Using Extended TPB Models to Predict Dishonest Academic Behaviors of Undergraduates in a Chinese Public University

Abstract

Dishonest academic behavior (DAB) by students in Chinese higher education institutions has become a significant concern. However, the related study of academic dishonesty in mainland China is very limited. This study fills this gap by examining the theory of planned behavior and its three extended versions, validating the effectiveness of predicting DAB among Chinese undergraduates, and testing 11 developed hypotheses. This study uses a quantitative research design, and responses are collected online from 525 undergraduate students from five disciplines in the second to fourth year at a public university in China. The results reveal the proposed models have good fitting indices and support 10 hypothetical relationships. These relationships demonstrate that attitudes, norms and control beliefs significantly impact intentions and justifications. Meanwhile, behavioral control, intentions, and justifications significantly influence DAB. Notably, this study found a direct and significant effect of MO on justifications. Therein, Model four best explains the variance in DAB and provides practical support for the expanded TPB models’ application in China.

Islamic Religiosity and Perceived Behavioral Control on Academic Cheating

“…The results of this study support the theory and research findings that perceived behavioral control is related to the intention to commit academic fraud. This study's results align with research (Yusliza et al, 2020;Juan et al, 2022;Dewanti et al, 2020). Perceived behavioral control is a predictor of academic fraud.…”

A longitudinal analysis of the willingness to use chatGPT for academic cheating: Applying the theory of planned behavior.

“…Hypothesis 2 was also supported, as intentions were found to be a direct antecedent of future use of chatbot-generated texts for academic cheating. Notably, most prior research applying the theory of planned behavior to dishonest and cheating behavior employed a cross-sectional design in that intentions (and attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) and actual behavior were assessed at the same time (e.g., Ababneh et al, 2022;Juan et al, 2022;Stone et al, 2009;Uzun & Kilis, 2020;Yu et al, 2021;Yusliza et al, 2022), making it difficult to establish directional effects. In contrast, as we used a longitudinal design, stronger conclusions are warranted that intentions are indeed predictive of behavior.…”

“…When actual behavior and intentions (and attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control) were assessed, a crosssectional research design was typically employed (e.g., Ababneh et al, 2022;Juan et al, 2022;Stone et al, 2009;Uzun & Kilis, 2020;Yu et al, 2021;Yusliza et al, 2022). That is, intentions and actual behavior were assessed at the same time.…”

Morality: A Bulwark for Accounting Students’ Academic Cheating

“…Dishonest behavior in the academic context is an important issue faced by educational institutions worldwide [5][6][7], as a widespread phenomenon [8] and increase [9,10], which occurs from primary schools to higher education institutions, and it is currently receiving increasing global attention [11]. Academic dishonesty remains a prominent research issue in various countries, including China.…”

“…Academic dishonesty remains a prominent research issue in various countries, including China. Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate academic dishonesty in China [6,12], China, Lebanon and the US [13], Germany, Vietnam, Taiwan, China and Japan [14], English [15], Australia, New Zealand and the UK [16]. This problem is a topic that continues to be discussed and continues to be a serious problem of academic integrity [17].…”