Navigating the ethical dilemma in digital learning: balancing artificial intelligence with spiritual integrity to address cheating
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine the phenomenon of academic dishonesty among university students, particularly in the context of increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Design/methodology/approach The study employs direct interviews and a list experiment method to measure the prevalence of academic dishonesty, including students’ intentions to use AI tools for online cheating. The respondents consisted of 305 students from the Faculty of Economics and Business at four private universities in Lampung, Indonesia. Findings The findings reveal that students are generally reluctant to admit dishonest behavior, such as using AI for cheating, when asked directly due to feelings of shame and social pressure. However, the list experiment method, which provides greater anonymity, resulted in a higher level of admission of academic dishonesty. The study also identifies a significant relationship between students’ spiritual values and their ethical behavior, with noticeable gender differences in tendencies toward academic dishonesty. Practical implications Educational institutions are encouraged to develop interventions that foster a supportive academic environment, reduce pressure on students and incorporate spiritual values into the curriculum to promote ethical conduct. Originality/value This research extends the application of the fraud triangle theory within the context of AI usage in education. It emphasizes the importance of spiritual values in shaping students’ ac…
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 who learn to evade detection, through paraphrasing tools, prompt engineering, deliberate stylistic variation, or AI humanizer software, gain an advantage over students who write their own work but happen to write in ways that detectors flag.
“Pariyanti et al. (2025) document the ethical dilemmas created by this asymmetry in digital learning environments, finding that students who learn to evade detection, through paraphrasing tools, prompt engineering, deliberate stylistic variation, or AI humanizer software, gain an advantage over students who write their own work but happen to write in ways that detectors flag.”
From Harms and Ethical Risks of AI Detection Tools in Education: False Positives, Bias, Surveillance, and Student Rights (2026) · cites this paper as Pariyanti et al. (2025)
Cites
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087 · see citing works
New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution
Kamalov, F., Santandreu Calonge, D., & Gurrib, I. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151612451 · Cited by 1,089 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment
Gabriel, I. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2 · Cited by 896 · see citing works
Defining spirituality in healthcare: a systematic review and conceptual framework.
de Brito Sena, M. A., Damiano, R. F., Lucchetti, G., & Peres, M. F. P. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.756080 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
A systematic review of research on cheating in online exams from 2010 to 2021
Noorbehbahani, F., Mohammadi, A., & Aminazadeh, M. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10927-7 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kangwa, D., Msafiri, M. M., & Fute, A. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70109 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
AI-assisted academic cheating: a conceptual model based on postgraduate student voices
Hanh, N. V., & Duyen, N. T. (2025) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2025.1682190 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
GİRAY, L., CANER, H. N., & AMOOZEGAR, A. (2026) · Journal of Narrative and Language Studies · doi:10.59045/nalans.2026.109
- Authors
- Pariyanti, E., Wibowo, M., Sultan, Z., & Siolemba Patiro, S. P.
- Affiliations
- Indonesia Open University (ID)
- Graduate School, Universitas Terbuka Department of Magister Management, , ,
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2025-04-25
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1031-1043
- ISSN
- 1758-1184 (ISSN-L)
- 2050-7003
- OpenAlex
- W4409734011
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 6.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- academic dishonesty, artificial intelligence in education, online cheating, spiritual values, academic integrity, fraud triangle, list experiment, gender differences, university students, business 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