CAN SYSTEM REDUCE STUDENT DISHONEST BEHAVIOR?

Adrie Putra

University EsaUnggul

Taufiqurahman

University EsaUnggul

Abstract

Things to be achieved in this research is to find the factors that affect students in a dishonest behavior using the basic fraud triangle theory and try to build a system that can reduce dishonest behavior in students.

This study is anextension of the previous research that has been done before, which in this study we try to increase the number of samples and the number of universities involved in this study

Primary data is used for analysis in this study, we using Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) with respondents as many as 250 students in the various universities.

In this study proves that the three factors that exist in the Fraud Triangle Theory; opportunity, realization and incentives are factors which will affect the students in conducting dishonest behavior

Keyword: Fraud Triangle Theory, Dishonest, System

Introduction

Higher education is one indicator of the progress of a nation. The higher the level of education that is owned by residents of a nation, it is expected to be higher the progress of the nation. The roles of the University in raising the level of higher education is one of the pillars and have an important role in improving intellectual contribution. Higher education provides a considerable role in the transfer of knowledge, but nevertheless high level of education does not guarantee a person will adhere to ethical behavior, and tend to have higher education levels they have more opportunity to do a dishonest act.

Dishonest behavior in education is a form of cheating that will affect the bias of the learning outcomes, where the results of cheating cannot be the benchmark of performance or capabilities of the students who are studying the learning process as a measure of success. In the world of education and the completion rate of student success is measured by the value generated from the learning and evaluation process.

Terminology fraud is one of the concerns in the audit. Anyone can commit fraud. Fraud is different from an error by the intent to deceive (Rittenberg, 2005) .It is common in all fraud is intent to deceive for personal gain. Albrecht (2006) makes the definition of fraud as: “Fraud is a generic term, and embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, which are resorted to by one individual, to get an advantage over another by false representations. No definite and invariable rule can be laid down as a general proposition in defining fraud, as it includes surprise, trickery, cunning and unfair ways by which another is cheated. The only boundaries defining it are those which limit human knavery”.

The third element is the fraud triangle incentive, opportunity, and rationalization (Albrecht (2006), Becker (2006), Wells (2005)). Three conditions for fraud arising from fraudulent financial reporting and misappropriation of assets described in PSAS 70 (SA 316), and then the referee as the fraud triangle (Elder, 2009). In this study, the fraud triangle was used as a framework to gain insight into the behavior of students cheating.

The first element of the fraud triangle is an incentive or pressure, which is the motivation for fraud that may come from the students themselves or others such as parents, fellow students, and the pressure to maintain a GPA (grade point average). Wolfe (2004) revealed the first element as an "incentive: I would like, or have a need to, commit fraud". Or in other words, someone may have impulse or pressure that gives him / her motivation to commit fraud (Ramos, 2003).

The second element of the fraud triangle is an opportunity that comes from various sources. Some students see the academic community they provide an opportunity to cheat when the lecturer is not too worried about plagiarism, or professors do not seem to explain the consequences of cheating during the exam (Becker, 2006). In line with this understanding, Wolfe (2004) revealed the "opportunity: there are weaknesses in the system that the right people can exploit fraud is possible". In other words, where the environment provides the opportunity for fraud to be done, such as lack of control, the control is not effective, or the ability of management control override (Ramos, 2003).

The third element is the rationalization, which offers students the ability to see the cheating behavior is consistent with their personal code of ethics (KockDavinson in Becker, 2006). For example, the lack of punishment for misbehaving academic, no clear boundaries borrow other people's ideas when writing papers. Wolfe (2004) revealed the "rationalization: I have convinced myself that this fraudulent behavior is worth the risk." Or in other words, the third element is the ability to rationalize fraudulent actions as being consistent with the perpetrators of personal code of ethics. KockDavinson in Becker (2006) revealed the students justify cheating behavior when they face unfair competition or if they believe their actions are still within the bounds of acceptable behavior. It is also in line with the opinion of Ramos (2003) that some of the positions attitude, character or set of ethical values ​​that allow them to learn and cheating intensive.

McCabe et al (2006) collected data from 54 colleges in the United States and Canada in 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 academic years as part of a large project organized by the Center for Academic Integrity at Duke University. The survey was conducted by sending an email questionnaire to all undergraduate and graduate students on campus. The dependent variable used is academic dishonesty, while independent is the understanding and acceptance of the academic integrity policy, the perception of the behavior of fellow students cheating, and certainty will be reported by fellow students, as well as heavy penalties. McCabe et al (2006) found that the behavior of cheating among graduate business students graduate student in higher than non - business. In the study, the perception that the other students cheat have the greatest effect. Correlation analysis also showed that in contrast to the certainty of fraudulent behavior will be reported by their fellow students as well as understanding and acceptance of the academic integrity policy. Fraudulent behavior has a positive value to the perception of cheating behavior of their fellow students.

Becker (2006), using questionnaires from 476 students to get the result that 20.42% of cheating behavior is explained by each variable triangle fraud, where fraudulent behavior increases the incentive, the opportunity and the reason for such behavior. He also conducted a sensitivity analysis on the influence of the students GPA, gender, hours of work and hours of study, age and frequency of doing party all year college for cheating behavior. Consequently there’s no influence on GPA student, gender, teaching hours and hours of work with cheating behavior. Although there is a significant negative effect among students age cheating behavior, and there is a positive influence between the frequencies of students doing the party against fraudulent behavior.

Literature Review

Fraud Triangle Theory

Cressey (in Skousen et al., 2009) makes a theory that there three conditions are always present when fraud financial statements. Third the condition is the pressure (pressure), chance (opportunity), and rationalization (rationalization) which was then known as fraud triangle.

Fraud basically does not just happen in a company. However fraud can occur due to various causes and possibilities as a reason for action fraud, Here is a theory that the author use as a reference to see how fraud it could happen.

First causes are pressure, an incentive/pressure/the need to commit fraud. Pressure can include virtually anything including lifestyle, economic demands, and others, including financial and non-financial. According to SAS No. 99, there are four types of conditions that commonly occur in pressure that could lead to fraud, such as financial stability, external pressure, personal financial need, and financialtargets.

Second causes Opportunity, the situation opens the opportunity to allow some cheating going on. It usually occurs because of the company's internal controls are weak, lack of supervision and abuse of authority. Among other elements of the diamond fraud, opportunity is an element most likely is minimized through the application process, procedures, and early detection efforts against fraud.

The third Rationalization that is their attitude, character or set of ethical values ​​that allow certain parties to commit acts of fraud, or people who are in an environment that is sufficiently pressing that makes them rationalize fraud measures. Rationalization or attitude of the most widely used is simply borrowed stolen assets and the reason that his actions for the happiness of the people he/her loves.

Figure 1

Classification cheating behavior according Heterington and Feldman (in Anderman and Murdock, 2007) classifies cheating behavior into four categories:

  1. Social Active;Social active are taking or asking for answers from others, in this condition the student to rely on other students to cheat. For example, at the time of the exam, a student asked for answers to other friends.
  2. Passive Social;Social passive is basically the student does not want to engage in cheating activity. Cheating occurs when the passive role of a student and count on by other students to cheat. As an example let others cheat, at the time of the exam the student let the other students to cheat or even leave the cheat sheet.
  3. Individualistic Opportunistic;Individualistic opportunistic is cheating activity done by people who are impulsive or did it suddenly and did not plan it, and do it alone. For example, open book exam.
  4. Independent Planned;Independent planned is a student deliberately plan their own activities cheating was going to do on exam day and rely on itself, forexamples brings Those materials or notes into the exam room to deliberate.

Reasoned Action Theory

Theory of Reasoned Action developed by Martin Fishbein and AjzenIcek as the development of an integrated information theory (AjzenFishbein, 1980; FishbeinAjzen, 1975). In this theory, there are two changes of significant value. First, in the process of persuasion, this theory provides an additional element that is of interest what others do. The theory of reasoned action will concentrate on delivering behavioral objectives explicitly, not predict the behavior of what he would do someone in the future. Second i theory of reasoned action using two elements, namely attitudes and norms (or what is in the community) to predict behavior someone.

When someone directed us to do things, and we want to do, but there are norms that do not encourage the same way, then the second factor can influence our behavior. In the aspect of attitude, there are two components are discussed. Fishbein and Ajzen refer to it as the evaluation and the strength of feeling of trust. The second component is a normative belief and encouragement from us to comply with the relevant norms. Normative belief is related to what I think people expect from me. While the urge to obey opposite of how important for me to do what people expect me to do. There are several options that can be used to influence others. Here are some strategies adapted from information integration theory:

  1. Strengthen the power of belief in being supportive persuasive purposes.
  2. Strengthen the evaluation of attitudes that support the goals persuasive.
  3. Weaken (reduce the power) of the power of belief in being the opposite of persuasive purposes.
  4. Debilitating evaluation attitude to promote the goals of persuasion.
  5. Creating a new behavior with the power of belief and evaluation that support the achievement of objectives persuasive.
  6. Reminding the public about the attitudes forgotten the power of belief and evaluation that support the achievement of objectives persuasive.

Research Methodology

This type of research is causality and quantitative methods in collecting data in this research is by using primary data obtained from distributing questionnaires to students. This type of design is a descriptive study with the intention of making a description of situations or events. (Suryabrata, 2010: 76), this research uses primary data obtained from a survey of college students scattered in Jakarta.This research can be seen in the research model as follows:

Figure 2

Research Model

Processing of data in this research using the statistical tool with Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA), with a number of questions spread is 200 questioners, and only 184 questioners that can be processed, it is due to an answer that was broken and did not return.

Analysis and Discussion

From the data collected the following, the researchers tried to explore further action determinants of student cheating or committing fraud during the study period, while the available data can be viewed as follows: This study used two types of variables, independent variables and the dependent variable. From the data processing can be seen that there is a significant relationship between independent variables and the dependent variable with significant value of 0:00 or less than 0.05, then the other words that are acceptable Model Research. In this study, there are three partial hypotheses about factors that affect the behavior of a student's academic cheating in the exam in the colleges in Jakarta. Here are the results of the third test of the hypothesis.

According to the table survey results revealed that the value of t (t-statistic) for the second hypothesis, namely Incentive against Cheating Behavior amounted to 0.009 ≥ 0.05. This means that the second hypothesis proven, or in other words, constructs incentive have influence on the students' academic cheating in the exam in the university environment in Jakarta. Hypothesis 3 wherein the third hypothesis states that a variable Opportunity (opportunity) effect on academic cheating behavior of students during exams at universities in Jakarta.it can be seen that the value of significance for hypothesis 3, the Opportunity to Conduct Student Academic Cheating is of 0.00 ≤ 0.05. This means that Hypothesis 3 is supported, or in other words the opportunity constructs influence the behavior of a student's academic cheating during examinations in universities in Jakarta.

On This hypothesis states that Rationalization variables influence the behavior of college students cheat on tests in universities in Jakarta. Based on the table it can be seen that the value significance for hypothesis 4, the Rationalization of the students are cheating Behavior of 0.00 ≤ 0.05. This means that Hypothesis 3 is supported, or in other words the construct rationalization effect on academic cheating behavior of students during examinations in universities in Jakarta.
Effect of pressure on academic cheating behavior based on the results of the first hypothesis test, this study get the result that there is no influence of pressure on academic cheating behavior of students during exams. The results of this study are consistent with research Ahmady et al. (2010). Ahmady et al. (2010) conducted a study of 428 college student’s business concentration Lusern University. Results from these studies explain that the pressure does not have a significant influence on the occurrence of academic fraud and stated that fraud does not appear along with the pressures felt by students.

The researchers gave some description of the respondent to determine what kind of pressure that is often felt. Based on the results obtained by researchers, found three items statement that has the highest average value that is the statement: (a) I do academic cheating because their rules must pass certain courses as a requirement to take the course next; (B) I do academic cheating because a heavy workload (exam or task too difficult); (C) I do academic cheating because of the difficulties in understanding the lectures in the classroom. Students who are not able to be passed in the prerequisite subjects which if it happens could result cannot take the course next to hamper his studies to make one of the causes why do academic cheating to avoid the lack of graduates in the prerequisite subjects. Students fear cannot complete a task or test well and on time due to the amount of time consumed to engage in activities outside the lecture that makes the time for learning is reduced causing the students to take a shortcut by performing the academic fraud in order to get a good value. When students have difficulty in a subject's eyes and expect them to be passed in the course and got a good value, pressures faced by students will increase. To achieve these expectations they will do all kinds of ways including conducting academic cheating.

The pressure to get good grades is still the most dominant pressure factor that is often felt by students. Values have a great impact for the students because the value is a reflection of a success of their studies not uncommon to many students ascribe more value than the knowledge they gained. The pressure to get good grades not only come from within the student who wants to get more value superior to his friends, but there is also pressure to get good value from external parties such as parents, faculty, the scholarship, and the place of work. The number of activities outside the lecture was also one of the causes of students doing academic cheating.

Activities outside the course leads to a lack of time to study and could not complete the task properly and on time and cannot prepare for the exam. The explanation that has been described above is also supported by the results of qualitative research in the form of interviews with informants. The results of the study explains that some of the reasons a student cheating, one of which is the pressure. Informants of students admit that they commit fraud because of the circumstances that force. They are not yet ready to take the exam because I was lazy to learn or have not mastered the test materials, while they want to get good grades so they commit fraud. It can be seen that the pressure to get good grades is still a major factor in student cheating. The flurry outside the lecture is quite time consuming as well be a factor in student cheating academic pressure. In addition the number of tasks or exam given also factored into a student cheating. For many tasks given, that in fact the lecturer had given tasks according to their proportion, not too much or little. But here, because of the nature of the students who procrastinate tasks so that the task piled up, and when there is no time to do, the students choose a shortcut by copying his duties. If students are not able to accept the burden of many tasks, these students do not take subjects that much. Other things such as lecturers give the task also takes time. Suppose a student installments workmanship task, the task will be completed properly and on time, task given by faculty solely only for the good of students.