International Journal of Educational Management

Academic dishonesty and perceptions of Pakistani students

Mian Sajid Nazir Muhammad Shakeel Aslam
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mian Sajid Nazir Muhammad Shakeel Aslam, (2010),"Academic dishonesty and perceptions of Pakistani
students", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 24 Iss 7 pp. 655 - 668
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541011080020
Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 12:22 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 41 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1223 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Abida Ellahi, Rabia Mushtaq, Mohammed Bashir Khan, (2013),"Multi campus investigation of academic
dishonesty in higher education of Pakistan", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 27 Iss 6
pp. 647-666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-03-2012-0039
Kenneth J. Chapman, Robert A. Lupton, (2004),"Academic dishonesty in a global educational market: a
comparison of Hong Kong and American university business students", International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 18 Iss 7 pp. 425-435 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540410563130
Albert Caruana, B. Ramaseshan, Michael T. Ewing, (2000),"The effect of anomie on academic dishonesty
among university students", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 23-30 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540010310378

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:236839 []
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.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

Academic
Academic dishonesty and dishonesty
perceptions of Pakistani students
Mian Sajid Nazir and Muhammad Shakeel Aslam
Department of Management Sciences, 655
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

Abstract
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

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
tomorrow’s 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 International Journal of Educational
formulated in order to minimize these unethical practices in the business and education Management
Vol. 24 No. 7, 2010
sectors. The present study sheds some light on this issue by investigating the pp. 655-668
relationship of demographics with the dishonest behavior of students at university and q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-354X
college levels. We have used a self-administered questionnaire for the survey of the DOI 10.1108/09513541011080020
 IJEM different private and public sector universities of Punjab region. The survey questions
24,7 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
656 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.
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

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 Bower’s 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 Academic
male and female students differs on some dishonest acts but for most of the issues of dishonesty
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 657
(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
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

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
 IJEM acts are to be considered more serious dishonest acts; whereas, collaborating on
24,7 homework and not contributing to group projects are less serious dishonest acts. As per
the general expectations, the behaviors of students mostly involved in are considered
less serious by them (Kidwell et al., 2003; Nuss, 1984). Whitley (1998) and Whitley and
Kost (1999) determined that the student consider and most likely act to help someone
cheat (which is a passive and less serious act) than to cheat by themselves on the exams
658 (which is reported most severe and active dishonest act).
In addition, researchers also addressed the issue of penalties for these academic
dishonest behaviors. According the Nuss’ (1984) survey of faculty members regarding
penalties for academic dishonesty, 39 percent respondents would report the matter to
appropriate authorities, 34 percent would grant a lower grade and 26 percent would
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

give a warning to student if he/she has found cheating. Moreover, these suggestions of
penalties are dependent on the severity of the dishonest acts as well. Whitley and
Kost (1999) use a case study method by presenting the students’ different cheating
scenarios and reported that assisting and helping others to cheat is viewed by students
as less serious dishonest act than cheat by itself. Furthermore, they suggested that
cheater should be given a failing grade (50 percent) or failing grade on assignment
(25 percent). Students also suggested that most common punishment for the cheater
should be a private reprimand and writing a comprehensive paper on academic
honesty.
The present study is pioneer in its nature on the relationship of academic dishonesty
and perceptions of Pakistani students, nothing has been found in local literature.
From the above discussion, we can infer that the studies to analyze the perceptions of
students towards academic dishonesty, severity and penalties are from developed
countries. This issue, yet, has not been explored in the context of higher education in
developing countries like Pakistan. To fill this gap, a structured questionnaire has been
administered to assess the frequency, severity and penalties of academic dishonesty
among the students of professional education in public and private sector universities
of Pakistan.

3. Methodology
The study gathered the data from the respondents on a well-structured and
self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. First part
was focusing on the demographic factors of the students responding. There demographic
factors were gender, age group of respondents, program level in which the student is
enrolled, subject majors taken and academic performance measured in terms of cumulative
grade point average (CGPA) of the student earned. Second part consists of most commonly
researched 13 unethical academic acts the students may involve in. The students were
asked to describe how frequently involve in academic dishonest behaviors, which acts
are most serious and suggest penalties for academic dishonest acts. The responses were
arranged on a five-point Likert Scale which receives responses for every dishonest act of the
students in always or never (i.e. one stands for never and five for always involved).
The frequency, severity and penalties for academic dishonest behaviors have been
measured by second part of the questionnaire taken from the literature (Cohen and David,
1998; Davis and Welton, 1991; Rakovski and Levy, 2007). The data were collected by
a questionnaire discussed above from the graduate and undergraduate students studying
 at the various universities of Pakistan. The questionnaires were distributed in the classes Academic
and students took approximately 15 minutes to complete each questionnaire. dishonesty
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 659
data collected was tested using Cronbach’s 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
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

students responses towards suggesting penalties for these academic dishonest

behaviors using SPSS 16.

4. Results and discussion

The cross tabulation is shown in Table I for demographic factors, i.e. CGPA, academic
program, age group and major with regard to were compared with gender of the
respondents. The sample was collected from different universities which are
representative of population. Out of 958 respondents, 638 (67 percent) are male and
320 (33 percent) are female. In terms of academic performance, a vast majority of male
students secured a CGPA ranging from 2.50 to 3.50 while out of 320 female respondents

Male Female Total

n Percentage n Percentage n Percentage

Panel A: gender and CGPA

CGPA
Below 2.0 9 1 2 0.1 11 1
2.0-2.5 94 15 8 2.5 102 11
2.5-3.0 212 33 63 20 275 29
3.0-3.5 212 33 117 36 329 34
3.5-4.0 111 18 130 41 241 25
Total 638 100 320 100 958 100
Panel B: gender and program
Program
Graduate 109 17 91 28 200 21
Undergraduate 529 83 229 72 758 79
Total 638 100 320 100 958 100
Panel C: gender and age group
Age group
16-20 83 13 64 20 147 15
21-25 545 85 253 79 798 83
26-30 10 2 3 1 13 2
Total 638 100 320 100 958 100
Panel D: gender and major
Major
Business 333 52 208 65 541 56
Non-business 305 48 112 35 417 44 Table I.
Total 638 100 320 100 958 100 Demographic statistics
 IJEM 247 (77 percent) were found to have secured CGPA of 3.00-4.00 which reflects that female
24,7 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.
660 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 another’s assignment with their own name and very
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

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 other’s 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 another’s 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
other’s 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
 Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

Always Mostly Occasionally Rarely Never

S. no Academic dishonest act n Percentage n Percentage n Percentage n Percentage n Percentage Mean

1 Copy exam sheet during exam 34 4 47 5 163 17 307 32 407 42 4.05

2 Copy exam from cheating material
with you in exam 19 2 21 2 52 5 123 13 743 78 4.62
3 Copy project/internship report 36 4 65 7 142 15 263 27 452 47 4.08
4 Copy home assignment from other’s
assignment 57 6 123 13 189 20 306 32 283 30 3.66
5 Help others to copy your exam sheet 104 11 216 23 249 26 241 25 148 15 3.12
6 Help others to copy your home
assignment 128 13 246 26 241 25 216 23 127 13 2.97
7 Submit another’s assignment or
project as your own 41 4 159 17 113 12 130 14 615 64 4.27
8 Allow others to use of your project
report in preparing their project
report 87 9 201 21 232 24 242 25 196 20 3.27
9 Copy from internet without
mentioning the source 56 6 187 20 217 23 236 25 262 27 3.48
10 Copy from internet with mentioning
the source 115 12 298 31 256 27 183 19 106 11 2.86
11 Receive other’s help on graded
assignment/project 54 6 264 28 320 33 215 22 105 11 3.06
12 Help others on graded
assignment/project 100 10 316 33 282 29 164 17 96 10 2.83
13 Steal exam material (question
paper/exam sheet) 18 2 31 3 54 6 57 6 798 83 4.66
dishonesty

dishonest behavior
Academic

Frequency of academic
661

Table II.
 Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

24,7

662
IJEM

Table III.

dishonest behavior
Severity of academic
Most severe Very severe Moderate severe Less severe Least severe
S. no Academic dishonest act f Percentage f Percentage f Percentage f Percentage f Percentage Mean

1 Copy exam sheet during exam 253 26 316 33 159 17 94 10 136 14 2.52
2 Copy exam from cheating material
with you in exam 450 47 197 21 94 10 63 7 154 16 2.24
3 Copy project/internship report 208 22 307 32 249 26 109 11 85 9 2.54
4 Copy home assignment from other’s
assignment 129 13 311 32 297 31 138 14 83 9 2.72
5 Help others to copy your exam sheet 106 11 286 30 323 34 164 17 79 8 2.82
6 Help others to copy your home assignment 102 11 235 25 372 39 171 18 78 8 2.88
7 Submit another’s assignment or project
as your own 318 33 231 24 184 19 100 10 125 13 2.46
8 Allow others to use of your project report
in preparing their project report 130 14 251 26 311 32 177 18 89 9 2.84
9 Copy from internet without mentioning the
source 116 12 273 28 329 34 157 16 83 9 2.81
10 Copy from internet with mentioning the
source 51 5 134 14 288 30 317 33 168 18 3.44
11 Receive other’s help on graded
assignment/project 64 7 159 17 315 33 301 31 119 12 3.26
12 Help others on graded assignment/project 73 8 133 14 274 29 341 36 137 14 3.35
13 Steal Exam material (question paper/exam
sheet) 512 53 116 12 105 11 66 7 159 17 2.21
 Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

RG by more
No penalty RG by 1 than 1 f1 f2
S. no Act (item number) f Percentage f Percentage f Percentage f Percentage f Percentage Mean

1 Copy exam sheet during exam 304 32 299 31 161 17 73 8 121 13 2.38
2 Copy exam from cheating material with
you in exam 132 14 291 30 219 23 114 12 202 21 2.96
3 Copy project/internship report 253 26 331 35 199 21 99 10 76 8 2.39
4 Copy home assignment from other’s
assignment 384 40 269 28 168 18 104 11 33 3 2.09
5 Help others to copy your exam sheet 379 40 304 32 166 17 66 7 43 4 2.05
6 Help others to copy your home assignment 462 48 242 25 144 15 72 8 38 4 1.94
7 Submit another’s assignment or project as
your own 212 22 267 28 217 23 135 14 127 13 2.68
8 Allow others to use of your project report
in preparing their project report 373 39 272 28 185 19 79 8 49 5 2.12
9 Copy from internet without mentioning the
source 457 48 225 23 151 16 73 8 52 5 2.00
10 Copy from internet with mentioning the
source 572 60 151 16 121 13 74 8 40 4 1.81
11 Receive other’s help on graded
assignment/project 499 52 197 21 150 16 83 9 29 3 1.90
12 Help others on graded assignment/project 537 56 172 18 122 13 86 9 41 4 1.87
13 Steal exam material (question paper/exam
sheet) 143 15 123 13 153 16 112 12 427 45 3.58
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
dishonesty

dishonest behavior
Academic

Penalty for academic

663

Table IV.
 IJEM
Hardcore
24,7 cheaters Cheaters Non-cheaters
S. no Act (item number) n Percentage n Percentage n Percentage

1 Copy exam sheet during exam 81 9 470 49 407 42

2 Copy exam from cheating material
664 with you in exam 40 4 175 18 743 78
3 Copy project/internship report 101 11 405 42 452 47
4 Copy home assignment from other’s
assignment 180 19 495 52 283 30
5 Help others to copy your exam sheet 320 33 490 51 148 15
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

6 Help others to copy your home

assignment 374 39 457 48 127 13
7 Submit another’s assignment or
project as your own 200 21 243 25 615 64
8 Allow others to use of your project
report in preparing their project report 288 30 474 49 196 20
9 Copy from internet without mentioning
the source 243 25 453 47 262 27
10 Copy from internet with mentioning
the source 413 43 439 46 106 11
11 Receive other’s help on graded
assignment/project 318 33 535 56 105 11
12 Help others on graded assignment/
project 416 43 446 47 96 10
Table V. 13 Steal exam material (question paper/
Types of cheaters exam sheet) 49 5 111 12 798 83

cheater, occasionally or rarely involved as cheaters and never involved in dishonest

acts are represented as non-cheaters. Among the total respondents, majority of
students found to be never involved in the dishonest issues of coping exam from
cheating material, submit another’s assignment or project as your own and steal exam
material before the exam. The results also proved the notion that the students are
concerned less often with dishonest behaviors which are perceived as most severe.
In case of copying exam sheet during exam, copying project/internship report, the
number of cheaters and non-cheaters are almost same and the total of these two are
more than 90 percent of total respondents. Among total respondents, approximately
50 percent of total respondent are being found as cheater and almost equal number of
students lies in both sides, i.e. hardcore cheaters and non-cheaters. For the remaining
issues of help others to copy your exam sheet and home assignment, allowing others to
use of your project report in preparing their project, copying from internet without
mentioning the source of information, receiving help and helping others on graded
assignment/project, more than 80 percent of total respondents are being found as
hardcore cheaters and cheaters and among these number cheaters are greater than the
number of hardcore cheaters.
Moreover, the study also finds the severity of the dishonest acts by applying factor
analysis and results have been reported in Table VI. According to factor analysis coping
exam sheet during exam, copying exam from cheating material, copying project/internship
report, copying home assignment from other’s assignment, helping others to copy your
exam sheet and home assignment, submission of another’s assignment/project as your
 Academic
Component
S. no Act (item number) Least sever Most severe dishonesty
1 Copy exam sheet during exam 20.337 0.732
2 Copy exam from cheating material with you in exam 20.435 0.745
3 Copy project/internship report 20.220 0.793
4 Copy home assignment from other’s assignment 20.035 0.772 665
5 Help others to copy your exam sheet 0.182 0.705
6 Help others to copy your home assignment 0.287 0.701
7 Submit another’s assignment or project as your own 20.280 0.718
8 Allow others to use of your project report in preparing
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

their project report 0.186 0.661

9 Copy from internet without mentioning the source 0.123 0.644
10 Copy from internet with mentioning the source 0.587 0.274
11 Receive other’s help on graded assignment/project 0.617 0.450
12 Help others on graded assignment/project 0.710 0.382
13 Steal exam material (question paper/exam sheet) 20.398 0.672
Table VI.
Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis Factor analysis

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
 IJEM Levy (2007) that students consider exam related behavior as more severe than
24,7 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
666 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
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

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”, Academic
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 451-63.
dishonesty
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. 40 667
No. 15, p. A52.
Graham, M.A., Monday, J., O’Brien, K. and Steffen, S. (1994), “Cheating at small colleges:
an examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors”, Journal of College Student
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

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.
 IJEM 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.
24,7 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
668 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.
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

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.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Tarah Hodgkinson, Hugh Curtis, David MacAlister, Graham Farrell. 2015. Student Academic
Dishonesty: The Potential for Situational Prevention. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 1-18.
[CrossRef]
2. Stephen K. Nkundabanyanga, Charles Omagor, Irene Nalukenge. 2014. Correlates of academic
misconduct and CSR proclivity of students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 6:1, 128-148.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Kulsoom Ghias, Ghulam Lakho, Hamna Asim, Iqbal Azam, Sheikh Saeed. 2014. Self-reported attitudes
and behaviours of medical students in Pakistan regarding academic misconduct: a cross-sectional study.
BMC Medical Ethics 15, 43. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 12:22 30 January 2016 (PT)

4. Abida Ellahi, Rabia Mushtaq, Mohammed Bashir Khan. 2013. Multi campus investigation of academic
dishonesty in higher education of Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Management 27:6,
647-666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Raza Ullah, John T. E. Richardson, Muhammad Hafeez. 2013. Variations in perceptions of the learning
environment and approaches to studying among university students in Pakistan. PROSPECTS 43,
165-186. [CrossRef]