How Students Assess and Sanction Hypothetical Plagiarism Cases
A Vignette Study Approach
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6432070 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jonas M Geweke (0000-0001-5621-4217, University of Zurich, corresponding author), Patrik Manzoni (0000-0002-7607-6445), Christian Schwarzenegger (0000-0003-1118-9948, University of Zurich), Gian Ege (0000-0002-6206-5737, University of Zurich) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 2693-2718 |
| Publication date | 2025-08-29 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Academic Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1570-1727 • E-ISSN: 1572-8544 |
| Publisher | Springer Science+Business Media (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s10805-025-09673-5 |
| OpenAlex | W4413821481 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 53 |
The digitalization of higher education has heightened the urgency for universities to address and penalize instances of plagiarism effectively. Previous studies have often relied on surveys to assess students’ attitudes towards plagiarism. However, questionnaires may suffer from social desirability bias and need to oversimplify the complex, context-dependent nature of plagiarism. This study employs a vignette study approach to examine how 2,043 students at a Swiss university assess and sanction hypothetical plagiarism scenarios. We use multilevel regression models and find that personal morality, punitive attitudes, the use of electronic resources, and age are associated with more severe assessments of plagiarism. In contrast, negative peer influence, lack of self-control, and prior engagement in plagiarism negatively affect students’ assessments of the seriousness of plagiarism cases. We find that moral and punitive attitudes, the frequent use of electronic resources, and being male is associated with preferring harsher penalties. Comparisons with academic staff responses ( N = 766) indicate that although staff take a slightly stricter stance on severity assessments and sanction choices, their overall evaluation pattern remains similar. By examining the factors that shape students’ and staff’s assessments of hypothetical plagiarism cases and their choices of sanctions, our study aims to help universities develop effective antiplagiarism policies that will be perceived as fair and proportionate by both students and academic staff
Academic Dishonesty · Academic integrity · Cheating · Mathematics education · Medical education · Vignette · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Deception detection and forensic psychology · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology
Attitudes and Opinions
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Factors Associated With Cheating Among College Students
College Student Cheating
Investigating antecedents of plagiarism using extended theory of planned behavior
Improving Survey Methods
Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice
How Important are High Response Rates for College Surveys
Experimental Vignette Studies in Survey Research
A General Theory of Crime
Internet plagiarism in higher education
‘Not necessarily a bad thing …’
Perceptions of and Attitudes toward Plagiarism and Factors Contributing to Plagiarism
Morality, Rationality and Academic Dishonesty
Self-efficacy and Self-control Mediate the Relationship Between Negative Emotions and Attitudes Toward Plagiarism
Self-Control, Injunctive Norms, and Descriptive Norms Predict Engagement in Plagiarism in a Theory of Planned Behavior Model
Predicting Students’ Intention to Plagiarize
Testing the Predictors of College Students’ Attitudes Toward Plagiarism
Gender Differences in Cheating Attitudes and Classroom Cheating Behavior
Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior
Examining the Utility of an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) on Academic Dishonesty among Undergraduates
Mindset Matters More than You Think
Predictors of Academic Dishonesty at University Level
Who supports whom? Citizens’ support for affirmative action policies in recruitment processes towards four underrepresented groups
Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment
Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation
Techniques of Neutralization
Social Change and Crime Rate Trends
Why Should Women Get Less? Evidence on the Gender Pay Gap from Multifactorial Survey Experiments
Undergraduate cheating
Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment
The Vignette Technique in Survey Research
Shame, Embarrassment, and Formal Sanction Threats
The Influence of Situational Ethics on Cheating Among College Students
Deserving and Undeserving Welfare Claimants in Britain and the Netherlands
Learning to cheat
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |