Soc Psychol Educ (2011) 14:261–282 DOI 10.1007/s11218-010-9145-8

Student or situation? Personality and classroom context as predictors of attitudes about business school cheating Nancy E. Day · Doranne Hudson · Pamela Roffol Dobies · Robert Waris

Received: 22 July 2010 / Accepted: 12 November 2010 / Published online: 1 December 2010 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Many business faculties may question why their students cheat. While past research shows that student characteristics predict cheating attitudes and behavior, evidence exists that attributes of classroom contexts also play a part. We investigate how three personality traits (conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience) and two context variables (classroom culture and pedagogy) affect business students’ attitudes toward cheating. Of the personality variables, only conscientiousness directly predicts cheating attitudes, while both context variables show significant relationships. Interactions indicate that conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience, in combination with context variables, affect some attitudes toward cheating. We recommend actions that might minimize cheating as well as future research directions. Keywords

Cheating · Personality · Classroom context · Business students

N. E. Day (B) · D. Hudson · P. R. Dobies · R. Waris H.W. Bloch of Business & Public Administration, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 5110 Cherry, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA e-mail: [email protected] D. Hudson e-mail: [email protected] P. R. Dobies e-mail: [email protected] R. Waris e-mail: [email protected]

123

262

N. E. Day et al.

1 Introduction Complaints of dishonest behavior are prominent in national news (Anderman and Murdock 2007; Angell 2006; Callahan 2004; Lomax 2008; Miller et al. 2007). The issue of cheating is important to business educators, business people, and the broader community. Since cheating is difficult to measure, it is unclear whether or not its incidence has increased (Crown and Spiller 1998); however, a perception exists that student dishonesty, particularly in business schools (Brown and McInerney 2008), has grown disturbingly and is at unacceptable levels (Burton and Near 1995; McCabe et al. 2006; Roth and McCabe 1995). Indeed, business students may cheat more, or at least show more favorable attitudes toward cheating and unethical conduct than non-business students (Bernardi et al. 2004; McCabe et al. 2006, 1991, 1994; Premeaux 2005; Smyth and Davis 2004), although not all research agrees (Coleman and Mahaffey 2000; Klein et al. 2006; Molnar et al. 2008; Zopiatis and Krambia-Kapardis 2008). Since cheating in class may transfer to cheating on the job (Coleman and Mahaffey 2000; Grimes 2004; Lawson 2004; Sims 1993), as business faculty, we must be concerned. Why do our students cheat? Any faculty member who has been faced with cheating students asks this question. Many of us put the blame solely on students. However, could there be more to cheating than the student’s character? In fact, research shows that dishonest academic attitudes and behavior are affected by both individual differences and contextual factors (Anderman 2007; Anderman et al. 2007; Anderman and Murdock 2007; Buckley et al. 1998; Crown and Spiller 1998; Miller et al. 2007). Most educators would agree that some students are more likely to favor cheating regardless of the context. Further, most would concur that some contexts make cheating much more attractive. However, little is known about how characteristics of individual students and the classroom interact, since rarely have both individual and contextual factors been studied together. This paper breaks new ground by proposing that students’ attitudes toward cheating will vary dependent upon how certain personality traits interact with classroom conditions. The paper presents an experimental study which assesses students’ attitudes toward cheating in four different classroom contexts. We measure three personality variables and investigate the effects of interactions of these personality traits and the classroom contexts on attitudes about cheating. Since research shows that attitudes predict intention, which in turn predicts behavior (Ajzen 1991; Beck and Ajzen 1991), studying how students feel about cheating is important to understanding the dynamics of actual cheating behavior. The attitudes we explore in this paper are students’ justification for cheating, their perceptions of the immorality and likelihood of cheating, and the degree to which the student blames the self or the teacher for cheating. The plan of this paper is to review the literature and present hypotheses, discussing personality as an individual antecedent of cheating attitudes, as well as attributes of the classroom and pedagogy as contextual antecedents. We propose interactions between individual and contextual antecedents and attitudes about cheating. We present our methods, results and discuss findings, making recommendations for practice and further research.

123

Predictors of attitudes about business school cheating

263

2 Literature review and hypotheses 2.1 The students who cheat A plethora of individual factors have been found that predict cheating attitudes and behavior, including personal, moral, and religious values (Allmon et al. 2000; Bernardi et al. 2004; Bloodgood et al. 2008; Bushway and Nash 1977; Jensen-Campbell and Graziano 2005; Mitchell 1997; Reynolds and Ceranic 2007; Whitley 1998), abilities and intelligence (Barnett and Dalton 1981; Burrus et al. 2007; Bushway and Nash 1977; Johnson and Gormly 1972; Nathanson et al. 2005), previous cheating and the tendency to “neutralize,” or justify cheating (Smith et al. 2004) and demographic factors (Allmon et al. 2000; Bushway and Nash 1977; Crown and Spiller 1998; Kelly and Worell 1978; McCabe and Trevino 1997; Salter et al. 2001; Taylor-Bianco and Deeter-Schmelz 2007; Whitley 1998). Personality is an individual variable that is frequently studied in cheating research. A number of positive personality traits, such as locus of control, learning orientation, emotional stability, and self esteem negatively predict cheating attitudes or behavior (Buckley et al. 1998; Coleman and Mahaffey 2000; Davis et al. 1995; Iyer and Eastman 2006; Johnson and Gormly 1972; Kelly and Worell 1978; Mitchell 1997; Monte 1982; Nathanson et al. 2005; Smith et al. 1972; Whitley 1998). In this study, we focus on three personality traits that we view as particularly facilitative in an academic environment: conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience.

2.2 Cheating and personality traits 2.2.1 Conscientiousness Both conscientiousness and emotional stability predict performance across many job categories (Barrick and Mount 1991; Hurtz and Donovan 2000; Truxillo and Bauer 2003). We suspect that students higher in these traits will perform better in coursework as well. First we predict that conscientious students, who are dependable, achievementoriented, persistent, responsible, and honest (Barrick and Mount 1991; Nathanson et al. 2005), will have more negative attitudes toward cheating. Conscientious students are effective regulators of their actions; through “effortful control” (Jensen-Campbell and Graziano 2005) they can restrain and regulate behavior, making them able to resist cheating (Jensen-Campbell and Graziano 2005). Able to stay organized and on schedule (Coleman and Mahaffey 2000), they practice study habits that prepare them to achieve desired results through hard work rather than cheating. Such conscientious behavior may lead students to feelings of academic self-efficacy, which has been found to predict negative perceptions of cheating (Elias 2009). Indeed, conscientiousness and related variables, such as responsibility and prudence, usually have shown negative relationships with cheating behavior and pro-cheating attitudes (Hetherington and Feldman 1964; Jensen-Campbell and Graziano 2005; Kisamore et al. 2007; Mitchell 1997), although this result is not entirely consistent (Nathanson et al. 2005).

123

264

N. E. Day et al.

2.2.2 Emotional stability Second, we predict that students higher in emotional stability will be more likely to view cheating negatively, partly because of an enhanced feeling of competence, and a sense of security (Barrick and Mount 1991). They tend to be more relaxed, unworried, and less likely to become strained in stressful situations such as tests or deadlines and thus they will be less likely to turn to cheating. Further, particularly in environments that communicate clear social norms against cheating, emotionally stable students will maintain positive social relationships through acting in accordance with those ethical norms (Jensen-Campbell and Graziano 2005). Some past scholarship supports this contention, finding that less emotionally stable students tend to cheat more than their more emotionally stable counterparts (Bushway and Nash 1977; Hetherington and Feldman 1964; Jackson et al. 2002; Kisamore et al. 2007), and that they are more satisfied with their academic experience (Trapmann et al. 2007). However, some research has found emotional stability unrelated to cheating (Hegarty and Sims 1978; Nathanson et al. 2005). 2.2.3 Openness to experience We predict that students high in openness to experience will feel more negative toward cheating. Openness to experience is related to academic success (Trapmann et al. 2007), as well as to having a learning orientation, which reflects a desire to understand concepts and master material (Davis et al. 1995; Huss et al. 1993). Openness to experience includes tendencies toward intellectualism, imagination, and broad-mindedness (Barrick and Mount 1991). Further, past research has found that students higher in learning orientation tend to cheat less (Davis et al. 1995; Huss et al. 1993). Consequently, we predict that those high in openness to experience will be less likely to profess attitudes favorable to cheating. We found only one study that examined openness to experience in relation to cheating behavior, but in it, no relationship was found (Nathanson et al. 2005). Hypothesis 1 Students high in conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience will report lower justification for cheating, higher perceived immorality of cheating, less likelihood of cheating, and less tendency to blame the teacher for cheating. 2.3 The situations that encourage cheating While it is easy to blame students for dishonest behavior, faculty may inadvertently create conditions that encourage cheating. Both the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991; Beck and Ajzen 1991) and social learning theory (Bandura 1977; Bandura 1986) predict that people learn appropriate behavior from social norms and environmental stimuli. Consequently, if a student’s social environment supports cheating through social norms, rewards, or other conditions, he or she will be more likely to learn that this behavior is acceptable, and thus behave dishonestly (Buckley et al. 1998; Trevino and Youngblood 1990). This is the mechanism behind school honor codes:

123

Predictors of attitudes about business school cheating

265

They seek to create a social environment that supports honorable behavior, and thus teach students that cheating is unacceptable; however, they seem to be successful only as long as they are carefully communicated and understood (Crown and Spiller 1998; Kidwell 2001; Kisamore et al. 2007; McCabe et al. 2006, 1996, 2001; Rezaee et al. 2001; Trevino and McCabe 1994; Whitley 1998). Thus, people are likely to act more ethically in an organization whose norms and values support ethical behavior. On the other hand, if the organizational culture supports cheating behavior, students will be more likely to consider dishonesty acceptable and view it as appropriate (Bloodgood et al. 2008; Buckley et al. 1998; Trevino and Youngblood 1990; Zopiatis and Krambia-Kapardis 2008). Further, if schools provide conditions that make it easier to cheat, such as large class sizes and little test monitoring, cheating behavior will increase (Hegarty and Sims 1978). A variety of contextual factors associated with cheating have been studied, including social norms and expectations, policies, the ease of cheating, and rewards for cheating. In this research, we are interested in two conditions over which the teacher may have specific control: the classroom’s mastery or performance culture, and the quality of the teacher’s pedagogy. We chose these two context variables because, in addition to being the focus of extensive past research, they are clearly under the control of individual faculty members. Unlike business school culture, and honor codes, instructors directly affect the classroom culture and the quality of their teaching.

2.4 Classroom culture Past research has shown that more cheating occurs when the classroom culture emphasizes goals that are performance-focused (based on extrinsic achievement such as winning a competition, getting a good grade, etc.) rather than mastery-focused (based on intrinsic achievement such as learning the material; Murdock et al. 2007, 2004; Nichols and Subramaniam 2001; Nichols and Berliner 2007). Indeed, it has been proposed that cheating across our society has increased in proportion to the degree to which large economic gains can be made by only a few individuals, increasing the stakes of “winning” (Callahan 2004). Classroom situations create social norms that emphasize whether grades or learning is most important. Instructors can contribute significantly to the development of such norms. For example, they may establish performance-based cultures by broadcasting the number of students receiving A’s on the most recent test, emphasizing the importance of good grades, encouraging grade competition between students, or using a forced-distribution in which only a limited number of students can receive A’s. Alternatively, instructors can establish mastery-based classroom cultures by recognizing students for their effort and improvement, allowing redrafts of assignments, and emphasizing the importance of learning rather than just working for a grade. When the classroom culture emphasizes performance rather than mastery, attitudes toward cheating will be more positively aligned with cheating behavior.

123

266

N. E. Day et al.

2.5 Quality of pedagogy When teachers exhibit better pedagogy (provide good organization, good preparation, and clear explanations), students are less likely to see cheating as acceptable (Murdock et al. 2007, 2004; Nichols and Berliner 2007). If students believe their instructor cares about learning and takes teaching seriously, they are less likely to “blow off” the experience, see learning as important, and are less likely to cheat. Murdock et al. (2004, 2007) see this phenomenon supported by attribution theory (Weiner 1995): When students perceive that their bad experience in a classroom is the fault of the teacher, they are more likely to attribute their poor performance to the teacher than to themselves (Murdock et al. 2004), thus justifying cheating to get ahead. Further, students may rationalize their cheating behavior and “neutralize” it by attributing its cause to something external, such as the teacher’s performance (LaBeff et al. 1990; Murdock et al. 2007, 2004). Therefore, when pedagogy is poor, students will have more positive attitudes toward cheating. Hypothesis 2 Students will perceive higher justification for cheating, lower immorality of cheating, more likelihood of cheating, and will blame the teacher more for the cheating when presented with a vignette representing a performance classroom culture as compared with one representing a mastery culture (2a); the same outcomes will be found when students are presented with a poor pedagogy vignette as compared with a good pedagogy vignette (2b).

2.6 Bad person, bad situation, or both? We have discussed the evidence that shows that cheating attitudes and behavior are attributable to both individual and contextual sources. Since individual differences exist within social contexts, an important question arises: Do these individual and contextual sources interact? If so, how? We now turn our focus to these questions. Few existing studies include both individual and contextual factors in the search for interactions (Johnson and Gormly 1972; Perry et al. 1990). In one such study, males were found to be more affected by the situation (timing of rewards) while females were more affected by self-perceptions (Johnson and Gormly 1972). In another, the situation interacted with Type A/B behavior patterns, in that Type A individuals cheated more in situations in which success was less attainable (Perry et al. 1990). Some studies that include both types of variables find the situation to be more predictive of cheating than characteristics about the individual (Buckley et al. 1998; McCabe and Trevino 1997; McCabe et al. 2001; Michaels and Miethe 1989; Mitchell 1997). But others find the opposite: Roth and McCabe (1995) found that individual students’ values predicted self-reported cheating better than faculty performance. Kisamore and her colleagues found that some personality variables were more important in predicting academic dishonesty than were the students’ perceptions of an integrity culture (Kisamore et al. 2007). Thus, there is no definitive evidence indicating that characteristics of the situation, or the person, are more important.

123

Predictors of attitudes about business school cheating

267

2.6.1 Conscientiousness We anticipate that personality will interact with the context factors of classroom culture and teacher pedagogy. First, we predict that conscientious students, since they are capable and determined, will rely on their own effort and thus be less affected by classroom culture or pedagogy. Because they are focused on achievement and have effective study skills, the classroom context will be less relevant to them. 2.6.2 Emotional stability We also anticipate interactions between emotional stability and the context factors. In light of their self-assurance, emotionally stable students will feel secure and thus have less need to “prove themselves”; whether the classroom is mastery- or performanceoriented, or whether the pedagogy is good or poor, will be less relevant. Their more stable approach to life will allow them to focus on the task at hand, rather than the situation. Indeed, a previous study found that the academic integrity of students who were less well- adjusted was affected more by academic culture than the integrity of those who were better adjusted (Kisamore et al. 2007). 2.6.3 Openness to experience Because students who are open to experience are motivated by learning, these students should be less affected by classroom context. They deeply enjoy the learning process, and will maintain high learning standards across classroom cultures and good or poor pedagogy. Hypothesis 3 Students high in conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience will be less affected by the context variables of class culture and pedagogy than students lower in these traits. 3 Methodology Our study uses an experimental manipulation to measure cheating attitudes while varying classroom culture and pedagogy. We chose methodology previously introduced by Murdock et al. (2004, 2007), utilizing classroom “vignettes” that presented four conditions: mastery culture/good pedagogy; mastery culture/poor pedagogy; performance culture/good pedagogy; performance culture/poor pedagogy. After obtaining approval from our university’s Institutional Review Board, which confirms that study participants gave their informed consent, undergraduate and graduate students were recruited from business school classrooms. They completed two internet surveys over two weeks (to minimize common method variance). Their confidentiality was ensured by asking them to create a personal, numerical code to use on both questionnaires. The first survey included personality measures (using Oliver P. John’s 44-item Big Five Inventory); the second randomly presented one of four vignettes (Attachment A, from Murdock et al. 2007, 2004) describing classroom culture (mastery vs. performance) and pedagogy (good vs. poor).

123

268

N. E. Day et al.

3.1 Dependent measures The second survey also included the dependent variables (also from Murdock et al. 2007, 2004): • • • •

Justification of cheating (e.g. “I understand why a student may cheat in Dr. James’ class). Immorality of cheating; higher scores indicate cheating is less moral (e.g. “It is wrong to cheat on exams in Dr. James’ class”). Likelihood of cheating “On a scale of 1–7, how likely are students in Dr. James’ class to cheat on an exam?”; “Assuming there are 20 students in Dr. James’ class, how many do you think will try to cheat on her exams?” Blaming the student or the teacher was measured by two items each: • Blaming the student: “If a student cheated on Dr. James’ exam, would you blame him or her?”; “If a student cheated in Dr. James’ class, would it be the student’s fault?” • Blaming the teacher: “If a student cheated on an exam in Dr. James’ class, would you blame Dr. James?” and “If a student in Dr. James’ class cheated on an exam, would it be Dr. James’ fault?”

Items were averaged to form the scales, which showed acceptable reliabilities (Table 1). 3.2 Manipulation check Manipulation checks were performed to ensure that the vignettes were effective in creating the conditions (Murdock et al. 2004, 2007). Three items assessed if students saw the teacher as good or poor (e.g. “Dr. James usually gives good instruction.”; α = 0.92); three items assessed if the classroom was seen as encouraging learning or mastery (e.g. “In Dr. James’ class, learning and improvement are more important than always being right.”; α = 0.81), and if the classroom was seen as encouraging grades or performance (e.g. “In Dr. James’ class, it is very important to demonstrate your intelligence.”; α = 0.86). One-way analyses of variance confirmed that the vignettes were effective in establishing the classroom culture and pedagogy conditions. We also verified that assignment to vignettes was truly random by conducting analyses of variance on the personality dimensions and age across conditions, and by calculating chi squares between gender and graduate/undergraduate status across conditions. No significant differences were found, establishing random assignment. 4 Results 4.1 Main effects Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for all variables. Hypothesis 1 investigates main effects of personality dimensions on cheating attitudes. Multivariate regression analysis confirmed the predictions only for conscientiousness (W ilks Lambda() = 0.91, F = 3.08, p = 0.011; Table 2). Students higher in conscientiousness are less

123

Emotional stability

Openness to experience

Justification of cheating

Immorality of cheating

Likelihood of cheating

Blaming: teacher is at fault

Blaming: student is at fault

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Correlations 0.13 to 0.16: p < 0.10

3

2

Pedagogy: good versus poor teaching Classroom culture: mastery versus performance Conscientiousness

1

4.22

1.88

2.80

4.56

2.09

3.56

2.69

4.04

NA

NA

Mean

0.91

0.98

1.14

0.68

0.93

0.58

0.68

0.54

NA

NA

Std. Dev.

0.74

0.85

0.78

0.66

0.75

0.78

0.79

0.79

NA

NA

α

0.07 −0.07

0.36 −0.31

0.22

−0.08

−0.16 0.36

0.26

0.27

0.04

0.00

0.04

−0.14

0.02

0.13

−0.22 0.16

−0.02

0.02

−0.23 0.24

1.00 −0.10

−0.03

1.00

4

−0.35

0.01 −0.01

0.06

−0.01

3

1.00

2

0.04

1.00

1

Correlations 0.16 to 0.22: p < 0.05 Correlations > 0.27 : p < 0.001

174

175

171

175

175

175

175

175

175

175

N

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations

0.03

−0.05

−0.10

0.01

−0.05

1.00

5

−0.66

0.60

0.57

−0.53

1.00

6

0.59

−0.47

−0.29

1.00

7

−0.45

0.46

1.00

8

−0.62

1.00

9

Predictors of attitudes about business school cheating 269

123

270

N. E. Day et al.

Table 2 Multivariate regression—Hypothesis 1

Justification of cheating

Immorality of cheating

Likelihood of cheating

Intercept

Teacher is at fault

Std. Error

t

p

4.512

0.878

5.137

0.000

Conscientiousness

−0.436

0.138

−3.153

0.002

Emotional stability

−0.103

0.111

−0.933

0.352

Openness

−0.109

0.121

−0.899

0.370

Intercept

2.92

0.642

4.537

0.000

Conscientiousness

0.333

0.101

3.293

0.001

Emotional stability

0.073

0.081

0.907

0.366

Openness

0.031

0.089

0.350

0.727

5.044

1.077

4.684

0.000

Conscientiousness

Intercept

−0.441

0.169

−2.605

0.010

Emotional stability

0.083

0.136

0.609

0.543

−0.191

0.149

−1.286

0.200

Intercept

2.257

0.873

2.586

0.011

Conscientiousness

0.333

0.137

2.422

0.017

Emotional stability

0.130

0.110

1.188

0.237

Openness

0.078

0.121

0.648

0.518

Openness Student is at fault

B

3.357

0.940

3.571

0.000

Conscientiousness

Intercept

−0.261

0.148

−1.764

0.080

Emotional stability

−0.021

0.118

−0.181

0.857

Openness

−0.101

0.130

−0.776

0.439

likely to justify cheating, more likely to see it as immoral, less likely to believe that cheating will occur, and more likely to blame the student (although they are only marginally less likely to blame the teacher, F = 3.11, p = 0.080). As predicted, we found main effects for classroom context variables of mastery versus performance culture and good versus poor pedagogy on cheating attitudes. Mirroring previous analytical procedures (Murdock et al. 2004, 2007), Hypotheses 2a and 2b were tested with multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA). The two context variables created a 2 × 2 design: mastery culture/good pedagogy (N = 44); mastery culture/poor pedagogy (N = 40); performance culture/good pedagogy (N = 44); performance culture/poor pedagogy (N = 47). Analyses of blame for cheating utilized repeated measures analysis of variance (since blame shifts between teacher and student; Murdock et al. 2007). Students in mastery classrooms are less likely to see cheating as justified and less likely to believe cheating will occur, although there are no differences for immorality of cheating or blaming the student or teacher (Table 3;  = 0.92, F = 5.01, p = 0.002). Students assigned to the good pedagogy condition are also less favorable toward cheating ( = 0.86, F = 8.81, p < 0.000); they see cheating as less justified, more immoral, less likely, and they blamed the student more for cheating. Thus, Hypotheses 2a and 2b are partially confirmed for classroom culture conditions and fully confirmed for pedagogy conditions. Hypothesis 3 predicts interactions between personality characteristics and context conditions. In order to use MANOVA and repeated measures ANOVA (for blame

123

Predictors of attitudes about business school cheating

271

Table 3 Analysis of variance—Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2a

Classroom culture Mastery

Performance

Means (and SD)

F

p

Likelihood of cheating

2.54 (1.07)

3.04 (1.16)

8.47

0.003

Justification of cheating

1.83 (0.85)

2.32 (0.94)

12.73

0.000

Immorality of cheating

4.62 (0.64)

4.52 (0.71)

1.06

0.305

1.07

0.303

Blaming (within-subjects, repeated measures ANOVA) Blame teacher

1.80 (0.94)

1.96 (1.01)

Blame student

4.27 (0.86)

4.17 (0.95)

Hypothesis 2b

Pedagogy Good

Poor

Means (and SD)

F

p

Likelihood of cheating

2.40 (0.94)

3.21 (0.19)

24.92

0.000

Justification of cheating

1.83 (0.91)

2.34 (0.89)

13.83

0.000

Immorality of cheating

4.68 (0.63)

4.46 (0.71)

4.62

0.033

Blaming teacher

1.53 (0.86)

2.24 (0.96)

27.56

0.000

Blaming student

4.49 (0.75)

3.95 (0.98)

Blaming (within-subjects, repeated measures ANOVA)

for cheating), all three personality variables were divided based on quartile splits to create three four-level categorical variables. Although all interactions were tested, in the interest of space, only those analyses with statistically significant results at the p < 0.05 level or better are presented in Table 4. 4.2 Context, conscientiousness, and cheating perceptions We predicted that students high in conscientiousness will be less affected by context variables. Although the full equation was not significant for classroom culture and conscientiousness ( = 0.92, F = 1.45, p = 0.164), analyses show a significant interaction for likelihood of cheating. However, the findings are contrary to our predictions. While we expected that conscientious students would be less affected by classroom culture, they actually see cheating as more likely in a performance culture (Table 4). As Fig. 1 shows, however, the effect is not large. No significant results were found for justification, immorality, or blame for cheating. The MANOVA testing pedagogy and conscientiousness was insignificant for justification, immortality, and likelihood of cheating ( = 0.94, F = 1.21, p = 0.290), and there were no significant interactions. While all respondents placed more blame on the student than the teacher in both pedagogy conditions, an interaction of conscientiousness and pedagogy on blaming for cheating was found ( = 0.93, F = 4.42,

123

272

N. E. Day et al.

Table 4 Significant interaction effects for Hypothesis 3 Source

Dependent variable

df

Likelihood of cheating

1

Mean square

F

Sig.

Conscientiousness Class culture (mastery vs. performance)

Conscientiousness

Class culture × conscientiousness

Pedagogy (Good vs. Poor)

Conscientiousness

Pedagogy × conscientiousness

6.69

5.83

0.017

Justification of cheating

1

7.81

10.13

0.002

Immorality of cheating

1

0.20

0.46

0.500

Likelihood of cheating

3

5.22

4.54

0.004

Justification of cheating

3

2.81

3.65

0.014

Immorality of cheating

3

1.33

3.03

0.031

Likelihood of cheating

3

3.11

2.71

0.047

Justification of cheating

3

0.93

1.21

0.307

Immorality of cheating

3

0.97

2.21

0.089

Likelihood of cheating

1

24.93

22.61

0.000

Justification of cheating

1

8.99

11.91

0.001

Immorality of cheating

1

1.68

3.91

0.050

Likelihood of cheating

3

4.23

3.84

0.011

Justification of cheating

3

2.86

3.78

0.012

Immorality of cheating

3

1.43

3.34

0.021

Likelihood of cheating

3

0.32

0.29

0.834

Justification of cheating

3

1.70

2.25

0.085

Immorality of cheating

3

1.05

2.45

0.066

Pedagogy (good vs. poor)

Blaming Student or teacher

1

34.87

31.05

0.000

Conscientiousness

Blaming student or teacher

1

4.77

4.25

0.006

Pedagogy × conscientiousness

Blaming student or teacher

3

4.97

4.42

0.005

Likelihood of cheating

1

26.26

22.87

0.000

Justification of cheating

1

11.45

14.28

0.000

Immorality of cheating

1

1.20

2.72

0.101

Likelihood of cheating

3

0.35

0.30

0.825

Justification of cheating

3

0.58

0.73

0.536 0.389

Emotional stability Pedagogy (good vs. poor)

Emotional stability

Emotional stability × pedagogy

Immorality of cheating

3

0.45

1.01

Likelihood of cheating

3

1.59

1.39

0.249

Justification of cheating

3

1.10

1.37

0.254

Immorality of cheating

3

1.26

2.87

0.038

Likelihood of cheating

1

9.16

7.32

0.008

Openness to experience Class culture (mastery vs. performance)

Openness to experience

123

Justification of cheating

1

8.62

10.88

0.001

Immorality of cheating

1

0.43

0.90

0.345

Likelihood of cheating

3

0.66

0.53

0.664

Justification of cheating

3

0.20

0.26

0.857

Immorality of cheating

3

0.267

0.564

0.639

Predictors of attitudes about business school cheating

273

Table 4 continued Source

Dependent variable

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Openness to experience × class culture

Likelihood of cheating

3

1.68

Justification of cheating

3

2.12

2.68

0.049

Immorality of cheating

3

0.10

0.20

0.895

1.34

0.262

Fig. 1 Interaction of conscientiousness and classroom culture on likelihood of cheating ( p < 0.05)

p = 0.005): Those low in conscientiousness, as predicted, show a greater tendency to blame the teacher when pedagogy is poor (Fig. 2); those high in conscientiousness assign blame more equally across pedagogy levels (Fig. 2). 4.3 Context, emotional stability, and cheating perceptions The overall equation analyzing classroom culture and emotional stability with likelihood, justification, and immorality of cheating was not significant ( = 0.97, F = 0.62, p = 0.779. However, interactions were found with immorality of cheating ( = 0.86, F = 2.76, p = 0.004). As Fig. 3 illustrates, highly emotionally stable students are more likely to see cheating as immoral when the teacher has good pedagogy, but less emotionally stable individuals do not differ in judgments of morality regardless of pedagogy. Again, this finding is contrary to our predictions, which assumed that emotionally stable people would be less affected by pedagogy. No overall interaction was found between either context variable and emotional stability when students assigned blame for cheating (for classroom culture,  = 0.99, F = 0.38, p = 0.769; for pedagogy,  = 0.99, F = 0.16, p = 0.926). 4.4 Context, openness to experience, and cheating perceptions Although no significant interactions were found in the full equation ( = 0.93, F = 1.42, p = 0.179), an interaction exists between classroom culture and openness to experience for justification of cheating. As predicted, students who are more open

123

274

N. E. Day et al.

Fig. 2 Interaction of conscientiousness and pedagogy on blame for cheating ( p < 0.01)

Fig. 3 Interaction of emotional stability and pedagogy on immorality of cheating ( p < 0.05)

to experience tend to be less affected by classroom culture when justifying cheating, while those low in openness to experience tend to justify cheating more in a classroom with a performance culture, and less in a classroom with a mastery culture (Fig. 4). No interaction was found in the full equation for pedagogy and openness to experience ( = 0.92, F = 1.47, p = 0.159), and the interaction was not significant. There were no significant interactions between the context variables, openness to experience, and blaming (for classroom culture,  = 0.98, F = 1.02, p = 0.384; for pedagogy,  = 0.98, F = 1.02, p = 0.386).

123

Predictors of attitudes about business school cheating

275

Fig. 4 Interaction of openness to experience and class culture on justification of cheating ( p < 0.05)

5 Discussion Confirming previous research, we find that conscientiousness directly predicts cheating attitudes, although emotional stability and openness to experience do not. Students higher in conscientiousness are less likely to justify cheating, more likely to see it as immoral, and less likely to believe it will occur, than are those who are lower in conscientiousness. They are also more likely to blame students, rather than the teacher, for cheating. Our findings also show that the classroom context predicts cheating attitudes. Business students in classrooms with mastery cultures, where learning is the predominate goal, are less likely to justify cheating or see it as more likely, than those in performance cultures where the grade is all-important. Students in classrooms with good rather than poor pedagogy are less likely to justify cheating, less likely to believe it is probable, and more likely to consider it immoral; they also assign more blame for cheating to the student. These findings are similar to those found in previous studies. When investigating whether these personality traits interact with classroom context, some findings are consistent with our predictions. Conscientious students show less favorable attitudes toward cheating: They are less likely to blame the teacher, even when pedagogy is poor. Students higher in openness to experience are less likely to see cheating as justified, regardless of the classroom culture. But some interactions are contrary to our predictions. Emotionally stable students’ perceptions of immorality of cheating are more affected by pedagogy. We are intrigued by this result. Emotionally stable people are less likely to be anxious and respond to stressors in the environment; unlike their “neurotic” counterparts (those low in emotional stability), they are able to delay gratification and better able to control urges (Matthews and Deary 1998). They may be particularly impatient with cheating when the environment offers “no excuses,” in this case, when teacher pedagogy is good, and thus may feel that cheating in such a class is particularly immoral. Also contrary to predictions, we find that conscientious students believe that cheating is more likely in performance-culture classrooms. We suspect that since the scale asks about the likelihood that other students will cheat (“. . .how likely are students in Dr. James’ class to cheat. . .?”), perhaps these conscientious students are not reporting their own cheating propensity, but rather predicting what others would do. Their

123

276

N. E. Day et al.

conscientiousness may make them particularly aware of the social environment and able to accurately predict others’ responses. So rather than describing their own intentions to cheat, perhaps they are reporting what others are most likely to do. Thus, when we as faculty consider whether cheating is the “fault” of the student or the classroom, the answer is, probably both. Our results show that cheating is viewed more negatively, first, among students who are high in conscientiousness, and second, when the classroom has a mastery culture and good pedagogy. As our results indicate, only a few interactions are found in which personality “overrides” context. Thus, our own classroom cultures and the quality of our teaching may be critically important in encouraging or deterring cheating. But won’t some students cheat, no matter the classroom culture or quality of teaching? Perhaps other personality measures may show greater resiliency across context factors than the three chosen for this study. Integrity, honesty, and moral values are prime examples of personality constructs that would be appropriate for continuing this investigation.

5.1 Implications for teaching in business schools While complaining about “dishonest students” may be satisfying, faculty have control over two important classroom dynamics that are related to attitudes toward cheating. Creating a learning-oriented, mastery-based classroom culture, and ensuring that we are well-organized, prepared, and communicate clear expectations, may decrease students’ propensity to cheat. Ongoing skill development among both experienced and new teachers, supported by faculty development resources and teaching incentives, should be an important focus for business school leadership in ensuring high quality pedagogy. Developing a mastery culture might include, for example, refraining from posting summary grades, the total number of A’s, B’s, etc. Although potentially at odds with administrative policy, minimizing competition among students and eliminating grading curves could create a mastery-focused classroom. Broadening methods by which students are evaluated may encourage a mastery culture: assessing students on learning improvements, evaluating incremental completion of assignments, evaluating the process by which they derive conclusions, encouraging team-based learning, allowing post-assignment rewrites, and eliciting discussions. Conscientious students are least likely to have positive attitudes toward cheating. This suggests that business schools should select students who are conscientious, specifically including conscientiousness as a factor in the screening process. However, given the relatively high level of conscientiousness in our sample (mean = 4.04 on a five-point scale), the business school admissions process may already do a good job of choosing conscientious students. Further, schools might help students develop skills associated with conscientiousness. Although personality traits are usually considered to be stable and enduring, training students in time management or organizational skills may enhance conscientious behaviors. Our findings suggest that in addition to conscientiousness, students who are open to experience may support school integrity norms. Certainly good business school

123

Predictors of attitudes about business school cheating

277

selection processes include some indirect screening for this through considering past experiences and academic transcripts. Putting more emphasis on selecting students who are open to experience may result in choosing those less likely to cheat. In summary, to minimize cheating, business schools should focus on three conditions simultaneously—encouraging good pedagogy, supporting mastery classroom cultures, and selecting and developing conscientious students who are open to experience. Such changes may have a ratcheting effect in reducing cheating behavior in business school classrooms. These recommendations are aligned with those of Caldwell (2010) and McCabe (2005), who avow that business schools must take affirmative, systematic action to engage students, faculty, and the culture of the school to create and maintain an ethical organization. Both individuals and the organization must work together to create and uphold high standards of integrity. 5.2 Limitations of research While we believe that these results shed light on how and when attitudes about cheating may form, some limitations in our research exist. First, the range of conscientiousness in this sample is somewhat restricted, which may have attenuated our findings. We expect that this level of conscientiousness may accurately reflect most business school students, although if this were true, business students would, overall, be less likely to cheat, which, as noted above, research has not supported. Second, although our sample size was adequate, a larger sample may strengthen results. Third, we have studied students in only one institution, and cheating attitudes and behaviors are affected by organizational contexts. Fourth, our study is based on perceptions of “paper people,” and whether or not students’ reactions to these vignettes correspond to how they themselves would actually feel and behave in real classrooms is not known (Murphy et al. 1986; Woehr and Lance 1991). Another limitation of our study is that our dependent variables are attitudes about cheating, rather than cheating behavior itself. While research designs studying actual cheating may provide more direct evidence about behavior, they are more difficult. However, past theory and research support that attitudes are predictive of behavior (e.g. Ajzen 1991), and that attitudes about dishonesty or moral behavior are correlated with actual cheating (Bernardi et al. 2004; West et al. 2004). 5.3 Directions for future research As mentioned above, expanding the range of personality and other individual difference measures would advance our understanding of the individual and the context in predicting cheating. Other personality constructs, such as locus of control and selfefficacy, may show stronger results when in interaction with context variables. Further research should investigate other context variables that may predict cheating. For example, business students’ personalities may reflect the school’s disciplinary strengths (Lounsbury et al. 2009); if this is true, curricula emphasizing ethical attitudes and behavior may allow business schools to attract and/or develop personality traits associated with integrity.

123

278

N. E. Day et al.

An important corollary to this research would be to investigate comparable situations in the business world that encourage dishonest behavior. In other words, what are the “context variables” in business that influence whether our alumni view cheating and other unethical behaviors as more likely to occur? Do certain management styles, reward systems, or goal-setting philosophies create a context that predict business professionals’ propensity to “cheat”? Or, do different aspects of the business person’s personality override the context? Further, will our cheating students carry their bad behavior into the work world (Coleman and Mahaffey 2000; Grimes 2004; Lawson 2004; Sims 1993)? Applying the frameworks of individual and contextual factors to dishonesty in the world of business could be of obvious benefit. Appendix Vignettes were included in each of the four forms of the second questionnaire. Each participant was randomly assigned one of the four vignettes. Mastery goal structure and high pedagogical competence (Vignette 1) Dr. James has been teaching Financial Management at ABC University for 7 years. Her teaching philosophy clearly recognizes students for “effort and improvement.” Dr. James allows students to resubmit their assignments in order to master the concepts they do not understand. She recognizes students for trying in class, even if they are wrong. Dr. James does not tell her students how many people got A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s and F’s on exams because she believes that students should focus on their own learning and progress. As an instructor, Dr. James is very organized and comes to class well prepared to teach. She is usually very clear in her presentation and is adept at explaining difficult concepts. When students ask her questions in class, they usually find that her answers are very understandable. Students often remark how much they learn from her. Mastery goal structure and low pedagogical competence (Vignette 2) Dr. James has been teaching Financial Management at ABC University for 7 years. Her teaching philosophy clearly recognizes students for “effort and improvement.” Dr. James allows students to resubmit their assignments in order to master the concepts they do not understand. She recognizes students for trying in class, even if they are wrong. Dr. James does not tell her students how many people got A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s and F’s on exams because she believes that students should focus on their own learning and progress. As an instructor, Dr. James is often disorganized and comes to class ill prepared to teach. She is usually unclear in her presentation and is not adept at explaining difficult concepts. When students ask her questions in class, they usually find that her answers do not help them to understand things any better. Students often remark how little they learn from her.

123

Predictors of attitudes about business school cheating

279

Performance goal structure and high pedagogical competence (Vignette 3) Dr. James has been teaching Financial Management at ABC University for 7 years. Her teaching philosophy clearly recognizes students for “being right.” Dr. James likes to call on the students who know the correct answers and she usually includes a few really challenging problems on assignments in order to identify students with high aptitude. After exams, Dr. James always announces how many people got A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s and F’s so students can see how they compare to others in the class. As an instructor, Dr. James is very organized and comes to class well prepared to teach. She is usually very clear in her presentation and is adept at explaining difficult concepts. When students ask her questions in class, they usually find that her answers are very understandable. Students often remark how much they learn from her. Performance goal structure and low pedagogical competence (Vignette 4) Dr. James has been teaching Financial Management at ABC University for 7 years. Her teaching philosophy clearly recognizes students for “being right.” Dr. James likes to call on the students who know the correct answers and she usually includes a few really challenging problems on assignments in order to identify students with high aptitude. After exams, Dr. James always announces how many people got A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s and F’s so students can see how they compare to others in the class. As an instructor, Dr. James is often disorganized and comes to class ill prepared to teach. She is usually unclear in her presentation and is not adept at explaining difficult concepts. When students ask her questions in class, they usually find that her answers do not help them to understand things any better. Students often remark how little they learn from her. References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. Allmon, D. E., Page, D., & Roberts, R. (2000). Determinants of perceptions of cheating: Ethical orientation, personality, and demographics. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(4.2), 411–422. Anderman, E. M. (2007). The effects of personal, classroom, and school goal structures on academic cheating. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 87–106). San Diego: Elsevier Inc. Anderman, E. M., Freeman, T. M., & Muelller, C. E. (2007). The “social” side of social context: Interpersonal and affiliative dimensions of students’ experiences and academic dishonesty. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 203–228). San Diego: Elsevier Inc. Anderman, E. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2007). The psychology of academic cheating. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 1–8). San Diego: Elsevier Inc. Angell, L. R. (2006). The relationship of impulsiveness, personal efficacy, and academic motivation to college cheating. College Student Journal, 40(1), 118–131. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs: NJ Prentice-Hall. Barnett, D. C., & Dalton, J. C. (1981). Why college students cheat. Journal of College Student Personnel, 22, 545–551. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

123

280

N. E. Day et al.

Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301. Bernardi, R. A., Metzger, R. L., Bruno, R. G. S., Hoogkamp, M. A. W., Reyes, L. E., & Barnaby, G. H. (2004). Examining the decision process of students’ cheating behavior: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), 397–414. Bloodgood, J. M., Turnley, W. J., & Mudrack, P. (2008). The influences of ethics instruction, religiosity, and intelligence on cheating behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 557–571. Brown, B. S., & McInerney, M. (2008). Changes in academic dishonesty among business students in the United States, 1999–2006. International Journal of Management, 25(3), 621–633. Buckley, M. R., Wiese, D. S., & Harvey, M. G. (1998). An investigation into the dimensions of unethical behavior. Journal of Education for Business, 73(5), 284–290. Burrus, R. T., McGoldrick, K., & Schuhmann, P. W. (2007). Self-reports of student cheating: Does a definition of cheating matter?. Research in Economic Education, 38(1), 3–16. Burton, B. K., & Near, J. P. (1995). Estimating the incidence of wrongdoing and whistle-blowing: Results of a study using randomized response technique. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(1), 14–30. Bushway, A., & Nash, W. R. (1977). School cheating behavior. Review of Educational Research, 47(4), 623– 632. Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead. Orlando: Harcourt Inc. Caldwell, C. (2010). A ten-step model for academic integrity: A positive approach for business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 1–13. Coleman, N., & Mahaffey, T. (2000). Business student ethics: Selected predictors of attitudes toward cheating. Teaching Business Ethics, 4, 121–136. Crown, D., & Spiller, M. S. (1998). Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: A review of empirical research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 683–700. Davis, S., Pierce, M. C., Yandell, L. R., Arnow, P. S., & Loree, A. (1995). Cheating in college and the type a personality: A reevaluation. College Student Journal, 29(4), 493–497. Elias, R. Z. (2009). The impact of anti-intellectualism attitudes and academic self-efficacy on business students’ perceptions of cheating. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 199–209. Grimes, P. W. (2004). Dishonesty in academics and business: A cross-cultural evaluation of students’ attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(3), 273–290. Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P. J. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 451–457. Hetherington, E. M., & Feldman, S. E. (1964). College cheating as a function of subject and situational variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(4), 212–218. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 869–879. Huss, M. T., Curnyn, J. P., Roberts, S. L., Davis, S. F., Yandell, L. R., & Giordano, P. (1993). Hard driven but not dishonest: Cheating and the type a personality. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31(5), 429–430. Iyer, R., & Eastman, J. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty: Are business students different from other college students?. Journal of Education for Business, 82(2), 101–110. Jackson, C. J., Furnham, A., Levine, S. Z., & Burr, N. (2002). Predictors of cheating behavior at a university: A lesson from the psychology of work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(5), 1031–1046. Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2005). The two faces of temptation: Differing motives for self-control. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51(3), 287–314. Johnson, C. D., & Gormly, J. (1972). Academic cheating: The contribution of sex, personality, and situational variables. Developmental Psychology, 6(2), 320–325. Kelly, J. A., & Worell, L. (1978). Personality characteristics, parent behaviors, and sex of subject in relation to cheating. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 179–188. Kidwell, L. A. (2001). Student honor codes as a tool for teaching professional ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(1/2), 45–49. Kisamore, J. L., Stone, T. H., & Jawahar, I. M. (2007). Academic integrity: The relationship between individual and situational factors on misconduct contemplations. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 381– 394. Klein, H. A., Levenburg, N. M., McKendall, M., & Mothersell, W. (2006). Cheating during the college years: How do business school students compare?. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 197–206.

123

Predictors of attitudes about business school cheating

281

LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E., Haines, V. J., & Dickhoff, G. M. (1990). Situational ethics and college student cheating. Social Inquiry, 60, 190–198. Lawson, R. A. (2004). Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the “real world”?. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 189–199. Lomax, S. (2008). Whatever happened to America’s ethical values?. Business and Economic Review, 55(1), 15–18. Lounsbury, J. W., Smith, R. M., Levy, J. J., Leong, F. T., & Gibson, L. W. (2009). Personality characteristics of business majors as defined by the big five and narrow personality traits. Journal of Education for Business, 84(4), 200–205. Matthews, G., & Deary, I. J. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McCabe, D. L. (2005). It takes a village: Academic dishonesty and educational opportunity. Liberal Education, 91(3), 26–31. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(3), 294–305. McCabe, D. L., Dukerich, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. (1991). Context, values and moral dilemmas: Comparing the choices of business and law school students. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(12), 951–960. McCabe, D. L., Dukerich, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. (1994). The effects of professional education on values and the resolution of ethical dilemmas: Business school vs. law school students. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(9), 693–700. McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379–396. McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1996). The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(4), 461–476. McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 219–232. Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Apply theories of deviance to academic cheating. Social Science Quarterly, 70(4), 870–885. Miller, A. D., Murdock, T. B., Anderman, E. M., & Poindexter, A. L. (2007). Who are all these cheaters? Characteristics of academically dishonest students. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 9–32). San Diego: Elsevier Inc. Mitchell, K. E. (1997). The relationship of personality traits and coworker norms to performance and cheating. Unpublished dissertation. Albany, NY: State University of New York at Albany. Molnar, K. K., Kletke, M. G., & Chongwatpol, J. (2008). Ethics vs. IT ethics: Do undergraduate students perceive a difference?. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 657–671. Monte, C. F. (1982). Personal and situational determinants of cheating: A test of Atkinsons’ achievement motivation theory. Unpublished dissertation. New York: St. John’s University. Murdock, T. B., Miller, A., & Kohlhardt, J. (2004). Effects of classroom context variables on high school students’ judgments of the acceptability and likelihood of cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 765–777. Murdock, T. B., Miller, A., & Goetzinger, A. (2007). Effects of classroom context on university students’ judgments about cheating: Mediating and moderating processes. Journal of Social Psychology of Education, 10(2), 141–169. Murphy, K. R., Herr, B. M., Lockhart, M. C., & Maguire, E. (1986). Evaluating the performance of paper people. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 654–661. Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2005). Predictors of a behavioral measure of scholastic cheating: Personality and competence but not demographics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 97–123. Nichols, D., & Subramaniam, C. (2001). Executive compensation: Excessive or equitable?. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4), 339–351. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). The pressure to cheat in a high-stakes testing environment. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 289–312). San Diego: Elsevier Inc. Perry, A. R., Kane, K. M., Bernesser, K. J., & Spicker, P. T. (1990). Type A behavior, competitive achievement-striving, and cheating among college students. Psychological Reports, 66(2), 459–465. Premeaux, S. R. (2005). Undergraduate student perceptions regarding cheating: Tier 1 versus tier 2 AACSB accredited business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(4), 407–418.

123

282

N. E. Day et al.

Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1610–1624. Rezaee, Z., Elmore, R. C., & Szendi, J. Z. (2001). Ethical behavior in higher educational institutions: The role of the code of conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(2.2), 171–183. Roth, N. L., & McCabe, D. L. (1995). Communication strategies for addressing academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development, 36(6), 531–541. Salter, S. B., Guffey, D. M., & McMillan, J. J. (2001). Truth, consequences, and culture: A comparative examination of cheating and attitudes about cheating among US and UK students. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(1.1), 37–50. Sims, R. L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), 207–211. Smith, C. P., Ryan, E. R., & Diggins, D. R. (1972). Moral decision making: Cheating on examinations. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 640–660. Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., & Easterling, D. (2004). An examination of cheating and its antecedents among marketing and management majors. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 63–80. Smyth, M. L., & Davis, J. R. (2004). Perceptions of dishonesty among two-year college students: Academic versus business situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(1), 63–73. Taylor-Bianco, A., & Deeter-Schmelz, D. (2007). An exploration of gender and cultural differences in MBA students’ cheating behavior: Implications for the classroom. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 18(4), 81. Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J.-O. W., & Schuler, H. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the big five and academic success. Journal of Psychology, 215, 132–151. Trevino, L. K., & McCabe, D. L. (1994). Meta-learning about business ethics: Building honorable business school environments. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(6), 405–416. Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 378–385. Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N. (2003). Big five personality and applicant reactions: A field study. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Seattle. Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford Press. West, T., Ravenscroft, S., & Shrader, C. (2004). Cheating and moral judgment in the college classroom: A natural experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 173–183. Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 235–274. Woehr, D. J., & Lance, C. E. (1991). Paper people versus direct observation: An empirical examination of laboratory methodologies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(5), 387–397. Zopiatis, A. A., & Krambia-Kapardis, M. (2008). Ethical behavior of tertiary education students in Cyprus. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(3), 647–663.

Author Biographies Nancy E. Day is associate professor in human resources and organizational behavior at the H.W. Bloch School of Management at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Her research focuses primarily on compensation and diversity. Doranne Hudson is an Executive-in-Residence at The H.W. Bloch School of Management at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Her research and teaching interests include organizational influence, leader self-awareness and development, networks and social capital, leading change, and leader values. Pamela Roffol Dobies is an instructor at the H.W. Bloch School of Management at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Her research is focused on the study of the use of virtual collaboration within multidisciplinary teams, particularly in a hospital setting; virtual collaboration within transnational teams; virtual leadership; and ethical issues in virtual collaboration. Robert Waris is an instructor at the H.W. Bloch School of Management at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. In addition to teaching and publishing, Dr. Waris has consulted with various regional organizations.

123