IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tbitxx/v44y2025i3p491-507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interplay of rationality and morality in using ChatGPT for academic misconduct

Author

Listed:
  • Lixuan Zhang
  • Clinton Amos
  • Iryna Pentina

Abstract

ChatGPT’s capability to generate original content on any topic represents a concern for academic institutions, since students can plagiarise the AI-created content with a low probability of being caught. While prior research on academic misconduct emphasized the combined effects of perceived costs and benefits in explaining students’ decisions to cheat, the low detectability of ChatGPT-based plagiarism significantly reduces the cost of being caught, making rational choice theory less powerful in explaining academic misconduct in the AI era. Considering the effects of both rational decision-making and moral considerations, this study shows that individuals experiencing moral disengagement are more likely to engage in ChatGPT-based plagiarism. Other significant predictors include perceived benefits, punishment severity, and informal sanctions. Furthermore, moral disengagement enhances the effects of formal sanctions on ChatGPT-based plagiarism. The results have implications for professors, academic administrators, and plagiarism detection software designers to enforce academic integrity in the ChatGPT era.

Suggested Citation

  • Lixuan Zhang & Clinton Amos & Iryna Pentina, 2025. "Interplay of rationality and morality in using ChatGPT for academic misconduct," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 491-507, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:44:y:2025:i:3:p:491-507
    DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2024.2325023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2325023
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2325023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:44:y:2025:i:3:p:491-507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tbit .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.