3654


Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013, pp. 33 – 45. 

Students’ perceptions of plagiarism  
 

Reva Fish1 and Gerri Hura2 
 

Abstract: While plagiarism by college students is a serious problem that must be 
addressed, students generally overestimate the frequency of plagiarism at their 
schools and blame students they do not know for the majority of incidents. This 
study looked at students’ estimations of the frequency of plagiarism at a large 
urban college and explored how that varied over the full range of types of 
plagiarism, from using another author’s ideas to submitting an entire document 
copied verbatim from another author’s work. Analysis of student responses to 
survey items revealed they believe other students are far more likely than them to 
commit each type of plagiarism and they recognize that some types of plagiarism 
are more serious than others. The opportunity to reduce incidents of plagiarism 
by providing students with accurate information about plagiarism at their schools 
is discussed in the context of social norms theory.  
 
Keywords: plagiarism, cheating, college, higher education, social norms theory 

 
I. Introduction. 
 
While plagiarism is a widespread problem, college instructors tend to overestimate its frequency 
(Hard, Conway, & Moran, 2006). Students also believe plagiarism occurs more often than it 
does, to an even greater extent than faculty, and they generally attribute the high rate of incidents 
to strangers rather than people they know or themselves (Engler, Landau, & Epstein, 2008).  

It is important to understand students’ beliefs about the frequency and nature of incidents 
of plagiarism at their schools. Even though students expect faculty to impose consequences for 
academic misconduct (Kuther, 2003; Brown, 2012), they also look to other students’ behavior to 
determine how far they can push the boundaries of a professor’s course policies (Feldman, 2001; 
McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001; Hard et al., 2006; Rettinger & Kramer, 2009). Their 
opinion that some unidentified group of students at their school regularly submits work they did 
not do themselves can distort students’ understandings of acceptable strategies they should use to 
complete assignments. Students who see some forms of plagiarism as less serious than others 
and who believe other students plagiarize frequently may become more likely to plagiarize 
themselves.   

This study looked at students’ estimations of the frequency of plagiarism at a large urban 
college and explored how that varied over the full range of types of plagiarism, from using 
another author’s ideas to submitting an entire document copied verbatim from another author’s 
work. It also looked at whether students believe some types of plagiarism are more serious than 
others. The consequences of students’ beliefs that plagiarism is a common practice and how 
institutions should address that are discussed.  
 
 
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1 Social and Psychological Foundations of Education Department, SUNY Buffalo State, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, NY 
14222, fishrm@buffalostate.edu 
2 Adult Education Department, SUNY Buffalo State 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

34 

A. Research Perspectives. 
 
Plagiarism is a complex issue which has been studied using a variety of frameworks. Some 
research has focused on student characteristics that predict a greater likelihood of committing 
plagiarism, including levels of moral reasoning and self-esteem as well as achievement and 
motivation orientations (Angell, 2006; Rettinger & Kramer, 2009; Williams, Nathanson, & 
Paulhus, 2010). This perspective attributes the decision to plagiarize to characteristics of the 
students, discounting outside factors that might contribute to the choice to plagiarize. 

Other research has regarded incidents of plagiarism as being the result of teaching style 
(Barnas, 2000) or classroom culture (Brown, 2012; Feldman, 2001) indicating the cause of 
plagiarism originates outside the student. From these perspectives, instructors are seen as 
contributing to students’ beliefs that they can submit another author’s work as their own by not 
providing an adequate level of rigor in their classrooms or by not checking student work for 
plagiarism.     

Unintentional plagiarism has also been used as a framework for research (Belter & Du 
Pre, 2009; Blum, 2009; Colnerud & Rosander, 2009). This viewpoint often raises the question of 
whether students should be penalized when they are unaware they have plagiarized. While proof 
of intent to plagiarize is typically not believed to be necessary to support an accusation, whether 
students who are still learning to write academic papers should be expected to fully understand 
how to avoid plagiarism has been addressed in these studies. 

 Ethics, and in particular integrity, is another focus of the research on plagiarism 
(Conway & Groshek, 2009; Feldman, 2001; Kuther, 2003; McCabe et al., 2001;  Hart & 
Morgan, 2010; Hudd, Apgar, Bronson, & Lee, 2009; Kwong, Ng, Mark, & Wong, 2010). That 
body of work examines plagiarism at the student, instructor, and institution levels, and 
emphasizes the need for institutions to convey the importance of honesty to students and for 
faculty to model ethical behavior for them. 

More recently the focus of plagiarism research has been on technology-facilitated 
electronic access to text as a primary cause of the increase in the number of incidents of 
plagiarism (Jones, 2011; Trushell, Byrne, & Simpson, 2012; Wang, 2008). This method of 
plagiarism has become increasingly widespread through the effortless process of copying and 
pasting electronic text. Some studies have found that students may believe information on the 
internet does not belong to a particular author and, therefore, can legitimately be used by them in 
course assignments.  

Engler et al. (2008), Hard et al. (2006), and the present study looked at plagiarism from 
the perspective of social/peer norms. According to social norms theory, individuals learn which 
behaviors are appropriate by observing the generally accepted behavior of others. For example, 
young adults have been found to overestimate the frequency of negative behaviors such as 
substance abuse by their peers, resulting in an inaccurate understanding of what is considered 
socially acceptable and an increase in those negative behaviors on their part (Berkowitz, 2004; 
Perkins, 2003; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986). Based on this theory, if students have the 
misperception that acts of plagiarism are common among their classmates, and that 
consequences, if any, are minor, they are more likely to commit plagiarism themselves.  

 
 
 
 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

35 

B. What is Plagiarism? 
 
Many studies of plagiarism do not provide an operational definition of it, seeming to assume 
there is a one common understanding that does not need explication. Powers (2009) points out 
that this can affect research findings because students’ self-reports of plagiarism are affected by 
an individual understanding of the practices that could be considered plagiarism. Further, faculty 
and students often disagree about exactly what constitutes plagiarism (Kwong et al., 2010). 
Definitions of plagiarism from several of the studies that provided one are listed in Table 1.  
 
Table 1. Definitions of plagiarism. 
Belter & DuPre (2009):   “One or more passages that was word-for-word the same as another source 
without appropriate citation and quotation marks.” p. 259 
 
Colnerud & Rosander (2009): “Using parts, or the whole, of a text written by another person without 
acknowledgement; submitting the same paper or parts of it, for credit in more than one course, 
falsification of information.” p. 506 
 
Hard, Conway, & Moran (2006): “Presenting, as one's own, the ideas or words of another person or 
persons for academic evaluation without proper acknowledgement.” p. 1059 
 
Park (2003): “Plagiarism involves literary theft, stealing (by copying) the words or ideas of someone else 
and passing them off as one’s own without crediting the source.” p. 472 
 
Wang (2008):  “Us[ing] somebody else’s work (words and thoughts) without attribution.” p. 743 
 
Williams, Nathanson, & Paulhus (2010): “Any nonzero percentage detected by Turn-It-In (after 
screening).” p. 294 
 
A common element across definitions is that plagiarism is the act of using another author’s work 
without citation, thus portraying it as one’s own work. Other common elements of definitions 
include descriptions of the length of the copied text, whether taking solely ideas from other 
authors is plagiarism, and the extent that the copied words were taken verbatim.  
For the present study a definition of plagiarism was developed that addressed these elements: 
Plagiarism is representing another author’s ideas or words as your own in course documents or 
electronic postings. This would include submitting an entire document by another author as well 
as using a portion of text or ideas from another author’s work and not citing the source. This 
would include information obtained from the internet, from other students, and from published 
and unpublished documents. This definition was provided to the students on the survey they 
completed. 
 
C. Plagiarism along a Continuum.   	
  
 
Incidents of plagiarism are viewed along a continuum, with some incidents regarded as more 
serious than others (Blum, 2009; Hudd et al., 2009; Jones, 2011; Kwong et al., 2010, Salmons, 
2007).  Studies of faculty and student understandings of plagiarism have found that faculty view 
most types of plagiarism as more serious than students view them (Kwong et al., 2010).  Jones 
(2011) found that while all students recognized submitting an entire document written by another 
author as plagiarism, students saw copying a limited amount of text as less serious. Seventy-five 
percent of students saw purchasing a paper online as plagiarism, 67% thought copying text 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

36 

verbatim without quotation marks was plagiarism, 50% saw paraphrasing text without citation as 
plagiarism, and 17% stated that students should not self-plagiarize by submitting the same work 
for assignments in different classes.  
 
D. Student and Faculty Perceptions of Plagiarism Frequency. 
 
Faculty and students tend to overestimate the frequency of student plagiarism (Engler et al., 
2008; Hard et al., 2006; Wang, 2008). Students, in particular, see plagiarism as a common 
practice even though they report they have never plagiarized themselves (Wang, 2008). Students 
believe their friends are more likely to plagiarize than they are, but their friends are less likely to 
plagiarize than students they do not know (Engler et al., 2008; Kwong et al., 2010).  
  It is important to consider student overestimates of plagiarism by others because students’ 
perceptions of peer behavior have a powerful effect on their own behavior (Hard et al., 2006; 
McCabe et al., 2001; Rettinger & Kramer, 2009). Both McCabe et al. (2001) and Rettinger and 
Kramer (2009) found that while there are a number of factors that predict cheating, knowing that 
other students have cheated has the greatest influence on a student’s decision to cheat.  

Even faculty, whose role it is to discover and address incidents of plagiarism, 
overestimate its occurrence, although to a lesser degree than students (Hard et al., 2006). An 
advantage to faculty overestimations of plagiarism is that it may make them more vigilant, 
benefitting students who do not plagiarize and who want it addressed (Kuther, 2003). Students 
generally appreciate instructors who can effectively monitor classroom learning and provide an 
appropriate level of rigor (Barnas, 2000). They want faculty to show respect for all students’ 
efforts by not tolerating any form of cheating, including plagiarism – the most common form of 
cheating in higher education (Trost, 2009). Faculty can specifically mention in the course 
syllabus that submitting another author’s work will not be tolerated, and the consequences if this 
happens, so students do not mistakenly believe that cheating will be ignored (Brown, 2012; 
Feldman, 2001). When incidents of plagiarism are uncovered, if faculty discuss the 
circumstances with the class, without disclosing the name of the student who plagiarized, they 
can show their vigilance when reviewing assignments and prevent additional incidents of 
plagiarism by students who thought it would be ignored (Feldman, 2001).  
  The research reported here is a part of a larger study that explored the scope and nature of 
plagiarism by students at a large urban college in order to determine the current extent of 
plagiarism there and how past institutional efforts to curb plagiarism were faring. These included 
implementation of an academic misconduct policy and use of plagiarism detection software. 

 The questions addressed in this report of the study are: 
1. What is the frequency and nature of plagiarism admitted to by students? 
2. What do students believe is the frequency and nature of plagiarism committed by 

other students? 
3. Do students view some types of plagiarism as more serious than others? 
4. Do students believe that the types of plagiarism they view as more serious are more 

likely to be committed by other students? 
 
 
 
 
 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

37 

II. Method. 
 
A. Participants. 
 
A survey was conducted at a large urban public comprehensive college with over ten thousand 
students, undergraduate and graduate, enrolled each year. An email was sent to all students, 
inviting them to complete the anonymous electronic survey and providing them with an internet 
link to it. The number of emails sent varied by department, but all students received at least one 
email. Information about the survey was also posted on the home page of the campus library 
website and on the webpage students use to access email, check grades, register for courses, and 
so forth.  The data collection process was reviewed and approved by the college’s institutional 
review board. 

Of the 626 students who responded to the survey, 334 students reported that they had 
been enrolled in classes which had assignments that could have been plagiarized and completed 
the survey items analyzed in the present study. Assignments which could be plagiarized were 
described in the survey as writing assignments that included information that could have been 
obtained from another source and misrepresented as the student’s own work.  The 334 students 
included 194 undergraduates and 131 graduate students. Nine students did not report their 
student level. Respondents ages ranged from 18 years to 62 years, and almost 52% of the 
students had a self-reported grade point average over 3.5, on a scale of 0.0 to 4.0. Table 2 
provides full demographic information about the sample. 
 
B. Instrument. 
 
The student survey asked respondents about their views and experiences regarding plagiarism 
and was developed by reviewing published studies on plagiarism, examining efforts to address 
plagiarism at institutions across the country, and discussing current concerns with administrators 
and faculty at the institution where the study was conducted. This report of the research will 
focus on three questions from the survey. 

In the first of these questions, the students were asked to rate four types of plagiarism as 
not at all serious, somewhat serious, or very serious. The four types of plagiarism they rated 
were: 

• Using ideas from another author’s work and not citing the source 
• Using phrases from another author’s work and not citing the source 
• Using sentences/paragraphs from another author’s work and not citing the source 
• Submitting an entire document by another author as your own work 
In the second question, students were asked to indicate how often they thought students 

committed each of the four types of plagiarism in writing assignments. The response choices 
were Never, Once, Rarely (Few of them), Occasionally (Up to one-half of them), Regularly 
(More than half of them), Always (All of them). 

The third question was the same as the second question, but asked each student to 
indicate how often they had committed each of the four types of plagiarism. The response 
choices were the same as those in the second question. 

 
 

 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

38 

Table 2. Student Demographics. 
Student Characteristic Percent (n) 
Gender  
Male 32.6 (109) 
Female 66.8 (223) 
Gender not provided 0.6 (2) 
  
Level  
Freshman 6.6 (22) 
Sophomore 5.1 (17) 
Junior 16.5 (55) 
Senior 29.9 (100) 
Graduate 39.2 (131) 
Level not provided 2.7 (9) 
  
Grade Point Average  
< 2.00 0.9 (3) 
2.00 to 2.50 3.9 (13) 
2.51 to 3.00 9.3 (31) 
3.01 to 3.50 20.0 (67) 
3.51 to 4.00 51.5 (172) 
Grade point average not provided 14.4 (48) 
  
Age  
< 20 75. (25) 
20 to 25 51.2 (171) 
26 to 30 13.1 (44) 
> 30 18.9 (63) 
Age not provided 9.3 (31) 

 
C. Analysis. 
 
Data analysis was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, descriptive statistics of the 
categorical and Likert-type scale survey responses were used to answer the first two research 
questions. In the second stage, the third and fourth research questions were answered using 
inferential z tests to determine if there were statistically significant differences in proportions of 
the sample who selected survey item responses. In each analysis the requirement of at least five 
cases for each of the two responses compared, to approximate a normal distribution, was met. A 
type-1 error rate of α = .05 was used for all tests of significance. Odds ratios (OR) were used to 
determine the strength-of-effect for all significant results, with OR 1.50, 3.00, and 5.00 used to 
indicate small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively (Chen, Cohen, & Chen, 2010). For 
ease of interpretation, all odds ratios were calculated so that a value greater than 1.00 would 
result (McHugh, 2009). 
 
 
 
 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

39 

III. Results. 
 
Table 3 shows the results for question 1: What is the frequency and nature of plagiarism admitted 
to by students? A majority of the respondents said they had never used another author’s phrases 
(62.6%), sentences/paragraphs (82.3%), or entire piece of writing (96.4%). A majority of the 
students also reported that had either never or once used another author’s idea and portrayed it as 
their own work (40.7% and 10.5%, respectively). As evident from the values in the table, there 
was a systematic decline in the admissions of plagiarism as the amount of text that was copied 
and the rate of occurrence increased. None of the students reported always committing 
plagiarism of any type and few to none reported plagiarizing regularly (0.0% to 3.9%). 
 
Table 3. Survey question about how often respondent plagiarizes. 
 
 
 
 
Question: How often have you done the 
following, without citing the source? 

N
ev

er
 

Pe
rc

en
t(

n)
a  

O
nc

e 
Pe

rc
en

t(
n)

 

R
ar

el
y 

Pe
rc

en
t(

n)
 

O
cc

as
io

na
lly

 
Pe

rc
en

t(
n)

 

R
eg

ul
ar

ly
 

Pe
rc

en
t(

n)
 

A
lw

ay
s 

Pe
rc

en
t(

n)
 

Used another author’s ideas 40.7 
(136) 

10.5 
(35) 

32.6 
(109) 

12.3 
(41) 

3.9 
(13) 

0.0 
(0) 

 
Used another author’s phrases 62.6 

(209) 
10.8 
(36) 

18.6  
(62) 

6.6 
(22) 

1.5 
(5) 

0.0  
(0) 

 
Used another author’s 
sentences/paragraphs 

82.3 
(275) 

6.6 
(22) 

7.2 
(24) 

3.0 
(10) 

0.9 
(3) 

0.0  
(0) 

 
Used entire document by another author 96.4 

(322) 
0.0 (0) 2.7 (9) 0.9 

 (3) 
 

0.0  
(0) 

0.0  
(0) 

a Students significantly more likely to never commit each type of plagiarism than other students, 
p < .05. See Table 4.	
  
 

Table 4 provides information about question 2: What do students believe is the frequency 
and nature of plagiarism committed by other students? The majority of respondents believe that 
other students are either occasionally or regularly plagiarizing ideas and phrases (39.8% and 
40.1%, 48.5% and 22.8%, respectively), and that other students are rarely or occasionally 
plagiarizing sentences/paragraphs or entire documents by other authors (40.7% and 34.7%, 
49.1% and 9.6%, respectively). A small proportion of respondents reported they believe other 
students always commit each of the four types of plagiarism (1.2% to 3.6%). Overall, 
respondent’s reports of their beliefs about other students’ plagiarism do not show the systematic 
decline seen in the students’ reports of their own plagiarism as the amount of work that was 
copied and the frequency increased. In fact, almost half of the respondents (49.1%) reported that 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

40 

they believe other students have submitted an entire document by another author a few times 
(rarely).  

 
Table 4. Survey question about how often other students plagiarize. 
 
 
 
Question: How often do you think most 
students do the following, without citing 
the source? 

N
ev

er
 

Pe
rc

en
t(

n)
a  

O
nc

e 
Pe

rc
en

t(
n)

 

R
ar

el
y 

Pe
rc

en
t(

n)
 

O
cc

as
io

na
lly

 
Pe

rc
en

t(
n)

 

R
eg

ul
ar

ly
 

Pe
rc

en
t(

n)
 

A
lw

ay
s 

Pe
rc

en
t(

n)
 

Used another author’s ideas 1.5 
(5) 

1.5 
(5) 

13.5 
(45) 

39.3 
(133) 

40.1 
(134) 

3.6 
(12) 
 

Used another author’s phrases 2.7 
(9) 

2.4 
(8) 

22.2 
(74) 

48.5 
(162) 

22.8 
(76) 

1.5 
(5) 

 
Used another author’s 
sentences/paragraphs 

5.7 
(19) 

7.8 
(26) 

40.7 
(136) 

34.7 
(116) 

9.9 
(33) 

1.2 
(4) 

 
Used entire document by another author 19.2 

(64) 
18.0 
(60) 

49.1 
(164) 

9.6 
(32) 

3.0 
(10) 

1.2 
(4) 

 
a Students significantly more likely to never commit each type of plagiarism than other students, 
p < .05. See Table 3.	
  
 

Information in Table 5 answers question 3: Do students view some types of plagiarism as 
more serious than others? The pattern of responses shows that students found plagiarism more 
serious as the amount of material taken from another author increased. Most of the students 
believed using another author’s ideas is at least somewhat serious. A majority of the students 
indicated that using another author’s phrases or sentences/paragraphs is very serious plagiarism 
(51.8%, 78.1%, respectively). Almost all of the students reported that copying an entire 
document written by another author was very serious (96.4%). To answer the research question, 
the proportions of students who chose each response – not at all, somewhat, very – for 
plagiarizing another author’s ideas and for plagiarizing an entire document by another author 
were compared. There was a statistically significant difference at each of the three levels of 
seriousness. There was a significant difference between the proportion who indicated that using 
another author’s ideas was not at all serious and the proportion who indicated copying an entire 
document by another author was not at all serious, z = 7.736, p < .05, with a very large odds ratio 
of 16.51. The odds of a student believing that using another author’s idea is not at all serious is 
more than 16 times greater than the odds of a student believing that copying an entire document 
by another author is not at all serious. The proportion who responded that using another author’s 
idea was somewhat serious was significantly different from the proportion that indicated copying 
an entire document by another author was somewhat serious, z = 14.352, p < .05, with a very 
large odds ratio of 49.01. The odds of a student reporting that using another author’s idea is 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

41 

somewhat serious is about 49 times greater than a student reporting copying an entire document 
by another author is somewhat serious. Finally, the difference in the proportion of students who 
said using another author’s idea is very serious was significantly different from the proportion of 
students who said using an entire document by another author is very serious, z = -18.069 p < 
.05, with a very large odds ratio of 66.52. The odds of a student believing that copying an entire 
document is very serious is over 66 times greater than the odds of a student believing that using 
another author’s idea is very serious. These findings indicate that students do believe that some 
types of plagiarism are more serious than others and that the level of seriousness of the 
plagiarism is based on the amount of information taken from another author. However, it should 
be noted the students reported they believed each type of plagiarism was serious in nature. 
 
Table 5. Survey question about seriousness of types of plagiarism. 
 
Question: How serious an incident is each of the 
following?  

N
ot

 a
t a

ll 
Pe

rc
en

t(
n)

 

 
So

m
ew

ha
t 

Pe
rc

en
t(

n)
 

 
V

er
y 

Pe
rc

en
t(

n)
 

Using another author’s ideasa 20.1 
(67) 

51.2 
(171) 

28.7 
(96) 

 
Using another author’s phrases 4.5 

(15) 
43.7 
(146) 

51.8 
(173) 

 
Using another author’s sentences/paragraphs 2.1 

(7) 
19.8 
(66) 

78.1 
(261) 

 
Using entire document by another author 1.5 

(5) 
2.1 
(7) 

96.4 
(322) 

 
aUsing ideas significantly different from using entire document, at each level of seriousness, p < 
.05. 

Question 4, whether students believe that the types of plagiarism they view as serious are 
more likely to be committed by other students than by them, was answered by comparing the 
proportion of students who indicated they had never committed each type of plagiarism and the 
proportion who indicated they believed other students had never committed that type of 
plagiarism. A statistically significant difference was found for each type of plagiarism, p < .05. 
Students’ were more likely to report that they never plagiarized ideas, phrases, 
sentences/paragraphs, or an entire document than they were to report they believed that other 
students had never committed each of those four types of plagiarism, z = 12.421, 16.503, 19.953, 
20.211, respectively. The odds ratios show that the difference in proportions increased as the 
amount of information plagiarized – the seriousness of the plagiarism – increased. The odds of a 
student reporting they would never plagiarize ideas, phrases, sentences/paragraphs, or an entire 
document compared to the odds they believed another student would never commit the same act 
were all very large – 45.20, 60.38, 77.27, and 113.20, respectively.  

 
 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

42 

IV. Discussion. 
 
This study surveyed students at a large urban college to explore their beliefs about plagiarism. 
Students were asked how often they commit plagiarism and how often then think other students 
commit plagiarism. They were also asked about how serious an incident they considered each of 
four types of plagiarism – using another author’s ideas, phrases, sentences/paragraphs, and 
submitting an entire document written by another author. Most of the students in the sample 
reported never committing plagiarism of any type and there was a systematic decline in the 
admissions of plagiarism as the amount of text that was copied and the frequency of occurrence 
increased. The participants indicated they believe that some types of plagiarism are more serious 
than others, with taking larger sections of text from another author seen as the more serious 
incidents of plagiarism. Still, even using another author’s ideas was believed to be at least 
somewhat serious by most students.  

The pattern of students being less likely to commit the types of plagiarism they saw as 
more serious was not evident in their reports of the plagiarism they believe was committed by 
other students. Consistent with the findings from other research (Engler et al., 2008), the 
participants reported that other students were markedly more likely than them to commit each 
type of plagiarism. In fact, a small proportion of participants reported they believe some students 
always commit each of the four types of plagiarism.  

The implications of these findings must be considered in relation to social norms theory 
(Berkowitz, 2004; Perkins, 2003; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986) and the research by McCabe et al. 
(2001) and Rettinger and Kramer (2009) which found that when students believe others have 
cheated, they are more likely to choose to cheat. Students who overestimate the frequency of 
plagiarism by classmates may view plagiarizing as a norm and choose to plagiarize to complete 
an assignment. In particular, they may be more likely to think it is okay to use another author’s 
ideas or text phrases – types of plagiarism, which they view as less serious. Therefore, it is 
critical that students have accurate information about the frequency and types of plagiarism 
committed by students in their classes and at their school. Institutions and course instructors 
must find ways to give students accurate information about the types of plagiarism that occur and 
number of incidents that are discovered. A campus-wide reporting system should be used to 
gather and distribute the information, and faculty can tell students the number and type of actual 
incidents they encounter semester to semester. Supplied with this information, students will be 
less likely to overestimate the number of incidents of plagiarism at their school and may, 
therefore, be less likely to plagiarize themselves.   

Informing students that instructors look for plagiarism in assignments and that there are 
consequences if it is discovered can help to deter students from plagiarizing and create an 
environment where it is clear that ethical behavior is valued. Reducing plagiarism provides 
benefits beyond an ethical education environment; it can also improve student learning. When 
students do their own work, instead of copying it from another author, they learn research and 
writing skills, and they learn the topic content of the papers they write.  The long-term benefits 
of an academic environment where integrity and learning are cultivated cannot be overestimated. 

One limitation of this study is the possibility that the participants who chose to respond to 
the survey may have been those who actually were less likely to plagiarize than their classmates 
and therefore their claim that others are more likely to plagiarize was accurate. More than half of 
the respondents had a grade point average over 3.5, and studies have found that students with 
lower grade point averages are more likely to plagiarize (Belter & DuPre, 2009; Park, 2003). 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

43 

Another limitation of this study is the reliance on student self-reports about their 
behavior. It is possible that some respondents were purposely untruthful or that they inaccurately 
reported they had not plagiarized. They may have viewed any plagiarism by them as justifiable 
behavior.   Survey responses may also have been inaccurate if students did not fully understand 
the meaning of the questions asked.   

It should be noted that the finding that students believe taking any amount of text is more 
serious than taking another author’s idea may be due to the order that the types of plagiarism 
were listed in the survey -- with taking ideas listed first, followed by taking increasing amounts 
of text. While it is clear that an increased amount of copied text  – from phrases/sentences to 
paragraphs to an entire document – indicates a more serious incident of plagiarism, it is not as 
clear whether copying another author’s ideas is less or more serious than copying text. Course 
instructors, especially those who are published authors in their field, may believe that plagiarism 
of an original idea is more egregious. Students, who typically have no experience in professional 
writing, may not understand the value of developing a unique idea in a field of study and, 
therefore, see taking another author’s idea as less important than copying text. 

Even if instructors believe plagiarism of ideas is the most serious type of plagiarism by 
published scholars, they may believe the reverse when assessing student work – viewing copying 
of ideas as typical behavior in the process of developing writing skills. They may even believe 
that copying small amounts of text, such as phrases, are not serious incidents. While all incidents 
of plagiarism by students must be addressed, instructors should determine the appropriate 
consequences for each based on a student’s writing skills and knowledge at the time the 
assignment is completed, the instructor’s belief about whether the incident was intentional, and 
institution policies.   

 In conclusion, while the findings from this study cannot be generalized because they are 
based on a relatively small number of students’ self-reports at one institution, the findings do 
provide information about a novel practice that may reduce the number of incidents of 
plagiarism. Publicizing the nature and frequency of plagiarism on a campus is a relatively cost-
free and potentially effective way to not only reduce the time-consuming and emotionally 
difficult process of dealing with incidents of plagiarism, but to improve student learning as well. 
Additional studies should be conducted at schools to explore their students’ understandings of 
plagiarism and to determine whether sharing accurate information about incidents of plagiarism 
will reduce the likelihood of incidents overall. 
  

Acknowledgement 
This research was supported by a campus fellowship from the Carnegie Academy for the 
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. The authors appreciate the reviewers’ valuable 
suggestions for the improvement of this paper. 
 

References 
 

Angell, L. R. (2006). The relationship of impulsiveness, personal efficacy, and academic 
motivation to college cheating. College Student Journal, 40(1), 118-131. 
 
Barnas, M. (2000). “Parenting” students: Applying developmental psychology to the college 
classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 276-277. 
 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

44 

Belter, R. W., & DuPre A. (2009). A strategy to reduce plagiarism in an undergraduate course. 
Teaching of Psychology, 36(4), 257-261 
 
Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). An overview of the social norms approach. In L. Lederman, L. Stewart, 
F. Goodhart and L. Laitman (Eds). Changing the Culture of College Drinking: A Socially 
Situated Prevention Campaign (187-208). New York, NY: Hampton Press.   
 
Blum, S. D. (2009). My word! Plagiarism and college culture. Ithaca NY: Cornell University 
Press. 
 
Brown, G. (2012). Student disruption in a global college classroom: Multicultural issues as 
predisposing factors. Association of Black Nursing Faculty Journal, 23(3), 63-69. 
 
Chen, H., Cohen, P., & Chen S. (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes 
of odds rations in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and 
Computation, 39(4), 860-864. 
 
Colnerud, G., & Rosander, M. (2009). Academic dishonesty, ethical norms, and learning. 
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 505-517. 
 
Conway, M., & Groshek, J. (2009). Forgive me now, fire me later: Mass communication 
students’ ethics gap concerning school and journalism. Communication Education, 58(4), 461-
482. 
 
Engler, J. N., Landau, J. D., & Epstein, M. (2008). Keeping up with the Joneses: Students’ 
perceptions of academically dishonest behavior. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 99-102. 
 
Feldman, L. J. (2001). Classroom civility is another of our instructor responsibilities. College 
Teaching, 49, 137-140. 
 
Hard, S. F., Conway, J. M., & Moran, A. C. (2006). Faculty and colleges student beliefs about 
the frequency of student academic misconduct. The Journal of Postsecondary Education, 77(6), 
1058-1080. 
 
Hart, L., & Morgan, L. (2010). Academic integrity in an online registered nurse to baccalaureate 
in nursing program. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 41(11), 498-505. 
 
Hudd, S. S., Apgar, C., Bronson, E. F., & Lee, R. G. (2009). Creating a campus culture of 
integrity: Comparing the perspectives of full- and part-time faculty. The Journal of Higher 
Education, 80(2), 146-177 
 
Jones, D. L. R. (2011). Academic dishonesty: Are more students cheating? Business 
Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 141-150 
 
Kuther, T.L. (2003). A profile of the ethical professor: Student views. College Teaching, 51(4), 
153-160. 



Fish, R., & Hura, G. 
 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 5, December 2013. 
josotl.indiana.edu 

45 

Kwong, T., Ng, H.M., Mark, K.P., & Wong, E. (2010). Students' and faculty's perception of 
academic integrity in Hong Kong, Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(5), 341-355. 
 
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A 
decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219-233. 
 
McHugh, M. L. (2009). The odds ratio: calculation, usage, and interpretation. Biochemia 
Medica, 19(2), 120-126. 
 
Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students – literature and 
lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471-488. 
 
Perkins, H. W. (Ed.). (2003). The social norms approach to preventing school and college age 
substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, and clinicians. San Francisco, CA: 
Jossey-Bass. 
 
Perkins, H.W., & Berkowitz, A.D. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use 
among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education programming. 
International Journal of the Addictions, 21(9/10), 961-976.  
 
Powers. L. G. (2009). University students’ perceptions of plagiarism. The Journal of Higher 
Education, 80(6), 643-662.  
 
Rettinger, D. A., & Kramer, Y. (2009). Situational and personal causes of student cheating. 
Research in Higher Education, 50, 293–313. 
 
Salmons, J. (2007). Online social culture: Does it foster original work or encourage plagiarism? 
Retrieved March 14, 2009 from http://www.vision2lead.com/Originality.pdf 
 
Trost, K. (2009). Psst, have you ever cheated? A study of academic dishonesty in Sweden. 
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 367-376 
 
Trushell J., Byrne, K., & Simpson, R. (2012). Cheating behaviours, the internet and education 
undergraduate students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 136-145.  
 
Wang, Y. (2008). University student online plagiarism. International Journal on E-Learning, 
7(4), 743-757. 
 
Williams, K. M, Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Identifying and profiling scholastic 
cheaters: Their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation.  Journal of Experimental 
Psychology: Applied, 16, 293-307.