Fraud Hexagon and Intellectual Intelligence on Academic Fraud: The Moderating Role of Student Behavior
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61132/icmeb.v2i2.265Keywords:
Academic Fraud, Ethical Behavior, Fraud Hexagon, Intellectual Intelligence, Moderating EffectAbstract
This study analyzes the factors leading to academic fraud among accounting students, focusing on the predictive power of the Fraud Hexagon Theory and intellectual intelligence. It also investigates the role of student ethical behavior as a moderating variable. Using a quantitative approach, data was collected from 111 respondents selected through purposive sampling. The data was subsequently analyzed using SPSS version 25. The findings revealed that the Fraud Hexagon model was only partially validated. Three of its six dimensions emerged as significant predictors of academic fraud: rationalization, capability, and opportunity. Conversely, pressure, ego, and collusion showed no significant influence. The study also found no statistical relationship between a student's intellectual intelligence and their tendency to commit fraud. Furthermore, student ethical behavior did not effectively moderate the influence of the significant Fraud Hexagon factors. The study concludes that academic fraud is a complex phenomenon primarily triggered by internal justification, individual capabilities, and external opportunities. The lack of correlation with intellectual intelligence suggests that cognitive ability is not an inherent barrier to dishonest acts. These findings underscore that a strong ethical character is the most powerful safeguard against fraud, highlighting the irreplaceable role of ethics education in fostering academic integrity.
Downloads
References
chmawati, M. N., Anwar, S., Pembangunan, U., Veteran, N., & Timur, J. (2022). The influence of intellectual intelligence and academic self-efficacy on academic fraud with students’ ethical attitudes as moderating variables. Journal of Economic, Business and Accounting, 6(1), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.31539/costing.v6i1.3938
Dewa, M. M. C., & Maulana, A. (2024). Hexagon fraud: Exploration of academic fraud in accounting students at universities in Java, Indonesia. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 12(2), 933–948. https://doi.org/10.17509/jrak.v12i2.72009
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (n.d.). Social cognition: Attribution theory.
Harvey, S. M., Mulligan-Webb, J. H., Jones, E., Davis, K., & Kelley, H. (1965). The seer who found attributional wisdom in naivety. Contemporary Psychology, 11(4), 213–218.
Hidayati, N., Malini, N. L. N. S., & Suryanawa, I. K. (2021). The role of ethical attitudes in moderating the effect of fraud pentagon on academic fraud. American International Journal of Business Management, 4(10), 45–53.
KPK. (2024). Survei Penilaian Integritas (SPI) Pendidikan 2024. https://www.kpk.go.id/
KPK. (2025). Temuan hasil SPI Pendidikan 2024: Menyontek dan plagiarisme masih merebak di sekolah dan kampus. https://www.kpk.go.id/id/ruang-informasi/berita/temuan-hasil-spi-pendidikan-2024-menyontek-dan-plagiarisme-masih-merebak-di-sekolah-dan-kampus
Krou, M. R., Fong, C. J., & Hoff, M. A. (2021). The relationship between intelligence and academic dishonesty: A meta-analysis. Journal of Academic Ethics, 19(4), 505–539.
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2020). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Moorcy, P. A., Sarwani, S., Suhaili, A., & Rasidah, R. (2024). Perspektif fraud hexagon theory dalam perilaku academic fraud: Studi explanatory pada mahasiswa akuntansi. Owner, 8(1), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.33395/owner.v8i1.2068
Nurdiansyah, A. S., Durya, N., & Rachele, F. (2023). Analysis of the influence of fraud diamond dimensions on fraudulent behavior of accounting students at Diponegoro University. Sharia Oikonomia Law Journal, 1(2), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.55849/solj.v1i2.123
Prastiwi, A., Atmini, S., & Kawulur, H. R. (2025). Fraud hexagon and dark personality traits in academic dishonesty: Evidence from Indonesian accounting students. Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi, 10(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.23887/jia.v10i1.84
Sabriana, O., & Hudaya, R. (n.d.). The influence of pressure, opportunity, rationalization, and ability on academic fraudulent behavior of FEB students. 04(02), 317–333.
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. https://doi.org/10.24843/eja.2020.v30.i02.p07
Sutarto, H. S., Putra, I. G. B. A. H., & Susandya, A. A. P. G. B. A. (2024). The analysis of an academic fraud behavior based on the fraud hexagon theory. Indonesia Auditing Research Journal, 13(3), 132–143.
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
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.3
Zhao, L., Yang, X., Yu, X., Zheng, J., Mao, H., Fu, G., Fang, F., & Lee, K. (2024). Academic cheating, achievement orientations, and culture values: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, XX(X), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241288240
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Proceeding of the International Conference on Management, Entrepreneurship, and Business
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
