All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

The Psychology of Plagiarism
Unformatted Document Text:  intent changed the definition of plagiarism, 29.2% of those who reported plagiarism agreed. The other two scenarios did not produce significant differences, as Table 1 indicates. Thus, H3 was partially supported. Table 1 Acceptance of Types of Internet Plagiarism, Plagiarists vs. Non-Plagiarists Type of copy-and-paste plagiarism allowed χ 2 (a) Bibliography sufficient 8.27** (b) Professor failed to allow enough time 3.09 (c) The Internet is an open source 2.13 (d) Writer lacked intent 7.85** ** p < .01 The Big Five personality measures were central to H4. To ensure inter-item reliability, the eight adjective pairs for each of the five attributes were assessed. Each had a reliability coefficient using Cronbach’s alpha exceeding the 0.70 recommended for personality tests. 54 Logistic regression was used first to evaluate the Big Five personality measures against plagiarism as a dichotomous dependent variable. The Hosmer- Lemeshow goodness of fit test affirms the validity of the model with a significance level above .05 (χ 2 = 10.79, df = 8, p = .21), but none of the Big Five factors demonstrated significance in Wald tests. As a further evaluation, the means for each of the Big Five measures were compared between the two groups (did or did not plagiarize) using independent-samples t-tests. None of the comparisons was statistically significant. Finally, a one-way, between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore whether personality scores differed for those who acknowledged multiple instances of plagiarism. Responses were divided into three groups: did not plagiarize, plagiarized once and plagiarized multiple times. The differences between the means for those three

Authors: Lewis, Norman. and Zhong, Bu.
first   previous   Page 12 of 21   next   last



background image
intent changed the definition of plagiarism, 29.2% of those who reported plagiarism 
agreed. The other two scenarios did not produce significant differences, as Table 1 
indicates. Thus, H3 was partially supported.
Table 1
Acceptance of Types of Internet Plagiarism, Plagiarists vs. Non-Plagiarists
Type of copy-and-paste plagiarism allowed
χ
2
(a) Bibliography sufficient
8.27**
(b) Professor failed to allow enough time
3.09
(c) The Internet is an open source
2.13
(d) Writer lacked intent
7.85**
** p < .01
The Big Five personality measures were central to H4. To ensure inter-item 
reliability, the eight adjective pairs for each of the five attributes were assessed. Each had 
a reliability coefficient using Cronbach’s alpha exceeding the 0.70 recommended for 
personality tests.
 Logistic regression was used first to evaluate the Big Five personality 
measures against plagiarism as a dichotomous dependent variable. The Hosmer-
Lemeshow goodness of fit test affirms the validity of the model with a significance level 
above .05 (χ
2
 = 10.79, df = 8, p = .21), but none of the Big Five factors demonstrated 
significance in Wald tests. As a further evaluation, the means for each of the Big Five 
measures were compared between the two groups (did or did not plagiarize) using 
independent-samples t-tests. None of the comparisons was statistically significant. 
Finally, a one-way, between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore 
whether personality scores differed for those who acknowledged multiple instances of 
plagiarism. Responses were divided into three groups: did not plagiarize, plagiarized 
once and plagiarized multiple times. The differences between the means for those three 


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 12 of 21   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.