The impact of cumulative pressure on accounting students’ propensity to commit plagiarism: an...

The impact of cumulative pressure on accountingstudents’ propensity to commit plagiarism: an

experimental approach

Hwee Ping Koha, Glennda Scullyb, David R. Woodliffa

aUWA Business School, The University of Western Australia,M250 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, AustraliabSchool of Accounting, Curtin University of Technology,

GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia

Abstract

Adopting aspects of Jones, T.M., 1991, Academy of Management Review 16,366–395 issue-contingent model of ethical decision-making to guide our choiceof variables, we investigate perceptions of factors that affect student plagiarism.In an experimental setting, time pressure and assessment weighting are manipu-lated between-subjects, whilst the severity of plagiarism is examined within-sub-jects. Our findings confirm that time pressure and assessment weighting arepositively related to perceptions of the likelihood of plagiarism and that plagia-rism is perceived as more likely for less severe acts. Further, the likelihood ofplagiarism increases as the cumulative pressure of both time deadline andassessment weighting increases.

Key words: Plagiarism; Accounting education; Academic honesty; Moralintensity; Ethics

JEL classification: M42, I20

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2010.00381.x

We would like to thank Paul Lloyd for his helpful comments on the development of theresearch instrument; Prerana Agrawal and Serene Seah for research assistance; CatherineLees, Shelly Yeo, Doina Olaru, colleagues at The University of Western Australia andCurtin University of Technology, participants at the 2008 AFAANZ/IAAER Conference,participants at the Teaching and Learning Forum 2009 and the two anonymous refereesfor their helpful and insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Received 18 September 2009; accepted 16 August 2010 by Gary Monroe (Editor).

� 2010 The AuthorsAccounting and Finance � 2010 AFAANZ

Accounting and Finance 51 (2011) 985–1005

1. Introduction

An understanding of the factors underpinning student plagiarism will betterinform curriculum design and policy development aimed at reducing the inci-dence of plagiarism. This study reports the results of an experiment that exam-ines the extent to which time deadline pressure (TDP) and the weighting ofassessment affect perceptions of a student’s propensity to plagiarise with a viewto informing policy development aimed at reducing plagiarism amongst businessstudents.The accounting profession, both domestically and internationally, has in recent

times been subject to significant scrutiny in relation to the ethical practices of itsmembers. The response of the accounting profession internationally includes theimplementation of the Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002 in the United States, SmithReport (2003) in the United Kingdom and the Corporate Law EconomicReform Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2004 in Austra-lia. At the same time, plagiarism by business students in higher education institu-tions appears to be on the rise (Park, 2003). In the United States, Premeaux(2005) notes that, amongst AACSB accredited business schools, cheating is com-mon-place. Similarly in the United Kingdom, Park (2003, p. 471) found that‘plagiarism is doubtless common and getting more so’. In Australia, O’Learyand Radich (2001) reported that a high proportion of accountancy students werewilling to engage in unethical behaviour where the chance of being caught waslow. Accounting educators have responded to these changes in regulation, devel-oping an accounting curriculum that reflects these developments (Ghaffari et al.,2008) and by developing both proactive and reactive policy responses to reportsof increased plagiarism. This study aims to inform policy development by identi-fying curriculum and environmental factors that may increase the propensity forstudents to plagiarise.Ethical decision-making is a core value underpinning the accounting profes-

sion (Para 100.1, International Code of Professional Ethics, InternationalFederation of Accountants, 2005); thus, unethical behaviour has potentiallycatastrophic implications for the accounting profession (Premeaux, 2005).Crown and Spiller (1998) noted that research into cheating in the tertiary sec-tor could offer great insight into the professional domain. Baird (1980) alsofound that business students generally cheat more than students from othermajors. Sims (1995), Haswell et al. (1999), Lawson (2004) and Abdolmoham-madi and Baker (2007) propose that a propensity by students to engage inunethical behaviour suggests these students will continue to behave unethicallyin their professional careers.1 For example, the reduced audit quality research

1 On the other hand, Martin et al. (2009, p. 45) found that actual plagiarism as measuredby ‘the proportion of paper plagiarised’ is not related to the student’s propensity tobehave unethically in the work force.

986 H. P. Koh et al./Accounting and Finance 51 (2011) 985–1005


suggests that auditors, when subject to similar pressures as the students in thisstudy, engage in reduced audit quality acts (see e.g. Rhode, 1978; Aldermanand Deitrick, 1982; Otley and Pierce, 1996; Coram et al., 2004; Margheimet al., 2005; Gundry and Liyanarachchi, 2007), whilst conducting financialstatement audits for clients. Whilst students in Lawson’s (2004) study fullycomprehended what ethical behaviour encompassed, they indicated that toadvance their careers it might be necessary to engage in unethical behaviour.Such behaviour also has implications for education providers. Reputation isclosely linked to the academic integrity of both university staff and studentsand evidence of plagiarism can undermine institutional reputation (Sharmanand Wilshire, 2007). Furthermore, students who plagiarise do not learn(Abdolmohammadi and Baker, 2007), and their intellectual development isinhibited (Yeung et al., 2002).Most academic institutions have developed policies and processes to ensure

that academic standards are upheld and that academic integrity is maintained.The main aim of these processes and policies is to develop and communicate toacademics and students an understanding of what is meant by academic integrityand to identify the behaviours that reflect appropriate academic conduct. Thereare, however, significant costs in identifying and punishing plagiarists. Theprocess in most institutions is both time consuming and emotionally draining(Carroll, 2002). Zobel and Hamilton (2002) found that academics simply did nothave the time to adequately deal with plagiarists because of high academic work-loads. For academics in business schools with traditionally high staff/studentratios, this problem is exacerbated.University policies incorporate many and varied penalties and strategies to

address the problem of plagiarism (Devlin, 2007). However, the success of strate-gies can be limited if the factors that motivate an individual’s decision to engagein plagiarism are unknown. Also the documented rise in plagiarism amongstbusiness students suggests that policies, to date, appear not to have achievedtheir goals. A better understanding of what motivates a student to plagiarisecould better inform policy development, curricula and assessment design, whilstencouraging greater academic honesty. Pre-emptive polices designed to preventplagiarism could go some way towards improving business academics’ ability todeal with plagiarism and reduce both workload implications and costs. In thelong term, such policies would benefit both business schools and the accountingprofession.We attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the characteristics of the act of

plagiarism by investigating the act within an appropriate theoretical framework.Such an approach may provide a more in-depth understanding of the underlyingcauses and should inform a more structured approach to policy developmentand curricula and assessment design.Crown and Spiller (1998) suggested that the Jones (1991) issue-contingent

model would be appropriate for studying cheating. This study adopts aspects ofJones (1991) issue-contingent model, which suggests that an individual’s decision

H. P. Koh et al./Accounting and Finance 51 (2011) 985–1005 987


to engage in ethical or unethical behaviour is dependent upon the moral issuein question. More specifically, the ‘moral intensity’ of the issue will have asignificant effect on the decision-making behaviour of the individual (Jones,1991, p. 391). Jones (1991, p. 372) defined moral intensity as.

A construct that captures the extent of issue-related moral imperative in a situation.

Moral intensity is affected by the characteristics of the moral issue in question,specifically, magnitude of consequences, social consensus, probability of effect,temporal immediacy, proximity and concentration of effect (Jones, 1991). In thisstudy, we explicitly examine the impact of a factor chosen to represent magni-tude of consequences – namely, the contribution or the weight of a particularassessment to the overall grade. We manipulate a factor (TDP), which has beenshown to impact on the propensity to plagiarise. We create a scenario where pla-giarism is more/less likely to exist and examine if this interacts with the weight ofassessment. Recognising that plagiarism can vary from ‘major’ to ‘minor’, weexamine the propensity to plagiarise at different levels of severity.2 Hence, ourexperimental design is a 2 · 2 · 3 mixed design with the dependent variable, pro-pensity to plagiarise. Between-subjects variables are TDP (high/low) and theweight of the assessment (high/low). Type of plagiarism (minor/moderate/major)is a within-subjects variable.Our findings confirm prior studies such as Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead

(1995) that the probability of engaging in plagiarism is higher for minor offencesthan for more serious instances and that this probability increases as TDPincreases. Further, the results provide weak support that the more significant theassessment weighting, the greater a student’s propensity to engage in plagiarism.Our results also support our expectation that the propensity to engage in plagia-rism would increase as the cumulative pressure of increases in both TDP andassessment weighting are experienced.The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. A discussion of the litera-

ture is followed by hypotheses development. The experimental design is presentedfollowed by data analysis and discussion. Finally, a conclusion is presented alongwith limitations of the study and suggestions for further research.

2 Yeo (2007, p. 213) found that students viewed different acts of plagiarism such as cuttingand pasting material from the internet into their assignment as ‘serious plagiarism’, copy-ing another student’s assignment entirely as ‘moderately serious plagiarism’ and copyinggraphs prepared by another student as ‘minor plagiarism’. Recognising that plagiarismlies on a continuum and can vary from minor offences like copying a few sentences froma journal article without indicating its source to serious instances like copying someone’sessay in its entirety and submitting as although it is an original piece of work, we examineperceptions of propensity to commit plagiarism at different levels of severity of the plagia-rism act (Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead, 1995; James et al., 2002).



2. Literature review and hypothesis development

In this study, we refer only to intentional plagiarism defined as:

…the act or instance of copying or stealing another’s words or ideas and attributingthem as one’s own. (Hiller and Peters, 2005, p. 188; Garner, 1999, p. 1170)

A number of studies have attempted to identify the factors underlying decisionsto intentionally plagiarise. According to James et al. (2002, p. 39), student’s‘intention to cheat’ lies on a continuum between ‘deliberately representing thework of other’s as one’s own’ (representing intentional plagiarism) to ‘usingthe work of others accidentally without acknowledgement’ (representingunintentional plagiarism). Unintentional plagiarism (also known as inadvertentplagiarism) often arises because of lack of understanding of what plagiarismentails, lack of understanding of the appropriate academic referencing conven-tion or lack of academic writing skills (James et al., 2002; Devlin and Gray,2007). Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995), James et al. (2002), Park (2003),Devlin (2003), Sierra and Hyman (2006) and Devlin and Gray (2007) havesuggested reasons why students engage in plagiarism. Devlin and Gray’s (2007,p. 187) qualitative study identified eight factors that might influence students’decisions to plagiarise. Of the eight, four can be directly related to intentionalplagiarism (‘laziness/convenience’, ‘pride in plagiarising’, ‘pressures’ and ‘educa-tion costs’); three could give rise to both intentional and unintentional plagiarism(‘inadequate admission criteria’, ‘poor academic skills’ and ‘teaching/learningissues’); and the last factor (‘poor understanding of plagiarism’) is generallyassociated with unintentional plagiarism. This study only examines intentionalplagiarism and focuses on the pressures students may face in the universityenvironment.In proposing that the underlying dimensions of a moral issue are important

determinants of ethical decision-making and behaviour, Jones (1991) provides aframework that may assist in explaining what influences a student to act ethicallyor unethically.3 We draw on Jones’ issue-contingent model and prior research tosupport the choice of the weight of the assessment as a factor that could contrib-ute to a student’s deliberate decision to plagiarise. Magnitude of consequences,in Jones (1991, p. 374) issue-contingent model, refers to the aggregate ‘of theharms (or benefits)’ that occur as a result of the act. As the weighting of anassessment component increases, relative to the overall grade, the potential

3 Jones (1991) model has been used to help understand the ethical decisions faced by audi-tors (Cohen and Bennie, 2006; Coram et al., 2008). Since auditing is a profession whichmany accounting graduates enter, it should be useful to use the same model in examiningaccounting students’ ethical decisions. In most of the auditing studies (e.g. Shafer et al.,1999, 2001; Douglas et al., 2001), the moral intensity dimensions were manipulated torepresent scenarios of ‘high’ and ‘low’ moral intensity to examine the impact of differentlevels of moral intensity on auditors’ ethical judgments.



consequences, both benefits and costs, associated with plagiarism increase thusincreasing the moral intensity.The contribution of the assignment to the overall grade (i.e. weight of assess-

ment) has not been directly investigated in prior plagiarism studies. Prior studiesin the plagiarism literature by Sierra and Hyman (2006, p. 194) found that thestudent’s decision to engage in plagiarism is affected by the level of ‘exam/assign-ment difficulty’. A number of studies suggest that students engage in plagiarismas they are under pressure to obtain a good mark on their assignment and theywish to obtain a substantial improvement in marks within the shortest possibletime (Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead, 1995; Park, 2003; Sierra and Hyman, 2006and Devlin and Gray, 2007). In addition, Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995,p. 170), whilst not testing assessment weighting, concluded their paper by predict-ing, ‘increases in the amount and importance of coursework are actually encourag-ing students to cheat’. The implication is that the higher the assessment weightingas a proportion of the total marks available, the greater the potential benefit(magnitude of consequences) obtained in terms of an improved overall grade.The potential costs of plagiarism are the same for our subjects whether the

weighting of the assessment is ‘high’ or ‘low’. Furthermore, the manipulation isaimed at the weight of the assessment not its marginality. Hence, we hypothesisethat students would be more likely to plagiarise for assessments carrying moreweight as the costs are the same and the potential benefits are greater.

H1: As the weight of an assessment increases so too will the propensity toplagiarise.

To study the impact of weighting of assessment further by examining studentresponses in an applied and realistic environment where plagiarism is more/lesslikely to exist, student subjects were presented with scenarios of increasing cumu-lative pressure. The reality of a student’s busy semester is that pressures increaseas a semester builds towards its end and that this pressure accumulates alongwith other environmental factors such as increasingly important assessments,encroaching examinations and tightening time deadlines. In this study, one ofthe scenarios depicted the accumulating pressure of both increased assessmentweighting and increased TDP. Time pressure is a frequently cited reason whystudents engage in plagiarism (e.g. Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead, 1995; Jameset al., 2002; Park, 2003; Abdolmohammadi and Baker, 2007; Devlin and Gray,2007). Students face TDP where they have to complete a set task (like writing anassignment) before the imposed deadline. Decision-makers use a wide range ofheuristics to minimise effort when under time pressure (Simon, 1981; Payneet al., 1988). Payne et al. (1988) and Simon (1981) found that generally, subjectsare more likely to use heuristics under TDP, possibly because of them not havingother alternative solution or choices available. One such ‘heuristic’ could be toengage in plagiarism. Susskind (2006) reported that students often use ‘shortcuts’ like engaging in plagiarism when faced with TDP.



Time pressure itself is not a factor within the moral intensity characteristics.However, in the development of his issue-contingent model, Jones (1991, p. 373)acknowledges that in developing the characteristics of moral intensity, one needsto consider the ‘different levels of moral responsibility based on proportionality’.Proportionality includes amongst other things, the urgency of the situation,which in this case would incorporate time pressure (Jones, 1991). Time deadlinepressure is imposed externally on the student; hence, it is an environmental fac-tor in the context of Jones (1991) model. Furthermore, from Jones’ magnitudeof consequences perspective, as pressure accumulates so do the perceived conse-quences from the student’s perspective increase.We expect to confirm that the propensity to plagiarise increases as TDP

increases. Further, we argue that pressure is cumulative, rather than an interac-tion between the factors, weight of assessment and timing. The method for test-ing this relationship is discussed below and reflects the nature of this relationshipas one of cumulative pressure rather than an interaction. Margheim et al. (2005)found that auditors felt most stress when both TDP and time budget pressurewere ‘high’ when compared to when one of the two types of pressure was presentand the least amount of stress was felt when both types of time pressure were‘low’.4 In our study, we hypothesise that as both the deadline and assessmentweighting pressure grow, so does the propensity to plagiarise.5

H2: The propensity to plagiarise increases as cumulative pressure increases.

The incidence of plagiarism appears to be related to the severity of the act i.e.‘lower level’ plagiarism occurs more frequently. Students interviewed by Ash-worth et al. (1997, p. 201) felt that the severity of the plagiarism act differedand ‘ranged from the wholesale lifting of substantial portions of a text rightdown to the borrowing of a single word of phrase’. The severity of the plagia-rism act can be linked to the probability of effect in the Jones (1991) model.The probability of effect of a moral act encompasses both the chance that theact will take place and the predicted consequences (Jones, 1991). Quite possiblystudents perceive, based on past actions of themselves or others, that the chanceof being caught (i.e. consequences) is much smaller for lower level plagiarism

4 Auditors generally face two types of time pressure: time budget pressure and TDP (Solo-mon and Brown, 1992; DeZoort, 1998). Auditors face TDP when they have ‘to perform atask by a specific point in time’. DeZoort and Lord (1997, p. 39) define time budget pres-sure as ‘the pervasive constraint on resources that can be allocated to accomplish a job’.For example, auditors are required to complete the annual financial statement auditwithin the resources (i.e. number of staff with appropriate level of experience and expertiseand the number of hours allocated for each staff) allocated by the audit firm to the job.

5 Note that as we are hypothesising an ordinal interaction rather than a disordinal interac-tion, the appropriate statistical technique is not the anova test for disordinal interactionbut rather one of planned contrasts (Buckless and Ravenscroft, 1990; Sedor, 2002).



than for major plagiarism and hence the probability of effect and resultingmoral intensity is less. We therefore test our hypotheses across three levels ofseverity of the plagiarism act and expect to find perceptions of the incidence oflower level plagiarism to be higher than perceptions of the level of more severeplagiarism. We do not, however, formally state a hypothesis with respect to theseverity of the plagiarism act as this relationship has been established in previ-ous literature (e.g. Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead, 1995). We attempt to holdall other factors constant.

3. Method

To test the hypotheses, we adopted a 2 · 2 · 3 mixed design using a ‘scenariobased’ experimental approach. The between-subjects variables were TDP (high/low) and level of assessment weighting (high/low). The within-subjects variablewas the severity of the plagiarism, manipulated at three levels (minor, moderateor major).

3.1. Dependent variable

Each participant was presented with a single scenario, representing one of thefour between-subjects treatment conditions and requested to make a decision onthe extent to which the student described in the scenario (Student X) wouldengage in plagiarism. The scenario contained information on the independentvariables and then presented a situation containing the opportunity for plagia-rism expressed as: ‘While working in the library Student X notices a classmate,who is known for achieving high grades, going to lunch and leaving a hard copyof the completed essay and a thumb drive containing the same essay unattendedon the table. Computer and photocopy facilities are easily available.’ Scenariosfrom Marshall and Garry’s (2006) study were paraphrased and used in the devel-opment of the scenarios in this study. An example (both independent variablesset at ‘High’) is shown in the Appendix.The dependent variable therefore is the propensity to commit plagiarism mea-

sured from a third person’s perspective on a continuous scale ranging from 0 percent to 100 per cent. A continuous scale is used as it better reflects that the deci-sion to engage in plagiarism may not be straightforward and may lie on a contin-uum (Hiller and Peters, 2005; Devlin, 2007). Hence, the propensity to plagiariserefers to the likelihood that participants believe another student (Student X) willplagiarise. Asking sensitive questions in the first person increases the risk ofreceiving misleading responses as participants may hide their real attitudestowards unacceptable behaviour (Buchman and Tracy, 1982). We therefore fol-lowed the approach of Margheim and Pany (1986) by asking participants for theirperceptions from a third person’s perspective. Furthermore, a generic ‘Student X’was used as the main character in the case scenario to avoid sensitising subjectsand so as not to introduce other variables, such as gender, race, nationality, age,



etc. which have been shown in prior research to be related to students’ propensityto commit plagiarism (Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead, 1995; James et al., 2002;Devlin, 2003; Park, 2003; Sierra and Hyman, 2006 and Devlin and Gray, 2007).Following the presentation of the scenario, three questions addressing the

severity of the plagiarism act were asked. Participants were asked to decide towhat extent ‘Student X’ would: ‘copy the classmate’s essay entirely and submit itas Student X’s own work’ (major plagiarism); ‘read the assignment, take all ormost of the points from the classmate’s essay and express them in Student X’sown words’ (moderate plagiarism); and ‘read the assignment and extract one ortwo good points without acknowledgement and express them in Student X’sown words’ (minor plagiarism). These judgments were recorded using a likeli-hood scale ranging from 0 to 100, numerically anchored at every 10th point (seeAppendix).

3.2. Independent variables

In this study, we manipulated TDP (high/low) and weight of assessment (percent of assessment). To ensure these manipulations were effective, we testedscenarios where TDP was both high and low by surveying a separate group of33 second- and third-year undergraduate students to determine essay deadlines(i.e. the variable for TDP) and the weighting of the essay (i.e. the variable for thesignificance of the assessment weighting). The results of this survey best sup-ported the choice of 12 hours/12 weeks for TDP and 5 per cent/30 per cent asthe most appropriate measure for weight of assessment. The use of 30 per centas the ‘High’ weight of assessment in our study is consistent with Houston’s(1977, p. 583) findings that all subjects ‘regardless of their propensity to cheat‘unanimously’ felt that the examination which was worth one third of their totalcourse grade was ‘extremely important’!’Manipulation checks were included in the final section of the research instru-

ment where participants were asked: ‘how much time pressure is Student Xunder’ and ‘what impact will the grade achieved for the essay have on StudentX’s overall grade for the unit’. Responses were recorded on a continuous scaleranging from ‘0’ (i.e. a little) to ‘100’ (i.e. a lot), also numerically anchored atevery 10th point. The mean response of participants in the ‘High’ TDP group of87.06 was significantly higher than the 47.56 response for the ‘Low’ TDP group(t = 15.11, p < 0.001). Thus, whilst the participants perceived pressure underboth conditions, it was significantly higher in the ‘High’ manipulation. The meanresponse of participants in the ‘High’ weight of assessment condition of 54.33was significantly higher than the 17.41 response for the ‘Low’ weight of assess-ment condition (t = 16.91, p < 0.001). Thus, whilst both conditions were per-ceived to impact on the overall grade, a greater impact was correctly perceivedfor the ‘High’ manipulation.The final section of the instrument requested basic demographic information

for each subject. Additional questions to capture the extent of the participants’



knowledge about the different types of plagiarism, the potential penalties, andthe university’s policies and procedures were also included as possible explana-tory variables.

3.3. Participants/Procedure

The participants were third-year undergraduate business school students at aWestern Australian university. Students doing an auditing unit were asked at theend of their weekly tutorial if they would volunteer 5–10 min to participate inthe experiment. The instrument was then administered in class by the tutorialstaff. Students volunteering were randomly assigned to one of the four treatmentconditions. One hundred and thirty-nine students completed and returned theinstrument to their tutor.Seven of the 139 participants failed a manipulation check asking for the

weighting of the assessment in their assigned scenario. The following results aretherefore based on data from 132 participants. Summary descriptive data arepresented in Table 1. The students were mainly accounting majors with most intheir final or penultimate year of university. Forty-five per cent of the partici-pants were men and 73 per cent were domestic students. For 30 per cent of theparticipants English was not their first language. A series of anovas revealed thatthe results reported in the next section are not sensitive to gender, degree, year ofstudy, majors, entry level, local versus international student, command of Eng-lish language and prior academic performance. Chi-square tests also showed nosignificant differences between cells in relation to the demographic variables.

4. Results

Thirty-four of the 132 students completed the High Time Deadline Pressure/High Weight of Assessment (High TDP/High WOA) and the High TDP/LowWOA scenarios, respectively, with 32 participants in each of the Low TDP cells.Table 2 reports some descriptive statistics of the participants’ responses concern-ing their perception of the probability of plagiarism occurring in their given

Table 1

Demographic statistics

Number of subjects 132

Male 44.7%

Female 55.3%

Local versus International student

Domestic student 72.7%

International student 27.3%

Command of english language

English as first language 69.7%

English as second language 30.3%



Tab

le2

Descriptive

statistics

–Mean[M

edian](Standarddeviation);Probab

ilityofplagiarism

(0–100%

)

Weightof

assessment

(WOA)

Tim

edeadlinepressure

(TDP)

HighTDP

LowTDP

All

Major

Moderate

Minor

All

Major

Moderate

Minor

All

Major

Moderate

Minor

All

HighWOA

38.29

[38.50]

(27.13)

n=

34

58.82

[60.00]

(23.93)

n=

34

69.94

[80.00]

(28.13)

n=

34

55.69

[60.00]

(29.32)

n=

34

27.38

[20.00]

(26.10)

n=

32

47.91

[50.00]

(29.20)

n=

32

48.44

[50.00]

(29.85)

n=

32

41.24

[40.00]

(29.81)

n=

32

33.00

[25.00]

(27.00)

n=

66

53.53

[55.00]

(26.97)

n=

66

59.52

[65.50]

(30.72)

n=

66

48.68

[50.00]

(30.36)

n=

66

LowWOA

31.24

[20.00]

(26.28)

n=

34

55.24

[59.00]

(25.87)

n=

34

59.47

[60.00]

(25.81)

n=

34

48.65

[50.00]

(28.60)

n=

34

21.00

[12.50]

(23.93)

n=

32

43.22

[40.00]

(30.86)

n=

32

48.63

[40.00]

(33.50)

n=

32

37.61

[30.00]

(31.75)

n=

32

26.27

[20.00]

(25.50)

n=

66

49.41

[50.00]

(28.82)

n=

66

54.21

[50.00]

(30.06)

n=

66

43.30

[40.00]

(30.60)

n=

66

All

34.76

[30.00]

(26.75)

n=

68

57.03

[60.00]

(24.80)

n=

68

64.71

[70.00]

(27.31)

n=

68

52.17

[52.50]

(29.11)

n=

68

24.19

[19.00]

(25.05)

n=

64

45.56

[50.00]

(29.89)

n=

64

48.53

[45.00]

(31.48)

n=

64

39.43

[30.00]

(30.77)

n=

64

29.64

[20.00]

(26.38)

n=

132

51.47

[50.00]

(27.88)

n=

132

56.86

[60.00]

(30.39)

n=

132

ThistableshowstheMean,Medianan

dStandarddeviationfortheparticipan

t’sprobab

ilityofengagingin

plagiarism

for132participan

ts.



scenario. In line with our predictions, the High TDP/High WOA had the highestperceived probability of plagiarism occurring with a mean of 55.69 per cent(median 60.00 per cent), whilst the Low TDP/Low WOA cell had the lowestreported probability with a mean of 37.61 per cent (median 30.00 per cent). Themean of 37.61 per cent in the Low TDP/Low WOA cell is surprisingly relativelyhigh and is consistent with prior findings by Sharman and Wilshire (2007) andWhitley and Keith-Spiegel (2002) that a proportion of students will continue toengage in plagiarism, knowing it is not morally correct to do so even when underno apparent pressure.The significance of these findings were analysed in a 2 · 2 · 3 repeated mea-

sures anova with TDP and the weight of assessment (WOA) as between-subjectsvariables and the severity of the plagiarism act (severity) as a within-subjectsrepeated measures variable. Table 3 Panel A reports strong statisticallysignificant main effects for two of our three independent variables and weaksupport for the third independent variable (i.e. WOA). However, the ordinalinteraction between TDP and WOA was not significant (F = 0.18, p = 0.676).The likelihood of plagiarism was found, as expected, to differ whether TDP

was high or low (F = 9.79, p < 0.001, Table 3 Panel A). However, the maineffect for WOA was only significant at the 10 per cent level (F = 1.72,p = 0.097, one-tailed, Table 3 Panel A) providing only weak support for H1.Hypothesis 2 predicts that the pressure from TDP and WOA is cumulative innature and increases in both TDP and WOA will increase student’s propensityto engage in plagiarism. Panel A reveals no significant disordinal interactionsbetween the variables. As we are examining the cumulative pressure effect of thefactors tested (ordinal interaction), following Sedor’s (2002) arguments, theappropriate test is to use planned contrasts rather than tests of disordinal inter-actions. Contrast weights are assigned using the method outlined in Bucklessand Ravenscroft (1990) and applied in Sedor (2002), Kadous (2000) and Coramet al. (2009) and are derived from the pattern predicted in Hypotheses 1 and 2.We expect students to have a higher propensity to engage in plagiarism underhigh TDP than low TDP, and second, we expect students to have a higher pro-pensity to engage in plagiarism when the assessment weighting is higher. Hence,we expect the propensity to plagiarise to be highest when both TDP and WOAare ‘high’ and lowest when they are ‘low’. The two other cells where only one ofthe pressures is ‘high’ represent a pressure situation but not as large as whenboth are ‘high’. This a priori reasoning suggests the following contrast coeffi-cients which we use in our analysis: +2 for the High TDP/High WOA scenario,+1 for the High TDP/Low WOA scenario, +1 for the Low TDP/High WOAscenario and –4 for the Low TDP/Low WOA scenario. The results in Table 3Panel C support Hypothesis 2 across all three levels of severity. The t statistic issignificant at the 1 per cent level for major plagiarism (t = 2.40, p = 0.009, onetail test, Table 3 Panel C) at the 5 per cent level for moderate (t = 2.11,p = 0.018, one tail test, Table 3 Panel C) and minor plagiarism (t = 2.20,p = 0.015, one tail test, Table 3 Panel C). Similar levels of t statistic and p values



are found using the following contrast coefficients: ()1, +1, )1, +1), ()2, )1,)1, +4), ()3, +1, )1, +3), ()2, 0, 0, +2), ()3, 0, 0, +3), ()3, +1, +1, +1).As expected, the responses were significantly different between the different

levels of severity (F = 83.65, p < 0.001, Table 3 Panel A).6 Post hoc testsrevealed that this difference was mainly caused by the two extreme cases. Panel

Table 3

Tests of Hypotheses

Panel A: Analysis of Variance

Factor df F p

Main effects

Time deadline pressure (TDP) 1 9.79 0.001*

Weight of assessment (WOA) 1 1.72 0.097*

Within-subjects

Severity of the plagiarism act (Severity) 1.652 83.65 <0.001*†

Interactions

TDP X WOA 1 0.18 0.676†

TDP X Severity 1.652 0.92 0.389†

WOA X Severity 1.652 0.17 0.809†

TDP X WOA X Severity 1.652 1.02 0.354†

Panel B: paired t-test Mean difference Std. error of mean p

Severity of the plagiarism act (Severity)

Major plagiarism vs moderate plagiarism )21.82 2.34 <0.001‡

Major plagiarism vs minor plagiarism )27.14 2.57 <0.001‡

Moderate plagiarism vs minor plagiarism )5.32 1.67 <0.001‡

Panel C: test of hypothesis 2§

Factor Value of contrasts Standard error t p

Severity 1: Major 51.20 21.34 2.40 0.009*

Severity 2: Moderate 47.91 22.66 2.11 0.018*

Severity 3: Minor 53.29 24.20 2.20 0.015*

*One-tail test. †After applying Greenhouse – Geisser correction to the degrees of freedom because of

violation of sphericity assumption. ‡One-tail test, after applying Bonferroni correction to the p-value.

§Contrast coefficients are –4 for Low TDP/Low WOA condition, +1 for Low TDP/High WOA

condition, +1 for High TDP/Low WOA condition, +2 for High TDP/High WOA condition.

Similar levels of t are found using ()1,+1, )1,+1), ()2, )1, )1,+4), ()3,+1, )1, +3), ()2, 0,0,+2), ()3, 0, 0,+3) ()3,+1,+1,+1), etc.

6 Both Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity were significant(p < 0.001) implying a violation of the sphericity assumption. Hence, the GreenhouseGeisser correction has been applied (Greenhouse and Geisser, 1959).



B of Table 3 reveals that the difference between the means for major and moder-ate plagiarism was 21.82 per cent. In other words, the participants ascribedabout 22 percentage points less to the likelihood of committing major plagiarismcompared to committing moderate plagiarism. This difference is statistically sig-nificant (p < 0.001), after applying the Bonferroni correction and supports thecontention that less severe forms of plagiarism are more likely to occur. Simi-larly, there was a significant difference of 27.14 percentage points between majorand minor plagiarism. Our findings are consistent with prior studies such asFranklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995) that students generally are more willingto engage in ‘minor plagiarism’ than ‘major plagiarism’. In addition, our findingsare consistent with prior studies such as Warn (2006) and Yeo (2007) where par-ticipants generally view ‘copying the classmate’s essay entirely’ as being moresevere and serious than acts classified as ‘minor plagiarism’. We also found a sta-tistically significant difference (p < 0.001) between the moderate and minor pla-giarism scenarios although the mean for moderate plagiarism was only 5.32percentage points lower than for minor. Whether this result is a function of thewording used or is suggestive that students dichotomise plagiarism (i.e. severeand minor) is worthy of further study.

5. Discussion

This study examined, for the first time, assessment weighting, as a factor thatcontributes to a student’s propensity to plagiarise. The results provide weak sup-port for the contention that the propensity to engage in plagiarism is affectedsolely by assessment weighting, suggesting a need for further research. Our find-ings tentatively extend those of Sierra and Hyman (2006, p. 194) who found thatthe student’s decision to engage in plagiarism is affected by the level of ‘exam/assignment difficulty’ by specifically examining assessment weighting. We havealso added to the findings of Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995), Park(2003), Sierra and Hyman (2006) and Devlin and Gray (2007), who found thatstudents engage in plagiarism when under pressure to improve their resultswithin a short time frame. In this study, increasing assessment weightingincreased the pressure placed on students such that the propensity to commitplagiarism was greater when completing a significant assessment when comparedto completing an assessment of lesser significance. Our findings also providefurther support for Jones (1991) issue-contingent model. We found, based onJones’ ‘magnitude of consequences’, that as the weighting of an assessmentincreases, relative to the overall grade, the potential consequences, both benefitsand costs, associated with plagiarism increase also increasing the moral intensity.Consistent with this was our finding with regard to ‘probability of effect’ thatstudents perceived less severe plagiarism to be more likely than more severeplagiarism.Consistent with prior studies, we found that TDP has an impact on student’s

propensity to commit plagiarism (e.g. Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead, 1995;



James et al., 2002; Park, 2003; Devlin and Gray, 2007). Our findings also con-firms prior research by Susskind (2006) who reported that students often use‘short cuts’ like engaging in plagiarism when faced with TDP. These studentsattempt to complete an essay in one night by engaging in plagiarism whilst creat-ing an original essay from scratch would take the students three weeks to com-plete (Susskind, 2006).Furthermore, we extended the findings of previous studies by examining

assessment weighting in conjunction with TDP. We found that the pressuresfrom TDP and WOA are cumulative in nature and students perceive a higherpropensity to engage in plagiarism when both TDP and WOA are ‘high’ whencompared to when either TDP or WOA is ‘high’ and when both TDP and WOAare ‘low’. Hence, the likelihood of plagiarism increases when increasing TDP iscombined with increased assessment weighting.An important finding in this study is of a relatively complex relationship

between TDP, weight of assessment and the severity of plagiarism. Our findingssuggest that these factors are all related, the common denominator being pres-sure, more specifically cumulative pressure. For example, we found that a keyindicator of the severity of the plagiarism act is the extreme cases for both TDPand weight of assessment. These findings have important implications foraccounting courses, curriculum and assessment design. They suggest that animportant motivator for a student to commit plagiarism and the extent of theplagiarism is driven by pressure, in the form of TDP and the weight of assess-ment. Given prior research suggesting that plagiarism is on the increase in busi-ness schools globally (O’Leary and Radich, 2001; Park, 2003; Premeaux, 2005),accounting academics should consider engaging methods that actively discourageplagiarism. The findings also suggest that investigating reasons as to why stu-dents plagiarise needs to be done in a setting that more realistically reflectsthe cumulative pressures that students face rather than investigating individualpressures in isolation.Devlin and Gray’s (2007) taxonomy of intentional and unintentional plagia-

rism supports a differential approach to reducing plagiarism depending onwhether or not it is intentional or unintentional, understood or misunderstood.The result of this study also suggests the need to manage plagiarism differentlyfor that group of students who will commit plagiarism even when no pressureexists.Whilst our findings suggest a complex relationship between the variables inves-

tigated, they also indicate that with better management of assessment timing andweighting, which is a relatively simple task, the incidence of plagiarism by busi-ness students could be reduced by reducing students’ perceived pressure. Consid-eration should be given, where possible, to including major assessments in unitoutlines so that students have adequate time to give major projects proper con-sideration. This process could be enhanced by regular, clear and transparentcommunication of expectations by academics to their students. However, weight-ing of assessment could also be managed better. Whilst giving students adequate



notice would assist, designing assessment in such a way that no one piece ofassessment, other than possibly exams, has the ability to make or break a stu-dent’s academic performance could be considered. Scaffolded assessment spreadthroughout the semester could also reduce the ability of one piece of assessmentto impact significantly on a student’s performance. Larger assessment weightingcould also be managed by well-managed group work which encourages iterativeplanning and development and team work throughout a semester. Furthermore,accounting academics should carefully consider the timing of major assessmentsparticularly those due close to the end of semester, bearing in mind the need toensure course content coverage is adequate to complete the assessment. At acourse level, consideration should also be given to workload issues where anumber of major assessments are due at similar times during a semester.The findings also indicated that almost a third of the participants believed that

plagiarism would occur even if the students faced no perceived pressure. Thesestudents might best be managed through policy design. However, policy designshould take into consideration the nature of the plagiarism, that is intentional,unintentional and in the case of unintentional plagiarism whether the plagiarismresults from a poor understanding of plagiarism.As noted at the beginning of this study, both institutional and professional

integrity suffer when plagiarism continues unchecked. This study suggests that acombined response by academics through curriculum and course design and apolicy response at a university level could actively reduce the levels of plagiarismby both those who intentionally commit plagiarism and those who do not under-stand plagiarism.

6. Conclusions

This study extends prior research, which suggests that a student’s propensityto plagiarise is dependent upon the pressure, which they are under by examiningpressure in the form of the weight of assessment. We found that it contributessignificantly to a student’s propensity to plagiarise. Furthermore, when consid-ered in conjunction with increasing TDP, the propensity to plagiarise increases.Students are also more likely to engage in less severe plagiarism acts as opposedto more severe acts of plagiarism although this is dependent upon the pressurethey perceive in relation to time deadline and assessment weighting pressure.Importantly, whilst a student is motivated to plagiarise by virtue of their per-ceived pressure, we believe that by better management of curricula and assess-ment design, the incidence of plagiarism amongst business students could bereduced. This approach should also be supported by an appropriate policyresponse.This study is subject to the normal limitations when modelling a complex envi-

ronment in an experimental setting that limits the external validity of the study.Our study was conducted with a particular student cohort at only one university;and hence, generalisation to tertiary students in general is problematic. However,



we take comfort from the fact that our results are in line with previous researchin some areas and conform to theoretical expectations in other previouslyun-investigated areas. It is now up to future research to confirm and extend ourfindings. A further limitation might be that as the questions were listed in thesame order for all subjects, to highlight the differing level of severity for each pla-giarism act, we were unable to test for order effects.This study involves a scenario that requires the plagiarising student to physi-

cally steal an essay belonging to a classmate to commit the act of plagiarism thusmaking the act itself more difficult. This difficulty may have affected the depen-dent variable. Further, given that tertiary education is moving increasinglytowards blended learning with greater reliance on technology based learning,further study that reflects for example an online-based assessment would add toour understanding of the propensity (or likelihood) for students to plagiarise.Many factors from different sources such as their family, society, their peers

and friends (i.e. ‘peer influences’), increasing education cost and workload affecta student’s decision to engage in plagiarism. Further research is required to gaina better understanding of the complex environment, which affects a student’spropensity to plagiarise. Furthers studies, which incorporate other ‘moral inten-sity’ factors identified by Jones (1991), including the ‘probability of effect’ asreflected by the probability of being caught, would enhance our understandingof the motivation to plagiarise. A study, which incorporates either Kohlberg’s(1969) moral development scale, Rest’s (1979) Defining Issues Test or the Atti-tudes on Honesty Scale (Bernardi et al., 2004) as a covariate may also helpexplain differences in student responses. This study does not vary the penaltyapplied for plagiarism and as such the findings are limited. An expansion ofJones’ moral consequences could be examined by varying the consequence (pen-alties) that is severity of the penalties students who plagiarise are subject to. Thiswould inform policy responses that incorporate penalties to deter students fromcommitting plagiarism.The findings in this study suggest that a large proportion of students will pla-

giarise whilst under no perceived pressure. This is a concern. An understandingas to why this is the case is extremely important. It may suggest a policy responseincorporating penalties, or training to improve the understanding that plagiarismis not acceptable. Further research could inform the role academics play in themoral development of their students as they move towards a professional career.Further studies that examine academic responses to plagiarism could also

inform policy design. Research to date is limited largely to student responses; anacademic perspective could certainly inform the debate. The pressure manipu-lated in this study, assessment weighting and time pressure are at the behest ofthe academic designing the curriculum. To this end, the ability to reduce pres-sures, particularly as it relates to assessment, which increase the motivation toplagiarise can be done so by academics (Lizzio et al., 2002). A holistic approachto plagiarism research that considers academic choices around such curriculumissues, a consideration of policy design and student motivations would help close



the loop on the motivation to plagiarise and lead to a reduction in the incidenceof plagiarism. Finally, an ‘in the field study’ would be very informative; however,this would involve a number of ethical hurdles associated with student basedfield studies. It may be possible, however, to adopt a re-active approach to thisby examining a database of acts of plagiarism if this could be accessed or in factexist.

References

Abdolmohammadi, M. J., and C. R. Baker, 2007, The relationship between moral reason-ing and plagiarism in accounting courses: a replication study, Issues in Accounting Edu-cation 22, 45–55.

Alderman, C. W., and J. W. Deitrick, 1982, Auditors’ perceptions of time budget pres-sures and premature sign-offs, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 1, 54–68.

Ashworth, P., P. Bannister, and P. Thorne, 1997, Guilty in whose eyes? University stu-dents: perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studiesin Higher Education 22, 187–203.

Baird Jr, J. S., 1980, Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools 17,515–522.

Bernardi, R. A., R. L. Metzger, R. G. S. Bruno, M. A. W. Hoogkamp, L. E. Reyes, andG. H. Barnaby, 2004, Examining the decision process of students’ cheating behavior:an empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics 50, 397–414.

Buchman, T. A., and J. A. Tracy, 1982, Obtaining responses to sensitive questions: con-ventional questionnaire versus randomized response technique, Journal of AccountingResearch 20, 263–271.

Buckless, F. A., and S. P. Ravenscroft, 1990, Contrast coding: a refinement of ANOVAin behavioral analysis, The Accounting Review 65, 933–945.

Carroll, J., 2002, A Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education (The OxfordCentre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford, UK).

Cohen, J. R., and N. M. Bennie, 2006, The applicability of a contingent factors model toaccounting ethics research, Journal of Business Ethics 68, 1–18.

Coram, P., J. Ng, and D. R. Woodliff, 2004, The effect of risk of misstatement on the pro-pensity to commit reduced audit quality acts under time budget pressure, Auditing: AJournal of Practice and Theory 23, 159–167.

Coram, P., A. Glavovic, J. Ng, and D. R. Woodliff, 2008, The moral intensity of reducedaudit quality acts, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 27, 127–149.

Coram, P. J., G. S. Monroe, and D. R. Woodliff, 2009, The value of assurance on volun-tary nonfinancial disclosure: an experimental evaluation, Auditing: A Journal of Prac-tice and Theory 28, 137–151.

Crown, D. F., and M. S. Spiller, 1998, Learning from the literature from collegiate cheat-ing: a review of empirical research, Journal of Business Ethics 17, 683–700.

Devlin, M., 2003, The problem with plagiarism, Campus Review 12, 4–5.Devlin, M., 2007, Minimizing plagiarism, in: Assessing learning in Australian universities:ideas, strategies and resources for quality in student assessment (University of Mel-bourne for the Australian Universities Teaching Committee, Department of Education,Science and Training (DEST), Centre for the Study of Higher Education), [cited 25 July2007], available from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/docs.

Devlin, M., and K. Gray, 2007, In their own words: a qualitative study of the reasonsAustralian university students plagiarize, Higher Education Research and Development26, 181–198.



DeZoort, T., 1998, Time pressure research in auditing: implications for practice, TheAuditors’ Report, 22, 11–14.

DeZoort, F. T., and A. T. Lord, 1997, A review and synthesis of pressure effects researchin accounting, Journal of Accounting Literature 16, 28–85.

Douglas, P. C., R. A. Davidson, and B. N. Schwartz, 2001, The effect of organizationalculture and ethical orientation on accountants’ ethical judgments, Journal of BusinessEthics 34, 101–121.

Franklyn-Stokes, A., and S. Newstead, 1995, Undergraduate cheating: who does whatand why?, Studies in Higher Education 20, 159–172.

Garner, B. A., eds., 1999. Black Law Dictionary, 7th edn (West Group, St Paul, MN).Ghaffari, F., O. Kyriacou, and R. Brennan, 2008, Exploring the implementation of ethicsin U.K. accounting programs, Issues in Accounting Education 23, 183–239.

Greenhouse, S. W., and S. Geisser, 1959, On methods in the analysis of profile data, Psy-chometrika 24, 95–112.

Gundry, L. C., and G. A. Liyanarachchi, 2007, Time budget pressure, auditors’ personal-ity type, and the incidence of reduced audit quality practices, Pacific Accounting Review19, 125–152.

Haswell, S., P. Jubb, and B. Wearing, 1999, Accounting students and cheating: a compar-ative study for Australia, South Africa and the UK, Teaching Business Ethics 3,211–239.

Hiller, M. D., and T. D. Peters, 2005, The ethics of opinion in academe: questions for anethical and administrative dilemma, Journal of Academic Ethics 3, 183–203.

Houston, J. P., 1977, Cheating behavior, anticipated success-failure, confidence, and testimportance, Journal of Educational Psychology 69, 55–60.

International Federation of Accountants, 2005, Code of ethics for professional accoun-tants, [Cited 15 January 2008], available from http://www.ifac.org/Members/DownLoads/2005_Code_of_Ethics.pdf.

James, R., C. McInnis, and M. Devlin, 2002, Assessing learnings in Australian universi-ties: ideas, strategies and resources for quality in assessment, (University of Melbournefor the Australian Universities Teaching Committee, Department of Education, Scienceand Training (DEST), Centre for the Study of Higher Education), [Cited 1 May 2006],available from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/.

Jones, T. M., 1991, Ethical decision-making by individuals in organizations: an issue-con-tingent model, Academy of Management Review 16, 366–395.

Kadous, K., 2000, The effects of audit quality and consequence severity on juror evalua-tions of auditor responsibility for plaintiff losses, The Accounting Review, 75, 327–341.

Kohlberg, L., 1969, Stage and sequence: the cognitive developmental approach to sociali-zation. In: Goslin D. A., eds, Handbook of socialization theory and research, (Chicago,Rand McNally), 347–480.

Lawson, R. A., 2004, Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity tocheat in the ‘‘real world’’? Journal of Business Ethics 49, 189–199.

Lizzio, A., K. Wilson, and R. Simons, 2002, University students’ perceptions of the learn-ing environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice, Studiesin Higher Education 27, 27–52.

Margheim, L., and K. Pany, 1986, Quality control, premature signoff, and underreport-ing of time: some empirical findings, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 5,50–63.

Margheim, L., T. Kelley, and D. Pattison, 2005, An empirical analysis of the effects ofauditor time budget pressure and time deadline pressure, The Journal of Applied Busi-ness Research 21, 23–35.

Marshall, S., and M. Garry, 2006, NESB and ESB students’ attitudes and perceptions ofplagiarism, International Journal of Educational Integrity 2, 26–37.



Martin, D. E., A. Rao, and L. R. Sloan, 2009, Plagiarism, integrity, and workplace devi-ance: a criterion study, Ethics and Behavior 19, 36–50.

O’Leary, C., and R. Radich, 2001, An analysis of Australian final year accountancy stu-dents’ ethical attitudes, Teaching Business Ethics 5, 235–249.

Otley, D. T., and B. J. Pierce, 1996, The operation of control systems in large audit firms,Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 15, 65–84.

Park, C., 2003, In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students – literatureand lessons, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28, 471–488.

Payne, J. W., J. R. Bettman, and E. J. Johnson, 1988, Adaptive strategy selection in deci-sion making, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition14, 534–552.

Premeaux, S. R., 2005, Undergraduate student perceptions regarding cheating: tier 1 ver-sus tier 2 AACSB accredited business schools, Journal of Business Ethics 62, 407–418.

Rest, J. R., 1979, Defining Issues Test (Center for the Study of Ethical Development, Uni-versity of Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN).

Rhode, J., 1978, Survey on the influence of selected aspects of the auditors’ work environ-ment on professional performance of Certified Public Accountants, summarized. In:The Commission on Auditors’ Responsibilities: Report of Tentative Conclusions (AICPA:New York) 175–184.

Sedor, L. M., 2002, An explanation for unintentional optimism in analysts’ earnings fore-casts, The Accounting Review, 77, 731–753.

Shafer, W. E., R. E. Morris, and A. A. Ketchand, 1999, The effects of formal sanctionson auditor independence, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 18(suppl),85–101.

Shafer, W. E., R. E. Morris, and A. A. Ketchand, 2001, Effects of personal values onauditors’ ethical decisions, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 14,254–277.

Sharman, J. C., and C. Wilshire, 2007, Review essay fighting plagiarism in Australian uni-versities: why bother?, Australian Journal of Political Science 42, 503–508.

Sierra, J. J., and M. R. Hyman, 2006, A dual-process model of cheating intentions, Jour-nal of Marketing Education 28, 193–204.

Simon, H. A., 1981, The Science of the Artificial, 2nd edn. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Sims, R., 1995, The severity of academic dishonesty: a comparison of faculty and studentviews, Psychology in Schools 32, 233–238.

Smith, R., 2003, Audit Committees – Combined code guidance: A Report and ProposedGuidance by an FRC Appointed Group Chaired by Sir Robert Smith (Financial Report-ing Council, London, UK).

Solomon, I., and C. Brown, 1992, Auditor’s judgments and decisions under time pressure:an illustration and agenda for research’, In Deloitte and Touche/University of Kansas,Symposium proceeding.

Susskind, A., 2006, Cheat Wave, The Bulletin (Sydney) 24 October 2006, 30–31.Warn, J., 2006, Plagiarism software: no magic bullet!, Higher Education Research andDevelopment 25, 195–208.

Whitley, B. E., and P. Keith-Spiegel, 2002, Academic Dishonesty: An Educator’s Guide(Lawrence Erlbaum, Marwah, NJ).

Yeo, S., 2007, First-year university science and engineering students understanding of pla-giarism, Higher Education Research and Development 26, 199–216.

Yeung, S., S. Wong, and B. Chan, 2002, Ethical beliefs about hospitability and tourismstudents towards their school life, International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement 14, 183–192.

Zobel, J., and M. Hamilton, 2002, Managing student plagiarism in large academic depart-ments, Australian Universities Review 45, 23–30.



Appendix

Extract from instrument

Please read the hypothetical situation below and answer the following questionsby indicating your response with a cross (X) on a scale.

Student X is required to submit essay worth 30 per cent* of the total marks for a unit. Student X has

not commenced any work on it. The essay question was announced a month ago and the essay is

now due in 12 hours*.

While working in the library Student X notices a classmate, who is known for achieving high grades,

going to lunch and leaving a hard copy of the completed essay and a thumb drive containing the

same essay unattended on the table. Computer and photocopy facilities are easily available.

*The letters highlighted in bold represent the ‘High’ conditions for the variables.

Questions

How likely it is that Student X will copy the classmate’s essay entirely and sub-mit it as Student X’s own work?

How likely it is that Student X will read the assignment, take all or most of thepoints from the classmate’s essay and express them in Student X’s own words?

How likely it is that Student X will read the assignment and extract one or twogood points without acknowledgement and express them in Student X’s ownwords?



The impact of cumulative pressure on accounting students’ propensity to commit plagiarism: an...

Documents

Transcript of The impact of cumulative pressure on accounting students’ propensity to commit plagiarism: an...