The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Challenges to Academic Integrity from New Tools - A Survey of Students' Perceptions and Behaviors of Employing ChatGPT
Open accessAbstract
In this study we look at business school students' perceptions and behaviors concerning new artificial intelligence tools.These tools have the potential to change productivity in students' academic endeavors, but also lead to cheating either through fabrication or withdrawing information of the source of the work.To explore the students' perceptions and behaviors we used previous academic dishonesty questionnaires and augmented them with ChatGPT specific elements.Our results show that students approve usage of these tools in certain situations, but they are also concerned about the rampant use and its potential negative consequences for learning and skills gained during studies.We conclude that that technological advancements in the form of AI tools like ChatGPT have the potential to blur the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior from a student's perspective, and develop the Ethics-Frequency Spectrum Framework to visualize this.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Bergström et al. (2024), who found that Finnish university students were reluctant to use ChatGPT in academic settings when they perceived it as ethically problematic, particularly due to concerns about its potential misuse for cheating.”
From Chat or cheat? Academic dishonesty, risk perceptions, and ChatGPT usage in higher education students (2025) · cites this paper as Bergström et al., 2024
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.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- Adamson, D., Dyke, G., Jang, H., & Rosé, C. P. (2014). Towards an agile approach to adapting dynamic collaboration support to student needs. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24, 92-124.
- Ahmed, K. (2018). Student Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty in a Private Middle Eastern University. Higher Learning Research Communications, 8(1), n1.
- Alt, D. (2015). Assessing the Connection between Self-Efficacy for Learning and Justifying Academic Cheating in Higher Education Learning Environments. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(1), 77-90.
- Bashir, H., & Bala, R. (2018). Development and validation of academic dishonesty scale (ADS): Presenting a multidimensional scale. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 57-74.
- Bernardi, R. A., Metzger, R. L., Scofield Bruno, R. G., Wade Hoogkamp, M. A., Reyes, L. E., & Barnaby, G. H. (2004). Examining the decision process of students' cheating behavior: An empirical study. Journal of business ethics, 50, 397-414.
- Bilen, E., & Matros, A. (2021). Online cheating amid COVID-19. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 182, 196-211.
- Calvo, R. A., O'Rourke, S. T., Jones, J., Yacef, K., & Reimann, P. (2010). Collaborative writing support tools on the cloud. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4(1), 88-97.
- Carpenter, D. D., Harding, T. S., Finelli, C. J., Montgomery, S. M., & Passow, H. J. (2006). Engineering students' perceptions of and attitudes towards cheating. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(3), 181-194.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self- determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
- Ferguson, S. L., Flostrand, A., Lam, J., & Pitt, L. (2022). Caught in a vicious cycle? Student perceptions of academic dishonesty in the business classroom. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), 100677.
- Harper, M. G. (2006). High tech cheating. Nurse Education Today, 26(8), 672-679.
- Holden, O. L., Norris, M. E., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (2021). Academic integrity in online assessment: A research review. Frontiers in Education,
- Kibler, W. L. (1993). Academic dishonesty: A student development dilemma. NASPA journal, 30(4), 252-267.
- Lim, V. K., & See, S. K. (2001). Attitudes toward, and intentions to report, academic cheating among students in Singapore. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 261-274.
- Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self- concept maintenance. Journal of marketing research, 45(6), 633-644.
- Mensah, C., & Azila-Gbettor, E. M. (2018). Religiosity and students' examination cheating: evidence from Ghana. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(6), 1156-1172.
- Schiaffino, S., Garcia, P., & Amandi, A. (2008). eTeacher: Providing personalized assistance to e- learning students. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1744-1754.
- Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat? Journal of business ethics, 94, 441-453.
- Szabo, A., & Underwood, J. (2004). Cybercheats: Is information and communication technology fuelling academic dishonesty? Active learning in higher education, 5(2), 180-199.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Blahopoulou, J., & Ortiz-Bonnin, S. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13575-9 · Cited by 50
Chat or cheat? Academic dishonesty, risk perceptions, and ChatGPT usage in higher education students
Ortiz-Bonnin, S., & Blahopoulou, J. (2025) · Social Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s11218-025-10080-2 · Cited by 80
“Further, the tool’s ability to generate original-looking yet unreferenced content has raised alarms about its potential to facilitate academic dishonesty behavior such as cheating or (cyber) plagiarism (Bergström et al., 2024; Greitemeyer & Kastenmüller, 2023 ; Kangwa et al., 2024).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Bergström, J., Repo, V., & Tuunainen, V.
- ORCID
- Tuunainen, Virpi
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 1530-1605 (ISSN-L)
- 2572-6862
- OpenAlex
- W4407075669
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 1.83
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (publishedVersion)
- ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Keywords
- academic integrity, ChatGPT, artificial intelligence in education, academic dishonesty, cheating, business students, student perceptions, AI tool use, source attribution, learning outcomes
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Challenges to Academic Integrity from New Tools - A Survey of Students' Perceptions and Behaviors of Employing ChatGPT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.24251/hicss.2024.010
- The paper
- Bergström, J., Repo, V., & Tuunainen, V. (2024). Challenges to Academic Integrity from New Tools - A Survey of Students' Perceptions and Behaviors of Employing ChatGPT. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2024.010
