The surge in artificial intelligence (AI) adoption in higher education, exemplified by Large Language Models like ChatGPT, offers unprecedented opportunities for learning and collaboration while posing potential threats to academic integrity. This study investigates the complex relationship between personal factors, external factors, technological advancements, especially AI adoption, and the academic integrity of post-graduate management students.
The central element of this study is a mini-project assigned to 60 PGDM students in a Business Research Methods course. Preliminary evaluations of the project reports submitted by students suggested extensive use of AI-generated content. The submitted reports were classified by level of AI-generated content, and this classification was then integrated with student responses to a structured questionnaire grounded in eight theoretical constructs related to academic integrity.
Employing an explanatory sequential mixed-method design, the study first used discriminant analysis to identify the factors that influence students’ ethical decision-making within AI-integrated educational environments, followed by thematic analysis of students’ qualitative responses to triangulate the findings.
This research finds that peer pressure, academic stress, and perceived institutional unfairness drive management students to unethical use of AI tools. This study highlights the need for transparent evaluation practices, a mechanism for peer accountability, institutional support systems and clear guidelines on ethical AI use. If the institutions fail to provide support, students are more likely to engage in behaviours that may put their academic future at risk. The study has implications for teaching interventions, policy formulation, and future research that may help create a culture of integrity within AI-enhanced learning environments.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2.
AkersR. L., & JensenG. F. (2008). The empirical status of social learning theory of crime and deviance: The past, present, and future. In CullenF. T., WrightJ. P., & BlevinsK. R. (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 35–83). Routledge.
3.
Al-MughairiH., & BhaskarP. (2024). Exploring the factors affecting the adoption of AI techniques in higher education: Insights from teachers’ perspectives on ChatGPT. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-09-2023-0129
4.
AndermanE. M., & MidgleyC. (2004). Changes in self-reported academic cheating across the transition from middle school to high school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 499–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.02.002
5.
AndermanE. M., & MurdockT. B. (2007). Introduction. In AndermanE. M. & MurdockT. B. (Eds.), The psychology of academic cheating (pp. 1–5). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372541-7/50002-4
6.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
7.
Bin-NashwanS. A., SadallahM., & BouteraaM. (2023). Use of ChatGPT in academia: Academic integrity hangs in the balance. Technology in Society, 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102370
8.
BłachnioA., CudoA., KotP., TorójM., Oppong AsanteK., EneaV., Ben-EzraM., CaciB., Dominguez-LaraS. A., KugbeyN., MalikS., ServidioR., TipandjanA., & WrightM. F. (2022). Cultural and psychological variables predicting academic dishonesty: A cross-sectional study in nine countries. Ethics & Behavior, 32(1), 44–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.1910826
9.
BlauI., GoldbergS., FriedmanA., & Eshet-AlkalaiY. (2021). Violation of digital and analog academic integrity through the eyes of faculty members and students: Do institutional role and technology change ethical perspectives?Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33(1), 157–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09260-0
10.
BretagT., & GreenM. (2014). The role of virtue ethics principles in academic integrity breach decision-making. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(3), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9209-z
11.
BrownM. T., & TinsleyH. E. A. (1983). Discriminant analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(4), 290–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1983.11969564
12.
BrownM. T., & WickerL. R. (2000). Discriminant analysis. In TinsleyH. E. A. & BrownS. D. (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 209–235). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50009-4
13.
BrownT., IsbelS., LoganA., & EtheringtonJ. (2020). Predictors of academic integrity in undergraduate and graduate-entry master’s occupational therapy students. Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 33(2), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1569186120968035
14.
ChanC. K. Y., & HuW. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
15.
CialdiniR. B., & GoldsteinN. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
16.
CottonD. R. E., CottonP. A., & ShipwayJ. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
17.
CreswellJ. W., & Plano ClarkV. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
18.
CurtisG. J., & ClareJ. (2023). Academic integrity scholarship: The importance of theory. In EatonS. E. (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (2nd ed., pp. 1651–1669). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3
19.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
20.
DempereJ., ModuguK., HeshamA., & RamasamyL. K. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on higher education. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1206936
21.
DiMaggioP. J., & PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
22.
DiPietroM. (2010). Theoretical frameworks for academic dishonesty: A comparative review. To Improve the Academy, 28, 250–262. https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0028.018
23.
EatonS. E. (2023). Postplagiarism: Transdisciplinary ethics and integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00144-1
24.
EkeD. O. (2023). ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity?Journal of Responsible Technology, 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060
25.
EsselH. B., VlachopoulosD., EssumanA. B., & AmankwaJ. O. (2024). ChatGPT effects on cognitive skills of undergraduate students: Receiving instant responses from AI-based conversational large language models (LLMs). Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100198
26.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson.
27.
GillS. S., XuM., PatrosP., WuH., KaurR., KaurK., FullerS., SinghM., AroraP., ParlikadA. K., StankovskiV., AbrahamA., GhoshS. K., LutfiyyaH., KanhereS. S., BahsoonR., RanaO., DustdarS., SakellariouR., … BuyyaR. (2024). Transformative effects of ChatGPT on modern education: Emerging era of AI chatbots. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 4, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.06.002
28.
Hadi MogaviR., DengC., KimJ. J., ZhouP., KwonY. D., MetwallyA. H. S., TliliA., BassanelliS., BucchiaroneA., GujarS., NackeL. E., & HuiP. (2024). ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study exploring early adopters’ utilization and perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1), 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100027
29.
HaleemA., JavaidM., QadriM. A., & SumanR. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
30.
Harmon-JonesE., & MillsJ. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory. InCognitive dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3–24). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-001
31.
HoldenO. L., NorrisM. E., & KuhlmeierV. A. (2021). Academic integrity in online assessment: A research review. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.639814
32.
International Center for Academic Integrity. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3rd ed.). www.academicintegrity.org/the-fundamental-values
33.
KiekkasP., MichalopoulosE., StefanopoulosN., SamartziK., KraniaP., GiannikopoulouM., & IgoumenidisM. (2020). Reasons for academic dishonesty during examinations among nursing students: A cross-sectional survey. Nurse Education Today, 86(March), 1–7.
34.
KrouM. R., FongC. J., & HoffM. A. (2021). Achievement motivation and academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic investigation. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 427–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09557-7
35.
LazarusR. S., & FolkmanS. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
36.
Le-NguyenH.-T., & TranT. T. (2024). Generative AI in terms of its ethical problems for both teachers and learners. In Le-NguyenH.-T. & TranT. T. (Eds.), Generative AI in teaching and learning (pp. 144–173). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-0074-9.ch006
37.
LiuM., RenY., NyagogaL. M., StonierF., WuZ., & YuL. (2023). Future of education in the era of generative artificial intelligence: Consensus among Chinese scholars on applications of ChatGPT in schools. Future in Educational Research, 1(1), 72–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fer3.10
38.
McCabeD. L., & TreviñoL. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5). https://doi.org/10.2307/2959991
39.
McCabeD. L., TreviñoL. K., & ButterfieldK. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219–232.
40.
MilesM. B., HubermanA. M., & SaldañaJ. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
41.
PerkinsM. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.53761/ 1.20.02.07
42.
RejebA., RejebK., AppolloniA., TreiblmaierH., & IranmaneshM. (2024). Exploring the impact of ChatGPT on education: A web mining and machine learning approach. International Journal of Management Education, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.100932
43.
RettingerD. A., & KramerY. (2009). Situational and personal causes of student cheating. Research in Higher Education, 50(3), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11162-008-9116-5/METRICS
44.
RyanR. M., & DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
45.
SullivanM., KellyA., & McLaughlanP. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17
46.
TreviñoL. K., ButterfieldK. D., & McCabeD. L. (1998). The ethical context in organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447–476. https://doi.org/10.5840/10.2307/3857431
47.
VansteenkisteM., SimonsJ., LensW., SheldonK. M., & DeciE. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246
48.
VenkateshV., MorrisM. G., DavisG. B., & DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
49.
WhitleyB. E.Jr., & Keith-SpiegelP. (2002). Academic dishonesty: An educator’s guide. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50.
Zawacki-RichterO., MarínV. I., BondM., & GouverneurF. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators?International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/S41239-019-0171-0
51.
ZebA., UllahR., & KarimR. (2024). Exploring the role of ChatGPT in higher education: Opportunities, challenges, and ethical considerations. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 41(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-04-2023-0046
52.
ZhaoL., MaoH., ComptonB. J., PengJ., FuG., FangF., HeymanG. D., & LeeK. (2022). Academic dishonesty and its relations to peer cheating and culture: A meta-analysis of the perceived peer cheating effect. Educational Research Review, 36, 100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100455
