CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 160Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics in Business and EducationJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

Using the theory of planned behavior and cheating justifications to predict academic misconduct

Open access
Stone, Thomas H., Jawahar, I.M., Kisamore, Jennifer L.·2009·Career Development International
DOI 10.1108/13620430910966415
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to show that academic misconduct appears to be on the rise; some research has linked academic misconduct to unethical workplace behaviors. Unlike previous empirically‐driven research, this theory‐based study seeks to examine the usefulness of a modification of Ajzen's theory of planned behavior to predict academic misconduct. Design/methodology/approach: A total of 271 students enrolled at a US university were surveyed. Structural equation modeling was used to test the model. Findings: The modified theory of a planned behavior model in which intentions and justifications both serve as antecedents to behavior fits the data well. The model accounted for 22 per cent of the variance in intentions to cheat and 47 per cent of the variance in self‐reported cheating. Research limitations/implications: The primary limitations of this research are the cross‐sectional research design, the self‐selected sample, and the single source of survey data. Practical implications: The study extends the TPB model in the prediction of misconduct behavior. Attitudes, subjective norms, behavioral control, intentions and justifications were related to cheating behaviors. Academic misconduct may be reduced by shaping attitudes toward cheating, changing perceptions of subjective norms regarding the prevalence of cheating, and lowering students' perceptions of their control of cheating by, for example, emphasis on the consequences of getting caught. Understanding and reducing academic misconduct are important for promoting ethical behavior and values in future worker and organization leaders. Originality/value: Identification of factors that influence academic misconduct is an important aspect of professional development research, given its link to workplace misconduct. To date, academic misconduct research has been primarily empirically‐ rather than theory‐driven. The current study identifies factors that contribute to academic misconduct by extending an established theoretical model of behavior.

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 · 10.1108/13620430910966415

Cites

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?

  • TPB has been widely applied to academic integrity behaviours such as cheating and plagiarism.

    “TPB has been widely applied to academic integrity behaviours such as cheating and plagiarism (e.g. Passow et al. 2006; Stone, Jawahar, and Kisamore 2009; Imran and Nordin 2013; 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 Stone, Jawahar, and Kisamore 2009

    In “The Theory of Planned Behavior and Academic Misconduct,” the paper lists studies applying TPB to cheating and plagiarism, but explicitly says its use in academic misconduct has been “fairly limited.” “Expanding the Theory of Planned Behavior for Academic Misconduct” likewise calls its use “very limited to date,” contrary to the claim that it has been widely applied in this area. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • When non-declaration of AI use is common within a peer group, students are less likely to comply with declaration requirements.

    “Similarly, Ivanov et al. (2024) showed that when non-declaration of AI use is common within a peer group, students are less likely to comply with declaration requirements, reflecting how subjective norms influence academic dishonesty (Stone, Jawahar, and Kisamore 2009).”

    From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Stone, Jawahar, and Kisamore 2009

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 59 · Cited by 160

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Ajzen, I. (1985), "From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviors", in Kuhl, J. & Beckmann, J. (Eds.) Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 11-40.
  2. Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988),"Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach" Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, 411-423.
  3. Aronson, E. (1969), "The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective", in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 4), Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-34.
  4. Asch, S.E. (1951), Effects of group pressure upon the modification distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA. Carnegie Press.
  5. Bandura, A. (1977), "Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying concept of change", Psychological Review, Vol. 84, 191-215.
  6. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.
  7. Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005), "Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian universities", Australian Educational Researcher, Vol. 32 No. 3, 19-44.
  8. Bunn, D.N., Caudill, S.B., & Gropper, D.M. (1992), "Crime in the classroom: An economic analysis of undergraduate student cheating behavior", Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 23 No.3, 197-207.
  9. Chapman, K. J., Davis, R., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2004), "Academic integrity in the business school environment: I'll get by with a little help from my friends", Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 26 No. 3, 236-249.
  10. Christensen-Hughes, J.M., & McCabe, D.L. (2006), "Academic misconduct within higher education in Canada", The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 36 No. 2, 1-21.
  11. Crown, D.F., & Spiller, S.M. (1998), "Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: A review of empirical research", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, 683-700.
  12. Dalal, R.S. (2005), "A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, 1241-1255.
  13. Davis, S.F., Grover, C.A., Becker, A.H., & McGregor, L.N. (1992), "Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments", Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 19 No 1, 16-20.
  14. Festinger, L.A. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Evanston, IL.
  15. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  16. Ford, R.C., & Richardson, W.D. (1994),"Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13, 205-221.
  17. Gallagher, V.C., Harris, K.J., & Valle, M. (2008), "Understanding the use of intimidation as a response to job tension: Career implications for the global leader", Career Development International, Vol. 13, 648-666.
  18. Genereux, R.L., & McLeod, B.A. (1995), "Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire study of college students", Research in Higher Education, Vol. 36, 687-704.
  19. Gephart, J.K., Harrison, D.A., & Trevino, L.K. (2007), The who, when, and where of unethical choices: Meta-analytic answers to fundamental ethics questions. Paper presented at the 2007 Academy of Management conference, Philadelphia, PA.
  20. Harding, T.S., Mayhew, M.J., Finelli, C.J., Carpenter, D.D. (2007), "The theory of planned behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities undergraduates", Ethics & Behaviour, Vol. 17, 255-279.
  21. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999), "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives", Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, 1- 55.
  22. Joreskog, K.G., & Wold, H. (1982),"The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables: Historical and comparative aspects", In K.G. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, and prediction: Part I: 263-270: Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  23. Kisamore, J.L., Stone, T.H., & Jawahar, I.M. (2007), "Academic integrity: Individual and situational factors on academic conduct contemplation", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 75, 381-394.
  24. Koljatic, M., Silva, M., & Ardiles, J. (2003), "Are student perceptions of parental acceptance of academic dishonesty associated with its occurrence?", Psychological Reports, Vol. 93, 93-97.
  25. Magnus, J.R., Polterovich, V.M., Danilov, D.L., & Savvateev, A.V. (2002), "Tolerance of cheating: An analysis across countries", Journal of Economic Education, Spring: 125- 135.
  26. McCabe, D.L. (2005), "Promoting academic integrity in business schools", Professional Development Workshop, Academy of Management conference, Hawaii, August 6.
  27. McCabe, D.L., Butterfield, K.D., & Trevino, L.K. (2006), "Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes and proposed action", Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 5, 294-306.
  28. McCabe, D.L., & Trevino, L.K. (1997), "Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multi-campus investigation", Research in Higher Education, Vol. 38, 379- 396.
  29. McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (1996), "The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related behavior in the workplace", Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 6, 461-476.
  30. McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (1999), "Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: A qualitative investigation", The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 70, 211-234.
  31. McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (2001), "Dishonesty in academic environments", Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 72, 29-45.
  32. McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (2002), "Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension of modified honor code settings", Research in Higher Education, Vol. 43, 357-378.
  33. Newstead, S.E., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996), "Individual differences in student cheating", Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 88, 229-241.
  34. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990).Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1,107-142.
  35. Reno, R.R, Cialdini, R.B., & Kallgren, C.A. (1993), "The transsituational influence of social norms", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1, 104-112.
  36. Simon, C.A., Carr, J.R., McCullough, S.M., Morgan, S.J., Oleson, T., & Ressel, M.G. (2004), "Student perceptions, institutional commitments and academic dishonesty: Who reports in academic dishonesty cases?", Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 29, 75-90.
  37. Simon, L., Greenberg, J., & Brehm, J. (1995), "Trivialization: The forgotten mode of dissonance reduction", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68, 247-260.
  38. Sims, R.L. (1993), "The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices", Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 68, 207-212.
  39. Smyth, L.M., & Davis, J.R. (2004), "Perceptions of dishonesty among two-year college students: Academic versus business situations", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 51, 62-73.
  40. Stone, T.H., Kisamore, J.L., & Jawahar, I.M. (2008), "Predicting students' perceptions of academic misconduct on the Hogan Personality Inventory Reliability Scale", Psychological Reports, Vol. 102, 495-508.
  41. Stone, T.H., Kisamore, J.L., & Jawahar, I.M. (2007), Predicting academic dishonesty: Theory of Planned Behavior and personality. Proceedings of the 2007 Management Education Division of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.
  42. Storch, E.A., & Storch, J.B. (2003). "Academic dishonesty and attitudes towards academic dishonest acts: Support for cognitive dissonance theory", Psychological Reports, Vol. 92, 174-176.
  43. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M.A. (2004), "Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda", The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, 825-856.
  44. Whitley, B.E. Jr. (1998), "Factors associated with cheating among college students", Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39, 235-274.

Authors
Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L.
Affiliations
  • Oklahoma State University (US)
  • Illinois State University (US)
  • University of Oklahoma - Tulsa (US)
ORCID
Venue
Career Development International
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2009-06-19
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
221-241
ISSN
1362-0436 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/13620430910966415
OpenAlex
W2078015788
Cited by
160
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Career Development International (publishedVersion)
  • SHAREOK (University of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State University; Central Oklahoma University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Keywords
academic misconduct, cheating, theory of planned behavior, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, unethical workplace behavior, student ethics

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