See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283661661

Virtues of honesty in a higher education institution

Article · January 2014

CITATION READS

1 1,210

1 author:

Adrian Mernilo Tamayo

University of Mindanao
44 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biodiversity research and conservation in Davao City Philippines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrian Mernilo Tamayo on 11 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

American Journal of Social Sciences
2014; 2(1): 1-6
Published online January 10, 2014 (http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/ajss)

Virtues of honesty in a higher education

institution
Adrian M. Tamayo
Research and Publication Center, University of Mindanao, Davao City, Philippines

Email address
dagnytamayo@yahoo.com

To cite this article

Adrian M. Tamayo. Virtues of Honesty in a Higher Education Institution. American Journal of Social Sciences.
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014, pp. 1-6.

Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the degree of honesty practiced by students at home and when they are at school,
how the students perceived professors’ practice of honesty, and how do the students consider the importance of honesty
in the future. The paper also simulated the likelihood of practicing honesty given their socio-demographic
characteristics. A total of 228 students participated in the study. A 5-point Likert type questionnaire was used to measure
practice of honesty. Non-parametric test was employed to establish relationship of honesty with the conditions of the
respondents; a relationship was revealed between the academic achievers and dishonesty; students are more honest in
home than in school; professors are perceived to be less honest except among the first year students. It is good to note
that the respondents believed in the importance of honesty as investment in the future. Ordinal regression estimation
revealed that females are likely to observe high degree of honesty than males. Also, it was found that honesty is eroding
as student progress through the education ladder, though honesty is evident among the first year and second year
students.
Keywords
Practice of Honesty, Ordinal Regression, Students

1. Introduction
In 2009, the Transparency International (TI) released the
Global Corruption Barometer which contained the public
opinion on corruption and the people’s experiences of
bribery. Surprisingly, educational institutions were found to
be prone to corrupt activities.
Academic honesty must be given the highest
extraordinary attention because failure is also a failure of
the institutions. The Whitney and Keith-Spiegel principle
described “a failure to deal adequately with academic
dishonesty and educate students about the consequences of
the behavior constitutes a disservice not only to the
academic community but to the society in general.” The
above statement is an indicator of how far and wide
dishonesty has been, and how an academic institution must
view the failure of honesty in practice. In Auburn
University, committing academic dishonesty would mean
disgracing the whole academic community; all instructors
would be pursuing all the cases just to restore the academic
sterility (Academic Honesty Policy of Auburn University,
2006). Dishonesty is also evaluated within the realm of
relational development and conflict to betrayal (Morris and
Killian; Mohen and Pokorney, 2006; Delhey and Newton,
2002).
With the numerous scandals of dishonesty involving
various professionals, students were as likely to cheat as the
rest (Morris and Killian, undated). If the potential of
cheating is very potent among students, then the likelihood
of cheating is high when they become professionals.
This paper aimed to profile the students’ honesty at home,
school, their perception of professors’ honesty and how do
they view the importance in the future when they become
actively working with the society.
2 Adrian M. Tamayo: Virtues of Honesty in a Higher Education Institution
2. Method
This portion presents the research participants, the
sampling technique data gathering procedure, employed
and the statistical method used in the estimation of the
parameters.
2.1. Research Design
The study employed descriptive-causative statistics in
determining the characteristics of the respondents and the
degree of perceived honesty.
2.2. Research Participants
A total of 228 students of the University of Mindanao
taking up Eco1, Eco1a and Eco2a participated in the study.
2.3. Research Instrument
The study used a standardized honesty scale. To
determine the degree of honesty as perceived by the
students, 5-point Likert scale was employed.
2.4. Sampling Technique
To arrive at a representative sample for the study, four (4)
classes were determined to represent the whole population
of the students. There were a total of 228 samples
determined.
1.2. Literature Review
One of the most common problems faced by
organizations around the globe is employee theft which is
could be understood using psychological and social lenses
(Giacolone & Greenberg,1997). Others consider thievery of
employees as an economic phenomenon (Evans, Hannan &
Mosser, 2001; North, 1992).
Theft and dishonesty demonstrates dismal values set of
an individual manifested in actions. And more often, those
who cheat were those who have access to opportunities and
wealth. Lange, Paul & Kulman (1994) reported that
intelligence and honesty are highly associated. They further
revealed that honest individuals were more cooperative
than dishonest ones who were individualists and
competitive. Evans et al., (2001) resonate findings by
describing dishonest individuals as those who struggle for a
bigger share of the pie.
Employees who cheat may have cheated when they were
students. Parr (1936) incisively declared that college
cheating is a common event. Dishonesty was rampant
among medical students (Rennie & Crosby, 2001; Taradi,
Taradi & Dogas, 2012). Cheating was so common that it
was a general practice involving honor students. Workplace
cheaters and school cheaters were characterized as being
competitive who commit dishonesty whenever there is
opportunity of higher return (Evans et al., 2001).
Though cheating largely occurred in academic
institutions, it has a significant role to play to minimize
dishonesty through instituting honor codes (McCabe,
Trevino & Butterfield, 2002), influence of teachers and
peers (Teodorescu & Andrei, 2009) and the establishing
positive environment (Bernardi, et al., 2004).
2.5. Statistical Model
To describe characteristics of the respondents and their
perceived level of honesty and practice of it the study
employed an ordinal regression method. Ordinal logistic
regression is a model approach of the logistic regression
family with a dependent variable using scale value.
To extend the single weight vector of a regularized
logistic regression (RLR) minimization objective given as
λ
n
J RlR = ∑ log(1 + exp(− y •x i i w)) +
T
ωTω [eq.1]
i =1
2
{
where x1 ,..., xn }, xi ∈ ℜ d , are the training examples and
{y1,..., yn }, yi ∈ {+ 1, − 1}, are the labels. This can be extended
to multiple ordinal labels such that having a single weight
vector on the segment of the real line into l sections, one
for each label. Rennie(2005) employed l − 1 thresholds,
{θ1,...,θ l −1} to represent the segment. The θ 0 and θ1 denote
− ∞ and + ∞ in that order and the label k ∈ {1,..., l}
corresponding to the segment (θ k −1 , θ k ) .
2.6. Fixed Margin Formulation for Ordinal
Classification
The h ( z ) := log(1 + exp( z )) , the minimization objective
for the immediate threshold version of Ordinal Logistic
Regression given as
λ
n
J Im m = ∑ h(θ
i =1
yi −1 − xiT ω )) +
2
ω T ω, [eq. 2]
where the h(θ 0 − xiT ω ) = h( xiT ω − θ l ) = 0∀i, ω . The h is
defined so that the thresholds appear are oriented as they
are on the real number line with respect to to outputs of
correctly classified examples. For example, xiT ω < θ1 if
yi = 1, and xi is correctly classified.
2.7. All-Threshold
The Immediate –Threshold formulation does not
guarantee the ordering of the threshold. In the optimal
parameter setting, it is necessary to have some i < j such
that θ1 > θ j . The all-threshold imposes additional penalties
to ensure that thresholds are ordered, θ1 ≤ θ 2 ≤ ... ≤ θ l −1
The h (z ) and g (z ) are defined as h ( z ) := log(1 + exp( z )) .
Then the minimization objective for the all-threshold
 American Journal of Social Sciences 2014; 2(1): 1-6 3

version of the Ordinal Logistic Regression is Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Variables

Indicators F %
[eq. 3]
Sex

Female 152 66.67

The partial derivative with respect to each weight is
Male 76 33.33

[eq. 4] Year level

First year 123 53.95
Second year 60 26.32
2.8. Fitting the Model
Third year 26 11.4
In ordinal logistic regression, the event of interest is Fourth year 15 6.58
observing a particular score or less. In rating a particular Missing 4 1.75
event, the model may take odds as
Employment of both parents
One parent working/both are not working 150 65.79
Both parents are working 78 34.21

Parents’ educational attainment revealed that 67 percent

have both parents did not finish a professional degree and
The last category doesn’t have an odds associated with it 32.46 percent with both parents as professionals. The
since the probability of scoring up to the last score is 1. education of both parents was assumed to affect the
All the odds are of the form practice of honesty of the respondents because of clear-cut
θ j = prob( score ≤ j ) / prob( score > j ), which equation can values that are normally imposed by parents to their
be also written in the form children at home, the higher the education, the greater
θ j = prob( score ≤ j ) / 1 − prob( score ≤ j ), since the weights shall be provided for values and virtues.
probability of a score greater than j is 1-probability of a Students were also characterized according to their place
score less than or equal to j. of origin with 53.07 residing in the city while 41.23 percent
hailed from the neighboring provinces.
2.9. Ordinal Model The respondents were also characterized according to
honors, recognitions or commendations received. Note that
The ordinal logistic model is given as ln(θ j = α j − β X )
50.44 percent students received honor, recognition or
where the j goes from 1 to the number of the categories commendation all through their academic activities from
minus 1. elementary up to college.

Table 2. Profile of respondents

3. Results and Findings
Indicators
This section presents results of the study, the descriptive F %
Education of both parents
statistics and the parametric estimation of the variables of
interest and the effects on the scale value of the dependent both parents did not finish college/one is not
154 67.54
variable representing the degree of honesty as practiced by a degree holder
the respondents. both parents finish college 74 32.46

3.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Variables Place of origin

Province 94 41.23
There were a total of 228 samples involved in the study. City 121 53.07
Table 1 reveals more than half are female at 152 (66.67
Honors or distinction
percent) than male at 76 (33.33 percent).
As to the year level of the respondents, fairly half are on None 115 50.44
their first years, almost a third are second year (26.32 with honor or distinction 113 49.56
percent), while 11.40 percent are third year and 6.58 Age
percent are senior students. 15-17 years old 102 44.74
Also, more than half (65.79 percent) have one parent
working, while 34.21 percent have both parents working. 18-19 years old 64 28.07
The economic condition of the household was assumed to 20-21 years old 35 15.35
influence the children’s attitude towards honesty; a proxy
22-and above 26 11.4
of parents’ employment was used.
4 Adrian M. Tamayo: Virtues of Honesty in a Higher Education Institution

Also note that that most of the respondents belong to age Table 4. Perception of Students on Their Professors’ Honesty
range of 15-17 while only 26 of the respondents ages 22 Professors as Model of Honesty
and above. 2 3 4 5
Year Tota
mixed quite Phi
3.2. Honesty, Dishonesty Level Relative absolute l
bag of hone
honesty honesty
honesty st
Table 3 is the result of the descriptive statistics of the First year 0 29 72 21 122
degree of practice of honesty as perceived by students at Second
1 14 36 9 60
home, in school, practice of professors and the importance year
0.19n
Third year 0 5 13 8 26
of honesty as a virtue in the future. s
Fourth
0 1 10 4 15
year
Table 3. Perception on Honesty
Total 1 49 131 42 223
Degree of practice of honesty Mean StDev
Students also indicated that professors are “fair-weather”
Honesty practiced at home 4.17 0.53 in terms of honesty, while to them some are absolutely
Honesty practiced in school 3.67 0.62
honest, while on the average they are seen as not habitual
liar nor monumentally honest; professors are swinging
Professors as model of honest conduct 3.95 0.65 between telling “half truth and half life” in the conduct of
Honesty as virtue to be used in the future 4.24 0.5 profession.
This seemed to be embarrassing as professors must be at
Honesty at home revealed to be between “relative all times seen as epitome of honesty. Finally, students pose
practice of honesty to absolute honesty”, while on the positive potential to practice honesty with most of them are
average, a commendable practice of honesty was observed. quite honest in their personal life and with their interactions
Practice of honesty in school was found to be worrisome as with the society as they perform task in the future as
some students being notoriously dishonest though some professionals.
still are practicing absolute honesty. Though these students Table 4 shows comparative analysis in the practice of
do not habitually lie about their academic outputs, they are honesty of males and females. It was found that more
neither monumentally honest about it. They also perceived females are quite honest than males, and a relatively greater
that an occasional lie won’t hurt morality nor it be number of males tend to be moderately practicing honesty
threatened by a “fudged truth”. They often commit “white than their female counterparts; though no statistical
lies” though still abide by the rules and still seek relationship was established.
truthfulness at work and in people.
Table 5. Degree of Practice Honesty by Sex

Degree of Practice of Honesty

Sex 3 4 5
No answer Total Phi
(mixed bag of honesty) (quite honest) (absolutely honest)

Female 14 119 18 1 152

Male 15 53 8 0 76 0.132ns

Total 29 172 26 1 228

It was revealed that a sizable number of first year relationship was found between the practice of honesty and
students are absolutely honest, but their honesty decreases the year level of the students was found.
as the progress through their academic years. No statistical
Table 6. Degree of honesty of students by type of student, achievers vs non-achievers

Practice of honesty at school

Honors or distinctions received at 1 2 3 4 5

Total Phi
various educational level
relative mixed bag of quite Absolutely
dishonest
honesty honesty honest honest

None 0 5 37 61 11 114

With honor or distinction 1 1 31 62 18 113 0.37**

Total 1 6 68 123 29 227

 American Journal of Social Sciences 2014; 2(1): 1-6 5

It was quite disturbing to find that some students who picture of being honest and dishonest, what is more
were considered as academically good were found to be promising is the potential of the new generation to be
academically dishonest. This was reinforced by the honest individuals if there occur a deep appreciation of the
statistical test using Phi with a coefficient value of 0.37 “Core Values” of the University among its clients. The
which was found to be significant. This simply means that “transformative education” would make a huge impact in
some of the achievers would rather choose to be dishonest the lives of the students if it practice of honesty be
than fail in the exam or any other academic endeavor; they embedded in the various processes such as teaching, the
are not placing greater importance on honesty and would appreciation of the pedagogy, “reminders’ wall to practice
do “pudding of the truth” just to get the academic merit. honesty”. The Guidance Center, Human Resource
Table 7 shows the students degree of appreciation on the Development Department and the Academic Affairs need to
practice of honesty in the future. Most of the students were closely work to achieve this objective of transformation.
described to be more of quite honest, and a little less
absolutely honest. Further it was observed that as student 3.3. Parametric Results
proceeds through the education ladder, their appreciation of Table 8 shows the results of the ordinal regression
honesty as a virtue they could in the future decreases. This estimation to show the relationship of the practice of
is a cause of alarm as this is indicative of the kind of honesty with the explanatory variables with the
professionals they could be made of---less honest, and characteristics of the respondents. The ordinal regression
when conditions permit, would be dishonest. model fit tests were indicated by Cox and Snell R2,
Table 7. Students’ Perception of the Importance of Honesty as Virtue to be
Nagelkerke R2 and McFadden R2 with 0.034. 0.44 and
Used in the Future 0.024 respectively. Some of the literatures indicate that the
R2 in the ordinal regression which employs MLE is not as
Honesty as virtue to be used in the future
3 4 5
robust to a regression employing OLS.
Year level Total Three variables were found to be statistically significant:
(mixed bag of (quite (absolutely
honesty) honest) honest) female, first year level, and second year level. Note that the
First year 5 65 52 122
female as variable a bear positive coefficient, while the
Second remaining two had negative coefficients. The estimates
4 31 22 57
year suggest that females have very high potential to be honest,
Third year 2 13 11 26 though the degree of honesty oscillates practice of honesty
Fourth when convenient to sticking to truth even if it is hard.
1 9 5 15
year
Total 12 118 90 220
Again note, females would likely choose sticking to truth
than choosing convenience to truth. On the other hand,
There seemed to be very important role that the students are likely to choose lower scales of honesty; first
University has to play more than the knowledge and skills year students have 68% probability to stick to the truth,
formation of the students. Although it is not a dismal while second year have 48% probability to stick to truth.
Table 8. Coefficients of the Variables Using Ordinal Regression

Indicators Estimate SE Wald Sig. Odds

Mixed bag of honesty -2.77 0.75 13.66 0.00 0.06
Threshold
Quite honest 1.39 0.72 3.72 0.05 4.03
Female 0.58 0.34 2.90 0.09* 1.78
First year -1.07 0.63 2.95 0.09* 0.34
Second year -1.40 0.66 4.48 0.03** 0.25
Location
Third year -0.85 0.74 1.33 0.25 0.43
parents did not earn degree -0.28 0.34 0.65 0.42 0.76
both parents are working 0.21 0.34 0.39 0.53 1.24
Cox and Snell 0.034 Nagelkerke 0.04 McFadden 0.02
Link function: Logit.

out honesty for fame and honor.

4. Concluding Remarks
This paper found that on the whole the students are likely
to be honest. Students observe honesty at home than at
school. Alarmingly, a number of students perceived their
professors as less honest. Also, dishonesty at school may
spring from too much desire for success. Some would stake
It was found that females have higher propensity to stick
to honesty under all circumstances. Honesty is eroding as
students proceed through the educational ladder.
Transformative education must not make leaders by making
them excellent in knowledge and skills; visioning them as
leaders must include their honesty as functional virtue.
 6 Adrian M. Tamayo: Virtues of Honesty in a Higher Education Institution
References
[1] Braun, Robert L., Stallworth, H. Lynn and Cram, Donald P.,
The Academic Honesty Expectations Gap: An Analysis of
Student and Faculty Perspectives (January 17, 2005). , .
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=649765
[2] Gintis, Herbert and Khurana, Rakesh, Corporate Honesty
and Business Education: A Behavior Model. Free Enterprise:
Values in Action Conference Series, 2005-2006; MORAL
MARKETS: THE CRITICAL ROLE OF VALUES IN THE
ECONOMY, Paul J. Zak, ed., Princeton University Press,
2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=929173
[3] Glenn Magas. Why Honesty is Critical for Organizational
Success? http://www.helium.com/items/1746928-why-
honesty-is-critical-for-organizational-success
[4] Global Barometer.
ttp://www.transparency.org/publications/publications/gcb20
09
[5] Jan Delhey, Kenneth Newton. 2002. Social Science
Research Center Berlin. http://www.colbud.hu/honesty-
trust/delhey/pub01.pdf
[6] Morris, David E. and Kilian, Claire McCarty, Do
Accounting Students Cheat? A Study Examining
Undergraduate Accounting Students' Honesty and
Perceptions of Dishonest Behavior (August 2007). Available
at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1010277
[7] Tamar Frankel, Mark Fagan.2007. Trust and Honesty In the
Real World: A Joint Course For Lawyers, Business People
and Regulators.
http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/d
ocuments/FrankelT-FaganM121307b.pdf
[8] Greenberg, Jerald, and Giacalone, Robert. 1997. The
STEAL motive: Managing the social determinants of
employee theft.. Antisocial behavior in organizations. , (pp.
85-108). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc, x,
203 pp.
[9] Evans, John H III, Hannan, R. Lynn, Krishnan, Ranjani,
and Donald V. Moser (2001) Honesty in Managerial
Reporting. The Accounting Review: October 2001, Vol. 76,
No. 4, pp. 537-559
[10] Douglas, North. 1992. Institutions, Ideology, and Economic
Performance. Cato Journal 477, Vol 11, No.3 (Winter 1992).
View publication stats
[11] Van Lange, Paul A. M.; Kuhlman, D. Michael.1994. Social
value orientations and impressions of partner's honesty and
intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 67(1), Jul
1994, 126-141. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.126
[12] Parr, FW. 1936. The problem of student honesty. The
Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 7, No. 6(Jun., 1936), pp.
318-326. Published by Ohio State University Press
[13] Rennie, SC, Crosby, JR. 2001. Are “tomorrow’s doctors”
honest? Questionnaire study exploring medical students’
attitudes and reported behavior on academic misconduct.
BMJ 2001 February 3; 322(7281):274-75
[14] Taradi, Kukolja, Taradi M, Dogas, Z. 2012. J Med
Ethics. 2012 Jun;38(6):376-9. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-
100015. Epub 2012 Jan 12.
[15] Donald L. McCabe, Linda Klebe Treviño, Kenneth D.
Butterfield. 2002. Honor codes and other contextual
influences on academic integrity: a replication and extension
to modified honor code settings. Research in Higher
Education, 2002, Vol 43, Number 3, Page 357
[16] Teodorescu, Daniel, Andrei, Tudorel. 2009. Faculty and peer
influences on academic integrity: college cheating in
Romania. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 57, Issue 3,
pp.267-282
[17] Bernardi, Richard, Metzger, Rene, Bruno Scofield &
Hoogkamp, Marissa, Reyes, Lillian, Bamaby, Gary.
Examining the decision process of student’s cheating
behavior: an empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics.
April 2004, Vol 50, Issue 4, pp 397-414.
[18] http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/?ref=11
51491586
[19] http://news.ufl.edu/2000/10/23/friends/
[20] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=928416
[21] http://www.tamarfrankel.com/support-
files/financeandcommongood.pdf
[22] http://cla.auburn.edu/history/gs/academic_honesty.cfm