Predicting Academic Dishonesty Through Dark Traits, Moral Disengagement, and Gender

Academic dishonesty has become an increasing concern in higher education, particularly as technological advancements and evolving academic environments create new opportunities for misconduct. While academic pressure and contextual factors are frequently examined, growing evidence suggests that individual personality traits and cognitive processes also play an important role in influencing dishonest behaviour. This review synthesises findings from eleven empirical studies to examine how dark personality traits, moral disengagement, and gender contribute to academic dishonesty among university students. Across the reviewed literature, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy consistently predicted higher levels of cheating, plagiarism, and related behaviours. Moral disengagement emerged as a central psychological mechanism that enables students to rationalise unethical actions and reduce guilt, thereby increasing the likelihood of dishonesty. Gender differences were also evident, with several studies reporting that male students demonstrate higher levels of misconduct and greater use of moral disengagement compared to female students. These findings indicate that a combination of dispositional traits, cognitive justifications, and demographic factors influences academic dishonesty. The review highlights the need for institutions to adopt preventative strategies that focus on ethical development, moral reasoning, and psychological support rather than relying solely on punitive measures. It also identifies several gaps in the literature, including a lack of studies that examine personality, gender, and moral disengagement within a single framework, as well as an absence of research conducted in the Indian context. Future research should incorporate longitudinal and mixed-method designs, culturally diverse samples, and a broader range of contextual factors to strengthen the understanding of academic dishonesty and inform more effective educational practices.