Cheating and Moral Judgment in the College

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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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.


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


E-mail:

[email protected]