When Motivation Meets Self-Regulation: How Students’ Learning Approaches Relate to Academic Dishonesty?

Synopsis:

This correlational questionnaire study examines how university students’ motivation and self-regulated learning relate to academic dishonesty. Using two complementary analytical approaches, we identify which aspects of learning approaches matter most for academic integrity and uncover distinct student profiles that differ in their misconduct levels.

Key Questions:

Why do some students cheat while others do not? Research has separately linked both motivation and self-regulated learning to academic integrity, yet these two factors have rarely been examined together. The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1993)—one of the most widely used instruments in educational psychology—captures both what drives students to learn and how they manage their learning process. Its broad adoption across universities worldwide makes it a practical tool with well-established benchmarks. However, to our knowledge, no studies have systematically examined how the full range of characteristics measured by the MSLQ relates to academic dishonesty. We address this gap by asking: (1) Which motivational and self-regulatory characteristics show the strongest associations with academic misconduct? (2) Can we identify distinct types of students based on these characteristics, and do these types differ in how often they engage in dishonest academic behaviors?

Methods:

We invited 536 university students to participate in this study between June 2024 and May 2025. They completed the MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1993), which measures six motivational characteristics (e.g., intrinsic interest in learning, task value, test anxiety) and nine self-regulatory and cognitive strategy characteristics (e.g., time management, persistence through difficulty, help seeking). Academic dishonesty was assessed using a scale measuring the frequency of various misconduct behaviors such as using unauthorized notes during exams or falsifying references (Baran & Jonason, 2020). We first examined how each MSLQ characteristic individually relates to dishonesty through correlation analysis. We then used latent profile analysis—a statistical method for identifying naturally occurring subgroups within a population—to discover distinct student types based on key MSLQ characteristics and compared these types in their levels of academic misconduct.

Findings:

When examining individual characteristics, the capacity to manage one`s learning proved more important for academic integrity than specific study techniques. Persistence through difficult tasks and effective time management showed the strongest negative associations with dishonesty, followed by genuine interest in learning and finding coursework valuable. Interestingly, studying for grades or external rewards showed no meaningful link to misconduct, suggesting that extrinsic motivation is not inherently problematic.

The analysis of student types revealed five distinct profiles that differed significantly in dishonesty levels. At one end, Motivated Strategic Learners—students with strong intrinsic interest, low anxiety, and excellent self-management skills—reported the least misconduct. At the other end, Highly Disengaged and Disorganized students—who lacked both drive and learning management skills—reported the most. Between these extremes, three profiles were particularly revealing. Anxious Underregulators genuinely valued their education but struggled with anxiety and poor self-management, leading to elevated dishonesty. Disengaged Self-Regulators had decent organizational skills but lacked interest in their studies, and still showed moderate misconduct. These patterns carry a clear message: neither motivation nor self-regulation alone is enough. Students need both the desire to learn and the skills to manage that process in order to maintain academic integrity. These findings suggest that universities might benefit from tailoring their integrity support to different student profiles rather than relying on one-size-fits-all approaches.

Keywords: academic dishonesty, motivation, self-regulated learning, student profiles, academic integrity, higher education

References:

Baran, L., & Jonason, P. (2020). Academic dishonesty among university students: The roles of the psychopathy, motivation, and self-efficacy. PLoS ONE, 15(8), e0238141. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238141

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024