The Theory of Planned Behavior as a Model of Academic Dishonesty in Engineering and Humanities Undergraduates
Abstract
This study examines the use of a modified form of the theory of planned behavior in understanding the decisions of undergraduate students in engineering and humanities to engage in cheating. We surveyed 527 randomly selected students from three academic institutions. Results supported the use of the model in predicting ethical decision-making regarding cheating. In particular, the model demonstrated how certain variables (gender, discipline, high school cheating, education level, international student status, participation in Greek organizations or other clubs) and moral constructs related to intention to cheat, attitudes toward cheating, perceptions of norms with respect to cheating, and ultimately cheating behaviors. Further the relative importance of the theory of planned behavior constructs was consistent regardless of context, whereas the contributions of variables included in the study that were outside the theory varied by context. Of particular note were findings suggesting that the extent of cheating in high school was a strong predictor of cheating in college and that engineering students reported cheating more frequently than students in the humanities, even when controlling for the number of opportunities to do so.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Students are more likely to engage in dishonest behaviour when they perceive the risks of non-compliance as low due to lax enforcement or ambiguity in policies.
“Studies by McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield (2002) and Harding et al. (2007) suggest that students are more likely to engage in dishonest behaviour when they perceive the risks of non-compliance as low due to lax enforcement or ambiguity in policies.”
From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Harding et al. 2007
The three core components of TPB are key to predicting and explaining a wide range of behaviours, including academic integrity and ethical decision-making.
“These three core components are key to predicting and explaining a wide range of behaviours, including academic integrity and ethical decision-making (Harding et al. 2007; Khathayut, Walker-Gleaves, and Humble 2022).”
From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Harding et al. 2007
The Theory of Planned Behavior was extended to dishonest behavior early on, with work showing it could predict cheating, lying, and shoplifting from the same three components.
“TPB was extended to dishonest behavior specifically almost as soon as it was formulated, with early work showing it could predict cheating, lying, and shoplifting from the same three components (Beck & Ajzen, 1991;Dewanti et al., 2020;Harding et al., 2007).”
From Convenience Amid Crisis: Explaining Generative AI Misuse and Compliance Intention Among Myanmar University Students (2026) · cites this paper as Harding et al., 2007
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 44 · Cited by 246
- Authors
- Harding, T. S., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., & Carpenter, D. D.
- Affiliations
- California Polytechnic State University (US)
- New York University (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Lawrence Technological University (US)
- Venue
- Ethics & Behavior
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-09-06
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 255-279
- ISSN
- 1050-8422 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7019
- OpenAlex
- W2003728784
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 11.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ethics & Behavior (publishedVersion)
- DigitalCommons - CalPoly (California State Polytechnic University) (submittedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Kern Family Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- theory of planned behavior, academic dishonesty, ethical decision-making, attitudes toward cheating, perceived social norms, engineering students, humanities students, international students, Greek organizations, gender differences, disciplinary differences
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
