent anger at being treated worse than others. High observer sen-

sitivity is associated with a tendency to become upset when others receive unjust treatment,

whereas high beneficiary sensitivity is signaled by the experience of guilt when witnessing oth-ers’ misfortune. High scores across different dimensions of justice sensitivity are reflected on a

myriad of attitudes and behaviors, including a tendency to perceive injustice more often and to

suffer from intrusive thoughts about injustice (Schmitt et al., 1995), openly protesting against

perceived injustice (Mohiyeddini & Schmitt, 1997; Schmitt, 1996; Schmitt & Mohiyeddini,

1996), displaying prosocial behaviors toward victims of injustice (Gollwitzer, Schmitt, Schalke,

Maes, & Baer, 2005), or punishing perpetrators at their own expense (Fetchenhauer & Huang,

2004).

Although the original tripartite model of justice sensitivity did not differentiate between ben-

efiting from a specific instance of injustice done onto others, and generally being better treated,

recent studies have considered this distinction (Schmitt, Baumert, Gollwitzer, & Maes, 2010).

Perpetrator sensitivity has been separated from the beneficiary dimension and defined as the

extent to which individuals perceive that they are unwittingly profiting from injustice done

to others, whereas beneficiary sensitivity is defined as the perception of generally receiving

better treatment than others (Lotz, Baumert, Schlösser, Gresser, & Fetchenhauer, 2011). The

present study considers the four justice sensitivity dimensions: victim, observer, beneficiary, and

perpetrator.

Schmitt et al. (2005) investigated correlations between socially undesirable traits (e.g., distrust,

suspicion, paranoia, Machiavellianism), socially desirable traits (e.g., social responsibility, empa-

thy), and justice sensitivity. Victim sensitivity correlated positively with “self-related” concerns

and undesirable traits, whereas observer sensitivity and beneficiary sensitivity correlate positively

with “other-related” concerns and socially desirable traits. These findings suggest that observer


6/18


and beneficiary sensitivity concerns are prosocial in nature, and victim sensitivity reflects the

combination of moral concerns and self-protective motivation, which may lead to antisocial

behaviors. High victim sensitivity individuals are sensitive to justice but are more concernedabout obtaining justice for them than with ensuring that others are treated fairly, and they will

seize opportunities to tip the scales to their benefit (Gollwitzer et al., 2005). In an academic set-

ting, this suggests that high victim sensitivity individuals may, simultaneously, deem cheating and

plagiarism acceptable on the grounds that these behaviors will correct an injustice (e.g., getting

insufficient materials or guidance from an instructor) but respond negatively to others’ displays of

academic dishonesty because the outcomes may place them at a disadvantage (e.g., other students

may receive a better grade if they cheat or plagiarize, so they should be denounced). Hence, the

following is hypothesised:

H3a: Victim sensitivity will be positively and significantly related to attitudes regarding theacceptability of cheating and plagiarism enacted by the person (active acceptance).

H3b: Victim sensitivity will be negatively and significantly related to attitudes regarding the

acceptability of cheating and plagiarism enacted by others (passive acceptance).

Given the largely prosocial nature of observer, beneficiary, and perpetrator sensitivity, the present

study proposes that these justice orientations may be reflected on greater lenience toward com-

mitters of dishonest practices in academic settings, irrespective of whether the students with

high scores on these dimensions also deem the practices acceptable as agents of misconduct. For

instance, it is plausible that individuals with high beneficiary and perpetrator sensitivity view their

peers’ cheating and plagiarism behaviors as a necessity and that these individuals are deserving

of a chance to attain better outcomes.

H3c: Observer sensitivity will be positively and significantly related to attitudes regarding the


H3d: Beneficiary sensitivity will be positively and significantly related to attitudes regarding the


H3e: Perpetrator sensitivity will be positively and significantly related to attitudes regarding the


CONTEXTUAL PREDICTORS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

Academic Performance

University life, characterized by multiple and often competing social and academic demands,

heavy workloads, and in some cases fierce competition among peers, poses significant pressures

to students (Ashworth, Bannister, & Thorne, 1997; Underwood & Szabo,2004). Previous studies

have offered mixed results for the relationship between academic dishonesty and student perfor-

mance (Guo, 2011). Some studies suggest that students are more inclined to incur in dishonest

practices when they have a higher grade point average (GPA; Stephens & Gehlbach, 2007), others

report no significant relationships between grades and academic dishonesty (Franklyn-Stokes &

Newstead, 1995), and others yet have found that low academic performance is associated withthe likelihood of engaging in dishonest practices (Love & Simmons, 1998).


7/18


8/18


opted for low severity sanctions (e.g., informal warning; McCabe, 1993). The reasons behind

the reluctance to follow formal institutional procedure and to be complacent with regards to aca-

demic dishonesty include concerns about extra workload, the view that different departmentsdo not apply standard penalties for dishonest conduct, and sympathy for the impact the penal-

ties might have on a student’s future (Guo, 2011; Robinson et al., 2005; Staats et al., 2009).

Furthermore, faculty members often disagree about what exactly constitutes plagiarism. Opinions

vary regarding whether different amounts of plagiarized work reflect different severity levels of

academic dishonesty, and with respect to criteria for what constitutes plagiarism (e.g., criteria for

quoting and citing in text; Roig, 2001). Hence, it appears that the lack of standardized and well-

communicated principles for what constitutes plagiarism (i.e., whether these are clearly specified

in student handbooks and faculty induction seminars), and low levels of institutional support

for, and encouragement of, measures to dissuade students from engaging in dishonest academic

behaviors may contribute to students’ perception that the benefits of cheating and plagiarizingoutweigh the risks.

H6: The understanding of university policies and sanctions regarding academic dishonesty will

be negatively related to attitudes regarding the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

The researchers approached two introductory-level course coordinators, one for each discipline

examined—psychology and business—and asked them to distribute a survey link to their stu-

dents. The course coordinators agreed to distribute the survey link on the university’s interactive

site, which was automatically e-mailed to the students enrolled in their two courses. Participants

opened the online link to the survey, where they were informed that the purpose of the study

was to investigate the sources of attitudes regarding the acceptability of cheating on tests and of

plagiarism.

The final sample comprised 325 first-year psychology (n = 206) and business (n = 119) stu-

dents from a large university in New Zealand. Given the enrollment numbers for the two courses

targeted, the response rate was estimated at 39% for the psychology group and 61% for the busi-

ness group. Of the participants, 104 were male and 221 female, with a mean age of 20.5 years.With regards to cultural group membership, 264 students identified themselves as New Zealand

European, 18 as Māori, 11 as Pacific Islanders, and 31 as Asian.

Measures

On the first page of the survey, participants were asked to volunteer demographic information,

including their age, gender, the primary cultural group with which they identified (New Zealand

European, Māori, Pacific Islander, Asian, or Other—with an open field to allow for specification),

and their main discipline of study (psychology or business/management). Following this page,

the respondents were presented with the survey scales covering the remaining variables of interestin the study.


9/18


The Acceptance of Academic Cheating and Plagiarism Scale (Bloodgood, Turnley &

Mudrack, 2010) was adapted to measure participants’ attitudes regarding the acceptability of

cheating in tests and plagiarism. The Active Acceptance scale comprised 12 items assessing theextent to which students felt that enacting specific behaviors in an academic setting was wrong

(e.g., copying a fellow student’s homework or class assignment). Although in Bloodgood et al.’s

study passive acceptance reflected the extent to which students found that benefiting from an

oversight was wrong, in this study the Passive Acceptance scale, comprising three items, deter-

mined the degree to which students perceived that not reporting academic misconduct was wrong

(e.g., being silent when you are a witness to the unauthorized use of notes during an exam).

Participants provided responses to the items on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly agree

that it is not wrong) to 5 (strongly agree that it is wrong). Hence, higher scores in this measure

reflect lower acceptability of cheating and plagiarism. The coefficient alphas obtained for previ-

ous uses of these subscales were .91 for active acceptance and .89 for the beneficiary version of passive acceptance (Bloodgood et al., 2010).

Originally developed as a teaching support tool for the University of Pennsylvania

(tlt.psu.edu/plagiarism/links/quizzes-and-exercises /quiz-bank), a series of items ascertaining

individual perceptions regarding contextual factors that account for academic dishonesty were

used in this study. Items from the questionnaire, adapted with permission from the University of

Pennsylvania, included four items ascertaining students’ understanding of university policy (e.g.,

“If I am found guilty of Academic Dishonesty, it could be placed on my permanent transcript”)

and four items covering perceptions of impunity regarding the appropriation of online resources

(e.g., “It is next to impossible for someone to prove that information I used in a class assignment

came from somewhere on the Internet/Web”). The items were measured on a 5-point scale, from

1 (never true) to 5 (always true).Justice Sensitivity was assessed with a 30-item measure comprising four subscales: Observer

Sensitivity (e.g., “It bothers me when someone gets something they don’t deserve”), Victim

Sensitivity (e.g., “I ruminate a long time when other people are being treated better than me”),

Beneficiary Sensitivity (e.g., “I ruminate for a long time about being treated nicer than oth-

ers for no reason”), and Perpetrator Sensitivity (e.g., “It disturbs me when I receive what

others ought to have”; Schmitt et al., 2010). Participants were asked to provide responses

on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1(never ) t o 5 (very often). In previous studies, the JS–

Victim subscale exhibited an internal consistency of .82, and the JS–Beneficiary subscale

an internal consistency of .90 (Schmitt et al., 2010). It should be noted that these stud-

ies offer no indication of reliability coefficients for the Perpetrator and Observer Sensitivity

subscales.

RESULTS

Prior to testing hypotheses, independent samples t tests were conducted to check for statistically

significant differences in attitudes toward the acceptability of academic misconduct between the

two student groups surveyed: psychology and business. The results show that psychology students

deemed cheating and plagiarism significantly more objectionable than business students, both as

agents of misconduct ( M Psychology = 4.41, SD = 0.47; M Business = 4.17, SD = 0.65), t (323) =

3.73, p < .01, and as witnesses of misconduct among their peers ( M Psychology = 3.91, SD = 0.76;


10/18


M Business = 3.59, SD = 0.90), t (323) = 3.31, p < .01. Hence, study discipline will be used as a

control variable in subsequent analyses.

As shown in Table 1, high victim and observer sensitivity were associated with lower accept-ability of passive cheating and plagiarism (r = .18, p < .01 and r = .26, p < .01, respectively),

but these two types of sensitivity were not significantly related with active acceptance of cheat-

ing and plagiarism. High perpetrator sensitivity students tended to indicate low acceptability of

active cheating and plagiarism (r = .20, p < .01), though no significant association was obtained

with regards to passive acceptance. High beneficiary sensitivity students tended to hold negative

attitudes toward both passive and active cheating and plagiarism (r = .27, p < .01 and r = .21, p


11/18


with respect to their attitudes toward academic dishonesty, but only as agents of misconduct,

F (3, 310) = 2.65, p < .05. Post hoc comparisons (least significant difference) show that NZ

European participants were significantly less accepting of cheating and plagiarism ( M = 4.35,SD = 0.55) than were Asian students ( M = 4.06, SD = 0.69). The results provide partial support

for Hypothesis 2; Asian students deemed cheating and plagiarism significantly less objectionable

than did NZ European students, but no significant differences were found between the attitudes

of Asian students and those of Māori and Pasifika students.

Curve estimation regressions were conducted to test Hypothesis 4, suggesting a u-shaped

(quadratic) relationship between academic performance (GPA) and attitudes toward the accept-

ability of cheating and plagiarism. The nonsignificant findings obtained failed to support the

hypothesis that both low and high GPA students would consider cheating and plagiarism more

acceptable, both as agents and as witnesses of dishonest conduct.

Hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to test Hypotheses 3, 5, and 6, ascertain-ing the relationship between specific contextual factors (understanding of university policy and

perceptions regarding the appropriation of online resources), justice sensitivity, and attitudes

toward academic dishonesty (Table 2). In support of Hypothesis 3a, high victim sensitivity stu-

dents also indicated higher acceptance of cheating and plagiarism as agents of misconduct ( β =

–.17, p < .05) but not significant relationships were found with respect to passive acceptance of

cheating and plagiarism, failing to support Hypothesis 3b. Observer sensitivity was not signifi-

cantly related to attitudes toward the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism, offering no support

for Hypothesis 3c. In addition, contrary to the relationship proposed in Hypothesis 3d, high ben-

eficiary sensitivity respondents exhibited lower tolerance for academic dishonesty among their

peers (β = .23, p


12/18


In partial support of Hypothesis 5, students who believed that online materials could be safely

appropriated without consequence were more tolerant of their peers’ academic misconduct (β

= –.12, p < .05), but this relationship was not replicated when the students were inquired asagents of dishonest academic behavior. Last, consistent with Hypothesis 6, students who per-

ceived university policy and sanctions regarding cheating and plagiarism to be clear and enforced

were significantly less accepting of academic dishonesty, both as agents and as witnesses of

misconduct (β = .17, p < .01 and β = .13, p < .05, respectively).

Overall, gender emerged as key predictor of both active and passive acceptance of cheating

and plagiarism (β = .28, p < .01 and β = .24, p < .01, respectively), as did understanding of

university policy regarding academic dishonesty, and perpetrator sensitivity. In addition, passive

acceptance of cheating and plagiarism was impacted by perceptions of impunity regarding the

appropriation of online materials and by beneficiary sensitivity, whereas active acceptance was

influenced by culture (β =

–.12, p < .05) and victim sensitivity.It should be noted that, although the independent samples t tests revealed significant differ-

ences in ethical stance between psychology and business students, Discipline did not emerge as a

significant predictor of attitude toward the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism in the regres-

sion model that included all the variables of interest. The addition of gender to the model resulted

in the suppression of the effect of “discipline” on both active and passive acceptance of cheating

and plagiarism. These findings are elucidated in the Discussion section.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to explore individual and contextual predictors of attitudesregarding the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism among college students, including several

underresearched variables such as cultural group membership in New Zealand and the multidi-

mensional justice sensitivity trait. In addition, the study sought to identify the relative contribution

of each of these individual and contextual predictors to attitudes toward academic dishonesty.

The findings suggest that (a) although gender, perpetrator sensitivity, and understanding of

university policy positively contributed to both dimensions of attitudes toward academic dishon-

esty, other individual and contextual factors were distinctly associated to attitudes toward cheating

and plagiarism from an agent’s perspective (the individual engaging in dishonest conduct) and

from a witness standpoint (being a silent bystander of misconduct enacted by peers); (b) individ-

ual differences emerged as key predictors of attitudes toward dishonest academic practices (e.g.,

gender and personality), above and beyond the influence of contextual factors; and (c) the degree

of understanding of university policy regarding academic dishonesty surfaced as an important

contextual predictor of desirable attitudes toward academic conduct.

Male students deemed cheating and plagiarism significantly less objectionable than did female

students. This is consistent with previous research identifying male individuals as more likely

to engage in dishonest academic practices (Ameen et al., 1996; Guo, 2011; Hendershott et al.,

1999; Szabo & Underwood, 2004). It should be noted that the mean differences between gen-

der groups in attitudes toward the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism, albeit significant,

represented less than half a scale point. This may signal the effect of current social changes to

traditional gender roles, narrowing the gap between groups with regards to attitudes and behav-

iors. Research suggests that socialization practices have changed to encourage female individuals


13/18


to be more like male in both social and professional arenas (Goodkind, Wallace, Shook, Bachman,

& O’Malley, 2009), which could have important implications for academic conduct in years to

come. Longitudinal research is needed to establish this convergence effect and ascertain whetherthe move reflects greater tendency toward deviance or toward integrity. Further, as the relationship

between gender and important social attitudes and behaviors is often moderated by other individ-

ual and contextual factors (Staats et al., 2009), the proposed attitude convergence trend should be

investigated considering situational variables. For instance, different sociocultural environments

and job markets will likely create dissimilar pressures for male and female students, prompting

unique patterns of attitudinal and behavioral convergence and divergence in higher education

institutions.

Consistent with previous research, Asian students viewed plagiarism and cheating as signif-

icantly less objectionable than did New Zealand European students. Moreover, results from the

present study indicate that greater awareness of university policy regarding dishonest academicpractices was associated with lower tolerance of cheating and plagiarism. Although one might

optimistically infer that clear university policy could contribute to mitigating this cultural dis-

crepancy, no significant differences with respect to knowledge of university policy were found

between the cultural groups surveyed. That is not to say that multicultural tertiary institutions

should defer their efforts to communicate academic integrity standards. Rather, the findings sug-

gest that the manner in which these communications are framed, and the standards enforced and

rewarded, should take into account the unique values and expectations of the main cultural groups

represented in the student body.

Although no significantly different means were found between Pasifika and Māori students

and Asian students with respect to attitudes toward the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism,

the results may reflect sampling issues. The proportion of Māori and Pacific Island students whoagreed to participate in this study was small in relation to their actual representativeness at the

university. Furthermore, the cultural group subsamples were generally small, influencing the find-

ings obtained herein. Given the scarcity of empirical research surveying the main cultural groups

in Aotearoa, New Zealand (Williams & Williams, 2012), further studies are needed to gain a bet-

ter understanding of their respective attitudes toward academic integrity and the unique factors

contributing to these attitudes.

Justice sensitivity emerged as an important predictor of attitudes toward the acceptability of

cheating and plagiarism, particularly the perpetrator sensitivity dimension. High perpetrator sen-

sitivity individuals tend to hold themselves to higher moral standards than they do others and to

experience a great sense of guilt when profiting from injustice done to others (Lotz et al., 2011). In

this study, high perpetrator sensitivity students deemed cheating and plagiarism as highly objec-

tionable when they were placed in the agents’ role but were far more accepting of allowing others

to commit dishonest behaviors with impunity. Conversely, high beneficiary sensitivity students

exhibited low tolerance for cheating and plagiarism among their peers. These results are not con-

sistent with the literature, suggesting that high beneficiary sensitivity individuals are concerned

about being afforded more opportunities than others and tend to exhibit prosocial traits such as

empathy (Gollwitzer et al., 2005; Schmitt et al., 2005). These students were expected to show

more lenience toward transgressors, justifying their peers’ actions with the need to restore equity.

Further research exploring justice sensitivity in academic settings is needed to account for these

findings.

As predicted, high victim sensitivity students, more likely to view themselves as victims of injustice (Gollwitzer et al., 2005; Schmitt et al., 2005), held more positive attitudes regarding the


14/18


acceptability of active cheating and plagiarism as agents of dishonest behaviors. However, victim

sensitivity was not reflected in lower tolerance for others’ infractions. Even though witnessing

dishonest academic behaviors should evoke anger in high victim sensitivity individuals, as theyfeel they may be disadvantaged by the outcome (Gollwitzer et al., 2005), this relationship was

not uncovered in the present study.

Overall, though the findings obtained exhibit some degree of consistency with previous

research, suggesting unique attitudinal stances across justice sensitivity dimensions, several out-

comes in this study conflict with assertions from the extant literature. These discrepancies are

not entirely surprising, given that justice sensitivity is a relatively new and emerging construct

and that this represents the first attempt to empirically investigate the relationship between justice

sensitivity and attitudes toward academic integrity. Recent research suggests that justice sensitiv-

ity may be highly susceptible to one’s personal experiences of injustice, and even experimental

stimuli aimed at inducing feelings of injustice. In the present study, the participants’ unique lifeexperience, their experiences specific to academic misconduct (both as agents and as perpetra-

tors), and the recency of these events, may have heightened or decreased their justice sensitivity

along the four dimensions considered. For instance, though the stress associated with exam peri-

ods (coincident with the data collection time) has the potential to increase victim sensitivity, and

subsequent attitudes consistent with greater lenience toward the self as agent of deviant behav-

iors (i.e., cheating and plagiarism to achieve desired academic results), lack of experience of

being disadvantaged by others’ dishonest academic behaviors, or never having witnessed these

behaviors, may account for the nonsignificant relationship between victim sensitivity and pas-

sive acceptance of cheating or plagiarism. Likewise, context and experience may partly account

for the findings pertaining to beneficiary sensitivity. The hypothesis advanced, suggesting that

individuals who believed that they generally receive better treatment than others would be morelenient of others’ dishonest academic behaviors, was likely misguided. Unless this perception of

being systematically placed in an advantageous position is specific to, or inclusive of, academic

experiences, there is no reason to assume that these respondents would take kindly to others’

dishonest practices in this particular context.

Although more research is needed to substantiate the present findings and interpretive

hypotheses, these preliminary results indicate that the relationship between this multidimensional

personality variable and academic dishonesty may be influenced by individual and situational

moderators, including gender, socioeconomic status, and academic calendar, which should be

considered in future studies.

Perceptions that online materials could be safely appropriated without consequence were only

significantly related to greater lenience toward cheating and plagiarism among peers, even though

they were also expected to influence attitudes toward one’s dishonest conduct. A measurement

limitation may be at play. It is possible that deeming online materials easy resources to appro-

priate (measured in the present study), and having the intent to engage in e-dishonesty, represent

different positions. Future studies should employ measures of e-dishonesty that assess behavioral

intent rather than beliefs concerning the likelihood that the appropriation of online materials will

go unpunished. On a further methodological note, the participants provided responses to ques-

tions concerning their attitudes toward academic integrity through self-report measures, which

may render the findings highly susceptible to social desirability bias. In particular, the stringent

attitudes toward the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism encountered herein may be inflated.


15/18


Moreover, order effects may have influenced the means obtained (Council, 1993; Rasinski, Lee,

& Krishnamurty, 2012). For instance, it is plausible that the fact that all respondents were

presented with the Acceptance of Cheating and Plagiarism Scale prior to the contextual and per-sonality measures has created a bias toward displaying prosocial attitudes (e.g., lower justice

sensitivity) and greater understanding of policies and sanctions associated with academic dishon-

esty. Although the anonymous nature of the study should have successfully encouraged honest

responses and mitigated potential for bias, future should randomize the order of the scales pre-

sented, collect the data at different points in time, or adopt a multimethod approach (i.e., include

both explicit and implicit measures of the variables of interest).

Last, the suppression effect verified with the addition of gender to the model containing “dis-

cipline” as the other predictor merits some clarification. The significant differences in attitudes

toward academic dishonesty identified between psychology and business students may in fact be

the upshot of gender differences. Given that female participants found cheating and plagiarismsignificantly more objectionable than did their male counterparts, the disproportionally higher

number of female respondents in the psychology cohort (also the larger of the two subgroups)

was likely the driver of the significant differences between disciplines found in this study. Future

research should attempt to ensure gender balance when examining demographic or occupational

variables in ethics research.

Practical Implications

Given the well-supported relationship between academic dishonesty and the ethical stance

individuals hold later in the workplace (Harding et al., 2004; Sims, 1993), higher education insti-tutions are increasingly placing policies and initiatives aimed at fostering principled behaviors

among students at a premium. The results obtained in this study highlight the importance of vis-

ible, consistent, and stringent university policies regarding academic conduct and the need to

clarify guidelines for what constitutes cheating and plagiarism when utilising online and other

resources. Further, the magnitude of the effects obtained suggests that the influence of demo-

graphic and personality differences on attitudes toward academic conduct (i.e., gender, culture,

justice sensitivity) may supersede that of contextual factors. This means that initiatives aimed

at promoting academic honesty may be effective to the extent that they consider differences in

attitudinal and behavioral orientations among specific student groups (e.g., male students, busi-

ness students), the myriad of underlying concerns and motives held by students with particular

justice sensitivity orientations and cultural backgrounds, and reasons for engaging in dishonest

practices that are contingent on personal circumstances (e.g., pressures experienced by working

students). Examples of these initiatives include increased collaboration between academics and

support staff to guarantee the fairness of student feedback and assessment procedures, taking into

account their unique circumstances (e.g., working students, students with health issues or learn-

ing disabilities); the development of formal systems ensuring that all entry-level students acquire

sound knowledge of academic conduct guidelines (e.g., online quizzes with interactive feedback

clarifying the parameters and sanctions for cheating and plagiarism); and, as suggested in recent

research, to publicly acknowledge and reward exemplary behavior (Staats et al., 2009). The latter

approach may well gain better traction than other, potentially draconian measures. In addition


16/18


to communicating academic integrity by clarifying what constitutes best practice, the approach

will, in all likelihood, be appreciated by a cohort enjoying its first taste of autonomous decision

making.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge Professor Agata Chudzicka-Czupała for her contribution to early stages of this

study.

REFERENCES

Allmon, D., Page, D., & Robert, R. (2000). Determinant of perceptions of cheating: Ethical orientation, personality and

demographics. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 411–422.

Ameen, E., Guffey, D., & McMillan, J. (1996). Gender differences in determining the ethical sensitivity of future

accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 591–597.

Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., & Thorne, P. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes: University student perception of cheating and

plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 22, 187–203.

Baumert, A., & Schmitt, M. (2009). Justice-sensitive interpretations of ambiguous situations. Australian Journal of

Psychology, 61, 6–12.

Blankenship, K. L., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (2000). The relation of general deviance to academic dishonesty. Ethics &

Behavior , 10, 1–12.

Bloodgood, J., Turnley, W., & Mudrack, P. (2010). Ethics instruction and the perceived acceptability of cheating. Journal

of Business Ethics, 95, 23–37.

Cochran, J. K., Chamlin, M. B., Wood, P. B., & Sellers, C. S. (1999). Shame, embarrassment, and formal sanction threats:

Extending the deterrence/rational choice model to academic dishonesty. Sociological Inquiry, 69, 91–105.

Coleman, N., & Mahaffey, T. (2000). Business student ethics: Selected predictors of attitude toward cheating. Teaching

Business Ethics, 4, 121–136.

Cordeiro, W. P. (1995). Should a school of business change its ethics to conform to the cultural diversity of its students?

Journal of Education for Business, 71, 27–29.

Council, J. R. (1993). Context effects in personality research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 31–34.

Decoo, W. (2002). Crisis on campus: Confronting academic misconduct . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fetchenhauer, D., & Huang, X. (2004). Justice sensitivity and behavior in experimental games. Personality and Individual

Differences, 36 , 1015–1031.

Franke, G. R., Crown, D. F., & Spake, D. F. (1997). Gender differences in ethical perceptions of business practices: A

social role theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 920–934.Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Newstead, S. E. (1995). Undergraduate cheating: Who does what and why? Studies in Higher

Education, 20, 39–52.

Goldgar, B. A. (2001). Imitation and plagiarism: the Lauder Affair and its critical aftermath, Studies in Literary

Imagination, 34, 1–17.

Gollwitzer, M., Schmitt, M., Schalke, R., Maes, J., & Baer, A. (2005). Asymmetrical effects of Justice Sensitivity

perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behaviour. Social Justice Research, 18, 183–220.

Goodkind, S., Wallace, J. M., Shook, J. J., Bachman, J., & O’Malley, P. (2009). Are girls really becoming more delin-

quent? Testing the gender convergence hypothesis by race and ethnicity, 1976–2005. Children and Youth Services

Review, 31, 885–895.

Granitz, N., & Loewy, D. (2007). Applying ethical theories: Interpreting and responding to student plagiarism. Journal

of Business Ethics, 72, 293–306.

Groark, M., Oblinger, D., & Choa, M. (2001). Term paper mills, anti-plagiarism tools, and academic integrity.

EDUCAUSE Review, 36 , 40–48.


17/18


Guo, X. (2011). Understanding student plagiarism: An empirical study in accounting education. Accounting Education:

An International Journal, 20, 17–37.

Harding, T., Carpenter, D., Finelli, C., & Passow, H. (2004). Does academic dishonesty relate to unethical behavior inprofessional practice? An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 311–324.

Hendershott, A., Drinan, P. F., & Cross, M. (1999). Gender and academic integrity. Journal of College Student

Development , 40, 345–354.

Introna, L., Hayes, N., Blair, L., & Wood, E. (2003). Cultural attitudes towards plagiarism: Developing a bet-

ter understanding of the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds relating to plagiarism: Plagiarism

advisory service. Available at http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/faculties/art/information_studies/Imri/Jiscpas/docs

/external/lancsplagiarismreport.pdf

Kidwell, L. A., & Kent, J. (2008). Integrity at a distance: A study of academic misconduct among university students on

and off campus. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 17 , 3–16.

Kristiansen, C. M., & Hotte, A. M. (1996). Morality and the self: Implications for the when and how of value-attitude-

behaviour relations. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values (pp. 77–105).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lim, V. K. G., & See, B. (2001). Attitude toward, and intentions to report, academic cheating among students in Singapore. Ethics & Behavior 11, 261–274.

Lotz, S., Baumert, A., Schlösser, T., Gresser, F., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2011). Individual differences in third-party inter-

ventions: How justice sensitivity shapes altruistic punishment. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 4,

297–313.

Love, P. G., & Simmons, J. (1998) Factors influencing cheating and plagiarism among graduate students in a college of

education. College Student Journal, 32, 539–551.

Marsden, H., Carroll, M., & Neill, J. (2005). Who cheats at university? A self-report study of dishonest academic

behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57 , 1–10.

Martin, D. E., Rao, A. S., & Lloyd, R. (2009). Plagiarism, integrity, and workplace deviance: A criterion study. Ethics &

Behavior , 19, 36–50.

Maxwell, A., Curtis, G., & Vardanega, L. (2006). Plagiarism among local and Asian students in Australia. Guidance and

Counselling, 21, 210–215.

McCabe, D. L. (1993). Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student honor codes. Research in

Higher Education, 34, 647–658.

Mohiyeddini, C., & Schmitt, M. (1997). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to unfair treatment in a laboratory

situation. Social Justice Research, 10, 333–353.

Molnar, K. K., Kletke, M. G., & Chongwatpol, J. (2008). Ethics vs. IT ethics: Do undergraduate students perceive a

difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 657–671.

Moore, T. (1997). From test to note: cultural variation in summarization practices. Prospect , 12(3), 54–63.

Park, C. (2003). In other people’s words: plagiarism by university students—literature and lessons. Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 471–488.

Rasinski, K. A., Lee, L., & Krishnamurty, P. (2012). Question order effects. In H. Cooper, P. Camic, D. Long, A. Panter,

D. Rindskopf, & K. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 1: Foundations, planning,

measures, and psychometrics (pp. 229–248). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Robinson, C., Pena, E. D., Cook-Morales, V., Pena, A. M., Afshani, R., & Nguyen, L. (2005). Academic crime andpunishment: Faculty members’ perceptions of responses to plagiarism. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 318–337.

Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior , 11,

307–323.

Scanlon, P., & Neumann, D. (2002). Internet plagiarism among college students. Journal of College Student Development ,

43, 374–385.

Schmitt, M. (1996). Individual differences in sensitivity to befallen injustice. Personality and Individual Differences, 21,

3–20.

Schmitt, M. Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J. (2010). The Justice Sensitivity Inventory: Factorial validity, location

in the personality facet space, demographic pattern, and normative data. Social Justice Research, 23, 211–238.

Schmitt, M., & Dorfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction and psychosomatic

well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 443–453.

http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/faculties/art/information_studies/Imri/Jiscpas/docs/external/lancsplagiarismreport.pdfhttp://online.northumbria.ac.uk/faculties/art/information_studies/Imri/Jiscpas/docs/external/lancsplagiarismreport.pdfhttp://online.northumbria.ac.uk/faculties/art/information_studies/Imri/Jiscpas/docs/external/lancsplagiarismreport.pdfhttp://online.northumbria.ac.uk/faculties/art/information_studies/Imri/Jiscpas/docs/external/lancsplagiarismreport.pdf


18/18


Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality

space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment , 21, 202–211.

Schmitt, M., & Mohiyeddini, C. (1996). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to a real life disadvantage. Social Justice Research, 9, 223–238.

Schmitt, M., Neumann, R., & Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice. Social Justice Research,

8, 385–407.

Selwyn, N. (2008). “Not necessarily a bad thing . . . ’: A study of online plagiarism amongst undergraduate students.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 465–479.

Sendag, S., Duran, M., & Fraser, R. (2012). Surveying the extent of involvement in online academic dishonesty

(e-dishonesty) related practices among university students and the rationale students provide: One university’s

experience. Computers in Human Behaviour , 28, 849–860.

Sims, R. L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education

for Business, 68, 207–211.

Sinn, J. S. (1997). The predictive and discriminant validity of masculinity ideology. Journal of Research in Personality,

31, 117–135.

Snowden, C. (2005). Plagiarism and the culture of multilingual students in higher education abroad. ELT Journal, 59,226–233.

Staats, S., Hupp, J., Wallace, H., & Gresley, J. (2009). Heroes don’t cheat: An examination of academic dishonesty and

students’ views on why professors don’t report cheating. Ethics & Behavior , 19, 171–183.

Stephens, J., & Gehlbach, H. (2007). Under pressure and under-engaged: Motivational profiles and academic cheat-

ing in high school. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 107–139).

Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Academic.

Szabo, A., & Underwood, J. (2004). Cybercheats: Is information and communication technology fuelling academic

dishonesty? Active Learning in Higher Education, 5, 180–199.

Thompson, C. (2006). Unintended lessons: plagiarism and the university. Teachers College Record , 108, 2439–2449.

Tibbetts, S. G., & Herz, D. C. (1996). Gender differences in factors of social control and rational choice. Deviant

Behaviour , 17 , 183–208.

Underwood, J., & Szabo, D. (2003). Academic offences and e-learning: individual propensities in cheating. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 467–477.

Voelker, T., Love, L., & Pentina, I. (2012). Plagiarism: What don’t they know? Journal of Education for Business, 87 ,

36–41.

Ward, D. A., & Beck, W. L. (1990). Gender and dishonesty. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 333–339.

Whitley, B. E., Nelson, A. B., & Jones, C. J. (1999). Gender differences in cheating attitudes and classroom cheating

behaviour: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 41, 657–680.

Williams, M., & Williams, M. N. (2012). Academic dishonesty, self-control, and general criminality: A prospective and

retrospective study of academic dishonesty in a New Zealand University. Ethics & Behavior , 22, 89–112.

Wilson, J. (2001). Hi-tech plagiarism: New twist on a perennial problem. Acumen, 1, 21–29.

Yang, S. (2012). Attitudes and behaviors related to academic dishonesty: A survey of Taiwanese graduate students. Ethics

& Behavior , 22, 218–237.

Yang, S., Huang, C., & Chen, A. (2013). An investigation of college students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty, reasons

for dishonesty, achievement goals, and willingness to report dishonest behaviour. Ethics & Behavior , 23, 501–522.Yazici, A., Yazici, S., & Erdem, M. S. (2011). Faculty and student perceptions on college cheating: evidence from Turkey.

Educational Studies, 37 , 221–231.

Documents

Kuntz & Butlert 2014 Exploring Individual and Contextual Antecedents of Attitudes Toward the Acceptability of Cheating and Plagiarism