ArticleBMC psychology2026
A configurational exploration of how personality traits influence GAI academic misconduct behaviors using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in higher education has introduced new ethical challenges, particularly concerning students' academic misconduct. While prior research has linked personality traits to unethical behavior, little is known about how different combinations of personality traits shape students' misuse of GAI.
methodsThis study integrates the HEXACO model and the Dark Triad framework to examine the configurational effects of personality on GAI-related academic misconduct. A total of 864 university students completed questionnaires. Using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis, we identified multiple configurations leading to both high and low levels of GAI misconduct.
resultsNo single trait is sufficient to explain GAI-related academic misconduct. Rather, high misconduct consistently emerged from configurations characterized by low Honesty-Humility and Conscientiousness combined with high Machiavellianism or Psychopathy. In contrast, low misconduct was associated with configurations combining high Honesty-Humility, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness with low levels of Dark Triad traits.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that personality traits interact synergistically rather than independently to shape individuals' ethical or unethical engagement with AI technologies. Moral restraint is sustained by both the presence of virtues and the absence of exploitative tendencies. The findings support the idea that moral integrity and self-regulation constitute foundational safeguards against unethical use of technology. These findings align with self-regulatory theories of academic dishonesty, reinforcing that individuals high in honesty and conscientiousness are less likely to rationalize or justify academic misconduct even when new technological affordances make it easier. The study therefore advances theoretical understanding by integrating personality frameworks within a configurational paradigm and offers practical insights for developing personality-informed ethics education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.