CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 79Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics in Business and EducationLegal Issues in Education

Student Perceptions of Academic Integrity: A Qualitative Study of Understanding, Consequences, and Impact

Open access
Stone, Anna·2023·Journal of Academic Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10805-022-09461-5PMC PMC9702763
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background Academic integrity (AI) is of increasing importance in higher education. At the same time, students are becoming more consumer-oriented and more inclined to appeal against, or complain about, a penalty imposed for a breach of AI. This combination of factors places pressure on institutions of higher education to handle alleged breaches of AI in a way acceptable to students that motivates them to continue to engage with their studies. Method Students (n = 8) were interviewed to discover their perceptions of the process for dealing with breaches of AI. All students were based in one university in a very diverse area of London which has many first-generation students from non-traditional academic backgrounds. Results Students reported strong emotional reactions featuring high levels of anxiety and stress. Some found the process to be threatening and demotivating and questioned continuation on their course of study, while others used more adaptive coping strategies. Students also went to great pains to make it clear that their own, and their friends', breaches of AI were unintentional, while expressing the view that other people were deliberately cheating and should be penalised.Key recommendations include: support for students to re-engage after the intervention; support for students to develop effective self-regulatory learning strategies and time management; provision of specific examples to clarify what is, and is not, acceptable academic practice; recognition of the strong emotions likely to be invoked, especially if accompanied by declarations of unintentionality.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10805-022-09461-5

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Non-compliance is often a deliberate decision driven by fear, with students viewing AI declarations as potential self-incrimination rather than a neutral administrative task.

    “This study also finds that non-compliance is often a deliberate decision driven by fear, with students viewing AI declarations as potential self-incrimination as opposed to a neutral administrative task (Stone 2023).”

    From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Stone 2023

    Theme 1: Emotion reports fear of academic-integrity allegations, and Theme 2: Intentionality reports anxiety about being seen as a cheat. The paper does not report that students deliberately avoid AI declarations because they view them as self-incrimination; its “AI” refers to academic integrity, not artificial intelligence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Fear of academic repercussions and institutional inconsistencies complicate students' decision-making processes, challenging TPB's focus on individual attitudes and highlighting broader institutional and technological factors.

    “This study's findings that fear of academic repercussions (Luo 2024b) and institutional inconsistencies (Simkin and McLeod 2010; Stone 2023) complicate students' decision-making processes, challenge TPB's focus on individual attitudes, and highlight broader institutional and technological factors.”

    From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Stone 2023

    In Theme 4: Fairness (page unavailable), Stone reports that a student perceived uneven treatment and says perceived unfairness could adversely affect students’ motivation and engagement. The paper does not establish that the institution actually applied its rules inconsistently, or directly show that inconsistency complicated students’ decision-making. The TPB comparison is the citing authors’ interpretation, not a finding attributed specifically to Stone. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Normalisation of non-compliance within peer groups suggests that subjective norms can become internalised as justifications for ethically questionable behaviour.

    “The normalisation of non-compliance within peer groups suggests that subjective norms are not only external pressures but can also become internalised as justifications for ethically questionable behaviour (Asch 1951; Stone 2023), further complicating the decision-making process.”

    From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Stone 2023

    Theme 2: Intentionality and Conclusions and Key Themes (pages unavailable) report that students justified their own and close friends’ academic-integrity breaches as unintentional or explained them through circumstances. The paper does not establish that non-compliance was normalised within peer groups or that peer norms became internalised justifications. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Ansarisadr, A. & Shirazi, M. (2022). Relationship between stress coping styles and causal attribution with academic achievement in student. Journal of Educational Psychology Studies, 19, 27–14. 10.22111/jeps.2022.6994 · DOI
  2. Anyan, F. (2013). The influence of power shifts in data collection and analysis stages: A focus on qualitative research interview. The Qualitative Report, 18, 1–9. 10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1525 · DOI
  3. Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological bulletin, 91, 3. 10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.3 · DOI
  4. Bertram Gallant T Academic integrity as a teaching and learning issue: From theory to practice Theory into Practice 2017 56 88 94 10.1080/00405841.2017.1308173 · DOI
  5. Bogle, K. D. (2000). Effect of perspective, type of student, and gender on the attribution of cheating. In Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science (pp. 91–97).
  6. Bond C Tutor feedback in higher education: An exploration of the psychological impact PsyPAG Quarterly 2014 91 56 58
  7. Bretag T Mahmud S Wallace M Walker R McGowan U East J Green M Partridge L James C Teach us how to do it properly! An Australian academic integrity student survey Studies in Higher Education 2014 39 1150 1169 10.1080/03075079.2013.777406 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bretag T Harper R Burton M Ellis C Newton P Rozenberg P Saddiqui S van Haeringen K Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students Studies in Higher Education 2019 44 1837 1856 10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Brimble M Stevenson-Clarke P Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian universities Australian Educational Research 2005 32 19 44 10.1007/BF03216825 · DOI
  10. Busch P Bilgin A Student and staff understanding and reaction: Academic integrity in an Australian university Journal of Academic Ethics 2014 12 227 243 10.1007/s10805-014-9214-2 · DOI
  11. Carver C White T Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1994 67 319 333 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Chen Y Chou C Are we on the same page? College students’ and faculty’s perception of student plagiarism in Taiwan Ethics and Behavior 2017 27 53 73 10.1080/10508422.2015.1123630 · DOI
  13. Childers D Bruton S “Should it be considered plagiarism?” Student perceptions of complex citation issues Journal of Academic Ethics 2016 14 1 17 10.1007/s10805-015-9250-6 · DOI
  14. Chory-Assad RM Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation, learning, and aggression Communication Quarterly 2002 50 58 77 10.1080/01463370209385646 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Curtis GJ Clare J How Prevalent is Contract Cheating and to What Extent are Students Repeat Offenders? Journal of Academic Ethics 2017 15 115 124 10.1007/s10805-017-9278-x · DOI
  16. De la Fuente, J., Zapata, L., Martínez-Vicente, J. M., Sander, P., & Putwain, D. (2015). Personal self-regulation, self-regulated learning and coping strategies, in university context with stress. In Metacognition: Fundaments, applications, and trends (pp. 223–255). Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978-3-319-11062-2_9 · DOI
  17. Delucchi M Korgen K ‘We’re the customer – we pay the tuition’: Student consumerism among undergraduate sociology majors Teaching Sociology 2002 30 100 107 10.2307/3211524 · DOI
  18. English MC Kitsantas A Supporting student self-regulated learning in problem-and project-based learning Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 2013 7 128 150 10.7771/1541-5015.1339 · DOI
  19. Garnefski, N., Kommer, T. N., Kraaij, V., Teerds, J., Legerstee, J. & Onstein, E. (2002). The relationship between cognitive emotion regulation strategies and emotional problems: comparison between a clinical and a non‐clinical sample}. European Journal of Personality, 16, 403–420. 10.1002/2Fper.458 · DOI
  20. Gilovich, T., Lepper, M., Nisbett, R., & Ward, A. (2022). Lee D. Ross (1942–2021). American Psychologist, 77(2), 308–309. 10.1037/amp0000916 · DOI
  21. Gullifer K Tyson GA Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study Studies in Higher Education 2004 35 463 481 10.1080/03075070903096508 · DOI
  22. Gustems-Carnicer J Calderón C Calderón-Garrido D Stress, coping strategies and academic achievement in teacher education students European Journal of Teacher Education 2019 42 375 390 10.1080/02619768.2019.1576629 · DOI
  23. International Center for Academic Integrity [ICAI]. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3rd ed.).
  24. Jordan AE College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy Ethics and Behavior 2001 11 233 247 10.1207/S15327019EB1103_3 · DOI
  25. Khedmatian, A., Naami, A. Z., Zarei, E., & Khalafie, A. (2022). Academic grit, academic flow, and academic thriving: Mediating role of academic coping style. Iranian Evolutionary and Educational Psychology Journal, 2, 244–255. 10.52547/ieepj.4.2.244 · DOI
  26. Kruger J Dunning D Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999 77 1121 1134 10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121 10626367 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Kwong T Ng H-M Mark K-P Kwong E Students’ and faculty’s perception of academic integrity in Hong Kong Campus Wide Information Systems 2010 27 341 355 10.1108/10650741011087766 · DOI
  28. Lassiter, F. D., Geers, A. L., Munhall, P. J., Ploutz-Snyder, R. J., & Breitenbeacher, D. L. (2002). Illusory causation: Why it occurs. Psychological Science, 13, 299–305. 10.1111/2Fj.0956-7976.2002..x 12137131 · DOI
  29. Lazarus RS Folkman S Stress, Appraisal and Coping 1984 Springer
  30. Locquiao J Ives B First-year university students' knowledge of academic misconduct and the association between goals for attending university and receptiveness to intervention International Journal for Educational Integrity 2020 10.1007/s40979-020-00054-6 · DOI
  31. McAllister C Watkins P Increasing academic integrity in online classes by fostering the development of self-regulated learning skills The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 2012 85 96 101 10.1080/00098655.2011.642420 · DOI
  32. McNaught K., & Beal, E. (2012). The NAME Four Factor Model for engaging students in academic support services. 35th HERDSA Annual International Conference.
  33. McNaught, K., & McIntyre, F. (2011). When a pass is not a pass. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 5, A100-A109. https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/126
  34. Moore BC Biegel DE McMahon TJ Maladaptive coping as a mediator of family stress Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions 2011 11 17 39 10.1080/1533256x.2011.544600 21499498 PMC3074383 · DOI
  35. Newton P Academic integrity: A quantitative study of confidence and understanding in students at the start of their higher education Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 2016 41 482 497 10.1080/02602938.2015.1024199 · DOI
  36. Penn PR The Psychology of Effective Studying 2019 Routledge
  37. Phillips LT Stephens NM Townsend SSM Goudeau S Access is not enough: Cultural mismatch persists to limit first-generation students’ opportunities for achievement throughout college Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2020 119 1112 1131 10.1037/pspi0000234 32105102 · DOI
  38. Raaper R Students’ unions and consumerist policy discourses in English higher education Critical Studies in Education 2020 61 24 261 10.1080/17508487.2017.14178 · DOI
  39. Rahat, E., & İlhan, T. (2016). Coping styles, social support, relational self-construal, and resilience in predicting students' adjustment to university life. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16, 187–208. 10.12738/estp.2016.1.0058 · DOI
  40. Ramos-Sánchez L Nichols L Self-efficacy of first-generation and non-first-generation college students: The relationship with academic performance and college adjustment Journal of College Counselling 2007 10 6 18 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2007.tb00002.x · DOI
  41. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Academic Press. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Schlenker, B. R., & Pontari, B. A. (2012). The strategic control of information: Impression management and self-presentation in daily life. In A. Tesser, R.B. Felson, J.M. Suis (Eds) Psychological Perspectives on Self and Identity (pp 199–232). 10.1037/10357-008 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Snyder, C. R., & Higgins, R. L. (1988). Excuses: Their effective role in the negotiation of reality. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 23 -35. 10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.23 3043526 · DOI
  44. Sutherland-Smith W Retribution, deterrence, and reform: The dilemmas of plagiarism management in universities Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 2010 32 5 16 10.1080/13600800903440519 · DOI
  45. Ternes M Babin C Woodworth A Stephens S Academic misconduct: An examination of its association with the dark triad and antisocial behavior Personality and Individual Differences 2019 138 75 78 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.031 · DOI
  46. Thibodeaux, J., Deutsch, A., Kitsantas, A., & Winsler, A. (2017). First-year college students’ time use: Relations with self-regulation and GPA. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28, 5–27. 10.1177/2F1932202X16676860 · DOI
  47. Trost K Psst, have you ever cheated?: A study of academic dishonesty in Sweden Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 2009 34 367 376 10.1080/02602930801956067 · DOI
  48. Valenti GD Faraci P Predicting University Adjustment from Coping-Styles, Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy, and Personality: Findings from a Survey in a Sample of Italian Students European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 2021 11 894 907 10.3390/ejihpe11030066 34563079 PMC8544223 · DOI
  49. Zimmer-Gembeck MJ Skinner EA The development of coping: Implications for psychopathology and resilience Development and Psychopathology 2016 10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy410 · DOI
  50. Zuckerman M Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory Journal of Personality 1979 47 245 287 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1979.tb00202.x · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stone, A.
Affiliations
University of East London (GB)
Corresponding author
Stone, Anna
ORCID
Stone, Anna
Venue
Journal of Academic Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-11-28
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
357-375
ISSN
  • 1570-1727 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8544
DOI
10.1007/s10805-022-09461-5
PMC
PMC9702763
OpenAlex
W4310214738
Cited by
79
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 7
FWCI
15.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Academic Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Issues in Education
Keywords
academic integrity, student perceptions, academic misconduct, academic sanctions, emotional responses, stress and anxiety, coping strategies, student re-engagement, student self-regulation, first-generation college students

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.

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