INTRODUCTION

Education is an effort that aims to develop all the potential within an individual that lasts for a lifetime using values ​​and culture that follow the community. The development of an individual's potential is not only needed by that person but also by the community, nation, and state. State as a result of part of the social community (Syahrina & Andini, 2017). Indonesia has three education systems that can be taken, namely informal, formal and non-formal (^{Wicaksono, 2018}).

One of them is formal education. Formal education starts from an early age and elementary school to secondary school, then to tertiary institutions as the highest educational institution in a country's education system, and higher education also has a role in exploring and developing human potential for higher quality (^{Karim, 2020}).

Students are intellectual resources who study in universities, and students as one of the agents for the progress of a nation. Apart from being an intellectual resource, students must instill character values​​in lecturing activities, including obedient worship behavior, honest attitude, discipline, responsibility, care, and cooperation (^{Amelia, 2018}). One of the characteristics that must be possessed is honest behavior in lectures, students must have the ability to do exams independently and not cheat.

In college, measuring a student's learning success can be seen from the acquisition of the cumulative achievement index (GPA). ^{Subekti (2015}) states that intelligence affects obtaining a GPA. However, other factors influence the GPA to rise, namely academic dishonesty (^{Herdian et al., 2021}). Cheating in academics is one of the strategies students use to improve their GPA. ^{Gehring and Pavela (1994}) define Academic Cheating as an act of deliberate falsification in which individuals attempt to acknowledge other people's work or business without permission or use unauthorized means and false information in any academic assignment. “

Academic dishonesty is not only unprofessional but also unethical. Academic dishonesty is taking a “cognitive shortcut

Academic cheating is an act that uses improper means for the right or honorable purpose of obtaining academic success or reducing academic failure (^{Melina & Prasetyo, 2017}). According to Syahrina & Andini (2017), Academic Cheating is an action taken by individuals to achieve success in ways that are not right. Individuals are willing to do things that are not appropriate in order to get the value and success they want.

From the survey results ^{Rangkuti (2011}) showed that Academic Cheating carried out by students included:

1) copying test results from students sitting or close together during the exam without being noticed by the other students;

2) bringing and using notes that are not allowed into the room, and

3) planned collaboration between two or more students to provide answers during the exam.

In line with research, ^{Bintoro et al. (2013}) explain the forms of academic cheating: cheating, fake, committing acts of plagiarism, plagiarizing, bribing, replacing the position of others in academic activities, and cooperating with others by using verbal or gesture. Besides that, Older students are less likely to report Academic Cheating and are more likely to anticipate feelings of guilt for Cheating (^{Brunell et al., 2011}) In addition, participants stated that gender and age were associated with Academic Cheating (^{McCabe & Trevino, 1997}).

Reason Academic Cheating has been studied by various studies, including religiosity (^{Djie & Ariela, 2021}); moral reasoning (^{Heriyati & Ekasari, 2020}); procrastination (^{Prasetyo & Handayani, 2019}); self-efficacy (^{Pradia & Dewi, 2020}); confidence (Syahrina & Andini, 2017); achievement motivation and peers (^{Utami & Sri, 2019}); perception of school climate (^{Fitria, 2019}); effects of performance goals and social norms (^{Daumiller & Janke, 2020}); peer pressure and anxiety (^{Pantu et al., 2020}); Grit (^{Herdian & Rahayu, 2022}); parental pressure and perfectionism (^{Lusiane & Garvin, 2019}).

Academic cheating behavior is often associated with moral concepts. Students who tend not to have flavor guilty due to low moral obligation (^{Handayani, 2018}). The covering or anticipation of negative emotions, such as guilt and shame, determines whether or not moral behavior will occur (^{Tangney et al., 2007}). So that the anticipation of guilt and shame will prevent students from engaging in unethical behavior in academics (^{Staats et al., 2008}). Research on one hundred and ninety-nine college students explains that lack of guilt is the cause of academic dishonesty behavior (^{Brunell et al., 2011}).

According to ^{Tracy et al. (2009}), guilt is self-awareness of negative things so that guilt arises because the individual has done the wrong action or made a mistake that, according to him and his environment, the action is not following the norm. Guilt can be defined as introspective, which reflects the relationship between self and negative events (^{Baumeister et al., 2007}).

Based on the literature review, this study aims to examine Guilt and Shame Proneness against academic cheating. This research was conducted on primary school teacher education study program students. The main reason the research was conducted on these students is that they will become educators after graduation. As the main requirement for teachers in Indonesia, exemplary is an important thing to be instilled from an early age during lectures. Exemplary is also a way of instilling morals for his profession in the future

METHODOLOGY

This study used a cross-sectional approach. Guilty and shame as independent variables, while academic dishonesty is the dependent variable. The participants in this study were students of Elementary School Teacher Education at University in Indonesia. The sampling technique used is simple random sampling.

This involves randomly selecting samples from the population without considering the existing strata within that population. Participants consisted of 78 male students and 130 female students with an age range of 20-21 years. Table 1 shows demographic participants. All students provided informed consent, and all completed questionnaires were collected on the same day they were administered.

Table 1: Demographic Data 

Academic cheating is measured by the Academic Cheating scale using the proprietary aspect by ^{Bashir & Bala (2018}) consists of 30 items. The reliability coefficient value on the Academic Cheating scale is Cronbach's alpha of 0.932. The scale consists of six aspects: exam, plagiarism, help from others, cheating, falsification, and task. This scale uses five alternative answers. This study used a Likert scale measurement of 1-6 from the answer choices of strongly disagree to agree strongly. Guild and shame measured using the GASP scale (Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale) developed by ^{Cohen et al. (2011}) and has been tested for psychometric properties by ^{Istyqomah (2018}). GASP (Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale) consists of four aspects: Guilt-negative-behavior-evaluation, Guilt-repair, Shame-negative-self-evaluation, and Shame-withdrawal. The reliability of Cronbach's alpha is 0.828. This scale uses four alternative answers. This study used a Likert scale measurement of 1-6 from the answer choices of strongly disagree to agree strongly.

The method used in this research is descriptive analysis to determine the level of academic dishonesty and Guilt and Shame Proneness. In addition, a simple regression analysis technique was carried out to determine the extent of the influence of Guilt and Shame Proneness on academic dishonesty. Calculations are carried out using the help of the JAMOVI 2.0 program.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This study aims to determine the effect of Guilt and Shame Proneness on Academic Cheating on Elementary School Teacher Education students at University X in Indonesia. Assumption tests before the regression analysis were performed, namely normality and linearity tests. The one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirov test shows that Academic Cheating and guilt variables are normally distributed because they have a significant value of 0.223 (p>0.05). The results of the linearity test of the two variables showed that Academic Cheating and guilt were linearly related (p=0.00, p<0.05)

The data was obtained from 208 students using the Academic Cheating rating scale in the Academic Cheating variable. After collecting the data, it is possible to present a description of the data on the size of the convergence tendency, namely the mean, mode, and median, as well as the measure of variance, namely, standard deviation, variance, maximum score, and minimum score, and in the following table.

Table 2: Description of Data 

Based on Table 2. The minimum value is 30, and the maximum is 97, with a mean of 58,2260. The data in Table 2 is used as the basis for categorizing the Academic Cheating level. So that the results obtained are that four students have very high Academic Cheating, 69 participants have high Academic Cheating, 73 participants have moderate Academic Cheating, 62 participants have low Academic Cheating, and 0 participants have very low Academic Cheating.

The guilt variable's minimum value is 38, and the maximum value is 55, with a mean of 43.6635. Furthermore, the GASP level categorization obtained results, 18 participants had very high guilt, 58 participants had high guilt, 93 participants had moderate guilt, 39 participants had low guilt, and 0 participants had very low guilt.

Figure 1: Level of GASP and Academic Cheating 

Hypothesis testing aims to determine the effect of Guilt and Shame Proneness on Academic Cheating. Calculation of hypothesis testing using simple regression analysis using SPSS 26.0. After doing calculations using SPSS 26.0, the results of hypothesis testing are:

Table 3: Regression analysis results 

The regression test results for the effect of Guilt and Shame Proneness on Academic Cheating obtained a significance of < .001, so the hypothesis is accepted that Guilt and Shame Proneness have a significant effect on Academic Cheating. Table 2 showed a coefficient of determination Rsquare of 0.076, meaning that Guilt and Shame Proneness gave an effective contribution value of 7.5% against academic cheating. In comparison, this study did not examine 92.5% of other factors.

The study results show that the hypothesis is accepted, namely that 7.5% Guilt and Shame Proneness influence academic cheating. ^{Anderman (2007}) explained that many academic cheating phenomena occur at various levels of education, and this phenomenon occurs from the basic education level to the final education level.

In line with that view (^{Wideman, 2008}) also explained that Academic Cheating is found at various levels of education, and it is a problem in Educational Institutions around the world. This indicates a widespread issue that needs attention. Chating, plagiarism, and other unethical behaviors have been observed among students at different educational institutions, reflecting the need for comprehensive measures to address this problem.

Whether in primary schools, high schools, or higher education settings, the prevalence of academic dishonesty calls for concerted efforts from educators, administrators, and policymakers to instill a strong culture of academic integrity and uphold ethical standards across all educational levels.

This research is different from previous research that examines how the feelings that arise after committing fraudulent behavior occur. The results show that individuals will feel guilty about themselves and God (^{Mumtaza et al., 2020}). Meanwhile, this study concludes how Guilt and Shame Proneness influence academic cheating. This result reinforces how the two variables interact. Individuals with Guilt and Shame Proneness affect academic cheating before and after committing unethical behavior.

Guilt and Shame Proneness are two psychological factors significantly shaping individuals' tendencies toward academic dishonesty. Guilt is a feeling of remorse or regret that arises when someone violates moral or ethical standards. Shame, on the other hand, is an intense negative emotion associated with feeling flawed or inadequate in the eyes of others. Both these emotions are closely linked to one's internal moral compass and sense of ethical responsibility. In academic dishonesty, individuals with higher levels of Guilt and Shame Proneness are more likely to experience negative emotions and self-criticism when confronted with opportunities to cheat or engage in unethical behavior.

These individuals may be more sensitive to the consequences of their actions, not just in terms of getting caught but also in terms of disappointing themselves and others. Guilt or guilty feeling is the tendency to exaggerate the negative consequences of the experience of guilt so that it impacts the social or interpersonal level (^{Perdighe et al., 2015}).

So when a feeling of guilt arises for having committed a deviant act that is not following the norms of the surrounding environment, the individual will feel very sorry and then evaluate himself from negative actions and try to improve himself. This is in line with research by ^{Tangney (1996}). Guilt is an unsatisfactory state and can have psychological or physical effects. Individuals will reflect, criticize themselves, and regret their actions. Another consequence of guilt is worry, anxiety, and tension.

Previous literature reviews suggest guilt is positively and significantly associated with religiosity and morals (^{Cohen et al., 2011}). In line with this opinion, religion is a determining factor for guilt (^{Widjanarko, 1997}). Moral includes feelings of guilt and feelings of regret, which are described as discomfort after committing a violation (^{Syahputra, 2018}). The participants of this study are Muslim, proving that Guilt and Shame Proneness in individuals affect unethical behavior as taught by religion (^{Asir, 2014}).

The limitation of this research lies in the limited number of participants in elementary school teacher candidates. In addition, the relatively small number of participants only provides a limited picture of the population of education students. Therefore, the suggestion for future research is that it is necessary to consider the number of participants, and the data collected must be more heterogeneous. In addition, there is a need for renewal on the academic cheating scale related to learning that is currently being carried out, namely online learning.

As the results of previous research, there are many ways that students achieve satisfactory academic results (^{Herdian et al., 2021}). This research implies that, as we all know, students are agents of the nation's successors, and it is hoped that students will be able to apply honest behavior. For this reason, moral learning is instilled from an early age, which is expected so that dishonest behavior such as the Academic Cheating case does not recur and is the first step in applying moral competence (^{Mumtaza et al., 2020}).

CONCLUSIONS

This study focused on the relationship between Guilt and Shame Proneness and Academic Cheating among students in primary school teacher education programs. The findings revealed that Guilt and Shame Proneness significantly influence the occurrence of Academic Cheating, indicating that individuals with higher levels of Guilt and Shame Proneness are less likely to engage in unethical behaviors such as cheating.

The results underscore the importance of moral inculcation in student-teacher candidates to prevent and reduce Academic Cheating in educational settings. Educators should prioritize moral education and promote a strong sense of ethical responsibility among students to foster a culture of academic integrity and discourage cheating behaviors. By addressing Guilt and Shame Proneness as key factors, institutions can take proactive measures to create an environment that encourages honesty and upholds ethical standards among future teachers