Journal of Business and Information Systems

Vol. 3, No. 1, June (2021) Accepted, November 2020

www.thejbis.org Revised, December 2020
Published, January 2021
DOI:10.36067/jbis.v3i1.88
ISSN:2685-2543

The impact of ethics and fraud pentagon theory

on academic fraud behavior

1)
Dhita Permata Wira Utami
[email protected]
2)
Dian Indri Purnamasari
[email protected]
Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Yogyakarta
1,2)

Abstract: This study aims to determine the impact of ethics, pressure, opportunity,
rationalization, competence, and arrogance on accounting students' academic fraud
behavior. The population of this research consists of UPN "Veteran" Yogyakarta
accounting students. The number of samples used in this study was 170 respondents
representing several criteria and have taken the Auditing I and Business Ethics courses.
The dependent variable (Y) in this study is academic fraud behavior. The independent
variables include ethics (X1), pressure (X2), opportunity (X3), rationalization (X4),
competence (X5), and arrogance (X6). The method used in this research is the quantitative
method. The data used were the primary data. The results of this study indicate that
ethics, pressure, and competence have an impact on academic fraud behavior. In
contrast, opportunities, rationalization, and arrogance do not affect academic fraud
behavior.
Keywords: Ethics; Fraud; Cheating Behavior.
1. Introduction
Accounting education aims to prepare students to become professional accountants and to
meet the anticipated future need for professional accounting services. For that reason,
accountants lacking in professionalism will not sell quite well in the job market.
Accounting focuses on reporting financial information. However, in recent times,
professional managers and accountants have acknowledged the importance of additional
economic information that neither accounting nor financial reporting systems can produce.
It is believed that the information is not always concerning financial matters. Still, it gives
deeper meaning to the reported data to provide more in-depth information for the decision-
making processes. Some of these non-financial information belongs to the area of
behavioral accounting. Behavioral accounting is a branch of accounting that integrates
behavioral dimension into traditional accounting (Handayani, 2018).
Dishonesty seems to be quite prevalent today. Almost every day, various mass
media provide news about fraudulent practices that are deeply entrenched and increasingly
difficult to overcome in our country. Numerous corruption scandals reported in the press
are perpetrated by various professional groups, including an accountant. Fraud committed
by accountants must be taken seriously by policymakers in education, especially
accounting education. Accountants' involvement in various recent financial scandals or

49
Journal of Business and Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, June (2021)

those that occurred over the past decade has exposed accountant integrity to public
scrutiny. The latest data from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (2014) stated
that the accounting department constitutes the largest part of the professional world's fraud
perpetrator. Therefore it is necessary for accounting education to provide a constructive
response to this and to improve the moral competence of prospective accountants (Artani
& Wetra, 2017).
As the agents of change, the next generation and future accountants, students shall
avoid those fraudulent practices for the betterment of their future profession. Inculcating
ethical behavior and moral values and developing social relationships will certainly not be
enough when it is limited to education in the classroom. Creating a favorable environment
for ethical behaviors will provide a more decisive impetus for students to get used to being
honest and to asserting an opinion of dishonesty that may occur anywhere. That way,
universities' role in preparing for high-quality graduates can be performed well.
The reason for choosing the University of National Development "Veteran"
Yogyakarta (subsequently abbreviated to UPNVY) as the object of study, especially
students of the accounting department of Economics and Business Faculty, is that the
university has been nicknamed 'the Campus of National Defense.' The UPNVY got the
nickname because the university is run under the auspices of the Department of Defense.
The concept of national defense is also manifested in the education curriculum of UPNVY.
It has a vision for becoming a pioneer in national development in the spirit of national
security in this era of globalization.
2. Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development
2.1 Ethics and Fraud
The word ethics, derived from the late Latin ethica, also means moral philosophy. It is a
guideline for how to behave appropriately from a cultural, moral, and religious perspective.
Alternatively, Keraf argued that ethics is literally derived from Greek Ethos (plural: ta
etha), which means precisely similar to morality: to have good habits. In general, ethics is
defined as behavioral values or rules accepted and practiced by a particular group or
individuals. Ethics talks about the moral values and norms that determine human behavior
in his life (Suraida, 2005).
In his Fraud-Examination, Albrecht stated that fraud is a generic term and embraces
all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, which are resorted to by one
individual to get an advantage over another by false representations. No definite and
invariable rule can be laid down as a general proposition in defining fraud, as it includes
surprise, trickery, cunning, and unfair ways by which another is cheated. The only
boundaries defining it are those which limit human knavery.
Donald R. Cressey developed the fraud triangle theory in 1953. This is the first
theory that explains the elements that cause fraud, and there have been many studies that
confirmed the fraud triangle. Cressey conducted extensive research with convicted

50
Journal of Business and Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, June (2021)

criminals to determine what motivates seemingly honest people to commit fraud. The three
components of the fraud triangle are pressure, opportunity, and rationalization.
In 2004, Wolfe & Hermanson (2004) refined the fraud triangle theory to fraud
diamond theory, which consists of pressure, opportunity, rationalization, and competence.
There is an additional element in the latter fraud theory, i.e., competency. Competency is
defined as individual capability, and it plays a crucial role in the fraud. Successful
fraudulent practices depend on one’s ability, which consists of position, intelligence,
egocentrism, persuasiveness, deceit, and stress control (Wolfe & Hermanson, 2004).
Fraud pentagon theory is developed by Marks (2012) from previous Crowe’s Fraud
Pentagon Theory. According to Crowe, arrogance is identified with a sense of superiority
and a feeling of entitlement. Arrogance is greed as part of a person who believes that
internal control does not apply to them. Fraud perpetrators believe that the implemented
internal controls cannot befall them, so they usually think freely without fear of sanctions
that will trap them.
2.2 Hypothesis Formulation
Forsyth described ethics as the primary goal of professional behavior, which is closely
related to the prevailing morals and values based on idealism and relativism. In a Litbang
Media Group survey, predominant academic fraud at high school and university level is
cheating. By academic fraud, we mean behaviors deliberately perpetrated by high school
students, such as violating the rules for assignments or exams or helping their classmates in
dishonest completion of tasks or exams (Pudjiastuti, 2012).
Albrecht describe pressure is when someone feels the need to commit academic
fraud (Puspitasari et al., 2019). The pressure is defined as a strong urge that exists within
students' feeling from his self or environment to achieve specific goals that arise owing to
too many demands or tasks that must be done (Nurkhin & Fachrurrozie, 2018). A study by
McCabe et al. (2001) indicates that one of the factors related to students' pressure is when
they have many activities outside the campus. Students involved in many off-campus
activities are more prone and closer to academic cheating behavior (Murdiansyah et al.,
2017). Apriani et al. (2017) argues that pressure affects fraud behaviors among accounting
students. Puspitasari et al. (2019) show that anxiety has a significant impact on academic
fraud behavior among accounting students across the universities in Malang.
The more excellent the opportunity, the higher the possibility for the occurrence of
fraud behavior will be. Opportunity is a factor that encourages academic fraud to occur.
The more significant opportunity a person has to commit fraud, the higher possibility that
they will do so. A person can be motivated to commit fraud by a perceived opportunity,
such as a chance for gaining benefits from other sources. Option means either available or
sought out opportunities in a classroom situation that entices a university student to
commit fraud behaviors under loose exam supervision or to jointly commit academic
dishonesty together with his or her classmate (Nurkhin & Fachrurrozie, 2018). All these
confirm the findings of Apriani et al. (2017), stating that the opportunity impacts students’
academic fraud behavior. Puspitasari et al. (2019) show that option has a significant impact
51
Journal of Business and Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, June (2021)

on academic fraud behavior among accounting department students across the universities
in Malang. Fitri (2019), in contrast, shows that opportunity has no effect on fraudulent
procurement of goods or services in the Local Government of Aceh.
Rationalization is a self-justification or a wrong excuse for wrong behavior
(Albrecht, 2003). McCabe et al. (1997) state that rationalization is a behavior that shows
students' habits to regard cheating as an act consistent with their code of ethics in their
environment (Murdiansyah et al., 2017). Rationalization is a strong reason student have to
justify their academic fraud acts (Nurkhin & Fachrurrozie, 2018). This conforms to the
findings of Apriani et al. (2017), stating that rationalization has an impact on students'
academic fraud behaviors. Puspitasari et al. (2019) show that rationalization significantly
impacts academic fraud behavior among accounting students across universities in Malang.
In contrast, Fitri (2019) demonstrates that rationalization does not affect the fraudulent
procurement of goods or service in the Aceh government.
Competency here is the ability of a person to commit fraud acts. Thus, competence is
a person's ability to override internal control, develop sophisticated concealment strategies,
and control social situations for his benefit by selling them to others (Marks, 2012). More
specifically, the competency here is students' ability to override internal control, develop
concealment strategies, and control social situations for their benefit (Nurkhin &
Fachrurrozie, 2018). The results of a study by Fitrianti (2019) demonstrate that
competency impacts academic fraud. Murdiansyah et al. (2017) show that competency has
a significant impact on reducing academic fraud behaviors. Puspitasari et al. (2019),
conversely, demonstrates that competency is rejected or has no effect.
Arrogance is a person's attitude revealing that internal controls, company policies,
and regulations do not apply to him. He feels that he is exempt from procedures,
regulations, and internal control. Therefore he 'innocently' commits fraud (Nisa &
Oktafiana, 2019). Achsin & Cahyaningtyas (2019) also suggest that arrogance can arise
when a person has a sense of superiority or can commit fraud without being foiled by any
control. Therefore, he did so without fear of sanctions that will trap him. Faradiza (2019)
reveals that arrogance has no impact on fraudulent financial reporting. The study results by
Febriana (2019) indicate that students' arrogance does not encourage them to commit
academic fraud in competency assessment. Based on the above conceptual framework, we
propose the following hypotheses:
H1: Ethics have an impact on academic fraud behavior
H2: Pressure has an impact on academic fraud behavior
H3: Opportunity has an impact on academic fraud behavior
H4: Rationalization has an impact on academic fraud behavior
H5: Competency has an impact on academic fraud behavior
H6: Arrogance has an impact on academic fraud behavior

3. Methods
The population consists of all accounting students of UPN Veteran of Yogyakarta.
We use primary data collected directly from main sources through interviews upon which

52
Journal of Business and Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, June (2021)

the answers to the research questions are based (Sugiyono, 2014). The samples were
selected using a purposive sampling technique based on predetermined criteria, i.e.,
students who were currently taking or have taken Business Ethics and Auditing 1 courses.
All questionnaires use 4 points Likert-scale questions that start with 1 (strongly disagree)
to 4 (strongly agree).
Table 1. Research Instrument
Variables Instrument
Ethics Idealism 1. A person has to make sure that the actions he takes do not hurt others.
2. Harming others will always be wrong, even if it can benefit us.
3. When an action is to the detriment of another innocent person, then it should not be
taken.
4. Moral action is an action that is closer to perfect properness.
5. Sacrificing the welfare of others is something that shouldn't be done.
Relativis 1. Lying can be judged as a moral or immoral act, depending on the situation.
m 2. Very complex ethical considerations leave individuals free to form their own code of
ethics.
3. Ethical values differ from one community to another, and their implementation also
differs from one situation to another.
4. The meaning of being ethical can be difficult to determine because individuals differ
on what morality and immorality are.
5. Moral standards should be set by each individual, because an act can be morally good
for one and morally bad for another.
Competency 1. I can control myself when I committed academic fraud.
2. I feel neither afraid nor worried when I committed fraud.
3. I prepared a strategy, so that I could cheat on a test.
4. I could argue if I am considered to be committing academic fraud.
5. I asked a friend to help me cheat.
6. I can handle my surroundings to assist me in cheating.
Opportunity 1. Lecturers were not careful in checking student assignments, therefore I did
plagiarism.
2. Cheating is okay, had it gone undetected.
3. The exam invigilators let students cheat.
4. I'm not scared to cheat on exams.
5. Lecturers do not check student paper assignments with a plagiarism software.
6. The exam invigilator is engrossed in activities other than supervising.
Pressure 1. I have to pass the exam even if I do plagiarism in my paper assignment.
2. I have to pass the exam even if I cheated.
3. I cheated on the exam to get top marks.
4. I did collaborative cheating to pass the exams with high grades.
5. I did plagiarism in my paper assignment due to lack of time.
6. I didn't participate in group assignments since I couldn't manage the time to study.
Rationalization 1. I didn’t hurt anyone when I cheated on the exam.
2. If I get caught cheating, no one but me deserved to be punished.
3. It is normal for me and my friends to commit academic fraud.
4. I was mockingly called a saint for refusing to share my answer during the exam.
5. I committed academic fraud to get high grades and considered to be smart.
6. I committed academic fraud to get high grades and to make my parents happy.
Arrogance 1. I committed academic fraud on my own.
2. I became more confident after cheating.
3. Cheating on exams is cool!
4. Cheating on exams is something I am proud of .
Academic Fraud 1. I did not cite the sources in my paper assignment.
Behavior 2. I simply copying my friend’s paper assignment.
3. I prepared a cheat sheet for the exam.
4. I used a cheat sheet during the exam.
5. I copied my friend’s answer during the exam.
6. I did collaborative cheating during the exam.
Source: Muhsin et al. (2018)

53
Journal of Business and Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, June (2021)

4. Results and Discussion

Respondents in this study consist of accounting students of the economics and business
faculty in University of National Development "Veteran" Yogyakarta. The data collected
are 170 questionnaires returned and eligible for analysis.
4.1. Validity and Reliability Testing
A validity test is conducted to measure the validity of the questionnaire. Questions on a
questionnaire valid when they measure what they are supposed to measure (Ghozali,
2016). The validity test is conducted by counting the correlation between each question
item's scores using Pearson's Product Moment. When a correlation indicates a p-value of
less than 0.05, this means significant. Therefore, the test is valid.
Reliability refers to the overall consistency of measure in assessing a questionnaire,
which is an indicator of the variable. A questionnaire is reliable when one's answers to the
questions are consistent and stable over time (Ghozali, 2016). The reliability test is
conducted using Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient. A Cronbach's alpha of 0.6 indicates an
acceptable level of reliability.
4.2. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
Multiple linear regression analysis is used to explain the relationship between one
dependent variable and the factors affecting more than one independent variable.
Table 2. Results of Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
Variable B t P value Result
Ethics -0.146 -2.895 0.004* H1: Accepted
Pressure -0.345 4.067 0.000** H2: Accepted
Opportunity 0.087 1.315 0.190 H3: Rejected
Rationalization -0.037 0.410 0.692 H4: Rejected
Competence 0.181 2.848 0.005* H5: Accepted
Arrogance 0.148 1.292 0.198 H6: Rejected
F Value: 25.047 0,000**
Adj R Square: 0.461
* Sig <5%, ** Sig <1%
A constant value of 7.218 indicates that the constant value in equation is 7.218,
which means that if the independent variables—ethics, pressure, opportunity,
rationalization, competence, and arrogance—did not change or constant, then the academic
fraud behavior would be 7.218. The regression coefficient of ethics (b 1) is -0.146, which
means that if the ethics had 1 unit increase, the academic fraud behaviour would decrease
by 0.146, assuming that all other variables remain constant. The regression coefficient of
pressure (b2) is 0.345, which means that if the pressure had 1 unit increase, the academic
fraud behavior would increase by 0.345, assuming that all other variables remain constant.
The regression coefficient of competence (b5) is 0.181, which means that if the competence
had 1 unit increase, academic fraud behavior would increase by 1.81, assuming that all
other variables remain constant.

54
Journal of Business and Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, June (2021)

The results stated that ethics has an impact on academic fraud behavior. This result
indicates that the committed act is not harming others. That moral action is an action that is
closer to perfect properness. That was sacrificing the welfare of others is something that
shouldn't be done. That lying can be judged as a moral or immoral act, depending on the
situation. That ethical values differ from one community to another, and their
implementation also varies from one problem to another. Each individual should set moral
standards because an act can be morally right for one and ethically bad for another, and
affects academic fraud behavior. Forsyth describes ethics as the main objectives of
professionalism closely related to applying moral rules and values based on idealism and
relativism (Pudjiastuti, 2012). Idealism is an ethical value that refers to the individual
belief that positive consequences happen due to a morally acceptable act. The point is that
the desired results (positive outcomes) occurred when no one was harmed. Relativism, on
the other hand, rejects moral judgment in any absolute sense. Individuals will take their
local values, culture, or beliefs into consideration. One of the relativism aspects stated that
ethical values originate not from one absolute perspective because individuals have their
respective ethical behaviors. The results of H1 indicated that ethics have an impact on
students' academic fraud behavior.
The results of the study revealed that pressure has an impact on academic fraud
behavior. The pressure is the factor with the most significant effect on academic fraud
behavior. This can be seen from its lowest significance level among other variables.
Furthermore, based on the Standardized Coefficient, pressure has Beta = 0.440, which is
the most considerable B value. This result indicates that the forces of having to do well in
exams, getting higher grades, having no sufficient time to complete the assignment, and
failing to work on group assignments because of inability to manage the time impact
academic fraud behavior. According to Tuanakotta (2010), pressure motivates an
individual to commit fraud for financial or non-financial factors. The pressure is when a
person feels the need to achieve academic fraud (Albrecht, 2003). The test of hypothesis 2
indicates that anxiety has an impact on students' academic fraud. McCabe et al. (2001)
suggest that one factor related to the students' pressure is their involvement in many off-
campus activities. Students with many off-campus activities are more prone or closer to
academic fraud behavior (Murdiansyah et al., 2017). Apriani (2017) indicates that pressure
affects fraud behavior among accounting students.
The present study revealed that opportunity has no impact on academic fraud
behavior. The reason for this is that an effective control system has been implemented on
campus. Therefore students find it difficult to commit fraud. Lecturers have been carefully
checking students’ assignments to keep them from plagiarism. Exam invigilators won’t let
students cheat. According to Tuanakotta (2010), the opportunity is a condition where
individuals cheat because loopholes let them cheat without being detected, and no sanction
is ever imposed on them. Individuals usually commit fraud by utilizing their expertise and
skills. The more significant opportunities an individual gets, the higher likelihood that he
will cheat. The testing of the third hypothesis indicated that opportunity has no impact on
students’ academic fraud. Fitri (2019) suggests that a better internal control system will

55
Journal of Business and Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, June (2021)

result in a higher likelihood of detecting fraud in a simpler and faster way. Furthermore,
this will help reduce the opportunity for committing fraud.
The results revealed that rationalization has no impact on academic fraud behavior.
This result indicates the feeling that no one was harmed when committing fraud. That “if I
get caught cheating, no one but me deserved to be punished.” That “it is normal for my
friends and me to commit academic fraud.” That “I was mockingly called a saint for
refusing to share my answer during the exam.” That committing academic fraud to get high
grades and considered smart and making parents happy will not affect students to commit
academic fraud. According to Tuanakotta (2010), rationalization is an individual
consideration to justify his or her fraud acts before actually committing fraud behavior.
The testing of the fourth hypothesis indicates that rationalization has no impact on
students’ academic fraud behavior. This is because many respondents expressed their
disagreement with statements concerning rationalization. They argued that one’s
rationalization in committing fraud can not be measured because it is a conscious thought
to justify his or her fraud act.
The results indicated that competence has an impact on academic fraud behavior. This
shows that self-control, the feeling of not being afraid or worried, the ability to argue when
caught cheating, getting a friend to help cheat on exams, and the ability to handle the
surroundings impact academic fraud behavior. According to Marks (2012), competence is
a person's ability to override internal control, develop sophisticated concealment strategies,
and control social situations for their benefit by selling them to others. The testing of the
fifth hypothesis indicated that competence has an impact on students' academic fraud. This
means that the higher ability a student has in academic fraud, the higher competence he
gets for doing so. This study's results are consistent with those of Faradiza (2019).
The results of the study revealed that arrogance has no impact on academic fraud
behavior. This means that students can commit fraud, increase confidence after committing
fraud, feel that cheating in an exam is cool, and being proud of committing academic fraud
has no impact on academic fraud. Nisa et al. (2019) stated that arrogance arises when a
person considered himself as not subject to internal control, policies, or rules of his or her
company, and thus feels he is not guilty when committing fraud. Muhsin et al. (2018) and
Faradiza (2019) found that arrogance has no impact on fraudulent acts in financial
reporting. Febriana (2019) revealed that students' superiority did not lead them to commit
academic fraud on their competency test.
5. Conclusions, Limitations, and Recommendations
The findings show that ethics, pressure and competence have significantly impact on
academic fraud behavior, while opportunity, rationalization, and arrogance have no
significant effect on academic fraud behavior.
Our work has some limitations, such as getting more respondents, because the
questionnaires were distributed during the semester break. It was also not possible for us to
contact the respondents in a face-to-face survey. Therefore, we use a social media platform
as an alternative way of distributing questionnaires. We propose the following
56
Journal of Business and Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, June (2021)

recommendations to the parties concerned: for education practitioners, this study provides
valuable information considering the impact of ethics, pressure, opportunity,
rationalization, competence, and arrogance on academic fraud behavior in devising better
learning methods or rules to minimize academic fraud among students. We also suggest
that future research use other independent variables than those included in this study, such
as religiosity, intelligence, personality, and self-efficacy. Furthermore, we recommend that
further research should be taken in the area of fraud pentagon concept because some
studies cited in this research paper provide results that run contrary to the existing theory.
References
Achsin, R. I. C. H. (2019). Studi fenomenologi kecurangan mahasiswa dalam pelaporan
pertanggungjawaban dana kegiatan mahasiswa: Sebuah realita dan pengakuan.
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
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, 7(1), 121–133.
Aprilia, A. (2017). Analisis pengaruh fraud pentagon terhadap kecurangan laporan
keuangan menggunakan beneish model pada perusahaan yang menerapkan Asean
corporate governance scorecard. Jurnal ASET (Akuntansi Riset), 9(1), 101.
https://doi.org/10.17509/jaset.v9i1.5259
Artani, K. T. B., & Wetra, I. W. (2017). Academic self efficacy dan fraud diamond. Riset
Akuntansi, 7(2), 123–132.
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), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.30813/jab.v12i2.1774
Faradiza, S. A. (2019). Fraud pentagon dan kecurangan laporan keuangan. EkBis: Jurnal
Ekonomi Dan Bisnis, 2(1), 1–22.
Febriana, N. R., & Novianti, N. (2019). Analisis pengaruh dimensi fraud pentagon
terhadap perilaku kecurangan akademik mahasiswa pada uji kompetensi. Jurnal
Ilmiah Mahasiswa FEB, 8(1).
Fitri, F., & Nadirsyah, N. (2019). Pengaruh tekanan (pressure), kesempatan (opportunity),
rasionalisasi (rationalization), dan kapabilitas (capability) terhadap kecurangan
pengadaan barang/jasa di Pemerintahan Aceh dengan pemoderasi budaya etis
organisasi. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Ekonomi Akuntansi, 5(1), 69–84.
https://doi.org/10.24815/jimeka.v5i1.15437
Ghozali, I. (2016). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program IBM SPSS. Edisi
Kedelapan. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
Handayani, M. H. & A. E. (2018). Pengaruh kecerdasan emosional terhadap tingkat
pemahaman akuntansi pada mahasiswa akuntansi di Universitas Dr Soetomo . Jurnal
Analisa Akuntansi dan Perpajakan, 2(2), 86-98.
Hendricks, B. (2004). Academic dishonesty: A study in the magnitude of and justifications
for academic dishonesty among college undergraduate and graduate students. Jurnal
of College Student Development, 212–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12033-010-9324-
z
Marks, J. (2012). The mind behind the fraudsters crime: Key behavioral and environmental
elements. Crowe Horwath LLP, 62. Retrieved from

57
Journal of Business and Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, June (2021)

http://www.fraudconference.com/uploadedFiles/Fraud_Conference/ Content/Course-
Materials/presentations/23rd/ppt/10C-Jonathan-Marks.pdf
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Dishonesty in academic
environments: The influence of peer reporting requirements. Journal of Higher
Education, 72(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649132
Meliana, M., & Hartono, T. R. (2019). Fraud perbankan Indonesia: Studi eksplorasi.
Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pakar, 2–52.
Mia, T. P., Eindye, T., & Satria, Y. W. (2019). Pengaruh Fraud Triangle Sebagai Prediktor
Kecurangan Pelaporan Keuangan. Jurnal Bisnis Dan Akuntansi, 21(1), 77–88.
https://doi.org/10.34208/jba.v21i1.502
Muhsin, Kardoyo, & Nurkhin. (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
Murdiansyah, I., Sudarma, M., & Nurkholis. (2017). Pengaruh dimensi fraud diamond
terhadap perilaku kecurangan akademik. Jurnal Akuntansi Aktual, 4(2), 121–133.
Nisa, K., Oktafiana, N. F., & Permata Sari, S. (2019). Fraudulent financial statement
ditinjau dari model fraud Pentagon Horwath. Urecol, 164–177.
Nurkhin, A., & Fachrurrozie. (2018). Analisis pengaruh dimensi fraud diamond terhadap.
Pendidikan Akuntansi, 1(1), 1–12.
Padmavathy, R., Amudhavalli, A., Manikandan, M., Rajeswarapalanichamy, R., Iyakutti,
K., & Kushwaha, A. K. (2019). Electronic and optical properties of CsSnI3−yCly (y
= 0, 1, 2, 3) Perovskites: a DFT Study. Journal of Electronic Materials, 48(2), 1243–
1251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11664-018-06850-8
Pamungkas, I. D. (2016). Pengaruh orientasi etika dan komitmen profesional terhadap
kecurangan akuntansi melalui rasionalisasi sebagai variabel moderating. Ekonomi
Dan Bisnis, 18, 41–54.
Pudjiastuti, E. (2012). Hubungan “Self Efficacy” dengan perilaku mencontek mahasiswa
psikologi. MIMBAR, Jurnal Sosial Dan Pembangunan, 28(1), 103.
https://doi.org/10.29313/mimbar.v28i1.344
Puspitasari, E., Amin, Moh., & Mawardi, M. C. (2019). Pengaruh kompetensi sarjana
akuntansi, regulasi pemerintah dan etika profesi terhadap kemampuan sarjana
akuntansi untuk bersaing dalam menghadapi era revolusi industri 4.0. E-Jra, 08(01),
1–13.
Sugiyono. (2014). Statistika Untuk Penelitian Kuantitatif. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Suraida, I. (2005). Pengaruh etika, kompetensi, pengalaman audit dan risiko audit terhadap
skeptisisme profesional auditor dan ketepatan pemberian opini akuntan publik.
Sosiohumaniora, 7(3), 186–202.
Tuanakotta, Theodorus. M. 2010. Akuntansi Forensik dan Auditor Investigatif. Lembaga
Penerbit Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Indonesia (LPFE UI). Edisi ke 2: Jakarta
Wardana, I. G. J., Sulindawati, I. N. L. G. E., & Sujana, I. E. (2017). Pengaruh motivasi
belajar, integritas mahasiswa dan penyalahgunaan teknologi informasi terhadap
perilaku kecurangan akademik (Studi kasus pada mahasiswa Jurusan Akuntansi
Program S1 Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha). E-Jurnal S1 Ak, 8(2).
Wati, M., & Sudibyo, B. (2016). Pengaruh pendidikan etika bisnis dan religiusitas terhadap
persepsi etis mahasiswa akuntansi. Jurnal Economia, 12(2), 183.
https://doi.org/10.21831/economia.v12i2.11775
Wolfe, D. T., & Hermanson, D. R. (2004). The fraud diamond: Considering the Four
Elements of Fraud: Certified Public Accountant. The CPA Journal, 74(12), 38–42.
https://doi.org/DOI:

58
Journal of Business and Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, June (2021)

Yudiana, A. P., & Lastanti, H. S. (2016). Analisis pengaruh dimensi fraud diamond
terhadap perilaku kecurangan akademik mahasiswa Fakultas Ekonomi. Seminar
Nasional Dan Call Paper Fakultas Ekonomi UNIBA Surakarta, (September), 412–
422.

59