Ethics & Behavior

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20

Measuring students’ attitudes toward plagiarism

Rayees Farooq & Almaas Sultana

To cite this article: Rayees Farooq & Almaas Sultana (2021): Measuring students’ attitudes toward
plagiarism, Ethics & Behavior, DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2020.1860766

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1860766

Published online: 20 Jan 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 85

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1860766

Measuring students’ attitudes toward plagiarism

a
Rayees Farooq and Almaas Sultanab
a
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology; bDepartment of Education, Lovely
Professional University

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The purpose of the study is to validate a scale to measure attitudes toward Plagiarism; negative attitude;
plagiarism. The survey questionnaire was administered to a purposive sam­ positive attitude; subjective
ple of 300 graduate Ph.D. students from private, state, and central universi­ norms; theory of planned
behavior
ties. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to validate attitudes and
subjective norms toward plagiarism. The scale demonstrated good internal
consistency, composite reliability, and construct validity. Positive attitudes
toward plagiarism, negative attitudes toward plagiarism, and subjective
norms demonstrated a high level of convergence among the items thereby
supporting the convergent validity of these constructs. The study extends
the theory of planned behavior to predict intentions to plagiarize. Positive
attitudes, negative attitudes, and subjective norms were related to plagiar­
ism. Positive attitudes toward plagiarism indicate an individual’s tolerance,
acceptability, and positive perception toward an unethical task. Negative
attitudes condemn plagiarism and the third dimension, subjective norms
toward plagiarism, reflect the thinking and the occurrence of plagiarism and
the acceptance of such behavior in academic and research settings.

INTRODUCTION
Academic misconduct is any type of cheating that compromises the educational process and academic
integrity of the institution (Mavrinac et al., 2010, p. 196). Academic dishonesty includes plagiarism,
falsification, fabrication, paraphrasing, and other unethical practices. The University Grants
Commission (UGC) of India defines plagiarism as the practice of taking someone else’s work or
idea and passing it as one’s own. The UGC came up with the promotion of academic integrity and
prevention of plagiarism in higher educational institutions in 2018 to prevent academic dishonesty.
UGC divides plagiarism into four different levels, and each level carries a penalty depending on the
severity of the plagiarism. Plagiarism is generally referred to as academic malpractice (Hayes &
Introna, 2005). It is defined as “an act of dishonesty related to authorship and copyright, a wrong
against the original author by stealing the idea or the text and presenting it as one’s own” (Vehviläinen
et al., 2018, p. 6). Plagiarism is a behavioral (Fishbein, 1993) and moral development problem. The
growing and widespread prevalence of plagiarism in universities is a threat to academic integrity.
Despite the various initiatives taken by the government to abolish the practices of plagiarism among
university students, the issue has not been extensively studied in the Indian context. The growing
number of cases of plagiarism in higher education is due to the recent technological advancement.
Easy access to digital sources is one of the reasons for plagiarism. The act of cheating is often linked to
various digital sources including electronic journals, Google.com, Yahoo.com, Emerald, and Springer
which is referred to as Cyberplagiase (Anderson, 1999), mouse-click plagiarism (Auer & Krupar,
2001), and academic cyber-sloth (Carnie, 2001). Quah et al. (2012) suggest various forms of plagiarism

CONTACT Rayees Farooq [email protected] Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology
Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India, 781039.
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 FAROOQ AND SULTANA

such as using the material from other’s work without acknowledging them, submitting another
person’s work without his or her consent, and word-to-word paraphrasing from a particular source.
A recent change in the plagiarism policy in India by the UGG (a statutory body responsible for the
maintenance of standards of higher education) sparked a massive interest in the academic world. The
policy aims at the prevention of plagiarism in higher education institutions. There is considerable
evidence that academic plagiarism is on the rise in India (Juyal et al., 2015; Satyanarayana, 2010) and
non-adherence to ethical aspects of publication is a significant problem that universities have not been
able to tackle. In this regard Dinesh Singh former vice-chancellor of Delhi University, while showing
his concern stated that “I am all for checking plagiarism which is indeed a problem in India within
academia. We have very lax standards on this count, and that is what seems to have prompted the
government to propose such a law.” Although many conceptualizations of plagiarism exist in research
(Moss et al., 2018), it can be viewed as an act of representing the ideas or discoveries of another as one’s
own without acknowledgment (Barrett & Cox, 2005) and a breach of academic integrity (Park, 2004).
Although number of studies indicate plagiarism as a multi-dimensional and highly complex issue
(Ehrich et al., 2016) however, the exact predictor for intention to engage in plagiaristic behavior is not
well structured. Plagiarism is not a new phenomenon in academia, but the problem has intensified
with the increased availability of various resources on the Internet (Lee, 2011). The increasing
incidence of plagiarism has been confirmed by several studies conducted in Australia (Devlin &
Gray, 2007), Pakistan (Shirazi et al., 2010), Croatia (Mavrinac et al., 2010), Norway (Hofmann et al.,
2013), and Iran (Ghajarzadeh, Ghajarzadeh et al., 2013) proving that there seems to a wide-ranging
acceptance among students toward plagiarism.
Research suggests that plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty appear to be related to
a wide range of factors such as attitudes toward unethical behavior (Stone et al., 2009), social norms
(Jordan, 2001), student understanding of plagiarism (Devlin & Gray, 2007) and institutional frame­
work for dealing with plagiarism (Park, 2004).” A person’s actual performance of a behavior is
determined by their intention to perform that behavior” (Uzun & Kilis, 2020, p. 2). Previous studies
consider plagiaristic behavior as intentional academic misconduct (Camara et al., 2017).
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) proposed by Ajzen in 1991 which incorporates these factors in
the prediction of intention toward performing a behavior and actual performance of the behavior has
been used in few studies to examine intentions to become involved in academic misconduct and
behavior (Mayhew et al., 2009; Sohrabi et al., 2018; Stone et al., 2010). The need to develop a valid
measure of intention to plagiarize has been identified in previous research (Uzun & Kilis, 2020). Very
few studies have validated the plagiarism scale in the student context (Mavrinac et al., 2010; Uzun &
Kilis, 2020). The study aims to measure the students’ attitude toward plagiarism using the theory of
planned behavior.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
A theory of planned behavior (TPB) proposed by Ajzen (1991) is an extension of the theory of
reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Various studies have been conducted on the role of
the theory of planned behavior in academic settings. Riemenschneider et al. (2011) extended the
theory of planned behavior by including two additional constructs applicable to ethics: moral judg­
ment and perceived importance. Stone et al. (2007) predicted academic dishonesty using the theory of
planned behavior. Their study further indicated that the effects of prudence and adjustment were fully
mediated by components of the theory of planned behavior.

DIMENSIONS OF THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR

The theory of planned behavior states that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral
control triggers an individual’s behavioral intentions and behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). The present study
focuses on the positive attitudes toward plagiarism, negative attitudes toward plagiarism, and
MEASURING STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD PLAGIARISM 3

subjective norms as a part of the model. While several studies have been conducted on TPB to predict
a wide variety of behavior, the studies related to academic dishonesty and plagiarism, in particular, are
relatively scarce in the literature. Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior (TPB) is an extension of
the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The TPB
(Ajzen, 1991) states that an individual’s engagement in a particular behavior is preceded by their
intentions to engage. As per the theory, the three components that predict such behavioral intentions
are attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms about the behavior, and perceived control over the
behavior. The theory proposes that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control act as
antecedents to intention and determine whether an individual has an intention to perform or not to
perform the behavior. The intention then acts as an antecedent to behavior. “As a general rule, the
more favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the perceived control, the stronger
should be the person’s intention to perform the behavior in question” (Ajzen, 2010, p. 1). For instance,
if a researcher has a favorable attitude toward plagiarism and their colleagues and fellow researchers
are also engaged in plagiarizing, it may precipitate an intention to plagiarize. However, if the rules of
higher education in a country are stringent and impose a strict penalty on individuals who plagiarize,
people may have a bleak intention to engage in the act.
The present study excluded the perceived behavioral intention of the model. This component of
TPB explains the discrepancies between intentions and behavior. According to Ajzen (1991), if an
individual intends to perform a particular behavior, the actual performance will depend on his or her
control over the behavior in question, i.e. the extent to which he or she has the resources and
opportunities to perform the behavior. Perceived behavioral control may not have much effect on
actual behavior when attitudes and norms are healthy, however, when behaviors are perceived as
challenging, or there are barriers to performance (for instance, in the case of plagiarism), perceived
behavioral control becomes a more critical factor for predicting behavior (Stone et al., 2009). There are
very few studies in the literature that have related this component of TPB theory with cheating
behavior. For example, McCabe et al. (2002) found that in those cases where academic integrity
policies (including their reporting and penalty components) are weaker; the students are more
susceptible to engage in cheating because the punishment is not severe enough to outweigh the
benefits associated with such misconduct.
Behavioral, normative, and control beliefs affect the intentions of an individual. An individual’s
behavioral beliefs are responsible for one’s attitude (negative and positive) toward a specific behavior;
normative beliefs are responsible for subjective norms like perceived social pressure whereas control
beliefs account for perceived ease or difficulty while carrying out a specific behavior. According to the
theory of planned behavior, a positive attitude, subjective norms, and perceived control beliefs for
a specific behavior are responsible for the high inclination of an individual to perform that behavior
(Ajzen, 1991).
The theory of planned behavior suggests that there is a link between the attitudes and behavior of
individuals (Curtis et al., 2018). Empirical studies conducted in the context of academic integrity
confirm that the model of planned behavior predicts student’s engagement toward plagiaristic
behavior (Alleyne & Phillips, 2011; Harding et al., 2007). It has been observed that contextual factors
such as peers’ beliefs and beliefs with institutions of learning affect student perceptions toward
plagiarism (Palmer et al., 2019).

Attitudes toward plagiarism

According to Conner and Armitage (1998), the attitude of an individual toward a behavior depends on
the way he or she evaluates the behavior in terms of its outcomes, and it is also affected by the
behavioral beliefs of that person. In the context of plagiarism, studies have established that “students
condone or condemn academic misconduct, they are more or less likely to form intentions to engage
in cheating or plagiarism as well as engage in the behavior” (Stone et al., 2009, p. 244). Research
indicates that student attitudes toward plagiarism are typically more permissive and lenient (Ehrich
4 FAROOQ AND SULTANA

et al., 2016; Gururajan & Roberts, 2005). For example, a study comprising 239 medical students in
Romania showed that general student attitudes toward plagiarism were generally positive (Badea,
2017). Some studies have indicated that students consider plagiarism to be justified under heavy
workload conditions (Ehrich et al., 2016). It appears that there is a poor understanding among
students about what exactly constitutes plagiarism and plagiarist behaviors (Devlin & Gray, 2007;
Ehrich et al., 2016; Marshall & Garry, 2006; Song-Turner, 2008) within their academic work and
practice. Studies with an emphasis on cross-cultural differences to plagiarism indicate that Asian
university students had a more lenient and permissive attitude toward plagiarism when compared to
Western university students (Egan, 2008).
Researchers in the field of academic dishonesty argued that there are various contextual and
individual factors responsible for student’s attitudes toward plagiarism. The contextual factors include
easy access to an online resource, the pressure of academic performance, lack of training and level of
understanding of university policies, as well as individual factors such as gender, personality, educa­
tional level, and cultural background which are responsible for the increased tendency to plagiarize
(Hosny & Fatima, 2014; Kuntz & Butler, 2014). Harding et al. (2007) argued that gender and school
cheating experience are closely related to student’s attitudes toward cheating. Students with a firm
intention to plagiarize are likely to have a positive attitude toward plagiarism whereas students less
inclined to plagiarize have a negative attitude toward plagiarism (Camara et al., 2017). Bloch (2012)
found that motivation plays a vital role in shaping one’s attitude toward plagiarism. Attitudes toward
plagiarism are also aligned with an individual’s ethical surroundings. If others perceive plagiarism to
be an acceptable act, then one might become more inclined to cheat (Camara et al., 2017; McCabe,
2001). A positive attitude toward plagiarism indicates an individual’s tolerance, acceptability, and
positive perception toward an unethical task. Positive attitudes toward academic dishonesty among
university students are the result of time constraints, low confidence in academic ability, and
compliance with a surrounding unethical academic environment (Keçeci et al., 2011).

Subjective norms toward plagiarism

As per the TPB, the subjective norm is “the person’s perception of the social pressures put on him to
perform or not perform the behavior in question” (Ajzen, 1988, p. 12) and is an essential determinant
of intention to perform such behavior. It is the perception of an individual that most people who are
important to him or her think that he or she should or should not perform such behavior (Abbasi et al.,
2013). A substantial amount of research has been conducted showing that subjective norms can have
a powerful influence on an individual’s behavior (Asch, 1951; Kam et al., 2018; Newcomb, 1943; Stone
et al., 2007). The subjective norm is described as an individual’s perception of the views of society or
the surrounding environment toward plagiarism (Furneaux, 2011).
In a review paper aimed at identifying factors associated with cheating among students, Whitley
(1998), found that one of the strongest correlates of cheating was student perceptions that social norms
support cheating. Using a survey of more than 6,000 students at 31 academic institutions, McCabe and
Trevino (1993) argued that peer behavior (i.e., the degree to which students perceive that their peers
engage in cheating behavior) had the most significant relationship with student cheating. Students
attach more importance to the views and behavior of peers. They seem to be less concerned about what
administrators and faculty consider appropriate behavior as far as academic dishonesty is concerned
(McCabe, 2005). In a similar vein, Stephens et al. (2007) and Jurdi et al. (2012) found that perceived
peer acceptability of cheating and peer cheating behavior are positively correlated with various forms
of academic dishonesty. In a more recent experimental study, Fosgaard et al. (2013) found that people
conform more to the cheating behavior when they learn that their peers cheat.
Further, there seems to exist a gender difference in this regard in that, men cheat significantly more.
In contrast, women do not seem to be affected after learning about their peers’ cheating behavior.
These findings suggest that the unethical actions of peers influence academic dishonesty because they
convey a message that cheating as an option is the norm to follow. However, Kam et al. (2018) found
MEASURING STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD PLAGIARISM 5

that the subjective norm does not predict the intention to cheat; instead, it moderates the relationship
between intention and behavioral self-reporting of cheating.

METHOD
The theory of planned behavior proposed by Ajzen (1991) was selected to predict intentions to
plagiarize. TPB is a relevant predictive framework of academic dishonesty that explains behavior as
a final act anticipated by logical thinking (Mavrinac et al., 2010, p. 196). The questionnaire was based
on three dimensions, including positive attitudes, negative attitudes, and subjective norms (Mavrinac
et al., 2010). The items selected were shown to subject matter experts for content validity. Fifteen
subject matter experts were consulted. These experts had completed their doctorates in education and
were asked to determine the adequacy of the items. The suggestions of the experts were incorporated,
and the instrument was pilot tested. A pilot study was conducted that pre-tested the questionnaire on
60 respondents. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.841. The respondents reported no issues.

Procedure
The survey questionnaire was administered to graduate students who had completed the first year of
doctoral study. These graduate students were from the National Capital region and Punjab State of
India. An informed consent letter was sent to the respondents along with the cover letter, explaining
the purpose and nature of the study and assuring respondents of their confidentiality and anonymity.
The participants were recruited through various means including laboratory visits by the authors and
as well as through personal contacts. A purposive sample of 300 scholars from private, state, and
central universities was used. Respondents completed a paper and pencil survey. The questionnaire
included 29 statements to measure intentions to plagiarize. Out of the 300 potential respondents, only
290 respondents agreed to participate in the survey, yielding a response rate of 96.66%. Ten respon­
dents refused to participate in the survey yielding a refusal rate of 3.34%. After removing incomplete
responses, 280 respondents formed the final sample. Table 1 shows the profile of the sample based on
age, gender, and discipline.

Measures
The study is based on the theory of planned behavior proposed by Ajzen (1991). Intention to
plagiarize was measured using three dimensions viz. positive attitudes toward plagiarism, negative
attitudes plagiarism, and subjective norms about plagiarism. Positive attitudes toward plagiarism
were measured with 12 statements adopted from Mavrinac et al. (2010), as shown in Table 2.
Negative attitudes toward plagiarism were measured using the seven statements (Mavrinac et al.,
2010), and subjective norms about plagiarism were measured using the 10 statements with response
options ranging from 5 strongly agree, 4 agree, 3 neutral, 2 disagree to 1 strongly disagree (Mavrinac
et al., 2010).

Table 1. Sample profile (N = 280).

Variables Category N %
Age Less than 25 94 33.6
25–29 135 48.2
Above 29 51 18.2
Gender Males 174 62.1
Females 106 37.9
Discipline Management 87 31.1
Economics 39 13.9
Science(s) 64 22.9
Others 90 32.1
6

Table 2. Items selected to measure intention to plagiarize.

Item Strongly Strongly
Code Item(s) Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Source
PA1 Sometimes one cannot avoid using other people’s words without citing the source, because there are only so 5 4 3 2 1 Mavrinac et al.
many ways to describe something. (2010).
PA2 It is justified to use previous descriptions of a method, because the method itself remains the same. 5 4 3 2 1
PA3 Self-plagiarism is not punishable because it is not harmful (one cannot steal from oneself). 5 4 3 2 1
PA4 Plagiarized parts of a paper may be ignored if the paper is of great scientific value. 5 4 3 2 1
PA5 Self-plagiarism should not be punishable in the same way as plagiarism is. 5 4 3 2 1
PA6 Young researchers who are just learning the ropes should receive milder punishment for plagiarism. 5 4 3 2 1
PA7 If one cannot write well in a foreign language (eg, English), it is justified to copy parts of a similar paper 5 4 3 2 1
FAROOQ AND SULTANA

already published in that language.

PA8 I could not write a scientific paper without plagiarizing. 5 4 3 2 1
PA9 Short deadlines give me the right to plagiarize a bit. 5 4 3 2 1
PA10 When I do not know what to write, I translate a part of a paper from a foreign language. 5 4 3 2 1
PA11 It is justified to use one’s own previously published work without providing citation in order to complete the 5 4 3 2 1
current work.
PA12 If a colleague of mine allows me to copy from her/his paper, I’m NOT doing anything bad, because I have his/ 5 4 3 2 1
her permission.
NA1 Plagiarists do not belong in the scientific community. 5 4 3 2 1
NA2 The names of the authors who plagiarize should be disclosed to the scientific community. 5 4 3 2 1
NA3 In times of moral and ethical decline, it is important to discuss issues like plagiarism and self-plagiarism. 5 4 3 2 1
NA4 Plagiarizing is as bad as stealing an exam. 5 4 3 2 1
NA5 Plagiarism impoverishes the investigative spirit. 5 4 3 2 1
NA6 A plagiarized paper does no harm science. 5 4 3 2 1
NA7 Since plagiarism is taking other people’s words rather than tangible assets; it should NOT be considered as 5 4 3 2 1
a serious offense.
SN1 Authors say they do NOT plagiarize, when in fact they do. 5 4 3 2 1
SN2 Those who say they have never plagiarized are lying. 5 4 3 2 1
SN3 Sometimes I’m tempted to plagiarize, because everyone else is doing it (students, researchers, physicians). 5 4 3 2 1
SN4 I keep plagiarizing because I haven’t been caught yet. 5 4 3 2 1
SN5 I work (study) in a plagiarism-free environment. 5 4 3 2 1
SN6 Plagiarism is not a big deal. 5 4 3 2 1
SN7 Sometimes I copy a sentence or two just to become inspired for further writing. 5 4 3 2 1
SN8 I don’t feel guilty for copying verbatim a sentence or two from my previous papers. 5 4 3 2 1
SN9 Plagiarism is justified if I currently have more important obligations or tasks to do. 5 4 3 2 1
SN10 Sometimes, it is necessary to plagiarize. 5 4 3 2 1
MEASURING STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD PLAGIARISM 7

RESULTS
The data were analyzed using AMOS 19 version following the procedure suggested by Farooq (2016).
Construct validity was assessed using validated scales (Mavrinac et al., 2010). Convergent validity was
assessed using average variance extracted (AVE) followed by the composite reliability and Cronbach’s
alpha. Discriminant validity was also assessed.

Common method bias

The data for positive attitudes, negative attitudes, and subjective norms were collected from the same
sources using self-reported data, which may result in common method bias. The common method bias
was checked using Harman’s single factor matrix on a twenty-nine item scale (Podsakoff & Organ,
1986). The results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) indicated seven factors that accounted for
71.662% of the variance, with the first factor explaining less than 50% variance. Each of the seven
factors explains less than 50% of the variance. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no
standard method bias in the study.

Validation of attitudes scale

Using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with AMOS, an initial pool of 29 items relating to attitudes
and subjective norms were analyzed. Twelve statements were used to measure positive attitudes toward
plagiarism, and the negative attitudes toward plagiarism were measured with seven statements. Using
the recommendations of Hair et al. (2010), many model fit indices were assessed, which included the
comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) = 0.691, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI; Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1981) = 0.588, goodness-of-fit index (GFI; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981) = 0.715, root-mean-
square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.202, root-mean-square residual (RMR) = 0.150 and
Normed Chi-square (χ2/df) = 12.387. The χ2 was significant (χ2(688.923) = 54, p < .000). The χ2 is
a conservative measure of assessing model fit (Bollen, 1989). The model should not be accepted or
rejected merely based on χ2. The results of CFA indicate a poor model fit; therefore, items PA5, PA7,
PA9, PA10, PA11, and PA12 were deleted due to high modification indices and low standardized factor
loadings. The factor loadings that were lower than 0.50 were deleted from the scale. All of the remaining
items had sufficient factor loadings above the threshold level (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Again, the CFA
was applied on the remaining items which resulted into good model fit (RMR = 0.034, GFI = 0.974,
AGFI = 0.932, RMSEA = 0.082, CFI = 0.985, χ2 = 23.099, df = 8, χ2/df = 2.887). The dimensionality of
the positive attitude scale was measured using the average variance extracted (AVE), composite
reliability, and Cronbach’s alpha, as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The AVE of the positive
attitude scale was found to be 0.579, which is above the threshold level suggested by Hair et al. (2010),
thereby ensuring the convergent validity of the construct. The composite reliability and Cronbach’s
alpha were found to be 0.867 and 0.856, which is above the threshold level.
The CFA was applied on a negative attitude scale measured using seven statements. The results of
CFA indicate a poor model fit, the χ2 was significant (χ2(141.645) = 14, p < .000), comparative fit index
(CFI) (Bentler, 1990) = 0.834, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) (Joreskog & Sorbom,
1981) = 0.745, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981) = 0.873, root-mean-square
error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.181, root-mean-square residual (RMR) = 0.10 and Normed Chi-
square (χ2/df) = 10.117. Hence, item NA7 was deleted due to high modification indices and low
standardized factor loading (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). All of the remaining items had sufficient
factor loadings above the threshold level (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The factor loadings less than 0.50
were deleted from the scale to improve the model fit (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Again, the CFA was
applied on the remaining items which resulted into good model fit (RMR = 0.039, GFI = 0.977,
AGFI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.072, CFI = 0.983, χ2 = 19.651, df = 8, χ2/df = 2.456). Internal consistency
was assessed using composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s Alpha. The recommended threshold
8 FAROOQ AND SULTANA

value for CR and Alpha is 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010). According to Table 3, the negative attitude scale had
CR values above the threshold level. Hence, both the constructs were individually validated.

Validation of subjective norms scale

Ten statements were used to measure subjective norms toward plagiarism. The subjective norms scale
was assessed using the CFA (Hair et al., 2010). The initial assessment of CFA indicated the poor fit
(RMR = 0.080, GFI = 0.775, AGFI = 0.647, RMSEA = 0.238, CFI = 0.645, χ2 = 587.788, df = 35, χ2/
df = 16.794). Hence, items SN1, SN4, SN9, and SN10 were deleted due to low standardized factor
loadings (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). After deleting the items, a final scale was estimated that offered
good fit (RMR = 0.037, GFI = 0.976, AGFI = 0.938, RMSEA = 0.077, CFI = 0.984, χ2 = 21.200, df = 8, χ2/
df = 2.650). Moreover, using the result of the final CFA, we assessed reliability and validity as suggested
by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The results provide enough support for convergent validity, composite
reliability, and Cronbach’s alpha as shown in Table 3. Hence, subjective norms scale was validated.

Measurement model
A measurement model specifies how each manifest variable represents the construct and also allows
for the measurement of construct validity (Farooq, 2016; Hair et al., 2010). Maximum likelihood
estimation was used to determine values for model parameters. Following the final validation of the
scale; we have used three dimensions (positive attitudes, negative attitudes, and subjective norms) that
were measured using 16 items, as shown in Table 4. All three dimensions were individually validated
before the measurement model (Farooq, 2016). The results indicate a poor model fit and PAI was
deleted to improve the model fit (RMR = 0.111, GFI = 0.855, AGFI = 0.808, RMSEA = 0.100,
CFI = 0.887, χ2 = 437.554, df = 115, χ2/df = 3.805). The results of the measurement model indicate
a good model fit (RMR = 0.096, GFI = 0.882, AGFI = 0.838, RMSEA = 0.089, CFI = 0.913, χ2 = 319.950,
df = 99, χ2/df = 3.232). The constructs exhibit convergent validity, construct reliability, composite

Table 3. Dimensionality, reliability, and convergent validity.

Name of Factor Cronbach’s Composite
the Factor Statement(s) Loadings Alpha AVE Reliability
Positive PA2-It is justified to use previous descriptions of a method, because 0.932 0.856 0.579 0.867
Attitude the method itself remains the same.
PA3-Self-plagiarism is not punishable because it is not harmful (one 0.886
cannot steal from oneself).
PA4-Plagiarized parts of a paper may be ignored if the paper is of 0.802
great scientific value.
PA6-Young researchers who are just learning the ropes should 0.486
receive milder punishment for plagiarism.
PA8-I could not write a scientific paper without plagiarizing. 0.600
Negative NA2-The names of the authors who plagiarize should be disclosed to 0.624 0.841 0.521 0.841
Attitude the scientific community.
NA3-In times of moral and ethical decline, it is important to discuss 0.808
issues like plagiarism and self-plagiarism.
NA4-Plagiarizing is as bad as stealing an exam. 0.904
NA5-Plagiarism impoverishes the investigative spirit. 0.566
NA6-A plagiarized paper does no harm science. 0.653
Subjective SN2-Those who say they have never plagiarized are lying. 0.487 0.852 0.508 0.851
Norms SN3-Sometimes I’m tempted to plagiarize, because everyone else is 0.347
doing it (students, researchers, physicians).
SN5-I work (study) in a plagiarism-free environment. 0.821
SN6-Plagiarism is not a big deal. 0.920
SN7-Sometimes I copy a sentence or two just to become inspired for 0.838
further writing.
SN8-I don’t feel guilty for copying verbatim a sentence or two from 0.685
my previous papers.
MEASURING STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD PLAGIARISM 9

Table 4. Final items of the scale.

Item Code Items
PA2 It is justified to use previous descriptions of a method, because the method itself remains the same.
PA3 Self-plagiarism is not punishable because it is not harmful (one cannot steal from oneself).
PA4 Plagiarized parts of a paper may be ignored if the paper is of great scientific value.
PA6 Young researchers who are just learning the ropes should receive milder punishment for plagiarism.
PA8 I could not write a scientific paper without plagiarizing.
NA2 The names of the authors who plagiarize should be disclosed to the scientific community.
NA3 In times of moral and ethical decline, it is important to discuss issues like plagiarism and self-plagiarism.
NA4 Plagiarizing is as bad as stealing an exam.
NA5 Plagiarism impoverishes the investigative spirit.
NA6 A plagiarized paper does no harm science.
SN2 Those who say they have never plagiarized are lying.
SN3 Sometimes I’m tempted to plagiarize, because everyone else is doing it (students, researchers, physicians).
SN5 I work (study) in a plagiarism-free environment.
SN6 Plagiarism is not a big deal.
SN7 Sometimes I copy a sentence or two just to become inspired for further writing.
SN8 I don’t feel guilty for copying verbatim a sentence or two from my previous papers.

Table 5. Discriminant validity from Chi-Square difference test.

Unconstrained Model Constrained Model Model Differences
Model Characteristics (TF for Each Group) (PA, NA and SN Equal Across Groups) ∆χ2
Model fit
Chi-Square 437.41 568.367 130.957
Df 114 117 3
CFI 0.886 0.841 -
GFI 0.856 0.818 -
Significant at 0.005 Level, p value = 0.000.

reliability, and discriminant validity based on Fornell and Larcker (1981) as shown in Table 3.
Discriminant validity can be “assessed for two estimated constructs by constraining the estimated
correlation parameter between them to 1.0 and then performing a χ2 difference test on the values
obtained for the constrained and unconstrained models” (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988, p. 416). The
discriminant validity was assessed using the χ2 difference test. The results of the χ2 difference test
indicate that the constructs are statistically different, which ensures the discriminant validity of the
model, as shown in Table 5. Hence, the measurement model was validated, as shown in Figure 1.

DISCUSSION
This study involved testing the theory of planned behavior in the academic setting in relation to
positive attitudes toward plagiarism, negative attitudes toward plagiarism, and subjective norms.
Perceived behavioral control was excluded from the model, as there are very few studies that have
related this component of TPB theory to cheating behavior. McCabe et al. (2002) found that in those
cases where academic integrity policies (including their reporting and penalty components) are
weaker; students are more likely to engage in cheating because the punishment is not severe enough
to outweigh the benefits associated with such misconduct. The psychometric properties of the scale
indicated good internal consistency, composite reliability, and construct validity. In terms of con­
vergent validity, positive attitudes toward plagiarism, negative attitudes toward plagiarism, and
subjective norms indicated a high level of convergence among the items, thereby supporting the
convergent validity of these constructs.
This study extends the theory of planned behavior to the measurement of attitudes among graduate
students working on their Ph.D. Uzun and Kilis (2020) did not provide enough support for the
reliability of their plagiarism scale. The factors proposed in the present study are more comprehensive
in terms of reliability and validity. However, the majority of the scales in the past have focused on
10 FAROOQ AND SULTANA

Figure 1. Measurement model.

plagiarism of students based on attitudes and subjective norms (Mavrinac et al., 2010). The exclusion
of perceived behavioral control from the theory of planned behavior is justified by Uzun and Kilis
(2020) who argue that perceived behavioral control coincides with self-efficacy as they are regarded to
be similar constructs. However, existing measures of plagiarism have varied widely in terms of
reliability, thereby affecting the validity of these constructs. The scale developed in the present study
has some distinct advantages over plagiarism measures (Smith et al., 2007; Uzun & Kilis, 2020)
developed in the previous studies. First, the study provides enough support for the reliability and
validity of constructs. Second, the psychometric properties of the scale were tested using structural
equation modeling (SEM). Third, the study used multiple-item measures.
In this study, a positive attitude toward plagiarism reflected the endorsement and justification of
such behavior. Some studies have indicated that students consider plagiarism as justified when
workloads are high (Ehrich et al., 2016). It appears that there is a poor understanding among students
with no clear boundaries of what exactly constitutes plagiarism and plagiarist behaviors (Devlin &
Gray, 2007; Ehrich et al., 2016; Marshall & Garry, 2006; Song-Turner, 2008) within their academic
work and practice. The second dimension, a negative attitude toward plagiarism highlighted the
disapproval of plagiarism. Negative attitudes about plagiarism can enhance academic integrity among
MEASURING STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD PLAGIARISM 11

scholars by communicating the severe consequences. According to the new regulations of UGC
(Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions
Regulations, 2018) that defined the penalty based on the similarity of manuscripts. The third dimen­
sion, subjective norms toward plagiarism, reflected the thinking about and occurrence of plagiarism
and the acceptance of such behavior in academic and research settings. There is ample evidence
showing that the behavior of others influences researchers. Stone et al. (2009) suggested that suspected
cheating by other students and perceptions regarding the frequency of cheating are the bases of norms
regarding academic misconduct.
The results of this study have implications for academics and researchers. The results indicated that
not only positive attitudes but also subjective norms about plagiarism also affect the individual’s
intention to plagiarize. Positive attitudes justified self-plagiarism, short deadlines, and paraphrasing.
One of the possible reasons for the positive attitudes toward plagiarism relates to challenges with good
academic writing and inadequate familiarity with research ethics or publication ethics. The negative
consequences should be communicated with students to avoid plagiarism, according to the new
regulation of the UGC that defines the various penalties based on the similarity of manuscripts. The
UGC has bifurcated plagiarism into core (research methodology, findings, and conclusion) and non-
core areas (introduction, literature review, and references) and the commission’s policy allows 10%
plagiarism in the core area and less than 20% in the non-core area. The study provides us with insight
into plagiarism and its relationship to planned behavior. The study will help academics establish
a well-structured and pedagogically sound definition of plagiarism. The development of a sound
definition of plagiarism will help the institutions in developing the guidelines to control student’s
plagiaristic behavior to ensure the academic integrity of educational institutions. Although universities
are now equipped with hi-tech software such as Turnitin, iThenticate, and Urkund to detect plagiar­
ism, courses/programs to promote appropriate academic conduct, as it relates to plagiarism, are
needed. Plagiarism reduction interventions can include planned classroom and extra-curricular
activities in courses (Oaten & Cheng, 2006). The variables tested in the proposed model contribute
to the prediction of plagiarism among students and the development of an understanding and
awareness of plagiarism among policymakers. The findings of the study are practically relevant,
which may facilitate the researchers in the development of interventions related to attitudes about
plagiarism.
This study has several limitations that can be addressed in future research. First, perceived
behavioral control, which was excluded from our model, is a part of the theory of planned behavior.
Various investigators have argued that perceived behavioral control coincides with self-efficacy as they
are regarded to be similar constructs (Uzun & Kilis, 2020). Rajah-Kanagasabai and Roberts (2015)
argued that perceived behavioral control is not a significant predictor of cheating behavior. Perceived
behavioral control may not have much effect on actual behavior when attitudes and norms are healthy,
however, when behaviors are perceived as challenging, or there are barriers to performance (for
instance, in the case of plagiarism), perceived behavioral control becomes a more critical factor for
predicting behavior (Stone et al., 2009). As such, in future research, the role of perceived behavioral
control can be investigated as a part of the model.
Second, the same sample was used for both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA). Ideally, exploratory factor analysis should be followed by a confirmatory factor
analysis using a different sample size (Henson & Roberts, 2006; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). The
study was limited to the Ph.D. students but can be extended to those who teach to further clarify
possible intentions to plagiarize. Future research should focus on the analysis of gender differences and
university type (private vs. public). The data on gender differences in plagiarism remains unconvin­
cing as the females reported less cheating compared to the males. Future research needs to maintain
the balance between males and females in reporting plagiarism. Future studies should be replicated
with master’s students. Zastrow (1970) argued that there is a lack of consensus among students over
whether certain other behaviors constitute cheating.
12 FAROOQ AND SULTANA

CONCLUSION
This study extended the work of Mavrinac et al. (2010) by reporting on the validation of a measure of
an intention to plagiarize in academic settings. As specified in this study, the theory of planned
behavior is a useful tool for understanding the intentions to plagiarize as a function of positive attitude,
negative attitude, and subjective norms. The results indicated positive attitudes toward plagiarism can
be measured in a reliable and valid fashion as are negative attitudes and subjective norms. Most of the
research in the field of academic ethics has focused on attitude toward plagiarism (Mavrinac et al.,
2010; Smith et al., 2007) and factors affecting plagiarism (Eret & Ok, 2014). However, positive and
negative attitudes toward plagiarism have not been widely examined in the literature. Positive attitudes
toward plagiarism were significant predictors of intention to plagiarize. The high rate of plagiarism in
academics and lack of punishment for the same leads to a positive attitude toward plagiarism. Negative
attitudes toward plagiarism indicate that avoiding plagiarism and reporting it to the scientific com­
munity can improve the academic integrity of institutions. The findings of the study are in line with
Camara et al. (2017) who argued that people who indicated that plagiarism was wrong or immoral,
were less likely to indicate that plagiarism is an option for achieving better grades; students who justify
plagiarism are likely to approve and support cheating behavior. This finding was supported by
Mavrinac et al. (2010) who argued that subjective norms reflect perceived social pressure to not
become involved in plagiarism.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

DATA AVAILABILITY
The data analyzed during the study are available in the following metadata record: https://data.
mendeley.com/datasets/89b78hcx3p/draft?a=3c33f274-1e78-4a29-b75d-cbc39f7405eb.

ORCID
Rayees Farooq http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0743-6179

REFERENCES
Abbasi, M. S., Shah, F., Doudpota, S. M., Channa, N., & Kandhro, S. (2013). Theories and models of technology
acceptance behaviour: A critical review of literature. Sindh University Research Journal, 45(1), 163–170.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Dorsey Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2010). Behavioral interventions based on the theory of planned behavior. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from https://
people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.intervention.pdf
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
Alleyne, P., & Phillips, K. (2011). Exploring academic dishonesty among university students in Barbados: An extension
to the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-011-
9144-1
Anderson, G. L. (1999). Cyber-plagiarism. College & Research Libraries News, 60(5), 371–375. https://doi.org/10.5860/
crln.60.5.371
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Organizational Influence
Processes, 295–303. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1952-00803-001
MEASURING STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD PLAGIARISM 13

Auer, N. J., & Krupar, E. M. (2001). Mouse click plagiarism: The role of technology in plagiarism and the librarian’s role
in combating it. Library Trends, 49(3), 415–433. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298933403_Mouse_Click_
Plagiarism_The_Role_of_Technology_in_Plagiarism_and_the_Librarian's_Role_in_Combating_It
Badea, O. (2017). Do medical students really understand plagiarism?-Case study. Romanian Journal of Morphology and
Embryology= Revue Roumaine de Morphologie et Embryologie, 58(1), 293–296. https://rjme.ro/RJME/resources/files/
580117293296.pdf
Barrett, R., & Cox, A. L. (2005). At least they’re learning something’: The Hazy Line between collaboration and collusion.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000264226
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bloch, J. (2012). Plagiarism, intellectual property and the teaching of L2 writing: Explorations in the detection based
approach (Vol. 24). Multilingual Matters.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods &
Research, 17(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124189017003004
Camara, S. K., Eng-Ziskin, S., Wimberley, L., Dabbour, K. S., & Lee, C. M. (2017). Predicting students’ intention to
plagiarize: An ethical theoretical framework. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10805-016-9269-3
Carnie, A. (2001). How to handle cyber-sloth in academe. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(17), B14–B14. https://www.
chronicle.com/article/how-to-handle-cyber-sloth-in-academe/
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further
research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429–1464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.
tb01685.x
Curtis, G. J., Cowcher, E., Greene, B. R., Rundle, K., Paull, M., & Davis, M. C. (2018). Self-control, injunctive norms, and
descriptive norms predict engagement in plagiarism in a theory of planned behavior model. Journal of Academic
Ethics, 16(3), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9309-2
Devlin, M., & Gray, K. (2007). In their own words: A qualitative study of the reasons Australian University student
plagiarize. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310805
Egan, V. (2008). A cross-cultural and cross-gender comparison of attitudes towards plagiarism: The case of Malaysian and
Australian business students. Asian Forum on Business Education, 1(1), 19–33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
308894684_A_Cross-Cultural_and_Cross-Gender_Comparison_of_Attitudes_Towards_Plagiarism_The_Case_of_
Malaysian_and_Australian_Business_Students
Ehrich, J., Howard, S. J., Mu, C., & Bokosmaty, S. (2016). A comparison of Chinese and Australian university students’
attitudes towards plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.
927850
Eret, E., & Ok, A. (2014). Internet plagiarism in higher education: Tendencies, triggering factors and reasons among
teacher candidates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 1002–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602938.2014.880776
Farooq, R. (2016). Role of structural equation modelling in scale development. Journal of Advances in Management
Research, 13(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-05-2015-0037
Fishbein, L. (1993). Can we curb college cheating? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 40, 52.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-
Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measure­
ment error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Fosgaard, T. R., Hansen, L. G., & Piovesan, M. (2013). Separating Will from Grace: An experiment on conformity and
awareness in cheating. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.
2013.03.027
Furneaux, B. (2011). Theory of reasoned action. http://istheory.byu.edu/wiki/Theory_of_reasoned_action
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality
and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378802500207
Ghajarzadeh, M., Mohammadifar, M., & Safari, S. (2013). Introducing plagiarism and its aspects to medical researchers
is essential. Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, 2(4), 186–187. https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm.9903
Gururajan, R., & Roberts, D. (2005). Attitude towards plagiarism in information systems in Australian universities. In
Proceedings of the 9th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2005) (pp. 1568–1580). University of
Hong Kong.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th
ed.). Pearson Education.
Harding, T. S., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., & Carpenter, D. D. (2007). The theory of planned behavior as a model of
academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities undergraduates. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 255–279. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10508420701519239
14 FAROOQ AND SULTANA

Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning.
Ethics & Behavior, 15(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1503_2
Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and
some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0013164405282485
Hofmann, B., Myhr, A. I., & Holm, S. (2013). Scientific dishonesty—a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway.
BMC Medical Ethics, 14(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-3
Hosny, M., & Fatima, S. (2014). Attitude of students towards cheating and plagiarism: University case study. Journal of
Applied Sciences, 14(8), 748–757. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2014.748.757
Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of
institutional policy. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_3
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum
likelihood. National Educational Resources, Inc.
Jurdi, R., Hage, H. S., & Chow, H. H. (2012). What behaviours do students consider academically dishonest? Findings
from a survey of Canadian undergraduate students. Social Psychology of Education, 15(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11218-011-9166-y
Juyal, D., Thawani, V., & Thaledi, S. (2015). Rise of academic plagiarism in India: Reasons, solutions and resolution.
Lung India: Official Organ of Indian Chest Society, 32(5), 542–543. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-2113.164151
Kam, C. C. S., Hue, M. T., & Cheung, H. Y. (2018). Academic dishonesty among Hong Kong secondary school students:
Application of theory of planned behavior. Educational Psychology, 38(7), 945–963. https://www.tandfonline.com/
doi/full/10.1080/01443410.2018.1454588
Keçeci, A., Bulduk, S., Oruç, D., & Celik, S. (2011). Academic dishonesty among nursing students: A descriptive study.
Nursing Ethics, 18(5), 725–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733011408042
Kuntz, J. R., & Butler, C. (2014). Exploring individual and contextual antecedents of attitudes toward the acceptability of
cheating and plagiarism. Ethics & Behavior, 24(6), 478–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.908380
Lee, Y. (2011). Understanding anti-plagiarism software adoption: An extended protection motivation theory
perspective. Decision Support Systems, 50(2), 361–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.07.009
Marshall, S., & Garry, M. (2006). NESB and ESB students’ attitudes and perceptions of plagiarism. International Journal
for Educational Integrity, 2(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v2i1.25
Mavrinac, M., Brumini, G., Bilić-Zulle, L., & Petrovečki, M. (2010). Construction and validation of attitudes toward
plagiarism questionnaire. Croatian Medical Journal, 51(3), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2010.51.195
Mayhew, M. J., Hubbard, S. M., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S., & Carpenter, D. D. (2009). Using structural equation
modeling to validate the theory of planned behavior as a model for predicting student cheating. The Review of Higher
Education, 32(4), 441–468. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0080
McCabe, D. L. (2001). Cheating: Why students do it and how we can help them stop. American Educator, 25(4), 38–43.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ642292
McCabe, D. L. (2005). It takes a village: Academic dishonesty & educational opportunity. Liberal Education, 91(3),
26–31. https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/it-takes-village-academic-dishonesty-and-educa
tional-opportunity
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal
of Higher Education, 64(5), 522–538. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2959991?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic
integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code settings. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357–378.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014893102151
Moss, S. A., White, B., & Lee, J. (2018). A systematic review into the psychological causes and correlates of plagiarism.
Ethics & Behavior, 28(4), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2017.1341837
Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change; attitude formation in a student community. Dryden.
Oaten, M., & Cheng, K. (2006). Improved self-control: The benefits of a regular program of academic study. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 28(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2801_1
Palmer, A., Pegrum, M., & Oakley, G. (2019). A wake-up call? Issues with plagiarism in transnational higher education.
Ethics & Behavior, 29(1), 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2018.1466301
Park, C. (2004). Rebels without a clause: Towards an institutional framework for dealing with plagiarism by students.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(3), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877042000241760
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of
Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
Quah, C. H., Stewart, N., & Lee, J. W. C. (2012). Attitudes of business students toward plagiarism. Journal of Academic
Ethics, 10(3), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9157-4
Rajah-Kanagasabai, C. J., & Roberts, L. D. (2015). Predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable
research practices in university students using an augmented theory of planned behavior. Frontiers in Psychology,
6, 1–11. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg2015.00535/full
MEASURING STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD PLAGIARISM 15

Riemenschneider, C. K., Leonard, L. N., & Manly, T. S. (2011). Students’ ethical decision-making in an information
technology context: A theory of planned behavior approach. Journal of Information Systems Education, 22(3), 203.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/jise/vol22/iss3/3/
Satyanarayana, K. (2010). Plagiarism: A scourge afflicting the Indian science. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 131(3),
373–377. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20418548/
Shirazi, B., Jafarey, A. M., & Moazam, F. (2010). Plagiarism and the medical fraternity: A study of knowledge and
attitudes. JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 60(4), 269. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
20419968/
Singh, D. (2018). UGC drafted strict regulations on plagiarism by teachers, students. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.
in/education-today/news/story/ugc-drafted-strict-regulations-on-plagiarism-by-teachers-students-1203761-
2018-04–03
Smith, M., Ghazali, N., & Minhad, S. F. N. (2007). Attitudes towards plagiarism among undergraduate accounting
students: Malaysian evidence. Asian Review of Accounting, 15(2), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13217340710823350
Sohrabi, Z., Ghasemzadeh, M., & Salehi, L. (2018). Psychometric analysis scale of attitude toward plagiarism based on the theory of
planned behavior in the students of Iran University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Medical Education, 10(28), 62–76. https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/325486787_Psychometric_Analysis_Scale_of_Attitude_toward_Plagiarism_Based_on_
the_Theory_of_Planned_Behavior_in_the_Students_of_Iran_University_of_Medical_Sciences
Song-Turner, H. (2008). Plagiarism: academic dishonesty or ‘blind spot’ of multicultural education? Australian
University Review, 50(20), 39–51. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ824687
Stephens, J. M., Young, M. F., & Calabrese, T. (2007). Does moral judgment go offline when students are online?
A comparative analysis of undergraduates’ beliefs and behaviors related to conventional and digital cheating. Ethics &
Behavior, 17(3), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420701519197
Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2009). Using the theory of planned behavior and cheating justifications to
predict academic misconduct. Career Development International, 14(3), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13620430910966415
Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2010). Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the
theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01973530903539895
Stone, T. H., Kisamore, J., & Jawahar, I. M. (2007). Predicting academic dishonesty: Theory of planned behavior and
personality. ASAC, 28(10). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.390.302
Uzun, A. M., & Kilis, S. (2020). Investigating antecedents of plagiarism using extended theory of planned behavior.
Computers & Education, 144, 103700. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
abs/pii/S0360131519302532
Vehviläinen, S., Löfström, E., & Nevgi, A. (2018). Dealing with plagiarism in the academic community: Emotional
engagement and moral distress. Higher Education, 75(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0112-6
Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education,
39(3), 235–274. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018724900565
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for
best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
Zastrow, C. H. (1970). Cheating among college graduate students. The Journal of Educational Research, 64(4), 157–160.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1970.10884124