Studies in Higher Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cshe20

Plagiarism awareness efforts, students’ ethical

judgment and behaviors: a longitudinal
experiment study on ethical nuances of plagiarism
in higher education

Anupama Prashar, Parul Gupta & Yogesh K. Dwivedi

To cite this article: Anupama Prashar, Parul Gupta & Yogesh K. Dwivedi (2024) Plagiarism
awareness efforts, students’ ethical judgment and behaviors: a longitudinal experiment
study on ethical nuances of plagiarism in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 49:6,
929-955, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2253835

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2253835

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa View supplementary material

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 01 Sep 2023. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6459 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
2024, VOL. 49, NO. 6, 929–955
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2253835

Plagiarism awareness efforts, students’ ethical judgment and

behaviors: a longitudinal experiment study on ethical nuances of
plagiarism in higher education
Anupama Prashara, Parul Guptaa and Yogesh K. Dwivedib,c
a
Management Development Institute Gurgaon, India; bDigital Futures for Sustainable Business & Society Research
Group, School of Management, Swansea University, Bay Campus, Swansea, UK; cDepartment of Management,
Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Pune & Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Widespread academic dishonesty among higher education (HE) students Received 3 March 2023
has been a concern for higher education institutes (HEIs). Ethics literature Accepted 26 August 2023
reports that unintentional plagiarism is more prevalent among HE
KEYWORDS
students and the root cause is, limited or no awareness of nuances of Plagiarism ethics; ethics
ethics concerning plagiarism resulting in poor ethical judgments. This awareness efforts; ethical
study attempts to examine what is students’ ethical reasoning for judgments; ethical behavior;
unintentional plagiarism and how HEIs’ ethical awareness efforts impact higher education
students’ ethical judgments which ultimately shape their ethical
behavior. The study also explored whether and how individual-level
factors such as intrinsic religiosity, age, gender, and work experience
moderate the focal relationships. A longitudinal quasi-experimental field
study was conducted. The subjects of the study were 294 postgraduate
students of an internationally accredited higher education institution in
India. The pretest–posttest design involved a set of experimental
manipulations reflecting the HEI’s endeavors to explicate the unethical
implications of plagiarism.

1. Introduction
The increasingly frequent incidents of unethical behavior in the global corporate world have shown
a spotlight on the role of higher education institutes (HEIs) in promoting ethical behavior among
future corporate employees (Blau and Eshet-Alkalai 2017; Gottardello and Pàmies 2019; Gullifer
and Tyson 2014). Widespread academic dishonesty among higher education (HE) students who
are future employees and entrepreneurs is certainly a concern for HEIs (Abbas et al. 2021; Bernardi
and Higgins 2020). Dishonest behavior of students in academic settings can manifest itself as unethi-
cal behavior at the workplace such as; payment of bribes, misrepresentation of facts, breach of confi-
dentiality, etc. (Holland and Albrecht 2013). In fact, there is empirical evidence that students who
exhibit dishonesty in academic settings are more likely to behave unethically at their workplace
as well (Rupp et al. 2015; Tzini and Jain 2018).

CONTACT Yogesh K. Dwivedi [email protected] Digital Futures for Sustainable Business & Society Research
Group, School of Management, Swansea University, Bay Campus, Fabian Bay, Swansea SA1 8EN, Wales, UK Department of
Management, Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Pune & Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune,
Maharashtra, India
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2253835
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this
article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
930 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

Despite profound scholarly discussions, there is no consensus about the definition of academic
dishonesty that explains the types of behaviors constituting types of dishonesty (Jamieson and
Howard 2019) and duly considers all stakeholders’ concerns (Aluede, Omoregie, and Osa-Edoh
2006). Lacking a precise definition and agreement on behaviors describing academic dishonesty,
various terms are used interchangeably such as ‘cheating,’ ‘dishonesty,’ and ‘academic immorality’
(Burrus, McGoldrick, and Schuhmann 2007; Lee, Kuncel, and Gau 2020). Previous studies have
suggested that one of the most prominent and reported forms of academic dishonesty prevailing
in the students’ community is plagiarism (Radulovic and Uys 2019; Şendağ, Duran, and Fraser
2012). According to Gotterbarn, Miller, and Impagliazzo (2006) Plagiarism refers to the ‘inappropri-
ate, unauthorized, unacknowledged use of someone else’s ideas as if they were original or
common knowledge [including] … incomplete or vague references that tend to mislead the
reader into misidentifying one person’s ideas for another.’ In simple words, plagiarism is an act of
unauthorized use of someone else’s work without due attribution (Devlin and Gray 2007). It
covers copying and careless paraphrasing of others’ work (Honig and Bedi 2012). Several previous
studies have found that due to a lack of awareness about ethical concerns related to plagiarism,
HE students do not perceive plagiarism as a serious ethical misdemeanour (Abbas et al. 2021; East
2010; Khathayut, Walker-Gleaves, and Humble 2022). Moreover, students and academic staff can
have different views on the unethicality associated with plagiarism (Evans 2006).
However, it is important to note here that the plagiarism continuum ranges from unintentional to
intentional plagiarism (Fatemi and Saito 2020; Sutherland-Smith 2005). Intentional plagiarism is an
act of deliberate ignorance of plagiarism policy and rules, whereas unintentional plagiarism
results from a student’s lack of understanding or different understanding of the nuances of ethics
surrounding plagiarism (Anson 2011; Fatemi and Saito 2020; Gullifer and Tyson 2010). Ethics research
has frequently reported that unintentional plagiarism is more prevalent among HE students and the
root cause is, limited or no awareness of nuances of academic ethics concerning plagiarism which
results in poor ethical judgments (Farahian, Avarzamani, and Rezaee 2022; Ruedy and Schweitzer
2010). Ethical judgment which is an individual’s evaluation of the ethicality of action in a given situ-
ation is found to be a strong predictor of ethical behavior (Otaye-Ebede, Shaffakat, and Foster 2020).
These interacting issues highlight HEIs’ responsibility to sensitize and educate students about ethical
issues concerning plagiarism.
Ethics research argues that HEIs should arm their students with a deeper understanding of plagi-
arism ethics which is beyond just a pragmatic view of why plagiarism is unacceptable. Plagiarism
education and awareness exercises can significantly improve students’ ethical sensitivity and criti-
cal-thinking approach to ethical decision-making. Their ability to make strong ethical judgments
in academic settings is expected to lead to ethical behavior in professional settings too (Chang
et al. 2019; Sulaiman et al. 2022; Youmans 2011). Dedicated efforts are required at HEIs’ level to
create awareness among students about plagiarism ethics because unlike other acts of academic dis-
honesty such as cheating, plagiarism is not defined for new HE students. Although many HEIs have
started disseminating information among students to define plagiarism and explain its unethicality
through handbooks, regulations, awareness exercises, code of ethics, and plagiarism ethics policies,
etc., these efforts have not been able to contribute much. Preventive measures such as software to
detect plagiarism and punitive measures have failed to discourage students from plagiarizing
(Nwosu and Chukwuere 2020). This is primarily because preventive measures may deter dishonest
actions in certain situations but cannot bring a behavioral change (Davis et al. 1992). Therefore, it
becomes important for HEIs to direct plagiarism awareness efforts toward students’ moral develop-
ment instead of treating plagiarism merely as a penal action (Ryan et al. 2009). This is how they can
encourage students to embrace ethical behavior not only in academic settings but also in the
workplace.
Considering lack of awareness to be the primary reason for poor ethical judgment concerning
academic ethics in general and plagiarism in particular, and its impact on students’ ethical behavior,
there are a few interacting questions for HEIs and educators. Important among these are what is
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 931

students’ ethical reasoning of the acts of academic dishonesty such as; plagiarism and how HEIs’
ethical awareness efforts impact students’ ethical judgments which in turn promote ethical behavior.
Additionally, HEIs should consider the findings of previous ethics research suggesting that an indi-
vidual’s personal and demographic characteristics such as intrinsic religiosity, age, gender, work
experience, etc. are strongly linked with ethical judgments and are instrumental in predicting the
ethical conduct of a person in a given situation (Alshehri, Fotaki, and Kauser 2021; Bateman and
Valentine 2010; Januarti 2011). Therefore, it will be useful to explore whether and how individual-
level factors such as intrinsic religiosity, age, gender, etc. moderate the impact of HEIs’ plagiarism
awareness efforts on students’ ethical judgments and ultimately their ethical behavior.
This study attempts to answer these questions empirically by conducting a longitudinal quasi-
experimental field study (Campbell 1963; Cook and Campbell 1979). This research design is apt
for empirical validation of the causal effects of real-world interventions on the potential attitudinal
and behavioral outcomes (Deaton and Cartwright 2018). Data for the field study was collected from a
sample of 297 postgraduate students of an internationally accredited HEI in India. The experiment
data were analyzed using multivariate statistical methods (Hair et al. 2010). The remaining sections
of this paper are organized as follows. In the next section, we explain the theoretical background of
this study, followed by a literature review and hypotheses development. The fourth section outlines
the methods and results are provided in the fifth section. Discussion and implications are explained
in the sixth section, followed by the conclusion and limitations of this study in the last section.

2. Theoretical framework
Given that HEIs consider plagiarism an issue of academic ethics and are inclined to develop effective
plagiarism awareness exercises for HE students, more knowledge about students’ ethical reasoning
for plagiarism could be insightful. To understand the interaction of students’ ethical reasoning for
plagiarism and the responsibility of institutes/universities to promote ethical behavior, we referred
to previous studies on students’ academic dishonesty, ethical theories, and theoretical models
explaining the cognitive process of ethical behavior. The following sub-sections summarize our
review of relevant theories.

2.1. Students’ ethical reasoning of plagiarism – the perspective of ethical theories

Intentional Plagiarism (IP) demonstrates unethical academic behavior as it transgresses core aca-
demic values namely, fairness, honesty, and trust in which the plagiarist student fraudulently uses
the original author’s intellectual property (Hansen et al. 2011; Keohane 1999). Ownership of intellec-
tual ideas is at the core of academic pursuits and intellectual theft erodes the moral values of aca-
demic honesty (Gullifer and Tyson 2010; Perfect and Stark 2012). IP by students is attributed to
violating the academic ethics policy of the university, ignorance of referencing rules, and authorship
acknowledgements, and to procrastination leading to expediency and cheating to secure better
grades (Anson 2011; Khathayut, Walker-Gleaves, and Humble 2022). Plagiarist students earn personal
gains over the good of other students and the integrity of the academic institution and therefore, it is
a form of immoral behavior (Staats et al. 2009). While there is a consensus about IP being unethical
behavior, a group of scholars feels that unintentional plagiarism (UIP) may not be considered unethi-
cal behavior and it should not be dealt with rigorous punishment/penalty (Jamieson 2016). UIP can
be prevented by the institutions/universities by making efforts to create plagiarism ethical aware-
ness among the students.
An in-depth review of several studies on academic ethics revealed some types of reasoning used
by students in different ethical contexts. Students quite often use some ethical philosophies to justify
the act of IP (Granitz and Loewy 2007). For example, students may use utilitarian philosophies to
argue that IP leads to better outcomes in terms of greater learning and higher grades without
harming anyone and thus creating the greatest total utility (De George 1990). Previous studies
932 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

have reported another ethical context to justify IP which is inspired by the rational self-interest per-
spective of ethics (Ashworth, Bannister, and Thorne 1997; Waltzer and Dahl 2021). Where plagiarist
students believe that plagiarism is not unethical because they are engaged in a fair exchange of
value. For example, they may feel that by using others’ work they are helping the author publicize
his/her work. Similarly, research indicates that plagiarists embrace Machiavellianism ethical context
to defend IP where the students are primarily motivated to act in their self-interest (Granitz and
Loewy 2007). The student may experience a thrill when he/she gets by without catching the pro-
fessor’s attention to his/her plagiarized act (Webster and Harmon 2002).
The subscribers of deontology extend the continuum of ethics to personal values, i.e. what a
person feels is right (De George 1990). The locus of right and wrong is self-directed and therefore,
a student who follows a deontological perspective of ethics can only plagiarize when he/she lacks
a clear understanding of what type of activities are covered under plagiarism (Bugeja 2001). In
the same vein, a student may derive the meaning of right, wrong, fair, unfair, justice, and injustice
from his/her cultural attributes (Donaldson 1989). Since all cultures do not follow the same ethical
standards, ethical judgment about an action may vary across cultures (Granitz and Loewy 2007;
Hayes and Introna 2005). Therefore, it is not unlikely that students’ perception of a plagiarism activity
differs based on their cultural background. Some of them may not consider plagiarism activity as an
unethical action because it is acceptable in their culture while others from a different cultural back-
ground may feel just the opposite. Demonstrating a relativist approach, previous studies have found
that cultural background is an important determinant of students’ ethical behavior (Hay 2002). It
should be noted that students who apply deontology or cultural relativism in making ethical judg-
ments may not be necessarily aware of the transgression. They may not even realize that they are
indulging in an unethical act. However, students subscribing to utilitarianism self-interest, or Machia-
vellianism are fully aware of their wrongdoings.

2.2. Students’ ethical reasoning of plagiarism – cognitive moral development theory

perspective
To understand students’ ethical reasoning for plagiarism, we referred to the cognitive moral devel-
opment theory proposed by Kohlberg (1969). A vast majority of studies on ethical behavior and
ethical decision-making have based their work on this theory to understand what can be done to
promote ethical behavior (Cahyono and Sudaryati 2023; Jordan et al. 2013; Latif 2000). The theory
defines a person’s ethical reasoning as ‘an ability to interpret the situation and analyze conse-
quences of possible actions to himself/herself and others; judge a morally right course of
action; give precedence to morally right consideration over others, and follow the intention to
act morally’ (Trevino 1992, 445). In the ethics literature, the terms ‘ethics;’ and ‘moral’ are intrac-
tably used (Treviño, Weaver, and Reynolds 2006). Thus, according to this theory, students’ ethical
reasoning for plagiarism will comprise three broad concepts: ethical awareness, ethical judgment,
and ethical behavior (intention and action). Ethical awareness is embedded in interpreting the
ethical dilemma; ethical judgment is rooted in analyzing available courses of action and their con-
sequences and identifying what is ethically right, and ethical intention and action are implied in
giving priority to ethical action over the other considerations and doing what is ethically right
(Nwosu and Chukwuere 2020). It is implied in the theory that the cognitive moral development
of a student for plagiarism ethics will be significantly affected by his/her ability to interpret the
ethical dilemma, i.e. ethical awareness because ethical judgment is guided by the correct
interpretation of the situation which in turn will affect ethical behavior (Treviño, Weaver, and Rey-
nolds 2006).
In this study, we aim to study students’ ethical reasoning for plagiarism and HEIs’ role in shaping
students’ ethical behavior in academic settings. To attain this objective, we examined the impact of
HEIs’ plagiarism ethics awareness efforts on students’ ethical judgment which in turn is expected to
influence ethical behavior. For measuring students’ ethical judgment, we referred to
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 933

Multidimensional Ethics Scale (MES) proposed by Reidenbach and Robin (1990) which is the most
recommended and widely used instrument (Pelegrín-Borondo et al. 2020). This scale views ethical
judgment as a multidimensional construct such that ethicality is a function of three broad-based
philosophies: moral equity, relativism, and contractualism. Moral equity which is the most compli-
cated dimension captures how a person perceives fairness and justice. Right and wrong are
measured on an individual’s principles of fairness and moral propriety (LaFleur et al. 1995). The rela-
tivism dimension concentrates on social/cultural requirements, guidelines, and norms than individ-
ual considerations. Right, and wrong is guided by norms and principles inherent in the social/cultural
system than individuals’ viewpoints. The third dimension, contractualism captures normative philos-
ophies in terms of an individual’s perception of right or wrong based on an implied contract
between him/her and society. The ethicality of action is based on the notion of violation/non-viola-
tion of implicit duties, rules, and promises made with society (Reidenbach and Robin 1990).
In the following sections, we propose the hypotheses after reviewing the literature on the impact
of ethical awareness efforts on ethical judgment and how improved ethical judgment affects ethical
behavior.

3. Literature review and hypothesis

3.1. Ethical awareness efforts and ethical judgment related to plagiarism
Achieving academic integration is a complex challenge faced by the majority of HE students. To be
successful, students have to meet the explicit academic standards (structural academic integration)
in a way that is deemed acceptable by the institution (normative academic integration) (Braxton and
Lee 2005; Schaeper 2020). Attaining academic integration may be particularly difficult if students lack
enough knowledge about normative academic standards (Coll and Stewart 2008). The problem is
compounded when there is a fundamental disjuncture between the ethical views of students and
academic staff, or students’ understanding of what comprises AI is different from that of the pro-
fessors. This situation indicates a lack of ethical awareness among the students which may result
in poor ethical judgments (Ayton et al. 2022).
Ethical awareness refers to a person’s belief that there exists an ethical problem in a given situ-
ation (Singhapakdi et al. 1996). While measuring this construct, a person is asked to report if he/
she believes a problem stated in a given case raises ethical concerns. Recognition of ethical issues
leads to cautious consideration of their ethicality and consequences for self and others which
results in fair ethical judgments (Barnett and Valentine 2004). Empirical studies have found that
due to a lack of plagiarism ethical awareness, students faced difficulty in understanding the
nuances of plagiarism (Abbas et al. 2021; Breen and Maassen 2005). A poor understanding of pla-
giarism ethics adversely affects students’ ethical judgments leading to unethical behavior. For
instance, Breen and Maassen (2005) found that despite having a clear appreciation that
quoting direct words from a source was an academic offence, students struggled with paraphras-
ing and idea citations.
Given the role of ethical awareness in facilitating ethical judgments, institutions/universities can
play an active role in creating plagiarism ethical awareness among students. Extant literature
suggests that ethical awareness efforts in the form of library instructions, antiplagiarism policy,
honor codes, and integrating lecture sessions on plagiarism ethics have significantly improved stu-
dents’ ethical judgment (Belter and Du Pre 2009). Awareness of the unethical implications of plagiar-
ism helps the students analyze the alternative options and identify the ethically correct course of
action. Supporting these claims, several empirical studies have reported that ethical awareness is
positively related to ethical judgments (Abbas et al. 2021; Latan, Chiappetta Jabbour, and Lopes
de Sousa Jabbour 2019; Pan and Sparks 2012). Literature on academic ethics makes us believe
that plagiarism ethics awareness efforts will improve students’ ethical judgments related to plagiar-
ism and we propose;
934 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

H1a–c: Plagiarism awareness efforts positively influence students’ ethical judgment (H1a-moral equity, H1b-rela-
tivism, H1c-contractualism) related to plagiarism.

3.2. Ethical judgment and plagiarism behavior

Ethical judgment refers to an individual’s belief that an action is morally acceptable (Gifford 2007).
The values and principles making the code of ethics direct an individual’s way of forming judgments
concerning what is ethically right or wrong (Aaker 1989). And therefore, individuals possessing high
ethical values are likely to be more sensitive toward the ethicality of an issue (ethical awareness) and
they are assumed to form better ethical judgments (Abdullah, Sulong, and Said 2014). We refer to
social cognitive theory (Bandura 1989) to understand the impact of ethical judgment on ethical
behavior. The theory suggests a human agency model that explains how internal and external par-
ameters influence an individual’s ability to engage in a targeted behavior (Martin et al. 2014). This
theory proposes that an individual’s moral judgments guide their moral conduct (Otaye-Ebede,
Shaffakat, and Foster 2020; Wood and Bandura 1989). Drawing from this theory we believe that stu-
dents’ ethical judgments will form the basis for their ethical behavior.
It is important to mention here that cognitive moral development theory suggests that ethical
judgments lead to ethical intention which influences ethical actions. In the same vein, the theory
of reasoned action also proposes that an individual’s behavioral intention to act is the predictor
of his/her behavioral action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1975). However, some previous ethical behavior
studies have reported a disconnect between behavioral intention and ethical behavior (Moon,
Habib, and Attiq 2015). It indicates that students might report a strong intention to act ethically
but they may not subsequently act following their level of intention to act. Therefore, we decided
to record behavioral action instead of behavioral intention, which is considered a stronger indicator
of ethical behavior. Numerous previous studies have included ethical judgment as a key indicator of
ethical behavior (Chang et al. 2019; Otaye-Ebede, Shaffakat, and Foster 2020). Therefore, efforts
should be made to improve students’ ethical judgment related to plagiarism.
Earlier studies suggest that through ethical awareness efforts such as the use of case studies pre-
senting plagiarism ethical dilemmas, and awareness lecture sessions, student’s ability to make ethical
judgments can be improved (Elbe and Brand 2016; Kim and Park 2019). Learning from the ethical
judgments will help the students develop a degree of automaticity in their ethical decision
making resulting in consistency between ethical judgments and ethical behavior (Halder et al.
2020). Automaticity in the present context refers to the ease with which students make ethical
decisions and act accordingly without conscious reasoning or much mental struggle (Lapsley and
Narvaez 2004). Thus, the more the ability to make ethical judgments, the higher the likelihood of
demonstrating ethical behavior (Otaye-Ebede, Shaffakat, and Foster 2020). In light of the scholarly
arguments supporting a relationship between ethical judgments and ethical behavior, we
propose to test the following hypothesis:
H2a–c: Students’ ethical judgment related to plagiarism (H2a-moral equity, H2b-relativism, H2c-contractualism)
positively influences their ethical behavior.

3.3. Moderating role of intrinsic religiosity

Religiosity has been consistently reported to influence ethical outcomes because individuals’ beha-
viors are primarily guided by the values, principles, and moral duties embedded in their sociocultural
and religious beliefs (Arli, Tkaczynski, and Anandya 2019). To uncover the role of religiosity in ethical
decision making we refer to the Hunt-Vitell model (1986) which explains three ways in which religi-
osity influences ethical judgments. First, an individual’s deontological norms (personal values and
principles) are a function of religious beliefs, and his/her deontological evaluation (ethical judgment)
may vary from person to person. Second, in the ethical decision-making process, the relationship
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 935

between deontological and teleological norms is impacted by the relative importance of individual
perspective, and therefore, more religious individuals may give higher importance to deontological
norms while making ethical judgments (Hunt and Vitell 2006). Third, religiosity may restrict some
potential alternative actions if they are not aligned with religious beliefs (Hansen et al. 2011).
An Individual’s religious orientation can be broadly classified into two categories: extrinsic and
intrinsic religiosity. Extrinsic religiosity captures an individual’s religious motivation for personal
gains while intrinsic religiosity relates to an individual’s motivation driven by core values and prin-
ciples of the religion (Allport and Ross 1967). The scope of this study is to examine the moderating
impact of intrinsic religiosity which has clear ethical implications (Vitell, Paolillo, and Singh 2005). On
the other hand, extrinsic religiosity is found to be either unrelated or negatively related to ethical
behaviors (Walker, Smither, and DeBode 2012). Intrinsic religiosity is described as the degree to
which religion is integrated into the follower’s life (Pargament 2002). It is important to note the
difference between religion and religiosity because it is religiosity that drives individuals’ ethical
behavior and not religion. A person may claim to believe in a religion, but he/she may not be reli-
gious unless the values of that religion are practised (Parboteeah, Paik, and Cullen 2009) and belief in
a religion and religiosity are not the same because belief without practice is immaterial. In this study
religiosity of an individual is a measure of how religious he/she is (Hoge 1972).
The literature argues that individuals’ actions/behaviors are motivated or restricted by their reli-
gious beliefs i.e. religiosity (McAndrew and Voas 2011). In the ethical behavior contexts, previous
studies have extensively examined the impact of religiosity on an individual’s behavior (Bhuian
et al. 2018), and generally, intrinsic religiosity is reported to motivate ethical judgments and pro-
social behaviors (e.g. Paxton, Reith, and Glanville 2014). Despite some disagreements on the relation-
ship between religiosity and ethical judgment, a majority of the studies have found a significant posi-
tive relationship between the two (Alshehri, Fotaki, and Kauser 2021; McAndrew and Voas 2011;
Walker, Smither, and DeBode 2012). Individuals who consciously follow the doctrine of their religion
are more sensitive toward ethical issues and therefore can easily identify ethical challenges in a given
scenario leading to fair ethical judgment (Putrevu and Swimberghek 2013). Empirical studies have
supported this argument by recording individuals with high or moderate religiosity making stronger
ethical judgments than the ones with lower religiosity scores (Choe and Lau 2010; Walker, Smither,
and DeBode 2012). Given the role of religiosity in ethical decision-making, we believe that religiosity
could influence the impact of plagiarism ethics awareness efforts on students’ ethical judgments.
H3a–c: Intrinsic religiosity moderates the impact of plagiarism awareness efforts on students’ ethical judgment
(H3a-moral equity, H3b-relativism, H3c-contractualism) related to plagiarism.

3.4. Demographic characteristics and ethical judgment related to plagiarism

The extant literature suggests that personal demographic characteristics are linked with ethical judg-
ments made by individuals in various ethical contexts. In the context of academic ethics, numerous
studies have found that demographic factors such as age, gender (Bateman and Valentine 2010;
Eweje and Brunton 2010), and work experience (Eweje and Brunton 2010; Januarti 2011) are associ-
ated with ethical judgments leading to ethical/ moral behavior. In the following section, we discuss
the potential moderating effect of demographic factors on the relationship between plagiarism
awareness efforts and students’ ethical judgments related to plagiarism ethics.

3.4.1. Gender
A rich body of literature exists on gender differences between ethical judgments made by men and
women (e.g. Howell, Roberts, and Mancin 2018; Pan and Sparks 2012; Roxas and Stoneback 2004).
There are two main explanations provided in the literature. One explanation is based on biological
determinism which suggests that individuals are biologically predisposed to act/behave in a certain
manner and this predisposition makes men and women behave more ethically or less ethically in
936 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

each situation (Miller and Costello 2001). In simple words, this view suggests that a person’s ethical
judgment and consequent behavior are embedded in his/her biological roots and thus they are born
with specific ethical or unethical tendencies which shape their ethical judgments (Udry 2001). While
this viewpoint is found to be weak and unconvincing by the majority of ethics scholars, the other
explanation based on early socialization processes adopted by males and females has been able
to convince a larger community of ethics scholars. This viewpoint proposes that men’s early socia-
lization emphasizing ambition and competition determines their ethical judgments while women’s
socialization stressing care, harmony and warmth guides their ethical judgments (Roxas and Stone-
back 2004). The scant literature on socialization and behavior has consistently maintained that socia-
lization plays a key role in shaping individuals’ ethical judgments. Although there is a large body of
literature suggests that women make stricter ethical judgments as they apply more rigid and firm
ethical standards than their counterparts (Howell, Roberts, and Mancin 2018; Marques and
Azevedo-Pereira 2009; Pan and Sparks 2012), there are a group of studies that claimed that this argu-
ment lacks sufficient empirical evidence (Klein and Shtudiner 2021; Taylor and Curtis 2010). Irrespec-
tive of varying explanations for gender differences in ethical judgment and lack of consensus on the
directions of gender differences in ethical judgment, the literature guides us for the following
hypothesis:
H4a–c: Gender will moderate the relationship between plagiarism awareness efforts and students’ ethical judg-
ment (H4a-moral equity, H4b-relativism, H4c-contractualism) related to plagiarism.

3.4.2. Age
Individuals’ viewpoints and evaluations are shaped by their age and maturity. Research on ethical
judgments has also corroborated this argument by providing evidence showing an increase in ethi-
cality with age (Valentine and Godkin 2019). Several studies have reported that younger respondents
act less ethically than older ones (Chiu 2003), and the explanations for this finding suggest that
adults go through different phases of moral development as they grow old (Kohlberg and
Candee 1984). Several empirical findings have supported these claims (Chen et al. 2022; Eweje
and Brunton 2010; White and Lam 2000). For example, Chen et al. (2022) found in their studies
that younger respondents were more engaged in unethical and illicit activities than older ones.
While a majority of the studies have found a positive relationship between age and ethical judg-
ments, a few have reported no or insignificant relationship between the two. These studies argue
that age difference does not explain individuals’ moral development and ethical judgments,
rather other factors such as, family-systems are better determinants of ethical decision-making
(White and Lam 2000). Similar to gender, there is no consensus about the impact of age on
ethical evaluations, however, theoretical consensus suggests that moral development progresses
with age which leads to better ethical judgments.
H5a–c: Age will moderate the relationship between plagiarism awareness efforts and students’ ethical judgment
(H5a-moral equity, H5b-relativism, H5c-contractualism) related to plagiarism.

3.4.3. Work experience

Experience helps individuals gain knowledge which helps them to develop the ability to interpret
and integrate evidence and apply mental models while making judgments. Previous studies have
found that experienced people are seen to be more strictly and effectively dealing with ethical
dilemmas (Latan, Chiappetta Jabbour, and Lopes de Sousa Jabbour 2019; Marques and
Azevedo-Pereira 2009; Pan and Sparks 2012). The literature explains this relationship based on
workplace socialization. Individuals follow workplace norms during workplace and benchmark
their ethical standards against the organization’s high standards for ethical judgments (Hunt and
Vitell 1986; Valentine, Hanson, and Fleischman 2019). Thus, the more time spent at work greater
the impact of high ethical standards followed at the workplace leading to strict ethical judgments
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 937

(Hunt and Vitell 1993). Several studies have contributed empirical evidence supporting the
positive impact of work experience on ethical judgments (Eweje and Brunton 2010; Pan and
Sparks 2012; Sivaraman 2019). Grounded on these arguments, we believe that students with work
experience are likely to apply the memory structures and knowledge developed during the work
while exposed to plagiarism ethics awareness efforts made by the institution/university. Thus,
they are expected to better respond to ethics awareness efforts which will affect their ethical
judgments.
H6a-c: Work experience will moderate the relationship between plagiarism awareness efforts and students’
ethical judgment (H6a-moral equity, H6b-relativism, H6c-contractualism) related to plagiarism.

The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.

4. Methods
To test the conceptual model (Figure 1), a longitudinal quasi-experimental field study was con-
ducted. Unlike true experiments based on randomized trials, quasi-experimental designs involve
the use of nonexperimental manipulations in the independent variable under study, essentially by
imitating experimental treatments/conditions wherein participants are non-randomly assigned to
the treatments (Campbell and Stanley 1966; Cook and Campbell 1979). The quasi-experimental
design employed for this study was a pretest-posttest design (with no control group) which involves
the use of a pretest and posttest of participants to establish a causal association between an inter-
vention and an outcome (Cook and Campbell 1979; Shadish, Cook, and Campbell 2002). This
between-subjects experimentation design is widely employed in medical, education, psychology,
and social science research fields to evaluate the implications of the design and implementation
of interventions (Tipton and Olsen 2018). The research design is considered apt for this study,
first, it enabled to have a high degree of external validity for evaluating the real-world effectiveness
of interventions (Deaton and Cartwright 2018) i.e. plagiarism awareness efforts in this study; second,
it is suitable for conducting experiments as part of field studies, where randomized controlled trials
are deemed unattainable or unethical (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell 2002).

4.1. Study context and subjects

India as a country offers one of the largest HE setups in the world with more than 350 govern-
ment universities (both central and state government-owned), 129 deemed universities and
more than 180 private universities (Singh 2016). Like other countries, plagiarism cases are
rapidly rising in Indian HEIs, involving HE students, research scholars and also faculty members.

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

938 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

The main reasons for the rise in plagiarism cases are a lack of knowledge on plagiarism and
academic ethics, clear policies to deal with plagiarism cases and policy guidelines for academic
writing (Juyal, Thawani, and Thaledi 2015). Taking note of the gravity of the problem, the Govern-
ment of India recently notified regulations for all Indian universities and HEIs on ‘Promotion
of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions.’ These regu-
lations define plagiarism and provide guidelines for academic integrity. The regulations were
enforced through University Grant Commission (UGC), the main statutory body regulating the
activities of Indian universities (Kadam 2018). Additionally, INFLIBNET Centre on Shodhganga
(repository of e-theses of Indian universities) offers two plagiarism-detection software: ‘iThenticate’
and ‘Turnitin’ to Indian universities. It is mandatory for the universities which are covered under
section 12B of the UGC Act, 1956 and receiving grants from UGC to check the plagiarism level in
P.D. thesis and Dissertations before approval (Singh 2016). Despite organized efforts, plagiarism is
a growing concern for regulators and educators in India.
The field study setting was a postgraduate program offered at HEIs in India. The two campuses of
the selected institute offered postgraduate programs in Business Studies. These programs were
spread over two years and divided into six terms of 14–15 weeks of duration each. Amongst the
top HEIs specialized in business studies, the selected institute was accredited by AACSB and
AMBA.1 There was a strong impetus to cultivating academic integrity and combating academic dis-
honesty among students across all programs. The selection of the study setting was based on the
accessibility and ease of participation selection for survey administration considering the association
of authors with the institute. This convenience sampling approach to participant selection is
common in quasi-experiments and widely employed by past research on dilemmas in ethical
decision-making in different contexts (Nguyen and Biderman 2008).
This data was collected three consecutive times (referred to as Time 1, 2 and 3) over a period of
four months (one term) i.e. July 2022 to October 2022. During this period, a set of structured inter-
ventions (described in section 4.2) was implemented for creating plagiarism awareness among stu-
dents enrolled in a compulsory course on Corporate law, offered in the first term of the program.
Students enrolled in this course were selected as subjects for the experiment because, first, the learn-
ing objectives of the course align with the study aims (learning objectives- to encourage students to
develop responsible Citizen Consciousness and demonstrate ethically conscious decision-making).
Second, the pedagogy of the course was case-oriented and therefore students were accustomed
to examining ethical dilemmas in hypothesized business situations. Additionally, most students
hold prior experience in managerial positions in organizations. A similar sampling approach for
drawing a cross-section of participants enrolled for ‘required’ courses in graduate programs was
adopted by Nguyen and Biderman (2008). Thus, postgraduate students enrolled for the compulsory
course on Business and corporate law in the first term were the subjects of this study.

4.2. Experimental manipulations and timelines

For manipulating the independent variable i.e. plagiarism awareness efforts, a set of experimental
treatments reflecting the HEI’s and course instructor’s endeavors to explicate the unethical impli-
cations of plagiarism and to help the students identify an ethically correct course of action was
implemented during the period of this study. A description of the three treatments used for manipu-
lation is presented.

4.2.1. Treatment-1: library instructions

The participants were familiarized with issues of academic integrity and plagiarism during a class-
room session conducted by the Librarian of the school as part of a library orientation program.
This orientation program was organized during the second week of the first term for all postgraduate
graduate students, and the session duration was 90 mins.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 939

4.2.2. Treatment-2: seminar on plagiarism fundamentals

The participants attended a seminar on plagiarism fundamentals conducted by the course instructor
of the Business and Corporate Law course. During this 90-minute seminar, conducted for each
section, students were introduced to plagiarism fundamentals such as types of plagiarism practices,
its consequences, and ways of avoiding such as the use of quotes and citing sources. The seminar
was conducted during the third week of the first term (Appendix A-1).

4.2.3. Treatment-3: email on academic ethics guidelines for course submissions

The participants received written guidelines on academic ethics through email in the fourth week.
These guidelines outlined the standards for plagiarism-free work in the conduct of written course
submissions such as assignments and project reports. It described rules for ethical writing, similarity
index/scores (computation based on Turnitin, an online service for plagiarism detection), and penal-
ties for plagiarized submissions. The email was sent by the course instructor (Appendix A-1).

4.3. Measures
The construct of ethical judgment related to plagiarism is operationalized using the multidimen-
sional ethics scale (MES) developed by Reidenbach and Robin (1990). Rooted in the normative
moral philosophies and literature (Ferrell and Gresham 1985), the original MES scale comprised
33 items representing five dimensions. For this study, we used the refined MES version based
on a single-factor model with eight items signifying the three dimensions i.e. moral equity, rela-
tivism, and contractualism (excluding utilitarianism and egoism dimensions). Prior studies on
ethical judgments and moral dilemmas in general management (Loo 2004), tax & accounting
(Cruz, Shafer, and Strawser 2000), have used the eight-item MES version and found it to be a
reliable and valid measure for ethical reasoning. For this study, the moral equity dimension is
defined as students’ perception of fairness and justice and what is right and wrong and measured
using four items i.e. unfair–fair, unjust–just, morally wrong–morally right, and acceptable–unac-
ceptable to the family (McMahon and Harvey 2007). The relativism dimension is defined as stu-
dents’ perception of what is right versus wrong based on guidelines rooted in their social
system, rather than their reflections. It is measured using two items: traditionally unacceptable–
traditionally acceptable; culturally unacceptable–culturally acceptable. The dimension of contrac-
tualism dimension is defined as students’ perception of what is right against wrong based on
their notions of an implied contract that exists between students and academic institutions.
This dimension is assessed using two items: violates–does not violate an unspoken promise,
and violates – does not violate an unwritten contract (Nguyen et al. 2008). All items were
measured on a 5-point scale (1: strongly disagree and 5: strongly agree).
The dependent variable of Ethical behavior related to plagiarism represents the students’ actions
according to the school’s standards of academic integrity and plagiarism ethics. It is evaluated using
a direct measure i.e. similarity score or index of students’ coursework submissions including assign-
ments and project reports. The similarity index is a percent score assessing how many phrases of a
document match to those in a formerly published document. In comparison to self-reported
measures of ethical behavior (Newstrom and Ruch 1975), a ratio measure of similarity score of stu-
dents’ submissions offered a reliable measure of students’ ethical behavior in this study. A few
studies in academic ethics have used similar direct measures for determining students’ ethical
conduct (Bretag and Mahmud 2009). We assessed the similarity index of project reports submitted
as coursework submissions by the students enrolled in the Business Ethics & Law course offered to
the postgraduate program of the institute, selected as the study setting. The index ranged from 0 to
100% based on the extent of text similarity. The submissions were evaluated for similarity index by
using Turnitin, a widely used institutional-license-based software tool for plagiarism detection
(Garden 2009). This tool is used due to its wide acceptance as an instrument to fight plagiarism
940 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

and to cultivate academic ethics among university/academic institute students (Batane 2010; Bretag
and Mahmud 2009).
Additionally, categorical variables were used to gather participants’ demographic information.
The demographic questions solicited participants’ information including their age, gender, work
experience, undergraduate academic stream, and internal religiosity. Participants’ internal religios-
ity was assessed using the item (Religiosity: Participants responded to the question ‘are you reli-
gious?’ Participants’ responses yes and no were coded as 1 and 2, respectively) adapted from
Mubako et al. (2021).

4.4. Data collection and analysis

A total of 450 students enrolled in the postgraduate Business and Corporate Law course were invited
to participate in this study in July 2022 (Time 1). Before the beginning of the study, the course
instructor sent an e-mail with a cover letter to students informing them about the purpose of the
study, and the voluntary nature of their participation. No student names were collected, and anon-
ymity was assured. To encourage study participation, students completing both the pre-and post-
test survey were recorded into a drawing for a US $10 e-gift card. Experimental psychologists
have observed that providing compensation (monetary or non-monetary) to subjects for partici-
pation improves the response quality (Brase, Fiddick, and Harries 2006) and there is no reason to
believe that such a practice would induce any systematic bias in the study.
Before implementing interventions to spread plagiarism awareness (described in section 3.2), stu-
dents across all sections were asked to complete a pretest survey. Following Reidenbach and Robin
(1990), the students were presented with a short-written scenario about a dilemma related to plagi-
arism and actions taken by a hypothetical student. Next, they were asked to complete a self-admi-
nistered MES survey based on their ethical judgment of the actions taken. Responses were measured
on a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree). In addition to eight items of the MES
scale, the survey instrument comprised items on demographic characteristics. Out of 450 students
who enrolled for the Business ethics and law course, 311 students participated in the pretest survey.
Next, a set of manipulations reflecting plagiarism awareness efforts were implemented through
August 2022 as per the timeline described in section 4.2. The post-test survey was administered to
gauge the students’ ethical judgment, one week before the end of the term in October 2022 (Time 2).
Only students who participated in the pre-test survey were permitted to participate in the post-test
survey. This self-administered survey was conducted in classrooms after presenting another written
scenario reflecting a real dilemma in academia facing a hypothetical postgraduate student. Both pre-
test and post-test scenarios were designed by the researchers (see Annexure A-2) and presented in
the English language, considering it was the language for the course delivery. The purpose of
keeping a time gap of over 10 weeks between the two surveys was to diminish the testing effects
such as learning effects which may manifest the participants’ post-test scores due to their familiarity

Table 1. Demographics of the study participants.

Variable Groups N Percentage
Age 25 years or less 103 35.03
>25 years 191 64.97
Gender Female 133 45.24
Male 161 54.76
Work experience <1 year 52 17.69
1–2 years 77 26.19
>2 years 165 56.12
Undergraduate stream Commerce 58 19.73
Science 205 69.73
Humanities 24 8.16
Others 7 2.38
Total 294 100.00
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 941

with the experiment after the pre-test (Campbell and Stanley 1966). 301 students participated in the
post-test survey. An overlapping set of 294 responses across the pre-test and post-test surveys was
used for analysis. Table 1 shows the demographics of the study participants. Among these, 54.76%
were male 64.97% were more than 25 years and 56.12% had work experience of more than two
years. Most of the participants i.e. 69.73% had an undergraduate in the science & engineering stream.
At Time 3, data for the variable on students’ ethical behavior related to plagiarism was gathered.
Turnitin software was used for extracting similarity reports of project work submissions in the last
week of October 2022. The project was to develop a case study based on secondary sources on
the given corporate scandals. The submission date for the project was two weeks after the post-
test. The similarity report provides a summary of the matching text found in the submission and
assigns a similarity score per cent. The similarity score is recorded for each of the 294 students
who participated in both the pretest and posttest surveys.
For analyzing the experiment data, first, the reliability and validity of the MES constructs i.e. moral
equity, relativism, and contractualism were assessed. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was con-
ducted using AMOS-25 for construct reliability and validity checks (Hair et al. 2010). Next, for analyz-
ing the impact of plagiarism awareness efforts on students’ ethical judgment responses, paired
samples t-test was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 26. The impact of participants’ demographic
differences on the change in their ethical judgment responses across pre-and post-test scores was
analyzed using independent samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Structural
equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to estimate the path coefficients of structural relationships
between participants’ ethical judgments on their ethical behavior (Hair et al. 2010).

5. Results
5.1. Reliability and validity checks
CFA was conducted to demonstrate the unidimensionality and validity of the three latent constructs
i.e. moral equity, relativism, and contractualism. The construct-wise reliability and validity estimates
for the pre-test (T1) and post-test (T2) responses for moral equity (MOR), relativism (REL), and con-
tractualism (CON) are presented in Table 2. All the constructs met the criteria i.e. composite reliability
(CR), Cronbach α > 0.7, and average variance explained (AVE) > 0.5 (Hair et al. 2010).

Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.

Factor
Item code Item Mean SD loading Cronbach α CR AVE
T1MOR01 Pratik’s action was fair. 3.667 1.054 0.764 0.841 0.844 0.577
T1MOR02 Pratik’s action was morally incorrect. 3.684 1.118 0.823
T1MOR03 Pratik’s action was unjust. 3.650 1.041 0.647
T1MOR04 Pratik’s behavior would be unacceptable to my 3.613 1.019 0.793
family
T1REL01 Pratik’s action was culturally acceptable. 3.762 1.096 0.732 0.719 0.721 0.564
T1REL02 Pratik’s action was traditionally unacceptable. 3.783 1.084 0.769
T1CON01 Pratik’s action violated an unspoken promise 3.766 1.321 0.792 0.761 0.762 0.615
T1CON02 Pratik’s action did not violate an unwritten contract 3.708 1.222 0.777
T2MOR01 Radhika’s action was fair. 3.737 1.095 0.795 0.831 0.837 0.564
T2MOR02 Radhika’s action was morally incorrect. 4.009 0.681 0.795
T2MOR03 Radhika’s action was unjust. 4.077 0.740 0.704
T2MOR04 Radhika’s behavior would be unacceptable to my 4.273 0.625 0.704
family
T2REL01 Radhika’s action was culturally acceptable. 0.356 1.306 0.878 0.773 0.777 0.637
T2REL02 Radhika’s action was traditionally unacceptable. 0.305 1.179 0.710
T2CON01 Radhika’s action violated an unspoken promise 0.536 1.296 0.747 0.751 0.755 0.607
T2CON02 Radhika’s action did not violate an unwritten 3.885 0.964 0.810
contract
942 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

Table 3. Discriminant validity testing.

CR AVE T2REL T1REL T1MOR T1CON T2MOR T2CON
T2REL 0.777 0.637 0.798
T1REL 0.721 0.564 0.296 0.751
T1MOR 0.844 0.577 0.332 0.467 0.760
T1CON 0.762 0.615 0.263 0.423 0.474 0.785
T2MOR 0.837 0.564 0.393 0.351 0.483 0.427 0.751
T2CON 0.755 0.607 0.461 0.478 0.430 0.552 0.480 0.779

For establishing divergent validity, the square root of the estimated AVE between a pair of
constructs was compared with the absolute intercorrelation between the constructs (f) following
Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) approach. The results of the divergent validity are summarized in
Table 3.
The fit indices of the measurement model, i.e. CMIN/df (relative chi-square index) = 1.909; CFI
(comparative fit index) = 0.933; TLI (Tucker-Lewis index) = 0.99; RMSEA (root-mean-square error of
approximation index) = 0.056, met the model fitness criteria recommended by Hu and Bentler
(1999) and thus deemed acceptable.

5.2. Hypotheses testing

For testing hypothesis H1 on the positive effect of experimental interventions (treatments 1, 2, and 3
for creating plagiarism awareness) on the change in participants’ ethical judgments, paired samples
t-tests were conducted. The tests were used to check the statistical significance of the mean differ-
ence in ethical judgment responses in all three dimensions (MOR, REL, and CON) between pre-and
post-intervention. This method of statistical analysis is generally used in education research to evalu-
ate the impacts of educational interventions and policies on students’ learning (Gándara and Ruther-
ford 2017; Hillman, Tandberg, and Fryar 2015). The results of the t-tests are shown in Table 4. The
results showed that post-intervention scores for all three dimensions of ethical judgments i.e.
MOR (mean difference = −0.36; t = 4.67***), REL (mean difference = −0.30; t = 4.43***) and CON
(mean difference = −0.54; t = 7.09***) were higher and the mean difference was statistically signifi-
cant. Thus, H1a, H1b, and H1c were supported.
To determine the influence of participants’ ethical judgment dimensions on their ethical behavior
i.e. H2, ordinary least square (OLS) regression analysis was conducted. In the regression model, the
post-intervention (T2) responses for all three dimensions i.e. MOR, REL, and CON were regressed on
participants’ ethical behavior (i.e. similarity index of project reports). Before testing the OLS
regression models, assumptions of linearity, normality and homoscedasticity between the indepen-
dent and dependent variables were assessed (Hair et al. 2010). Partial regression plots for the
regression model were examined for testing linearity. Residual analysis and normality test were
used to confirm the normality of the error term distribution (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, p-value <
0.05). Further, homoscedasticity was established by evaluating the standardized residual plots. Multi-
collinearity between the independent variables was assessed using variance inflation factors (VIF).
VIF values below 5 (Hair et al. 2010) allowed for disregarding this issue. Thus, the assumptions for
OLS regression analysis were satisfied. Further, the scores for the three latent constructs were

Table 4. Test of significant difference between pre-intervention and post-intervention responses.

Pre- Post-
Intervention intervention Effect of intervention
Hypothesis Variable N Mean SD Mean SD Mean diff. SD t-value p-value Results
H1a-c MOR 294 3.65 0.98 4.01 0.68 −0.36 1.31 −4.67 0.00 Supported
REL 294 3.77 0.88 4.08 0.74 −0.30 1.18 −4.43 0.00 Supported
CON 294 3.74 1.09 4.27 0.62 −0.54 1.30 −7.09 0.00 Supported
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 943

Table 5. Regression results.

Hypothesis Variables β SE t-value Result
Dependent variable: ethical behavior (T3)
Predictors
H2a MOR (T2) −0.108*** 1.362 −4.315 Supported
H2b REL (T2) 0.054 1.134 −0.622 Not supported
H2c CON (T2) −0.122*** 1.563 −5.851 Supported
Overall Model R = 0.807, Adj. R 2 = 0.651; F = 14.400***
Note: The MES scale items e.g. unfair–fair, and unjust–just (refer to Annexure A-2) explain that the negative beta weights indicate
a positive effect.
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

computed by means of the weighted average of original responses with the respective factor load-
ings as weights. Construct scores were standardized to evade scale effects (Hair et al. 2010), and
inputted into the regression model. Table 5 shows the OLS regression results.
The results showed significant direct effects of MOR (b̂ = −0.108***, t-value = −4.31, p- < 0.00),
and CON (b̂ = −0.122***, t-value = −5.85; p < 0.000) on ethical behavior, thereby supporting H2a
and H2c (H2b not supported).
Next, for testing the hypotheses on moderating effect of participants’ intrinsic religiosity (H3a–c),
gender (H4a–c), age (H5a–c), and work experience (H6a–c) on the change in their ethical judgment, a
comparison of group means was conducted using independent sample t-test (for two group com-
parison) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (for multiple group comparisons. Table 6 shows
the results of a comparison of demographic differences in ethical judgment responses for all three
dimensions. The results showed significant differences in MOR scores between participants in two
religiosity groups (t value = 4.63, p = .00), thereby supporting H3a supported at 99% confidence.
However, H3b and H3c on the moderating effect of participants’ religiosity on their REL and CON
scores was not supported by the data. Between the two gender groups, MOR scores (t value =
2.09, p = .03) were significantly different, thereby supporting H4a at 95% confidence, however,
H4b and H4c for the difference in REL and CON scores were not supported. Our analysis showed
no significant difference in MOR, REL, and CON scores among the three age groups, thus, H5a,
H5b, and H5c were not supported. Among the three groups of work experience, a significant differ-
ence was found in the MOR scores (F-value = 3.05, p = .03), thereby supporting H6a at 95% confi-
dence). While H6b on the difference in REL scores was supported at 90% confidence (F-value =
2.49, p = .08), H6c on the difference in the CON scores was not supported.

6. Discussion
6.1. Discussion on main results
The first finding of this study underscores the importance of plagiarism ethics awareness efforts (i.e.
treatment 1, 2, and 3) to improve students’ ethical judgment in academic settings (H1). A significant
difference between the pre-test and post-test ethical judgment scores on all three dimensions
(moral equity, relativism, and contractualism) indicates that HEI’s efforts to create awareness
about plagiarism ethics can significantly improve students’ understanding of ethical concerns sur-
rounding plagiarism. A significant improvement was recorded in students’ overall understanding
of plagiarism ethics from the perspective of what is morally wrong in plagiarism, why plagiarism
is unacceptable in academic society, and how the act of plagiarism breaches the social contract
(H1a, H1b, H1c accepted).
The second major finding of the study highlights the role of students’ ethical judgment in predict-
ing ethical behavior related to plagiarism (H2). The results confirmed that moral equity (H2a) and
contractualism (H2c) dimensions of students’ ethical judgments directly impact their ethical behav-
ior related to plagiarism. These results indicate that students’ ethical behavior concerning plagiarism
 944
A. PRASHAR ET AL.
Table 6. Moderating effect of participants’ demographic differences on ethical judgment.
Pre-Intervention Post-intervention Change across groups over time
Hypothesis Variables Moderator Groups N Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Δ(T2 – T1) Std Dev t-value/F-value p-value Result
H3a MOR Religiosity Low 146 3.401 0.886 4.099 0.630 0.699 1.226 4.63*** 0.00 Supported
High 148 3.902 1.000 3.919 0.717 0.017 1.297
H3b REL Low 146 3.791 0.859 4.171 0.681 0.380 1.119 1.09ns 0.27 Not supported
High 148 3.753 0.868 3.983 0.783 0.230 1.234
H3c CON Low 146 3.750 1.107 4.377 0.543 0.627 1.300 1.19ns 0.23 Not supported
High 148 3.723 1.085 4.169 0.682 0.446 1.290

H4a MOR Gender Female 133 3.570 1.007 4.100 0.634 0.530 1.310 2.097* 0.03 Supported
Male 161 3.722 0.948 3.933 0.710 0.211 1.288
H4b REL Female 133 3.767 0.889 4.150 0.704 0.383 1.123 1.04ns 0.29 Not supported
Male 161 3.776 0.842 4.016 0.763 0.239 1.222
ns
H4c CON Female 133 3.632 1.120 4.301 0.621 0.669 1.285 1.61 0.10 Not supported
Male 161 3.823 1.069 4.248 0.628 0.425 1.298
H5a MOR Age 25 years or less 103 3.544 1.017 4.000 0.688 0.456 1.352 0.97ns 0.33 Not supported
> 25 years 191 3.712 0.951 4.013 0.678 0.301 1.280
H5b REL 25 years or less 103 3.752 0.877 4.019 0.843 0.267 1.384 −0.39 ns
0.69 Not supported
> 25 years 191 3.783 0.856 4.107 0.677 0.325 1.055
H5c CON 25 years or less 103 3.689 1.120 4.306 0.615 0.617 1.381 0.78ns 0.43 Not supported
> 25 years 191 3.762 1.082 4.254 0.630 0.492 1.249

H6a MOR Work experience <1 year 52 3.370 1.019 4.014 0.611 0.644 1.294 3.04* 0.03 Supported
1–2 years 77 3.523 0.943 4.026 0.720 0.503 1.307
>2 years 165 3.803 0.955 3.998 0.685 0.195 1.292
H6b REL <1 year 52 3.596 0.913 4.096 0.650 0.500 1.038 2.49† 0.08 Supported
1–2 years 77 3.740 0.876 4.201 0.635 0.461 1.123
>2 years 165 3.842 0.835 4.012 0.804 0.170 1.233
H6c CON <1 year 52 3.760 0.978 4.279 0.489 0.519 1.071 0.36ns 0.69 Not supported
1–2 years 77 3.688 1.139 4.331 0.599 0.643 1.330
>2 years 165 3.752 1.113 4.242 0.673 0.491 1.347
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; † p < 0.1; ns: not supported.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 945

is majorly driven by two ethical perspectives: first, their moral and personal value-based views on
fairness and justice, and second the notion of violation of perceived duty toward society.
However, relativism dimensions showed an insignificant impact on students’ ethical behavior
(H2b rejected). There are two possible explanations for this. First, previous research suggests that
generations Y and Z are personally value-oriented, tolerant of cultural differences, adaptive to
global cultural/societal values, are far more forgiving (Freestone and Mitchell 2004; Pichler, Kohli,
and Granitz 2021; Weber 2017). These traits can explain why in the current times, HEI students’
ethical behavior concerning plagiarism is majorly governed by moral equity and contractualism
dimensions and less by cultural relativism. While the relativism dimension concentrates on social/cul-
tural expectations, norms and guidelines, the moral equity dimension is focused on an individual’s
values (Arli, Tjiptono, and Porto 2015; Reidenbach and Robin 1990). Since the current HE student
generation decides right and wrong based on their personal values and not by the norms and prin-
ciples of cultural systems confined to a specific society, the cultural relativism dimension becomes
less important in ethical decision-making.
Third, the current generation of HE students is more global in their viewpoints and experiences.
They tend to demonstrate high respect for the intellectual property rights (ownership and copy-
rights) of the authors as much as they do for the known authors or peers (Ethics Resource Centre
2013). The tendency to honor the ownership rights of unknown authors demonstrates their con-
sideration for the contractualism dimension of ethical judgment. HE students’ perception of accep-
table code of behavior in the plagiarism context is based on the notion of violation/non-violation of
implicit rules, principles, and promises made with the global society and not just the explicit norms
of a specific society/culture. These results support the findings reported by previous studies claiming
that Generation Z is more tolerant of social/cultural norms violation (Freestone and Mitchell 2004;
Rinnert and Kobayashi 2005; Ross and Rouse 2015).

6.2. Discussion on moderator analysis

The first important finding of the moderator analysis is that religiosity moderated the impact of pla-
giarism awareness efforts only on the moral equity dimension on ethical judgment (H3a accepted)
and not on the remaining two dimensions i.e. relativism and contractualism (H3b and H3c rejected).
We found that students with high intrinsic religiosity responded more and better to the institution’s
plagiarism awareness efforts which were reflected in their post-test strong moral equity judgments.
This finding can be explained by symbolic interactionism theory arguing that a person develops a
sense of self-identity in a large group by playing various roles (Nickerson 2021). Each of the
various roles played by him/her carries specific role expectations and behavioral tendencies gets
strengthened with frequent contact with other individuals associated with the corresponding role
(Walker, Smither, and DeBode 2012). In the plagiarism awareness context, when students are fre-
quently exposed to plagiarism ethical dilemmas and academic ethics policies, the role expectations
of HEIs from them get clearer because repeated sensitization exercises increase the salience it has in
students’ sense of self-identity. Students with higher intrinsic religiosity treat plagiarism ethics as a
goal because they have a higher tendency of treating religious beliefs and moral practices as ends
than their counterparts with lower religiosity (Omer, Sharp, and Wang 2018; Weaver and Agle 2002).
Their quest for self-identity motivates them toward moral values and practices associated with the
role played by them (Walker, Smither, and DeBode 2012). On the other hand, students with lower
intrinsic religiosity may not be directly motivated toward role-related moral values and self-identity.
Therefore, HEIs plagiarism awareness efforts may show a weaker impact on the moral equity dimen-
sion of ethical judgments made by students with lower intrinsic religiosity scores.
Further, we found similar results for moderating the impact of gender. While gender moderated
the impact of plagiarism awareness efforts on the moral equity dimension of ethical judgments
made by students (H4a accepted), the other two dimensions i.e. cultural relativism and contractual-
ism remained immune from gender difference (H4b and H4c rejected). A group of previous studies
946 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

argued that males and females respond differently to ethical issues (Friesdorf, Conway, and
Gawronski 2015; Luo et al. 2022; Meyers-Levy and Loken 2015) while few others claimed that
both are quite similar (Carrigan and Attalla 2001; Jaffee and Hyde 2000). The contrary results can
be understood considering gender differences in the impact of ethics awareness exercises on
three broad dimensions of ethical judgment (moral equity, relativism, and contractualism). Our
findings provide deeper insights into the contradictory claims made by previous studies suggesting
that there is no gender difference in ethical judgments when they are primarily guided by social/cul-
tural norms (relativism) and implicit social duties (contractualism). Ethical awareness efforts will show
the same impact on such ethical judgments without any gender difference. However, when the ethi-
cality of an action is judged based on an individual’s moral norms and values (moral equity), ethical
awareness efforts will not show an equal impact on both genders. Due to distinctive moral orien-
tations, values, and traits, males and females respond differently to ethics awareness efforts resulting
in dissimilar ethical judgments (Roxas and Stoneback 2004). For instance, females raise moral ques-
tions as a problem of empathy, care, and compassion while males’ moral questions are framed as a
problem of justice and rights (Yankelovich 1972; Zhou, Zheng, and Gao 2019). We found that plagi-
arism awareness efforts made a significantly higher impact on the moral equity dimension of female
students’ ethical judgment than male students. Greater sense of commitment to helping others
motivated females to warmly respond to ethics awareness efforts resulting in stronger ethical judg-
ments. Thus, our results support the argument that gender identity is at the core of personality and is
irreversible (Roxas and Stoneback 2004).
Our results do not confirm moderating impact of age on the influence of plagiarism awareness
efforts on students’ ethical judgments (H5 rejected). The results imply that the wisdom acquired
by age does not influence students’ ethical judgment. In fact, previous research on ethics provides
inconclusive findings on the relationship between age and ethical perceptions (Gupta et al. 2011).
While results suggest that students’ age may not be a concern, our analysis underscores the impor-
tance of considering students’ work experience for HEIs designing plagiarism awareness exercises/
policies (H6a and H6c accepted). We found that plagiarism awareness efforts by the institutions
showed an unequal impact on moral equity and cultural relativism dimensions of the ethical judg-
ment of students with different work experiences. We found that students with lesser work experi-
ence showed the highest difference between pre-test and post-test scores on moral equity and
cultural relativism dimensions. And thus, the impact of the Institute’s plagiarism awareness efforts
on students’ overall ethical judgment was most visible in this group. We refer to the arguments
made by career researchers suggesting that individuals change over time when progress through
different career stages (Cron, Dubinsky, and Michaels 1988; Marques and Azevedo-Pereira 2009).
In the initial years of the career (exploration and establishment stages), individuals are committed
to the work/occupation assigned to them and tempted to progress in it by following the organiz-
ation’s/institution’s philosophies even if their individual viewpoints and cultural norms are not
exactly aligned with them (Ahmed et al. 2022; Cron, Dubinsky, and Michaels 1988). Therefore, stu-
dents who are undergoing initial career stages (with lesser work experience) received plagiarism
awareness efforts better than their counterparts resulting in significant improvement in moral
equity and relativism dimensions of post-test ethical judgments.
An important takeaway from this study is that the ethical judgments of current HE students are
predominantly influenced by how they perceive fairness and justice (moral equity dimension). In
simple words, the effect of plagiarism awareness efforts on HE students’ ethical judgments is
largely moderated by the moral equity dimension. Current HE students’ (majorly millennials – Gen
Z) personal value orientation explains this trend. Recent research uncovered that students from
Gen Y & Gen Z are more cautious about personal norms and individual values than social norms
and cultural values (Culiberg and Mihelič 2016; Weber 2019). Popular practices among HE students
in the current time, such as clicking selfies, creating hashtags, and freely and frequently posting their
personal viewpoints on social media reflect their personal-value orientation (Weber 2019). In our
study, the impact of HE students’ personal value orientation is clearly visible in their ethical
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 947

judgments as they placed greater importance on moral values aligned with their principles of justice
and fairness (moral equity). Whereas the impact of plagiarism awareness efforts on relativism and
contractualism dimensions showed low or no difference across subgroups created by moderators.
This reinforces the belief that current HE students’ ethical judgments are predominantly based on
individual values and norms. Principles and norms inherent in a society or culture play only a mar-
ginal role.

7. Implications for theory and practice

The finding of this experimental study has implications for theory and research methodology. It pro-
poses and uses the well-grounded cognitive moral development theory (Kohlberg 1969) and associ-
ated measurement constructs (Reidenbach and Robin 1990) to offer an understanding of students’
ethical reasoning for plagiarism in HEI settings. It provides an understanding of the moderating
effect of students’ intrinsic religiosity and demographic characteristics as well as HEIs’ efforts in
shaping students’ ethical behavior.
The study offers several practical implications for HEIs and educators. First, HEIs need to position
plagiarism as an ethical issue because students usually do not consider plagiarism as a particularly
ethical misdemeanour. In general paraphrasing, academic content without acknowledgement,
written cut and paste, and fabricating bibliographies are perceived as just minor misconduct by stu-
dents (Barrett and Cox 2005; Sheard, Markham, and Dick 2003). Previous studies on plagiarism issues
in higher education consistently suggested that the best way to prevent plagiarism in HE is to create
awareness of academic and plagiarism ethics (Abbas et al. 2021; Ramzan et al. 2012). For instance,
Nwosu and Chukwuere (2020) suggested that HEI must have a comprehensive policy defining aca-
demic dishonesty and plagiarism. Clear guidelines pertaining to what constitutes plagiarism should
be attached to the group assignments and projects. Likewise, Ramzan et al. (2012) recommended
that the plagiarism ethics policy of the HEI should be made prominently visible to all stakeholders
by publishing it in students’ handbooks, official websites and through plagiarism awareness pro-
grams. Through these efforts, a clear and strong message can be sent to HE students about zero tol-
erance for academic dishonesty. However, there will always be some who will indulge in plagiarism
despite relevant knowledge of plagiarism ethics. Therefore, HEIs and universities should continue
deploying technology and plagiarism-detection software and strictly implement anti-plagiarism pol-
icies. Thus, a balance of prevention, detection and punishment is required to reduce plagiarism cases
in HEIs (Jereb et al. 2018). Our results corroborate the claims of several previous studies that efforts
directed toward plagiarism awareness can substantially improve students’ ethical judgment on pla-
giarism (Abbas et al. 2021; Pan and Sparks 2012; Ramzan et al. 2012). HEIs should make a dedicated
effort to design and conduct plagiarism awareness exercises not only to disseminate information
about plagiarism but also to position the act of plagiarism as an unethical act. The use of compelling
case-based scenarios explaining the moral issues, academic society norms, and implicit duties
toward society can provoke HE students’ critical thinking about the ethicality of plagiarism
actions both on micron and macro levels. This can help students think beyond a pragmatic under-
standing of plagiarism and consider plagiarism acts in an ethical context.
Second, the finding of this study reveals that HE students’ ethical judgments are primarily deter-
mined by their personal moral values instead of social/cultural norms. They may not have a feeling of
ethical guilt even if the questioned act which is aligned with their personal values, violates social/
cultural norms. (Weber 2017). In simple words, HE students’ ethical behavior will largely depend
on their moral and value-based views and how they justify plagiarism (Mihelič and Culiberg
2014). If they judge that plagiarism is unfair, wrong, and unjustifiable, such judgment is more
likely to lead to ethical behavior in their academic pursuits. Therefore, plagiarism awareness exer-
cises and policies of HEIs should explain how plagiarism conflicts with the sense of justice, rightness,
and moral obligation. The personal value orientation of HE students should be duly considered while
designing and conducting plagiarism awareness exercises. Overemphasis on cultural/social norms
948 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

may not lead to desired ethical behavior unless students feel that plagiarism constitutes a serious
violation of moral values (Jones Christensen, Mackey, and Whetten 2014).
Third, HE students’ strong to contractualism dimension of ethical judgment reflects their respect
for global societal norms. The current generation of HE students is more global in their viewpoints
and experiences. They tend to demonstrate high respect for the intellectual property rights (owner-
ship and copyrights) of the authors as much as they do for the known authors or peers (Ethics
Resource Centre 2013). Therefore, in the plagiarism awareness exercises and policies, HEIs should
strongly emphasize global societal norms and students’ implicit duties toward global society to
reduce their tolerance for plagiarism violations.
Fourth, the results of the moderator analysis indicated that students with high religiosity scores
are highly motivated to follow role-related moral values and therefore are likely to follow plagiarism
ethics (Walker, Smither, and DeBode 2012). However, their counterparts may not demonstrate the
same behavior. Therefore, HEIs plagiarism awareness efforts may show a weaker impact on the
moral equity dimension of ethical judgments made by students with lower intrinsic religiosity
scores. HEIs should duly consider these findings while conducting plagiarism awareness exercises
as differences in students’ intrinsic religiosity may enhance or constrain the impact of sensitization
exercises on their ethical judgments.
Additionally, HEIs and educators should not forget that ethical judgments are gender sensitive,
and gender is the core element of an individual’s personality. Females are found to be more sensitive
toward ethical concerns. Therefore, ethics awareness efforts may not very much change the way
male students perceive fairness or justice at the individual level while the same may not be true
for female students (Roxas and Stoneback 2004). Lastly, our results indicate that students with
lesser work experience responded more positively to plagiarism awareness efforts than their
counterparts. This is an important finding suggesting that HEIs should consider the students’
career goals and motivations associated with different career development stages while developing
plagiarism ethics education programs. Because tolerance for misalignment between an individual’s
personal moral values, cultural/societal norms, and ethical norms of the institution may not be the
same for all students having unequal work experience.

8. Conclusion
To understand the interaction of students’ ethical reasoning for plagiarism and the responsibility of
institutes/universities to promote ethical behavior, the study empirically examined the impact of
HEIs’ efforts to create plagiarism awareness among students on students’ ethical judgments
which in turn shapes students’ ethical behavior. The study provided deeper insights into these
relationships by analyzing the moderating impact of individual-level factors. A set of three exper-
imental interventions reflecting the HEI’s endeavors to explicate the unethical implications of plagi-
arism revealed that HEI’s efforts to disseminate plagiarism-related rules and guidelines and to
position plagiarism as an unethical act boosted students’ ethical beliefs related to moral equity, rela-
tivism, and contractualism. The significant individual-level factors that moderate the impact of HEI’s
efforts on students’ beliefs in moral equity were religiosity, gender, and work experience. Further, the
findings showed a significant role of students’ ethical judgments inspired by moral equity and con-
tractualism in envisaging their ethical behaviors in academic settings.

8.1. Limitations and future research directions

One limitation of this study is that the experimental subjects are postgraduate students. Prior studies
on ethical behaviors in HE contexts have used student participants and reached insightful con-
clusions (Christensen, Cote, and Latham 2016; Mubako et al. 2021). Moreover, the current students
of postgraduate business studies are future business leaders, thus, we believe there is value in the
study. Further research studies may compare different student groups (e.g. undergraduate,
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 949

graduate, postgraduate) in terms of their observed ethical judgments and behaviors related to aca-
demic dishonesty. Another limitation of the experiment design used in this study is an analysis of the
combined effect of plagiarism awareness efforts (treatments 1, 2 and 3) on students’ plagiarism
behavior. Future studies may examine how different plagiarism efforts (e.g. emailing anti-plagiarism
instruction, dedicated classroom sessions on plagiarism ethics) had a greater or lesser impact on stu-
dent’s plagiarism behavior. Another limitation is the duration of our longitudinal quasi-experiment
study was 16 weeks (appx. 4 months). Although this duration may be considered an appropriate time
frame for a full-time higher education program of two years, however, the ethical behavioral out-
comes measured at a later point in time may provide more accurate predictions of causal effects.
Thus, future studies may measure the effects of plagiarism-related interventions and policies in a
longer time frame.

Note
1. Awarded by global accreditation bodies to the institute for a continuous focus on quality in student learning,
teaching, research, and curriculum development.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Aaker, J. L. 1989. “The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion.” Journal of Marketing Research 36 (1): 45–
57. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379903600104
Abbas, A., A. Fatima, A. Arrona-Palacios, H. Haruna, and S. Hosseini. 2021. “Research Ethics Dilemma in Higher Education:
Impact of Internet Access, Ethical Controls, and Teaching Factors on Student Plagiarism.” Education and Information
Technologies 26 (5): 6109–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10595-z
Abdullah, A., Z. Sulong, and R. M. Said. 2014. “An Analysis on Ethical Climate and Ethical Judgment among Public Sector
Employees in Malaysia.” Journal of Applied Business and Economics 16 (2): 133–42.
Ahmed, T., T. Ramayah, Z. Khalid, and M. Asad. 2022. “Career Stages at the Bottom Line: Revisiting the Relationship
Between Organizational Justice and Turnover Intentions.” Human Systems Management 41 (1): 155–72. https://doi.
org/10.3233/HSM-211205
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1975. “A Bayesian Analysis of Attribution Processes.” Psychological Bulletin 82 (2): 261. https://
doi.org/10.1037/h0076477
Allport, G. W., and J. M. Ross. 1967. “Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 5 (4): 432. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212
Alshehri, F., M. Fotaki, and S. Kauser. 2021. “The Effects of Spirituality and Religiosity on the Ethical Judgment in
Organizations.” Journal of Business Ethics 174 (3): 567–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04614-1
Aluede, O., E. O. Omoregie, and G. I. Osa-Edoh. 2006. “Academic Dishonesty as a Contemporary Problem in Higher
Education: How Academic Advisers Can Help.” Reading Improvement 43 (2): 97–107.
Anson, C. M. 2011. “Fraudulent Practices: Academic Misrepresentations of Plagiarism in the Name of Good Pedagogy.”
Composition Studies 39 (2): 29–43.
Arli, D., F. Tjiptono, and R. Porto. 2015. “The Impact of Moral Equity, Relativism and Attitude on Individuals’ Digital Piracy
Behaviour in a Developing Country.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33 (3): 348–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-
09-2013-0149
Arli, D., A. Tkaczynski, and D. Anandya. 2019. “Are Religious Consumers More Ethical and Less Machiavellian? A
Segmentation Study of Millennials.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 43 (3): 263–76. https://doi.org/10.
1111/ijcs.12507
Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., Thorne, P., and Students on the Qualitative Research Methods Course Unit. (1997). “Guilty in
Whose Eyes? University Students’ Perceptions of Cheating and Plagiarism in Academic Work and Assessment.”
Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 187-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381034
Ayton, D., C. Hillman, K. Hatzikiriakidis, T. Tsindos, S. Sadasivan, S. Maloney, & D. Illic. 2022. “Why do Students Plagiarise?
Informing Higher Education Teaching and Learning Policy and Practice.” Studies in Higher Education 47 (9): 1921–34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1985103
Bandura, A. 1989. “Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory.” American Psychologist 44 (9): 1175. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
950 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

Barnett, T., and S. Valentine. 2004. “Issue Contingencies and Marketers’ Recognition of Ethical Issues, Ethical Judgments
and Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Business Research 57 (4): 338–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963
(02)00365-X
Barrett, R., and A. L. Cox. 2005. “’At Least They’re Learning Something’: The Hazy Line Between Collaboration and
Collusion.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30 (2): 107–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0260293042000264226
Batane, T. 2010. “Turning to Turnitin to Fight Plagiarism among University Students.” Educational Technology & Society
13 (2): 1–12.
Bateman, C. R., and S. R. Valentine. 2010. “Investigating the Effects of Gender on Consumers’ Moral Philosophies and
Ethical Intentions.” Journal of Business Ethics 95 (3): 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0386-4
Belter, R. W., and A. Du Pre. 2009. “A Strategy to Reduce Plagiarism in an Undergraduate Course.” Teaching of Psychology
36 (4): 257–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280903173165
Bernardi, R. A., and K. M. Higgins. 2020. “Factors Associated with College Cheating and Suggestions for Reducing
Classroom Cheating.” The Accounting Educators’ Journal 30: 235–74.
Bhuian, S. N., S. K. Sharma, I. Butt, and Z. U. Ahmed. 2018. “Antecedents and pro-Environmental Consumer Behavior
(PECB): The Moderating Role of Religiosity.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 35 (3): 287–99.
Blau, I., and Y. Eshet-Alkalai. 2017. “The Ethical Dissonance in Digital and non-Digital Learning Environments: Does
Technology Promotes Cheating among Middle School Students?” Computers in Human Behavior 73: 629–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.074
Brase, G., L. Fiddick, and C. Harries. 2006. “Participant Recruitment Methods and Statistical Reasoning Performance.”
Quarterly Journal Experimental Psychology 59 (5): 965–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980543000132
Braxton, J. M., and S. D. Lee. 2005. “About College Student Departure.” In College Student Retention: Formula for Student
Success, Vol. 107.
Breen, L., and M. Maassen. 2005. “Reducing the Incidence of Plagiarism in an Undergraduate Course: The Role of
Education.” Issues in Educational Research 15 (1): 1–16.
Bretag, T., and S. Mahmud. 2009. “A Model for Determining Student Plagiarism: Electronic Detection and Academic
Judgement.” Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 6 (1): 57–69. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.6.1.6
Bugeja, M. J. 2001. “Collegiate Copycats.” Editor & Publisher 134 (46): 22–22.
Burrus, R. T., K. McGoldrick, and P. W. Schuhmann. 2007. “Self-Reports of Student Cheating: Does a Definition of
Cheating Matter?” The Journal of Economic Education 38 (1): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.38.1.3-17
Cahyono, S., and E. Sudaryati. 2023. “Machiavellian Behavior in Auditor Ethics and Professionalism: Cognitive Moral
Development Study Approach.” Global Financial Accounting Journal 7 (1): 28–44.
Campbell, D. T. 1963. “Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching.” Handbook of Research
on Teaching 5: 171–246.
Campbell, D. T., and J. C. Stanley. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Carrigan, M., and A. Attalla. 2001. “The Myth of the Ethical Consumer – Do Ethics Matter in Purchase Behaviour?” Journal
of Consumer Marketing 18 (7): 560–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760110410263
Chang, S. H., Y. Shu, Y. H. Lin, and C. L. Wang. 2019. ““I Believe”, “I Think”, Then “I Will”? Investigating the Mediator Role of
Ethical Judgment Between Internet Ethical Self-Efficacy and Ethical Behavioral Intention.” Computers in Human
Behavior 101: 387–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.034
Chen, A., M. Rubach, M. Carson, and A. Morton. 2022. “Perceived Ethics among Business Students: Gender Makes a
Difference.” Journal of Education for Business 98 (4): 1–7.
Chiu, R. K. 2003. “Ethical Judgment and Whistleblowing Intention: Examining the Moderating Role of Locus of Control.”
Journal of Business Ethics 43 (1/2): 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022911215204
Choe, K. L., and T. C. Lau. 2010. “Attitude Towards Business Ethics: Examining the Influence of Religiosity, Gender and
Education Levels.” International Journal of Marketing Studies 2 (1): 225–32.
Christensen, A. L., J. Cote, and C. K. Latham. 2016. “Insights Regarding the Applicability of the Defining Issues Test to
Advance Ethics Research with Accounting Students: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Journal of Business Ethics 133 (1):
141–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2349-7
Coll, K. M., and R. A. Stewart. 2008. “College Student Retention: Instrument Validation and Value for Partnering Between
Academic and Counseling Services.” College Student Journal 42 (1): 41–57.
Cook, T., and D. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cron, W. L., A. J. Dubinsky, and R. E. Michaels. 1988. “The Influence of Career Stages on Components of Salesperson
Motivation.” Journal of Marketing 52 (1): 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200107
Cruz, C. A., W. E. Shafer, and J. R. Strawser. 2000. “A Multidimensional Analysis of tax Practitioners’ Ethical Judgments.”
Journal of Business Ethics 24 (3): 223–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006140809998
Culiberg, B., and K. K. Mihelič. 2016. “Three Ethical Frames of Reference: Insights Into Millennials’ Ethical Judgements and
Intentions in the Workplace.” Business Ethics: A European Review 25 (1): 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12106
Davis, S. F., C. A. Grover, A. H. Becker, and L. N. McGregor. 1992. “Academic Dishonesty: Prevalence, Determinants,
Techniques, and Punishments.” Teaching of Psychology 19 (1): 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1901_3
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 951

Deaton, A., and N. Cartwright. 2018. “Understanding and Misunderstanding Randomized Controlled Trials.” Social
Science & Medicine 210: 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005
De George, R. T. 1990. Business Ethics. 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan.
Devlin, M., and K. Gray. 2007. “In Their Own Words: A Qualitative Study of the Reasons Australian University Students
Plagiarize.” Higher Education Research & Development 26 (2): 181–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310805
Donaldson, T. 1989. The Ethics of International Business. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
East, J. 2010. “Judging Plagiarism: A Problem of Morality and Convention.” Higher Education 59 (1): 69–83. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10734-009-9234-9
Elbe, A. M., and R. Brand. 2016. “The Effect of an Ethical Decision-Making Training on Young Athletes’ Attitudes Toward
Doping.” Ethics & Behavior 26 (1): 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.976864
Ethics Resource Centre. 2013. National Business Ethics Survey of the U.S. Workforce. [Online]. September 24, 2022. http://
www.ethics.org/downloads/2013NBESFinalWeb.pdf.
Evans, R. 2006. “Evaluating an Electronic Plagiarism Detection Service: The Importance of Trust and the Difficulty of
Proving Students Don’t Cheat.” Active Learning in Higher Education 7 (1): 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1469787406061150
Eweje, G., and M. Brunton. 2010. “Ethical Perceptions of Business Students in a New Zealand University: Do Gender, age
and Work Experience Matter?” Business Ethics: A European Review 19 (1): 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.
2009.01581.x
Farahian, M., F. Avarzamani, and M. Rezaee. 2022. “Plagiarism in Higher Education Across Nations: A Case of Language
Students.” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 14 (1): 223–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2020-
0309
Fatemi, G., and E. Saito. 2020. “Unintentional Plagiarism and Academic Integrity: The Challenges and Needs of
Postgraduate International Students in Australia.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 44 (10): 1305–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1683521
Ferrell, O. C., and L. G. Gresham. 1985. “A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in
Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 49 (3): 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900308
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Freestone, O., and V. Mitchell. 2004. “Generation Y Attitudes Towards e-Ethics and Internet-Related Misbehaviours.”
Journal of Business Ethics 54 (2): 121–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-1571-0
Friesdorf, R., P. Conway, and B. Gawronski. 2015. “Gender Differences in Responses to Moral Dilemmas: A Process
Dissociation Analysis.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41 (5): 696–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167215575731
Gándara, D., and A. Rutherford. 2017. “Mitigating Unintended Impacts? The Effects of Premiums for Underserved
Populations in Performance-Funding Policies for Higher Education.” Research in Higher Education 59 (6): 681–703.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9483-x
Garden, C. 2009. What Does My Turnitin Report Mean? Edinburgh: Edinburgh Napier University.
Gifford, F. 2007. “Taking Equipoise Seriously: The Failure of Clinical or Community Equipoise to Resolve the Ethical
Dilemmas in Randomized Clinical Trials.” In Establishing Medical Reality. Vol. 90, 215–33. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gottardello, D., and M. D. M. Pàmies. 2019. “Business School Professors’ Perception of Ethics in Education in Europe.”
Sustainability 11 (3): 608. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030608
Gotterbarn, D., K. Miller, and J. Impagliazzo. 2006. “Plagiarism and Scholarly Publications: An Ethical Analysis.” In
Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference, 22–27. San Diego, USA: IEEE.
Granitz, N., and D. Loewy. 2007. “Applying Ethical Theories: Interpreting and Responding to Student Plagiarism.” Journal
of Business Ethics 72 (3): 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9171-9
Gullifer, J., and G. A. Tyson. 2010. “Exploring University Students’ Perceptions of Plagiarism: A Focus Group Study.”
Studies in Higher Education 35 (4): 463–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903096508
Gullifer, J. M., and G. A. Tyson. 2014. “Who Has Read the Policy on Plagiarism? Unpacking Students’ Understanding of
Plagiarism.” Studies in Higher Education 39 (7): 1202–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777412
Gupta, S., I. I. Walker, E. D. Swanson, and N. J. 2011. “Ethical Behavior of Graduate Business Students: An Examination of
the Effect of Age, Gender, GPA, and Work Experience.” Southern Journal of Business and Ethics 3: 137.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. New York: Pearson.
Halder, P., E. N. Hansen, J. Kangas, and T. Laukkanen. 2020. “How National Culture and Ethics Matter in Consumers’
Green Consumption Values.” Journal of Cleaner Production 265: 121754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.
121754
Hansen, S. D., B. B. Dunford, A. D. Boss, R. W. Boss, and I. Angermeier. 2011. “Corporate Social Responsibility and the
Benefits of Employee Trust: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 102 (1): 29–45. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-011-0903-0
Hay, P. 2002. Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Hayes, N., and L. D. Introna. 2005. “Cultural Values, Plagiarism, and Fairness: When Plagiarism Gets in the Way of
Learning.” Ethics & Behavior 15 (3): 213–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1503_2
952 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

Hillman, N. W., D. A. Tandberg, and A. H. Fryar. 2015. “Evaluating the Impacts of “new” Performance Funding in Higher
Education.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37 (4): 501–19. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714560224
Hoge, R. 1972. “A Validated Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 369–76.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1384677
Holland, D., and C. Albrecht. 2013. “The Worldwide Academic Field of Business Ethics: Scholars’ Perceptions of the Most
Important Issues.” Journal of Business Ethics 117 (4): 777–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1718-y
Honig, B., and A. Bedi. 2012. “The fox in the hen House: A Critical Examination of Plagiarism among Members of the
Academy of Management.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 11 (1): 101–23. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amle.2010.0084
Howell, J. A., L. D. Roberts, and V. O. Mancin. 2018. “Learning Analytics Messages: Impact of Grade, Sender, Comparative
Information and Message Style on Student Affect and Academic Resilience.” Computers in Human Behavior 89: 8–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.021
Hu, L. T., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria
Versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1): 1–55. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10705519909540118
Hunt, S. D., and S. Vitell. 1986. “A General Theory of Marketing Ethics.” Journal of Macromarketing 6 (1): 5–16. https://doi.
org/10.1177/027614678600600103
Hunt, S. D., and S. J. Vitell. 1993. “The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Retrospective and Revision.” Ethics in
Marketing 26 (2): 775–84.
Hunt, S. D., and S. J. Vitell. 2006. “The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Revision and Three Questions.” Journal of
Macromarketing 26 (2): 143–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146706290923
Jaffee, S., and J. S. Hyde. 2000. “Gender Differences in Moral Orientation: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 126 (5):
703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.703
Jamieson, S. 2016. “Is It Plagiarism or Patchwriting? Toward a Nuanced Definition.” In Handbook of Academic Integrity,
503–18. USA: Springer.
Jamieson, S., and R. Howard. 2019. “Rethinking the Relationship Between Plagiarism and Academic Integrity.”
International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education 16 (2): 69–85.
Januarti, I. (2011). “Analysis of the Effects of Auditor Experience, Professional Commitment, Ethical Orientation and
Value of Organizational Ethics on Ethical Perception and Consideration (Auditor of the Indonesian Audit Board).”
In National Symposium on Accounting XIV, Aceh.
Jereb, E., M. Urh, J. Jerebic, and P. Šprajc. 2018. “Gender Differences and the Awareness of Plagiarism in Higher
Education.” Social Psychology of Education 21 (2): 409–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9421-y
Jones Christensen, L. I. S. A., A. Mackey, and D. Whetten. 2014. “Taking Responsibility for Corporate Social Responsibility:
The Role of Leaders in Creating, Implementing, Sustaining, or Avoiding Socially Responsible Firm Behaviors.”
Academy of Management Perspectives 28 (2): 164–78. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0047
Jordan, J., M. E. Brown, L. K. Treviño, and S. Finkelstein. 2013. “Someone to Look Up To: Executive–Follower Ethical
Reasoning and Perceptions of Ethical Leadership.” Journal of Management 39 (3): 660–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206311398136
Juyal, D., V. Thawani, and S. Thaledi. 2015. “Rise of Academic Plagiarism in India: Reasons, Solutions and Resolution.”
Lung India 32 (5): 542. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-2113.164151
Kadam, D. 2018. “Academic Integrity and Plagiarism: The New Regulations in India.” Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery 51
(02): 109–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijps.IJPS_208_18
Keohane, N. 1999. The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity, 1–12. The Center for Academic Integrity, Duke
University.
Khathayut, P., C. Walker-Gleaves, and S. Humble. 2022. “Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Understand Thai
Students’ Conceptions of Plagiarism within Their Undergraduate Programmes in Higher Education.” Studies in
Higher Education 47 (2): 394–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1750584
Kim, W. J., and J. H. Park. 2019. “The Effects of Debate-Based Ethics Education on the Moral Sensitivity and Judgment of
Nursing Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study.” Nurse Education Today 83: 104200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.
2019.08.018
Klein, G., and Z. Shtudiner. 2021. “Judging Severity of Unethical Workplace Behavior: Attractiveness and Gender as
Status Characteristics.” BRQ Business Research Quarterly 24 (1): 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420916100
Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stage and Sequence; The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Socialization.
Kohlberg, L., and D. Candee. 1984. “The relationship of moral judgment to moral action.” In Víorality, moral behavior?
And moral development, edited by W. M. Kurtines, and J. L. Gewirtz.
LaFleur, E. K., R. E. Reidenbach, D. P. Robin, and P. J. Forrest. 1995. “An Exploration of Rule Configuration Effects on the
Ethical Decision Processes of Advertising Professionals.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 24 (1): 66–76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009207039602400106
Lapsley, D. K., and D. Narvaez. 2004. “A Social–Cognitive Approach to the Moral Personality.” In Moral Development, Self,
and Identity, 201–24. Psychology Press.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 953

Latan, H., C. J. Chiappetta Jabbour, and A. B. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour. 2019. “Ethical Awareness, Ethical Judgment and
Whistleblowing: A Moderated Mediation Analysis.” Journal of Business Ethics 155 (1): 289–304. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10551-017-3534-2
Latif, D. A. 2000. “The Relationship Between Ethical Dilemma Discussion and Moral Development.” American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education 64 (2): 126–32.
Lee, S. D., N. R. Kuncel, and J. Gau. 2020. “Personality, Attitude, and Demographic Correlates of Academic Dishonesty: A
Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 146 (11): 1042. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000300
Loo, R. 2004. “Support for Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) Eight-Item Multidimensional Ethics Scale.” The Social Science
Journal 41 (2): 289–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2004.01.020
Luo, Y. F., S. Zhang, S. C. Yang, and C. L. Huang. 2022. “Students’ Judgments on Different Cyberbullying Incidents: The
Relationship Between Moral Philosophy and Intention to Engage.” European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1–21.
Marques, P. A., and J. Azevedo-Pereira. 2009. “Ethical Ideology and Ethical Judgments in the Portuguese Accounting
Profession.” Journal of Business Ethics 86 (2): 227–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9845-6
Martin, C. A., D. E. Rivera, W. T. Riley, E. B. Hekler, M. P. Buman, M. A. Adams, and A. C. King. 2014, June. “A Dynamical
Systems Model of Social Cognitive Theory.” In 2014 American Control Conference, 2407–12. IEEE.
McAndrew, S., and D. Voas. 2011. Measuring Religiosity Using Surveys: Survey Question Bank Topic Overview 4.
McMahon, J., and R. Harvey. 2007. “Psychometric Properties of the Reidenbach–Robin Multidimensional Ethics Scale.”
Journal of Business Ethics 72 (1): 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9153-y
Meyers-Levy, J., and B. Loken. 2015. “Revisiting Gender Differences: What We Know and What Lies Ahead.” Journal of
Consumer Psychology 25 (1): 129–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003
Mihelič, K. K., and B. Culiberg. 2014. “Turning a Blind Eye: A Study of Peer Reporting in a Business School Setting.” Ethics
& Behavior 24 (5): 364–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.854170
Miller, E. M., and C. Y. Costello. 2001. “The Limits of Biological Determinism.” American Sociological Review 66 (4): 592–8.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240106600406
Moon, M. A., M. D. Habib, and S. Attiq. 2015. “Analyzing the Sustainable Behavioral Intentions: Role of Norms, Beliefs and
Values on Behavioral Intentions.” Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS) 9 (2): 524–39.
Mubako, G., Bagchi, K., Udo, G., & Marinovic, M. (2021). Personal Values and Ethical Behavior in Accounting Students.”
Journal of Business Ethics 174 (1): 161–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04606-1
Newstrom, J. W., and W. A. Ruch. 1975. “The Ethics of Management and the Management of Ethics.” MSU Business Topics
2: 29–37.
Nguyen, N. T., Basuray, M. T., Smith, W. P., Kopka, D., & McCulloh, D. (2008). Moral Issues and Gender Differences in
Ethical Judgment Using Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) Multidimensional Ethics Scale: Implications in Teaching of
Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 417–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9357-9
Nguyen, N. T., and M. D. Biderman. 2008. “Studying Ethical Judgments and Behavioral Intentions Using Structural
Equations: Evidence from the Multidimensional Ethics Scale.” Journal of Business Ethics 83 (4): 627–40. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-007-9644-5
Nickerson, C. 2021. Symbolic Interaction Theory & Examples. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/symbolic-
interaction-theory.html.
Nwosu, L. I., and J. E. Chukwuere. 2020. “The Attitude of Students Towards Plagiarism in Online Learning: A Narrative
Literature Review.” Gender & Behaviour 18 (1): 14675–14688.
Omer, T. C., N. Y. Sharp, and D. Wang. 2018. “The Impact of Religion on the Going Concern Reporting Decisions of Local
Audit Offices.” Journal of Business Ethics 149 (4): 811–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3045-6
Otaye-Ebede, L., S. Shaffakat, and S. Foster. 2020. “A Multilevel Model Examining the Relationships Between Workplace
Spirituality, Ethical Climate and Outcomes: A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 166 (3):
611–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04133-8
Pan, Y., and J. R. Sparks. 2012. “Predictors, Consequence, and Measurement of Ethical Judgments: Review and Meta-
Analysis.” Journal of Business Research 65 (1): 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.002
Parboteeah, K. P., Y. Paik, and J. B. Cullen. 2009. “Religious Groups and Work Values: A Focus on Buddhism, Christianity,
Hinduism, and Islam.” International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management 9 (1): 51–67.
Pargament, K. I. 2002. “The Bitter and the Sweet: An Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Religiousness.” Psychological
Inquiry 13 (3): 168–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1303_02
Paxton, P., N. E. Reith, and J. L. Glanville. 2014. “Volunteering and the Dimensions of Religiosity: A Cross-National
Analysis.” Review of Religious Research 56 (4): 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-014-0169-y
Pelegrín-Borondo, J., M. Arias-Oliva, K. Murata, and M. Souto-Romero. 2020. “Does Ethical Judgment Determine the
Decision to Become a Cyborg?” Journal of Business Ethics 161 (1): 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3970-7
Perfect, T. J., and L. J. Stark. 2012. “Unconscious Plagiarism in Recall: Attribution to the Self, but not for Self-Relevant
Reasons.” Europe’s Journal of Psychology 8 (2): 275–83. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v8i2.459
Pichler, S., C. Kohli, and N. Granitz. 2021. “DITTO for Gen Z: A Framework for Leveraging the Uniqueness of the New
Generation.” Business Horizons 64 (5): 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.021
Putrevu, S., and K. Swimberghek. 2013. “The Influence of Religiosity on Consumer Ethical Judgments and Responses
Toward Sexual Appeals.” Journal of Business Ethics 115 (2): 351–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1399-y
954 A. PRASHAR ET AL.

Radulovic, U., and T. Uys. 2019. “Academic Dishonesty and Whistleblowing in a Higher Education Institution: A
Sociological Analysis.” African Journal of Business Ethics 13 (2): 27–45. https://doi.org/10.15249/13-2-218
Ramzan, M., M. A. Munir, N. Siddique, and M. Asif. 2012. “Awareness About Plagiarism Amongst University Students in
Pakistan.” Higher Education 64 (1): 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9481-4
Reidenbach, R. E., and D. P. Robin. 1990. “Toward the Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving
Evaluations of Business Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 9 (8): 639–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383391
Rinnert, C., and H. Kobayashi. 2005. “Borrowing Words and Ideas: Insights From Japanese L1 Writers.” Journal of Asian
Pacific Communication 15 (1): 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.15.1.05rin
Ross, A. D., and S. M. Rouse. 2015. “Economic Uncertainty, Job Threat, and the Resiliency of the Millennial Generation’s
Attitudes Toward Immigration.” Social Science Quarterly 96 (5): 1363–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12168
Roxas, M. L., and J. Y. Stoneback. 2004. “The Importance of Gender Across Cultures in Ethical Decision-Making.” Journal
of Business Ethics 50 (2): 149–65. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000022127.51047.ef
Ruedy, N. E., and M. E. Schweitzer. 2010. “In the Moment: The Effect of Mindfulness on Ethical Decision Making.” Journal
of Business Ethics 95 (S1): 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0796-y
Rupp, D. E., P. M. Wright, S. Aryee, and Y. Luo. 2015. “Organizational Justice, Behavioral Ethics, and Corporate Social
Responsibility: Finally the Three Shall Merge.” Management and Organization Review 11 (1): 15–24. https://doi.org/
10.1017/mor.2015.8
Ryan, G., H. Bonanno, I. Krass, K. Scouller, and L. Smith. 2009. “Undergraduate and Postgraduate Pharmacy Students’
Perceptions of Plagiarism and Academic Honesty.” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 73(6).
Schaeper, H. 2020. “The First Year in Higher Education: The Role of Individual Factors and the Learning Environment for
Academic Integration.” Higher Education 79 (1): 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00398-0
Şendağ, S., M. Duran, and M. R. Fraser. 2012. “Surveying the Extent of Involvement in Online Academic Dishonesty (e-
Dishonesty) Related Practices among University Students and the Rationale Students Provide: One University’s
Experience.” Computers in Human Behavior 28 (3): 849–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.004
Shadish, W. R., T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal
Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sheard, J., S. Markham, and M. Dick. 2003. “Investigating Differences in Cheating Behaviours of IT Undergraduate and
Graduate Students: The Maturity and Motivation Factors.” Higher Education Research & Development 22 (1): 91–108.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000056526
Singh, B. P. 2016. “Preventing the Plagiarism in Digital age with Special Reference to Indian Universities.” International
Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology 6 (4): 281–7.
Singhapakdi, A., S. J. Vitell, K. C. Rallapalli, and K. L. Kraft. 1996. “The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: A
Scale Development.” Journal of Business Ethics 15 (11): 1131–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00412812
Sivaraman, M. A. F. 2019. “Ethical Decision-Making Ability and Cognitive Reasoning among Final Year Engineering
Students in a Higher Education Institution in Malaysia: A Qualitative Study.” ASEAN Journal of Engineering
Education 3 (1): 71–89.
Staats, S., J. M. Hupp, H. Wallace, and J. Gresley. 2009. “Heroes Don’t Cheat: An Examination of Academic Dishonesty and
Students’ Views on Why Professors Don’t Report Cheating.” Ethics & Behavior 19 (3): 171–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10508420802623716
Sulaiman, R., P. Toulson, D. Brougham, F. Lempp, and J. Haar. 2022. “The Role of Religiosity in Ethical Decision-Making: A
Study on Islam and the Malaysian Workplace.” Journal of Business Ethics 179 (1): 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-021-04836-x
Sutherland-Smith, W. 2005. “Pandora’s Box: Academic Perceptions of Student Plagiarism in Writing.” Journal of English
for Academic Purposes 4 (1): 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.007
Taylor, E. Z., and M. B. Curtis. 2010. “An Examination of the Layers of Workplace Influences in Ethical Judgments:
Whistleblowing Likelihood and Perseverance in Public Accounting.” Journal of Business Ethics 93 (1): 21–37.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0179-9
Tipton, E., and R. B. Olsen. 2018. “A Review of Statistical Methods for Generalizing from Evaluations of Educational
Interventions.” Educational Researcher 47 (8): 516–24. . https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18781522
Trevino, L. K. 1992. “Moral Reasoning and Business Ethics: Implications for Research, Education, and Management.”
Journal of Business Ethics 11 (5-6): 445–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00870556
Treviño, L. K., G. R. Weaver, and S. J. Reynolds. 2006. “Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review.” Journal of
Management 32 (6): 951–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258
Tzini, K., and K. Jain. 2018. “Unethical Behavior Under Relative Performance Evaluation: Evidence and Remedy.” Human
Resource Management 57 (6): 1399–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21913
Udry, J. R. 2001. “Feminist Critics Uncover Determinism, Positivism, and Antiquated Theory.” American Sociological
Review 66 (4): 611–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240106600409
Valentine, S., and L. Godkin. 2019. “Moral Intensity, Ethical Decision Making, and Whistleblowing Intention.” Journal of
Business Research 98: 277–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.009
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 955

Valentine, S. R., S. K. Hanson, and G. M. Fleischman. 2019. “The Presence of Ethics Codes and Employees’ Internal Locus
of Control, Social Aversion/Malevolence, and Ethical Judgment of Incivility: A Study of Smaller Organizations.”
Journal of Business Ethics 160 (3): 657–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3880-8
Vitell, S. J., J. G. Paolillo, and J. J. Singh. 2005. “Religiosity and Consumer Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 57 (2): 175–81.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-4603-x
Walker, A. G., J. W. Smither, and J. DeBode. 2012. “The Effects of Religiosity on Ethical Judgments.” Journal of Business
Ethics 106 (4): 437–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1009-4
Waltzer, T., and A. Dahl. 2021. “Students’ Perceptions and Evaluations of Plagiarism: Effects of Text and Context.” Journal
of Moral Education 50 (4): 436–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1787961
Weaver, G. R., and B. R. Agle. 2002. “Religiosity and Ethical Behavior in Organizations: A Symbolic Interactionist
Perspective.” The Academy of Management Review 27 (1): 77–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134370
Weber, J. 2017. “Discovering the Millennials’ Personal Values Orientation: A Comparison to two Managerial Populations.”
Journal of Business Ethics 143 (3): 517–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2803-1
Weber, J. 2019. “Understanding the Millennials’ Integrated Ethical Decision-Making Process: Assessing the Relationship
Between Personal Values and Cognitive Moral Reasoning.” Business & Society 58 (8): 1671–706. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0007650317726985
Webster, R. L., and H. A. Harmon. 2002. “Comparing Levels of Machiavellianism of Today’s College Students with College
Students of the 1960s.” Teaching Business Ethics 6 (4): 435–45. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021149204098
White, L. P., and L. W. Lam. 2000. “A Proposed Infrastructural Model for the Establishment of Organizational Ethical
Systems.” Journal of Business Ethics 28 (1): 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006221928960
Wood, R., and A. Bandura. 1989. “Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management.” The Academy of Management
Review 14 (3): 361–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/258173
Yankelovich, D. 1972. The Changing Values on Campus: Political and Personal Attitudes of Today’s College Students: A
SURVEY for the JDR 3rd Fund.
Youmans, Robert J. 2011. “Does the Adoption of Plagiarism-Detection Software in Higher Education Reduce
Plagiarism?” Studies in Higher Education 36 (7): 749–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.523457
Zhou, Y., W. Zheng, and X. Gao. 2019. “The Relationship Between the Big Five and Cyberbullying among College
Students: The Mediating Effect of Moral Disengagement.” Current Psychology 38 (5): 1162–73. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12144-018-0005-6