Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Ethics & Behavior Factors That

Explain Academic Dishonesty Among
University Students in Thailand
Darrin Thomas

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

ACADEMIC DISHONEST Y AND ACHIEVEMENT EMOT IONS AMONG INT ERNAT IONAL ST UDENT S…
Darrin T homas

Met hodological Issues in St udying Cult ural Dimensions wit h Special Reference t o Educat ional Cont ext
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ)

Academic int egrit y and oral examinat ion: An Arabian Gulf perspect ive
Merryn McKinnon, just in t homas, Monique Raynor
 Ethics & Behavior

ISSN: 1050-8422 (Print) 1532-7019 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20

Factors That Explain Academic Dishonesty Among

University Students in Thailand

Darrin Thomas

To cite this article: Darrin Thomas (2017) Factors That Explain Academic Dishonesty
Among University Students in Thailand, Ethics & Behavior, 27:2, 140-154, DOI:
10.1080/10508422.2015.1131160

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1131160

Accepted author version posted online: 22

Jan 2016.
Published online: 22 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 230

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20

Download by: [Darrin Thomas] Date: 15 June 2017, At: 20:21

ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 27(2), 140–154
Copyright © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 online
DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2015.1131160

Factors That Explain Academic Dishonesty Among

University Students in Thailand
Darrin Thomas
Faculty of Arts and Humanities
Asia-Pacific International University

Academic dishonesty is a problem that continues to plague universities. Few studies have examined
how mind-set and individualism contribute to academic dishonesty. Using structural equation
modeling, a model was developed to explain academic dishonesty, which included mind-set,
individualistic learning environment, individualism, and motivation to study. A total of 207 uni-
versity students in Thailand participated. The final model explained 30% of the variance in academic
dishonesty. All variables in this study had a negative relationship with academic dishonesty,
indicating that improvements in mind-set, learning environment, and motivation could change
perceptions of academic dishonesty.

Keywords: academic dishonesty, correlational design, learning environment, motivation, mind-set,

structural equation modeling, Thailand

Academic dishonesty is a problem with an international ethical scope. At one medical school in
Europe, 97% of the students admitted to some form of academic dishonesty (Taradi, Taradi, &
Dogas, 2012). In the United States, one study found that 57% of students had cheated within the
previous 6 months (Hensley, Kirkpatrick, & Burgoon, 2013). At one prominent university in
America, about half of a class of 250 students was caught cheating on an exam (Murphy, 2013).
Statistics such as these indicate that academic dishonesty is a concern in the West.
However, in Asia, academic dishonesty is a concern as well. In China, there are severe issues
with academic dishonesty involving not only students but also lecturers and researchers (Xueqin,
2010). In a government study conducted in China, 2,000 scientists admitted to academic
dishonesty (Jacobs, 2010). One university in China used plagiarism detection software to screen
article submissions, and eventually the university rejected almost one third of the articles due to
issues with plagiarism (Rezanejad & Rezaei, 2013). The articles did not only come from China;
many came from South Korea, India, and Iran (Jacobs, 2010).
Academic dishonesty is not only a general concern in the East and West, it is a major problem
in Thailand as well. In Thailand, 57% of medical students admitted to engaging in academic

Correspondence should be addressed to Darrin Thomas, Asia-Pacific International University, Muak Lek, 18180,
Thailand. E-mail: Dtsac18803@gmail.com
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG THAI STUDENTS 141

dishonesty while knowing it was wrong (Tanawattanacharoen & Nimnuan, 2009). At one
university in Thailand, students willingly agreed to wear “anti-cheating hats” during an exam.
Pictures of the students, wearing the hats, went viral on the Internet and brought embarrassment
to the university (Neuman, 2013). Despite the vast differences between East and West and
between China and Thailand, academic dishonesty is one thing that they all have in common.
Several characteristics of Thailand make it unique when examining academic dishonesty.
First, in comparison to Westerners, Asians and Thais in particular have what is called a fixed
mind-set, in which they believe their abilities are determined at birth and do not grow (Dweck,
2010). Second, Asia and Thailand especially are collectivist cultures. Third, what motivates
Thais is slightly different from what motivates Westerners and even other Asians (Lin, Deng,
Chai, & Tsai, 2013). Fourth, the learning climate of Thailand is one of the transmission of
knowledge, which contrasts with a more active learning approaches found in the West (Ornstein
& Hunkins, 2009). Therefore, understanding the relationship among mind-set, collectivism,
motivation, and learning climate will help further comprehension of academic dishonesty in
the context of this study. It is critical that a closer look is taken into exploring the unique factors
that are facing administrators and teachers as they deal with the challenges of academic
dishonesty and its ethical implications.
The purpose of this study is to explain factors that contribute to academic dishonesty among
university students in Thailand. Academic dishonesty threatens the reputation of nations, uni-
versities, teachers, and honest students, as deceptive practices lead to questions in relation to the
quality of the educational experience. As such, developing insights into the major factors that
contribute to academic dishonesty can lead to strategies for intervention in order to curtail this
epidemic of scholarly duplicity. Administrator, teachers, and even students could benefit from
seeing what leads to academic dishonesty at university campuses.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

Academic dishonesty is defined as cheating or plagiarism that gives a student an illegitimate

advantage during an assignment or assessment (Bleeker, 2008). Cheating can be further defined
as independent planned, social active, and social passive. Independent-planned cheating is the
student using personally produced resources during an exam, such as notes. Social-active
cheating is copying the answer of another student without that student’s knowledge. Social-
passive cheating is one student allowing another student to copy an answer without objection
(Garavalia, Olson, Russell, & Christensen, 2007). Plagiarism is commonly defined as using
another person’s work and claiming it as one’s own (Smith, 2012).
How academic dishonesty manifests itself within education depends a great deal on the
context. For example, one study found that social sciences majors cheat less when compared
to engineering and other hard science majors (Sendag, Duran, & Fraser, 2012). Gender also
plays a role in academic dishonesty. Men tend to have higher rates of plagiarism than women
(Hensley et al., 2013).
In addition to major and gender, age and academic performance are other factors that affect
academic dishonesty. University students are more accepting of academic dishonesty than high
school students (Munoz-Garcia & Aviles-Herrera, 2014). Another study found that older stu-
dents in general are less likely to cheat (Olafson, Schraw, Nedelson, Nedelson, & Kehrwald,
142 THOMAS

2013). Furthermore, as grade point average increases, there is a decrease in the tendency of
students to cheat (Hensley et al., 2013; Olafson et al., 2013).
The perception of academic dishonesty is also varied by culture. For example, there are
differences in how people from the West and East see academic dishonesty. Chinese students
often perceive of plagiarism as more permissible than Australian students do (Ehrich, Howard, Mu,
& Bokosmaty, 2016). Another study indicated that academic dishonesty is not seen as wrong or a
major problem in Central Asia (Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2014). However, Martin (2012) challenged
the common perception that plagiarism is more accepted in Asian contexts when Martin found that
plagiarism is more common in individualistic cultures than collectivist cultures. This result indicates
that the prevalence of academic dishonesty is more complicated than previously believed.
In general, a major contributor to academic dishonesty is ignorance as to exactly what this
dishonesty is. Students, when caught, often deflect the blame and claim ignorance of academic
dishonesty (Beasley, 2014). In a different study, it was found that there was a low level of
awareness as to what constitutes plagiarism, as well as the university’s policies regarding
plagiarism (Ramzan, Munir, Siddique, & Asif, 2012). This is important, as students who are
aware of school policies about academic dishonesty are more likely to engage in academically
honest behaviors (Henning et al., 2015).
Studies in Asia provide further information about how context influences academic dishon-
esty. In one study, ignorance of plagiarism was found to be common (Ramzan et al., 2012). The
type of teacher also has a role in academic dishonesty, as one study found that the presence of an
English-speaking foreign teacher was a predictor in plagiarism (Ledesma, 2011). A study in
Taiwan found that male graduate students are more accepting of academic dishonesty when
compared to female students and that master students were more accepting of academic
dishonesty than PhD students (Yang, 2012).
Few studies on academic dishonesty have been conducted that focus on the context of
Thailand. Young (2013) found that cultural aspects such as the Thai people’s personality
characteristics of sanuk (love of fun) and mai pen rai (easy going) and a focus on the present
rather than the long term contribute to academic dishonesty (Young, 2013). Young further stated
that Thai students often acquire learned helplessness in which they seem to be convinced that
there is little they can do to overcome challenges.

FIXED AND GROWTH MIND-SET

Dweck (2010) defined someone with a fixed mind-set as someone who sees his or her skills and
abilities as in-born and unchangeable. As such, the talents a person possesses cannot be
improved. In contrast, someone with a growth mind-set is a person who believes that his or
her skills and abilities can grow and develop over time. The difference between these two mind-
sets is significant in seeing how students perceive their academic studies and proclivity toward
academic dishonesty.
In general, individuals with a fixed mind-set have a desire to appear intelligent while avoiding
opportunities to learn (Schunk, 2012). Those with a fixed mind-set also avoid taking risk,
making mistakes, and putting forth significant effort to do something (Dweck, 2009). For
academic performance, individuals with a fixed mind-set are at a significant disadvantage
(Ravenscroft, Waymire, & West, 2012; Yan, Thai, & Bjork, 2014).
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG THAI STUDENTS 143

Individuals with a growth mind-set love challenges and working hard (Dweck, 2009; Schunk,
2012). A growth mind-set has also been linked with creativity, problem solving, and higher
intellectual achievement (Dweck, 2012; Karwowski, 2014). Students who possess a growth
mind-set also appreciate opportunities for self-evaluation and are intrinsically motivated to learn
(Ravenscroft et al., 2012). Self-evaluation contributes to the students learning from their mis-
takes and thus further enhancing their improvement.
A fixed mind-set is highly common in Thailand, as Thailand has a rigid social structure. As a
Buddhist society, many Thais believe in an individual “knowing their place” and not pushing
against this (Albritton & Thawilwadee, 2008). For those who are more talented, it is believed
that this is due to their karma in a previous life rather than having anything to do with what they
have done during this life (Tan, 2006). The implications for this study is that because there is
little that many students believe they can do to improve, one way to overcome a challenging
academic situation would be to resort to academic dishonesty. This means that the mind-set of
the individual may influence perceptions of academic dishonesty.

MOTIVATION

The two major types of motivation are intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Deci (1972) defined
intrinsic motivation as deciding to perform a behavior mainly for the sake of the activity.
Extrinsic motivation is deciding to perform a behavior for some sort of reward. Intrinsically
motivated people are motivated from within, whereas extrinsically motivated people are motive
by external factors.
Studies have confirmed that both forms of motivation affect academic performance in the
Asian context in addition to the West (Young, Johnson, Hawthorne, & Pugh, 2011; Zhu &
Leung, 2011). For example, one study found that students driven by extrinsic motivation are
more likely to cheat (Lang, 2013). In addition, as intrinsic motivation increases there is a
corresponding decrease in a student’s willingness to self-report actions of cheating (Orosz,
Farkas, & Roland-Levy, 2013).
There are several prominent theories that attempt to explain motivation; among them are self-
determination theory and Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of Needs. Self-determination theory states
that humans have three main psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relationships
with others (Deci & Ryan, 2000). However, Komin (1991), in a study conducted in the context
of Thailand, confirmed that relationships are highly valued in the Thai context but that
competency and autonomy are not viewed as important. As such, self-determination theory
provides only a partial insight into what motivates students in Thailand.
Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of Needs states that people have socioemotional and physical needs
that motivate or demotivate them to do something. The needs, as determined by their importance,
are physiological, safety, belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. However, Schutte and Ciarlante
(1998) have suggested an Asian equivalent for Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of Needs. In their
model, the order of Asian needs is physiological, safety, affiliation, admiration, and status. The
bottom two levels (physiological and safety) are the same, but differences emerge in the final three
levels between Maslow’s (1954) and Schutte and Ciarlante’s (1998) models.
Status or saving face is a critical component of the Thai psychological profile (Komin, 1991). To
protect status, students may resort to academic dishonesty to protect their academic achievement.
144 THOMAS

This means that motivation may be directly linked with academic dishonesty. Several studies also
indicate that an individual’s mind-set influences their motivation (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, &
Dweck, 2007; Clinkenbeard, 2012). Furthermore, other studies have confirmed that motivated
students have a growth mind-set (Clinkenbeard, 2012; Schunk, 2012). Therefore there is the
possibility that mind-set plays a role in the motivation of students in the context of this study.

LEARNING CLIMATE

Learning climate is defined as the mental, social, emotional, and physical environment where a
student’s learning takes place (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, & Lovett, 2010). Fraser, McRobbie,
and Fisher (1996) defined the learning climate as having seven characteristics: teacher support,
involvement, investigation, task orientation, equity, cooperation, and social cohesiveness. As
such, the learning climate involves several characteristics such as emotional and social factors
that are related to motivation as well.
Several studies indicate the influence of learning climate. Students who are involved are
usually interested in the class and participate, thus showing motivation (Khine, 2001). A
learning climate that is task oriented plays a role in enhancing self-esteem and positive attitudes
of students (Chionh & Fraser, 2009). The learning climate is also influenced by motor engage-
ment (Desbiens et al., 2014). As students are provided with more opportunities to move, it
changes their perception of the learning climate.
A teacher’s choice in instructional approaches and classroom management style also matters. For
example, the use of problem-solving strategies in the classroom contributes to a more positive
perception of the learning climate (Khine, 2001). A learning climate that includes opportunities for
self-directed learning also positively influences motivation (Tongsilp, 2013). The students’ percep-
tion of the fairness of the teacher is also a factor, as one study found that if the students believe the
teacher is unfair, it increases the likelihood of cheating (Lemons & Seaton, 2011). This further
implies the importance of the role of learning climate in academic dishonesty.
There are several studies that indicate that the learning environment influences the mind-set
of students (Lee & Stewart, 2013; Stallman, 2011). At one university a curriculum that focused
on strengthening the mind-set of the students had a positive influence (Stallman, 2011). In
another study, it was found that developing a comprehensive, whole-school approach that
strengthens student mind-sets though collaboration among students, staff, and community was
helpful (Lee & Stewart, 2013).
Within the Asian context, a transmission style of teaching is prevalent, in which the teacher
hands knowledge to students who normally remain passive (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).The
students focus primarily on memorizing and preserving the knowledge the teacher provides.
However, many disagree that this is how learning takes place in the Asia context (Marambe,
Vermunt, & Boshuizen, 2012). There is evidence that a learning style that focuses on rote
memorization contributes to academic dishonesty (Espinoza & Najera, 2014). This indicates that
the way the climate of learning is structured may play a role in perceptions of academic dishonesty.
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG THAI STUDENTS 145

INDIVIDUALISM/COLLECTIVISM

Individualism and collectivism is a continuum that determines what a person’s focus is when
making decisions. Individuals are focused on their own interest above the group, whereas
collectivists focus on the group above their own interest (Jandt, 2010). Culture plays a sig-
nificant role in a person’s orientation toward individualism or collectivism (Owe et al., 2013).
Hofstede (1986) identified several differences in collectivist and individualist students and
teachers in their perception of learning climate. First, collectivistic classrooms focus on tradition
and preservation in knowledge, whereas individualistic classrooms on focus what is new and
cutting edge. Second, collectivistic classrooms focus on learning to do something, whereas
individualistic classrooms focus on learning how to learn. Third, collectivistic classrooms are
concerned with saving face, whereas individualistic classrooms consider face saving as weak.
Last, collectivist students believe acquiring academic recognition dubiously is more important
than competency, whereas individualistic students value competency over academic recognition.
Studies also indicated that there is a relationship between collectivism and mind-set. This is based
on culture, as it was previously mentioned that Asia societies tend toward a fixed mind-set relative to
the West (Dweck, 2010). Within Thailand, there is evidence that this mind-set is common (Albritton &
Thawilwadee, 2008). Collectivism is a core psychological component of the people (Komin, 1991).
The level of collectivism or individualism may contribute to academic dishonesty in the Asian
context. Thailand is considered a collectivist society (Hofstede Center, 2015). This indicates that
developing competency is not a priority in comparison to face saving and acquiring academic merit
dubiously. Komin (1991) confirmed this when the researcher found that Thais see education as a
form of social mobility and learning for a thirst of knowledge is uncommon.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

From the review of literature, the following null hypotheses were proposed and tested
statistically.

H1: Learning climate does not influence the following variables:

H1a: Mind-set
H1b: Individualism
H1c: Motivation to study
H1d: Academic Dishonesty
H2: Mind-set does not influence the following variables:
H2a: Motivation to study
H2b: Academic dishonesty
H3: Individualism does not influence the following variables:
H3a: Mind-set
H3b: Academic dishonesty
H4: Motivation to study does not influence the following variable:
H4a: Academic dishonesty

Figure 1 provides a visual of the hypotheses of this study

146 THOMAS

FIGURE 1 Initial model of academic dishonesty.

METHODOLOGY

Participants and Sampling

The setting in which the study took place is a university located in Central Thailand. The school
includes Thai students from all regions of Thailand (North, South, Central, and Northeast). The
accessible population was students at the university. The sample was derived using stratified
sampling based on gender. A total of 207 individuals participated in this study. In the sample,
37% of the participants were men, 59% were female, and 4% of the sampling did not indicate
their gender. For class level, 32% of the participants were freshmen, 14% were sophomores,
33% were juniors, 19% were seniors, and 2% did not respond. Finally, 21% of the respondents
were business majors, 17% were education majors, 48% were English majors, 8% were religion
majors, 2% were science majors, and 4% did not respond to the question about major. All majors
at the university participated in this study.

Research Design and Instruments

A cross-sectional survey design was used in this study. Data were collected by the researcher at
the university. The instrument comprised two sections. Section 1 addressed demographic vari-
ables including gender, major, and academic level. Section 2 consists of 44 Likert-type state-
ments that measure the perceptions of the students regarding each latent variable of the study.
The Likert scale was a 5-point scale: 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neutral), 4 (agree),
and 5 (strongly agree). Permission was obtained to adapt all instruments used in this study.

Academic dishonesty

The Academic Dishonesty scale was adapted from Bolin (2004). This scale measures
attitudes and behaviors toward academic dishonesty. Sample items from this scale include
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG THAI STUDENTS 147

“It’s fine to copy from another student during a test” and “It’s okay to turn in work done by
someone else.” The Cronbach’s alpha for the modified 12-item scale was 0.93.

Fixed/growth mind-set

The Fixed/Growth Mind-Set scale was adapted from Dweck (2000). This scale measures
a person’s perception of their mind-set. Sample items from this scale include “To be
honest, you can’t really change how intelligent you are” and “You can always substantially
change how intelligent you are.” The Cronbach’s alpha for the modified five-item scale
was 0.72.

Motivation to study

The Motivation to Study scale was adapted from Castilagia (2006). This scale assessed what
encourages a student to study. Sample questions from the scale include “I am motivated to study
because I want to do better than my classmates and friends” and “I am motivated to study
because I don’t want to disappoint my family.” The Cronbach’s alpha for the modified 10-item
scale was 0.92.

Learning climate

The Learning Climate scale was adopted from Fraser et al. (1996). This scale measures a
person’s perception of the characteristics of his or her classroom-learning environment. Sample
items from this scale include “I get the same opportunity to contribute to class discussions as
other students” and “My ideas and suggestions are used during classroom discussions.” The
Cronbach’s alpha for the modified eight-item scale was 0.85.

Individualism/collectivism

The Individualism/Collectivism scale was adopted from Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, and
Gelfand (1995). This scale measures people’s preference for putting the group or their own
goals first. Sample items from this scale include “It is important to maintain harmony within my
group” and “I am a unique individual.” The Cronbach’s alpha for the modified nine-item scale
was 0.80.

Data Analysis

The choice of analysis was structural equation modeling. This analysis method allows the
researcher to determine both direct and indirect relationships among variables as well as
deals with measurement error (Kline, 2011). A two-step approach was adopted for the
analysis of the proposed model. The two-step approach involves first analyzing the
measurement model to determine how accurately the latent variables influence the manifest
variables, as well as assessing normality and multicollinearity. The second step of this
approach involves assessing the structural model, which entails examining the relationships
148 THOMAS

among the latent variables, also known as testing the hypotheses of the study (Blunch,
2013).

ETHICAL CONCERNS

Permission from the university of this study was obtained before collection of data commenced.
In order to preserved anonymity of the respondents, they were instructed verbally and in writing
not to include their name on the survey. All participants were invited to be respondents, and they
were instructed in the survey and in writing that their participation was optional.

RESULTS

Measurement Model

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the measurement model of the study.
This analysis assessed how well the manifest variables relate to one another on a predetermined
latent variable. If a particular manifest variable was found to be weakly correlated in relation to
others on the same factor or was deemed redundant, it was removed.
The initial measurement model fit was χ2(810) = 1394.44, p < .05, Tucker–Lewis Index
(TLI) = 0.86, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.87, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.87, root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.059, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.054, 0.064].
These model numbers indicated poor fit, which means that the analysis of the manifest and latent
variables is inaccurate. The chi-square is significant; however, this is common for sample sizes
greater than 200 (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). The model fit indices should all be near or
above 0.90. Only the RMSEA is adequate, currently.
An analysis of the correlations among the variables found a high correlation between the latent
variable of Learning Environment and Individualism/Collectivism (r = .89, p < .05), 95% CI [0.87,
0.92]. When this happens in structural equation modeling research, one of the variables can be
removed or they can be combined into one variable (Kline, 2011). The decision was made to combine
the variables in order to maintain as much theory and explanatory power in the model as possible.
To improve the model fit further, manifest variables were removed for one of several reasons:
(a) insignificant p values (> .05) and or low factor loadings (< .50), (b) high correlation with
other manifest variables on the same latent variable (> .8), or (c), significant difference identified
in the residual covariance matrix (p < .05). Using the aforementioned criteria, 10 manifest
variables were removed.
Through the process of removal of weak manifest variables, the final model shows adequate
measurement. The final results of the measurement model are χ2(522) = 831.65, p < .05,
TLI = 0.92, IFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.054, 95% CI [0.047, 0.060]. The correlations
between the latent variables were not a concerned. Table 1 shows the correlation between the
latent variables. Table 2 lists the 95% CI of the correlations. All values in Tables 1 and 2 are
significant at p < .05.
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG THAI STUDENTS 149

Structural Model

The structural model analysis assessed the statistical significance of each parameter in the model.
Of the nine null hypotheses, five were rejected. H1a, stating that learning climate/individualism
does not influence mind-set, was rejected. Therefore, an alternative for H1a is that learning
climate/individualism does influence mind-set. H1b stated that learning climate does not influ-
ence individualism. However, learning climate and individualism were combined due to a high
correlation between them, and this hypothesis was not tested. H1c, stating that learning climate/
individualism does not influence motivation to study, was rejected. Therefore, the alternative is
that learning climate/individualism does influence motivation to study.
H2a, stating that mind-set does not influence motivation to study, was not rejected which
means there is no relationship between mind-set and motivation to study. H2b, stating that mind-
set does not influence academic dishonesty, was rejected. Therefore, the alternative is that mind-
set does influence academic dishonesty. H3a and H3b were assessed simultaneously with H1a
and H1d because learning environment and individualism were combined and thus were not
tested separately. Last, H4a, stating that motivation to study does not influence academic
dishonesty, was rejected, and this means that motivation to study does influence academic
dishonesty. The supported hypotheses are found in Figure 2.
The r2 for mind-set was .05, for motivation to study was .42, and for academic dishonesty
was .30. The final model fit numbers are the same as those found for the final measurement

TABLE 1
Final Correlation of Latent Variables

Learning Environment/
Fix/Growth Mind-set Individualism Motivation to Study Academic Dishonesty

Fix/Growth Mind-set 1
Learning Environment/ −0.22 1
Individualism
Motivation to Study −0.03 0.65 1
Academic Dishonesty −0.25 −0.27 −0.31 1

TABLE 2
Final Correlation of Latent Variables 95% Confidence Intervals

Learning Environment/
Fix/Growth Mind-set Individualism Motivation to Study Academic Dishonesty

Fix/Growth Mind-set 1
Learning Environment/ [−0.35, −0.09] 1
Individualism
Motivation to Study [−0.17, 0.11] [0.56, 0.72] 1
Academic Dishonesty [−0.37, −0.12] [−0.39, −0.14] [−0.43, −0.18] 1
150 THOMAS

FIGURE 2 Final structural model.

model, χ2(522) = 831.65, p < .05, TLI = 0.92, IFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.054, 95% CI
[0.047, 0.060].

DISCUSSION

Based on the findings of the hypotheses, the classroom learning environment and individualism
are essentially the same in this study (r = .89, p < .05). Due to the high correlation, these two
variables were combined during the analysis. The high correlation can mean that a learning
environment that encourages problem solving, investigation, fairness, and opportunities for
discussion contributes to individualism or that individualistic students influence the environment
of the classroom by portraying these behaviors. It is more likely that the environment of the
learning contributes to individuality rather than the other way around (Friere, 1970).
Mind-set does not have a significant relationship with motivation to study. This finding
conflicts with prior studies (Blackwell et al., 2007; Clinkenbeard, 2012). This implies that
motivated students are motivated regardless of the mind-set they have. As such, any desire to
increase motivation through influencing mind-set would more than likely be futile.
As the learning climate contributes to individualism, it causes a mild decline in the
students’ perception of having a growth mind-set (r = −.22, p < .05), 95% CI [−0.35,
−0.09]. This indicates that the more individualistic a person is, the more their mind-set
becomes more fixed. These results contradict several studies (Albritton & Thawilwadee,
2008; Dweck, 2010; Hofstede Center, 2015). This may be because an individualistic person
is highly focused on self and not open to feedback from peers and teachers, which con-
tributes to growth. Cross-validation of this relationship in another context would help to
further explain these results.
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG THAI STUDENTS 151

An individualistic learning climate also indicates a strong motivation to study (r = .65,

p < .05), 95% CI [0.56, 0.72]. As the classroom allows for investigation and problem solving,
it may increase motivation through desiring good grades, knowing the material, and or graduat-
ing with honors. The relationship between the climate of the classroom and motivation to study
explains 42% of the variance in motivation to study. Other studies support that a climate of
individualism influences positively motivation (Hagger, Rentzelas, & Chatzisarantis, 2014;
Khine, 2001; Tongsilp, 2013).
All variables in this study had a negative relationship with academic dishonesty. An indivi-
dualistic learning climate also leads to a decrease in the acceptability of academic dishonesty
(r = −.27, p < .05), 95% CI [−0.39, −0.14]. A growth mind-set also had a negative relationship
(r = −.25, p < .05), 95% CI [−0.37, −0.12], as well as motivation to study (r = −.31, p < .05),
95% CI [−0.43, −0.18]. This means that a learning climate of investigation and inquiry
combined with an attitude that intelligence can change, as well as being motivated to prove
one’s self, makes it less acceptable to cheat on exams or turn in another peer’s work as one’s
own. This also implies that a teacher-centered approach could negatively contribute to changes
in students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty in that it begins to become more acceptable.
Furthermore, a context of inactive teaching, unmotivated students, with a fixed mind-set could
partially contribute to unethical behavior in the form of academic dishonesty. The amount of
variance of academic dishonesty explained by the variables of this study was 30%.
The findings of this study leads to the following recommendations. First, educators should
support a classroom environment that has the characteristics of discussion, problem solving, and
questioning. This could increase motivation as well as decrease academic dishonesty. A climate of
learning such as this helps students to know what expectations are, which removes any reasons they
have for participating in academically dishonest activities (Lemons & Seaton, 2011).
Second, adjustments to the teaching approaches and curriculum to encourage active learning
will benefit students in allowing them to grapple with content rather than receive it passively and
focus on memorizing it. To reduce academic dishonesty in an acceptable way, students need to
learn in a context that requires higher thinking skills as found in Bloom’s taxonomy.
Opportunities for original thinking rather than reproduction of stated facts naturally makes it
much more challenging to engage in academic dishonesty, at least in a classroom.
Third, teachers need to find ways to motivate their students. This can be done through helping
students to develop goals such as graduating with honors or, in the Asian context, to bring honor to
the family. Goal setting is an established strategy in motivation (Schunk, 2012). Therefore, allowing
students to develop goals could motivate them and decrease the acceptance of dishonest academic
practices. Personal choice is an accepted strategy in motivating students (Schunk, 2012).
Fourth, empowering students through encouraging a growth mind-set is important for
educational institutions. When students see that intelligence is not fixed and that their skills
and abilities can change over time, this serves as an indication that there is less of a reason to
resort to academic dishonesty. Practical examples of improvement embedded in the goals of the
institution can serve as a demonstration that growth is possible. Helping others is yet another
way of encouraging a growth mind-set, as teaching others helps students to better retain and
master what they have (Borich, 2011).
For further study, it would be beneficial to validate the model of this study at other
settings, such as other parts of Asia and places in the West. Many additional variables
could be included in the current model to improve it such as academic self-efficacy,
152 THOMAS

dropout intention, perceived institutional support, social support, and or academic perfor-
mance. In addition, an experimental study that involves some or all of the variables of this
study would lead to conclusive evidence of cause–effect. Last, further exploration of the
strong relationship of the learning environment and individualism would determine the
cause-and-effect relationship between these two entities.

LIMITATIONS

This study employed a cross-sectional survey design. As such, only a one-time glimpse of the
perceptions of the respondents was taken. Furthermore, correlation does not mean causation.
This study only infers theoretical causation rather than actual.
A primary goal of many institutions is to develop students who understand ethical practices
within academics and beyond. Despite this goal, academic dishonesty still plays a major role in
many universities in a negative way. The problem of academic dishonesty can be addressed
through considering the climate of the classroom, the motivation of the students, and the mind-set
of the students. Through providing a rich, interactive environment with appropriate motivational
factors, teachers and administrators can act appropriately to curtail acts of academic dishonesty.

REFERENCES

Albritton, R., & Thawilwadee, B. (2008). The state of democracy in Thailand. Asian Barometer Conference on the State
of Democratic Governance in Asia.
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., & Lovett, M. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for
smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beasley, E. (2014). Students reported for cheating explain what they think would have stopped them. Ethics & Behavior,
24, 229–252. doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.845533
Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an
adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263. doi:10.1111/
cdev.2007.78.issue-1
Bleeker, K. (2008). To be honest: Championing academic integrity in community colleges. Washington, DC: Community
College.
Blunch, N. (2013). Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and AMOS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bolin, A. (2004). Self-control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as predictors of academic dishonesty. The Journal of
Psychology, 138, 101–114. doi:10.3200/JRLP.138.2.101-114
Borich, G. (2011). Effective teaching methods: Researched-based practice (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Castiglia, B. (2006). Factors driving student motivation. Academy of Business Education 2006 Proceedings. Retrieved
from www.abeweb.org/proceedings/proceedings06/astiglia.pdf.
Chionh, Y., & Fraser, B. (2009). Classroom environment, achievement, attitudes and self-esteem in geography and
mathematics in Singapore. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18, 29–44.
doi:10.1080/10382040802591530
Clinkenbeard, P. (2012). Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory and research. Psychology in the Schools,
49, 622–630. doi:10.1002/pits.v49.7
Deci, E. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 22, 113–120. doi:10.1037/h0032355
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of
behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Desbiens, J., Spallanzani, C., Turcotte, S., Roy, M., Lanoue, S., & Tourigny, S. (2014). A multi-referenced analysis of the
quality of learning climate in health and physical education student teaching. Sport Science Review, 23, 175–204.
doi:10.1515/ssr-2015-0001
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG THAI STUDENTS 153

Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York, NY: Psychology.
Dweck, C. (2009). Can we make our students smarter? Education Canada, 49(4), 59–67.
Dweck, C. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68, 16–20.
Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the Middle East, the schoolyard, the racial divide,
and willpower. American Psychologist, 67, 614–622. doi:10.1037/a0029783
Ehrich, J., Howard, S., Mu, C., & Bokosmaty, S. (2016). A comparison of Chinese and Australian university students’
attitudes towards plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 41, 231–246. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.927850
Espinoza, L., & Najera, J. (2014). How to correct teaching methods that favour plagiarism: Recommendations from
teachers and students in a Spanish language distance education university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 40, 1070–1078. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.966053
Fraser, B., McRobbie, C., & Fisher, D. (1996). Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new
classroom environment instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY.
Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group.
Garavalia, L., Olson, E., Russell, E., & Christensen, L. (2007). How do students cheat? In E. Andeman (Eds.),
Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 33–58). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Hagger, M., Rentzelas, P., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2014). Effects of individualist and collectivist group norms and choice
on intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 215–223. doi:10.1007/s11031-013-9373-2
Henning, M., Malpas, P., Manalo, E., Ram, S., Vijayakumar, V., & Hawken, S. (2015). Ethical learning experiences and
engagement in academic dishonesty: A study of Asian and European pharmacy and medical students in New Zealand.
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24, 201–209. doi:10.1007/s40299-014-0172-7
Hensley, L., Kirkpatrick, K., & Burgoon, J. (2013). Relation of gender, course enrollment, and grades to distinct forms of
academic dishonesty. Teaching in Higher Education, 18, 895–907. doi:10.1080/13562517.2013.827641
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10,
301–320. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5
Hofstede Center. (2015). Thailand. Helsinki, Finland: The Hofstede Center. Retrieved from http://geert-hofstede.com/
thailand.html
Jacobs, A. (2010, October 6). Rampant fraud threat to China’s brisk ascent. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/world/asia/07fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Jandt, F. (2010). An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a global community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 8, 62–70. doi:10.1037/a0034898
Khine, M. (2001). Using the WlHlC questionnaire to measure the learning environment. Teaching and Learning, 22, 54–61.
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Komin, S. (1991). Psychology of the Thai people: Values and behavioral patterns. Bangkok,Thailand: National Institute
of Development and Administration.
Lang, J. (2013, August 4). How college classes encourage cheating. Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/
Ledesma, R. (2011). Academic dishonesty among undergraduate students. Research in World Economy, 2, 25–35.
doi:10.5430/rwe.v2n2p25
Lee, P., & Stewart, D. (2013). Does a socio-ecological school model promote resilience in primary schools? Journal of
School Health, 83, 795–804. doi:10.1111/josh.2013.83.issue-11
Lemons, M., & Seaton, J. (2011). Justice in the classroom: Does fairness determine student cheating behaviors? Journal
of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 7(1), 17–24.
Lin, T., Deng, F., Chai, C., & Tsai, C. (2013). High school students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, motivation in
learning science, and their relationships: A comparative study within the Chinese culture. International Journal of
Educational Development, 33, 37–47. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.01.007
Marambe, K., Vermunt, J., & Boshuizen, H. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of student learning patterns in higher
education. Higher Education, 64, 299–316. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9494-z
Martin, D. (2012). Culture and unethical conduct: Understanding the impact of individualism and collectivism on actual
plagiarism. Management Learning, 43, 261–273. doi:10.1177/1350507611428119
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Munoz-Garcia, A., & Aviles-Herrera, M. (2014). Effects of academic dishonesty on dimensions of spiritual well-being
and satisfaction: A comparative study of secondary school and university students. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 39, 349–363. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.832729
154 THOMAS

Murphy, B. (2013, February 1). Harvard cheating scandal ends in dozens of forced withdrawals. Retrieved from Huff
Post College: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/harvard-cheating-scandal-_n_2600366.html
Neuman, S. (2013, August 16). Embarrassed, Thai university removes anti-cheating hats. Retrieved from http://www.
npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/16/212678475/embarrassed-thai-university-removes-anti-cheating-hats
Olafson, L., Schraw, G., Nedelson, L., Nedelson, S., & Kehrwald, N. (2013). Exploring the judgment–action gap:
College students and academic dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 23, 148–162. doi:10.1080/10508422.2012.714247
Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Orosz, G., Farkas, D., & Roland-Levy, C. (2013). Are competition and extrinsic motivation reliable predictors of
academic cheating?. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(87), 1–16.
Owe, E., Vignoles, V., Becker, M., Brown, R., Smith, P., & Lee, S., et al. (2013). Contextualism as an important facet of
individualism-collectivism: Personhood beliefs acros. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 24–45. doi:10.1177/
0022022111430255
Ramzan, M., Munir, M., Siddique, N., & Asif, M. (2012). Awareness about plagiarism amongst university students in
Pakistan. Higher Education, 64, 73–84. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9481-4
Ravenscroft, S., Waymire, T., & West, T. (2012). Accounting students’ metacognition: The association of performance,
calibration error, and mindset. Issues in Accounting Education, 27, 707–732. doi:10.2308/iace-50148
Rezanejad, A., & Rezaei, S. (2013). Academic dishonesty at universities: The case of plagiarism among Iranian language
students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11, 275–295. doi:10.1007/s10805-013-9193-8
Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Schutte, H., & Ciarlante, D. (1998). Consumer behavior in Asia. Londonm, UK: Macmillan Business.
Sendag, S., Duran, M., & Fraser, M. (2012). Surveying the extent of involvement in online academic dishonesty (e-
dishonesty) related practices among university students and the rationale students provide: One university’s experi-
ence. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 849–860. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.004
Singelis, T., Triandis, H., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and
collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275. doi:10.1177/
106939719502900302
Smith, C. (2012). Ethical behaviour in the e-classroom: What the online student needs to know. Oxford, UK: Chandos.
Stallman, H. (2011). Embedding resilience within the tertiary curriculum: A feasibility study. Higher Education Research
& Development, 30, 121–133. doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.509763
Tan, K. (2006). Genesis 1-11 and Buddhist scriptures: How the gosepl can transform Buddhist worldviews. In P. De Neui
& D. Lim (Eds.), Communicating Christ in the Buddhist world (pp. 25–46). Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.
Tanawattanacharoen, S., & Nimnuan, C. (2009). Academic misconduct among medical students. South East Asian
Journal of Medical Education, 3, 8–13.
Taradi, S., Taradi, M., & Dogas, Z. (2012). Croatian medical students see academic dishonesty as an acceptable
behaviour: A cross-sectional multicampus study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38, 376–379. doi:10.1136/medethics-
2011-100015
Tongsilp, A. (2013). A path analysis of relationships between factors with achievement motivation of students of private
universities in Bangkok, Thailand. Social and Behavioral Sciences Symposium, 4th International Science, Social
Science, Engineering and Energy Conference 2012 (pp. 229–238). Pethcburi,Thailand: Elsevier.
Xueqin, J. (2010, October 16). Cheating in China. Retrieved from http://thediplomat.com/2010/10/cheating-in-china/
Yan, V., Thai, K., & Bjork, R. (2014). Habits and beliefs that guide self-regulated learning: Do they vary with mindset?
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 140–152. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.04.003
Yang, S. (2012). Attitudes and behaviors related to academic dishonesty: A survey of Taiwanese graduate students. Ethics
& Behavior, 22, 218–237. doi:10.1080/10508422.2012.672904
Young, A., Johnson, G., Hawthorne, M., & Pugh, J. (2011). Cultural predictors of academic motivation and achievement:
A self-deterministic approach. College Student Journal, 45, 151–163.
Young, D. (2013). Perspectives on cheating at a Thai university. Language Testing in Asia, 3, 6–15. doi:10.1186/2229-
0443-3-6
Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M. (2014). Ethical beliefs toward academic dishonesty: A cross-cultural comparison of undergraduate
students in Ukraine and the United States. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12, 29–41. doi:10.1007/s10805-013-9198-3
Zhu, Y., & Leung, F. (2011). Motivation and achievement: Is there an East Asian model? International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 9, 1189–1212. doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9255-y