ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING BEHAVIOR ACADEMIC CHEATING BY FKIP UNS STUDENTS THROUGH THE PERSPECTIVE OF FRAUD PENTAGON THEORY

Syifa Salsabila; Mintasih Indriayu

doi:10.31932/ve.v17i1.6362

ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING BEHAVIOR ACADEMIC CHEATING BY FKIP UNS STUDENTS THROUGH THE PERSPECTIVE OF FRAUD PENTAGON THEORY

Syifa Salsabila, Mintasih Indriayu

Abstract

ABSTRAK

Kecurangan akademik merusak integritas mahasiswa, terutama di kalangan calon pendidik di Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan. Studi ini meneliti pengaruh tekanan, kesempatan, rasionalisasi, kemampuan, dan arogansi terhadap perilaku kecurangan akademik dan mengidentifikasi faktor yang paling dominan dalam Fraud Pentagon Theory. Penelitian kuantitatif ini menggunakan metode regresi, data dikumpulkan dari 384 mahasiswa (angkatan 2022–2024) melalui pengambilan sampel acak proporsional bertingkat dan kuesioner daring. Uji validitas dan reliabilitas diuji menggunakan Konstruk dan Cronbach Alpha. Analisis data menggunakan regresi linier berganda dengan SPSS 25. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa tekanan, kesempatan, rasionalisasi, dan kemampuan secara signifikan (Sig 0,001) memengaruhi kecurangan akademik, sedangkan arogansi tidak (Sig 0,158). Rasionalisasi adalah faktor yang paling dominan dengan nilai standardized beta sebesar 0,359. Temuan ini berdampak berimplikasi pada pentingnya penyusunan kebijakan kampus yang berorientasi pada pencegahan kecurangan akademik melalui penguatan nilai integritas dan budaya akademik yang jujur.

Kata Kunci: Fraud Pentagon, Kecurangan Akademik

ABSTRACT

Academic dishonesty undermines student integrity, particularly among prospective educators in the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education. This study examines the influence of pressure, opportunity, rationalization, ability, and arrogance on academic dishonesty and identifies the most dominant factors in the Fraud Pentagon Theory. This quantitative research used a regression method, with data collected from 384 students (class of 2022–2024) through stratified proportional random sampling and an online questionnaire. Validity and reliability were tested using Construct and Cronbach Alpha. Data analysis used multiple linear regression with SPSS 25. The results showed that pressure, opportunity, rationalization, and ability significantly (Sig 0.001) influenced academic dishonesty, while arrogance did not (Sig 0.158). Rationalization was the most dominant factor with a standardized beta value of 0.359. These findings have implications for the importance of developing campus policies oriented towards preventing academic dishonesty by strengthening integrity values and an honest academic culture.

Keywords: Fraud Pentagon, Academic Dishonesty

Keywords

Fraud pentagon, Academic dishonesty

Full Text:

PDF

References

Achmada, T., Ghozali, I., & Pamungkas, I. D. (2020). Detection of academic dishonesty: A perspective of the fraud pentagon model. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity, and Change, 13(12), 266–282.

Albrecht, W. S., Albrecht, C. O., Albrecht, C. C., & Zimbelman, M. F. (2011). Fraud examination (4th ed.). South-Western Cengage Learning.

Anindya, A., Afni, Z., & Rosita, I. (2023). Analisis pengaruh pressure, opportunity, rationalization, capability, dan arrogance terhadap perilaku kecurangan akademik pada mahasiswa jurusan akuntansi Politeknik Negeri Padang. Jurnal Akuntansi, Bisnis, dan Ekonomi Indonesia, 2(1), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.30630/jabei.v2i1.52

Anggraini, R. Y., Subroto, B., & Andayani, W. (2024). Pentagon’s fraud theory on student academic fraud behavior. International Journal of Accounting & Business Society, 32(2), 721–736.

Apriliyanti, D., Solihat, A. N., & Hermawan, Y. (2021). Pengaruh self efficacy, prokrastinasi akademik, dan prestasi akademik terhadap perilaku kecurangan akademik. Jurnal Pendidikan Ekonomi Indonesia, 3(1), 155–172.

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur penelitian: Suatu pendekatan praktik. Rineka Cipta.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Free Press.

Djaelani, Y., Zainuddin, & Mokoginta, R. M. (2022). Academic fraud of students in the COVID-19 period: Testing with the pentagon’s fraud dimension. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 11(2), 414–422. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i2.1640

Fardesair, K., & Subagyo. (2019). Perilaku kecurangan akademik mahasiswa akuntansi: Dimensi fraud pentagon. Jurnal Akuntansi, 12(2), 122–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.30813/jab.v12i2.1786

Fauzan, A. N. (2021). Analisis pengaruh teori fraud pentagon dan efikasi diri terhadap kecurangan akademik mahasiswa pada pembelajaran daring (thesis). Universitas Brawijaya.

Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Hamdani, A. D., Nurhafsah, N., & Silvia, S. (2022). Inovasi pendidikan karakter dalam menciptakan generasi emas 2045. Jurnal Pendidikan Guru, 3(3), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.32832/jpg.v3i3.7291

Hendricks, B. (2004). Academic dishonesty: A study in the magnitude of and justifications for academic dishonesty among college undergraduate and graduate students (Master’s thesis). Rowan University.

Hidayat, K. (2020). Hubungan self efficacy dan religiusitas dengan perilaku kecurangan akademik mahasiswa FIP UNNES tahun 2020 (Undergraduate thesis). Universitas Negeri Semarang.

Horwath, C. (2011). The fraud pentagon: Adding arrogance as a factor for fraud risk assessment. Crowe LLP.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80

Juwita, R., Fuad, N., & Madhakomala, R. (2022). Menyontek = drop out? Sebuah strategi untuk menegakkan integritas akademik mahasiswa. Jurnal Improvement, 9(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.21009/improvement.v9i1.26966

Khotimah, S. K., Nadhirah, A., Fadhilah, F., & Herawati, N. (2021). The effect of religiosity and self efficacy to improve students literacy: A study on academic cheating. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 633, 331–339.

Marks, J. (2020). Understanding the impact of arrogance in academic fraud: A case study approach. Journal of Higher Education Ethics, 12(3), 101–115.

Pangestu, S., Kristiani, A., & Cristiana, A. (2021). Kecurangan pembelajaran daring pada awal pandemi COVID-19 dimensi fraud pentagon. Jurnal Pendidikan Akuntansi Indonesia, 19(1), 66–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.21831/jpai.v19i1.40734

Pavela, G. (1997). Applying the power of association on campus: A model code of academic integrity. Journal of College and University Law, 24(1), 97–118.

Peltier, J. W., & Schibrowsky, J. (2021). Academic cheating: An investigation of opportunity and rationalization. Journal of Education Studies, 10(1), 157–160.

Prakosa, H. (1996). Cara penyampaian hasil belajar untuk meningkatkan self efficacy mahasiswa. Jurnal Psikologi, 2(1), 11–22.

Prastiwi, A., Atmini, S., & Kawulur, H. R. (2025). Fraud hexagon and dark personality traits in academic fraud behavior. Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi, 10(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.23887/jia.v10i1.84227

Republik Indonesia. (2003). Undang-undang nomor 20 tahun 2003 tentang sistem pendidikan nasional. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2003 Nomor 78.

Riantika, R. L., & Arifuddin, A. D. (2023). Kecenderungan mahasiswa melakukan kecurangan akademik dengan pendekatan fraud pentagon theory. Accounting Research Journal, 3(2), 14–25.

Sari, A. V. A. P., & Tanggulungan, G. (2024). Fraud pentagon pada kecurangan akademik. Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 3(4), 362–373.

Sihombing, M., & Budiartha, I. K. (2020). Analisis pengaruh fraud triangle terhadap kecurangan akademik (academic fraud). E-Jurnal Akuntansi, 30(2), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.24843/eja.2020.v30.i02.p07

Septiawati, D. (2022). Pengaruh sumber daya manusia terhadap kinerja karyawan pada PT Perkebunan Nusantara V Pekanbaru (Skripsi, Universitas Islam Riau).

Solihat, M. W., Hermawan, Y., & Nurdianti, R. R. S. (2023). Pengaruh tekanan, kesempatan, rasionalisasi, kemampuan, dan arogansi terhadap perilaku kecurangan akademik mahasiswa. Global Educational Journal, 1(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.59525/gej.v1i3.179

Sugiyono. (2019). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.

Wolfe, D. T., & Hermanson, D. R. (2004). The fraud diamond: Considering the four elements of fraud. The CPA Journal, 74(12), 38–42.

Wulansuci, R., & Laily, N. (2022). Academic cheating: Dimensi fraud diamond theory. Jurnal Pendidikan Ekonomi, 10(2),154–160. https://doi.org/10.26740/jupe.v10n2.p154-160

Yee, S., Xu, A., Batool, K., Duan, T. Y., Cameron, C. A., & Lee, K. (2024). Academic cheating in early childhood: Role of age, gender, personality, and self-efficacy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 242, 105888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2024.105888

Yulia, F., & Rahayu, S. (2021). Arrogance and ethical decision making in higher education: A psychological perspective. Journal of Moral and Civic Education, 9(1), 56–70.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31932/ve.v17i1.6362

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Username
Password
Remember me