See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317629238

A Systematic Review Into the Psychological Causes and Correlates

of Plagiarism

Article  in  Ethics & Behavior · June 2017

DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2017.1341837

CITATION READS

1 67

3 authors, including:

Simon A. Moss Barbara White

Charles Darwin University Charles Darwin University
85 PUBLICATIONS   1,457 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Filial Therapy for adopted children in Australia View project

Retrofitting University Learning Spaces View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simon A. Moss on 05 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

HEBH#1341837, VOL 00, ISS 00

A Systematic Review Into the Psychological Causes and

Correlates of Plagiarism

Simon A. Moss, Barbara White, and Jim Lee

QUERY SHEET
This page lists questions we have about your paper. The numbers displayed at left can be found
in the text of the paper for reference. In addition, please review your paper as a whole for
correctness.

Q1: Au: Please provide reference for citation [Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1996].
Q2: Au: Please provide reference for citation [March et al., 1997].
Q3: Au: Please provide reference for citation [Marsden et al., 2015].
Q4: Au: Please cite [Landau et al., 2002] in text or delete reference.
Q5: Au: Please cite [Marsh et al., 1997] in text or delete reference.
Q6: Au: Because patch-writing was defined earlier, the repeated definition is
removed here.
Q7: Au: Because these are printed works, the term “articles” is used.
Q8: Au: Certain references have an asterisk that precedes them. Should the nota-
tion “References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-
analysis.” be listed here?

TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTING

The table of contents for the journal will list your paper exactly as it appears below:

A Systematic Review Into the Psychological Causes and Correlates of Plagiarism

Simon A. Moss, Barbara White, and Jim Lee
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 00(00), 1–23
Copyright © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2017.1341837

A Systematic Review Into the Psychological Causes and

Correlates of Plagiarism
Simon A. Moss
School of Psychological and Clinical Sciences
Charles Darwin University 5

Barbara White
School of Engineering and Information Technology
Charles Darwin University

Jim Lee
School of Psychological and Clinical Sciences 10
Charles Darwin University

Interventions that are designed to stem plagiarism do not always override the motivation of
individuals to cheat and, therefore, may not diminish misconduct. To inform more effective
approaches, we conducted a systematic review to clarify the psychological causes of plagiarism.
This review of 83 empirical papers showed that a specific blend of circumstances may foster 15
plagiarism: an emphasis on competition and success rather than development and cooperation
coupled with impaired resilience, limited confidence, impulsive tendencies, and biased cognitions.
Fortunately, whenever students feel their life and studies align to their future aspirations, many of
these circumstances tend to dissipate.
Keywords: academic misconduct, personality, plagiarism, systematic review 20

INTRODUCTION

Many educators conceptualize plagiarism as a rampant scourge on modern society. In one study
of Spanish undergraduate students, 57% admitted they had plagiarized at their university (Puga,
2014). Similarly, in another survey of undergraduate students conducted by Stephens, Young,
and Calabrese (2007), more than 45% of the individuals conceded that they utilize both digital 25
sources and conventional sources to plagiarize; 4% and 18% of the sample utilized only digital
or only conventional sources to plagiarize, respectively; and only one third of students indicated
they had not plagiarized at all.

Correspondence should be addressed to Simon Moss Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Drive, Casuarina, NT 0810,
Australia. E-mail: Simon.Moss@cdu.edu.au
2 MOSS, WHITE, LEE

Even after students are taught to paraphrase, elevated levels of plagiarism still persist. For
example, in one study conducted by Roig (1999), students were instructed to paraphrase 30
paragraphs that are hard to understand. Despite these instructions, more than 50% of the
responses demonstrated plagiarism, defined as the reproduction of five or more consecutive
words from another source.
Many interventions have been instituted to limit plagiarism. For example, Buckley (2015)
advocated the use of LEGO in a playful, interactive environment to impart information about 35
authorship. Puga (2014) assigned students who had committed plagiarism to discussion forums
about the ethics of this behavior.
Yet, because of several reasons, the various interventions are not always as effective as
anticipated (Elander, Pittam, Lusher, Fox, & Payne, 2010). For example, measures that have
been shown to curtail plagiarism, including training on the importance of both academic integrity 40
and appropriate citation (Owens & White, 2013), do not diminish the motivation of individuals to
inflate their grades unfairly (Curtis, Gouldthorp, Thomas, O’Brien, & Correia, 2013); students may
thus outsource their assignments or consider other unethical avenues.
To redress this limitation, this article reports a systematic review into the psychological
causes of plagiarism. Insights from this article can be applied to prevent these causes. The 45
upshot of this review is that interventions that foster a sense of meaning and clarity in students
might curtail plagiarism more effectively than alternative programs.

Diverse Conceptualizations of Plagiarism

Interventions that are designed to diminish plagiarism sometimes presuppose that plagiarism can
be readily demarcated and defined. Yet when invited to define plagiarism, the answers of 50
individuals, including both students and educators, diverge appreciably from one another
(Roig, 1997) and from the policies of their universities (Yeo, 2007).
To illustrate, some individuals, including instructors, are uncertain as to whether authors who
recycle their previous works have committed plagiarism (Bennett, Behrendt, & Boothby, 2011).
Likewise, other individuals are uncertain as to whether patch-writing—in which the writer 55
extracts, arranges, and integrates phrases from other sources, without acknowledgment—should
be designated as plagiarism (Schwabl, Rossiter, & Abbott, 2013). Sometimes, this practice is
conceptualized as a craft—or artistic flair—rather than as a misdeed (Hayes & Introna, 2005).
Finally, individuals also vary on the degree of duplication from previous sources that
indicates plagiarism. Occasionally, assignments with more than 10% of the words extracted 60
from other sources, without suitable acknowledgment, are regarded as major offences. In other
instances, this percentage approaches 50% instead (Bermingham, Watson, & Jones, 2010). To
explore this variation systematically, Zhang and Xisaoyan (2012) surveyed journal editors to
ascertain the percentage of overlap between manuscripts and past works that is perceived as a
problem. On average, 9% overlap was regarded as minor plagiarism, 21% as moderate plagiar- 65
ism, and 38% as serious plagiarism.
The experiences of individuals can shape the definition of plagiarism they espouse. For
example, these definitions diverge markedly across cultures and countries (e.g., Song &
Cadman, 2013). To illustrate, in some Asian communities the words of authorities are sacrosanct
(Hayes & Introna, 2005). During exams, students must be able to recount these words as 70
accurately as possible. An amendment to the original source is deemed to be a distinct work
 CAUSES OF PLAGIARISM 3

altogether—different in meaning and credence. Individuals who adopt this perspective are thus
reluctant to paraphrase (Hayes & Introna, 2005).
Besides cultural experience, work experience can also shape the definition of plagiarism that
individuals adopt. As a testament to this premise, Borg (2009) maintained that no one definition 75
of plagiarism can apply to all disciplines or fields. Duplication of source code, for example, does
not always indicate plagiarism but may signify other desirable practices, such as attempts to
guarantee compatibility (F. Yang, Jiau, & Ssu, 2014).

Prevailing Conceptualizations of Plagiarism

Nevertheless, despite the pervasive role of culture and experience, some connotations of plagiarism 80
seem universal and entrenched during childhood. For example, from the age of 5, children prefer
individuals who sketched an original drawing to individuals who merely duplicated another drawing
(Olson & Shaw, 2011). Although justifying these preferences, the children often alluded to their
concerns with copying. Of interest, this tendency in children as young as 5 was observed in diverse
countries, such as China, Mexico, and the United States (F. Yang, Shaw, Garduno, & Olson, 2014). 85
Likewise, many adults, from a range of nations, also tend to conceptualize plagiarism as
immoral or inappropriate—partly because this behavior is both unfair and unhelpful, impeding
the capacity of individuals to learn (Barrett & Cox, 2005). To illustrate, Taiwanese postgraduate
students deemed plagiarism to be more immoral than falsification of data or even improper
authorship (S. C. Yang, 2012b). Likewise, in another study, 83% of Spanish students agreed they 90
would not like their work to be plagiarized by someone else (Puga, 2014).
Indeed, as Barrett and Cox (2005) showed, when a simple definition of plagiarism is utilized,
diverse people tend to agree on whether specific behaviors constitute plagiarism. Therefore, in
this article we utilize the definition these authors imparted to participants, namely, that plagiar-
ism entails “representing another person’s work as being your own (or using) another person’s 95
work without acknowledgement” (p. 112).

Limitations of Interventions Designed to Curb Plagiarism

To counteract plagiarism, educators have instituted a diversity of programs, procedures, and

policies (Owens & White, 2013). They might utilize software that gauges the similarity between
assignments and past works (Buckley & Cowap, 2013; Dahl, 2007; Rolfe, 2011) and implement 100
training programs (Barry, 2006; Schuetze, 2004) to enhance the capacity of students to para-
phrase and to cite sources (for a comprehensive review of interventions that were implemented
to address research misconduct, including plagiarism, see Marusic, Wager Utrobicic Rothstein,
& Sambunjak, 2016).
Often, these interventions are predicated on rational choice theories—the assumption that 105
students will enact behaviors that are expected to be most beneficial (Sattler, Graeff, & Willen,
2013; for other perspectives, see Kaposi & Dell, 2012). The theory of planned behavior
epitomizes this perspective (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, 2001). As this perspective assumes,
three beliefs shape the intentions to plagiarize: attitudes or the degree to which individuals
regard plagiarism as beneficial or favorable, subjective norms or the degree to which individuals 110
assume that plagiarism is approved by their community, and perceived behavioral control or the
degree to which individuals feel they can plagiarize successfully. In addition, this perspective
 4 MOSS, WHITE, LEE

assumes these intentions to plagiarize tend to determine the behavior of individuals. The
implication of this perspective is that interventions should be designed to impart disparaging
attitudes towards plagiarism, shift norms, and impede the capacity of individuals to plagiarize. 115
Despite the utility of this perspective, four complications challenge these rational choice
theories. First, interventions that convey disparaging attitudes toward plagiarism might be futile.
To illustrate, people tend to align their attitudes with their behavior, primarily to prevent
dissonance (Cooper, 2007; Festinger, 1957). Consequently, if individuals often plagiarize, they
will typically dismiss messages that derogate this behavior. 120
Indeed, students can readily challenge messages that denigrate plagiarism. After all, plagiar-
ism can be beneficial, and perhaps desirable, in some circumstances. For example, according to
Howard (1995, 2005), patch-writing reflects an expedient approach that limits understanding and
Q6 critical thought. Nevertheless, this approach, although a variant of plagiarism, can be concep-
tualized as a preliminary phase of learning, essential to the acquisition of skills (Ashworth, 125
Freewood, & Macdonald, 2003).
Second, several obstacles may impede the attempts of practitioners to shift the internalized
norms of individuals. To illustrate, when interventions are implemented to redress some pro-
blem, such as plagiarism, people are more likely to assume that this problem is rife (e.g.,
Greenberg & Barling, 1999). Unless plagiarism, for example, was widespread, organizations 130
would not invest resources into relevant interventions. As this reasoning implies, interventions
might thus underscore the prevalence of plagiarism, inadvertently increasing the incidence of
such misconduct.
Indeed, initiatives that augment the salience of norms may increase the incidence of plagiar-
ism. To illustrate, in some Asian communities, attempts to paraphrase work are presumed to 135
tarnish the writing, shift the meaning, and insult the author (e.g., Hayes & Introna, 2005).
Therefore, when cultural norms are primed, some Asian students will feel reluctant to para-
phrase, often manifesting as plagiarism.
Third, attempts to impede the capacity of individuals to plagiarize, and thus diminish
perceived behavioral control, could provoke a range of complications. To demonstrate, some 140
individuals conceptualize their misconduct, such as plagiarism, as an opportunity to redress the
injustices they endured (Hayes & Introna, 2005)—such as an unfair grade in the past. To
illustrate, students in some nations or universities perceive the institution as corrupted and,
therefore, feel an act of plagiarism can be defended on moral grounds (Hayes & Introna, 2005).
Initiatives that prevent or impede plagiarism, such as software that gauges the similarity between 145
assignments and past works, do not redress these grievances and thus might instead promote
other variants of misconduct, such as paid assignments, to compensate.
Fourth, interventions that curtail the intention to plagiarize might not significantly diminish
the incidence of plagiarism. In particular, since the seminal work of Brown and Murphy (1989),
many studies have shown that plagiarism—especially the plagiarism of ideas—is often inad- 150
vertent or even unconscious (e.g., Marsh & Landau, 1995; Perfect & Stark, 2008). When
individuals attempt either to recall one of their previous suggestions or to propose an original
solution, they frequently, but inadvertently, repeat the answer that someone else had conveyed
before (e.g., Marsh & Landau, 1995; Perfect & Stark, 2008). Therefore, the intention to refrain
from plagiarism might not always prevent this misconduct. 155
 CAUSES OF PLAGIARISM 5

The Present Review

To reiterate, four complications limit interventions that are predicated on rational choice theories.
In particular, explicit attempts to shape the attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control of
individuals can elicit resistance to change (Cooper, 2007), imply that plagiarism is rife (Greenberg
& Barling, 1999), or evoke other manifestations of misconduct (Hayes & Introna, 2005). 160
Furthermore, these attempts do not limit inadvertent or unconscious plagiarism—behaviors that
rational choice theories do not explain (Perfect & Stark, 2008).
To overcome this problem, practitioners should instead attempt to redress the psychological
causes of attitudes, norms, and perceptions of control that foster deliberate or unconscious
plagiarism. To illustrate, a fear of failure may reinforce positive attitudes toward plagiarism; if 165
this premise is correct, practitioners could introduce programs that address this fear of failure—
and thus shift attitudes toward plagiarism—without alluding to plagiarism explicitly. Hence, the
program would not be as likely to evoke resistance.
To achieve this goal, researchers need to clarify the psychological causes of these attitudes,
norms, and perceptions of control. Consequently, the aim of this systemic review was to 170
delineate the psychological states and traits that encourage both deliberate plagiarism and
unconscious plagiarism.

METHOD

The systemic review conformed to the PRISMA guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman,
Q7 & The PRISMA Group, 2009). To conduct this review, we first extracted relevant articles from 175
two databases: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, an EBSCOhost database, and
PsycINFO, an American Psychological Association database. These databases were considered
suitable, because the aim of this review was to uncover the psychological causes of plagiarism.
We also extracted articles from Education Research Complete, an EBSCOhost database. This
database was chosen because plagiarism is often discussed in the education literature. 180
Furthermore, this database includes more academic journals than other alternatives in this field.
Figure 1. presents the flow of information at each phase of the systematic review as
recommended by Moher et al. (2009). Specifically, when plagiarism was entered as the search
term—and the search was limited to peer-reviewed journals, written in English, with full text
available—235, 187, and 671 entries were uncovered from the three databases, respectively. 185
Once duplications were removed, 784 records remained.
To ascertain which entries align to the inclusion criteria, we then scrutinized the abstract and,
if necessary, the content of each article. Table 1 outlines the inclusion criteria. In essence, we
included quantitative empirical articles only when both plagiarism and at least one psychological
trait or state was measured. We included qualitative empirical articles only when participants 190
were asked to justify their beliefs or attitudes toward plagiarism or tendency to plagiarize. No
exclusion criteria were imposed. This procedure identified 83 studies that aligned to the
inclusion criteria. We then extracted the key relationship between plagiarism and the psycholo-
gical traits or states and integrated this information to generate a cohesive account. 195
6 MOSS, WHITE, LEE

FIGURE 1 Flow of information specifying the number of papers

included at each phase.

TABLE 1
Criteria Applied to Decide Which Articles to Include

Inclusion criteria

● For quantitative studies, the study included some measure of plagiarism, such as attitudes toward plagiarism or
frequency of plagiarism in the past—measured either subjectively or objectively
● For quantitative studies, the study included a quantitative measure of a psychological trait or state
● For quantitative studies, the study examined the relationship between this measure of plagiarism and a psychological
trait or state
● For qualitative studies, participants were prompted to describe the causes of plagiarism, such as to indicate why they
espouse favorable attitudes toward plagiarism or when they might plagiarize.

RESULTS

To characterize the circumstances that motivate plagiarism, some researchers have evoked a
rational choice theory. For example, Sattler et al. (2013) presupposed that plagiarism was
contingent upon the expected utility of this behavior, internalized social norms, and
 CAUSES OF PLAGIARISM 7

opportunities to plagiarize—analogous to attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control, as 200

defined in the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, 2001). The aim of this
systematic review was to uncover the psychological states and traits that may shape these
attitudes, norms, perceptions of control, and behaviors.

Attitudes

Many studies have explored the questions of whether, as well as why, students occasionally 205
espouse positive attitudes to plagiarism. Certainly, although many students regard plagiarism as
immoral and unethical (Sisti, 2007), this perception is not universal (Voiskounsky, 2009). For
example, some individuals feel that plagiarism is not immoral in taxing circumstances, such as
when family members are ill (Granitz & Loewy, 2007). Alternatively, some individuals do not
consider plagiarism as immoral if they had not been explicitly told this behavior is prohibited 210
(Granitz & Loewy, 2007).
In addition to moral considerations, students occasionally contend that plagiarism is efficient—a
legitimate means to conserve time (Sohrabi, Gholipour, & Mohammadesmaeili, 2011). That is,
plagiarism obviates the need to modify the words of authorities, mechanically and unnecessarily,
without extending the meaning of this work. 215
When individuals do not cherish the specific topic (Sisti, 2007), or value learning in general, they
are especially likely to express positive attitudes toward plagiarism (Jurdi, Hage, & Chow, 2012).
Presumably, in these circumstances, people feel the benefits of plagiarism, such as expediency
(Batane, 2010), offset the drawbacks of plagiarism, such as the knowledge and insight they acquire
(cf. Koul, Clariana, Jitgarun, & Songsriwittaya, 2009). 220
Many studies corroborate this premise. For example, when individuals feel a class is relevant to
their future, the incidence of plagiarism diminishes (Akbulut et al., 2008; Love & Simmons, 1998).
Likewise, when students feel inspired to learn—rather than attend classes only to attain some
qualification (Sohrabi et al., 2011) or to please their parents (Bennett, 2005)—they are not as likely
to plagiarize (Marsden, Carroll, & Neill, 2005). Indeed, if students are encouraged to extend their 225
capabilities, rather than to secure excellent grades, the incidence of plagiarism abates (Kauffman &
Young, 2015). Conversely, individuals who feel bored (Akbulut et al., 2008) or unmotivated
(Angell, 2006) are more inclined to plagiarize.

Norms

Two constellations of norms could affect the incidence of plagiarism: descriptive norms and 230
injunctive norms (for evidence on the significance of this distinction, see Schulz, Nolan,
Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007). Descriptive norms refer to the observed frequency
of some behavior. To illustrate, in one study Russian undergraduate science students reported the
belief that most of their friends plagiarize (Voiskounsky, 2009; for comparable findings in the
United States, see Megehee & Spake, 2008). Indeed, a sample of Iranian students maintained 235
that academics at their university are often accused of misconduct including plagiarism (Sohrabi
et al., 2011).
Because of these descriptive norms, students can often rationalize their plagiarism, proudly
reporting they plagiarize less often than other individuals such as peers (Hale, 1987). In addition,
these descriptive norms shape not only the behavior but also the attitudes of individuals toward 240
8 MOSS, WHITE, LEE

plagiarism. For example, as Jurdi et al. (2012) showed, individuals who frequently observed
peers cheat were more likely to accept plagiarism. Nevertheless, the reverse direction of
causality is possible: Individuals who accept plagiarism may project this attitude onto their
peers and, therefore, overestimate the prevalence of cheating.
Injunctive norms refer to the standards, principles, and regulations that members in their 245
community espouse. As some evidence implies, the injunctive norms of peers significantly
shape the behavior of students: In one study, Turkish university students conceded they had
plagiarized partly to impress friends, especially the opposite sex (Akbulut et al., 2008). Other
research indicates the norms of academic staff, rather than peers, are especially likely to affect
the attitudes and behaviors of individuals (Engler & Landau, 2011). Yet the injunctive norms of 250
teachers are not always apparent: According to some university students, teachers do not always
explicitly forbid plagiarism (Sisti, 2007). Students may sometimes interpret this silence as
implicit tolerance.

Perceived Behavioral Control

Many studies corroborate the notion that perceived behavioral control, or the extent to which 255
individuals feel they can plagiarize successfully, affects the incidence of plagiarism. During
interviews or focus groups, for example, students occasionally acknowledge they are more likely
to plagiarize whenever they feel their behavior cannot be detected (Bennett, 2005; G. K. Lau,
Yuen, & Park, 2013; Sisti, 2007).
According to past studies, this perceived capacity to plagiarize successfully primarily depends 260
on two determinants. The first determinant revolves around the policies and practices of
institutions: In some institutions, students assume that educators either do not detect plagiarism
effectively (Heckler, Rice, & Bryan, 2013; Voiskounsky, 2009) or do not penalize this behavior
harshly (Akbulut et al., 2008).
The second determinant revolves around the capabilities of students: Some students feel they 265
can circumvent the attempts of authorities to detect plagiarism (Granitz & Loewy, 2007),
perhaps because they are multilingual and thus can extract information from a language the
educators do not speak (Voiskounsky, 2009) or because they can utilize the internet effectively
(Akbulut et al., 2008).
According to the theory of planned behavior, in addition to the capacity of individuals to 270
plagiarize successfully, the capacity of individuals to complete assignments legitimately should
also affect the incidence of plagiarism. Many studies vindicate this assumption. For example,
individuals who feel inundated with work or other responsibilities, and thus feel too busy to
complete their assignment on time, are more inclined or likely to plagiarize (Love & Simmons,
1998; Sisti, 2007)—a circumstance that is exacerbated by procrastination (Roig & DeTommaso, 275
1995). Indeed, time pressure is often touted as the key impetus to plagiarize (Chireshe, 2014;
Comas-Forgas & Sureda-Negre, 2010). This tendency was even observed in students at a
teachers college (Eret & Ok, 2014)—the very individuals who might later need to detect and
to sanction plagiarism. In addition, students who are not certain of the expectations or instruc-
tions of teachers, and thus unsure how to write effectively, are also more inclined to plagiarize 280
(Sohrabi et al., 2011).
Arguably, perceived competence, either on the topic of their assignment (Yu-Chih, 2012) or
in academia generally (Marsden et al., 2005), is the main determinant of whether students feel
 CAUSES OF PLAGIARISM 9

they can complete assignments legitimately. Individuals who feel unconfident in their studies
(Marsden et al., 2005), unfamiliar with information technology (Underwood & Szabo, 2003), or 285
dissociated from university life in general (Bennett, 2005; Guo, 2011; Xin, 2011)—sometimes
because of impaired skills in the language (Gilmore, Strickland, Timmerman, Maher, & Feldon,
2010; Guo, 2011)—are more likely to plagiarize. Conversely individuals who are bestowed
higher grades are also not as likely to plagiarize (Bennett, 2005; Daly & Horgan, 2007; Roig &
DeTommaso, 1995; Skaar & Hammer, 2013). Plagiarism is especially rife whenever this limited 290
competence is combined with an elevated need to achieve high grades (Akbulut et al., 2008).
Finally, some research indicates the perceived behavioral control could amplify the effects of
positive attitudes toward plagiarism on behavior. For example, as Ogilvie and Stewart (2010)
showed, when individuals believed they could plagiarize successfully, called self-efficacy, the
perception that all the benefits of plagiarism outweigh the costs was especially likely to incite 295
this behavior.

Caveats on the Findings on Rational Choice Theories

Although many researchers have, either explicitly or implicitly, applied rational choice theories
to characterize the sources of plagiarism, one limitation challenges the legitimacy of a sizeable
portion of these studies. In many of these studies, the researchers asked participants to justify 300
their own plagiarism (e.g., Sisti, 2007; Voiskounsky, 2009). These justifications, however, might
not equate to the actual motives of these individuals to plagiarize. Indeed, as Roig and Caso
(2005) showed, individuals who plagiarize are more likely than peers to offer fraudulent excuses
to justify misconduct.
In other studies, researchers asked participants to indicate whether they have plagiarized in 305
the past. As Risquez, O’Dwyer, and Ledwith (2013) showed, these subjective reports are not
highly associated with objective measures of plagiarism.
Experimental studies, designed to circumvent these limitations, have sometimes but not
always confirmed the tenets of rational choice theories. For example, in one study, manipulations
of the severity and likelihood of sanctions—a manipulation that should have affected injunctive 310
norms and perceived behavioral control—did not affect the intent to plagiarize (Ogilvie &
Stewart, 2010).

Cultural Determinants of Deliberate Plagiarism

Further insights into rational choice theories emanate from studies that have explored the effect
of culture and socioeconomic status on plagiarism. First, the association between culture and 315
plagiarism is complex. Educators sometimes assume that plagiarism is more common in Asian
nations. Yet, as Wheeler (2014) showed, in Japan students receive extensive instruction about
plagiarism and express unfavorable attitudes towards plagiarism. Indeed, as Maxwell, Curtis,
and Vardanega (2006) showed, in Australia local students were more likely than international
students from Asia to acknowledge they had plagiarized before. In addition, the degree to which 320
individuals rated plagiarism as severe did not differ significantly between local and international
students (Maxwell, Curtis, & Vardanega, 2008). Nevertheless, the degree to which overseas
students feel acculturated, rather than ethnicity per se, also affects levels of plagiarism (Martin,
Rao, & Sloan, 2011).
10 MOSS, WHITE, LEE

Socioeconomic status is inversely associated with levels of plagiarism (W. F. Lau & Yuen, 2014). 325
For example, medical students are more likely to regard plagiarism as wrong, and concede they
plagiarized, if they had attended a private rather than public college (Ghias, Lakho, Asim, Azam, &
Saeed, 2014). Likewise, the articles of authors who live in nations with a low, compared to a high,
average income are more likely to be retracted because of plagiarism (Stretton et al., 2012).
Thus, socioeconomic status coincides with harsh attitudes toward plagiarism and thus a 330
disinclination to plagiarize. This observation is consistent with social dominance theory
(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999)—the notion that individuals who occupy the upper echelons of society
like to maintain the existing hierarchies and therefore tend to favor the status quo.
Yet the association between education and plagiarism is more complex. Master’s students are
more likely to concede and tolerate academic dishonesty, including plagiarism, than doctoral 335
students (S. C. Yang, 2012a). However, at the undergraduate level, attitudes toward academic
dishonesty, including plagiarism, have been shown to become more lenient (Hu & Lei, 2015) or
more harsh (Szabo & Underwood, 2004) across the year levels. Ballantine and Larres (2012)
uncovered findings that might reconcile this contradiction, showing that 2nd-year accounting
students were more concerned their writing might be inadequate than 1st-year or 3rd-year 340
accounting students (Ballantine & Larres, 2012), potentially fostering the urge to plagiarize.

Personality

Many of the purported causes of plagiarism, such as limited confidence, might actually be
consequences of plagiarism. That is, if students often plagiarize, their knowledge, and hence
their confidence, might subside. In contrast, personality is often regarded as stable over time 345
(Costa & McRae, 1992). Therefore, researchers tend to assume that personality traits that
correlate with plagiarism are causes rather than consequences.
Research on the association between personality and plagiarism has unearthed three key
themes. First, as Williams, Nathanson, and Paulhus (2010) showed, individuals who report
tendencies that coincide with the dark triad of personality disorders—Machiavellianism, narcis- 350
sism, and psychopathy—are more likely to plagiarize. Unrestrained achievement mediates these
associations. Accordingly, some personality traits evoke an unmitigated obsession with achieve-
ment, often to the detriment of authenticity or relationships, fostering the inclination to
plagiarize.
Second, and in contrast to traits that orient attention to achievement instead of relationships, 355
personality characteristics that orient attention to moral virtues diminish the incidence of plagiar-
ism. For example, individuals who prioritize moral considerations (G. K. Lau et al., 2013), strive
to observe their moral principles (Lewis & Bu, 2011), and demonstrate advanced moral reasoning
(Szabo & Underwood, 2004) are not as inclined to plagiarize. Likewise, individuals who are
especially concerned about justice (Kuntz & Butler, 2014) and believe that everyone should 360
observe societal regulations steadfastly (Feather, 1996) also express harsh attitudes toward plagiar-
ism. These attitudes are especially harsh when the perpetrators are members of a rival community
(Eisinger, 2000).
Third, personality traits that coincide with an elevated capacity in people to inhibit tempta-
tions also diminish the incidence of plagiarism. For example, agreeableness, conscientiousness, 365
and emotional stability—coinciding with the ability of individuals to regulate interpersonal
behavior, achievement behavior, and emotions—decrease the likelihood of plagiarism (Karim,
 CAUSES OF PLAGIARISM 11

Zamzuri, & Nor, 2009; see also Sohrabi et al., 2011). As Williams et al. (2010) showed, if
individuals report elevated levels of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, they can inhibit
immoral behaviors more effectively, diminishing the incidence of plagiarism. In contrast, 370
individuals who like to withhold effort are more inclined to plagiarize (Batane, 2010).

The Setting

In addition to the qualities of individuals, the characteristics of settings can also affect the
incidence of plagiarism. When the culture or atmosphere is competitive, the incidence of
plagiarism increases, especially in people who feel they might not perform adequately 375
(Schwieren & Weichselbaumer, 2010). Furthermore, individuals who use cognitive enhancers
are also more likely to plagiarize (Dubljević Sattler & Racine, 2014); arguably, the use of these
supplements may often imply the setting is competitive and, therefore, could foster plagiarism.
Although a competitive atmosphere might encourage plagiarism, a collaborative environment
can also facilitate this behavior. As Hodgkinson (2006) showed, in a survey of British students, 380
collaboration at university increases the tendency of individuals to plagiarize one another.
One complication tempers the conclusions that can be derived from this literature. Only a few
studies have systematically explored the degree to which these determinants vary across the
diverse variants of plagiarism. To illustrate, as Lester and Diekhoff (2002) showed, some of the
antecedents to online plagiarism overlap with the antecedents to conventional plagiarism. In 385
contrast, as Selwyn (2008) demonstrated, the association between field of study and plagiarism
depends on whether a few sentences, paragraphs, pages, or entire assignments were copied.

Inadvertent or Unconscious Plagiarism

Researchers who have explored the determinants of plagiarism, especially proponents of rational
choice theories, often presuppose that perpetrators know they have lifted the material from 390
another source without acknowledgment—even if these perpetrators are not aware this behavior
constitutes plagiarism (Hayes & Introna, 2005). Yet, inspired by the work of Brown and Murphy
(1989), more than 40 studies, across more than 20 articles, have shown that plagiarism may be
inadvertent or unconscious, at least occasionally. That is, in many instances students may not
realize they have utilized material from another source. 395
In the typical paradigm, two or more participants are instructed to offer as many answers to a
question, such as to name a fruit or flower, in sequence. Next, after an intervening task or delay,
participants are asked to recall their own solutions only and then to present additional answers—
answers not offered previously. On roughly 10% of occasions, when individuals attempt to recall
their own solutions or novel solutions, they unwittingly repeat the answers that another partici- 400
pant offered (e.g., Brown & Halliday, 1991; Brown & Murphy, 1989; Stark, Perfect, &
Newstead, 2005). In essence, they plagiarize the responses of other participants unconsciously,
analogous to cryptomnesia—the belief that a plagiarized suggestion is actually novel. This
inadvertent plagiarism has been observed in both younger and older adults, although whether
this tendency varies with age remains contentious (McCabe, Smith, & Parks, 2007; Perfect, 405
Defeldre, Elliman, & Dehon, 2011).
Many variants of this paradigm have been implemented. For example, in a few studies
participants merely alternated with a computer or other individuals online (Gingerich &
 12 MOSS, WHITE, LEE

Dodson, 2013). Furthermore, in other instances, while presenting answers, the sequence in
which participants alternate is allocated randomly instead of systematically (Linna & Gülgöz, 410
1994). In addition, the distraction period also varies across studies (Marsh & Bower, 1993).
Regardless of these circumstances, at least some inadvertent plagiarism is observed.
Likewise, a variety of tasks have been used to study inadvertent or unconscious plagiarism.
For example, participants may be instructed to suggest alternative uses of common objects (Stark
& Perfect, 2006, 2007, 2008), to locate words from matrices of letters (Marsh & Bower, 1993; 415
Marsh & Landau, 1995; Weidler, Multhaup, & Faust, 2012), to draw creative space creatures
Q1 (Marsh, Landau, & Hicks, 1996), or to solve problems such as how to curb the road toll (Bink,
Marsh, Hicks, & Howard, 1999). As research has shown, these tasks all promote inadvertent
plagiarism.
In addition, inadvertent or unconscious plagiarism has been observed outside the confines of 420
a laboratory. In one study, conducted by Defeldre (2005), participants first read about a truthful
account of inadvertent plagiarism, revolving around a time that Freud proposed a theory he
actually heard, but had forgotten, years earlier. Next, participants were prompted to remember
times in which they had also plagiarized a suggestion inadvertently—and, therefore, posed a
solution before later discovering they had read or heard this idea previously. Many participants 425
could recount occasions in which they plagiarized a solution or suggestion inadvertently.
A variety of theories have been proposed to predict the circumstances that magnify or nullify
inadvertent or unconscious plagiarism. The most enduring account revolves around source
monitoring. To illustrate, according to Stark et al. (2005), when distracted or unmotivated,
individuals cannot readily monitor the source of solutions and instead utilize a variety of cues. 430
For example, if individuals offer a solution, the memory of this suggestion should include cues
they associate with generation, such as the sequence of thoughts that inspired the solution. In
contrast, if individuals hear a solution, the memory of this suggestion will mainly include
perceptual cues instead, such as the vocal characteristics of a speaker. Sometimes, however,
these cues are misleading. Consequently, individuals might erroneously assume they had 435
generated a solution. To illustrate, if the memories of solutions that other individuals offered
are devoid of these perceptual cues, participants are more inclined to assume they had generated
these answers (Brédart, Lampinen, & Defeldre, 2003).
Stark et al. (2005), as well as Stark and Perfect (2006, 2007, 2008), uncovered some
compelling evidence of this self-monitoring account. In these studies, after each solution some 440
participants were instructed to generate or consider three avenues to improve each suggestion.
Consequently, memories of these solutions will entail cues that people associate with generation.
Participants should thus feel they generated solutions that, actually, other individuals posed. In
contrast, after each solution other participants were instructed to imagine each suggestion
vividly. Memories of these solutions will entail cues that people do not associate with genera- 445
tion. In this instance, participants should not feel they generated solutions that, actually, other
individuals posed. Past research vindicated these predictions (for evidence that refutes an
alternative account—source confusion—see Perfect, Field, & Jones, 2009).
This account can accommodate many other findings as well. For example, when participants must
Q2 generate solutions rapidly (March et al., 1997), while distracted by another task (Dow, 2015; Macrae, 450
Bodenhausen, & Calvini, 1999)—conditions that preclude source-monitoring—inadvertent plagiar-
ism escalates. Conversely, when participants feel sad (Gingerich & Dodson, 2013) or are told the
 CAUSES OF PLAGIARISM 13

researchers can readily determine who offered each solution, and thus feel motivated to monitor the
source of solutions more carefully, inadvertent plagiarism subsides (Weidler et al., 2012).
Some research, however, indicates source monitoring is more germane to some, but not all, 455
facets of inadvertent or unconscious plagiarism (e.g., Perfect et al., 2009). To illustrate, when the
participants are distracted or similar to each other, source monitoring is impaired (Landau &
Marsh, 1997; Macrae et al., 1999). This impairment limits the capacity of participants to
differentiate the solutions they offered from the solutions the other participants offered pre-
viously—but not the capacity of participants to generate novel solutions that nobody suggested 460
before (Landau & Marsh, 1997; Macrae et al., 1999).
Several alternative accounts of inadvertent or unconscious plagiarism have been proposed but
then rejected. For example, individuals tend to associate positive features with themselves.
Consequently, they may assume they must have suggested the more useful solutions. Contrary
to this premise, Perfect et al. (2009) showed that individuals are no more likely to assume they 465
had generated solutions posed by experts than solutions posed by novices.
Nevertheless, Tenpenny, Keriazakos, Lew, and Phelan (1998) challenged the notion that
inadvertent or unconscious plagiarism is rife. In one of their studies, similar to previous research
in this field, participants were instructed to generate exemplars of categories, such as flowers. In
one condition, participants were instructed to offer fictitious answers, such as smonger. 470
Consequently, the answers were genuinely novel rather than original only in this setting.
When the answers were genuinely novel, inadvertent plagiarism vanished.

DISCUSSION

Universities and other institutions often draft policies, convene workshops, and implement other
interventions to diminish the incidence of academic misconduct including plagiarism. Yet 475
several impediments could limit the utility of these initiatives. For example, these interventions
might not override the motivations that elicit plagiarism—and these motivations could manifest
as other variants of misconduct, such as collusion. Indeed, these interventions imply that
plagiarism might be rife, and the assumption that plagiarism is widespread tends to promote
this behavior (cf. Hayes & Introna, 2005). Furthermore, these initiatives might not counter 480
inadvertent plagiarism (Stark et al., 2005).
To accommodate these complexities, practitioners need to appreciate, and then to mitigate,
the causes of plagiarism—especially causes that elicit other problems as well. This review
uncovered many psychological causes of plagiarism. Yet most, if not all, these causes seem to
belong to one of five main constellations. 485
The first cause revolves around an emphasis on success and performance instead of a passion
or motivation to learn and develop (e.g., Jurdi et al., 2012; Kauffman & Young, 2015; Marsden
Q3 et al., 2015; Sohrabi et al., 2011). The second, and related, cause is an orientation toward
competition instead of cooperation: When ambition obscures morality (e.g., G. K. Lau et al.,
2013; Szabo & Underwood, 2004; Williams et al., 2010), and the setting is competitive 490
(Schwieren & Weichselbaumer, 2010), even to the extent that rivals do not cite each other
(Lewis, 2013), plagiarism surges. The third determinant concerns limited confidence or resi-
lience: If people feel unable to achieve their grades (Akbulut et al., 2008; Bennett, 2005; Guo,
2011; Marsden et al., 2005) or to regulate their anxiety (Karim et al., 2009), plagiarism mounts.
14 MOSS, WHITE, LEE

The fourth cause revolves around the inability to control impulses, urges, and temptations 495
(Williams et al., 2010). Finally, in contrast to impaired confidence, individuals with excessive
but unwarranted confidence might also be more inclined to plagiarize: These individuals may
overestimate either the extent to which they deserve a high grade or their capacity to plagiarize
successfully (cf. Bennett, 2005; G. K. Lau et al., 2013; Sisti, 2007).
Table 2 collates the studies that align to these five constellations of causes or correlates. For 500
the quantitative studies, only significant relationships were catalogued in this table, because
nonsignificant associations might indicate inadequate statistical power. None of the significant
associations contradicted these five constellations.
Socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1995), when combined with the meaning main- 505
tenance model (Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006; Van Tongeren & Green, 2010), offers some insight
into how practitioners can address these five causes simultaneously. To illustrate, in some
circumstances individuals feel their studies, work, and activities are vital to their future aspirations.
They feel their identity—their existing values, motives, preferences, and interests—will endure
indefinitely (Pruzan & Isaacowitz, 2006). They perceive their identity in the future as an extension 510
of their identity now rather than as a different entity altogether (Bartels & Rips, 2010). Therefore,
consistent with extensive research (e.g., Bartels & Rips, 2010; Bartels & Urminsky, 2011), and in
line with socioemotional selectivity theory (Pruzan & Isaacowitz, 2006), in this state, people are
more willing to sacrifice their immediate pleasure to accrue knowledge, skills, and other resources
that could benefit this future identity. They become more inspired to learn and develop, nullifying 515
the first cause of plagiarism.
This emphasis on learning and development reverses some other causes of plagiarism. When
individuals are inspired to develop their capabilities, they perceive other people as sources of
insight and not as rivals to outperform. Consequently, as research confirms, they become more
cooperative and generous, redressing the second cause of plagiarism (Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012). 520
Likewise, if people are inspired to develop, they tend to conceptualize stressful events as
challenges or opportunities and not as threats or problems (Stout & Dasgupta, 2013). Once
individuals adopt this perspective, levels of cortisol, blood pressure, and thus anxiety, are not as
likely to rise in response to stress (Tomaka, Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993), manifesting as
resilience and tempering the third cause of plagiarism. 525
Furthermore, whenever people feel their identity will endure, they tend to prioritize future
benefits over immediate pleasure (Bartels & Rips, 2010; Bartels & Urminsky, 2011). They will,
therefore, resist behaviors that elicit pleasure now but regret later, such as most temptations,
diminishing impulsivity and overriding the fourth cause of plagiarism
Finally, consistent with the meaning maintenance model, when individuals feel their studies, 530
work, and activities align to their goals in the future—analogous to a sense of meaning and
coherence in their lives—they do not feel the need to inflate their power, agency, and capabilities
(Van Tongeren & Green, 2010). They will not, for example, overestimate their capacity to
plagiarize successfully.
In short, if individuals are granted opportunities first to clarify their aspirations of the future— 535
and then to understand how their studies, work, or life could facilitate the achievement of these
goals—many causes of plagiarism will tend to subside. Interventions that foster a sense of
meaning, empowerment, and clarity in students might be more effective than programs that are
specifically designed to curtail plagiarism.
 TABLE 2
Summary of Studies That Corroborate the Five Constellations of Causes

Determinants of Plagiarism Authors Samplea Study Designb Measure of Plagiarismc

An orientation toward success and performance instead of learning and development

Do not value academia Bennett, 2005 249 students Survey Self-report
Surface learning Jurdi et al., 2012 321 students Survey Attitudes
Limited learning orientation Kauffman & Young, 2015 Students Experiment Behavior
Limited learning orientation Marsden et al., 2015 954 students Survey Self-report
Prioritize expedience Sohrabi et al., 2011 180 Iranian students Survey Self-report
Do not value academia Xin 381 students Survey Self-report
An emphasis on competition instead of morality
The belief that rules should be followed Feather, 1996 220 students Survey Attitudes
Sensitive to justice Kuntz & Butler, 2014 324 students Survey Attitudes
Limited moral intensity Lau et al., 2013 436 Hong Kong high schoolers Survey and task Behavior
Willing to breach moral principles Lewis & Bu, 2011 483 students Survey Self-report
Social norms Megehee & Spake, 2008 238 students Survey Self-report
Impaired moral reasoning Szabo & Underwood, 2004 291 students Survey Self-report
Psychopathy and narcissism Williams et al., 2010 Students Survey and task Behavior
Competition for resources Schwieren & Weichselbaumer, 2010) General population Experiment Attitudes
Competition against rivals Lewis, 2013 8 journalists Interviews NA
Limited self-efficacy and resilience
Concern about grades Akbulut et al., 2008 349 Turkish students Survey Self-report
Limited academic performance Bennett, 2005 249 students Survey Self-report
Time pressure & inadequate material Chireshe, 2014 77 students Open-ended survey NA
Time pressure Comas-Forgas & Sureda-Negre, 2010 727 students Survey NA
Assignment not in native language Gilmore et al., 2010 113 postgrad students Survey and task Behavior
Assignment not in native language Guo, 2011 381 students Survey Self-report
Concerned about grade and time pressure Love & Simmons, 1998 Interviews NA
Low academic self-efficacy Marsden et al., 2005 954 students Survey Self-report
Emotional instability Karim et al., 2009 252 Malaysian students Survey Self-report
Low grades Roig & DeTommaso, 1995 115 students Survey Self-report
Low grades Skaar & Hammer, 2013 67 students Survey Self-report
Task difficulty Yu-Chih, 2012 97 Taiwanese students Task Behavior

(Continued )

15
16
TABLE 2 (Continued)

Determinants of Plagiarism Authors Samplea Study Designb Measure of Plagiarismc

An impaired capacity to resist impulses, urges, and temptation

Diminished effort Batane, 2010 272 students Open-ended survey NA
Limited conscientiousness Williams et al., 2010 Students Survey and task Behavior
Limited agreeableness and conscientiousness Karim et al., 2009 252 Malaysian students Survey Self-report
Excessive confidence
Low perceived risk of detection Bennett, 2005 249 students Survey Self-report
Unaware that plagiarism can be detected Heckler et al., 2013 997 students Survey and task Behavior
Low perceived risk of detection Lau et al., 2013 436 Hong Kong high schoolers Survey and task Behavior
Perceived capacity to plagiarize Ogilvie & Stewart, 2010 536 students Survey and task Intentions
Low perceived risk of detection Sisti, 2007 160 high school students Survey Self-report
a
Participants were undergraduate students, from Western nations, unless specified otherwise. bThe studies comprised experimental designs—in which participants
were randomly assigned to conditions—surveys—in which participants completed rating scales unless specified otherwise—tasks—in which individuals completed
activities such as paraphrasing—or interviews. For interviews, only determinants of plagiarism that more than 40% of participants identified were included in this table.
c
To gauge plagiarism, researchers assessed behavior on particular tasks or on previous activities, administered self-report measures, gauged attitudes toward plagiarism, or
measured intentions to plagiarize in the future.
 CAUSES OF PLAGIARISM 17

Limitations 540

Before these initiatives are implemented, several limitations should be resolved. First, research-
ers in this field have seldom conducted randomized control trials. Therefore, some of these
purported causes of plagiarism, such as limited resilience, might actually be consequences of
plagiarism.
Second, the systematic review was limited to research on plagiarism. Future reviews could 545
explore the psychological determinants of academic misconduct more broadly. Without these
insights, universities could introduce programs and initiatives that limit plagiarism but exacer-
bate other variants of misconduct.
Third, this review identified only the psychological states and traits that affect the likelihood
of plagiarism. Future research and reviews could explore systemic causes of such misconduct— 550
such as whether inequality of income (cf. Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009) or other features of
institutions, organizations, states, and nations—determine the incidence of plagiarism.
Fourth, these interventions are predicated on the assumption that plagiarism is indeed always
detrimental. Nevertheless, no experimental, longitudinal study has examined whether students
who plagiarize at one time are likely to experience or to engender problems in the future. Some 555
individuals believe that variants of plagiarism, such as patch-writing, are helpful until the writer
has mastered the topic (Ashworth et al., 2003). Other individuals, especially some members of
Asian communities, deem plagiarism to be respectful, because the precise words of esteemed
authors are sacrosanct (Hayes & Introna, 2005). In some professions, such as journalism,
plagiarism is widespread because individuals do not want to cite, and thus endorse, their rivals 560
(Lewis, 2013).
However, some research has explored the degree to which plagiarism does predict a sequence
of other problems. For example, research indicates that plagiarism does indeed seem to predict
other rule violations (Lovett-Hooper, Komarraju, Weston, & Dollinger, 2007), breaches of
workplace integrity (Martin, Rao, & Sloan, 2009), and irresponsible behavior (Martin et al., 565
2009) in the future. Furthermore, plagiarism may predict lower grades and limited completion
(Culwin, 2006). None of these studies were random controlled experiments, however, and hence
the direction of causation is uncertain. Whether plagiarism is a precursor to more serious
misconduct, or is merely embedded in an array of undesirable tendencies, has not been explored.

ORCID 570

Simon A. Moss http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6172-0496

REFERENCES

Q8 Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2001). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes.
European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 1–33. 575
*Akbulut, Y., Şendağ, S., Birinci, G., Kiliçer, K., Şahin, M. C., & Odabaşi, H. F. (2008). Exploring the types and reasons
of internet-triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate students: Development of Internet-Triggered
18 MOSS, WHITE, LEE

Academmic Dishonesty Scale (ITADS). Computers & Education, 51(1), 463–473. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2007.06.003
*Angell, L. R. (2006). The relationship of impulsiveness, personal efficacy, and academic motivation to college cheating. 580
College Student Journal, 40(1), 118–131.
Ashworth, P., Freewood, M., & Macdonald, R. (2003). The student lifeworld and the meanings of plagiarism. Journal of
Phenomenological Psychology, 34(2), 257–277. doi:10.1163/156916203322847164
*Ballantine, J., & Larres, P. M. (2012). Perceptions of authorial identity in academic writing among undergraduate
accounting students: Implications for unintentional plagiarism. Accounting Education, 21(3), 289–306. doi:10.1080/ 585
09639284.2011.650452
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. doi:10.1080/0260293042000264226
Barry, E. S. (2006). Can paraphrasing practice help students define plagiarism? College Student Journal, 40(2), 377–384.
Bartels, D. M., & Rips, L. J. (2010). Psychological connectedness and intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental 590
Psychology-General, 139, 49–69. doi:10.1037/a0018062
Bartels, D. M., & Urminsky, O. (2011). On intertemporal selfishness: How the perceived instability of identity underlies
impatient consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 182–198. doi:10.1086/658339
*Batane, T. (2010). Turning to turnitin to fight plagiarism among university students. Journal of Educational Technology
& Society, 13(2), 1–12. 595
Bennett, K. K., Behrendt, L. S., & Boothby, J. L. (2011). Instructor perceptions of plagiarism: Are we finding common
ground? Teaching of Psychology, 38(1), 29–35. doi:10.1177/0098628310390851
*Bennett, R. (2005). Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post-1992 university. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 30(2), 137–162. doi:10.1080/0260293042000264244
Bermingham, V., Watson, S., & Jones, M. (2010). Plagiarism in UK law schools: Is there a postcode lottery? Assessment 600
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/02602930802471801
*Bink, M. L., Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Howard, J. D. (1999). The credibility of a source influences the rate of
unconscious plagiarism. Memory, 7(3), 293–308. doi:10.1080/096582199387931
Borg, E. (2009). Local plagiarisms. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 415–426. doi:10.1080/
02602930802075115 605
*Brédart, S., Lampinen, J. M., & Defeldre, A. (2003). Phenomenal characteristics of cryptomnesia. Memory, 11(1), 1–11.
doi:10.1080/741938174
*Brown, A. S., & Halliday, H. E. (1991). Cryptomnesia and source memory difficulties. The American Journal of
Psychology, 104(4), 475–490. doi:10.2307/1422937\
*Brown, A. S., & Murphy, D. R. (1989). Cryptomnesia: Delineating inadvertent plagiarism. Journal of Experimental 610
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 432–442. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.3.432
Buckley, C. (2015). Conceptualising plagiarism: Using lego to construct students’ understanding of authorship and
citation. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(3), 352–358. doi:10.1080/13562517.2015.1016418
Buckley, E., & Cowap, L. (2013). An evaluation of the use of Turnitin for electronic submission and marking and as a
formative feedback tool from an educator’s perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 562–570. 615
doi:10.1111/bjet.12054
Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 4, 151–156. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep11512261
*Chireshe, R. (2014). Academic dishonesty: Zimbabwe university lecturers’ and students’ views. South African Journal
of Higher Education, 28(1), 45–59. 620
*Comas-Forgas, R., & Sureda-Negre, J. (2010). Academic plagiarism: Explanatory factors from students’ perspective.
Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(3), 217–232. doi:10.1007/s10805-010-9121-0
Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. London, UK: Sage.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McRae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. 625
Culwin, F. (2006). An active introduction to academic misconduct and the measured demographics of misconduct.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 167–182. doi:10.1080/02602930500262478
Curtis, G. J., Gouldthorp, B., Thomas, E. F., O’Brien, G. M., & Correia, H. M. (2013). Online academic-integrity mastery
training may improve students’ awareness of, and attitudes toward, plagiarism. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 12
(3), 282–289. doi:10.2304/plat.2013.12.3.282 630
 CAUSES OF PLAGIARISM 19

Dahl, S. (2007). Turnitin®: The student perspective on using plagiarism detection software. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 8(2), 173–191. doi:10.1177/1469787407074110
*Daly, C., & Horgan, J. M. (2007). Profiling the plagiarists: An examination of the factors that lead students to cheat.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(1), 39–50. doi:10.2190/9087-8Q74-1875-0L1G
*Defeldre, A. (2005). Inadvertent plagiarism in everyday life. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(8), 1033–1040. 635
doi:10.1002/acp.1129
*Dow, G. T. (2015). Do cheaters never prosper? The impact of examples, expertise, and cognitive load on cryptomnesia
and inadvertent self-plagiarism of creative tasks. Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 47–57. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2015.992679
*Dubljević, V., Sattler, S., & Racine, É. (2014). Cognitive enhancement and academic misconduct: A study exploring 640
their frequency and relationship. Ethics & Behavior, 24(5), 408–420. doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.869747
*Eisinger, R. M. (2000). Partisan absolution? Exploring the depths of forgiving. international. Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 12(3), 245–258. doi:10.1093/ijpor/12.3.254
Elander, J., Pittam, G., Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2010). Evaluation of an intervention to help students avoid
unintentional plagiarism by improving their authorial identity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 645
157–171. doi:10.1080/02602930802687745
*Engler, J. N., & Landau, J. D. (2011). Source is important when developing a social norms campaign to combat
academic dishonesty. Teaching of Psychology, 38(1), 46–48. doi:10.1177/0098628310390848
*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. doi:10.1080/ 650
02602938.2014.880776
*Feather, N. T. (1996). Reactions to penalties for an offense in relation to authoritarianism, values, perceived responsi-
bility, perceived seriousness, and deservingness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 571–587.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.571
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. 655
*Ghias, K., Lakho, G. R., Asim, H., Azam, I. S., & Saeed, S. A. (2014). Self-reported attitudes and behaviours of
medical students in Pakistan regarding academic misconduct: A cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Ethics, 15.
doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-43
*Gilmore, J., Strickland, D., Timmerman, B., Maher, M., & Feldon, D. (2010). Weeds in the flower garden: An
exploration of plagiarism in graduate students’ research proposals and its connection to enculturation, ESL, and 660
contextual factors. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 6(1), 13–28.
*Gingerich, A. C., & Dodson, C. S. (2013). Sad mood reduces inadvertent plagiarism: Effects of affective state on source
monitoring in cryptomnesia. Motivation and Emotion, 37(2), 355–371. doi:10.1007/s11031-012-9309-2
*Granitz, N., & Loewy, D. (2007). Applying ethical theories: Interpreting and responding to student plagiarism. Journal
of Business Ethics, 72(3), 293–306. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9171-9 665
Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates, and supervisors:
The roles of person behaviours and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 897–913.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6<897::AID-JOB975>3.0.CO;2-Z
*Guo, X. (2011). Understanding student plagiarism: An empirical study in accounting education. Accounting Education,
20(1), 17–37. doi:10.1080/09639284.2010.534577 670
*Hale, J. L. (1987). Plagiarism in classroom settings. Communication Research Reports, 4(2), 66–70.
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. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1503_2
*Heckler, N. C., Rice, M., & Bryan, C. H. (2013). Turnitin systems: A deterrent to plagiarism in college classrooms.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(3), 229–248. doi:10.1080/15391523.2013.10782604 675
Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). Meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of human motivations.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 88–110. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_1
*Hodgkinson, D. M. (2006). Collaborative behaviour amongst LIS students: A study of attitudes and practices at
Loughborough University. Education for Information, 24(2–3), 125–138. doi:10.3233/EFI-2006-242-302
Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 708–736. 680
doi:10.2307/378403
Howard, R. M. (2005). Plagiarism: What should a teacher do? In A. Lathrop & K. Foss (Eds), Guiding students from
cheating and plagiarism to honesty and integrity: Strategies for success. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
 20 MOSS, WHITE, LEE

*Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2015). Chinese university students’ perceptions of plagiarism. Ethics & Behavior, 25(3), 233–255.
doi:10.1080/10508422.2014.923313 685
*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. doi:10.1007/
s11218-011-9166-y
Kaposi, D., & Dell, P. (2012). Discourse of plagiarism: Moralist, proceduralist, developmental and inter-textual
approaches. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33, 813–830. doi:10.1080/01425692.2012.686897 690
*Karim, N. A., Zamzuri, N. A., & Nor, Y. M. (2009). Exploring the relationship between Internet ethics in university
students and the big five model of personality. Computers & Education, 53(1), 86–93. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2009.01.001
*Kauffman, Y., & Young, M. F. (2015). Digital plagiarism: An experimental study of the effect of instructional goals and
copy-and-paste affordance. Computers & Education, 83, 44–56. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.016 695
*Koul, R., Clariana, R. B., Jitgarun, K., & Songsriwittaya, A. (2009). The influence of achievement goal orientation on
plagiarism. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 506–512. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.005
*Kuntz, J. C., & Butler, C. (2014). Exploring individual and contextual antecedents of attitudes toward the acceptability
of cheating and plagiarism. Ethics & Behavior, 24(6), 478–494. doi:10.1080/10508422.2014.908380
Landau, J. D., Druen, P. B., & Arcuri, J. A. (2002). Methods for helping students avoid plagiarism. Teaching of 700
Q4 Psychology, 29(2), 112–115. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2902_06
Landau, J. D., & Marsh, R. L. (1997). Monitoring source in an unconscious plagiarism paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, 4(2), 265–270. doi:10.3758/BF03209404
*Lau, G. K., Yuen, A. K., & Park, J. (2013). Toward an analytical model of ethical decision making in plagiarism. Ethics
& Behavior, 23(5), 360–377. doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.787360 705
*Lau, W. F., & Yuen, A. K. (2014). Internet ethics of adolescents: Understanding demographic differences. Computers &
Education, 72, 378–385. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.006
*Lester, M. C., & Diekhoff, G. M. (2002). A comparison of traditional and Internet cheaters. Journal of College Student
Development, 43(6), 906–911.
Lewis, N. P. (2013). Idea plagiarism: Journalism’s ultimate heist. Mass Communication & Society, 16(5), 738–757. 710
doi:10.1080/15205436.2013.768346
*Lewis, N. P., & Bu, Z. (2011). The personality of plagiarism. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 66(4),
325–339.
*Linna, D. E., & Gülgöz, S. (1994). Effect of random response generation on cryptomnesia. Psychological Reports, 74
(2), 387–392. doi:10.2466/pr0.1994.74.2.387 715
*Love, P. G., & Simmons, J. (1998). Factors influencing cheating and plagiarism among graduate students in a college of
education. College Student Journal, 32(4), 539–550.
Lovett-Hooper, G., Komarraju, M., Weston, R., & Dollinger, S. J. (2007). Is plagiarism a forerunner of other deviance?
Imagined futures of academically dishonest students. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 323–336. doi:10.1080/
10508420701519387 720
*Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Calvini, G. (1999). Contexts of cryptomnesia: May the source be with you.
Social Cognition, 17(3), 273–297. doi:10.1521/soco.1999.17.3.273
*Marsden, H., Carroll, M., & Neill, J. T. (2005). Who cheats at university? A self-report study of dishonest academic
behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 1–10. doi:10.1080/
00049530412331283426 725
*Marsh, R. L., & Bower, G. H. (1993). Eliciting cryptomnesia: Unconscious plagiarism in a puzzle task. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 673–688. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.3.673
*Marsh, R. L., & Landau, J. D. (1995). Item availability in cryptomnesia: Assessing its role in two paradigms of
unconscious plagiarism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(6), 1568–1582.
doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.6.1568 730
*Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., & Hicks, J. L. (1997). Contributions of inadequate source monitoring to unconscious
plagiarism during idea generation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4),
Q5 886–897. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.23.4.886
Martin, D. E., Rao, A., & Sloan, L. R. (2009). Plagiarism, integrity, and workplace deviance: A criterion study. Ethics &
Behavior, 19(1), 36–50. doi:10.1080/10508420802623666 735
*Martin, D. E., Rao, A., & Sloan, L. R. (2011). Ethnicity, acculturation, and plagiarism: A criterion study of unethical
academic conduct. Human Organization, 70(1), 88–96. doi:10.17730/humo.70.1.nl775v2u633678k6
 CAUSES OF PLAGIARISM 21

Marusic, A., Wager, E., Utrobicic, A., Rothstein, H. R., & Sambunjak, D. (2016). Interventions to prevent misconduct
and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016(Issue 4), Art.
No.: MR000038. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2 740
*Maxwell, A., Curtis, G. J., & Vardanega, L. (2006). Plagiarism among local and Asian students in Australia. Guidance
& Counseling, 21(4), 210–215.
*Maxwell, A., Curtis, G. J., & Vardanega, L. (2008). Does culture influence understanding and perceived seriousness of
plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 4(2), 25–40.
*McCabe, D. P., Smith, A. D., & Parks, C. M. (2007). Inadvertent plagiarism in young and older adults: The role of 745
working memory capacity in reducing memory errors. Memory & Cognition, 35(2), 231–241. doi:10.3758/
BF03193444
*Megehee, C. M., & Spake, D. F. (2008). The impact of perceived peer behavior, probable detection and punishment
severity on student cheating behavior. Marketing Education Review, 18(2), 5–19. doi:10.1080/
10528008.2008.11489033 750
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G.; The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Plos Med, 6(6), e1000097.
*Ogilvie, J., & Stewart, A. (2010). The integration of rational choice and self-efficacy theories: A situational analysis of
student misconduct. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 130–155. doi:10.1375/acri.43.1.130
Olson, K. R., & Shaw, A. (2011). ‘No fair, copycat!’: What children’s response to plagiarism tells us about their 755
understanding of ideas. Developmental Science, 14(2), 431–439. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00993.x
Owens, C., & White, F. A. (2013). A 5-year systematic strategy to reduce plagiarism among first-year psychology
university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 14–21. doi:10.1111/ajpy.2013.65.issue-1
*Perfect, T. J., Defeldre, A., Elliman, R., & Dehon, H. (2011). No evidence of age-related increases in unconscious
plagiarism during free recall. Memory, 19(5), 514–528. doi:10.1080/09658211.2011.590503 760
*Perfect, T. J., Field, I., & Jones, R. (2009). Source credibility and idea improvement have independent effects on
unconscious plagiarism errors in recall and generate-new tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 35(1), 267–274. doi:10.1037/a0013936
*Perfect, T. J., & Stark, L. (2008). Why do I always have the best ideas? The role of idea quality in unconscious
plagiarism. Memory, 16(4), 386–394. doi:10.1080/09658210801946501 765
Poortvliet, P. M., & Giebels, E. (2012). Self-improvement and cooperation: How exchange relationships promote
mastery-approach driven individuals’ job outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
21, 392–425. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.555080
Pruzan, K., & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2006). An attentional application of socioemotional selectivity theory in college
students. Social Development, 15, 326–338. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9507.2006.00344.x 770
Puga, J. L. (2014). Analyzing and reducing plagiarism at university. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 7
(2), 131–140.
Risquez, A., O’Dwyer, M., & Ledwith, A. (2013). ‘Thou shalt not plagiarise’: From self-reported views to recognition
and avoidance of plagiarism. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(1), 34–43. doi:10.1080/
02602938.2011.596926 775
*Roig, M. (1997). Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? Psychological Record, 47
(1), 113–122.
Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism.
Psychological Reports, 84(3, Pt 1), 973–982. doi:10.2466/PR0.84.3.973-982
*Roig, M., & Caso, M. (2005). Lying and Cheating: Fraudulent Excuse Making, Cheating, and Plagiarism. The Journal 780
of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 139(6), 485–494. doi:10.3200/JRLP.139.6.485-494
*Roig, M., & DeTommaso, L. (1995). Are college cheating and plagiarism related to academic procrastination?
Psychological Reports, 77(2), 691–698. doi:10.2466/pr0.1995.77.2.691
Rolfe, V. (2011). Can Turnitin be used to provide instant formative feedback? British Journal of Educational Technology,
42(4), 701–710. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01091.x 785
Sattler, S., Graeff, P., & Willen, S. (2013). Explaining the decision to plagiarize: An empirical test of the interplay
between rationality, norms, and opportunity. Deviant Behavior, 34(6), 444–463. doi:10.1080/01639625.2012.735909
Schuetze, P. (2004). Evaluation of a brief homework assignment designed to reduce citation problems. Teaching of
Psychology, 31(4), 257–259. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3104_6
Schulz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and 790
reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429–434.
22 MOSS, WHITE, LEE

Schwabl, K., Rossiter, M., & Abbott, M. (2013). University students’ and instructors’ paraphrasing and citation knowl-
edge and practices. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 59(3), 401–419.
*Schwieren, C., & Weichselbaumer, D. (2010). Does competition enhance performance or cheating? A laboratory
experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(3), 241–253. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.005 795
*Selwyn, N. (2008). ’Not necessarily a bad thing. . .’: A study of online plagiarism amongst undergraduate students.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 465–479. doi:10.1080/02602930701563104
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
*Sisti, D. A. (2007). How do high school students justify Internet plagiarism? Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 215–231. 800
doi:10.1080/10508420701519163
*Skaar, H., & Hammer, H. (2013). Why students plagiarise from the internet: The views and practices in three Norwegian
upper secondary classrooms. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 9(2), 15–34.
Sohrabi, B., Gholipour, A., & Mohammadesmaeili, N. (2011). Effects of personality and information technology on
plagiarism: An Iranian perspective. Ethics & Behavior, 21(5), 367–379. doi:10.1080/10508422.2011.604294 805
Song, X., & Cadman, K. (2013). Education with(out) distinction: Beyond graduate attributes for Chinese international
students. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(2), 258–271. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.673573
*Stark, L., & Perfect, T. J. (2006). Elaboration inflation: How your ideas become mine. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20
(5), 641–648. doi:10.1002/acp.1216
*Stark, L., & Perfect, T. J. (2007). Whose idea was that? Source monitoring for idea ownership following elaboration. 810
Memory, 15(7), 776–783. doi:10.1080/09658210701643042
*Stark, L., & Perfect, T. J. (2008). The effects of repeated idea elaboration on unconscious plagiarism. Memory &
Cognition, 36(1), 65–73. doi:10.3758/MC.36.1.65
*Stark, L., Perfect, T. J., & Newstead, S. E. (2005). When elaboration leads to appropriation: Unconscious plagiarism in a
creative task. Memory, 13(6), 561–573. doi:10.1080/09658210444000232 815
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 relates to conventional and digital cheating. Ethics &
Behavior, 17(3), 233–254. doi:10.1080/10508420701519197
Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2013). Mastering one’s destiny: Mastery goals promote challenge and success despite social
identity threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 748–762. doi:10.1177/0146167213481067 820
*Stretton, S., Bramich, N. J., Keys, J. R., Monk, J. A., Ely, J. A., Haley, C., . . . Woolley, K. L. (2012). Publication
misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A systematic, retrospective study. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 28
(10), 1575–1583. doi:10.1185/03007995.2012.728131
*Szabo, A., & Underwood, J. (2004). Cybercheats: Is information and communication technology fuelling academic
dishonesty? Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 180–199. doi:10.1177/1469787404043815 825
*Tenpenny, P. L., Keriazakos, M. S., Lew, G. S., & Phelan, T. P. (1998). In search of inadvertent plagiarism. The
American Journal of Psychology, 111(4), 529–559. doi:10.2307/1423550
Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R. M., & Leitten, C. L. (1993). Subjective, physiological, and behavioral effects of
threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 248–260. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.65.2.248 830
*Underwood, J., & Szabo, A. (2003). Academic offences and e-learning: Individual propensities in cheating. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 467–477. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00343
Van Tongeren, D., & Green, J. D. (2010). Combating meaninglessness: On the automatic defense of meaning.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1372–1384. doi:10.1177/0146167210383043
*Voiskounsky, A. E. (2009). Web plagiarism: Empirical study. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 25, 64–584. 835
*Weidler, B. J., Multhaup, K. S., & Faust, M. E. (2012). Accountability reduces unconscious plagiarism. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 626–634. doi:10.1002/acp.2842
*Wheeler, G. (2014). Culture of minimal influence: A study of Japanese university students’ attitudes toward plagiarism.
International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(2), 44–59.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. London, UK: 840
Penguin.
*Williams, K. M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Identifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: Their
personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(3), 293–307.
doi:10.1037/a0020773
 CAUSES OF PLAGIARISM 23

*Xin, G. (2011). Understanding student plagiarism: An empirical study in accounting education. Accounting Education, 845
20(1), 17–37. doi:10.1080/09639284.2010.534577
Yang, F., Jiau, H. C., & Ssu, K. (2014). Beyond plagiarism: An active learning method to analyze causes behind code-
similarity. Computers & Education, 70, 161–172. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.005
Yang, F., Shaw, A., Garduno, E., & Olson, K. R. (2014). No one likes a copycat: A cross-cultural investigation of
children’s response to plagiarism. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 111–119. doi:10.1016/j. 850
jecp.2013.11.008
*Yang, S. C. (2012a). Attitudes and behaviors related to academic dishonesty: A survey of Taiwanese graduate students.
Ethics & Behavior, 22(3), 218–237. doi:10.1080/10508422.2012.672904
Yang, S. C. (2012b). Ethical academic judgments and behaviors: Applying a multidimensional ethics scale to measure the
ethical academic behavior of graduate students. Ethics & Behavior, 22(4), 281–296. doi:10.1080/ 855
10508422.2012.672907
Yeo, S. (2007). First-year university science and engineering student’s understanding of plagiarism. Higher Education
Research & Development, 26(2), 199–216. doi:10.1080/07294360701310813
*Yu-Chih, S. (2012). Does text readability matter? A study of paraphrasing and plagiarism in English as a foreign
language writing context. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(2), 296–306. 860
Zhang, Y., & Xisaoyan, J. I. A. (2012). A survey on the use of CrossCheck for detecting plagiarism in journal articles.
Learned Publishing, 25, 292–307. doi:10.1087/20120408

View publication stats