CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics in Business and EducationBehavioral Health and Interventions

Cheating Intention of Students Based on Theory of Planned Behavior

Open access
Dewanti, Patriani Wahyu, Purnama, Ida Ayu, Siregar, Merinda NN, Sukirno, Sukirno·2020·Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Bisnis
DOI 10.24843/jiab.2020.v15.i02.p09
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The aim of this research is to examine empirically the form of Theory of Planned Behavior in predicting the intention of cheating in accounting students. The samples taken in this research were 426 accounting students. The research employed a mixed-method, with a regression analysis for the quantitative and an analytic induction for the qualitative method. The results of this research found that of all the variables tested, subjective norms were the variables that had the greatest influence on the intention to cheat accounting students, while the moral obligation variable had the second largest influence and perceived behavioral control as the third predictor on the intention to cheat accounting students. The implication of the research is that the main influence of the academic fraud is subjective norms. Keywords: theory of planned behavior, subjective norms, academic integrity.

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 · 10.24843/jiab.2020.v15.i02.p09

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • 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 Dewanti et al., 2020

    The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies TPB’s three core constructs and applies the theory to predicting students’ cheating intentions. It does not say that early work predicted lying or shoplifting, or establish how soon after TPB’s formulation that work appeared. It also discusses moral obligation and past behavior alongside the three constructs. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Ajzen, I. A. (2002). Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ballantine, J. A., McCourt Larres, P., & Mulgrew, M. (2014). Determinants of academic cheating behavior: The future for accountancy in Ireland. Accounting Forum, 38(1), 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2013.08.002 · DOI
  3. Chudzicka-Czupała, A., Grabowski, D., Mello, A. L., Kuntz, J., Zaharia, D. V., Hapon, N., … Börü, D. (2016). Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Academic Cheating Research-Cross-Cultural Comparison. Ethics and Behavior, 26(8), 638- 659. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1112745 · DOI
  4. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research Design : Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications Inc. (Vol. Fourth Edi). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Cronan, T. P., Mullins, J. K., & Douglas, D. E. (2018a). Further Understanding Factors that Explain Freshman Business Students' Academic Integrity Intention and Behavior: Plagiarism and Sharing Homework. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(1), 197-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2988-3 · DOI
  6. Cronan, T. P., Mullins, J. K., & Douglas, D. E. (2018b). Further Understanding Factors that Explain Freshman Business Students' Academic Integrity Intention and Behavior: Plagiarism and Sharing Homework. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(1), 197-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2988-3 · DOI
  7. Duc Huynh, T. L. (2020). Replication: Cheating, loss aversion, and moral attitudes in Vietnam. Journal of Economic Psychology, 78(March). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102277 · DOI
  8. Elijido-Ten, E. (2007). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in environmental accounting research. 6th Australasian Conference on Social and Environmental Accounting Research, 2-4.
  9. Hermawan, M. S., & Kokhunarina. (2018). Factors Influencing Accounting Students' Perception Of Accounting Ethics: An Empirical Study In Indonesia. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Bisnis, 18(2), 88-97.
  10. Hsiao, C. H. (2015). Impact of ethical and affective variables on cheating: comparison of undergraduate students with and without jobs. Higher Education, 69(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9761-x · DOI
  11. Ismail, S., & Yussof, S. H. (2016). Cheating behavior among accounting students: some Malaysian evidence. Accounting Research Journal, 29(1), 20-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-05-2014-0050 · DOI
  12. Jalilian, F., Moazami, P., Mirzaei-Alavijeh, M., Moazami, A. M., & Jalili, C. (2016). Sensation seeking and the intention to cheating among college students: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, 11(8), 645-649.
  13. Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 233- 247. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_3 · DOI
  14. Kabbanji, J. (2015). Superiority and Banality of the Qualitative Method: The Analytic Induction of Jack Katz. Méthod(e)s: African Review of Social Sciences Methodology, 1(1-2), 147-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/23754745.2015.1017283 · DOI
  15. Macgregor, J., & Stuebs, M. (2012). To Cheat or Not to Cheat : Rationalizing Academic Impropriety. Accounting Education, 21(3), 265-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2011.617174 · DOI
  16. Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292181001 · DOI
  17. Mccabe, D. L., & Butterfield, K. D. (2006). Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business Programs : Prevalence , Causes , and Proposed Action, 5(3), 294-305.
  18. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Cheating in College: Why Students do it and what Educators Can do About it. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2014.0019 · DOI
  19. Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual. McGraw-Hill Education.
  20. Schwartz, B. M., Tatum, H. E., & Hageman, M. C. (2013). College students' perceptions of and responses to cheating at traditional, modified, and non-honor system institutions. Ethics and Behavior, 23(6), 463-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.814538 · DOI
  21. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business : a skill-building approach. John Wiley & Sons, Seventh ed. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 441-453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0275-x · DOI · Paper page
  23. Tavani, H. T. (2013). Ethics & Technology (4th Edition). Wiley.
  24. Wijayanti, W. A., & Putri, A. G. (2016). Model Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) Untuk Memprediksi Niat Mahasiswa Melakukan Kecurangan Akademik. Fokus Manajerial, 14(2), 189-197.
  25. Winrow, B. (2016). Do perceptions of the utility of ethics affect academic cheating? Journal of Accounting Education, 37, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2016.07.001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dewanti, P. W., Purnama, I. A., Siregar, M. N., & Sukirno, S.
Affiliations
  • Yogyakarta State University (ID)
  • Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Yogyakarta (ID)
ORCID
Venue
Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Bisnis
Publisher
Universitas Udayana
Published
2020-06-02
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
268
ISSN
  • 2302-514X (ISSN-L)
  • 2303-1018
DOI
10.24843/jiab.2020.v15.i02.p09
OpenAlex
W3044772205
Cited by
12
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-sa
Locations
  • Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Bisnis (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
academic dishonesty, theory of planned behavior, subjective norms, moral obligation, perceived behavioral control, academic integrity, accounting 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