When the Machine Writes the Answer: A PRISMA-Guided Systematic Review of the Fraud Hexagon and Academic Fraud in the Era of ChatGPT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61656/sbamr.v7i1.532Keywords:
Academic Fraud, Accounting Students, ChatGPT, Fraud Hexagon, Generative Artificial Intelligence, PRISMAAbstract
Purpose: This study systematically reviews recent empirical evidence on the six fraud hexagon factors (pressure, opportunity, rationalisation, capability, arrogance, and collusion) as drivers of academic fraud among university students, with particular attention to online learning and the misuse of ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence tools. It responds to inconsistent findings in accounting education research and to growing concern about the integrity of future accounting professionals.
Method: The review follows the PRISMA 2020 statement. Five search strings were run in the Crossref database for peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2020 and 2024 with abstracts available, and citation tracking added key studies cited in the original research proposal. Records were de-duplicated, screened by title, and assessed for eligibility against predefined criteria. The included studies were coded by country, sample, design, learning context, and the direction of each fraud factor, and were synthesised through vote counting and thematic analysis.
Findings: The classic fraud triangle factors, namely pressure, opportunity, and rationalisation, remain the most frequently supported drivers, especially in online examinations and in the misuse of ChatGPT, where grade pressure, workload, easy access, and the belief that artificial intelligence is merely a tool are recurring themes. Capability and collusion are the most consistent of the newer hexagon factors when all six are modelled together, whereas arrogance is rarely significant. Findings within full hexagon models are fragmented, which suggests overlap among the factors and sensitivity to context and measurement.
Implication: Universities and accounting programmes should redesign assessment to reduce opportunity, publish clear policies on acceptable artificial intelligence use, address the rationalisations that normalise misuse, and design group work that discourages collusion. Ethics education should explicitly connect academic integrity with the professional code of ethics for accountants. Researchers should measure behaviour as well as intention and test interactions among the fraud factors.
Originality: The review is among the first to synthesise fraud hexagon evidence on academic fraud across conventional, online, and generative artificial intelligence settings, to show how the relevance of each factor shifts across these contexts, and to propose an agenda for studying artificial intelligence-assisted academic fraud among accounting students in Indonesia.
Downloads
References
Abbas, M., Jam, F. A., & Khan, T. I. (2024). Is it harmful or helpful? Examining the causes and consequences of generative AI usage among university students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00444-7
Affandi, A., Hakim, T. I. M. R., & Prasetyono, P. (2022). Dimensi fraud hexagon dan spiritualitas pada kecurangan akademik selama pembelajaran daring [Fraud hexagon dimensions and spirituality in academic fraud during online learning]. InFestasi, 18(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.21107/infestasi.v18i1.14605
Agustan, F. W., & Wayhuni, W. (2024). Factors affecting social and environmental accounting reviewed on accounting students' academic fraud from the fraud hexagon perspective. International Journal of Economic Research and Financial Accounting, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.55227/ijerfa.v2i4.206
Alshurafat, H., Al Shbail, M. O., Hamdan, A., Al-Dmour, A., & Ensour, W. (2024). Factors affecting accounting students' misuse of ChatGPT: An application of the fraud triangle theory. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 22(2), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-04-2023-0182
Asih, P. N. W., & Sunaryanto. (2022). Determinan academic dishonesty behaviour mahasiswa akuntansi dalam online exams: Perspektif fraud pentagon dan test anxiety [Determinants of accounting students' academic dishonesty in online exams: Fraud pentagon and test anxiety perspectives]. Jurnal Akademi Akuntansi, 5(2), 236–255. https://doi.org/10.22219/jaa.v5i2.20156
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Indonesia Chapter. (2020). Survei fraud Indonesia 2019 [Indonesia fraud survey 2019]. ACFE Indonesia. https://acfe-indonesia.or.id/survey-fraud-indonesia-2019/
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
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Dewa, M. M. C., & Maulana, A. (2024). Hexagon fraud: Exploration of academic fraud in accounting students at universities in Java, Indonesia. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 12(2), 933–948. https://doi.org/10.17509/jrak.v12i2.72009
Directorate General of Higher Education, Research, and Technology. (2024). Pangkalan data pendidikan tinggi [Higher education database]. Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology. https://pddikti.kemdiktisaintek.go.id
Ebaid, I. E. S. (2021). Cheating among accounting students in online exams during Covid-19 pandemic: Exploratory evidence from Saudi Arabia. Asian Journal of Economics, Finance and Management, 3(1), 211–221. https://globalpresshub.com/index.php/AJEFM/article/view/1068
Ferguson, C. D., Toye, M. A., & Eaton, S. E. (2023). How stressed are students and what can we do about it? Findings from a self-report survey of contract cheating behaviours and the stressful events college students experience. Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/cpai.v6i1.76511
Firmansyah, M. F. A., & Oktarina, D. (2023). The effect of hexagon fraud theory components of academic fraud for accounting department students with gender as a control variable. Asia Pacific Fraud Journal, 8(2), 369. https://doi.org/10.21532/apfjournal.v8i2.318
Gautama, S. R., Hakim, T. I. M. R., & Muhammad, E. (2023). Interaksi dark triad dan fraud hexagon: Perspektif kecurangan akademik [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
Hardiana, R. D., Lhutfi, I., & Mardiani, R. (2021). Fraud pentagon model: Predicting student's cheating academic behavior. Jurnal ASET (Akuntansi Riset), 13(2), 234–248.
Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia. (2021). Kode etik akuntan Indonesia [Code of ethics for Indonesian accountants]. Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia. https://web.iaiglobal.or.id
Janinovic, J., Pekovic, S., Djokovic, R., & Vuckovic, D. (2024). Assessing the effectiveness of academic integrity institutional policies: How can honor code and severe punishments deter students' cheating—Moderating approach? SAGE Open, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241307430
Juliardi, D., Sudarto, T. A., & Taufiqi, R. (2021). Fraud triangle, misuse of information technology and student integrity toward the academic cheating of UM student during the pandemic Covid-19. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 10(6), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i6.1343
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kelly, M., Smith, K. J., & Emerson, D. (2022). Perceptions among UK accounting and business students as to the ethicality of using assignment assistance websites. The Accounting Educators' Journal, 32, 81–106. https://aejournal.com/ojs/index.php/aej/article/view/743
Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(3), 1023–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00635-4
Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
Mardiana, A., & Holly, A. (2022). Academic fraud behavior of accounting students: Fraud diamond dimensions. Contemporary Journal on Business and Accounting, 2(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.58792/cjba.v2i1.23
Moorcy, P. A., Sarwani, S., Suhaili, A., & Rasidah, R. (2024). Perspektif fraud hexagon theory dalam perilaku academic fraud: Studi explanatory pada mahasiswa akuntansi [Fraud hexagon theory perspective on academic fraud behaviour: An explanatory study of accounting students]. Owner: Riset dan Jurnal Akuntansi, 8(1), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.33395/owner.v8i1.2068
Nailah, Z., & Murtanto, M. (2023). The effect of hexagon fraud dimensions and abuse of information technology on academic fraud (Case study on FEB students of Trisakti University). Jurnal Ekonomi, Manajemen, Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.53697/emak.v4i4.1417
Nugroho, D. S., & Diyanty, V. (2022). Hexagon fraud in fraudulent financial statements: The moderating role of audit committee. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 19(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.21002/jaki.2022.03
Oktarina, D., & Ramadhan, N. S. (2023). Academic fraud behavior of accounting students in dimensions of fraud hexagon theory. Journal of Auditing, Finance, and Forensic Accounting, 11(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.21107/jaffa.v11i1.18432
Omukaga, K. O. (2021). Is the fraud diamond perspective valid in Kenya? Journal of Financial Crime, 28(3), 810–840. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-11-2019-0141
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(2), 07. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
Puspitosari, I. (2022). Fraud triangle theory on accounting students online academic cheating. Accounting and Finance Studies, 2(4), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.47153/afs24.5082022
Rachma, D. A. A., & Diptyana, P. (2022). Why accounting students are intent to engage in digital academic dishonesty? Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan, 8(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.26905/ap.v8i2.8814
Rafnhar, R., & Muslimin, M. (2022). The effect of academic fraud dimensions of fraud pentagon's on accounting students. JASa (Jurnal Akuntansi, Audit dan Sistem Informasi Akuntansi), 6(1), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.36555/jasa.v6i1.1713
Ramadhan, A., & Rastika, I. (2023, August 19). Singgung ChatGPT dipakai bikin skripsi, Jokowi: Tak ada gunanya nilai 10 kalau moralnya nol [Referring to ChatGPT being used to write theses, Jokowi: A score of 10 is useless if morality is zero]. Kompas. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2023/08/19/14590701/singgung-chat-gpt-dipakai-bikin-skripsi-jokowi-tak-ada-gunanya-nilai-10
Sallaberry, J. D., Santos, E. A. dos, & Flach, L. (2023). Behavioral beliefs about acts of academic dishonesty: A study with Brazilian accounting students. Estudios Gerenciales, 39(168), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.18046/j.estger.2023.168.5925
Savilia, L., & Laily, N. (2020). Accounting students' academic fraud: Empirical evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5(1), 54. https://doi.org/10.26675/jabe.v5i1.12569
Shalevska, E., & Kostadinovska-Stojchevska, B. (2024). Ethics in times of advanced AI: Investigating students' attitudes towards ChatGPT and academic integrity. International Journal of Education "Teacher", 27, 72–78. https://doi.org/10.20544/teacher.27.08
Sholikhah, Z., Adawiyah, W. R., Pramuka, B. A., & Pariyanti, E. (2024). Can spiritual power reduce online cheating behavior among university students? The fraud triangle theory perspective. Journal of International Education in Business, 17(1), 82–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-11-2022-0082
Shrader, C. B., Ravenscroft, S. P., Kaufmann, J. B., & Hansen, K. (2021). Collusion among accounting students: Data visualization and topic modeling of student interviews. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 19(1), 40–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12226
Smith, K., Emerson, D., Haight, T., & Wood, B. (2023). An examination of online cheating among business students through the lens of the dark triad and fraud diamond. Ethics & Behavior, 33(6), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2104281
Sososutiksno, C., Gasperz, J., & Batkunde, A. A. (2023). Religiosity and the fraud triangle as a cause of student academic fraud in online lectures. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan, 8(3), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.17977/2502-471x.2310
Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17
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
Walsh, J., Krienert, J., Cannon, K., & Honan, S. (2024). Professors call it cheating, students call it teamwork. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v24i2.35191
Wardani, A. S. (2024, September 2). Makin sukses, ChatGPT kini dipakai 200 juta pengguna tiap minggu [Increasingly successful, ChatGPT is now used by 200 million users every week]. Liputan6. https://www.liputan6.com/tekno/read/5688695/makin-sukses-chatgpt-kini-dipakai-200-juta-pengguna-tiap-minggu
Yovanka, S., & Sugiarti, Y. (2024). Fraud pentagon analysis in preventing academic fraud during online learning in the COVID-19 period. Perspektif Akuntansi, 7(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.24246/persi.v7i1.p58-78
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Titiyoni Abdyan Wuri, Sofie Yunida Putri
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
