Reassessing The Fraud Hexagon Model: Evidence on Its Selective Significance in Explaining Academic Fraud

Usep Syaipudin; Chara Pratami Tidespania; Rizka Malia

doi:10.70716/emis.v4i2.616

Authors

Usep Syaipudin Accounting Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Lampung, Indonesia Author
Chara Pratami Tidespania Accounting Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Lampung, Indonesia Author
Rizka Malia Economic Development Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Lampung, Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70716/emis.v4i2.616

Keywords:

Academic Fraud, Fraud Hexagon, Retionalization, Collusion, Abillity

Abstract

Academic fraud is a serious issue that has the potential to undermine professional integrity, particularly in the field of accounting. This study adapts the Fraud Hexagon theory to understand the factors contributing to fraud in higher education settings. This study aims to analyze the influence of the six dimensions of the Fraud Hexagon pressure, ability, collusion, opportunity, rationalization, and ego on the propensity for academic fraud among accounting students in Bandar Lampung. A quantitative study using a cross-sectional survey design. A sample of 157 final-year accounting students from several universities in Bandar Lampung was selected using purposive sampling. Data were collected via a Google Forms questionnaire and analyzed using multiple linear regression in SPSS 25 after testing the classical assumptions. The regression results indicate that rationalization, ability, and collusion have a positive and significant effect on academic dishonesty, whereas pressure, opportunity, and ego do not. This study also makes an empirical contribution by presenting evidence based on local data from accounting students. This is important because most previous research has been dominated by non-academic contexts or different regions; thus, the findings of this study strengthen its external validity within the context of higher education in Indonesia.

References

ACFE Global. (2020). Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse: 2020 Global Fraud Study. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc., 1–88. https://acfepublic.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/2020-Report-to-the-Nations.pdf

Affandi, A., Hakim, T. I. R., & Prasetyono, P. (2022). Fraud hexagon dimensions and spirituality in academic fraud during online learning. InFestasi, 18(1), In Press. https://doi.org/10.21107/infestasi.v18i1.14605

Agustin, C. R., & Achyani, F. (2022). The influence of fraud hexagon dimensions on academic fraud. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Accounting, Finance, and Economics (NSAFE), 2(1), 295–309.

Al-Rizky, N., Indrijawati, A., & Purisamya, A. J. (2024). Analysis of financial statement fraud using the Vousinas fraud hexagon theory approach. Akrual: Jurnal Bisnis dan Akuntansi Kontemporer, 62–81. https://doi.org/10.26487/akrual.v17i01.30778

Al Serhan, O., Houjeir, R., & Aldhaheri, M. (2022). Academic dishonesty and the fraud diamond: A study on 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

Asthary, D., Mappalotteng, A. M., & Bakry, A. (2022). Analysis of students’ academic fraud behavior in online learning using the fraud diamond concept. Proceedings of the ICE National Seminar 2022, 1(1), 21.

Bierstaker, J., Brink, W. D., Khatoon, S., & Thorne, L. (2024). Academic fraud and remote evaluation of accounting students: An application of the fraud triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, 195(2), 425–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05628-9

Birks, D., & Clare, J. (2023). Linking artificial intelligence-facilitated academic misconduct to existing prevention frameworks. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00142-3

Christiana, A., Kristiani, A., & Pangestu, S. (2021). Online learning fraud during the early pandemic: Fraud pentagon dimensions. Jurnal Pendidikan Akuntansi Indonesia, 19(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.21831/jpai.v19i1.40734

Cutri, J., Abraham, A., Karlina, Y., Patel, S. V., Moharami, M., Zeng, S., Manzari, E., & Pretorius, L. (2021). Academic integrity at doctoral level: The influence of the imposter phenomenon and cultural differences on academic writing. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00074-w

Fatmawati, Diana, N., & Afifudin. (2024). Religiosity as a moderating variable in the relationship between hexagon theory and academic fraud among accounting students. Jurnal Ilmiah Riset Akuntansi, 13(1), 701–712.

Fontanella, A., Sukartini, S., Chandra, N., & Sriyunianti, F. (2020). Student academic fraud: Why does it occur and what should be done? Jurnal ASET (Akuntansi Riset), 12(1), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.17509/jaset.v12i1.22378

Gautama, S. R., Hakim, T. I. R., & Muhammad, E. (2023). The interaction of the dark triad and fraud hexagon: An academic fraud perspective. Reviu Akuntansi dan Bisnis Indonesia, 7(2), 442–463. https://doi.org/10.18196/rabin.v7i2.19807

Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2022). Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(3), 859–887. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00213

Nurhidayah, & Ridwan, R. A. (2022). The effect of the fraud triangle on academic fraud among accounting students. Point of View Research Accounting and Auditing, 3(2), 119–133.

Pratiwi, N. A. S., & Munari, M. (2024). Fraud hexagon dimensions influencing academic fraud among accounting students. Jambura Economic Education Journal, 6(2), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.37479/jeej.v6i2.24673

Rahmat, A., & Setiawan, M. A. (2024). The influence of fraud hexagon and self-efficacy on student academic fraud. Jurnal Eksplorasi Akuntansi, 6(1), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.24036/jea.v6i1.1218

Reyneke, Y., Shuttleworth, C. C., & Visagie, R. G. (2021). Pivot to online in a post-COVID-19 world: Critically applying BSCS 5E to enhance plagiarism awareness among accounting students. Accounting Education, 30(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2020.1867875

Selviana, & Irwansyah. (2023). The influence of fraud hexagon, organizational factors, and integrity on academic fraud behavior among accounting students. Edunomika, 8(1), 1–20.

Sugiyono, D. (2013). Quantitative, qualitative, and action research methods. Alfabeta.

Theotama, G., Waskita, Y. D., & Hapsari, A. N. S. (2023). Fraud hexagon in the motives to commit academic fraud. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis, 26(1), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.24914/jeb.v26i1.7395

Vousinas, G. L. (2019a). Fraud: The human face of fraud. Understanding the suspect is vital to any investigation. CA Magazine-Chartered Accountant, 136(4), 1–18.

Vousinas, G. L. (2019b). Advancing fraud theory: The S.C.O.R.E. model. Journal of Financial Crime, 26(1), 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-12-2017-0128