Ethics and Behavior 30 (5):385-399 (2020)

Drawing from existing knowledge of ethical decision-making and academic dishonesty, this study investigates factors that influence students’ decision to report the academic misconduct of their peers. The core of the proposed conceptual model consists of the succession of three steps, linking ethical recognition, ethical judgment and ethical intent related to peer reporting. We introduce mindfulness as an antecedent of ethical recognition of peer reporting. We also include perceived importance of peer reporting as a predictor of all three steps. Data were collected from business school students through a survey design. The model was tested with structural equation modelling, with the results providing support for the hypotheses.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/10508422.2019.1628644
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,410
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Ethical Decision-Making Theory: An Integrated Approach.Mark S. Schwartz - 2016 - Journal of Business Ethics 139 (4):755-776.

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Academic Dishonesty.Akakandelwa Akakandelwa, Priti Jain & Sitali Wamundila - 2013 - Journal of Information Ethics 22 (2):141-154.


Added to PP index

Total views
20 ( #560,565 of 2,519,810 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #406,314 of 2,519,810 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes