Accounting Research Journal

Cheating behaviour among accounting students: some Malaysian evidence

Suhaiza Ismail Salwa Hana Yussof
Article information:
To cite this document:
Suhaiza Ismail Salwa Hana Yussof , (2016),"Cheating behaviour among accounting students: some Malaysian evidence",
Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 29 Iss 1 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-05-2014-0050
Downloaded on: 21 March 2016, At: 19:52 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5 times since 2016*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:281668 []
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

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

 INTRODUCTION

Cheating is a form of academic misconduct that has become a serious phenomenon among

university students (Whitley, 1998; Schmelkin et al., 2008; and Young, 2013). The issue of

cheating in examinations is a worldwide problem, and a topic for study by researchers from

various parts of the globe including the United States (Davis et al., 1992; and McCabe and

Trevino, 1993 and 1997; Whitley, 1998; Diekhoff et al., 1999), Australia (Brimble and

Stevenson-Clarke, 2005), Canada (Genereux and McLeod, 1995; Christensen-Hughes and

Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

McCabe, 2006), the United Kingdom (Newstead et al., 1996), Japan (Diekhoff et al., 1999), and

Thailand (Young, 2013). In the context of Malaysian universities, the occurrence of cheating

among students is equally serious (Shariffuddin and Holmes, 2009; Iberahim, 2013).

Academic cheating is an important issue to investigate and to curb because it reflects the ethical

attitude of the students. Cheating in examinations is clearly unethical academic conduct, but its

implications extend beyond the academic context because potentially those students whose

cheating has gone unchecked will go on to act unethically when they join the workforce. (Sims,

1993; Novis and Swift, 2001; Stone et al., 2009). It is even more important in the context of

accounting students, as they are the future accountants of organizations and, as such, will be in

positions of trust. Acknowledging the important role of accountants in organizations, it is of

great concern that this unethical conduct of students who have cheated will continue into their

professional life and may well lead to occurrences of corporate scandals in the future.

Due to the seriousness of cheating in examinations among students, the present study aims at

investigating the cheating behaviour in terms of students’ neutralization or justification for

cheating and evaluating possible measures to deter cheating, with a particular focus on

accounting students in Malaysia. Specifically, the study intends to scrutinize the cheating

1
 behaviours by classifying the accounting students into cheaters and non-cheaters. The study also

examines the differences between males and females in relation to their attitudes concerning the

extent of cheating neutralization and the effectiveness of cheating deterrents. The unique

contribution of this study is that it not only examines the cheating attitudes of accounting

students by classifying the respondents into cheaters and non-cheaters but also uses the

framework of both social differentiation theory and structural theory to investigate the cheating

behaviour between genders.

Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews relevant prior

studies and outlines the hypotheses of the study. Then it presents the research method, data

collection and analysis procedures. The subsequent section discusses the findings of the study.

The final section provides implications and limitations of the study, suggestions for future

research and a concluding remark.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

Prior studies on academic dishonesty in terms of cheating in examinations have tackled the

cheating issue from various aspects including techniques of students cheating (i.e. Carpenter et

al., 2006; Robinson et al., 2004), reasons or justifications for cheating (i.e. Haines et al., 1986;

Whitley, 1998; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Tibbets & Myers, 1999; Diekhoff et al., 1999),

deterrents to cheating (Diekhoff et al., 1999; Adeyemi & Adelaja, 2011; Smith et al., 2004;

Salter et al., 2001) and gender effect on cheating behaviour (Whitley et al., 1999; Smyth &

Davies, 2003; Chapman & Lupton, 2004; Ballantine et al., 2014; and Fisher & Brunell, 2014).

As the focus of the present study is on the justification or neutralization for cheating, deterrents

2
 to cheating and the effect of gender on cheating behavior, the review of the literature will cover

prior studies that have dealt with similar issues.

Diekhoff et al. (1999) compared cheating behaviour in terms of neutralization for cheating and

deterrents to cheating by cheaters and non-cheaters in Japan and the US. The study discovered

that there is significant difference between the cheaters and the non-cheaters in their attitudes

towards cheating neutralization: in both countries cheaters were discovered to have a

significantly greater tendency to justify their cheating action than the non-cheaters. In terms of
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

effectiveness of cheating deterrence measures, similar significant difference between cheaters

and non-cheaters were discovered for the three deterrence measures of guilt, social stigma and

fear of punishment. In addition, for both nationalities, non-cheaters indicated that guilt is the

most effective cheating deterrence measure, whilst cheaters perceived fear of punishment to be

the most effective deterrent. Social stigma was discovered as the least effective cheating

deterrent measure by respondents of both countries.

In a similar study, Diekhoff & Pulvers (1999) examined the relationship between classroom

environment, cheating behaviour and the neutralization (justification) for cheating of

undergraduate students in the US. The study found that to some extent classroom environment is

related to the tendency to neutralize cheating. In particular, classroom environments that are less

personalized, less involving, less cohesive, less satisfying, less task oriented and less

individualized were found to lead to a greater tendency for cheating neutralization. A study by

Day et al. (2011) highlighted that students tend to justify their cheating action when their

conscientiousness level is low and when they are in a performance culture environment. This is

in line with the finding by Murdock et al. (2001), who reported that academic efficacy is the

strongest motivational factor for cheating.

3
 Adeyemi and Adelaja (2011) also investigated the reasons for students to commit cheating and

the effectiveness of cheating deterrence measures. Their study claimed that the key justifications

for cheating as perceived by the students are: the pressure of getting a good grade in order to

retain their scholarship and to have better prospects for employment; the instructors have

assigned too great a study load, forgetting that theirs is not the only course taken by students; the

instructors have acted carelessly in ascertaining whether the students are learning the material or

not; and instructors have provided opportunities for cheating by absenting themselves from the
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

examination room. In terms of deterrents to cheating, Adeyemi and Adelaja (2011) reported that

proper invigilation, reasonable physical distance between one student and another in

examinations, and disciplinary action are among the key measures suggested by the respondents.

More recently, Naghdipour and Emeagwali (2013) investigated the justifications for students’

engagement in academic misconduct in the US. From the questionnaire survey and structured

interviews conducted, the main justifications students gave for cheating in examinations include

influence from peers, the difficulty of the subject, the need to retain their scholarships and to

secure better professional employment in the future. Other justifications for cheating discovered

by other researchers include: students had inadequate time for studying due to having a part time

job; students perceived the material being examined as irrelevant to the subject and therefore of

little value; and students were influenced by friends into colluding with them to cheat (McCabe

& Trevino, 1997; Hutton, 2006; Iberahim et al., 2013).

Haswell et al. (2009) evaluated the effectiveness of academic misconduct deterrence measures

and discovered that risk of being detected and threat of penalties are the most effective measures

to deter students from cheating. Equally effective deterrence measures, as perceived by students,

are awarding a zero or a fail mark and exclusion from the subject. By contrast, a study by Tibbets

4
 & Myers (1999) revealed that external sanctions and experience of being caught cheating in the

past did not prevent future cheating behavior among students.

In terms of the gender effect on cheating behaviour, there are two prominent contradicting

theories: differential socialization theory and structural theory (Ballantine et al., 2014).

Differential socialization theory posits that females are more likely than males to be socialized

and to follow rules, and hence less likely to commit the academic misconduct of cheating in

examinations (Ward and Beck, 1990); structural theory, on the other hand, suggests that the
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

differences in values between men and women that may have existed in their early years slowly

but surely diminish as both sexes undergo a similar education system, resulting in equivalent

ethical behaviour in each sex (Betz et al., 1989 and Ballantine et al., 2014). A meta-analysis

study by Whitley et al. (1999), which covers 34 relevant studies, supported the traditional gender

differences based on the differential socialization theory that men are more associated with

cheating than women. Likewise, a study by Chapman & Lupton (2004) on business students in

the United States discovered that males have a significantly greater tendency to cheat in

examinations than females. Similar evidence was also reported by Smyth & Davies (2003), Abu

Bakar et al. (2010) and Ballantine et al. (2014). In contrast, supporting structural theory, a

number of studies reveal no evidence of gender difference in cheating behaviour (e.g. Baird,

1980; Haines et al., 1986; Ward and Beck, 1986; Betz et al., 1989; Lipson and McGavern, 1993;

and Chapman & Lupton, 2004). Studies by Leming (1980) and Antion and Micheal (1983) made

an alternative finding: that females are more involved in cheating than males. The inconclusive

evidence on the effect of gender on cheating behaviour motivates the present study to also

investigate the gender issue in order to provide further empirical evidence in the context of a

developing country (i.e Malaysia).

5
 Most prior studies that have investigated cheating behaviour among students have been

conducted on students in countries other than Malaysia, and particularly in developed countries.

In the context of Malaysia, there is a scarcity of studies. Iberahim et al. (2013) did address the

issue, but their focus was on the attitude of Malaysian students towards neutralization for

cheating. By contrast, the present study aims to add to the existing empirical evidence on

students’ cheating behaviour. It also, importantly, extends the study by Iberahim et al. (2013) by

not only examining Malaysian students’ perceptions of cheating neutralization but also
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

investigating the effectiveness of cheating deterrence measures. The study also examines the

differences in the cheating behaviour between cheaters and non-cheaters and the differences

between genders.

Based on the review of empirical evidence provided by prior literature and the contradicting

theories of gender differences on cheating behaviour, the following hypotheses stated in null

form were proposed:

H1a: There is no significant difference in the tendency to accept the neutralization for cheating

between cheaters than non-cheaters for the overall respondents.

H1b: There is no significant difference in the tendency to accept the neutralization for cheating

between cheaters and non-cheaters for the male respondents.

H1c: There is no significant difference in the tendency to accept the neutralization for cheating

between cheaters and non-cheaters for the female respondents.

H2a: There is no significant difference in the perception of the effectiveness of the cheating

deterrents between cheaters and non-cheaters for the overall respondents.

6
 H2b: There is no significant difference in the perception of the effectiveness of the cheating

deterrents between cheaters and non-cheaters for the male respondents.

H2c: There is no significant difference in the perception of the effectiveness of the cheating

deterrents between cheaters and non-cheaters for the female respondents.

H3a: There is no significant difference in the tendency to accept the neutralization for cheating

between male and female cheaters.

Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

H3b: There is no significant difference in the tendency to accept the neutralization for cheating

between male and female non-cheaters.

H4a: There is no significant difference in the perception of the effectiveness of the cheating

deterrents between male and female cheaters.

H4b: There is no significant difference in the perception of the effectiveness of the cheating

deterrents between male and female non-cheaters.

METHODOLOGY

Research Instrument

In achieving the objectives of the study, the questionnaire survey method was used. The

instrument used was obtained and adopted with permission from Diekhoff et al. (1996). The

instrument was initially developed by Haines et al. (1986) and has been adapted by several other

studies including Pulvers (1997) and Diekhoff et al. (1996 and 1999). The questionnaire

comprises three sections: first, neutralization for cheating; second, deterrents to cheating; and,

third, demographic information on the respondent. The cheating neutralization behaviour, which

7
 refers to the tendency to justify the act of cheating, is measured based on 11 items on

justification for cheating whereby the respondents are requested to indicate their level of

agreement with various justifications for cheating on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1

being ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 being ‘strongly agree’. A higher score indicates greater agreement

of the students with the justifications for cheating. Examples of the cheating justification

statements include “Ammar should not be blamed for cheating if the course material is too hard”

and “Ammar should not be blamed for cheating if he is in danger of losing his scholarship due to
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

low grades”. Haines et al. (1986) reported item-total correlations of 0.64 or higher for all items

in the cheating neutralization scale and an alpha coefficient for internal consistency of 0.93. In

the current study, the alpha coefficient was 0.92.

There are seven items on cheating deterrent, in which the respondents are requested to rate the

effectiveness of each deterrent to cheating on a three-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 being ‘no

influence’ to 3 being ‘highly influential’. A higher score shows greater effectiveness of the

cheating deterrent. The items include: ‘My family would be disappointment if they found out’,

‘My friends would not approve’, ‘I feel guilty when I cheat’, ‘I couldn’t face the embarrassment

of being caught’, ‘My instructor promised an “F” on the exam for any students caught cheating’,

‘My instructor threatened to drop students from the class for cheating’, and ‘I fear the

disciplinary action that the university would take’. These seven items represent three main

deterrence measures of guilt, punishment and social stigma that are reported in this present study.

Alpha coefficient for deterrent to cheating was 0.80.

Sample and Data collection procedures

The respondents for the present study are the accounting students at a public university in

Malaysia. The students are at various level of their study, including sophomore, intermediate and

8
 higher levels. The questionnaires were self-administered to students during class time. The

researcher clearly highlighted that the responses to the questionnaire would be treated with a

high level of confidentiality and would be used only for academic purposes. Accordingly, the

students were reminded to be honest in answering the questionnaire items. In total, 435 usable

responses were received.

Data Analysis

The data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software.
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

Basically, the descriptive statistics of mean score and standard deviation were computed for

cheating neutralization and the three deterrence measures. An independent sample t-test was then

carried out to statistically examine the differences in the perceptions of the cheaters and non-

cheaters regarding the neutralization for cheating and deterrents to cheating. This was done for

the overall sample as well as for male and female groups. The respondents were classified as

cheaters if they claimed to have ever committed cheating in final examinations, mid-semester

examinations, assignments or quizzes. This criterion for classifying cheaters and non-cheaters

was also used by Diekhoff et al. (1999) in his study on Japanese and US students. An

independent t-test was also conducted to examine the differences in the perceptions of males and

females of the importance of cheating neutralization and the effectiveness of the deterrence

measures. A chi-square test was used to investigate the differences between males and females

in terms of committing cheating.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

Demographic Information and Descriptive Statistics

9
 Table 1 provides demographic information on the respondents. The respondents comprised

accounting students at various levels of studies (i.e. sophomore, intermediate and final year).

Table 1 is about here

Of the total number of respondents, 70.3 per cent were female and 65.3 per cent of all

respondents admitted to having cheated in final examinations, mid-semester examinations,

quizzes or class assignments. The demographic information indicates that the respondents of this
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

present study are accounting students of different levels of studies, of both genders and comprise

cheaters and non-cheaters.

In relation to cheating neutralisation, the mean score of the overall respondents was 2.16 with a

standard deviation of 0.82, which implies an overall lower tendency to neutralize cheating

among the students. Diekhoff et al. (1999) in their study on American and Japanese students also

reported a low tendency for cheating neutralization especially among Americans. For the

deterrents to cheating, the mean scores of the overall respondents for the three deterrents to

cheating were close to 3 (2.72, 2.76 and 2.42 for punishment, guilt and social stigma

respectively), which implies that on average all the three cheating deterrent measures were

perceived by respondents as effective.

Analysis for Overall Respondents and by Gender

Table 2 shows results of cheating behaviour in terms of cheating neutralization and deterrents to

cheating of cheaters and non-cheaters from the whole group of respondents. The mean scores for

neutralization reveal that the cheaters scored higher than the non-cheaters, with a statistically

significant difference between the two groups as reflected in the independent t-test result. The

10
 results imply that the cheaters among accounting students have a greater tendency to justify their

cheating action than the non-cheaters. The finding is consistent with the study by Diekhoff et al.

(1999), who examined the neutralization for cheating attitude of students in Japan and the United

States. Therefore, hypothesis 1a (H1a) is supported.

Table 2 is about here

On the effectiveness of deterrents to cheating, the mean score results in Table 1 show that the
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

highest mean score for cheaters and non-cheaters are punishment and guilt respectively, which

indicates that cheaters are of the opinion that punishment is the most effective cheating deterrent

whilst non-cheaters perceived that guilt as the most effective measure. Social stigma was

perceived by both cheaters and non-cheaters as the least effective deterrent measure. The mean

scores indicate that non-cheaters perceive all the measures to be more effective than do the

cheaters. The differences in the perception of the two groups are proven to be statistically

significant for the two deterrence measures of guilt and social stigma. Hence, hypothesis 2a

(H2a) is supported. The results are to some extent in line with the findings reported by Diekhoff

et al. (1999) and Smyth and Davies (2003), but are contradicted by the evidence presented by

Salter et al. (2001), whose study concluded that punishment is not an effective cheating

deterrent.

To further understand the cheating behaviour among accounting students, an analysis based on

gender of cheaters’ and non-cheaters’ attitude towards cheating neutralization and deterrence

measures was also carried out and the results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 is about here

11
 Results of analysis by gender on cheating neutralization in Table 3 reveal that both male and

female cheaters offer more excuses for cheating than the non-cheaters, which is consistent with

the results for the overall respondents. The differences between cheater and non-cheater groups

are statistically significant at 5% and 1% levels for males and females respectively. Hence,

hypothesis 1b (H1b) and hypothesis 1c (H1c) are supported.

For the deterrent to cheating measures, results for male respondents indicate that the non-cheater

group perceived guilt as the most effective deterrence measure, whilst the cheaters were of the
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

opinion that punishment is the most effective measure. Social stigma was perceived as the least

effective cheating deterrence measure by males in both the cheater and non-cheater groups.

However, there is no statistically significant difference in the perception between male cheaters

and non-cheaters for any of the cheating deterrent options. Therefore, hypothesis 2b (H2b) is not

supported.

In contrast to the results for males, results of female respondents on deterrents to cheating show

that both female cheaters and non-cheaters are of the opinion that guilt is the most effective

cheating deterrent. Similar to the result of males, social stigma was perceived as the least

effective cheating deterrent. Moreover, female non-cheaters perceived all the deterrent

techniques as more effective than perceived by cheaters. The differences in the perception

between cheaters and non-cheaters are statistically significant for two deterrence measures that

are guilt and social stigma at 1% and 10% significant levels respectively. Therefore, to a certain

extent hypothesis 2c (H2c) is supported.

Differences between Genders

12
 To scrutinize further the differences in the cheating behaviour of males and females, Table 4

provides results of the differences in the cheating behaviour in terms of neutralization of cheating

as well as deterrents to cheating.

Table 4 is about here

The mean score results in Table 4 indicate that both male cheaters and non-cheaters scored

higher than females for neutralization, which reveals that males exhibit a greater tendency to
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

give more justifications for cheating in examinations than do female cheaters. Importantly, the

differences between males and females are statistically significant at 1 per cent level for both the

non-cheater and the cheaters group. In relation to deterrents to cheating, mean score results

indicate that the female cheaters and non-cheaters perceived all the deterrence measures as more

effective than did the males’ groups. The differences are significant at 1% level for all deterrence

measures for both cheater and non-cheater groups, except for the result from punishment of

cheaters, whereby the difference in the perception between males and females is significant at

5% level. Based on the results, hypotheses H3a, H3b, H4a and H4b are supported. The results on

the significant differences between males and females whereby males have a greater tendency to

cheat in examinations and to justify cheating than do females are consistent with social

differentiation theory. They are also consistent with findings reported by Whitley et al. (1999),

Smyth & Davies (2003), Chapman & Lupton (2004) and Abu Bakar et al. (2010), but they are

inconsistent with the results of Leming (1980) and Antion and Micheal (1983).

IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND

CONCLUSION

13
 The present study examines cheating behaviour among accounting students in a public university

in Malaysia in terms of the extent of students’ justification for cheating and the effectiveness of

three types of cheating deterrents. The study, which involved 450 accounting students from

various levels of studies, discovered that students who admitted to having cheated in

examinations and male students have a significantly greater tendency to justify their cheating

action. In relation to the effectiveness of cheating deterrents, accounting students from the

cheaters group claimed that punishment is the most effective cheating deterrent, whilst non-
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

cheaters perceived guilt as the most effective measure. Both cheaters and non-cheaters perceived

social stigma as the least effective deterrence measure. Female students perceived all the

cheating deterrent measures as significantly more effective than perceived by the males.

The finding that cheaters tend to give more justifications for committing cheating than non-

cheaters is a worrying, though not unexpected, phenomenon because it indicates that a majority

of accounting students are not prepared to recognise and take responsibility for their unethical

behaviour. To improve this situation, attention is required from stakeholders at all levels, from

students and classroom instructors up to the Ministry of Education. The findings of the present

study suggest that both educative and punitive measures need to be taken.

On the educative side, the findings of this study suggest that although ethics is an important

component in the accounting degree programme, the ethics components in the existing

curriculum are relatively ineffective in discouraging the unethical conduct of cheating. To

remedy this, the ethics component of the existing accounting degree curriculum needs to be

reviewed by the Ministry of Education with advice from accounting educators, with the objective

of improving the content, perhaps making it more immediately relevant to students’ present

situation. Similarly, the pedagogy of delivering ethics contents could be improved to bring about

14
 a positive change in accounting students’ ethical attitude. Since attitude change is a highly

challenging learning objective, appropriate training would have to be provided for academics and

classroom instructors.

On the punitive side, the findings of this study suggest that cheaters believe that punishment is

the most effective measure to deter students from cheating. Top management of universities

might therefore consider reviewing their disciplinary policies to stipulate more severe penalties

for cheating and to tighten compliance to ensure that all cases of student cheating are responded
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

to consistently. Students must be made aware of the policies and know that if they are caught

cheating they will be penalised without exception.

As guilt is also perceived as an effective mechanism to deter students from cheating, an

additional prevention measure might be to support students to make the ethical choice of not

cheating and therefore not experiencing the unpleasantness of guilt. This support could be

provided by organizing at the university level critical thinking and self-affirmation programmes

that are aimed at helping students think through their ethical behaviour and make ethically

informed choices. These programmes may also to some extent help to bridge the differences in

the cheating attitudes between male and female students.

Equally important, students must come to appreciate the professional and moral dimensions of

cheating and to understand that cheating can never be justified; they must also understand that

both the academic community and the professional accounting community will not tolerate

ethical misconduct, imposing severe penalties on members who cheat. Therefore, accounting

educators must create opportunities for students during their study period to acquire the ethical

15
 awareness and strong critical thinking skills that will enable them to address the many ethical

dilemmas they are likely to encounter in their professional accounting career.

The present study is not without its limitations. Among other limitations, the study examined

only the general neutralization of cheating attitude among students. Future study may want to

investigate the importance of the specific cheating neutralization factors as it would be more

useful to better understand the reasons why students cheat. Moreover, using an interview method

instead of a survey questionnaire to investigate the rationale for students’ cheating may possibly
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

provide richer information on the issue. In addition, there is the possibility that the students

participating in this present study may not have provided honest answers through fear of possible

negative consequences, even though they were informed that the study is confidential and mainly

for academic purposes. In overcoming this potential problem, future researchers may want to

consider distributing the questionnaire to students who have recently graduated. However,

despite these limitations, the empirical evidence from the present study does shed some light on

cheating issues in the context of accounting students in Malaysia.

REFERENCES

Abu Bakar, N., Ismail, S. and Mamat, S. (2010), “Will Graduating Year Accountancy Students
Cheat in Examination? : A Malaysian Case”, International Education Studies, Vol. 3 No.
3, pp. 145-152.

Adeyemi, S. B. and Adelaja, S. O. (2011), “Deterrent measures and cheating behaviour of

accounting Undergraduates in tertiary institutions in Lagos Nigeria”, International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 12, pp. 195-204.

Antion, D. L. and Michael, W. B. (1983), “Short-term predictive validity of demographic,

affective, personal, and cognitive variables in relation to two criterion measures of
cheating behaviors”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp.
467-482.

16
 Ballantine, J.A., McCourt L. and Mulgrew, M. (2014), “Determinants of Academic Cheating
Behavior: The Future for Accountancy in Ireland", Accounting Forum, Vol. 38, pp. 55-
66.

Baird, Jr., J. S. (1980), “Current trends in college cheating”, Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 17,
pp. 515-522.

Brimble, M. and Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005), “Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of

academic dishonesty in Australian universities”, Australian Educational Researcher, Vol.
32 No. 3, pp. 19-44.

Carpenter, D. D., Harding, T. S., Finelli, C. J., Montgomery, S. M. and Passow, H. J. (2006),
“Engineering students' perceptions of and attitudes towards cheating”, Journal of
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

Engineering Education, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 181-194.

Chapman, K. J. and Lupton, R. A. (2004), “Academic dishonesty in a global educational market:

a comparison of Hong Kong and American university business students”, The
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 425–435.

Christensen-Hughes, J. M. and McCabe, D.L. (2006), “Academic misconduct within higher

education in Canada”, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 1-
21.

Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H. and McGregor, L. N. (1992), “Academic dishonesty:
prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments”, Teaching of Psychology, Vol.
19 No. 1, pp. 16-20.

Day, N. E., Hudson, D., Dobies, P. R. and Waris, R. (2011), “Student or situation? Personality
and classroom context as predictors of attitudes about business school cheating”, Social
Psychology Education, Vol. 14, pp. 261–282.

Desalegn, A.A. and Berhan, A. (2014), “Cheating on examinations and its predictors among
undergraduate students at Hawassa University College of Medicine and Health Science”,
BMC Medical Education, Vol. 14 No. 89, pp. 1-11.

Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Shinohara, K. and Yasukawa. H. (1999), “College cheating in
Japan and the United States”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 343-353.

Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E., Williams, L. E., Francis, B. and Haines, V. J.
(1996), “College cheating: Ten years later”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 37, No.
4, pp. 487-502.

Fisher, T.D. and Brunell, A.B. (2014), “A bogus pipeline approach to studying gender
differences in cheating behavior”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 61, pp.
91-96.
17
 Genereux, R. L. and McLeod, B. A. (1995), “Circumstances surrounding cheating: a
questionnaire study of college students”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 36, pp.
687-704.

Haines, V. J., Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E. and Clark, R. E. (1986), “College cheating:
Immaturity, lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitude” Research in Higher
education, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 342-354.

Haswell, S., Jubb, P. and Wearing, B. (1999), “Accounting students and cheating: A comparative
study for Australia, South Africa and the UK”, Teaching Business Ethics, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 211-239.

Hutton, P. A. (2006), “Understanding student cheating and what educators can do about it”,
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

College Teaching, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 171-176.

Iberahim, H., Hussein, N., Samat, N., Noordin, F. and Daud, N. (2013), “Academic dishonesty:
Why business students participate in these practices?”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 90, pp. 152-156.

Leming, J. S. (1980), “Cheating behavior, subject variables, and components of the internal-
external scale under high and low risk conditions”, Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 83-87.

Lipson, A. and McGavern, N. (1993), “Undergraduate academic dishonesty at MIT: Results of a

study of attitudes and behavior of undergraduates, faculty, and graduate teaching
assistants”, (A report to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Community). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED368 272)

McCabe, D. L. and Trevino, L. K. (1993), “Academic dishonesty: honor codes and other
contextual influences”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 64, pp. 522-38.

McCabe, D. L. and Trevino, L. K. (1997), “Individual and contextual influences on academic

dishonesty: A multicampus investigation”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 379-396.

Murdock, T. B., Hale, N. M. and Weber, M. J. (2001), “Predictors of cheating among early
adolescents: Academic and social motivations”, Contemporary Educational Psychology,
Vol. 26, pp. 96–115.

Naghdipour, B. and Emeagwali, O. L. (2013), “Students’ justifications for academic dishonesty:

call for action”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 83, pp. 261-265.

Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A. and Armstead, P. (1996), “Individual differences in student

cheating”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 229-41.

18
 Nonis, S. A. and Swift, C. O. (2001), “A personal value profiles and ethical business decision”,
Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 251 – 256.

Robinson, E., Amburgey, R., Swank, E. and Faulkner, C. (2004), “Test cheating in a rural
college: studying the importance of individual and situational factors”, College Student
Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 380 – 395.

Pulvers, K. and Diekhoff, G. M. (1999), “The relationship between academic dishonesty and
college classroom environment”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 487-
498.

Salter, S. B., Guffey, D. M. and McMillan, J. J. (2001), “Truth, consequences and culture: A
comparative examination of cheating and attitudes about cheating among US and UK
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

students”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 37-50.

Shariffuddin, S. A. and Holmes, R. J. (2009), “Cheating in examinations: a study of academic

dishonesty in a Malaysian college”, Asian Journal of University Education, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 99-124.

Sims, R. L. (1993), “The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business
practices”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 68, pp. 207-12.

Schmelkin, L. P., Gilbert, K., Spencer, K. J., Pincus, H. S. and Silva, R. (2008), “A
multidimensional scaling of students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty”, Journal of
Higher Education, Vol. 79, pp. 587–607.

Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A. and Easterling, D. (2004), “An Examination of Cheating and Its
Antecendents among Marketing and Management Majors”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 63-80.

Smyth, M. L. and Davis, J. R. (2003), “An examination of student cheating in the two-year
college”, Community College Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 17-32.

Stone, T.H., Jawahar, I.M. and Kisamore, J.L. (2009), “Using the theory of planned behavior and
cheating justifications to predict academic misconduct”, Career Development
International, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 221-241.

Tibbets, S. G. and Myers, D. L. (1999), “Low self-control, rational choice, and student test
cheating”, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 179–200.

Ward, D. A. and Beck, W. L. (1990), “Gender and dishonesty”, Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 130 No. 3, pp. 333-339.

Whitley, B. E. J. (1998), “Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review”,
Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 235-274.

19
 Whitley, B. E. J., Nelson, A. B. and Jones, C. J. (1999), “Gender Differences in Cheating
Attitudes and Classroom Cheating Behavior: A Meta-Analysis”, Sex Roles, Vol. 41 No.
9/10, pp. 657-680.

Young, D. (2013), “Perspectives on cheating at a Thai university”, Young Language Testing in

Asia, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 1-15.
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

20
 List of Tables

Table 1: Demographic Information of Respondents

Variables Frequency Percentage (%)
Level of Study
Sophomore 150 34.5
Intermediate 112 25.7
Advance/ higher 173 39.8
Total 435 100
Cheating classification
Cheaters 284 65.3
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

Non-cheaters 151 34.7

Total 435 100
Gender
Male 129 29.7
Female 306 70.3
Total 435 100

Table 2: Results on Cheating Behaviour of Overall Respondents

Cheating Cheaters Non-cheaters Independent t-test

Behaviour Mean SD Mean SD T Significance
Neutralization 2.43 0.91 1.89 0.74 -5.11 0.00***
Deterrents
(a) Punishment 2.71 0.47 2.73 0.47 0.44 0.663
(b) Guilt 2.66 0.54 2.86 0.38 4.08 0.00***
(c) Social stigma 2.35 0.53 2.49 0.55 2.64 0.00***
*** significant at 1%
 Table 3: Results on Cheating Behaviour: Analysis by Gender

Males Females
Cheating Non- Non-
Cheaters Independent t-test Cheaters Independent t-test
Behaviour cheaters cheaters
Mean SD Mean SD T Significance Mean SD Mean SD T Significance
Neutralization 2.67 0.82 2.40 0.88 -2.08 0.04** 2.12 0.94 1.77 0.66 -3.68 0.00***
Deterrents
(a) Punishment 2.61 0.53 2.49 0.64 -1.05 0.29 2.75 0.44 2.80 0.39 0.86 0.39
(b) Guilt 2.39 0.62 2.60 0.60 1.68 0.10 2.79 0.45 2.93 0.24 3.36 0.00***
(c) Social stigma 2.16 0.55 2.27 0.55 1.05 0.30 2.44 0.49 2.56 0.53 1.87 0.06*
*** significant at 1%, ** significant at 5%, * significant at 10%
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 19:52 21 March 2016 (PT)

Table 4: Results on Cheating Behaviour: Differences between Genders

Cheaters Non-cheaters
Cheating
Males Females Independent t-test Males Females Independent t-test
Behaviour
Mean SD Mean SD T Significance Mean SD Mean SD T Significance
Neutralization 2.67 0.82 2.12 0.94 2.43 0.00*** 2.40 0.88 1.77 0.66 5.67 0.00***
Deterrents
(a) Punishment 2.61 0.53 2.75 0.44 -2.41 0.02** 2.49 0.64 2.80 0.39 -3.40 0.00***
(b) Guilt 2.39 0.62 2.79 0.45 -6.09 0.00*** 2.60 0.60 2.93 0.24 -4.94 0.00***
(c) Social stigma 2.16 0.55 2.44 0.49 -4.33 0.00*** 2.27 0.55 2.56 0.53 -2.65 0.00***
*** significant at 1%, ** significant at 5%