Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42088683›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Neutralization techniques and academic dishonesty among Italian university students.

Emma Flutti, Guido Travaini, Paolo Roma, Martino Ongis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emma FluttiDepartment of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Guido TravainiFaculty of Medicine, University of Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Paolo RomaDepartment of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Martino OngisDepartment of Psychology, Franklin University Switzerland, Lugano, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Academic dishonesty is a widespread form of student misconduct in higher education, driven by cognitive rationalizations that enable unethical behaviors while preserving a sense of moral reasoning. This study examines the relationship between academic dishonesty and neutralization techniques, in an Italian university sample. We focus on how students justify cheating through rationalization processes. Utilizing a cross-sectional survey, 205 Italian university students recruited through Prolific completed the Neutralization Techniques Scale and the Academic Dishonesty Scale. Demographic data were also collected, and analyses were conducted using SAS. Results demonstrated a positive correlation between neutralization techniques and academic dishonesty (

Indexed as

academic dishonestyhigher educationmoral reasoningneutralization techniquesstudent misconduct

Identifiers

PMID42088683
PMCPMC13135934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.