Huang Chiao Ling, Yang Shu-Ching, Yang Chun-An
Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Information Technology, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Institute of Education, The Intelligent Electronic Commerce Research Center, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Front Psychol. 2022 Apr 5;13:857943. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.857943. eCollection 2022.
Using Reidenbach and Robin's Multidimensional Ethics Scale, this study designs three scenarios related to academic dishonesty (AD) dilemmas to explore students' moral philosophies, behavioral intentions, and ethical judgments and further examines whether students with different individual factors (i.e., culture of place, gender, and educational level) have differences in the above variables. A total of 605 students from two areas, Taiwan and Mainland China, participated in this study. The results indicated that Taiwanese students had stricter moral equity, relativism, and contractualism philosophies in the duplicate submission scenario than Mainland China students. They also had stricter moral equity and relativism philosophies in the incomplete citation scenario. Similarly, relatively harsh relativism and contractualism philosophies accompanied by a low level of willingness to be a perpetrator in the failure to cite research published in other countries scenario were found. In addition, females applied relatively harsh moral equity and utilitarianism to all scenarios, reporting that they and their peers were less likely to engage in all AD activities. Graduates had a stricter egoism attitude toward duplicate submission and had stricter moral equity, relativism, and contractualism philosophies toward the behavior of incomplete citation. Graduate students also had strict moral equity, relativism, egoism, and contractualism beliefs in the failure to cite the foreign research scenario. Finally, regression analysis showed that moral equity, contractualism, and self-behavioral intention are significant predictors of students' ethical evaluations in the three scenarios.
本研究使用雷登巴赫和罗宾的多维道德量表，设计了三个与学术不诚实困境相关的情景，以探究学生的道德哲学、行为意图和道德判断，并进一步考察具有不同个体因素（即地域文化、性别和教育水平）的学生在上述变量上是否存在差异。来自台湾和中国大陆两个地区的605名学生参与了本研究。结果表明，在重复提交情景中，台湾学生的道德公平、相对主义和契约主义哲学比中国大陆学生更为严格。在不完整引用情景中，他们的道德公平和相对主义哲学也更为严格。同样，在未引用其他国家发表的研究情景中，发现相对严厉的相对主义和契约主义哲学伴随着较低的成为违规者的意愿。此外，女性在所有情景中都应用了相对严厉的道德公平和功利主义，报告称她们自己以及同龄人参与所有学术不诚实行为的可能性较低。毕业生对重复提交有更严格的利己主义态度，对不完整引用行为有更严格的道德公平、相对主义和契约主义哲学。研究生在未引用国外研究情景中也有严格的道德公平、相对主义、利己主义和契约主义信念。最后，回归分析表明，道德公平、契约主义和自我行为意图是学生在这三个情景中道德评价的重要预测因素。
