Cheating and Moral Judgment in the College Classroom: A Natural Experiment Author(s): Tim West, Sue Pickard Ravenscroft and Charles B. Shrader Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Oct., 2004), pp. 173-183 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123335 . Accessed: 15/03/2014 11:04 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and Moral
Cheating
Judgment
Tim West
in the CoUege Classroom: A Natural Experiment
The purpose of this paper is to present the
ABSTRACT. a
of
results
natural
experiment
university
students.
cheating
by
tionship
of
defining
issues
extent
the
the
extent
home
observed
cheating
and
motivation.
natural
we
when extent
students.
students students'
behavior
between was
KEY
we
FinaUy, not related,
WORDS:
issues
test,
to
of
honesty,
score
score
selected
on
responses
the
notions
of
cheating
but
affected the relationship higher
students, moral
and judgment of cheating levels
judgment
the DIT,
issues test; P Score
response the
that were
percentage; to which extent
consistent
with
U
score
-
highly
^* P*
of the rela
exhibited
students by college to subsequent graduate as they in activities business engage (Sims, 1993; Stevens and has not been di Stevens, 1987). This relationship but
established,
ists.Researchers
some
have found
are associated with
lower
suggestive
evidence
ex
that college honor codes rates of cheating and that
of a college honor code has an impact on subsequent behavior in the workplace (McCabe wrote et al., 1996). Mai-Dalton that (1987) faculty the existence
that college students will develop presume awareness ethical and upon grad greater sensitivity In the late uation without instruction and guidance. a 1980s commission national fraudulent studying reporting
recommended
more
ethics
training for students in order to help future business situations more analyze difficult people carefully Crown and Spiller (1998) and Strand 2000). florins could
"fall within
the
that are interrelated," a lack of direct empirical data
is a type of behavior that is cheating salient to educators but is problematic for
experimentalists.
to
motivated
to teach ethics because
argue that collegiate cheating rubric of unethical behaviors
Introduction Academic
the effort
accounting subjects a reliance on
reasoning
justice-based
and Spiller, 1998). have become faculty members
cannot
defining
cheating,
(Crown Some
rectly
and moral
that moral
DIT - defining
Post-conventional
utilizer
(i.e.
con universally if in, self-reports are engaged or not Whether 1991). (Moore,
tionship and their behavior
However,
on
practice
is almost
is widely
of behavior
judgment
scores
business
to good have not
is disputed by researchers and Bowers, 1994; Spiller and Crown, (McCabe concern but about the issue remains high 1995),
make
less honesty.
ABBREVIATIONS: -
moral
their
analyzed a simple
in
insignificant.
found
accounting ethics,
data
that
Utilizer including actions select based
people the relationship
related
the
found
judgment we found that Utilizer significantly. were honesty
information are
and to good citizenship been instilled. Cheating
cheating
essential
considered
distorts
yet as credible cheating is on the increase
take
on
Furthermore,
learning.
that values
taken
of inducing rate of high to to return
instructor
responses We
the
indicate
demned
take-home
the
provide
relationship behavior cheating
affected
on
intent
the
the to
experiment.
to which
able
However,
prompted
tested whether
justice)
with
the
self-reports to determine
cheated actuaUy exam. The
the
regression scores and
students
accounting
assigned
The
this
an
as
of
its occurrence
because
cheating
assessment
may
the
using
cerns about the
rela
as weU
were
We
students
the
ask
honesty
cheating.
not
among
in
of
of
cheating
class
(as measured
the
of
the
explore
behavior,
to which
portion was
problem
We
judgment to actual test)
between
academic
involving
moral
relationship and
Sue Pickard Ravenscroft Charles B. Shrader
Educators
have
immediate
con
(1998, p. 684). Despite individuals and
their college correlating on the with unethical behavior subsequent cheating Crown and observe that of theories many job, Spiller tracking
Journal of Business Ethics 54: 173-183,2004. ? 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands.
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174
Tim West
ethical decision making "treat unethical behaviors not only as interrelated, but also as unitary," (1998, p. that collegiate 684). Thus faculty appear to believe is a precursor to or indication of subsequent behavior and therefore increasingly behavior professional the need to include ethics in their curricula. However, ethics face
members
many
faculty skepticism from colleagues the seemingly irresolvable
gued by whether ethics
feel
in teaching demonstrated ultimately
introducing and are pla
of question et al., 1993). taught (Piper ethics or any other topic is
Thus
through behavioral change. is observation form of assessment
where
of how people behave in situations However choices must be made.
the optimal and measurement ethical
to observe
opportunities the
of
control
tend to include
such behavior
are not under
researchers
and,
amultitude
of variables whose
when
occur,
they
effect
cannot
researchers
Creating successfully disentangle. in laboratories is another op responses it is often difficult and sometimes tion; however, test to in labora such behaviors unfeasible morally behavioral
tory
Thus,
settings.
convincing
an effective
determining assessment
outcome
which
and
relates
di
differences and which is feasible rectly to behavioral a to administer becomes crucial step in any effort to measure
and
measure
improve
that
assessment
has
instruction.
ethics been
as
adopted
outcome
instruction
(hence DIT), which change in ethical judgment
educational
an
such
is the Defining is widely used to
tool for ethical
Issues Test measure
One
and post
pre-
interventions.
test of moral is a paper and pencil a from derived stage theory of originally judgment at The Center The researchers moral development. The
DIT
for the Study of Ethical ter) of the University
(hence Cen who have
Development of Minnesota
of the test have changed their explanation developed the theoretical basis for the test. They now discuss the test in terms stage
somewhat
Instead,
theory.
the
different
researchers
those of
from on
rely
schema
it theory and explain the scoring in terms of what three reliance upon reflects about a respondent's the the lowest being personal interest, sch?mas, and the highest second being maintaining norms, the is called post-conventional. level Previously single
score
was
that
search was
called
percentage
of
used
the P
responses
most
score were
often
and
in
ethics
indicated
in the highest
however the P stages. Recently, post-conventional) score has been replaced by an N2 score which is more encompassing (Center for the Study of Ethical et al., 1999). 1998, Rest Development, DIT the been tested extensively has Although over
can be
Success
et al.
decades
across
and
of the DIT
many
the
samples,
scope
to moral
one aspect judgment, that synthesizes much of
is limited
model of a four-component the research on the psychology of morality (Rest et al., 1999, p. 100). The model's four components are moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral moti and moral
vation,
Because
character.
of
existence
the
and wide-spread of the DIT moral application one is the al measured, judgment only regularly are aware researchers of the though increasingly the other
of
importance model. The
three
in the
components
judgment, using the N2 in shaping ethical behavior has not yet been resolved. Thus, evidence that helps researchers understand the relationship of moral Score
role of moral
from
the DIT,
judgment,
as measured
classroom,
to
actual
on
behavior
the DIT
in the
taken more
becomes
critical.
In this study data were obtained from a natural a which occurred when faculty member experiment gave
students
a
take-home
as
problem
part
of
an
exam. Because
of the ethical difficulty caused by any to cheat in the class inducement study involving is rarely studied in its natural room, such behavior a relatively smaU number of setting. Furthermore,
on cheating laboratory studies have been conducted to foUow this particular line of behavior. Reluctance research probably stems from a sense that such studies cheating in a laboratory or to a far less significance has stigmas
lack external validity carries fewer student
than
cheating
because on
an
exam
in
an
actual
class
room.
researchers may (and should) AdditionaUy, some qualms about deliberately inducing dis the smaU honest behavior among subjects. Given behavior number of studies cheating involving
have
among coUege students, there is a limited literature on the question of how moral judgment relates to the to cheat or not to cheat. Our choices student make study provides
data on this important
question.
Background
re
what (i.e.
to behavior is relationship of scores on the DIT an to et be al. (1999) considered by Rest important
The
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to assess the validity of the DIT; they cite a be correlation showing positive
criterion over 60
studies
tween DIT
scores and pro-social behavior in and out in self-report, of the laboratory, and in ratings by as we noted earlier, others (1999, p. 81). Because, recent
researchers
earlier
researchers
If we
are
score"
Further
specific.
are
we
score,
to indicate
or
sion,
actual
scores
somewhat
(Thoma
inconsistent
sub
be
the DIT, by to behavior and deci
its relationship determining are all studies show sions, ongoing. Not or pro-social moral between relationship and P
et
al.,
1991).
a positive behavior the
Despite a
for
evidence
and
strong
between moral predictable relationship judgment is used and behavior (Thoma et al., 1991), the DIT to indicate that in progress frequently developing in educa ethical attitudes or learning has occurred tional
of such settings. The underlying assumption a score a DIT is that usage signifies changed change in behaviors beyond that of taking the DIT test more competently, DIT
a higher
i.e. obtaining
on
score
the
post-treatment.
self-reports, encourage
sensitive questions.
students cautious encourage
members actual
presents
cheating
and
rather delicate are
Researchers
set of not
a very
with
ethics
research to
allowed
into cheating and should probably be very even about that creating possibilities to
students
students
believe exams
or
In
cheat.
have,
assignments,
cases
where
of
as well.
about
on
in fact, cheated are
faculty
often
to file complaints (Nonis and Swift, 1998). The infrequency of actual complaints filed by faculty belies the self-reports of students who say that reluctant
cheating occurs of past cheating,
regularly and frequently. Self-report of intentions to cheat, of reasons for cheating, and of attitudes toward cheating represent the dominant form of data on cheating (Cizek, 1999;
Spiller helpful
and Crown, and establish
1995). While the seriousness
question, they do raise some concerns. serious problems in of accuracy intention;
a wide
gap
may
exist
such
data
are
of the cheating There may be statements between
what
of
actual
cheating, Researchers
to
reluctance
inducing
to surveys and to but are subject to must
cautious
be
behavior.
unethical
of Questions acute when socially scrutiny (Crown and
be more
may generalizability undesirable behavior
is under as Spiller, 1998), subjects may not want to appear to be unethical and the laboratory setting may not incentives for such behavior. strong provide are aware of two studies in the accounting We ethics
education
literature
to actual
behavior.
extent
free-riding Ponemon
of
in
of course payment an extensive describes
the
(1993)
two
to measure
methods
of the instructional scores prior DIT
instruction,
ethics
relating ethical judgments first article addresses the
teach
used
tiveness
control
The
ethics using a 4-week accounting in 1 year and 10 weeks of ethics instruction the same students in the following year. to
Ponemon
ethics
faculty
an alternative
studies offer
measured
entrap
of faculty members'
limitations
module researchers
may
subjects
to report honestly. In conclu behavior than provides more validity but presents ethical researchers with
observance
with Academic
that
cheating.
Lab
effort review
anonymous;
truly
believe
or
incentive
because
challenges
handouts. Literature
are
questionnaires
not
subjects may
cheating);
little
to validate
attempts
setting
have
is based we will
the N2
on the social desirability (and depending to increase or decrease this can work self
issues of
reported to
going
people say they do and what they actually do (Kar et al., 1991; Nowell and lins et al., 1988; Miceli are Scheers There and Laufer, 1997; 1987). Dayton,
the summary
a refinement
to
referring
set of the items on which
score while
the N2
P
the
used
simply refer to "DIT measure.
use
often
175
andMoral Judgment
Cheating
the
including
ethics
He
instruction
by
effec
He
intervention.
to and after the ethics same
two
measures
did not
of students who
group instruction.
the
a
for
receive
the
also tested the effectiveness
of
asking
students
to contribute
to the Accounting anonymously to for their pay Department printed course materials, as the department had used up its entire budget for to provide handouts and would be unable any voluntarily
and
additional
materials students
though be anonymous,
unless
contributed.
Al
would
in fact
payment envelopes, menter to determine tributed.
students
their contributions
believed
Ponemon
bar-coded they received the experi which allowed
how much found
extensive
each that it was,
student the
con ethics
had no effect
intervention, though on DIT scores. More he however, interestingly, a found of ethical parabola-shaped relationship
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176
Tim West
score. Free-riding (i.e. not con to to pay the the Accounting Department tributing cost for materials complete already received) was scores were in the lowest or when the DIT highest and DIT
behavior
highest quartile and lowest when DIT scores were in score in the the middle quartiles. The average DIT was which Ponemon is low for somewhat 38, study indicates that college students, and while Ponemon scores into quartiles, he does not give he broke DIT the ranges of scores in those quartiles. replicated certain fac study. They asked for student in a trading experiment engaged that allowed students to dissemble
Bay and Greenberg ets of the Ponemon who
volunteers with
conditions
(2001)
the quality of what they were selling, and with incentives sales quotas) which (imposed
about
economic
such dissembling.
rewarded not
Ponemon's
replicate
their
focus
was
entirely
of moral
tionship on the effect ferent
Bay ethics on
the
instruction nature
and behavior
judgment of ethics education.
behavior
and Greenberg
did
because of
the
rela
rather than
They found dif across gender. For the female sub as P scores behavior increased
jects deceptive increased; the higher a female's P score, the more to benefit to engage in deception likely she was found a qua herself. For males Bay and Greenberg
that replicated the pattern found relationship scores corresponded to in Ponemon; DIT mid-level of deception while higher and the lowest percentage scores corresponded to higher percent lower DIT
dratic
ages of deception. scores into three
divided DIT Bay and Greenberg scores low indicating ranges, with
of less than 27, mid-range including scores between scores above 41 27 and 41, and high indicating (2001, p. 374). Like the Ponemon (1993) and Bay and Greenberg our paper focuses on an activity that (2001) studies, and is would, prima facie, relate to moral judgment, a is violation based on a justice orientation. Cheating but primary among them is justice. The student who cheats has an advantage that other cheats students do not have; thus the student who of several norms,
can receive
a grade that he does not deserve because a he has created an unfair advantage. By cheating not in but the playing field unlevel student makes and such as studying conscientiously ? in but, rather, unacceptable carefully preparing ways by gaining access to solutions through third acceptable ways
parties
or
outside
sources.
et al. we several find accounting, because involve various they measures et al. (1996) say that of cheating. Newstead no study has compared actual cheating at a university et al. argue that level to reported cheating. Newstead Looking studies of
beyond interest
is driven primarily by morality cheating behavior and by achievement motivation (1996). However, on focus achievement motivation, do they primarily as an indicator
not use the DIT
of moral judgment, and cite only two studies relating cheating to moral the direct relationship of moral Thus, reasoning. or to to actor's of behavior the judgment description has not been
his behavior We
explored. actual cheating paper involving an indirect students which makes
one
located business
among Laufer,
to self-reports
of behavior
comparison
These
1997).
researchers
report
and
(Nowell a
two-stage
In the first stage, they returned ostensibly un In fact, graded quizzes to students to grade themselves. the instructors had recorded grades for the students study.
but left no evidence
of grading on the actual quizzes. that 23% of the students in five classes
found
They cheated
at some time while grading their own quizzes. the authors used a subset of the same subjects to test the reliability of the Randomized ap Response
Then
to gathering
proach same
students
whose
survey data. The actual
sample from the rate was
cheating
known
to be 23% reported amuch lower 9% rate, leading the authors to conclude that the randomized response were
results
and
not
accurate.
Because
the
a sample of the population
involved because
domized
anonymity
response
was
technique test actual
second
stage
in the first stage,
guaranteed
NoweU
by
the
ran
and Laufer
to reported cheating. directly NoweU that the reported and Laufer hypothesized rate of cheating was low because either the students did not truly believe their responses were anonymous or they did not believe that grading incorrect answers could
not
as correct
constitutes cheating (1997). In a study involving undergraduate to blow the whistle their wiUingness
assistants
who
incorrect
data
likely
than
students on
and
research
to report the students pressured were more et males al., 1991) (Miceli to blow More females the whistle.
the subjects' scores on the DIT were interestingly, to blow the related to their willingness inversely on the research assistants' unethical behavior. whistle and Smith (1985) used a laboratory Malinowski setting
in which
subjects were
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
implicitly
encouraged
Cheating to exaggerate with
their performance norms
unrealistic
false,
by being
and
presented
unfavorable
com
scores. The experimenter in order to the experiment during to record the time allow subjects the opportunity the task and the score they they took to complete earned on the task. Of the 53 subjects 77% cheated at
parisons absented
to other
subjects'
himself
least once
the
ten
timed
trials each
com
during and Smith found that subjects pleted. Malinowski scores were with higher DIT less likely to cheat, or to begin fewer cheated times, or took longer scores. Mali than those with lower DIT cheating of nowski and Smith argue that the relationship is "a matter of consid moral reasoning to behavior and practical importance" erable theoretical (1985, p. 1024) and note that despite their fairly clear results scores related positively to pro that DIT showing social behaviors, many aspects ofthat relationship are still unresolved. in a (1988) investigated cheating whe of 1374 students by determining large sample on a single written ther or not they plagiarized a course. in assignment They found a cheating single Karlins
et al.
rate of 3%, which to any other is low compared behavior. study of actual or self-reported They are unusual be the that results conjecture possibly cause
on a single instance of cheating one and measured only possible type of cheating. Gardner et al. (1988) used specially written study the focus was
con to determine whether students would, on to the trary study guide rely explicit instructions, answers to complete their assigned homework, which accounted for 20% of the course grade in an course. They found that introductory psychology guides
over
a term
dents
50% of the students approximately at least once, though they found that stu i.e. to the same did not cheat consistently,
extent
semester.
cheated
the concluded throughout They that the determinants of cheating were "transitory rather than durational." (1988, p. 554). In none of the studies just cited do students report back on how they
behaved
researchers
to
in confirm
a
setting the
students'
that would
allow
veracity.
classroom
and
find a negative relationship
that cheating is at least in part considered immoral because it violates fairness or justice in the
of
number
greater
relationship, DIT between
In addition,
negative.
previous
we
that the hypothesize score and cheating is the fact that both studies
given students
(Bay and Greenberg, accounting involving found 2001; Ponemon, 1993) (i.e. parab quadratic ola shaped) relationships, we are going to test that 1. type of relationship as an alternative to Hypothesis 1. The relationship of moral judgment (as Hypothesis measured by DIT) and cheating behavior is negative and linear.
Because
in the area of ethical behavior
researchers
and judgment have found the relationship to be moral and behaviors judgment some
straightforward, ables have been suggest tween behavior should cates
include the
than
theoretical et
vari
al.
(1991) be relationship exploring and moral researchers judgment,
the Utilizer
extent
between less
the
to which
as a basis
reasoning
intervening Thoma
proposed.
that when
for
indi (U) score, which on rely justice people
action
decisions.
argue that the U score moderates score and action and the DIT
et
Thoma
al.
the relationship of inclusion of the U
scores
in analysis helps to explain and rationalize results. The U score is based on the previous mixed to the action choices subjects selected in addition items
students
ranked
their choices.
The
as most
instructions
important in making distributed with the
state that including the U score has been shown to increase the explanatory value of moral judgment
DIT
(Center for the Study of Ethical Development, et al., 1999, p. 104). Rest Marnburg relationship forward. He
(2001) suggests, however, score to action is not of DIT argues
that behavior
1993; that
the
straight
results not
simply a but from of judgment joint recognition to act on those moral issues asmoral and awillingness
from moral
issues in certain ways. Marnburg questions whether to their best moral people always act according specific not been
Hypotheses
a
because
studies find a positive pro-so relationship between scores than cial actions or action-choices and DIT
judgment
Given
111
andMoral Judgment
and
states
that the relationship between and pro-social actions has
types of reasoning
or convinc clearly explained theoretically tested the ingly demonstrated empirically. Marnburg scores to DIT in terms of ethical attitudes relationship
of policy
and action
choices
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in eight vignettes.
He
178
Tim West
that, contrary to his hypothesis, higher DIT scores were associated with inconsistencies greater between the subjects' policy choices and their indi found
vidual
action
must
choices.
discard
define moral behavioral
He
concludes
the notion
of moral
judgment
in ways
that researchers
or else judgment that provide more p. 282). However
(2001, about the concept of the U does not include it in his analyses. score, Marnburg it is unclear if the inclusion of Utilizer would Thus, have altered the relationships Marnburg found. To because
significance of his doubts
some
offer
arguments as a
score
these
the usefulness
regarding
we
variable
moderating
on
evidence
empirical
of
theoretical the Utilizer use
the
incorporate
score in our second hypothesis.
of the Utilitzer
et al. sources
to
in completing the try to obtain help an was In the selected from fact, problem. problem Instructor's Manual the provided by publisher. the faculty member had removed the However, problem and its solution from the problems he placed on theWeb site. In addition, the faculty member had the relevant for this type explained technique solving to the students in a manner of problem that differed
2.
Hypothesis
to
of moral judgments relationship as the Utilizer score increases increases.
on theWeb. of the examination, in of the second member posting faculty the textbook solution to the problem, albeit
take-home
the solution An
would
inhibit test
We
cheating
the and
test whether
with
cheating
hypothesis actual cheating scores
go
honesty. about self-reports are more likely to In
up.
about
honesty
other
actions
one's
levels of moral
higher
also foster
that
as DIT
coincide
would
we
words,
portion
differed to
demonstrated
Finally, moral judgment may serve as a brake on to recognize unethical behavior by enabling people as a or We violation of fairness. justice cheating same moral that that the hypothesize judgment
term
when
positively
in self reports 3. Honesty to moral judgment.
of behavior
be
will
aware
that
When
Midwest, home
problem
of as a
introductory
at a private the
authors
portion
managerial in the university a
students
gave of
a mid-term
exam.
take This
that has an honor code which mandates University students refrain from cheating and that they disclose the incidents of cheating which they observe. When professor
gave
the
students
assignment,
to not work with other explicitly much of their earlier coursework
due
portion
of
an
exam.
Some
stu
alone but had friends who
their
classmates
to them. StiU others
were
not
foUowing
the
towork the
sites. alone and to avoid using Web in the take-home students turned
of
the textbook
approach
one
were
assignments
the solution from theWeb
matched an
the
through
being given. Thus, students felt ra to procrastinate on this and tended
students chose towork
Other
portion realized
Method
teaching course accounting
major
that
the exam, the faculty member quickly that solutions had been shared among stu dents and that some students had obviously found as their answer the textbook solution on the Web
related
While
about halfway
given other
take-home
instructions Hypothesis
one of the students revealed
were
stressed
accounting
had been
to dents decided, despite the professor's proscription, set meet. work and times that would together they
were
judgment.
several
from what
students.
interview with
and midterms ther
significantly
the
the assignment was
e-ma?ed
is associated
approach taken in the to the Unbeknownst
publisher-provided at the another faculty member faculty member, intact had the Instructor's Manual, University posted selected as the including the solution to the problem The Web
The
behavior
the solution materials.
cluded moral
from
significantly
were
told
students, although had been done in teams. In addition, in class the students were told that or other computer they should not go to the Web
and differed in class.
demonstrated
radicaUy from the In assigning the
that very few the faculty member believed problem the entire students would be able to complete as went that had it the material beyond problem, curve to in the been covered class, and planned grading accordingly. The faculty member was find a high level of cheating
initiaUy very distressed so a decision was made
to to
address the issue directly by talking with the students and by asking them to respond to a series of questions to help the faculty member their moti understand vation.
DIT
students
Thus,
and
to
respond
were
to
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
asked
a series
to
of
complete
open-ended
the
questions. The professor assured students that they would not face disciplinary charges and that the en deter be eliminated when tire assignment would were course. The students the for mining grades assured that all responses were voluntary, although they were was
ality
not
if the
necessary
to each
ched
However,
responses
individual
the
assured
or articles
in discussions anonymity complete the incident would be retained. determined
We several
the
ways.
level
students
First,
of actual were
that about in
cheating "To
asked
what
extent did you receive assistance on the project from outside sources (e.g. working with friends, accessing answer manual)?" at this In addition, the online to a record is kept of all persons going university knew sites, so the faculty member had gone to the other professor's solution site to look at the Instructor's Manual
university Web students which Web for
the
the faculty Finally, problem. see which students had answers
take-home
member
could
to those of other
identical
in the class.
students
both respondent to the Web and went
there
(Newstead cheating about cheating may beliefs about what
et al., 1996), so student beliefs from faculty differ considerably we constitutes cheating. While
introductory managerial accounting western university. Approximately
in an
to
take-home
two-thirds
of the
in the college of business, and nineteen were in the college of liberal arts. Age ranged very is almost student population litde as the undergraduate Because
traditional.
entirely some
the
students,
by
of
number
responses
incomplete of
sponses are analyzed below was
subjects
reduced
re
whose
and to
or
norm
done
than
behavior.
this study is the use of actual, driven or self-reported experimentally
We
precise controlled students'
of
that
found
as would
our
measure
have obtained
setting. To measure responses
to
an
open-ended
was
not
as
in an experimentally cheating we coded question
claimed
students
than the professor some
while
student
to have
claimed
(un mat
responses
and some students exactly to the professor's, more the than reported cheating professor indicated. arise in several ways. The Jatter situation could a colleague Students might have looked on while ched
cessed
contribution
site as the
instructor's Web
some
that
der-reporters),
that
mentioned
behavior.
less cheating
other
rather
their
condoned
found
their
about
they were to work and had been encouraged on one and another homework help us as less likely that students strikes a solution from aWeb obtaining
than as
does
site. Only the person logging on logged onto aWeb a level 3 by the instructor, but would be considered ac to having the on-looker have admitted might
to 55.
Results A
of
ranking
comments
students' often
They to
our
However,
testing.
reflect
implicitly behavior.
We
students were
showing definition
narrow
a ranking that could imply that collaboration is solutions from the com less serious than obtaining either of these approaches puter, we don't condone
at aMid
course
a rather
used
site other students
is research
that
important because students may have
accustomed
Subjects 64 undergraduate
and any differences were dis The instructor also used the
from the university regarding access to site and compared solutions. as cheating only if the Students were categorized was clear. We this is believe thereof evidence very
It assignments. could rationalize
subjects were
another coding was
site. The
the Web
together
The
talked with
the
student
data obtained
behavior.
students
meant
by three people cussed and resolved.
to be mat
actual
student's
instructor
the
were
another that the respondent talked with went to the that the student student; 3 indicated site where the answer could be obtained; and 4 Web indicated
done
lack of confidenti
The
confidential.
179
and Moral Judgment
Cheating
about
in doing the take-home question help they obtained and categorized their responses into four levels of cheating. One meant a student did not cheat at all; 2
the Web. students
Students and
have
might
but
answers,
compared
talked with not
then
their responses or they may have intention made the answers look different. We chose to ally take a strict view of cheating by using the professor's evaluation when students under-reported and using altered
student's
the
evaluation
ched the professor's in
cheating
Overall not
cheat
than
we
the
found
when
that
or indicated professor's
greater
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
involvement
assessment.
that 26% of
at all. Forty-four
mat
evaluation
percent
the
students
worked
with
did a
180
Tim West
of those
two-thirds
information
with
another
told that collaboration not
dents
with
complied.
were
students
other a
was
This
sharing is a rather
students
and aids
of
one-quarter
only
permissible,
their
This
where
a web
from
students
student.
a situation
In
result.
disturbing
were
a solution
and 30% obtained
colleague site, with
situation
stu
the
non
where
compliance was not a default action. Some students to assist someone else; but may have felt pressured some effort to explore students had to expend the and find
internet solution
site that had
the Web on
manual
it.
In other
a situation where it was or dent unintentionally. situation, we felt was a significant
words,
possible Given
that honest indicator
of
the entire
this was
not
to cheat by acci the nature of the
reporting by their ethical
students devel
opment.
In our
analyses as a binary
honesty port matched
we involving honesty, variable. When students
treated self-re
or exceeded
the category of cheating coded as described above, we considered the student to be reporting honestly. Given the strict standards
we
as cheating, we behavior applied to categorize considered those students who claimed to have done
et al. a t-value of?10.823
and ap of 0.07. These results do the 0.05 a-test for significance. we analyzed honesty to 3. When in relationship DIT scores by using Fishers protected least significant test we found that there was no significant difference > difference additional analyses 0.952). However, (p resulted in findings of relationships that were of not meet
interest. We
the relationship of honesty in self reports to cheating behavior, using Fisher's Protected least Significance Difference test, to be significant and > Because lower for 0.002). negative (p coding a indicates less result cheating cheating, negative cheated less were implies that those students who more who
found
in their responses than students forthcoming it did not reach traditional cheated more. While
score to levels, the correlation of Utilizer significance was a with is 0.24, cheating p-value of 0.09, which not in the direction we expected. we did not hypothesize about gender Although on cheating is in used often research effects, gender et Rest 2002; al., 1999) and we per (cf. Bebeau, some
formed
non-parametric
that overaU male
and
female
We
analyses.
level of cheating
was
across
equivalent
as was
students,
found
in
honesty
report
less than our coding indicated to be dishonest. Re sults of our statistical analysis follow: 1.We tested this relationship with a correlation of
ing after the fact; we should note that because of the in these tests was limited. smaU sample size power a We include the distribution of table to demonstrate
as described above) and cheating (strictly defined scores on moral judgment, and a regression of DIT was correlation is not The which 0.175, cheating.
scores on the DIT test level and various cheating scores sorted by gender and honesty in self-reporting
significant.
The
results
regression
were
also
insig
(an F of 0.545 and a p-value of 0.58). We also tested for a quadratic between relationship as DIT and that of scores, type cheating relationship had been found in earlier work (Bay and Greenberg, nificant
2001; on
a
Ponemon, quadratic
0.592, which 2. The U
1993). relationship
The
regression resulted
in
?-value
I). FinaUy, Bebeau at changes in the
of
has a p-value of 0.58. score can range from +1
to ?1, with scores usually falling between 0.1 and 0.2. The mean is consistent of subjects in this study was 0.127, which with earlier studies. We tested the moderating effect by regressing the product of standardized DIT scores on U. The moderating and cheating effect of U on the relationship between moral judg ment and behavior has been proposed by the devel of U
scores
test (Center for the Study of opers and of the DIT Ethical Development 1993, p. 24). The results of this a test showed with standardized coefficient of?0.252
suggests that looking only scores may mask summary DIT in other key variables that are now
some patterns being
provided
tional
the Center
interest
their
for Study
Bebeau's
FoUowing refine
personal
(2002)
by
Development. researchers
performed a
(Table
analyses
by
proposal using
represent
(which
of Ethical
a
scores
that on
pre-conven
and Maintaining judgment) the conventional stage of represent
stage of moral
Interest
(which and the post-conventional schema judgment) (which is the P score and was used in earlier research we as the primary measure of moral judgment),
moral
substituted found
those
scores
no
in our first hypothesis and for the p-values
results. The
significant simple regression of the schema score on cheating were 0.17 for personal interest, 0.91 for maintaining norms,
and
0.23
for
post-conventional.
schema scores into the analysis for the second hypothesis we found When
we
substituted
the individual
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I
TABLE
statistics
Descriptive Honest
2.5 (1.1) 34.7 (11.2) 0.106 (0.16) 33.00 (11.1) 32.1 (13.0) 33.00 (19.8)
levela
Utilizer
scorec
Post-conventional Maintain
normse
Personal
interest
Numeric a A lower
cells
other
number
another
3
student,
in the
those
than
less
indicates if the
row
"Count" The
cheating. went to
student
female
Dishonest
the Web
means
contain
and
site,
and
is 1 if no
Level
Cheating
4
if the
(standard
6 3.3 (0.5) 29.5 (4.3) 0.162 (0.10) 29.45 (3.9) 35.6 (13.7) 28.1 (6.4)
deviations). 2
occurred,
cheating
student
female
Dishonest
talked
with
if the
another
student
talked
and went
student
with to
the
site.
Web
score has replaced the P score thatwas used previously
The N2 reasons c Utilizer
for
the
change. can range
scores
represents higher
development. A higher
that U
score,
a greater weighting score for Maintaining score
did not
sonal
Interest
cient
of
0.13
correlation
responses
the correlation
the
formerly
in the
(a standardized cheating a j?-value of 0.35) with
correlation
of
of moral a
greater
Per
widely
the
and cheating a and p of 0.81). (P
affected by the score) to cheating was significantly coeffi standardized inclusion of the U score. The cient was ?0.29 with a p-value of 0.04. This result
on
weighting or
lowest
site. Thirty and
site,
Conclusions is subject to limita and are circumstance
the extensive of a perforce done without planning In our case the sample size is scheduled experiment. not large; only 55 students were and this involved relates to only a portion of a take-home episode exam. A different selection of students and differing
contravened
thereby
of moral
accessed their
the web
instructor's
portion of their exam in effortful manner. The
it by saying that they usually worked to
accustomed
we
our
high, are consistent (1985)
contrast,
behavior
behav
stage
judgment.
of the students
in that way. While
By
in different
(mid)
of moral
percent
and were
disturbingly
resulted
conventional
stages
rationalized
cheating and Smith
have
score
higher
remaining 44% worked with other students. While this behavior had also been proscribed, students often
out
increases.
may
the
guidelines for the take-home an explicit and somewhat
as Utilizer
circumstances
A
found that only 26% of the students chose to cheat by either collaborating with a colleague or accessing the solution on an unauthorized web
groups
scores go up the correlation declines or, conversely, that scores decrease the correlation of P score
Clearly any natural experiment tions. Such studies result from
the DIT.
from
reasoning.
implies that as Utilizer of P score and cheating cheating
range. measure
single
ior. We
norms
post-conventional
used
not
coeffi or
to 0.2
0.1
pre-conventional
between
and
maintaining of 0.034 coefficient
the most
et al., 1999) for a book length discussion of the
(cf.Rest
in the
generally
the highest stages Norms represents
between
(standardized However,
affect
are
but was
which
on
more
represents
to +1
?1
from
is the P
Post-conventional
and
male
11 3.5 (0.5) 38.7 (12.6) 0.16 (0.13) 37.98 (12.9) 31.2 (13.1) 25.9 (8.5)
19 2.4 (1.3) 35.6 (12.8) 0.123 (0.15) 34.37 (12.3) 29.2 (12.7) 27.5 (12.1)
19
Count Cheating score N2
eA
Honest
male
181
andMoral fudgment
Cheating
in
another
a rate of 74% to be
results
on
with
those
reported our
find
one
helping
the
incidence
of
of Malinowski
earlier.
results
the
relating
to tests of moral
students'
do not echo
the judgment data reported inMalinowski and Smith (1985). Our score on the Defining results showed that the DIT to cheating Issues Test had no significant relationship
or to honesty In our study, the re about cheating. to were the DIT sponses provided only after students had acted upon their decision regarding cheating. Therefore,
prior
we
were
to the cheating
not
able
to measure
incident. However,
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
attitudes
we
believe
182
Tim West an unusual
these data provide actual,
and valuable
behavior
non-manipulated
view
among
of
college
students.
et al. should concomitantly cheating with student motives, ethical measures
we
When moderating indicated
scores
to test for a scores that higher U
Utilizer
included effect, we
found
a decreased
of P
correlation
score
(the with
level of moral post-conventional judgment) This is cheating. surprising and contrary to what we et al.'s findings based on Thoma expected (1991) that inclusion
the predictive value strengthened on behavior. some extent our To those
of Marnburg (2001) and duplicate rather It data. appears that the provide worrying our in both and subjects Marnburg's study who were on the most at the questions adept answering Issues Test were also most adept at making Defining results
action
choices
or ethical
inconsistent
choices. We
results
We
their stated policies these rather surprising
the
action
to
the
be
re
of U
relationship and P score
should
further. believe
that
experiment little relationship the DIT
scores,
involves
significant that
the
data
stream
judgment, to actual behavior outcomes
to
must
be
from
educational
interventions; be substantive
changes
in a setting
subjects.
scores
by that con
We in
cautious
in DIT
inferences
natural
that shows
as measured
of moral
researchers
our
from
to the research
add
clude
with
believe
that
suggest of association searched
drawing post
pre-and
D.
Bay,
correlation.
conditions
jects)
are present
Researchers
when
present are
behaviors
which
while
Researchers are
conditions
are
the change
need
to
DIT
scores
correlated
positively,
explore and and
(internal or external to the sub scores and pro-social when DIT
not
associated
have
negative generalize others and to assume
or'are
negatively
related.
tend to that people have about impressions they shown
be dishonest
that if person X has been dis action, he or she ismore likely to in another way (Sanderson and Darley,
Our 2002). cheated more
were
honest
after
Only
can we
cheating light on these unexpected
to
hope
results relating
about one
results
showing also more
that
students
who
to be dishonest
likely in self-reports about their cheating tend to support in this rather the validity of such generalization on limited Further research classroom setting.
D.
R.
and
R.
'The
2001,
Greenberg:
Rela
tionship of the DIT and Behavior: A Replication', Issues inAccounting Education 16(3), 367-380. M.
Bebeau, Four
'The
2002,
J.:
Component
Issues
Defining
Model:
Contributions
Journal
of Moral
sional Education',
Test
and to
the
Profes
Education
31(3),
271-295.
Center
the Study
for
GUIDE
of Ethical Development:
DIT-1
for
1993,
of Minnesota,
(University
Minne
apolis, MN). Center for the Study of Ethical Development: 1998, to the DIT-1 GUIDE Supplement (University of for Minnesota, G.
Cizek,
wah,
It
on
Literature
W.
M.,
S. K.
and
C.
Psychological A. Strand:
the Ethical Beliefs Karlins,
M.,
and R. on
38,
G.
Academic 543?555. Results
'Survey
of
Students', Journal
and
S.
of 'An
1988,
Podlogar:
in a Large
of Actual
Cheating Research in Higher
of Undergraduates',
Sample
of 683
17,
Gonzalez
2000,
the
315-320.
76,
Investigation
Empirical
Ethics
Cheating Record
of Business
for Business C. Michaels
Education
G.
C.
Mah
from 'Learning A Review
1998,
of
Analysis
The
Assignments',
Journal
It, Detect
Associates,
Cheating: of Business
J. T. Roper,
1988,'
Simpson:
Johns,
S. Spiller:
Collegiate
toDo
How
Erlbaum
(Lawrence
Research',
Empirical
on Tests:
Cheating
NJ). D. F. and M.
Crown,
MN).
Minneapolis, 1999,
J.:
It and Prevent
score may and statistically significant, such changes may not correlate to changes in ethical The existence of a large body of mixed behavior. results may indicate amissing variables problem or a
behaviors
other
References
700.
pro-social
environment.
to the DIT.
Gardner,
what
class
in its context
examining shed more
in test
spurious
the
the DIT and
of U
scores
of DIT
of
examine climate,
Educa
tion 29(4), 359-364. R.:
Mai-Dalton,
Take 6,
1987,
'The
in a Business
Member
Seminar:
to the Classroom?',
Back
of One
Experience
Ethics
Jo urnal
Faculty Can We
What
of Business
Ethics
509-511. C.
Malinowski, soning
I. and
and Moral
P.
C.
Conduct:
'Moral
Smith:
1985,
An
Investigation
Rea
Promp
ted by Kohlberg's Theory', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49(4), 1016-1027. E.:
Marnburg, Development
Discussion Ethics
32,
2001, Theory
'The
Use
Questionable in
and Empirical 275-283.
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Studies
of
Business
of Moral Ethics:
Findings', Journal of Business
andMoral Judgment
Cheating L.
D.
McCabe,
and W.
Dishonesty
among
Perspective',
Journal
in
A
college: Student
of College
Randomized
'Academic
1994,
Year
Thirty
35
Development
Influence
of
and K.
Butterfield:
and
Collegiate
on
Conduct
Ethics-Related
Business Ethics Quarterly place', M. P., J. B. Dozier andj.
Codes
Corporate
6,
'The
1996,
in
Behavior
of
M.:
'Blowing
Field Fudging: A Controlled Social 21(4), Journal ofApplied Psychology
1991,
mentals
The
"A."
the Easy
of Earning
Hopewell,
101:
Cheating
and Funda
Benefits (Moore
S. E.,
Publishing,
P. Armstead:
and
Franklyn-Stokes
S. A.
and C.
the
Deterrent
Strategies',
C.
1998,
'Deterring
Cheating
and
in
Cheating
Laufer:
the
In-class
and
M.
T.,
Dishonesty
Accounting 45-65.
20,
763-768. Stevens:
'Ethical
1987,
and
'Can
1993,
18(1),
S. Parks:
Business
(Harvard
Ponemon,
1993,
School, Ethics
3-12.
63,
24-29.
Thoma,
S.
Judgment
J.,
J. R. and
and M.
Rest
and Action
L.
Davison:
a Moderator
Testing
of Jo urnal
Relationship',
M.
Narvaez,
Can
Boston,
Sanderson, but You
A.
Ethics
and
Department
Sue
MA).
S. J. Thoma:
Associates,
J. M.
and
are Deterred":
Darley: Differential
Mahwah, 2002,
"I
N.
J.
and
C.
of Academic
M.
Dayton: Cheating
1987, Behavior
uark.edu
State
Ravenscroft University,
3315 Gerdin Business Building, 1999,
Ames, E-mail:
IA
U.S.A.
50011,
[email protected]
Charles
about
Iowa
State
B.
Shrader
University,
3185 Gerdin Business Building, Ames, IA 50011, U.S.A.
'Improved Using
Pickard
Iowa
NJ). am Moral,
Attributions
of Accounting,
twest@walton.
Be
Why People Obey the Law', Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32, 375-405. Estimation
of Person
of Arkansas,
University
in Account
be Taught
J. Bebeau
Erlbaum
(Lawrence C.
1991, the Moral
ality and Social Psychology 61, 659-669.
Post conventionalMoral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Ap proach,
and
Students Cheat', Journal of Education for Business
E-mail:
ing?', Journal ofAccounting Education 11, 185-209. J., D.
Incli
How
Revisited:
Managers
Student 'Undergraduate of Business and Economies',
Education
Gentile
L.:
In-class
over 1995, 'Changes at the Level', CoUegiate
1997,
Fields
in Economic
TaughP.
Scheers,
Factors among
Education
of Marketing
Journal
Investigation of the Influ
F. Crown:
of Tomorrow's
'Describing
Classroom: An Analysis of Attitudes,
D.
T. Haight:
and G
Education
of Accounting
S. and SpiUer, M. Time in Academic
of
Tim West
and D.
Research
Rest,
Journal
Journal
188-199.
20(3),
Piper,
Swift:
of Demographics,
Effects
No well,
O.
in theMarketing
Behavior
StructuralModeling
of Demographic and Attitudinal on Behavior Cheating
Majors',
Why
in Student Cheating', 1996, 'Individual Differences Journal of Educational Psychology 88(2), 229-241. Nonis,
L. Rosenberg
D.
Academic
Practices',
207-211.
68,
J., J. A. Davy,
nations A.
Business
76, Reports Psychological E. and F. W. G Stevens,
NJ).
Newstead,
K.
for
between
Business
Deterrents
271-295. Moore,
Smith,
'The Relationship
1993,
inHigher
Research
Technique',
and Unethical
Education
ence
1991,
on Data
Experiment',
L.:
2002, A
the Work
461-476.
P. Near:
Miceli,
the Whistle
R.
Sims,
Dishonesty
L. Trevino
D.,
Response 26, 61-69.
Education
5-10.
(January), McCabe,
Bowers:
J.
Males
183
the
This content downloaded from 129.186.1.55 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:04:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
E-mail:
[email protected]