Determinants of Students’ Willingness to Engage in Corruption in an Academic Setting: an Empirical Study

Abstract

Corruption in higher education has raised concern among governments, citizens, and the education community worldwide. However, few papers have sought to explore the students’ willingness to engage in corrupt practices at the university level. The present study aimed to examine the influence of different corrupt behaviours and perceived corruption among peers on the corrupt intention of university students. 120 undergraduate students participated in a quasi-experimental design divided in 3 treatments (control, low-corruption acceptance, high-corruption acceptance) to rate their willingness to engage in favouritism and embezzlement behaviours. Results pointed out that students were more prone to committing a non-monetary behaviour favouritism– than a monetary behaviour –embezzlement–. Furthermore, there were not significant differences between the groups of control and high-corruption acceptance; while only the group of low-corruption acceptance showed significant lower rates when compared to the control and the high-corruption acceptance’s group. Practical recommendations need to address students’ perceptions of different corrupt practices, focusing on designing ethical training programmes aimed to raise awareness on the negative consequences of non-monetary activities. Future research directions could generate empirical support to prove if students are able to recognize the underlying mechanisms of subtle corrupt practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Abad, F., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & García, C. (2011). Medición en ciencias sociales y de la salud. Madrid: Síntesis.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abbink, K., & Serra, D. (2012). Anticorruption policies: Lessons from the lab. New advances in experimental research on corruption, 15, 77–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0193-2306(2012)0000015006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alatas, V., Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., & Gangadharan, L. (2009). Gender and corruption: Insights from an experimental analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), 663–680.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alhassan-Alolo, N. (2007). Gender and corruption: Testing the new consensus. Public Administration and Development, 27, 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2009.37008011.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ayal, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ariely, D. (2015). Three principles to REVISE people’s unethical behavior. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 738–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bai, B., Liu, X., & Kou, Y. (2014). Belief in a just world lowers perceived intention of corruption: The mediating role of perceived punishment. PLoS One, 9(5), 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bussell, J. (2015). Typologies of corruption: A pragmatic approach. In S. Rose-Ackerman & P. Lagunes (Eds.), Greed, corruption, and the modern state: Essays in political economy (pp. 21–45). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784714703.00007.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Čábelková, I., & Hanousek, J. (2004). The power of negative thinking: Corruption, perception and willingness to bribe in Ukraine. Applied Economics, 36(4), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840410001674303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cadsby, C. B., Du, N., & Song, F. (2016). In-group favoritism and moral decision-making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 128, 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cárdenas, S. (2012). La corrupción en sistemas educativos: una revisión de prácticas, causas, efectos y recomendaciones. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 14(2), 52–72.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cebrián-Robles, V., Raposo-Rivas, M., Cebrián-de-la-Serna, M., & Sarmiento-Campos, J. A. (2018). Percepción sobre el plagio académico de estudiantes universitarios españoles. Educación XX1, 21(2), 105–129. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.20062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chapman, D., & Lindner, S. (2016). Degrees of integrity: The threat of corruption in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.927854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chaudhuri, A. (2012). Gender and corruption: A survey of the experimental evidence. In D. Serra & L. Wantchekon (Eds.), New Advances in Experimental Research on Corruption (Vol. 15, pp. 13–49). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. 10.1108/S0193-2306(2012)0000015004.

  16. Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cialdini, R., Reno, R., & Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Collins, J., Uhlenbruck, K., & Rodriguez, P. (2009). Why firms engage in corruption: A top management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9872-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Comas-Forgas, R., & Sureda-Negre, J. (2016). Prevalence and ability to recognize academic plagiarism among university students in economics. Profesionales de la información, 25(4), 616–622. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.jul.11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Denisova-Schmidt, E. (2017). The challenges of academic integrity in higher education: Current trends and prospects. Chestnut Hill: The Boston College Center for international higher education (CIHE). https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cihe/pubs/CIHEperspective/perspectives no 5 June 13%2C 2017 no cropsFINAL.Pdf.

  22. Djawadi, B., & Fahr, R. (2013). The impact of risk perception and risk attitudes on corrupt behavior: Evidence from a petty corruption experiment. IZA Discussion Paper Series. http://ftp.iza.org/dp7383.pdf

  23. Dong, B., Dulleck, U., & Torgler, B. (2012). Conditional corruption. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 609–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dridi, M. (2013). Corruption within education sector: A typology of consequences. International Journal of Research in Commerce, Economics & Management, 11(3), 122–126.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Du Plessis, P. (2014). Corruption in education – Stealing the future. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 1308–1316. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p1308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Frank, B., Lambsdorff, J., & Boehm, F. (2011). Gender and corruption: Lessons from laboratory corruption experiments. European Journal of Development Research, 23(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2010.47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gama, P., Almeida, F., Seixas, A., Peixoto, P., & Esteves, D. (2013). Ethics and academic fraud among higher education engineering students in Portugal. In Proceedings - 2013 1st international conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education, CISPEE 2013. Porto. https://doi.org/10.1109/CISPEE.2013.6701983.

  28. Ghanem, C. M., & Mozahem, N. A. (2019). A study of cheating beliefs, engagement, and perception – The case of business and engineering students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 17, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-9325-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Haahr, M. (2017). Random integer set generator. True Random Number Service. https://www.random.org/integer-sets/

  31. Hallak, J., & Poisson, M. (2002). Ethics and corruption in education. In Forum on Education. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hallak, J., & Poisson, M. (2007). Corrupt schools, corrupt universities: What can be done? Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Harris, D., Herrmann, B., Kontoleon, A., & Newton, J. (2015). Is it a norm to favour your own group? Experimental Economics, 18(3), 491–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-014-9417-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Heyneman, S. (2011). The corruption of ethics in higher education. International Higher Education, 62, 8–9. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2011.62.8530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Heyneman, S. (2014). How corruption puts higher education at risk. International Higher Education, 75, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2014.75.5425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Heyneman, S., Anderson, K., & Nuraliyeva, N. (2008). The cost of corruption in higher education. Comparative Education Review, 52(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1086/524367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Johnsøn, J., & Mason, P. (2013). The proxy challenge: Why bespoke proxy indicators can help solve the anti-corruption measurement problem. U4 brief. Bergen.

  39. Julián, M., & Bonavia, T. (2017). Aproximaciones Psicosociales a la Corrupción: Una Revisión Teórica. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 26(2), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v26n2.59353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kisamore, J., Stone, T., & Jawahar, I. (2007). Academic integrity: The relationship between individual and situational factors on misconduct contemplations. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9260-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Köbis, N., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Righetti, F., & Van Lange, P. (2015). “Who doesn’t?” - the impact of descriptive norms on corruption. PLoS One, 10(6), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Köbis, N., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Righetti, F., & Van Lange, P. (2016). Prospection in individual and interpersonal corruption dilemmas. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lee, W. S., & Guven, C. (2013). Engaging in corruption: The influence of cultural values and contagion effects at the microlevel. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.09.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. León, C. J., Araña, J. E., & de León, J. (2013). Correcting for scale perception Bias in measuring corruption: An application to Chile and Spain. Social Indicators Research, 114(3), 977–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0185-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Leonard, L. N. K., Riemenschneider, C. K., & Manly, T. S. (2017). Ethical behavioral intention in an academic setting: Models and predictors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(2), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9273-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Liu, Q., & Peng, Y. (2015). Determinants of willingness to bribe: Micro evidence from the educational sector in China. Jahrbucher fur Nationalokonomie und Statistik, 235(2), 168–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Macfarlane, B., Zhang, J., & Pun, A. (2014). Academic integrity: A review of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. MECD. (2016). Datos y cifras del sistema universitario español. Curso 2015/2016 (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte No. M-14388–2015) (p. 169). Retrieved from http://www.mecd.gob.es/dms/mecd/servicios-al-ciudadano-mecd/estadisticas/educacion/universitaria/datos-cifras/datos-y-cifras-SUE-2015-16-web-.pdf

  49. Price, P. (2012). Research methods in psychology. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Reno, R., Cialdini, R., & Kallgren, C. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 104–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rettinger, D., & Kramer, Y. (2009). Situational and personal causes of student cheating. Research in Higher Education, 50, 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9116-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rincón, V., & Barrutia, J. (2017). International demand for Spanish university education: An analysis in the context of the European higher education area. European Journal of Education, 52(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rivas, M. (2013). An experiment on corruption and gender. Bulletin of Economic Research, 65(1), 10–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8586.2012.00450.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rumyantseva, N. (2005). Taxonomy of corruption in higher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje8001_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sabic-El-Rayess, A., & Mansur, N. (2016). Favor reciprocation theory in education: New corruption typology. International Journal of Educational Development, 50, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Schulze, G., & Frank, B. (2003). Deterrence versus intrinsic motivation: Experimental evidence on the determinants of corruptibility. Economics of Governance, 4(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101010200059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Shaw, P., Katsaiti, M., & Pecoraro, B. (2015). On the determinants of educational corruption: The case of Ukraine. Contemporary Economic Policy, 33(4), 698–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sung, H.-E. (2003). Fairer sex or fairer system? Gender and corruption revisited. Social Forces, 82(2), 703–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 25–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(00)00123-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Teixeira, A. A. C. (2013). Sanding the wheels of growth: Cheating by economics and business students and “real world” corruption. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(4), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9192-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Torgler, B., & Valev, N. (2010). Gender and public attitudes toward corruption and tax evasion. Contemporary Economic Policy, 28(4), 554–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00188.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Transparency International. (2009). The anti-corruption plain language guide. Transparency International. www.transparency.org

  63. Transparency International. (2013). Global corruption report: Education. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Transparency International. (2016). People and corruption: Europe and Central Asia (global corruption barometer). Berlin.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martín Julián.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Julián, M., Bonavia, T. Determinants of Students’ Willingness to Engage in Corruption in an Academic Setting: an Empirical Study. J Acad Ethics 18, 363–375 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09362-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Unethical behaviour
  • Types of corruption
  • Perceived corruption
  • Gender
  • Quasi-experimental design
  • Higher education