Cited by 101Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics in Business and EducationCorruption and Economic Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 25 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Understanding the Interplay Among Regulatory Self-Efficacy, Moral Disengagement, and Academic Cheating Behaviour During Vocational Education: A Three-Wave Study

Open access

Abstract

The literature has suggested that to understand the diffusion of unethical conduct in the workplace, it is important to investigate the underlying processes sustaining engagement in misbehaviour and to study what occurs during vocational education. Drawing on social-cognitive theory, in this study, we longitudinally examined the role of two opposite dimensions of the self-regulatory moral system, regulatory self-efficacy and moral disengagement, in influencing academic cheating behaviour. In addition, in line with the theories highlighting the bidirectional relationship between cognitive processes and behaviour, we aimed to also examine the reciprocal influence of behaviour on these dimensions over time. Overall, no previous studies have examined the longitudinal interplay between these variables. The sample included 866 (62.8% female) nursing students who were assessed three times annually from the beginning of their vocational education. The findings from a cross-lagged model confirmed that regulatory self-efficacy and moral disengagement have opposite influences on cheating behaviour, that regulatory self-efficacy negatively influences not only the engagement in misconduct but also the justification mechanisms that allow the divorce between moral standards and action, and that moral disengagement and cheating behaviour reciprocally support each other over time. Specifically, not only did moral disengagement influence cheating behaviour even when controlling for its prior levels, but also cheating behaviour affected moral disengagement one year later, controlling for its prior levels. These findings suggest that recourse to wrongdoing could gradually lead to further normalising this kind of behaviour and morally desensitising individuals to misconduct.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a three-wave study of nursing students, regulatory self-efficacy and moral disengagement had opposite longitudinal effects on academic cheating, and cheating reciprocally reinforced moral disengagement but did not weaken regulatory self-efficacy. The findings support a vicious cycle between cheating and moral disengagement and a protective role for regulatory self-efficacy.

Key findings

  • Regulatory self-efficacy at T1 and T2 negatively influenced cheating one year later, while moral disengagement at T1 and T2 positively influenced cheating one year later.
  • Cheating at T2 positively influenced moral disengagement at T3, controlling for prior moral disengagement and regulatory self-efficacy; the indirect effect MD(T1) → cheating(T2) → MD(T3) was .108, 95% CI [.032, .205].
  • Cheating at T2 did not influence regulatory self-efficacy at T3; the indirect effect R-SE(T1) → cheating(T2) → R-SE(T3) was .017, 95% CI [−.012, .066].
  • Regulatory self-efficacy at T1 negatively influenced moral disengagement at T2, but not from T2 to T3; the indirect effect R-SE(T1) → cheating(T2) → MD(T3) was −.043, 95% CI [−.093, −.003]. The model explained 38% of MD, 26% of cheating, and 35% of R-SE at T2, and 40% of MD, 37% of cheating, and 32% of R-SE at T3.

Methods

  • Three-wave longitudinal study of nursing students in 18 schools, beginning in 2011: 866 students at T1 (62.8% female, M age = 21.8, SD = 4.7), 530 at T2, and 505 at T3.
  • Regulatory self-efficacy was measured with 4 items adapted from Bandura et al. (2001); moral disengagement with 12 items from the academic MD scale by Farnese et al. (2011); cheating behaviour with 5 items at T2 and T3 only. All used five-point response scales.
  • Latent cross-lagged structural equation modelling in Mplus 7.4, with measurement invariance testing, FIML for missing data, gender and T1 age as covariates, and bootstrapped indirect effects based on 5,000 replications. ICCs ranged from .002 to .070, so multilevel modelling was not used.

Limitations

  • The paper states that future research should integrate social and contextual variables such as peers, lecturers, supervisors, culture, and norms; use multi-method and multi-informant approaches; examine honour codes and sanction systems; and follow students into the labour market.
  • The paper states that cheating behaviour was collected only at T2 and T3, not T1, so it could not examine whether MD and R-SE sustain cheating over time; it also relies exclusively on self-reported measures.
  • Evident from the text: attrition was substantial (42.5% from T1 to T2, 27.1% from T2 to T3, and 46.9% from T1 to T3), with dropouts more likely to be male and older and slightly lower in T1 regulatory self-efficacy; the sample is nursing students, which may limit generalisation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10551-016-3373-6

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Fig. 1 The posited model
Fig. 1 The posited modelCC-BY · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

27 Own interpretation · 26 Own result · 16 Own method · 12 No full text of the sources · 9 Sources not found · 1 Check pending · 1 No basis given

Verify all 1 references — free account

Show all 44 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 25
48 of 48
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No previous studies have examined the longitudinal interplay between regulatory self-efficacy, moral disengagement, and academic cheating behaviour, including their reciprocal influences.

    “Overall, no previous studies have examined the longitudinal interplay between these variables.”
    “no previous studies have tested their reciprocal influence”
    “no studies have investigated the cross-lagged relationships of both MD and R-SE with misbehaviours”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Regulatory self-efficacy has not been previously examined in relation to cheating behaviour.

    “However, R-SE has not been previously examined in relation to cheating behaviour, a form of deviant conduct that is instrumental, common, and, in some cases, even approved and promoted by peers.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are no longitudinal studies empirically testing the influence of behaviour on regulatory self-efficacy or the reciprocal influence between regulatory self-efficacy and behaviour.

    “while the previously mentioned studies provide evidence for the influence of R-SE on behaviour, to the best of our knowledge, there are no longitudinal studies empirically testing neither the opposite relationship nor the reciprocal influence.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The role of behaviour in influencing the different dimensions of the moral self-regulatory system has been overlooked.

    “the role of behaviour in influencing the different dimensions of the moral self-regulatory system has been overlooked.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Only a few studies have examined the role of behaviour in reinforcing justification mechanisms.

    “only a few studies have examined the role of behaviour in reinforcing justification mechanisms.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The temporal ordering of the three waves (T1, T2, T3) can be interpreted as causal influence in the cross-lagged model.

    “In line with Hypotheses 1a and 1b, R-SE at T1 and T2 influence negatively cheating behaviour one year later.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Self-report measures of cheating behaviour, R-SE, and MD provide valid assessments of the underlying constructs.

    “Cheating behaviour was assessed at T2 and T3 by five items that measure the frequency of different types of academic cheating behaviour.”
7 of 7

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 101

Metadata

Authors
Fida, R., Tramontano, C., Paciello, M., Ghezzi, V., & Barbaranelli, C.
Affiliations
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • Coventry University (GB)
  • UniNettuno University (IT)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
Corresponding author
Fida, Roberta
Venue
Journal of Business Ethics
Published
2016-11-09
Volume
153
Issue
3
Pages
725-740
ISSN
  • 0167-4544 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0697
OpenAlex
W2555371534
Cited by
101
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
15.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Business Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Coventry University Open Collections (Coventry university) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • The Open Collections (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Sapienza Università di Roma (C26V118AWM)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Corruption and Economic Development
Keywords
moral disengagement, academic dishonesty, unethical behavior, vocational education, nursing students, social cognitive theory, moral self-regulation, bidirectional effects

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review