Article information:
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:172635 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm
Academic
dishonesty
655
Abstract
Purpose Academic dishonesty has been a matter of great concern in higher education for last few
decades. The dishonest behavior of students at graduate and undergraduate level has become a severe
issue for education and business sectors, especially when the students exercise same dishonest
practices at their jobs. The present research aims to address this matter by investigating the
perceptions of students towards academic dishonesty and exploring the security and penalties for
dishonest acts of students.
Design/methodology/approach A well-structured questionnaire was used to collect the data
from 958 respondents studying at graduate and undergraduate levels in different Pakistani
universities.
Findings It has been found that students involve in academic dishonest acts more frequently about
which they believe to be less severe. Moreover, they also suggested lower or no penalties for the same
dishonest acts which are perceived as less severe.
Practical implications The results provide a strong implication for academicians to develop the
moralities and ethics in students so that institutions may provide ethically cultivated professionals to
the business community.
Originality/value The research paper is pioneer in its nature to explore the academic dishonest
acts of students and their perceptions regarding some of the dimensions of academic dishonest and
integrity in Pakistani university students.
Keywords Dishonesty, Students, Higher education, Ethics, Pakistan
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Academic Dishonesty has been a matter of great concern in higher education during the
last few decades. The issue of dishonest behavior of students at graduate and
undergraduate level has become very severe, particularly when students continue to
exercise the same practices at their workplace. The worst scandals of world top
companies of World Com and E-toyes, Enron & Adelphia have forced the researchers to
focus their attention on the role of college and universities in ethical training of
tomorrows business leaders. The cheating students have strong tendency to practice
same unethical and dishonest behaviors at the workplace which they had exhibited
during their education (Grimes, 2004; Rakovski and Levy, 2007; Hardling et al., 2004;
Lawson, 2004). The number of private and public sector educational institutions is
increasing day by day; therefore, the impact of academic dishonest behavior on the life of
potential professionals needs to be carefully analyzed and appropriate policies must be
formulated in order to minimize these unethical practices in the business and education
sectors. The present study sheds some light on this issue by investigating the
relationship of demographics with the dishonest behavior of students at university and
college levels. We have used a self-administered questionnaire for the survey of the
IJEM
24,7
656
different private and public sector universities of Punjab region. The survey questions
were directed at students attitude regarding the severity of the academic dishonest acts,
suggesting penalties for those and how frequently students are engaged in these types
of dishonest acts. The research is pioneer in its nature in Pakistan on the relationship of
academic dishonesty in Pakistan and expected to contribute a better understanding of
the ethical decisions of students helping the academicians and business professionals to
look into and formulate some policies to refrain from this behavior. The remainder of the
paper is organized as follows; the next section reviews some significant studies, third
part develops the methodology followed by results and discussion in the next. Final
section concludes the study by suggesting some implications for educators and future
avenues for researchers.
2. Literature review
Much has been written and researched about the students ethics in higher education
(Rakovski and Levy, 2007). In this regard, some earlier work of William and Bowers in
1960s has provided a strong base, which is further explored by Donald McCabe in
1990s. However, these concepts came from the developed world and researches were
also carried out in these countries. In general, research concluded that dishonesty in
education is rampant which needs to be carefully analyzed in other countries as well
along with its relation with the demographic factors of the students. Literature finds
mixed vies regarding the increased frequency of cheating in academics (McCabe and
Bowers, 1994; McCabe and Drinn, 1999) despite some contrary findings of Brown and
Emmett(2001). The longitudinal analysis of the Bowers research indicates that the
frequency of students involvement in academic dishonesty and cheating is rising.
In earlier, Bower (1964) analyzed 5,000 students from 99 various college campuses and
found that at least half of them were engaged in some form of academic dishonesty.
Later on, McCabe and Bowers (1994) conducted the survey students from nine more
campuses to the previous study and concluded that 52 percent of the sample students
reported copying exam sheet or test from another student where in 1964 this ratio was
just 26 percent. McCabe and Trevino (2002) also observed a fourfold increase in the
number of students using cheating material in exam (i.e. from 6 to 27 percent).
As per the findings of a student self-reported survey of Ogilby (1995), the ratios of
cheaters on exam have increased from 23 to 84 percent during a period of 1940-1982
while students cheat more frequently at rural colleges (Robinson et al., 2004) as well as
small colleges (Dawkins, 2004). Use of technology has further enhanced the problem of
academic dishonesty at university and college levels. Computers and internet have
made it very convenient and easier to obtain the information and use it as your own
with or without mentioning the source. This has been taken into consideration by
Scanlon and Neumann (2002) by conducting a study of undergraduate from nine
colleges and universities from the USA; the study reported the findings that a
substantial number of students use the internet form copy and paste text into their
assignments and papers without mentioning the source. The use of technology for
cheating has increased much that students even use to break into the computer files of
professors and steal exam papers and result sheets (Fishbein, 1993).
Research has found mixed evidence on the gender effect on moral values of students.
Although, some earlier studies reported inconclusive findings on gender differences and
academic dishonesty (Thoma, 1986); however, recent studies noted a link is prevailing
(Shaub, 1994; Sweeney, 1995; Cohen and David, 1998). As per Malone (2006), attitude of
male and female students differs on some dishonest acts but for most of the issues of
dishonesty, they behave in same way. Cohen and David (1998) developed a
multidimensional ethics scores to evaluate the ethical evaluation and intention
aspects of honest behaviors, and found that males and females had significantly
different set of judgments on their perception of ethical behavior. Some other studies
reported that male students are more frequently engaged in dishonest acts than females
(Bower, 1964; McCabe and Trevino, 1997; Whitley et al., 1999). Moreover, this is also
confined by a literature review paper of Crown and Spiller (1998) who reported more
involvement of male students in cheating than females. So, we can also expect a
significant relation between the gender difference of students and their involvement into
academic dishonest acts.
Different studies have addressed the students dishonest behaviors on the basis of
age as well. It is reported that younger students engaged more oftenly in cheating than
their older counterparts (Haines et al., 1986; Graham et al., 1994; Diekhoff et al., 1996).
Another point of view came into consideration, i.e. in younger age, they have their own
code of ethics to behave in society but as they grow up, they show moralities in their
behaviors and become more philosophical (Auerbach and Welsh, 1994). Younger and
unmarried students are more tolerant to cheating behavior than older and married
students (Whitley et al., 1998). This notion is also supported by Coombe and Newman
(1997) that the individuals at younger age are found to be less ethical than the older
ones.
Regarding the subject majors and program levels of students, researchers are confused.
Many studies provided evidence that, at the college and university level, the business
students are among the most dishonest ones (Caruana et al., 2000; Clement, 2001; Smyth
and Davis, 2004). Business students provided the highest cheating rate 87 percent while
comparing it to the other non-business majors (Caruana et al., 2000). Harris (1989) reported
that, most business students have low ethical values than their peer students in other
majors. Recently, Christine and James (2008) analyzed the academic behaviors of students
and showed that subject major significantly influences the students choice for academic
dishonesty. Contrary to these studies, Beltramini et al. (1984) provided a very weak
precedent that despite the gender effect business students are ethically sounds that the
students opting for non-business subjects.
Prevalence of academic integrity and dishonesty has also been studied across the
different levels of the students. Zastrow (1970) has concluded that the frequency of cheating
in students at the graduate level was at least as extensive as for the undergraduate
students. Rakovski and Levy (2007) noted that undergraduate students are involved more
oftenly and extensively in dishonest acts than the graduate students; however, Christine
and James (2008) provided that there is no significant difference between the attitudes of
students towards academic dishonesty at the graduate and undergraduate level.
Furthermore, academic performance of students has also been an important predictor
which reflects the negative relationship. Smith et al. (2002) summarized the results of
various studies and concluded that students with greater academic performance are
engaged in cheating less often than the students with lower performance.
Several studies can be found in literature of academic integrity on the degree
of dishonesty and suggested penalties for these acts. Rakovski and Levy (2007)
summarized these in their paper concluding that exam-related and plagiarism dishonest
Academic
dishonesty
657
IJEM
24,7
658
at the various universities of Pakistan. The questionnaires were distributed in the classes
and students took approximately 15 minutes to complete each questionnaire.
For the sake of generalization and fruitfulness of the study, students were selected
from the senior most classes of the professional fields only like the business, engineering,
public administration and commerce. There were 1,000 questionnaire distributed among
the respondents out of which 958 were found complete and useful questionnaire returned
having 95.8 percent effective response rate. The internal consistency of the scale and
data collected was tested using Cronbachs alpha which produced a co-efficient of 0.85.
The research has proved that the value of this alpha is greater than 0.5 and is acceptable
in social sciences (Nunally, 1978). Descriptive statistics and correlations have been used
to investigate the frequently involved in dishonest acts, severity of these acts and
students responses towards suggesting penalties for these academic dishonest
behaviors using SPSS 16.
Academic
dishonesty
659
n
Panel A: gender and CGPA
CGPA
Below 2.0
9
2.0-2.5
94
2.5-3.0
212
3.0-3.5
212
3.5-4.0
111
Total
638
Panel B: gender and program
Program
Graduate
109
Undergraduate
529
Total
638
Panel C: gender and age group
Age group
16-20
83
21-25
545
26-30
10
Total
638
Panel D: gender and major
Major
Business
333
Non-business
305
Total
638
Male
Percentage
Female
Percentage
Total
Percentage
1
15
33
33
18
100
2
8
63
117
130
320
0.1
2.5
20
36
41
100
11
102
275
329
241
958
1
11
29
34
25
100
17
83
100
91
229
320
28
72
100
200
758
958
21
79
100
13
85
2
100
64
253
3
320
20
79
1
100
147
798
13
958
15
83
2
100
52
48
100
208
112
320
65
35
100
541
417
958
56
44
100
Table I.
Demographic statistics
IJEM
24,7
660
247 (77 percent) were found to have secured CGPA of 3.00-4.00 which reflects that female
students are more hard working and earn good grade than their male counterparts.
Number of respondents studying in undergraduate classes is more than that of graduate
classes. A heavy majority of respondents were found in age group of 21-25 and there is
slight variation in sampling across business and non-business majors with former
having a little more percentage both in male and female respondents.
Tables II-IV indicate the frequency of students involvement in 13 under
consideration academic dishonest acts; severity perceived by the students of these
acts and suggested penalties. Out of these 13 dishonest acts, approximately 90 percent of
the total respondents found to be involved never or rarely in copying exam from
cheating material, submit anothers assignment with their own name and very
importantly, stealing the exam material and students consider these behaviors more
severe and suggest higher level of penalties for these dishonest behaviors. However,
there are some dishonest acts which are taken very lightly by the 60 percent students and
they found to be involved always or mostly in these acts. These are helping others to
copy exam, helping others to copy home assignment, allowing others to use your project
report in preparing their own, copy from internet with source, receiving help and helping
others on graded assignment. Students perceive these issue least severe and suggest
lower level or no penalty for these while in case of the issue of helping others to copy your
home assignment, students found to be involved more often and they consider it
moderate severe but suggest lower level penalty or no penalty for these acts.
The remaining issues of copying others exam sheet, copying assignment/project
report and copying from internet without mentioning the source are the academic
dishonest acts in which the students involved occasionally. These issues are
considered moderate severe by the students and they recommend medium level
penalty for these behaviors. Mean scores of each dishonest act has been computed
towards the frequency, severity and penalty. As per findings of Table IV, majority of
students found to be less or never involved in some dishonest acts. These dishonest
acts are copying exam sheet during exam, copying exam from cheating material,
copying project/internship report, submitting anothers assignment or project as your
own and stealing exam material. Students take these activities as more severs and they
suggest higher level of penalty for these. The frequency of students involvement in
some other academic dishonest issues like copying from internet without mentioning
the source of information and receiving others help on and helping others on graded
assignment/project is relatively higher than the remaining dishonest academic acts.
Students believe that these dishonest behaviors are least sever and suggest lower level
or no penalty for these behaviors. Remaining issues of copying home assignment from
others assignment, help others to copy your exam sheet and home assignment, allow
others to use your internship/project report in preparing their project report and copy
form internet without mentioning the source of information are the issues in which
students involve occasionally or rarely involved and students take these acts as
moderate severe. Students suggest lower level or no penalty for single behavior out of
these (helping others to copy your home assignment) while medium level penalty for
remaining four dishonest behaviors (Table V).
In order to find out the types of cheaters, we computed the number of hardcore
cheaters, simple cheaters and non-cheaters for each dishonest act. Combination of
students always and mostly involved in cheating behaviors are shown as hardcore
13
12
11
10
5
6
3
4
1
2
S. no
4
2
4
6
11
13
4
9
6
12
6
10
2
n
34
19
36
57
104
128
41
87
56
115
54
100
18
Always
Percentage
31
316
264
298
187
201
159
246
123
216
21
65
47
33
28
31
20
21
17
26
13
23
2
7
Mostly
Percentage
54
282
320
256
217
232
113
241
189
249
52
142
163
29
33
27
23
24
12
25
20
26
5
15
17
Occasionally
n
Percentage
57
164
215
183
236
242
130
216
306
241
123
263
307
17
22
19
25
25
14
23
32
25
13
27
32
Rarely
Percentage
798
96
105
106
262
196
615
127
283
148
743
452
407
Mean
4.05
4.62
4.08
3.66
3.12
2.97
4.27
3.27
3.48
2.86
3.06
2.83
4.66
Never
Percentage
42
78
47
30
15
13
64
20
27
11
11
10
83
Academic
dishonesty
661
Table II.
Frequency of academic
dishonest behavior
Table III.
Severity of academic
dishonest behavior
12
13
11
10
5
6
7
3
4
1
2
129
106
102
318
7
8
53
512
12
64
73
51
116
14
47
22
450
208
130
26
Most severe
Percentage
253
116
159
133
134
273
251
231
311
286
235
197
307
12
17
14
14
28
26
24
32
30
25
21
32
33
105
315
274
288
329
311
184
297
323
372
94
249
159
11
33
29
30
34
32
19
31
34
39
10
26
17
Very severe
Moderate severe
Percentage f Percentage
316
66
301
341
317
157
177
100
138
164
171
63
109
31
36
33
16
18
10
14
17
18
7
11
10
Less severe
Percentage
94
159
119
137
168
83
89
125
83
79
78
154
85
136
17
12
14
18
13
9
8
8
16
9
14
2.21
3.26
3.35
3.44
2.81
2.84
2.46
2.72
2.82
2.88
2.24
2.54
2.52
Least severe
f Percentage Mean
662
IJEM
24,7
32
14
26
40
40
48
22
39
48
60
52
56
15
304
132
253
384
379
462
212
373
457
572
499
537
143
123
197
172
151
225
272
267
269
304
242
291
331
299
13
21
18
16
23
28
28
28
32
25
30
35
31
RG by 1
f Percentage
153
150
122
121
151
185
217
168
166
144
219
199
161
16
16
13
13
16
19
23
18
17
15
23
21
17
RG by more
than 1
f Percentage
112
83
86
74
73
79
135
104
66
72
114
99
73
12
9
9
14
11
7
8
12
10
f1
Percentage
427
29
41
40
52
49
127
33
43
38
202
76
121
2.38
2.96
2.39
2.09
2.05
1.94
2.68
2.12
2.00
1.81
1.90
1.87
3.58
13
21
8
3
4
4
13
5
5
4
3
4
45
f2
Percentage Mean
Notes: RG by 1, reduction in grade by level 1; RG by more than 1, reduction in grade by more than 1 level; F1, grade F in exam, homework or assignment;
and F2, grade F in whole subject
12
13
11
10
5
6
7
3
4
1
2
No penalty
f Percentage
Academic
dishonesty
663
Table IV.
Penalty for academic
dishonest behavior
IJEM
24,7
S. no Act (item number)
1
2
664
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Table V.
Types of cheaters
13
Hardcore
cheaters
n Percentage
Cheaters
Percentage
Non-cheaters
n Percentage
81
470
49
407
42
40
101
4
11
175
405
18
42
743
452
78
47
180
320
19
33
495
490
52
51
283
148
30
15
374
39
457
48
127
13
200
21
243
25
615
64
288
30
474
49
196
20
243
25
453
47
262
27
413
43
439
46
106
11
318
33
535
56
105
11
416
43
446
47
96
10
49
111
12
798
83
S. no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Component
Least sever
Most severe
20.337
20.435
20.220
20.035
0.182
0.287
20.280
0.732
0.745
0.793
0.772
0.705
0.701
0.718
0.186
0.123
0.587
0.617
0.710
20.398
0.661
0.644
0.274
0.450
0.382
0.672
own, allowing others to use of your project report in preparing their project report, copying
from internet without mentioning the source of information and stealing exam material are
found to be more severe. Rests of dishonest behaviors are found to be least severe as proved
previously in the paper. These behaviors are copying from internet with mentioning the
source of information and receiving and helping others on graded assignment/project. The
findings are somewhat different from Rakovski and Levy (2007) who have explored
approximately half of the dishonest acts as most severe out of 15 total behaviors.
5. Conclusion
Ethical issues in education sector have always been a matter of great concern which
needs to be investigated and appropriate strategies should be formulated to address
such issues. The situation becomes more severe when student practice the same
dishonest behaviors during their professional life resulting in the affecting organization
culture performance negatively. This study tried to shed light on some of the aspects of
this issue and explored the students perception towards academic dishonesty, its
severity and penalties for these behaviors. To collect the data, a self-administered
questionnaire was distributed among senior students of different business and
non-business programs at higher level of study in different universities of Punjab region.
The students were asked to indicate how frequently they are involved in under
consideration 13 academic dishonest acts; their perception about the severity of these
acts and what type of penalty they suggest for these dishonest acts. The results have
reported that the dishonest issues in which students found to be involved most
frequently are least severe and they suggested lower level penalties for these dishonest
behaviors. Some dishonest issues are considered most sever by the students and they
found to be less involved in these dishonest behaviors and suggest higher level of
penalty for these issues. Students are occasionally involved in some cheating behaviors,
which are done moderately by the students and they suggest medium level of penalty
for these behaviors. The finding of this study confirms the finding of Rakovski and
Academic
dishonesty
665
Table VI.
Factor analysis
IJEM
24,7
666
Levy (2007) that students consider exam related behavior as more severe than
collaborating on home assignments and projects.
This is the confirmation of the notion that there are some dishonest behaviors which
are less severe and students do not feel hesitation if they involve occasionally or mostly
do these actions and students found to be less involved which are most severe according
to their perception. The results also put emphasis on the need to have a careful insight by
the academicians and policy makers on the ethical and moral values of students at the
undergraduate level at a university and to establish a control mechanism to oversee
the students during their exam. This also puts stress on the requirement to impart the
course of ethics in the undergraduate curriculum, especially for non-business students.
Along with this, a strict control mechanism should also be formulated in order minimize
the cheating tendency among students of Pakistani universities. Finally, the students
also left some un-attended areas of this field to be addressed in future. These may include
looking this issue in the other regions of Pakistan by increasing the sample size and
taking into consideration more universities. Different programs, subject major and other
academic characteristics can be helpful to further explore the demographical impact on
the students attitude towards academic dishonesty. Different personality traits of
students and personality types (A/B) along with locus of control are also some issues
of academic dishonesty to be discussed in future researches.
References
Auerbach, J.A. and Welsh, J.S. (1994), Aging and Competing: Rebuilding the US Workforce,
National Council on the Aging-National Planning Association Symposium,
Washington, DC.
Beltramini, R.F., Peterson, R.A. and Kozmetsky, G. (1984), Concerns of college students
regarding business ethics, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 195-200.
Bower, W.J. (1964), Students dishonesty and its control in college, working paper series,
Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia, NY.
Brown, B.S. and Emmett, D. (2001), Explaining variations in the level of academic dishonesty
in studies of college students: some new evidence, College Student Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 529-39.
Caruana, A., Ramaseshan, B. and Ewing, M.T. (2000), The effect of anomie on academic
dishonesty among university students, The International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 23-9.
Christine, Z.J. and James, C.A. (2008), Personality traits and academic attributes as determinants
of academic dishonesty in accounting and non-accounting college majors, Proceedings of
the 15th Annual Meeting of American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences
(ASBBS), Las Vegas, NV, USA, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 604-16.
Clement, M.J. (2001), Academic dishonesty: to be or not to be?, Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 253-70.
Cohen, J.G.L. and David, J.S. (1998), The effect of gender and academic discipline diversity on
the ethical evaluations, ethical intentions and ethical orientation of potential public
accounting recruits, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 250-70.
Coombe, K. and Newman, L. (1997), Ethics in early childhood field experiences, Journal of
Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Crown, D.F. and Spiller, M.S. (1998), Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: a review
of the empirical research, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 683-700.
Davis, J.R. and Welton, R.E. (1991), Professional ethics: business students perceptions,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 451-63.
Dawkins, R.L. (2004), Attributes and statuses of college students associated with classroom
cheating on a small-sized campus, College Student Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 116-29.
Diekhoff, D.M., LaBeff, E.E., Clark, R.R., Williams, L.E., Francis, B. and Haines, V.J. (1996),
College cheating: ten years later, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 487-502.
Fishbein, L. (1993), We can curb college cheating, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 40
No. 15, p. A52.
Graham, M.A., Monday, J., OBrien, K. and Steffen, S. (1994), Cheating at small colleges:
an examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors, Journal of College Student
Development, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 777-90.
Grimes, P.W. (2004), Dishonesty in academics and business: a cross-cultural evaluation of
student attitudes, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 273-90.
Haines, V.J., Diekhoff, G.M., LaBeff, E.E. and Clark, R.E. (1986), College cheating: immaturity,
lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitude, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 257-66.
Hardling, T.S., Carpenter, D.D., Finellie, C.J. and Passow, H.J. (2004), Does academic dishonesty
relate to unethical behavior in professional practice? An explanatory study, Science and
Engineering Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 311-26.
Harris, J.R. (1989), Ethical values and decision processes of male and female business students,
Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 234-8.
Kidwell, L.A., Wozniak, K. and Laurel, J.P. (2003), Student reports and faculty perceptions
of academic dishonesty, Teaching Business Ethics, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 189-99.
Lawson, R.A. (2004), Is classroom cheating related to business students propensity to cheat
in the real world?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 189-99.
McCabe, D.L. and Bowers, W.J. (1994), Academic dishonesty among males in college: a thirty
years perspective, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 5-10.
McCabe, D.L. and Drinn, P. (1999), Toward a culture of academic integrity, The Chronicle of
Higher Education, Vol. 64 No. 8, p. B7.
McCabe, D.L. and Trevino, L.K. (1997), Individual and contextual influences on academic
dishonesty: a multi-campus investigation, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 379-96.
McCabe, D.L. and Trevino, L.K. (2002), Honesty and honor codes, Academe, Vol. 88 No. 1,
pp. 37-41.
Malone, F.L. (2006), The ethical attitude of accounting students, Journal of American Academy
of Business, Cambridge, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 142.
Nunally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nuss, E.M. (1984), Academic integrity: comparing faculty and student attitudes, Improving
College and University Teaching, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 140-4.
Ogilby, S.M. (1995), The ethics of academic behavior: will it affect professional behavior?,
Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 92-7.
Rakovski, C.C. and Levy, S.E. (2007), Academic dishonesty: perception of business students,
College Student Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2, p. 466.
Robinson, E., Amburgey, R., Swank, E. and Faulkner, C. (2004), Test cheating in a rural college:
studying the importance of individual and situational factors, College Student Journal,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 380-95.
Academic
dishonesty
667
IJEM
24,7
668
Scanlon, P.M. and Neumann, D.R. (2002), Internet plagiarism among college students,
Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 374-85.
Shaub, M. (1994), An analysis of the association of traditional demographic variables with the
moral reasoning of auditing students and auditors, Journal of Accounting Education,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Smith, K.J., Davy, J.A., Rosenberg, D.L. and Haight, G.T. (2002), A structural modeling
investigation of the influence of demographic and attitudinal factors and in-class
deterrents on cheating behaviors among accounting majors, Journal of Accounting
Education, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 45-65.
Smyth, M.L. and Davis, J.R. (2004), Perception of dishonesty among two-years college students:
academic versus business situation, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Sweeney, J. (1995), The moral expertise of auditors: an explanatory analysis, Research on
Accounting Ethics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 213-34.
Thoma, S. (1986), Estimating gender differences in the comprehension and preference of moral
issues, Development Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 165-80.
Whitley, B.E. (1998), Factors associated with cheating among college students: a review,
Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 235-74.
Whitley, B.E. and Kost, C.R. (1999), College students perceptions of peers who cheat,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 1732-60.
Whitley, B.E., Nelson, A.B. and Jones, C.J. (1999), Gender differences in cheating attitudes and
classroom cheating behavior: a meta analysis, Sex Roles, Vol. 41 Nos 9/10, pp. 657-80.
Zastrow, C.H. (1970), Cheating among college graduate students, The Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 157-60.
About the authors
Mian Sajid Nazir is working as a Lecturer in CIIT Lahore. He holds a MS degree in Management
Sciences and working in the same university since 2005. He has more than ten journal
publications on his credit. Mian Sajid Nazir is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: snazir@ciitlahore.edu.pk
Muhammad Shakeel Aslam is a MS scholar at the Department of Management Sciences,
COMSATS Institute of IT, Lahore.