Introduction
This essay provides a critical review of the research article by Greitemeyer and Kastenmüller (2023), titled ‘HEXACO, the Dark Triad, and Chat GPT: Who is willing to commit academic cheating?’, published in *Heliyon*. The study explores the relationship between personality traits, specifically the HEXACO model and the Dark Triad, and the willingness of individuals to engage in academic dishonesty using artificial intelligence tools like Chat GPT. As a psychology student, this review will assess the study’s methodology, theoretical framework, findings, and implications within the broader context of personality psychology and academic integrity. The essay will critically evaluate the strengths and limitations of the research, consider alternative perspectives, and discuss its relevance to current debates in the field. Key areas of focus include the appropriateness of the chosen personality frameworks, the ethical implications of AI-assisted cheating, and the generalisability of the findings.
Theoretical Framework and Relevance
Greitemeyer and Kastenmüller (2023) ground their study in two established personality frameworks: the HEXACO model, which includes six dimensions of personality (Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience), and the Dark Triad, comprising narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. The HEXACO model, particularly the Honesty-Humility dimension, is often linked to ethical behaviour and moral decision-making (Lee and Ashton, 2004). Meanwhile, the Dark Triad traits are associated with manipulative, self-serving behaviours that may predispose individuals to unethical actions, including cheating (Paulhus and Williams, 2002). The authors’ choice of these frameworks is sound, as both are well-documented in personality psychology and relevant to understanding academic dishonesty.
However, the study’s reliance on these frameworks could be critiqued for its narrow focus. While the HEXACO and Dark Triad provide a robust basis for examining individual differences in cheating behaviour, other psychological constructs, such as moral reasoning or situational factors (e.g., academic pressure), are arguably underexplored. Indeed, research by Ajzen (1991) on the Theory of Planned Behaviour suggests that attitudes and perceived behavioural control play significant roles in decision-making processes like cheating. Therefore, although the selected frameworks are appropriate, a more integrative approach might have offered a fuller picture of the motivations behind academic dishonesty.
Methodology and Data Analysis
The methodology employed by Greitemeyer and Kastenmüller (2023) involves a quantitative approach, using self-report surveys to assess participants’ personality traits and their willingness to use Chat GPT for cheating purposes. While self-report measures are common in personality research, they are inherently limited by social desirability bias, where participants may underreport their inclination to engage in unethical behaviour (Fisher, 1993). The authors acknowledge this limitation, which demonstrates some awareness of methodological constraints, yet they do not appear to employ strategies (e.g., anonymity assurances or indirect questioning) to mitigate this bias fully. This raises questions about the validity of the data collected, particularly given the sensitive nature of academic cheating.
Furthermore, the sample demographics are not extensively discussed in the article, which is a notable weakness. Understanding the cultural or educational background of participants is crucial, as attitudes towards cheating can vary significantly across contexts (McCabe et al., 2001). Without this information, the generalisability of the findings remains unclear. On the positive side, the statistical analyses seem competently conducted, with appropriate use of correlational and regression techniques to explore relationships between personality traits and cheating willingness. However, a more detailed explanation of these analyses would benefit readers unfamiliar with advanced statistical methods, enhancing the accessibility of the research.
Findings and Implications
The key findings of Greitemeyer and Kastenmüller (2023) indicate that individuals low in Honesty-Humility (from the HEXACO model) and high in Dark Triad traits, particularly Machiavellianism, are more likely to express willingness to use Chat GPT for academic cheating. These results align with existing literature, reinforcing the idea that personality traits play a significant role in ethical decision-making (Ashton and Lee, 2007; Paulhus and Williams, 2002). The emphasis on Machiavellianism, often associated with strategic manipulation and deceit, is particularly relevant in the context of using AI tools, which require a degree of cunning to exploit effectively.
Nevertheless, the implications of these findings are not without contention. The rise of AI tools like Chat GPT poses unique challenges to academic integrity, as they are widely accessible and difficult to detect compared to traditional forms of cheating (Curtis and Clare, 2017). While the study highlights personality as a predictor of cheating behaviour, it pays less attention to the role of institutional policies or educational interventions in deterring such actions. For instance, research by McCabe et al. (2001) suggests that honour codes and strict academic policies can significantly reduce cheating rates. Thus, while the study’s focus on individual differences is valuable, it might overemphasise personal traits at the expense of systemic factors, limiting its practical applicability.
Ethical and Technological Considerations
One of the most compelling aspects of Greitemeyer and Kastenmüller’s (2023) research is its timely focus on AI-assisted cheating, a growing concern in educational settings. The ethical implications of using tools like Chat GPT for academic dishonesty extend beyond individual morality to broader questions about fairness, accountability, and the future of assessment methods. The authors rightly note the unprecedented ease with which students can access sophisticated AI, potentially undermining traditional educational values. However, their discussion of potential solutions or preventative measures appears limited, which is a missed opportunity to contribute to ongoing debates in psychology and education.
Moreover, the study does not fully address the dual-use nature of AI technologies. While Chat GPT can be misused for cheating, it also offers significant learning benefits, such as aiding research or improving writing skills (Brown et al., 2020). A more balanced exploration of both the risks and opportunities of AI in education would have strengthened the article’s relevance. This oversight reflects a broader limitation in the field, where the rapid pace of technological advancement often outstrips psychological research on its societal impact.
Conclusion
In summary, Greitemeyer and Kastenmüller (2023) provide a valuable contribution to the study of personality traits and academic dishonesty, particularly in the novel context of AI-assisted cheating with tools like Chat GPT. The use of the HEXACO and Dark Triad frameworks is theoretically sound, and the findings reinforce existing knowledge about the role of traits like Honesty-Humility and Machiavellianism in unethical behaviour. However, the study’s methodological limitations, such as reliance on self-report measures and lack of demographic detail, constrain the generalisability of its conclusions. Additionally, the narrow focus on individual differences overlooks broader systemic and technological factors that influence cheating behaviour. Despite these limitations, the research highlights critical ethical challenges posed by AI in education, underscoring the need for further investigation into both preventative strategies and the positive potential of such tools. As AI continues to shape academic environments, studies like this serve as an important starting point for understanding the complex interplay between personality, technology, and ethics.
References
- Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, 50(2), pp. 179-211.
- Ashton, M.C. and Lee, K. (2007) Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. *Personality and Social Psychology Review*, 11(2), pp. 150-166.
- Brown, T.B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D.M., Wu, J., Winter, C., Hesse, C., Chen, M., Sigler, E., Litwin, M., Gray, S., Chess, B., Clark, J., Berner, C., McCandlish, S., Radford, A., Sutskever, I. and Amodei, D. (2020) Language models are few-shot learners. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 33, pp. 1877-1901.
- Curtis, G.J. and Clare, J. (2017) How prevalent is contract cheating and to what extent are students repeat offenders? *Journal of Academic Ethics*, 15(2), pp. 115-124.
- Fisher, R.J. (1993) Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. *Journal of Consumer Research*, 20(2), pp. 303-315.
- Greitemeyer, T. and Kastenmüller, A. (2023) HEXACO, the Dark Triad, and Chat GPT: Who is willing to commit academic cheating? *Heliyon*, 9(9).
- Lee, K. and Ashton, M.C. (2004) Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. *Multivariate Behavioral Research*, 39(2), pp. 329-358.
- McCabe, D.L., Treviño, L.K. and Butterfield, K.D. (2001) Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. *Ethics & Behavior*, 11(3), pp. 219-232.
- Paulhus, D.L. and Williams, K.M. (2002) The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. *Journal of Research in Personality*, 36(6), pp. 556-563.
