Article Sidebar

Download
Full text PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1039 Download : 516

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Academic fraud, including cheating and the use of jockey services, has become a major issue in Indonesian higher education. This study aims to examine the influence of the five elements of the Fraud Pentagon Theory: pressure, opportunity, rationalization, competence, and arrogance, alongside religiosity on students' inclination to engage in academic fraud. This study examines the moderating influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the relationship between these variables and academic misconduct. A quantitative research methodology was employed, administering questionnaires to 300 students from several colleges in East Java to gather survey data. The statistics demonstrate that four elements of the Fraud Pentagon: pressure, opportunity, rationalization, and competence, significantly influence academic misconduct, whereas arrogance and religiosity do not. AI, as a moderating variable, enhances the effect of skills on academic fraud while reducing the effect of opportunity. This study enriches academic literature by introducing AI as a moderating variable in the digital age and incorporating religion, a rarely explored factor.

Keywords

Fraud Academic fraud pentagon Religiosity artificial intelligence

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia

Creative Commons License

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

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

References

  1. Abayomi, A. (2016). Understanding the fraud triangle: Five key elements of fraud. International Journal of Financial Studies, 4(2), 1-10.
  2. Achmad, T., & Pamungkas, I. (2018). Fraudulent financial reporting based of fraud diamond theory: A study of the banking sector in Indonesia. JIAFE (Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi Fakultas Ekonomi), 4(1), 135–136.
  3. Afrianti, F., Surya, B., & Ati, A. (2023). Fostering learning discipline: Strategies to combat academic dishonesty. Journal of Teacher Education and Research, 8(1), 45-57.
  4. Amponsah, B., Dey, N. E. Y., & Oti-Boadi, M. (2021). Attitude toward cheating among Ghanaian undergraduate students: A parallel mediational analysis of personality, religiosity and mastery. Cogent Psychology, 8(1), 1998976.
  5. Andao, R., Martinez, D., & Cabral, L. (2024). Religiosity, academic integrity, and cultural context: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 20(1), 45-62.
  6. Andayani, V., & Sari, D. P. (2019). Pengaruh daya saing, gender, dan fraud diamond terhadap perilaku kecurangan akademik mahasiswa. Jurnal Eksplorasi Akuntansi, 1(3), 155-164.
  7. Apriani, N., Sujana, E., & Sulindawati, I. G. E. (2017). Pengaruh pressure, opportunity, dan rationalization terhadap perilaku kecurnagan akademik (Studi empiris: Mahasiswa akuntansi program S1 Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha). E-Journal S1 Ak Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, 7(1), 121–133.
  8. Aprilia, R., Syarifuddin, & Haerial. (2021). Analisis kecurangan laporan keuangan melalui fraud hexagon theory. Fair Value: Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 4(3), 753–767. https://doi.org/10.32670/fairvalue.v4i3.735
  9. Aprilia, N. (2017). Rasionalisasi dalam perilaku kecurangan: Sebuah tinjauan psikologis. Jurnal Manajemen dan Bisnis, 15(1), 1-17.
  10. Ardinansyah, A., Tenrisau, D., Aslim, F., & Wekke, I. S. (2018). Ketidakjujuran akademik dalam pendidikan tinggi. https://doi.org/10.31227/osf.io/tp9vg
  11. Atmini, S., Jusoh, R., Prastiwi, A., Wahyudi, S. T., Hardanti, K. N., & Widiarti, N. N. A. (2024). Plagiarism among accounting and business postgraduate students: A fraud diamond framework moderated by understanding of artificial intelligence. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2375077.
  12. Borden, L., Levy, P. E., & Silverman, S. B. (2018). Leader arrogance and subordinate outcomes: The role of feedback processes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 345-364.
  13. Boyle, R., et al. (2015). The effect of alternative fraud model use on auditors' fraud risk judgments. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 35(1), 66-77.
  14. Chavez, J. V., Cuilan, J. T., Mannan, S. S., Ibrahim, N. U., Carolino, A. A., Radjuni, A., ... & Garil, B. A. (2024). Discourse analysis on the ethical dilemmas on the use of AI in academic settings from ICT, science, and language instructors.
  15. Christiana, R., Smith, T., & Jones, L. (2021). The impact of online exam formats on student academic integrity: A survey of online cheating perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology, 12(3), 45-61.
  16. Crowe, H. (2011). The fraud pentagon: Considering the five elements of fraud. The CPA Journal.
  17. Dias-Oliveira, C., Azevedo, N., Pinho, M., & Ferreira, J. (2024). "It is no big deal!": Fraud diamond theory as an explanatory model for understanding students' academic fraudulent behavior. SAGE Open, 14(1), 1-12.
  18. Elder, E. M., Enos, R. D., & Mendelberg, T. (2024). The long-term effects of neighborhood disadvantage on voting behavior: The "Moving to Opportunity" experiment. American Political Science Review, 118(2), 988–1004. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423000692
  19. Fadersair, K., & Subagyo, S. (2019). Perilaku kecurangan akademik mahasiswa akuntansi: Dimensi fraud pentagon (Studi kasus pada mahasiswa prodi akuntansi UKRIDA). Jurnal Akuntansi Bisnis, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.30813/jab.v12i2.1786
  20. Failikah, R. (2021). The impact of religiosity on academic integrity: A study of students' ethical behavior. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Etika, 8(2), 145-155.
  21. Fan, J., Li, L., & Zhao, H. (2023). The alienation effect of arrogance on Generation Z employees: A social relational perspective. Employee Relations, 45(1), 118-133.
  22. Faradiza, S. A. (2019). Kecurangan dalam organisasi: Definisi dan karakteristik. Jurnal Manajemen dan Kewirausahaan, 7(1), 55-70.
  23. Flom, J., Green, K., & Wallace, S. (2023). To cheat or not to cheat? An investigation into the ethical behaviors of Generation Z. Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 155-168.
  24. Garcines, L. C., Reyes, K. S., & Mendez, P. A. (2024). The impact of parental and peer pressures on student ethics: A study on academic dishonesty. Educational Review, 76(3), 308-323.
  25. Goel, A., & Nelson, R. (2024). AI, ethics, and integrity: Understanding the limitations of detection tools in academic contexts. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(1), 65-80.
  26. Greitemeyer, T., & Kastenmüller, A. (2024). A longitudinal analysis of the willingness to use ChatGPT for academic cheating: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 5(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000133
  27. Gunawan, D. A. K., & Pramadi, A. (2018). I would like to be truthful, but…: A systemic study of academic dishonesty from conscientiousness, performance goal orientation, competition, and peer influence perspectives. ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal, 33(2), 112-124.
  28. Gupta, A., Pranathy, R. S., Binny, M., Chellasamy, A., Nagarathinam, A., Pachiyappan, S., & Bhagat, S. (2024). Voices of the future: Generation Z's views on AI's ethical and social impact. In Technology-driven business innovation: Unleashing the digital advantage, Volume 1 (pp. 367-386). Springer Nature Switzerland.
  29. Habiburrahim, H., & Suprayogi, B. P. (2021). Scrutinizing cheating behavior among EFL students at Islamic higher education institutions in Indonesia. The Qualitative Report, 26(2), 302-314.
  30. Heriyati, H., & Ekasari, D. (2020). The role of moral reasoning in academic dishonesty. International Journal of Education, 12(1), 1-12.
  31. Heryadi, A., Azhar, M., Bashori, K., & Zakaria, A. R. (2024). The influence of students' religiosity and academic dishonesty in the era of smart education. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 594, p. 05001). EDP Sciences.
  32. Isnaini, S., & Muslimin, A. I. (2024). The role of AI in enhancing marketing communication: Implications for policy and development in Indonesian higher education. Studies in Media and Communication, 12(4), 10. https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v12i4.7013
  33. Kapele, A. M. P., Parinsi, M. T., & Heydemans, C. D. (2023). Pengembangan media pembelajaran interaktif pada mata pelajaran teknologi layanan jaringan di SMK Kristen 1 Tomohon. Edutik: Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi Informasi Dan Komunikasi, 3(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.53682/edutik.v3i1.6740
  34. Katalin, J., & Garai-Fodor, M. (2024, May). AI as viewed by Generation Z: Advantages, disadvantages and challenges of AI based on primary findings. In 2024 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatics (SACI) (pp. 000243-000248). IEEE.
  35. Lestari, A., & Mutiah, N. (2020). Independent learning strategies as a countermeasure against cheating in higher education. Jurnal Pendidikan Tinggi, 12(12), 225-236.
  36. Lye, C. Y., & Lim, L. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in tertiary education: Assessment redesign principles and considerations. Education Sciences, 14(6), 569.
  37. Madhu, M., Kumar, K. M., Pratyaksha, B., Sushmita, S., & Javed, G. S. (2023, December). Striking ethical balance in AI-TAI: Promoting academic integrity through AI-powered tools. In 2023 IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference-Asia Pacific (TEMSCON-ASPAC) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
  38. Mensah, C., & Azila-Gbettor, E. M. (2018). Religiosity and students' examination cheating: Evidence from Ghana. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(6), 1156-1172.
  39. Muhsin, A., Siti, R. M., & Nuryanti, Y. (2018). Rendahnya kompetensi akademik sebagai faktor pendorong penyontekan di kalangan mahasiswa. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 5(2), 45-60.
  40. Muhsin, M., Kardoyo, K., & Nurkhin, A. (2018). What determinants of academic fraud behavior? From fraud triangle to fraud pentagon perspective. KnE Social Sciences, 3(10), 154. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i10.3126
  41. Munirah, A., & Nurkhin, A. (2018). Pengaruh faktor-faktor fraud diamond dan gone theory terhadap kecurangan akademik. Economic Education Analysis Journal, 7(1), 120-139.
  42. Muslimah, R. S., & Yudiarso, A. (2023). The effect of internet-based psychoeducation on decreasing academic cheating in high school students. Psikostudia: Jurnal Psikologi, 12(2), 272. https://doi.org/10.30872/psikostudia.v12i2.9331
  43. Muslimah, S., & Yudiarso, A. (2023). Rasionalisasi menyontek di kalangan mahasiswa dalam lingkungan akademik yang kompetitif. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Etika, 10(2), 123-135.
  44. Nelson, M. F., James, M. S., Miles, A., Morrell, D. L., & Sledge, S. (2017). Academic integrity of millennials: The impact of religion and spirituality. Ethics & Behavior, 27(5), 385-400.
  45. Nguyen, H. M., & Goto, D. (2024). Unmasking academic cheating behavior in the artificial intelligence era: Evidence from Vietnamese undergraduates. Education and Information Technologies, 29(12), 15999-16025.
  46. Nisa, C., & Fitriasari, P. (2021). Tingkat religiusitas terhadap kecurangan akademik pada mahasiswa akuntansi di sekolah tinggi ilmu ekonomi (STIE). Madani Accounting and Management Journal, 7(1), 51-64. https://doi.org/10.51882/jamm.v7i1.21
  47. Novianti, S. (2022). Integrity, religiosity, gender: Factors preventing academic fraud. Asia Pacific Fraud Journal, 6(2), 234.
  48. Nugroho, S. S., & Jaryanto, J. (2024). Pengaruh kontrol diri dan efikasi diri terhadap prokrastinasi akademik mahasiswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran Indonesia (JPPI), 4(4), 1485-1497. https://doi.org/10.53299/jppi.v4i4.744
  49. Oktarina, D. (2021). Analisis perspektif fraud pentagon pada terjadinya kecurangan akademik mahasiswa akuntansi. EKONIKA Jurnal Ekonomi Universitas Kadiri, 6(2), 227.
  50. Oravec, J. A. (2023). Artificial intelligence implications for academic cheating: Expanding the dimensions of responsible human-AI collaboration with ChatGPT. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 34(2), 213-237.
  51. Padayachee, K. (2021, July). A theoretical underpinning for examining insider attacks leveraging the fraud pentagon. In International Symposium on Human Aspects of Information Security and Assurance (pp. 179-188). Springer International Publishing.
  52. Pariyanti, E., Wibowo, M., Sultan, Z., & Siolemba Patiro, S. P. (2025). Navigating the ethical dilemma in digital learning: Balancing artificial intelligence with spiritual integrity to address cheating. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education.
  53. Penny, M., & McGowan, T. (2017). The effect of moral development and religiosity on academic dishonesty in business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(2), 387-401.
  54. Permatasari, A. (2021). Definisi dan faktor penyebab fraud dalam organisasi. Jurnal Etika dan Transparansi, 9(1), 25-40.
  55. Persulessy, G., Mediaty, M., & Pontoh, G. T. (2022). Triangle's fraud theory on academic fraud behavior when online learning. International Journal of Professional Business Review, 7(6), e0768. https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2022.v7i6.e768
  56. Pertama, I. G. A. W., & Anggiriawan, I. P. B. (2022). Analisis faktor-faktor yang mendasari perilaku kecurangan akademik. EKONIKA: Jurnal Ekonomi Universitas Kadiri, 7(2), 184. https://doi.org/10.30737/ekonika.v7i2.2826
  57. Puspitosari, I. (2022). Fraud triangle theory on accounting students online academic cheating. Accounting and Finance Studies, 2(4), 229-240. https://doi.org/10.47153/afs24.5082022
  58. Rachmawati, D. A., Rusmita, S., & Yantiana, N. (2024). Melawan academic fraud: Menguak peran IPK dan kejujuran mahasiswa akuntansi dalam fraud pentagon dengan dark triad sebagai moderasi. Jurnal Eksplorasi Akuntansi, 6(3), 1221-1240.
  59. Radulović, A., & Uys, P. (2019). Academic dishonesty and whistleblowing in a higher education institution: A sociological analysis. African Journal of Business Ethics, 13(2), 218-226.
  60. Rahman, F., & Arifin, Z. (2022). Peer influence and academic dishonesty: The role of reputation among college students. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 29(4), 345-359.
  61. Rahmawati, S., & Susilawati, D. (2019). Pengaruh dimensi fraud diamond dan religuisitas terhadap perilaku kecurangan akademik mahasiswa. Jurnal Akuntansi Trisakti, 5(2), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.25105/jat.v5i2.4857
  62. Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Appolloni, A., Treiblmaier, H., & Iranmanesh, M. (2024). Exploring the impact of ChatGPT on education: A web mining and machine learning approach. The International Journal of Management Education, 22(1), 100932.
  63. Ridwan, R., & Diantimala, Y. (2021). The positive role of religiosity in dealing with academic dishonesty. Cogent Business and Management, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1875541
  64. Ruzain, R. B., Hastuti, Y., & Putri, A. P. (2019). Hubungan belajar berdasar regulasi diri terhadap perilaku menyontek mahasiswa. Jurnal Islamika, 2(2), 98-109. https://doi.org/10.37859/jsi.v2i2.1639
  65. Saduk, L. M., & Chariri, A. (2024). Ketidakjujuran akademik pada mahasiswa akuntansi yang dibantu oleh artificial intelligence (AI): Perspektif fraud triangle. Jurnal Akuntansi Manado (JAIM), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.53682/jaim.vi.8141
  66. Salsabila, D., Kustati, M., Gusmirawati, G., & Amelia, R. (2024). Analisis pemanfaatan artificial intelligence (AI) menggunakan Chat GPT terhadap kualitas akademik mahasiswa. Journal of International Multidisciplinary Research, 2(11), 96-105. https://doi.org/10.62504/jimr967
  67. Sarfo, Jo. (2023). Artificial intelligence chatbot–ChatGPT and high-tech plagiarism concerns in a digital age: Is detection possible. Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education, 10(2), 55-58.
  68. Sari, D. E., Asila, N. F., Mustofa, R. H., Suranto, Jatmika, S., Ahmad, N. L., ... & Fadhilah, R. (2025). Using the fraud triangle framework to explore the impact of information technology misuse on academic fraud in accounting education: Evidence from Indonesia. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2476302.
  69. Sasongko, N., Hasyim, M. N., & Fernandez, D. (2019). Analysis of behavioral factors that cause student academic fraud. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, 5(3), 830-837.
  70. Sastri, I. I. D. A. M & Pertamawati, N. P. (2020). Economic students' academic fraud behaviour: Fraud diamond dimension. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(06), 3337-3348.
  71. Serhan, O. A., Houjeir, R., & Aldhaheri, M. (2022). Academic dishonesty and the diamond fraud: Attitudes of UAE undergraduate business students during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(10), 88-108. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.10.5
  72. Setyorini, D., Dewanti, P. W., Setiani, E. P., & Susilo, A. Z. (2023). Application of the pentagon fraud theory in research misconduct. Management & Accounting Review (MAR), 22(3), 530-555.
  73. Sholikhah, Z., Adawiyah, W. R., Pramuka, B. A., & Pariyanti, E. (2024). Can spiritual power reduce online cheating behavior among university students? The fraud triangle theory perspective. Journal of International Education in Business, 17(1), 82-106.
  74. Sihombing, M., & Budiartha, I. K. (2020). Analisis pengaruh fraud triangle terhadap kecurangan akademik (academic fraud) mahasiswa akuntansi Universitas Udayana. E-Jurnal Akuntansi, 30(2), 361.
  75. Smith, K. J., Kaur, J., Dhillon, S., Shori, S., & Dhillon, G. (2025). Uncharted territory: Gen Z's unethical AI use and organizational cybersecurity. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1-18.
  76. Tampubolon, H., et al. (2020). Pengaruh pengendalian internal dan moralitas individu terhadap kecurangan (fraud) akuntansi (Studi eksperimen pada mahasiswa Universitas Muhammadiyah Riau). Reviu Akuntansi dan Bisnis Indonesia, 2(1), 35-50.
  77. Tantri, S. N., Norhamida, H., & Suryani, P. (2024). Examining plagiarism in accounting online distance education: Does religiosity matter? Jurnal Pendidikan Akuntansi Indonesia, 22(1), 30-45. https://doi.org/10.21831/jpai.v22i1.70419
  78. Tianawati, A. K. A., Priantinah, D., & Malau, M. (2023). Application of the theory of planned behavior and fraud triangle theory in preventing academic fraud behavior among Indonesian students. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 18(1), 17-31.
  79. Toma, R. B., & Yánez-Pérez, I. (2025). Factors influencing undergraduates' ethical use of ChatGPT: A reasoned goal pursuit approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-20.
  80. Uyun, M., Khodijah, N., & Warna, D. (2024). Impact of competition, discipline and religiosity on academic cheating in undergraduates. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 39(2), 329-349.
  81. Vold, T., & Eikset, A. S. (2024, November). Use of AI in education—A case study from Norway. In 2024 21st International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
  82. Vousinas, G. L. (2019). Advancing theory of fraud: The S.C.O.R.E. model. Journal of Financial Crime, 26(1), 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-12-2017-0128
  83. Wardani, D. K., & Saputri, C. A. D. (2023). Pengaruh fraud diamond dan penerapan tri pantangan Tamansiswa terhadap perilaku kecurangan akademik mahasiswa. JIIP - Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan, 6(6), 4450-4457. https://doi.org/10.54371/jiip.v6i6.1805
  84. Wardhani, D. K., Muid, D., & Farida, N. (2024). Indonesia's banking excellence in the eyes of Crowe's fraud pentagon. Economics and Finance, 4-12. https://doi.org/10.51586/2754-6209.2024.12.1.4.12
  85. Wenzel, K., & Reinhard, M. (2020). Tests and academic cheating: Do learning tasks influence cheating by way of negative evaluations? Social Psychology of Education, 23(3), 721-753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09556-0
  86. Widiastuti, D., & Fitriani, R. (2021). Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi kecurangan akademik di kalangan mahasiswa: Studi kasus di Universitas XYZ. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 10(2), 145-158.
  87. Xie, Y., Wu, S., & Chakravarty, S. (2023, October). AI meets AI: Artificial intelligence and academic integrity—A survey on mitigating AI-assisted cheating in computing education. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (pp. 79-83).
  88. Yadasang, R., & Ndiak, M. (2023). Consequences of cheating awareness among students: Efficacy as a deterrent to academic dishonesty. Journal of Academic Integrity, 18(2), 58-70.
  89. Yovita, M., & Suryani, E. (2024). Determinasi faktor-faktor arrogance sebagai perspektif fraud pentagon terhadap kecurangan laporan keuangan. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Politala, 7(1), 166-176.
  90. Zhao, L., Mao, H., Compton, B. J., Peng, J., Fu, G., Fang, F., ... & Lee, K. (2022). Academic dishonesty and its relations to peer cheating and culture: A meta-analysis of the perceived peer cheating effect. Educational Research Review, 36, 100455.
  91. Zhao, Y., & Zhang, N. (2021). The impact of environmental pressure on the choice of ethical decision-making: Evidence from China. Business Ethics: A European Review, 30(3), 697-708.