CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 27

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cultural and psychological variables predicting academic dishonesty: a cross-sectional study in nine countries

Błachnio, Agata, Cudo, Andrzej, Kot, Paweł, Torój, Małgorzata, Oppong Asante, Kwaku, Enea, Violeta, Ben-Ezra, Menachem, Caci, Barbara, Dominguez-Lara, Sergio Alexis, Kugbey, Nuworza, Malik, Sadia, Servidio, Rocco, Tipandjan, Arun, Wright, Michelle F.·2022·Ethics & Behavior
DOI 10.1080/10508422.2021.1910826
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Academic dishonesty has serious consequences for human lives, social values, and economy. The main aim of the study was to explore a model of relations between personal and cultural variables and academic dishonesty. The participants in the study were N = 2,586 individuals from nine countries (Pakistan, Israel, Italy, India, the USA, Peru, Romania, Ghana, and Poland). The authors administered the Academic Dishonesty Scale to measure academic dishonesty, the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale to measure distress, the Almost Perfect Scale – Revised to measure perfectionism, the Brief Self-Control Scale to measure self-control, and the Singelis Scale to measure independent self-construal. The results showed that the theoretical model was well fitted to the dataset in six countries: Pakistan, the United States, Romania, Ghana, Israel, and Poland. However, it was not well fitted in Italy, India, and Peru. Our results also showed that perfectionism significantly predicted academic dishonesty, but not in all countries. Self-control significantly predicted cheating, falsification, and plagiarism in the USA. Moreover, we found that distress was related to cheating o0nly in Ghana. Finally, independent self-construal predicted academic dishonesty. Our findings provide a cross-cultural contribution to the debate on academic dishonesty by highlighting its significant predictors and may inform interventions aimed at eliminating it. Our results can be used in preventing and curbing academ…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10508422.2021.1910826

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. 10.1371/journal.pone.0194963 · DOI
  2. 10.1007/s10805-011-9144-1 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/B978-012372541-7/50013-9 · DOI
  4. 10.1111/opo.12131 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1037/h0025853 · DOI
  6. 10.1207/s15327019eb1503_1 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.accfor.2013.08.002 · DOI
  8. Bazoukis G., 2011, Archives of Hellenic Medicine, 28, 390
  9. 10.1111/sjop.12534 · DOI
  10. 10.5923/j.ijap.20110101.02 · DOI
  11. 10.3200/JRLP.138.2.101-114 · DOI
  12. 10.1037/a0035836 · DOI
  13. Byrne B. M., 2010, Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming
  14. 10.1080/10508422.2015.1112745 · DOI
  15. 10.1177/0963721414553265 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.017 · DOI
  17. 10.1186/1472-6920-14-89 · DOI
  18. 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.09.007 · DOI
  20. 10.4065/80.12.1613 · DOI
  21. Epstein E. G., 2010, OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 15, 1, 10.3912/OJIN.Vol15No03Man01 · DOI
  22. Fernández I., 2005, Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 18, 35
  23. 10.1007/s10551-015-2823-x · DOI
  24. 10.1007/BF01172967 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Ganske K. M., 2010, OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 15, 6, 10.3912/OJIN.Vol15No03Man06 · DOI
  26. Gottfredson M. G., 1990, A general theory of crime, 10.1515/9781503621794 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1111/j.1466-769X.2004.00160.x · DOI
  28. Haslam D., 2019, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 1
  29. Hendy, N.T., Montargot, N. & Papadimitriou, A. Cultural Differences in Academic Dishonesty: A Social Learning Perspective. J Acad Ethics 19, 49–70 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09391-8 · DOI
  30. 10.1177/0963721412453587 · DOI
  31. Hofstede G., 2005, Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind
  32. 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.5688/ajpe808133 · DOI
  34. 10.1097/01.NND.0000433151.26007.f9 · DOI
  35. 10.47678/cjhe.v41i3.2488 · DOI
  36. 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Khani S., 2013, European Journal of Experimental Biology, 3, 608
  38. Kline R. B., 2011, Principles and practice of structural equation modeling
  39. 10.24839/2164-8204.JN17.2.59 · DOI
  40. Kura K. M., 2018, International Journal of Education and Training, 4, 1, 10.11648/j.ijvetr.20180401.11 · DOI
  41. 10.1093/elt/cci043 · DOI
  42. 10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57 · DOI
  43. 10.14434/josotl.v18i1.22350 · DOI
  44. 10.1080/00049530412331283426 · DOI
  45. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.005 · DOI
  46. 10.1007/s10940-006-9011-1 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.03.001 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.03.001 · DOI
  49. Newton P. M., 2018, Frontiers in Education, 3, 20
  50. 10.1177/0969733009106649 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.012 · DOI
  52. 10.1177/0273475303262354 · DOI
  53. 10.1080/00223891.2013.838172 · DOI
  54. Saana S. B., 2016, BMC Medical Education, 9, 234
  55. 10.5539/ijps.v9n4p65 · DOI
  56. 10.21913/IJEI.v9i2.892 · DOI
  57. 10.1177/0146167294205014 · DOI · Paper page
  58. 10.1177/1073191105284878 · DOI
  59. 10.1037/a0019477 · DOI
  60. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.383 · DOI
  61. 10.1177/0022022107302365 · DOI
  62. 10.1080/01621459.1979.10482541 · DOI
  63. 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x · DOI · Paper page
  64. 10.21236/AD0047524 · DOI
  65. 10.1007/s10734-017-0112-6 · DOI
  66. 10.1080/10508422.2011.653291 · DOI
  67. 10.1007/s10805-013-9198-3 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 27

Metadata

Authors
Błachnio, A., Cudo, A., Kot, P., Torój, M., Oppong Asante, K., Enea, V., Ben-Ezra, M., Caci, B., Dominguez-Lara, S. A., Kugbey, N., Malik, S., Servidio, R., Tipandjan, A., & Wright, M. F.
Affiliations
  • John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
  • Department of Psychology, University of Ghana
  • Department of Psychology, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi
  • School of Social Work, Ariel University
  • University of Palermo
  • Universi dad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima, Perú
  • School of Public Health, University of Health and Allied Sciences
  • University of Sargodha
  • University of Calabria
  • International Centre for Psychological Counseling and Social Research
  • Pennsylvania State University
ORCID
Venue
Ethics & Behavior
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-05-14
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
44-89
ISSN
  • 1050-8422
  • 1532-7019
DOI
10.1080/10508422.2021.1910826
Cited by
27
References
6
Language
en
Funders
the National Science Centre, Poland (UMO-2017/25/B/HS6/01517)

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