“We don’t plagiarise, we parrot”: Cognitive load and ethical perceptions in higher education written assessment

• Parroting defined as AI use with minimal cognitive engagement in student writing. • Examines parroting behaviour in higher education written assessments. • Applies Rasch modelling to examine item hierarchies, endorsement patterns, and measurement stability. • Extraneous cognitive pressures emerge as the strongest driver of parroting behaviours. • Ethical rationalisation is least endorsed, occurring mainly when institutional guidance is ambiguous. Generative artificial intelligence has reshaped written assessment in higher education and sharpened concerns about “parroting,” the undisclosed use of AI-generated text with minimal cognitive engagement. This study examines the cognitive and ethical mechanisms underlying parroting among undergraduates in one Malaysian research university. Drawing on Cognitive Load Theory and Dual-System Theory, parroting is conceptualised across three dimensions: intrinsic load, extraneous load, and ethical rationalisation. Survey responses from 211 students were analysed using Rasch measurement to evaluate item reliability, construct separation, differential item functioning (DIF) across academic fields and item hierarchies. Results indicate that items function equivalently for engineering, non-engineering, and science students, supporting the instrument’s fairness and stability. Overall, findings show that parroting is most strongly driven by extraneous pressures such as vague instructions and heavy workload, followed by intrinsic challenges related to writing confidence and conceptual understanding. Ethical rationalisation is endorsed least frequently but becomes more salient when institutional guidance on AI use is unclear. The study offers implications for pedagogy and policy, underscoring the need for explicit AI-use guidelines, improved task design, and learning environments that promote ethically responsible engagement with generative technologies.