Moral Development
justme1890
March/April 2009 229
he financial fiascos at Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Global Cross-
ing, Qwest, HealthSouth, and the vari- ous hedge fund investments managed by securities firms that were highly questionable from an ethical perspec- tive have received extensive coverage in the media. As these unethical—if not illegal events unfolded—the pressure mounted for regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Com- mission to enforce tightened restrictions and for legislative bodies, including the U.S. Congress, to prohibit some of the more deliberate misrepresentations. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002), with its Public Companies Accounting Oversight Board, has made an attempt to address aspects of this far-reaching problem. Some of the business profes- sionals involved in these incidents active- ly participated in cover-ups, shredding documentary evidence of their corporate misconduct (e.g., Arthur Andersen) and creating an elaborate web of intentional- ly misleading corporate structures. Some of these professionals merely looked the other way as such deceptions occurred in the workplace. However, when a course of action has been undertaken, it is often difficult for subsequent players to effec- tively challenge the status quo (Demski, 2003). In a 2005–2006 survey devel- oped by KPMG (an international public accounting and consulting firm), nearly 75% of the respondents reported that
they had observed misconduct in their current organization during the previous 12 months (Williams, 2006). During the same time period, a study by Walker Infor- mation, as reported in a meta-analysis by Verschoor (2006), found that 42% of respondents thought their organization’s senior leaders were unethical. Walker Information’s study also reported that 25% of the respondents had knowledge of, or suspected, an ethics violation in the previous 2 years (Verschoor).
The widespread nature of the recently publicized scandals suggests that there has been a deterioration of ethical stan- dards in the corporate workplace and rais- es the question of whether regulatory or legislative actions alone are sufficient to ensure that the next generation of workers demonstrate ethical decision making.
Although professional ethics contin- ues to be a growing concern for busi- nesses and government in the United States, interest has surfaced about the ethics of college students who are tomorrow’s business leaders. The pres- ent study focuses on college students’ perceptions of professional ethics and how these perceptions can be evaluated using academic situations as surrogates for business situations.
BACKGROUND
In our research, we used cheating by students as an indicator of future ethical
Students’ Perceptions of Business Ethics: Using Cheating as a Surrogate for Business Situations LYNNETTE S. SMYTH CHARLES O. KRONCKE GORDON COLLEGE COLLEGE OF MOUNT SAINT JOSEPH BARNESVILLE, GEORGIA CINCINNATI, OHIO
JAMES R. DAVIS ANDERSON UNIVERSITY ANDERSON, SOUTH CAROLINA
TABSTRACT. Today’s college students are entering the workplace at a time when ethical issues are under greater scrutiny.
Thus, the authors examined students’ per-
ceptions of varying ethical situations, sam-
pling 786 college students at 3 institutions
(1 public, 1 Baptist affiliated, 1 Catholic
affiliated). The authors used an anonymous
survey and statistically analyzed student
assessment of questionable academic and
business situations. The survey results indi-
cated that (a) nonbusiness majors, on aver-
age, are more ethical than business majors;
(b) female students are more ethical than
male students; and (c) when analyzing the
results by class, upper division students are
more ethical than lower division students.
Keywords: business ethics, cheating and
ethics, student cheating
Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications
230 Journal of Education for Business
behavior, which was, in part, based on research by Sims (1993), who found that past cheating is a strong predictor of future cheating. Although cheating, the college student’s most common avenue for unethical behavior, is an ongoing concern, it has greater potential conse- quences for those students who become tomorrow’s business professionals. It is troubling that a significant percent- age of college students engage in some form of cheating (Diekhoff et al., 1996; Grimes, 2002). Academic cheating can be as simple as using crib notes in class or plagiarizing others’ written assign- ments, or it can be as extreme as using unauthorized sources for take-home exams or even hiring professionals to write papers and prepare case reports. It is certain that the continued growth of the Internet is making the more flagrant forms of cheating widely accessible to a growing number of students.
Much research has been conducted to examine collegiate cheating by vari- ous demographic variables other than academic major. Crown and Spiller (1998) examined 16 previous studies on the relation between gender and cheat- ing, and found mixed statistical results. Studies that focused on cheating and the student’s academic year in college also yielded inconsistent results. Baird (1980) reported that upperclassmen cheat less often; Lipson and McGav- ern (1993) determined that sophomores cheat the most; and Haines, Diekhoff, LeBeff, and Clark’s (1986) research showed no significant difference in cheating behavior on the basis of aca- demic classes. Davis and Welton (1991) found that lower division students have lower ethical standards than do upper division students, a difference not found between upper division students and graduate students. Similarly, younger students cheat more than their older peers (Diekhoff et al., 1996; Graham, Monday, O’Brien, & Steffen, 1994; Haines et al.).
It is undoubtable that current trends in the global business environment (and in pending legislation) ensure that business professionals will come under closer scrutiny in the future and will likely be expected to hold a higher level of ethi- cal standards than has been the case in recent years. Rocha and Teixeira (2006)
conducted a large multinational study on academic cheating and found that the magnitude of academic fraud is not constant across countries and that there is a positive correlation between the amount of academic fraud in a country and its level of real-world business cor- ruption. It is clear that higher education must give student exposure to ethics a greater priority, beginning with ethical decision making in students’ lives in their academic communities. Cheating is a form of unethical behavior, and students who cheat in college today may soon become professionals engaging in similar unethical behaviors in the work- place of tomorrow (Sims, 1993; Smith, Davy, Rosenberg, & Haight, 2002).
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
To examine the prevalence of unethical attitudes and behavior in the college envi- ronment, we examined the issue of cheat- ing at three institutions: one 2-year public college and two private 4-year colleges.
Data
During the spring semester of 2006, we surveyed 786 students regarding their attitudes toward, and experiences with, cheating and their perceptions of professional ethics in business. We con- ducted the survey at three institutions with enrollments of less than 3,500 students (residential and commuter): Anderson University, a 4-year private Baptist-affiliated college in Anderson, South Carolina; Gordon College, a 2- year public college of the University System of Georgia, located in Barnes- ville, Georgia; and the College of Mount Saint Joseph, a 4-year Catholic college in Cincinnati, Ohio. In this article, we denote these three colleges as Baptist college, public college, and Catholic college, respectively.
In an effort to obtain a broad cross- section of students, we gave surveys dur- ing classroom time in selected courses representing the various majors at each institution to sample approximately 10% of the student body at each institu- tion. We provided all respondents the assurances of confidentiality and ano- nymity, an especially important require- ment in researching student experiences with cheating and unethical behavior.
Because of participant requirements, each student was given the choice of not participating in the study, and fewer than 1% declined.
Students were given a set of ques- tions regarding various aspects of cheating that included generalized inquiries into how often they cheated in college, how often they observed collegiate cheating and its detection by faculty members, their willingness to participate in cheating, and their sense of ethics and acceptability of cheating. In addition, students were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not dishonest at all) to 7 (very severe dishonesty) their assessments of the dishonesty level of a number of business and academic situations. A number of demographic variables were also collected for each respondent to assess how student attitudes regarding cheating may differ by demographic grouping.
Methodology
We analyzed the student responses in a variety of ways. To investigate the internal consistency of the surveyed eth- ical statements, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the 26 statements with a resulting value of .97. In addition, the deletion of each statement one at a time did not significantly increase the value of alpha. This suggests that the items measure the same underlying unidimen- sional construct: ethical perspective.
For much of the analysis, the data were processed using the chi-square sta- tistical test for independence and the corresponding nonparametric Cramer’s V statistic to correct for the possible influence of sample size. Cramer’s V tests for the strength of the degree of association among the variables being tested, and thus the null hypothesis has no degree of association. For this analy- sis and given the large sample size, there was little difference, if any, between the p values of the two methods; therefore, the Cramer’s V statistics were the pri- mary basis for the conclusions given for this research project. In addition, in an effort to assess if business majors have significantly different perceptions of unethical behavior compared with their nonbusiness majors counterparts, the mean responses of each group were
March/April 2009 231
compared for each statement using a simple two-tailed independent t test, with a null hypothesis of equal means between the two groups. For each state- ment, the equal variance assumption of the t test was evaluated using Levene’s F test statistic; for those cases in which the equal variance assumption was rejected, the separate variance formulation was used to form the t statistic value.
The primary focus of this article is on two sets of situations, each containing 13 statements for evaluation: ethical situa- tions in the academic environment and similar situations in a business setting. The statements can be categorized as pertaining to lying and deceiving, cheat- ing, cheating others, stealing, assisting others in wrongdoing, and contemplat- ing unethical behavior. It is important to note that, although these academic and business situations were paired for this analysis, they were not paired on the survey instrument, and thus respondents considered each situation separately.
RESULTS
General Cheating
From the demographics collected, we were able to determine that student bod- ies at the surveyed colleges predomi- nately comprised full-time students (an average of 86%). Approximately 40% of students were business majors. The gender split was estimated at 57% (56.8) female students, and 43% (43.1) male students because 10% (10.1) of respon- dents did not report their gender. From the set of questions regarding cheating in general, we found that 55% of the respondents reported having cheated in college at least once, a value that is in line with two studies: (a) Grimes (2002), in which 49.8% reported hav- ing cheated, and (b) Smyth and Davis (2004), in which 46% of respondents reported having cheated in college at least once. These percentages differed substantially from another study (Gra- ham et al., 1994) reporting that 89.9% of respondents cheated in college at least once. Even with such extensive cheating being observed and acknowl- edged, almost 90% of the respondents feared punishment if caught cheating (Graham et al.).
Comparison of Results for Paired Academic and Business Situations
The first analysis concerned the pair- ings of questions of similar academic versus business situations. These paired statements were evaluated to deter- mine if the students’ attitudes toward unethical behavior differ between an academic environment and general business setting. Of these 13 pairs of questions, 12 were significantly dif- ferent at the 0.01 confidence level (see Table 1 for results for all students with- out any demographic stratification). Of those 12 pairings with significant dif- ferences, students considered 8 of the business situations more unethical than the academic counterpart. For exam- ple, presenting a coworker’s idea as one’s own in a business situation was considered more unethical than not giving proper attribution for direct quo- tations in an academic setting. Students also considered four of the academic situations to be more unethical than the corresponding business statement; thus, the business cases were judged to represent more severe dishonesty than their academic counterparts.
Comparison of Mean Responses to Ethical Statements by Demographic Group
The two demographics of gender and class were investigated as impor- tant aspects of ethical behavior. For gender (see Table 2), every statement mean was significant at the .025 level, with women assessing each situation as more unethical than men, regard- less of business or academic setting. In addition, 23 of the mean responses for the 26 statements were significantly different by gender at a .01 level. The three statements significant between the .01 and .025 levels (A1, A2, B15) all had means for men and women in the lower range (below 5 on the Likert-type scale) and were thus not considered to be strongly unethical by either gender. Therefore, the more unethical a statement was rated to be, with a mean higher than 5, the more likely it was that women considered the statement to be more unethical than did men. For 15 statements, the
average response from female students was greater than 6, whereas the men had only 3 response means greater than 6. This provides relatively strong corroborating evidence that female students were more likely than male students to assess a questionable situ- ation as unethical.
Academic class analysis (see Table 3) resulted in eight statistical differences at the .05 level. It should be noted that although Cramer’s V does not identify which group is significantly different in terms of degree of association, of the four groups, there is a significant differ- ence. However, in all eight instances, juniors and seniors ranked the situation as more unethical than did freshmen and sophomores.
Comparison of Mean Responses to Ethical Statements by Institution
Next, the data from the three insti- tutions were examined for differences between institutions, and 16 of the 26 statements were significantly dif- ferent by institution at the .05 level, with another four significant at the .10 level (see Table 4). The last column of Table 4 reports which institution had the higher mean response, indicat- ing respondent assessment as more unethical. Of these 20 significant dif- ferences, the Baptist college had the highest mean for 17 statements, the public college had the highest mean for the other three statements, and the Catholic college was not highest in any of the significant institutional differences.
On closer investigation, we noted that the Catholic college reported the lowest average response (thus signify- ing a lower assessment of the statement as unethical) in 8 of the 20 significant statements. Public college was associ- ated with the lowest mean in 11 of the 20 significant statements (there was one tie) and its lowest averages occurred primarily on the statements representing the more severe forms of unethical behavior presented in Table 4 (i.e., statement A4 onward). However, the Catholic college’s last-place finish occurred on the more trivial first state- ments (A1–B16).
232 Journal of Education for Business
Comparison of Mean Responses to Ethical Statements by Business and Nonbusiness Majors
Table 5 provides the results of the business versus nonbusiness majors. At the .10 level, there were nine signifi- cant differences in mean response. In
all of these nine instances, nonbusiness majors assessed the situation as more unethical than did business majors.
When the responses of business majors were analyzed in each institu- tion, the Baptist college had two signifi- cant differences, whereas the Catholic college and public college each had nine
significant differences (see Table 6). For parsimony, Table 6 presents only the significant differences by institution, and for each institution, significantly different results show nonbusiness majors evaluating the statement as more unethical than did business majors, a rather disturbing result.
TABLE 1. t Tests for Differences Between the Means of Paired Statements
Statement that is considered more Paired statements Overall M SD df t p unethical
A1 Increasing the margins or type face to make a term paper appear longer 3.56 1.70 — — — B B14 Taking longer than the time allowed for lunch and not reporting it 4.50 1.79 770 –14.15 .000
A2 Telling the instructor a false reason for missing a class or exam 4.59 1.86 — — — B B15 Telling your employer a false reason for missing work 4.76 1.81 770 –3.37 .001
A3 Doing less work than your share in a group project 4.78 1.76 — — — B B16 Doing less work than your share in a group project at work 5.06 1.71 767 –6.82 .000
A4 Looking at another student’s paper during an exam 5.76 1.74 — — — A B17 Obtaining a competitor’s customer list with the intent of stealing customers 5.24 1.94 772 8.08 .000
A5 Allowing another student to look at your paper during an exam 5.50 1.82 — — — B B18 Showing a friend who works for a competitor your customer list with private information about your customers 5.76 1.78 770 –4.70 .000
A6 Writing a paper for another student 5.75 1.86 — — — A B19 Writing a report for a coworker 5.23 1.87 769 8.42 .000
A7 Asking another student to take an exam using your name 6.23 1.69 — — — A B20 Signing someone else’s name to authorize an expenditure 5.95 1.73 770 6.31 .000
A8 Using unauthorized cheat sheets during an exam 5.92 1.70 — — — B B21 Filling out a false expense report and turning it in 6.09 1.69 772 –4.14 .000
A9 Using sources for a paper that were not included in the bibliography 4.64 1.82 — — — B B22 Falsifying information on a job application 5.84 1.72 768 –18.29 .000
A10 Using direct quotations from other sources, without giving the proper reference 5.10 1.79 — — — B B23 Presenting the ideas of a coworker as your own 5.83 1.70 771 –12.71 .000
A11 Purchasing a paper to turn in as your own 6.05 1.76 — — — Neither B24 Pressuring a colleague to do your work and then taking credit for it as your own 6.02 1.71 769 0.70 .483
A12 Completing an exam for another student 6.19 1.69 — — — A B25 Clocking in for an absent coworker 5.89 1.76 773 7.22 .000
A13 Selling a paper to another student 5.65 1.93 — — — B B26 Selling confidential information about a client 6.22 1.69 770 –10.65 .000
Note. Statements were ranked on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not dishonest) to 7 (severe dishonesty). A = academic; B = business.
March/April 2009 233
CONCLUSION
Discussion
The results of pairing 13 compara- ble business and academic situations resulted in 12 significant differences, with twice as many of the business cases judged to represent more severe dishonesty than their academic counter- parts. Any time that surrogates are used there is the possibility that they do not fully reflect what is of research interest. Because the students were operating in the academic environment, their percep- tions of cheating and dishonesty were directly experienced in their present environment. They could only surmise
what their actual perceptions may be for business situations that they were not currently experiencing on a daily basis. The strength of the been there, done that experience is difficult to com- pletely simulate.
In this relatively large sample of stu- dents, our results suggest that female students assessed questionable situa- tions, both academic and business, to be more unethical than did male students. For all 26 statements, the mean respons- es of the women were statistically high- er than that of the men. These findings are in line with a number of previous studies that have examined collegiate cheating by gender. Regardless of the
relative degree of dishonesty associated with each questionable situation, gender seemed to dominate for our respondents. The results from the examination of the extent of association between academic class and assessment of the severity of each situation are not as clear as those regarding gender differences; however, there is a general consensus that upper division students have higher ethical perceptions than do lower division stu- dents. When the mean responses for each ethical statement were examined by institution, 20 of the 26 statements showed a significant institutional differ- ence, with the Baptist college reporting the highest average in 17 of those 20
TABLE 2. Comparisons of Statement and Mean Responses, by Gender
Men Women
Statement M SD M SD Cramer’s V p
A1 Increasing the margins or type face to make a term paper appear longer 3.28 1.66 3.73 1.68 .144 .024 B14 Taking longer than the time allowed for lunch and not reporting it 4.16 1.75 4.79 1.74 .197 .000 A2 Telling the instructor a false reason for missing a class or an exam 4.35 1.84 4.80 1.83 .148 .018 B15 Telling your employer a false reason for missing work 4.54 1.77 4.97 1.79 .151 .014 A3 Doing less work than your share in a group project 4.41 1.73 5.05 1.74 .207 .000 B16 Doing less work than your share on a group project at work 4.75 1.70 5.33 1.68 .244 .000 A4 Looking at another student’s paper during an exam 5.47 1.75 6.00 1.64 .233 .000 B17 Obtaining a competitor’s customer list with the intent of stealing customers 4.76 1.99 5.66 1.75 .252 .000 A5 Allowing another student to look at your paper during an exam 5.13 1.84 5.78 1.72 .223 .000 B18 Showing a friend who works for a competitor your customer list with private information about your customers 5.47 1.80 6.05 1.68 .272 .000 A6 Writing a paper for another student 5.38 2.00 6.08 1.64 .216 .000 B19 Writing a report for a coworker 4.84 1.91 5.70 1.71 .269 .000 A7 Asking another student to take an exam using your name 6.09 1.78 6.40 1.53 .175 .001 B20 Signing someone else’s name to authorize an expenditure 5.81 1.71 6.13 1.64 .185 .001 A8 Using unauthorized cheat sheets during an exam 5.74 1.72 6.11 1.58 .182 .001 B21 Filling out a false expense report and turning it in 5.98 1.66 6.27 1.59 .176 .001 A9 Using sources for a paper that were not included in the bibliography 4.26 1.84 4.98 1.71 .213 .000 B22 Falsifying information on a job application 5.62 1.73 6.09 1.62 .214 .000 A10 Using direct quotations from other sources, without giving the proper reference 4.76 1.83 5.42 1.67 .208 .000 B23 Presenting the ideas of a coworker as your own 5.58 1.72 6.06 1.60 .227 .000 A11 Purchasing a paper to turn in as your own 5.82 1.83 6.31 1.59 .244 .000 B24 Pressuring a colleague to do your work and then taking credit for it as your own 5.82 1.77 6.24 1.57 .212 .000 A12 Completing an exam for another student 6.05 1.71 6.37 1.57 .201 .000 B25 Clocking in for an absent coworker 5.70 1.76 6.12 1.65 .204 .000 A13 Selling a paper to another student 5.25 2.01 6.05 1.74 .286 .000 B26 Selling confidential information about a client 6.08 1.74 6.39 1.53 .189 .000
Note. Statements were ranked on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not dishonest) to 7 (severe dishonesty). A = academic; B = business.
234 Journal of Education for Business
significant statements. Although the Catholic college reported the low- est average response (and hence lower assessment of the statement as unethi- cal) in 8 of the 20 significant statements, and the public college reported the low- est average response in 11 of those sig- nificant statement, the Catholic college was lowest on the more trivial situations, whereas the public college was lowest
on the more serious unethical behavior- al statements. These results may, in part, be explained by differences in ethics education at each institution. The public college had no formal or informal com- mitment to ethics education other than the random professor that may include professional ethics in course content. In contrast, although the Baptist and Catholic colleges have had an ethics
component in their respective curricula, it was more formally embedded in the business coursework at the Baptist col- lege. Ethics modules at the Baptist col- lege were included in coursework scat- tered throughout the sophomore, junior, and senior years, and the business courses contained more such modules than did the nonbusiness courses. The core curriculum at the Catholic college
TABLE 3. Comparison of Degree of Association Between Academic Class and Each Ethical Statement
Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors
Statement M SD M SD M SD M SD Cramer’s V p
A1 Increasing the margins or type face to make a term paper appear longer 3.68 1.79 3.64 1.64 3.51 1.72 3.09 1.54 .086 .516 B14 Taking longer than the time allowed for lunch and not reporting it 4.39 1.93 4.41 1.68 4.87 1.77 4.54 1.73 .113 .042 A2 Telling the instructor a false reason for missing a class or an exam 4.67 1.86 4.43 1.89 4.68 1.89 4.78 1.64 .087 .472 B15 Telling your employer a false reason for missing work 4.70 1.87 4.60 1.85 5.13 1.67 4.89 1.60 .096 .254 A3 Doing less work than your share in a group project 4.76 1.88 4.77 1.75 4.98 1.67 4.60 1.63 .084 .559 B16 Doing less work than your share in a group project at work 5.03 1.75 5.05 1.76 5.23 1.72 4.97 1.48 .095 .288 A4 Looking at another student’s paper during an exam 5.68 1.77 5.62 1.84 5.94 1.59 6.20 1.31 .089 .441 B17 Obtaining a competitor’s customer list with the intent of stealing customer 5.16 1.94 5.19 1.98 5.61 1.68 5.11 2.04 .094 .299 A5 Allowing another student to look at your paper during an exam 5.30 1.96 5.47 1.83 5.71 1.65 5.82 1.56 .096 .270 B18 Showing a friend who works for a competitor your customer list with private information about your customers 5.65 1.82 5.63 1.88 6.02 1.59 6.16 1.47 .092 .358 A6 Writing a paper for another student 5.76 1.94 5.59 1.93 5.90 1.68 6.06 1.55 .096 .251 B19 Writing a report for a coworker 5.40 1.88 5.13 1.92 5.44 1.79 5.31 1.79 .095 .283 A7 Asking another student to take an exam using your name 6.16 1.74 6.15 1.77 6.34 1.63 6.56 1.30 .107 .086 B20 Signing someone else’s name to authorize an expenditure 5.87 1.76 5.85 1.80 6.15 1.63 6.24 1.50 .100 .192 A8 Using unauthorized cheat sheets during an exam 5.75 1.76 5.84 1.77 6.13 1.52 6.33 1.35 .101 .164 B21 Filling out a false expense report and turning it in 5.92 1.81 5.98 1.75 6.42 1.39 6.48 1.31 .128 .004 A9 Using sources for a paper that were not included in the bibliography 4.37 1.84 4.54 1.82 5.08 1.73 5.06 1.78 .145 .000 B22 Falsifying information on a job application 5.70 1.82 5.71 1.76 6.19 1.52 6.14 1.40 .117 .023 A10 Using direct quotations from other sources, without giving the proper reference 4.89 1.87 5.03 1.78 5.37 1.71 5.49 1.67 .090 .407 B23 Presenting the ideas of a coworker as your own 5.69 1.78 5.73 1.75 6.10 1.56 6.14 1.38 .115 .032 A11 Purchasing a paper to turn in as your own 5.97 1.84 5.90 1.84 6.32 1.57 6.45 1.36 .104 .128 B24 Pressuring a colleague to do your work and then taking credit for it as your own 5.88 1.84 5.96 1.74 6.18 1.58 6.41 1.34 .099 .213 A12 Completing an exam for another student 6.03 1.86 6.12 1.71 6.46 1.53 6.51 1.26 .114 .035 B25 Clocking in for an absent coworker 5.73 1.81 5.74 1.82 6.35 1.51 6.19 1.50 .118 .019 A13 Selling a paper to another student 5.69 1.96 5.41 2.04 5.96 1.78 5.98 1.57 .107 .091 B26 Selling confidential information about a client 6.03 1.82 6.18 1.74 6.43 1.49 6.58 1.26 .100 .187
Note. Statements were ranked on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not dishonest) to 7 (severe dishonesty). A = academic; B = business.
March/April 2009 235
TABLE 4. Comparison of Degree of Association Between Institution and Each Ethical Statement
Highest mean, highest assessment Statement Baptist Public Catholic N χ2(df = 12) Cramer’s V p as unethical
A1 Increasing the margins or type face to make a term paper appear longer 3.40 3.80 3.30 775 27.71 .134 .006 Public B14 Taking longer than the time allowed for lunch and not reporting it 4.63 4.48 4.43 775 20.78 .116 .054 Baptist A2 Telling the instructor a false reason for missing a class or an exam 4.77 4.56 4.38 776 33.55 .147 .001 Baptist B15 Telling your employer a false reason for missing work 4.99 4.66 4.61 774 37.55 .156 .000 Baptist A3 Doing less work than your share in a group project 4.74 4.94 4.50 773 23.38 .123 .025 Public B16 Doing less work than your share on a group project at work 5.11 5.14 4.85 774 26.84 .132 .008 Public A4 Looking at another student’s paper during an exam 5.96 5.64 5.73 776 28.21 .135 .005 Baptist B17 Obtaining a competitor’s customer list with the intent of stealing customers 5.45 5.17 5.08 776 15.04 .098 .239 None significant A5 Allowing another student to look at your paper during an exam 5.69 5.36 5.51 776 30.77 .141 .002 Baptist B18 Showing a friend who works for a competitor your customer list with private information about your customers 5.91 5.68 5.68 773 21.56 .118 .043 Baptist A6 Writing a paper for another student 5.95 5.58 5.79 777 23.89 .124 .021 Baptist B19 Writing a report for a coworker 5.49 5.19 5.18 772 25.82 .129 .011 Baptist A7 Asking another student to take an exam using your name 6.34 6.13 6.28 777 18.04 .108 .114 None significant B20 Signing someone else’s name to authorize an expenditure 6.08 5.84 5.99 772 9.48 .078 .661 None significant A8 Using unauthorized cheat sheets during an exam 6.15 5.75 5.94 776 28.92 .137 .004 Baptist B21 Filling out a false expense report and turning it in 6.29 5.96 6.09 776 13.12 .092 .360 None significant A9 Using sources for a paper that were not included in the bibliography 4.83 4.53 4.60 774 20.72 .116 .055 Baptist B22 Falsifying information on a job application 6.17 5.66 5.73 774 29.94 .139 .003 Baptist A10 Using direct quotations from other sources, without giving the proper reference 5.26 5.04 4.98 777 11.94 .088 .451 None significant B23 Presenting the ideas of a coworker as your own 6.09 5.70 5.69 774 30.80 .141 .002 Baptist A11 Purchasing a paper to turn in as your own 6.25 5.86 6.19 776 18.46 .109 .103 None significant B24 Pressuring a colleague to do your work and then taking credit for it as your own 6.25 5.90 5.96 772 27.17 .133 .007 Baptist A12 Completing an exam for another student 6.33 6.08 6.24 777 18.84 .110 .092 Baptist B25 Clocking in for an absent coworker 6.05 5.72 5.99 776 20.55 .115 .057 Baptist A13 Selling a paper to another student 5.93 5.42 5.76 777 24.63 .126 .017 Baptist B26 Selling confidential information about a client 6.36 6.07 6.34 773 23.95 .124 .021 Baptist
Note. Statements were ranked on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not dishonest) to 7 (severe dishonesty). A = academic; B = business.
236 Journal of Education for Business
required that each student take at least one course in ethics and that business students take a course in business eth- ics. Therefore, these statistical results suggest that exposing students to ethics material in the classroom may have an impact on the students’ perceptions of ethical considerations and should be an area of continued future research.
For business educators, perhaps the
most troubling finding from this rela- tively large survey of approximately 800 college students involves the compari- son of mean responses for business and nonbusiness majors. In all nine of the statistically different mean responses, nonbusiness majors found these ques- tionable statements to be of a higher severity of dishonesty than did business majors. Given the growing movement
toward greater transparency and possi- bly greater business and financial regu- latory oversight, the ethical decisions of business majors can have serious consequences in the workplace.
When each institution was examined separately for differences in the mean responses of business versus nonbusi- ness majors, there were institution- al differences that emerged. For the
TABLE 5. For all Institutions Combined: Comparison of Differences in Mean Responses Between Business and Nonbusiness Majors for Each Ethical Statement (N = 786)
Nonbusiness Business majors majors
Statement M SD M SD t df p as unethical
A1 Increasing the margins or type face to make a term Nonbusiness paper appear longer 3.79 1.69 3.21 1.68 4.614 756 .000 majors B14 Taking longer than the time allowed for lunch and not reporting it 4.58 1.77 4.37 1.80 1.569 756 .117 — A2 Telling the instructor a false reason for missing a Nonbusiness class or exam 4.71 1.86 4.39 1.84 2.367 757 .018 majors B15 Telling your employer a false reason for missing Nonbusiness work 4.85 1.80 4.63 1.80 1.674 755 .094 majors A3 Doing less work than your share in a group project 4.92 1.78 4.58 1.73 2.603 754 .009 Nonbusiness majors B16 Doing less work than your share on a group project Nonbusiness at work 5.17 1.69 4.93 1.74 1.905 756 .057 majors A4 Looking at another student’s paper during an exam 5.85 1.69 5.67 1.74 1.447 757 .148 — B17 Obtaining a competitor’s customer list with the intent of stealing customers 5.33 1.88 5.12 1.98 1.445 757 .149 — A5 Allowing another student to look at your paper during an exam 5.58 1.81 5.38 1.83 1.457 757 .145 — B18 Showing a friend who works for a competitor your customer list with private information about Nonbusiness your customers 5.87 1.69 5.63 1.88 1.867 754 .062 majors A6 Writing a paper for another student 5.87 1.79 5.61 1.93 1.836 758 .067 Nonbusiness majors B19 Writing a report for a coworker 5.45 1.81 5.06 1.91 2.784 754 .005 Nonbusiness majors A7 Asking another student to take an exam using your name 6.30 1.62 6.16 1.78 1.102 758 .271 — B20 Signing someone else’s name to authorize an expenditure 6.03 1.67 5.83 1.77 1.499 753 .134 — A8 Using unauthorized cheat sheets during an exam 5.98 1.64 5.86 1.74 0.941 757 .347 — B21 Filling out a false expense report and turning it in 6.13 1.62 6.03 1.77 0.826 757 .409 — A9 Using sources for a paper that were not included in the bibliography 4.64 1.83 4.61 1.82 0.274 755 .784 — B22 Falsifying information on a job application 5.87 1.66 5.82 1.78 0.426 755 .670 — A10 Using direct quotations from other sources, without Nonbusiness giving the proper reference 5.19 1.78 4.93 1.82 1.925 757 .055 majors B23 Presenting the ideas of a coworker as your own 5.90 1.65 5.73 1.75 1.404 755 .161 — A11 Purchasing a paper to turn in as your own 6.15 1.67 5.95 1.83 1.547 753 .122 — B24 Pressuring a colleague to do your work and then taking credit for it as your own 6.11 1.65 5.92 1.77 1.503 753 .133 — A12 Completing an exam for another student 6.22 1.68 6.18 1.71 0.314 758 .753 — B25 Clocking in for an absent coworker 5.93 1.69 5.84 1.82 0.710 757 .478 — A13 Selling a paper to another student 5.75 1.90 5.55 1.97 1.392 758 .164 — B26 Selling confidential information about a client 6.24 1.67 6.19 1.71 0.470 754 .639 —
Note. Statements were ranked on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not dishonest) to 7 (severe dishonesty). A = academic; B = business.
Highest assessment
March/April 2009 237
institutions with no formal classroom exposure to professional ethics (public college) and the institution with mini- mal ethics exposure in the curricu- lum (Catholic college), the business student responses were significantly different from nonbusiness responses in nine instances. However, for the institution with more formal ethics exposure in the classroom (Baptist col- lege), particularly in business courses, the differences between majors was relatively minor, with only 2 of the 26 statement means significantly dif- ferent by major. To further investigate institutional differences, we examined the generalized cheating data (results
not presented). At the Baptist college, only 46% of business majors reported having cheated in college versus 68% of nonbusiness majors at this institu- tion, a significant difference in means at p < .001. However, at the pub- lic college, the opposite pattern was observed, with 64% of business majors admitting having cheated versus 50% of nonbusiness majors, also a signifi- cant difference in means at p < .029. The Catholic college data yielded no statistically significant difference by major in the percentage of respondents who reported cheating. More research on this topic is needed for evaluating what variables influence the students’
ethical perceptions and are beyond the scope of present article.
It is clear that the academic com- munity must give ethical exposure a higher priority if the integrity of the col- lege student is to be developed. There must be efforts made to expose students to the problems of unethical behavior, consequences of making unethical deci- sions, and long-run impact that unethical attitudes can have in the global econ- omy and on society as a whole. In the academic community, the exposure of students to ethics education may be col- lective or left to the individual professor, but it must be undertaken because if unethical perceptions persist throughout
TABLE 6. Significant Differences Between Business and Nonbusiness Majors, by Institution
Nonbusiness Business majors majors
Statement M SD M SD t df p as unethical
Baptist college (n = 244) B18 Showing a friend who works for a competitor your customer list with private information about your customers 6.10 1.42 5.70 1.84 1.847 242 .066 Nonbusiness A11 Purchasing a paper to turn in as your own 6.41 1.38 6.06 1.80 1.655 241 .100 Nonbusiness
Catholic college (n = 165) A1 Increasing the margins or type face to make a term paper appear longer 3.83 1.76 3.16 1.52 2.119 163 .036 Nonbusiness B16 Doing less work than your share on a group project at work 5.28 1.51 4.75 1.54 1.676 162 .096 Nonbusiness A5 Allowing another student to look at your paper during an exam 6.03 1.13 5.38 1.62 2.634 163 .011 Nonbusiness B19 Writing a report for a coworker 5.76 1.55 5.05 1.75 2.006 161 .047 Nonbusiness B20 Signing someone else’s name to authorize an expenditure 6.45 1.24 5.87 1.63 2.156 161 .036 Nonbusiness A11 Purchasing a paper to turn in as your own 6.57 1.22 6.08 1.67 1.822 162 .074 Nonbusiness B24 Pressuring a colleague to do your work and then taking credit for it as your own 6.59 1.21 5.80 1.65 2.933 159 .005 Nonbusiness B25 Clocking in for an absent coworker 6.38 1.24 5.91 1.71 1.717 161 .092 Nonbusiness A13 Selling a paper to another student 6.33 1.32 5.64 1.79 2.403 163 .020 Nonbusiness
Public college (n = 351) A1 Increasing the margins or type face to make a term paper appear longer 3.91 1.67 3.35 1.92 2.324 348 .022 Nonbusiness A2 Telling the instructor a false reason for missing a class or exam 4.63 1.94 4.20 2.04 1.708 349 .089 Nonbusiness A3 Doing less work than your share in a group project 5.06 1.79 4.45 1.89 2.604 348 .010 Nonbusiness A4 Looking at another student’s paper during an exam 5.76 1.79 5.25 1.92 2.178 348 .030 Nonbusiness A5 Allowing another student to look at your paper during an exam 5.50 1.88 4.83 2.13 2.476 348 .015 Nonbusiness A6 Writing a paper for another student 5.75 1.87 5.04 2.31 2.473 349 .015 Nonbusiness B19 Writing a report for a coworker 5.32 1.85 4.70 2.19 2.267 349 .025 Nonbusiness A10 Using direct quotations from other sources, without giving the proper reference 5.12 1.86 4.71 1.88 1.677 349 .094 Nonbusiness A13 Selling a paper to another student 5.55 2.01 4.95 2.25 2.118 349 .036 Nonbusiness
Note. Statements were ranked on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not dishonest) to 7 (severe dishonesty). A = academic; B = business.
Highest assessment
238 Journal of Education for Business
the collegiate years, it raises the question of how likely, and at what cost, these perceptions change when students enter their professional careers.
Limitations
The major limitation of the present study is using students from only small colleges to extrapolate generalities about all college students, although a large percentage of all college students attend small colleges or junior colleges. However, the sample size of 786 college students is large enough to yield sig- nificant results. It is also worth noting that in such self-incriminating report- ing, there is usually a downward bias because some respondents are unwill- ing to report their own behavior and perceptions in written form, regardless of the promise of anonymity. Therefore, the trends among the college student population may in fact be more discour- aging than those reported in the present study. Last, using academic cheating as a surrogate for unethical behavior in the workplace carries the normal weakness of using surrogates in general; surro- gates are not real and can only approxi- mate what may occur.
NOTES
Lynnette S. Smyth is an associate professor of economics at Gordon College in Barnesville, Georgia. Her present primary research interests are economics education and collegiate ethics.
James R. Davis is a professor of account- ing at Anderson University in Anderson, South Carolina. His research interests include profes- sional ethics, accounting information systems, and the integration of international accounting standards.
Charles O. Kroncke is an associate profes- sor of economics at the College of Mount Saint Joseph in Cincinnati, Ohio. He is involved in labor and wage research (for both the United States and transitional economies) and economics education.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James R. Davis, Anderson Univer- sity, 319 Boulevard, Anderson, SC 29621, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Baird, J. S. (1980). Current trends in college cheat- ing. Psychology in the School, 17, 512–522.
Crown, D. F., & Spiller, M. S. (1998). Learning from the literature on college cheating: a review of empirical research. Journal of Business Eth- ics, 17, 683–700.
Davis, J. R., & Welton, R. E. (1991). Professional ethics: Business students’ perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 451–463.
Demski, J. S. (2003). Corporate conflicts of inter- est. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(2), 51–72.
Diekhoff, D. M., LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E., Wil- liams, L. E., Francis, B., & Haines, V. J. (1996). College cheating: Ten years later. Research in Higher Education, 17, 487–502.
Graham, M. A., Monday, J., O’Brien, K., & Stef- fen, S. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Develop- ment, 33, 255–260.
Grimes, P. W. (2002, January). Honesty in aca- demics and business: A cross-cultural evalu- ation of student attitudes. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Allied Social Science Associations, Atlanta, GA.
Haines, V. J., Diekhoff, D. M., LaBeff, E. E., & Clark, R. E. (1986). College cheating: Immaturity, lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitude. Research in Higher Education, 25, 257–266.
Lipson, A., & McGavern, N. (1993). Undergraduate dishonesty at MIT. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (ERIC Document Repro- duction Service No. ED368272)
Rocha, M. F., & Teixeira, A. A. C. (2006). A cross country evaluation of cheating in academia: Is it related to ‘real world’ business ethics? Oporto, Portugal: Universidade do Porto.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 204, § 16, Stat. 745 (2002).
Sims, R. L. (1993). The relationship between aca- demic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68, 207–211.
Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., Rosenberg, D. L., & Haight, G. T. (2002). A structural modeling investigation of the influence of demographic and attitudinal factors and in-class deterrents on cheating behavior among accounting majors. Journal of Accounting Education, 20, 45–65.
Smyth, M. L., & Davis, J. R. (2004). Perceptions of dishonesty among two-year college students: Academic versus business situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 63–73.
Verschoor, C. C. (2006). Surveys show ethics problems persist. Strategic Finance, 88, 19–20.
Williams, K. (2006). Are companies more ethical now? Strategic Finance, 88, 22.
���������������� ����������� ���������������
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������� ����������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������
������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������
����������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������� ������������� ������������������������� ��������������������������������� ������������������������������ ���������������