Synopsis
This oral presentation reports a multi‑institution study of higher‑education students examining whether academic integrity mediates the relationships of self‑efficacy and intellectual humility with ethical sensitivity. The model is situated in the context of emerging technologies in higher education (including generative AI) that can increase ambiguity around authorship, attribution, and responsible academic practice. Results highlight academic integrity as an actionable educational lever that partially links these dispositional resources with ethical sensitivity.
Introduction
Ethical sensitivity is the capacity to recognize ethical issues in a situation and anticipate how decisions may affect others. Ethical sensitivity is often positioned as the first component in ethical decision‑making (Rest, 1986). In higher education, ethical sensitivity is increasingly tested by digitally mediated learning and assessment, where emerging technologies can blur boundaries around legitimate support and misrepresentation. We examine two dispositions expected to support ethical sensitivity. Self‑efficacy is the belief that one can organize and execute the actions required to manage challenges, shaping whether coping behavior is initiated and sustained when obstacles arise (Bandura, 1977). It is also conceptualized as a proximal determinant in bridging intention to action in self‑regulation models (Schwarzer & Luszczynska, 2008). Intellectual humility refers to recognizing the fallibility of one’s beliefs and remaining open to revising them when warranted (Leary et al., 2017). We hypothesize that both dispositions relate positively to ethical sensitivity and that academic integrity, conceptualized as an internalized commitment to integrity‑consistent values and choices in academic work partly mediates these associations. The study is positioned within AI-mediated academic environments where integrity dilemmas are increasingly salient.
Methods
Design and sample: We conducted a cross‑sectional online survey (Qualtrics) using snowball recruitment across 20 higher‑education institutions in Israel (universities and academic colleges). The final analytic sample comprised 670 undergraduate and graduate students.
Measures: All measures were self‑reports and were translated/back‑translated into Hebrew. Ethical sensitivity was measured with a modified Ethical Sensitivity Scale Questionnaire (ESSQ; Tirri & Nokelainen, 2007), 20 items (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree), α = .89. Self‑efficacy was measured with the General Self‑Efficacy Scale (GSE; Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1995), 10 items (1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree), α = .90. Intellectual humility was measured using a 6‑item scale (Leary et al., 2017) (1 = not at all like me to 5 = very much like me), α = .78. Academic integrity was measured with the Academic Integrity Scale (AIS; Ramdani, 2018), 17 items (1 = very inappropriate to 5 = very appropriate), α = .84. The AIS is a self‑report attitudinal instrument and does not constitute an objective behavioral measure.
Data analysis was performed using Pearson correlations tested bivariate associations. Hierarchical multiple regression predicted ethical sensitivity while controlling age and gender (the only demographic covariates included). Field of study and institution‑level effects were not modeled. Regression‑based mediation models tested indirect effects via academic integrity. Sobel tests evaluated the significance of the indirect pathways. Ethical approval was obtained from Zefat academic college (Approval No. 2024‑5A). Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and informed consent was obtained electronically prior to survey completion.
Findings
Positive, moderate, and statistically significant correlations were found between ethical sensitivity and the measures of self-efficacy and intellectual humility.
The regression analysis showed that academic integrity, self-efficacy, and intellectual humility all significantly and positively predicted ethical sensitivity, with academic integrity being the most prominent factor. Age and gender also remained significant in the final stage. The model explained 40% of the variance in ethical sensitivity. Mediation analyses indicated partial mediation in both pathways: academic integrity partially mediated the association between self‑efficacy and ethical sensitivity and partially mediated the association between intellectual humility and ethical sensitivity.
Discussion and Implications
In a higher education landscape shaped by digitalization and AI, ethical challenges are becoming more frequent and complex. Ethical sensitivity, defined as the capacity to recognize and interpret ethical issues, is therefore a core graduate attribute. This study contributes by integrating three constructs often examined separately: self-efficacy, intellectual humility, and academic integrity. Consistent with social cognitive theory, the findings suggest that students who believe in their capabilities are more likely to act in accordance with ethical standards, while intellectual humility characterized by openness to revising one’s beliefs supports reflective moral judgment and perspective taking.
Within this model, academic integrity emerges not merely as rule compliance but as an internalized ethical orientation that partially explains how these dispositions relate to ethical sensitivity. In AI-mediated academic environments, where dilemmas סביב authorship, attribution, and responsible use of generative tools are increasingly salient, academic integrity can be framed as a key educational mechanism for navigating such ambiguity. Practically, the findings support interventions that strengthen students’ academic self-efficacy and cultivate intellectual humility through dialogic and reflective pedagogies. By positioning academic integrity as a value-based framework, institutions can enhance students’ capacity to recognize and respond to ethical challenges in both academic and professional contexts.
This session is designed for academic integrity leaders, instructors, and educational developers working in digitally mediated learning environments. Attendees will gain an empirically grounded mediation model linking personal dispositions, academic integrity, and ethical sensitivity, along with practical guidance for designing AI-aware ethics learning experiences.
Limitations
The study relies on cross‑sectional, non‑probability sampling and self‑report measures, limiting causal inference and potentially inflating associations via common‑method variance and social desirability. Academic integrity was measured as an attitudinal construct rather than observed behavior. Field of study and institution level effects were not modeled and should be tested in future multi‑level and longitudinal research.
Keywords
ethical sensitivity; academic integrity; self-efficacy; intellectual humility; higher education
References
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self‑efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1995). General Self‑Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER‑NELSON.
Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K., Jongman‑Sereno, K. P., Isherwood, J. C., Raimi, K. T., Deffler, S. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (2017). Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), 793–813. doi:10.1177/0146167217697695
Ramdani, Z. (2018). Construction of academic integrity scale. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 7(1), 87–97. doi:10.5861/ijrsp.2018.3003
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger.
Schwarzer, R., & Luszczynska, A. (2008). How to overcome health‑compromising behaviors: The health action process approach. European Psychologist, 13(2), 141–151. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.13.2.141
Tirri, K., & Nokelainen, P. (2007). Comparison of academically average and gifted students’ self‑rated ethical sensitivity. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 587–601. doi:10.1080/13803610701786053