Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

An Investigation Into the Dimensions of Unethical

Behavior

M. Ronald Buckley , Danielle S. Wiese & Michael G. Harvey

To cite this article: M. Ronald Buckley , Danielle S. Wiese & Michael G. Harvey (1998) An
Investigation Into the Dimensions of Unethical Behavior, Journal of Education for Business, 73:5,
284-290, DOI: 10.1080/08832329809601646

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08832329809601646

Published online: 31 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 562

View related articles

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
 An Investigation Into the
Dimensions of Unethical Behavior
T he academic study of unethical
behavior is not new. Yet, in spite of
all of the research, much remains to be
learned. Propensity to engage in ethical
or unethical behavior is a complex
issue. Early research conducted by
Hartshorne and May (1928) demon-
strated little evidence for “unified char-
acter traits” like honesty or morality.
They suggested that moral behavior was
more a function of the situation than the
person. Since that early study, a number
of subsequent studies have supported
the idea that cheating depends on the
situation, but others have identified per-
sonal characteristics of individuals who
have a propensity to engage in unethical
behavior. Leming (1980) said it best:
“Cheating behavior is a complex psy-
chological, social and situational phe-
nomenon. Involved in any attempt to
understand moral behavior are such fac-
tors as the individual’s definition of the
situation, the existence and nature of
moral standards, and the ability to act
on those standards” (p. 86). Situations
and characteristics of the person inter-
act, facilitating or inhibiting ethical
behavior.
An Ethical Framework
to Assess Unethical Behavior
The ethical dimensions of business
decisions have become a focal point for
284 Journal of Education f o r Business
M. RONALD BUCKLEY
DANIELLE S. WIESE
MICHAEL G. HARVEY
University of Oklahoma
Norman, Oklahoma
ABSTRACT. The influence on uneth-
ical behavior of (a) the probability of
being caught and penalized, (b) level
of self-esteem, (c) high time urgency,
(d) hostilitylaggression, (e) type A
personality, (f) gender, and (g) GPA
were explored to determine their
impact on predispositions of students
to cheat in a classroom situation. The
most effective predictors of students
cheating were the probability of being
caught and penalized, high hostility/
aggression characteristics, and gender,
with male students reporting a higher
propensity to engage in unethical
behavior.
academicians, special interest groups,
federal and state governments, and con-
sumers of goods and services. The ethi-
cal dilemma facing decisionmakers in
business is the inherent conflict between
maximizing benefits to the company
and at the same time allowing the con-
sumer to obtain the greatest utility pos-
sible from purchasing the company’s
products or services. Societal expecta-
tions have continually increased relative
to the ethical standards used to judge
organizations. In today’s postindustrial
economy, the actions of organizations
are judged not only at the individual
consumer level, but also by noninteract-
ing third parties to the exchange rela-
tionship. Therefore,to make ethical
decisions, a manager needs a framework
for dealing with their multidimensional
nature.
Ethics is predicated on a system of
principles to assist managers in deter-
mining good and bad or right and
wrong. An ethical framework can pro-
vide a foundation that could assist man-
agement in selecting from strategic al-
ternatives, to justify the selection of one
alternative over another, or for modify-
ing an existing behaviorlstrategy pres-
ently being employed by the organiza-
tion. When making decisions, managers
must examine their strategies relative to
the individual, group. society, and glob-
al community to ensure that those
diverse viewpoints and expectations are
taken into consideration. Frequently,
ethical issues may be in conflict de-
pending on the level of analysis taken
(i.e., individual, group, society, or glob-
al community perspective). For exam-
ple, it is considered a moral imperative
to reduce global pollution, but frequent-
ly individuals do not want to pay for
products with pollution controls on
them, or people do not want hazardous
waste stored in their community (Bul-
lard, 1990; Trevino & Youngblood,
1990).
There are two basic approaches to de-
fining ethical decisionmaking in organi-
zations. First, consequential ethics fo-
cuses on the goals andlor consequences
of a decision or action. Utilitarianism, a
popular approach to consequentialism,
contends that an action is “right” if it
produces the greater balance of plea-
surehtility over paidcosts (Getz, 1990).
The nexus of the problem with conse-
quentialism is defining what is the
greatest good at both the micro (individ-
ual) and macro (societal) levels of
analysis. The benefits derived by the
consumer from a company’s product
must be weighed against the cost of the
consumer’s use of the product to the
society at large. The relation of individ-
ual benefits to the societal costs compli-
cates the ethical determinations of many
business decisions.
Utilitarian ethics encompasses the
basic tenets of distributive justice,
which examines the fairness of the dis-
tribution of outcomes among individu-
als involved in the exchange process
(Molm, 1991). Equitable treatment
between parties becomes the underlying
foundation for decisionmaking. If one
party were to cheat or take advantage of
the second party, that behavior would be
deemed unethical. It is assumed that
business decisionmakers calculate the
tangible and intangible outcomes of the
FIGURE 1. Analysis of Making Ethical Decisions
!
CulturaVsocial
environment Perceived
ethical
problem
t
Economic Perceived
environment alternatives
Technological
environment
t Perceived
Third party
influences
t
1 Firsthhird
party expectations
1 *
exchange process and are ethically
bound to making decisions that provide
equity between the organization and
consumers.
A second ethical orientation fre-
quently employed to assess business
decisions is deontological ethics. This
school of ethical thought is concerned
with the rules and principles that guide
actions and is based on a system of
rights and duties. The founding concept
of deontology is that individuals should
act in a way that could be translated into
a set of universal laws. The procedural
justice concept in deontology addresses
the fairness of the process used in allo-
cating outcomes in a transaction (Molm,
199 1). Frequently, two principles
should govern an ethical consideration:
Each person should have an equal right
to a system of basic liberties, and any
social andlor economic inequities
should be distributed so they benefit the
least advantaged.
In Figure 1, we illustrate the various
dimensions of deontological ethical
decisionmaking. The assessment of
Deontological
evaluation
consequences
Ethical
judgments
Desirability of - Teleological
consequences * evaluation
Importance of
stakeholders
basic ethical decisions is based on the
cultural, social, economic, and techno-
logical environment and the role that
third parties play in the decision; that is,
how one third party is influenced by the
decision between interacting parties to
the decision. The interacting parties, as
well as third parties, know what is ethi-
cally expected in the transaction, based
on past experiences.
If there are perceived ethical prob-
lems, the consequences for alternatives
to resolve the ethical dilemma are
assessed relative to the potential conse-
quences of each action. These out-
comes are then compared with the
deontological norms and the probabili-
ties of consequences for various stake-
holders. These normative payoffs are
then evaluated and a judgment made as
to which action would most closely
emulate the rules and principles of fair-
ness. It is important to note that these
intentions of the individual are amelio-
rated by the situational constraints pre-
sent when the final decision is made.
The deontologist viewpoint of an ethi-
constraints
v
-
Individuals’
Intentions + behavior
Actual
-r
consequences
May/June I998 285
cal decision is based on a rational set of
rules that guides decisionmaking and
not solely on the consequences of the
decision (outcomes).
The Influence of
Situational Characteristics
Deterrence theory states that a par-
ticular (unethical) behavior is inhibited
or deterred in direct proportion to (a)
the perceived probability of being
caught and (b) the severity of punish-
ment for the behavior. A number of
studies have demonstrated that cheat-
ing varies inversely with the risk of
detection (Hill & Kochendorfer, 1969;
Leming, 1980; Steininger, Johnson, &
Kirts, 1964; Tittle & Rowe, 1973). It
has been suggested that formal sanc-
tions are likely to be primarily effective
for norms or rules that lack general
moral support (Andenaes, 1966). Thus,
if cheating is widely accepted among
college students, then widely enforced
formal sanctions should inhibit them
from cheating. Tittle and Rowe (1973)
found that the threat of being caught
and punished was a significant deter-
rent to unethical behavior among col-
lege students. However, not all cheat-
ing was deterred by the threat of
sanctions, and further, many did not
cheat before the threat was made.
Michaels and Miethe ( 1 989) found that
the perceived severity of punishment
was inversely correlated with unethical
behavior.
Rational choice theory was first pro-
posed by economists and addresses the
perceived probabilities and magni-
tudes of both rewards and punish-
ments (Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Pil-
iavin, Thornton, Gartner, & Matsueda,
1986). This theory states that individu-
als are rational, making decisions and
behaving according to the relationship
between the potential risks and poten-
tial returns of a situation. Vitro and
Schoer (1972) found that cheating
occurred most often when there was a
low probability of test success, low
risk of detection, and high test impor-
tance.
Hypothesis 1: Outcomes (the probability
of being caught and punished) influence
individual propensity to engage in uneth-
ical behavior.
286 Journal of Education f o r Business
The Influence of
Personal Characteristics
Self Esteem
One of the central personal charac-
teristics is self-esteem. Self-esteem is
defined as the extent to which individu-
als hold positive or negative views
about themselves. Those high in self-
esteem evaluate themselves favorably,
believing that they possess many desir-
able traits and qualities. Individuals low
in self-esteem believe that they possess
characteristics that others find unap-
pealing. Cognitive consistency theory
suggests that when individuals believe
that they will behave in a certain way,
they will, in fact, behave as expected.
This allows them to perceive their
world as consistent with their cognitive
structures of reality (Graf, 1971).
Social psychologists have suggested
that there is a relationship between self-
esteem and unethical behavior, based
on cognitive consistency theory (Aron-
son & Mettee, 1968). According to this
theory, unethical behavior is more con-
sistent with a self-perception of low
worth. That may be because such indi-
viduals do not believe that they can
accomplish goals without cheating, and
thus they behave unethically to excel
and consequently raise a negative self-
perception (Graf, 1971). Therefore,
social psychologists would predict that
individuals with low self-esteem are
more likely to engage in unethical
behavior than individuals with high
self-esteem.
Graf’s (1971) results were in agree-
ment with cognitive consistency theo-
ry-individuals with induced low self-
esteem engaged in unethical behavior
much more that those in neutral and in-
duced high self-esteem groups. Eisen
(1972) reported a strong positive corre-
lation between self-esteem and honesty
for males, but a nonsignificant correla-
tion for females. However, Mussen,
Rutherford, Harris, & Keasey (1970)
and Ward (1 986) found that high self-
esteem was not a deterrent for unethi-
cal behavior for males, but was for
females.
Hypothesis 2: Self-esteem will be inver-
sely related to a propensity to engage in
unethical behavior.
Type A Behavior
Friedman and Rosenman ( 1974)
described a Type A person as one “who
is aggressively involved in a chronic.
incessant struggle to achieve more and
more in less and less time, and if re-
quired to do so, against the opposing ef-
forts of other things or other persons”
(p. 67). A number of studies have linked
college students scoring high for Type A
with a strong need to achieve high
grades and a greater number of hours
devoted to classes, study, and academic
and extracurricular activities (Grimm &
Yarnold, 1984; Ovcharchyn, Johnson &
Petzel, 198 1; Sparacino & Hansell,
1979; Suls, Becker, & Mullen, 1981:
Tang, 1988). Johnson (1981) showed
that individuals with high achievement
motivation were more likely to cheat on
college examinations. That appears to
be one of the central components of the
Type A behavior pattern, and thus we
could assume that Type A scorers are
also more likely to cheat to achieve suc-
cess. Perry, Kane, Bernesser, and Spick-
er ( I 990) found that college students
scoring high in Type A behavior were
more likely to engage in unethical be-
hqvior when (a) they were given the op-
portunity to do so and (b) their expecta-
tions could not be met by simply putting
forth greater effort.
Hypothesis 3: Individuals identified as
Type A individuals have a higher propen-
sity to engage in unethical behavior.
Gender Differences
Sex role stereotypes suggest that men
and women have different characteristics
and learning experiences. For example,
according to the stereotype, men tend to
be more forceful, assertive, aggressive,
persistent, and decisive, whereas women
tend to be more passive, submissive,
dependent, emotional, and in- decisive.
Even though these stereotypes have been
difficult to demonstrate, they do influence
social perceptions (Heilman & Martell,
1986; Powell, 1990). Though men and
women may differ in a few respects, the
differences are smaller, fewer, and less
consistent than sex role stereotypes sug-
gest (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Some
research suggests that women tend to
hold lower expectations and tend to have
lower self-confidence than men (McCar-
ty, 1986) and that they are less likely than
men to engage in self-serving behavior
(Maass & Volpato, 1989).
At least four studies have shown that
differences in moral behavior can be par-
tially explained by gender (Eisen, 1972;
Mussen, Rutherford, Harris, & Keasey,
1970; Ward, 1986; Ward & Beck, 1989).
Each used sex role socialization as either
the direct or indirect cause of these dif-
ferences. It has been said that females in
our society are expected to be dependent,
permissive, affectionate, nurturing,
respectful, warm, conforming, and obe-
dient, whereas males are expected to be
aggressive and independent. Feminine
characteristics include dependence on
external authority and compliance with
regulations, whereas masculine charac-
teristics include independence of thought
and action. Thus, women are more prone
to obey the rules of society regardless of
the situation, whereas men are more apt
to examine the situation in terms of how
their actions will affect others and them-
selves, sometimes engaging in unethical
behavior if the ends appear to justify the
means. In other research, Tittle and
Rowe (1973) and Leming (1980) found
that females were more influenced by
threat of sanction than were males. They
attributed this to female role socializa-
tion, in that the women feared a reduc-
tion in status and damage to their reputa-
tion for engaging in dishonest behavior.
Ward and Beck (1989) stated that
neutralization theory (Sykes & Matza,
1957) may be used to explain why some
women do cheat, overcoming the deter-
rence of sex role socialization. Individu-
als are psychologically able to engage in
unethical behavior if they successfully
use neutralization techniques or excuses
that allow them to evade obligations to
societal norms and laws. Examples of
neutralization techniques include be-
lieving that the situation facilitated the
action, that no one was hurt by the ac-
tion, or that a greater good was served
by the action.
Hypothesis 4: Women have a lower
propensity to engage in unethical behav-
ior than men.
Grade Point Average
Hetherington and Feldman (
Kanfer and Duerfeldt (1968),
(1971), Johnson and Gormly (
Kelly and Worrell (1978), and Baird
(1980) reported that individuals with
lower intelligence and lower grade point
averages have a greater propensity to
engage in unethical behavior. Leming
(1980) found that intelligent students
cheated significantly less when the risks
of being caught and penalized were
high. Tittle and Rowe ( I 973) found that
students with the lowest grades and who
were experiencing a large discrepancy
between actual and expected grade were
least affected by the sanction threat-
high motivation and little to lose. This
may be related to rational choice theory
in that individuals consider both risks
and returns in deciding whether or not
to engage in unethical behavior.
Hypothesis 5 : Individuals with higher
reported GPAs are less likely to engage in
unethical behavior.
Method
Procedures and Sample
Respondents were recruited from un-
dergraduate business classes at a large
southwestern university in the United
States. A 90-item questionnaire was dis-
tributed during regular class hours. The
administrator emphasized that the re-
sponses would be anonymous. A total of
223 questionnaires were returned, but
13 had missing data that rendered the
questionnaire unusable. Thus, our anal-
ysis involved complete information on
the remaining 21 0 respondents. Within
our sample, 41% were women (86 fe-
males and 124 males) and 10% (21)
were international students.
Individual Variable Measures
Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured
by 15 items from the Jackson Personali-
ty Inventory. These items were anchored
on a 5-point scale ranging from vevy
much like me to very much unlike me.
Type A behavior. Type A personality
was operationalized by 4 indicators,
measured by 14 items from a Self
Assessment of Type A Personality
(Hellriegel, Slocum, & Woodman,
1995). The components of Type A be-
havior analyzed were time urgency, ag-
gression and hostility, polyphasic be-
havior (multitasking when it is not nec-
essary), and goal directedness without
proper planning. These items were an-
chored on a 4-point scale ranging from
almost always true to never true.
Gender und grucle poirit averuge. Gen-
der and grade point average were self-
reported by the respondents.
Outcome Measureb
Respondents were asked to complete
four sections concerning their percep-
tions of the probabilities that they and
others would engage in unethical behav-
ior, given varying degrees of probability
that they would be caught and penal-
ized. The question for the individual re-
spondent was:
I . If the chances of being caught and
penalized are ~, the probability that
YOU would engage in unethical behavior
(cheat) in .school would be ~.
Respondents answered the question for
1 1 probabilities of being caught and
penalized (0% to 100% in 10% incre-
ments). In order to ascertain respondent
perceptions of other situations, the ques-
tion was then changed to:
2. If the chances of being caught and
penalized are ~, the probability that
khhe avcrcige university stirderit would
engage in unethical behavior (cheat) in
school would be ~.
3. If the chances of being caught and
penalized are -, the probability that
YOU would engage in unethical behavior
(cheat) in business would be ~.
4. If the chances of being caught and
penalized are ~, the probability that
the avercrge businesspersorz would engage
in unethical behavior (cheat) in bitsiriess
would be ~.
Analysis and Results
Situation
We calculated arithmetic means of
the outcome measures across all respon-
dents in order to establish the trends of
the perceptions of engaging in unethical
behavior for the respondents at school
and in business, and for respondent per-
ceptions of the average university stu-
dent and the average businessperson.
The results showed a predictable nega-
tive correlation between the chances of
being caughtlpenalized and the proba-
bility of engaging in unethical behav-
ior-as the probability of being caught
Mav/June 1998 287
and punished increased, the likelihood
of engaging in unethical behavior tend- TABLE 1. Relationship Between High and Low Levels of Agression/
Hostility and Reported Likelihood of Engaging in Unethical Behavior in
ed to asymptote toward zero probability. School and Business
For example, the respondents perceived
that the average university student
would engage in unethical behavior Respondent opinion on
75.6% of the time if the chances of Chances of Themselves Average Themselves Average
being caught at school university student in business businessperson
being caught and penalized were 0% as
and penalized (t ) (0 (t) (1)
opposed to 29.7%, and 4% of the time if
the chances of being caught and penal-
0 -1.88" -1.76" -2.06* -1.36
ized were increased to 50% and loo%, 10 -2.42" -1.25 -2.11" -1.28
respectively. These results support Hy- 20 -2.49" -1.69" -1.93" -1.75"
pothesis 1: Outcomes (the probability of 30 -1.91" -1.45 -I .63 -1.98"
being caught and penalized) influence 40 -2.02" -0.34 -1.61 -1.92"
50 -1.62 -0.82 -1.60 -0.93
individual propensity to engage in un-
60 -1.05 -0.99 -1.19 -1.10
ethical behavior. 70 -0.88 -1.82" -1.03 -1.39
80 4.63 -0.89 -0.1 1 -0.50
90 -0.62 -1.17 -0.09 -0.79
Personal Characteristics
100 -1.00 -1.49 -0.68 -1.21
Self-esteem. After correcting for re-
Note. Negative t test indicates that HIGH competitive respondents reported a higher propensity to
verse-scoring items, we summed the 15 engage in unethical behavior. Positive t test indicates that LOW competitive respondents reported
responses to the Johnson Personality a higher propensity to engage in unethical behavior.
Survey to obtain a single self-esteem * p < .05.
measure for each respondent. The re-
spondents were split evenly, and those
with low scores represented the low havior. Compared with the respondents ethical behavior. The female respon-
self-esteem group. Our analyses re- scoring low in time urgency, those in the dents' probability of engaging in uneth-
vealed no significant differences be- high time-urgency category perceived ical behavior was uniformly less than
tween the high self-esteem group and that they as students, along with the aver- that reported by the male respondents
the low self-esteem group. There appear age businessperson, are slightly more (see Table 2).
to be no differences between the per- likely to engage in unethical behavior. %hen predicting the probability of
ceptions of the low self-esteem and high On the other hand, hostility and ag- engaging in unethical behavior for the
self-esteem individuals concerning the gression do appear to be a strong pre- average student and the average busi-
individual likelihood and perceived dictor of a propensity to engage in nessperson, both females and males re-
propensity of others to engage in uneth- unethical behavior (see Table 1). Com- ported similar amounts; however, male
ical behavior. According to our data, pared with respondents low in hostility respondents believed more than females
self-esteem is not an effective predictor and aggression, individuals high in hos- that people engage in unethical behavior.
of unethical behavior. Thus, Hypothesis tility and aggression reported that they
2 is rejected. would engage in more unethical behav- Grade point average. Grade point aver-
ior in school and at work; they also be- ages were coded at .5-point increments.
Tvpe A behavior. We examined time lieved that the average university stu- Respondents with a 3.5 grade point
urgency, aggression and hostility, and dent and the average businessperson average (GPA) or above were consid-
overall Type A behavior. To obtain sep- would be more likely to engage in un- ered to have a high GPA, and those with
arate measures for time urgency and ag- ethical behavior. Surprisingly, the anal- a 2.9 GPA or below were considered to
gression and hostility, we summed the ysis revealed that, overall, Type A per- have a low GPA. There did not appear to
appropriate questionnaire items after sonality does not appear to be a strong be any statistical relationship between
reverse-scoring correction. We summed predictor of engagement in unethical GPA and the propensity to engage in
all of the items on the Self Assessment behavior, but the trend is in the direction unethical behavior. However, to be ad-
of Type A Personality to obtain a single we hypothesized. Thus, Hypothesis 3 mitted to the business school, students
measure for Type A personality for each should be rejected. It would be accurate must have at least a 2.0 GPA, which
respondent. For each measure, we split to update Hypothesis 3 to state that indi- may mean that, on this variable, the
the respondents into three groups ac- viduals with high hostility and aggres- sample was restricted because of this
cording to the scores and then took the sion have a higher propensity to engage truncation. The general trend is in the
high and low groups to analyze the re- in unethical behavior than those low in suggested direction, but Hypothesis 5
sults, eliminating those in the middle. hostility and aggression. must be rejected. It is interesting to note
Results showed that time urgency be- that the respondents with high GPAs,
havior was not a significant predictor of Gender. Gender appears to be a predic- when compared with low-GPA respon-
a propensity to engage in unethical be- tor for the propensity to engage in un- dents, believed that the average univer-

288 Journal of Education f o r Business


TABLE 2. Relationship of Gender to Reported Likelihood of Engaging in
Unethical Behavior in School and Business
Chances of Themselves Average
being caught at school university student
and penalized (1)
0 1.02
10 2.48*
20 2.80*
30 2.20*
40 2.05*
50 2.3 1*
60 2.34*
70 1.85*
80 1.75"
90 1.53
100 1.50
Note. Positive r test indicates that females reported a lower propensity to engage in unethical
behavior. Negative t test indicates that males reported a lower propensity to engage in unethical
behavior.
* p < .05.
sity student and the average business-
person are more likely to engage in un-
ethical behavior.
Additionalfindings. One additional, and
unexpected, finding was that the respon-
dents believed that there is less propen-
sity for unethical behavior in business
than at the university. This was true for
both the respondents' self-assessments
and their evaluation of the average uni-
versity student and the average busi-
nessperson. Perhaps this has to do with
the greater severity of sanctions in busi-
ness compared with those in university
settings. Although university sanctions
are serious, students can usually find
another university to attend-business-
es are not usually so forgiving.
Discussion
Social bond theory suggests that indi-
viduals engage in unethical behavior
because they no longer feel involved
with, attached to, or committed to the
society at large (Hirschi, 1969). These
individuals no longer believe in the con-
ventional norms and laws that are pre-
scribed in a deontological concept of
ethics. We need to develop ways to reat-
tach these people with others who are
ethical in their orientation. According to
this research, males would be more like-
& Nelson, 1995). Additional personal
characteristics may also influence the
willingness to act unethically, such as
hostility, aggression, and gender (Buck-
Resuondent ouinion on ley, Wiese, & Harvey, 1997).
Themselves Average Three levels of analysis that corre-
in business businessperson spond to the stages of moral develop-
(1) (t) (t) ment have been suggested by re-
searchers (Colby, 1987; Kohlberg,
0.28 2.02" 0.9 I 1969): (a) the preconventional level, in
0.2 1 2.92" 1.41
0.04 3.21 * I .04 which rules and social expectations are
1.19 3.10" 1.09 external to the individual; (b) the con-
0.72 2.94* 1.02 ventional level, in which the self is iden-
0.66 2.58* 0.52 tified with rules and regulations of oth-
0.19 2.34* 0.42
ers (especially authority); and (c) the
-0.17 2.35" -0.3 1
0.03 1.72" -0.76 post-conventional level, in which people
0.01 1.48 -0.79 differentiate their self-esteem from rules
0.75 0.48 -1.15 and expectations of others and define
personal values in terms of self-chosen
principles (Wright, 1995). Determining
the level of moral development of stu-
dents could provide the insight into how
to reduce cheating in a university. Moral
development is difficult to assess, teach,
ly to fall into this category and benefit and determine if students are internaliz-
from this type of intervention or social ing a moral context.
engineering. Perhaps the most important finding of
Social learning theory posits that this research is that it appears that many
unethical behavior is reinforced by a personality variables alone fail to pre-
person's primary social group and that dict the propensity to engage in unethi-
that group has a greater influence over cal behavior. A person's possession of a
the person than does conventional soci- particular characteristic does not auto-
ety (Bandura, 1977). This focus on eth- matically translate into a propensity to
ical behavior would rely more on a util- engage in unethical behavior. We would
itarian ethical perspective that contends suggest that the more important vari-
that ethical distribution of rewards is ables that contribute to the commission
determined by equitable treatment be- of an unethical act are situational fac-
tween parties in a group and/or transac- tors--or more precisely, we believe that
tion. Thus, individuals who cheat tend the interaction of optimal situational
to associate with others who cheat, sup- and personality factors may result in
porting and reinforcing unethical behav- unethical behavior. Further research
ior. We need to find ways of integrating should focus on determining those opti-
those with ethical shortcomings with mal combinations.
those who possess a strong ethical ori-
entation. REFERENCES
To develop a clear understanding of
students' ethical orientation, a number Andanaes. J . (1966). The general preventive
effects of punishment. Liiiiver.vity ofP~,rrrisyh~ii-
of perspectives must be integrated into a nin Law Review,, 114. 949-983.
mosaic, including a focus on (a) conse- Aronson. E., & Mettee, D. R. (1968). Dishonest
quences (consequentialist theory), or behavior as a function of differential levels of
induced self-esteem. Joirriiiil of'Per.sonirlir~
iind
the assessment of the outcome of the Sociul Psycholog: 9, I 2 I - 127.
unethical behavior; (b) duties, obliga- Baird, J . S. (1980). Current trends in college
tions, and principles (deontology), the cheating. Psychology iri the S c h ~ l s .17. 5 15-
522.
basing of what is right on unusual prin- Bandura, A. ( I 977). Social lerrrrrit~~qt h e o n .
ciples, regardless of the consequences; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
and (c) integrity (virtue), or the assess- Buckley, M.. Wiese. D.. & Harvey. M . (1997).
Three factors ir!fluericirig itnetliical hehmior:
ment of the actor's moral fiber, charac- Unpublished manuscript.
ter, motivations, and intentions (Trevino Bullard, J. K. (1990). New Bedford's CSO prob-
May/June 1998 289
 lems and HR 3 120. Water Environment and
Technology, 2(9), 156-157.
Colby, A. (1987). The measurement of moral
judgment. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and
leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 108, 233-256.
Eisen, M. (1972). Characteristic self-esteem, sex,
and resistance to temptation. Journal ofPerson-
ality and Social Psychology, 24, 68-72.
Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Q p e
“A” behuvior and your heurt. New York:
Knopf.
Getz, K. ( I 990). International codes of conduct:
An analysis of ethical reasoning. Journal oj
Business Eth1c.s. 9, 561-517.
Graf, R. G. (1971). Induced self-esteem as a
determinant of behavior. Journal qf’Social Psy-
chology, 85. 2 13-2 17.
Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R . (1984). Perfor-
mance standards and the Type “A” behavior
pattern. Cognitive Therapv and Research, 8.
59-66.
Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. ( I 928). Studies in
the nature of character. New York: Macmillan.
Heilman, M. E., & Martell, R. F. (1986). Exposure
to successful women: Antidote to sex discrimi-
nation in applicant screening decisions? Orga-
nizutional Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 37, 376-390.
Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W., &Woodman, R . W.
(1995). 0rguni;rrtionul behavior. Minneapo-
lis/St. Paul: West Publishing.
Hetherington, E. M., & Feldman, S. E. (1964).
College cheating as a function of subject and
situational variables. Jourual of Educutionnl
Psychology, 55, 2 12-2 18.
Hill, J., & Kochendorfer, R. A. (1969). Knowl-
edge of peer success and risk of detection as
determinants of cheating. Developmental Psy-
chology, 1 ( 3 ) , 231-238.
Hirschi, T. (1 969). Causes ofddinyuer~cy.Berke-
ley: University of California Press.
Johnson, C. D., & Gormly, J. (1972). Academic
cheating: The contribution of sex, personality,
and situational variables. Developinental Psy-
chology, 6, 320-325.
Johnson, P. B. (1 981). Achievement motivation
and success: Does the end justify the means?
290 Journal of Education for Business
Journal r,f‘ Personality and Social Psychology,
40, 374-375.
Kanfer, F. H., & Duerfeldt, P. H. (1968). Age,
class standing and commitment as determinants
of cheating in children. Child Developrnenf, 39,
545-557.
Kelly, J. A., & Worrell, L. (1978). Personality
characteristics, parent behaviors, and sex of
subject in relation to cheating. Journal of
Reseurch in Personalil)s 12, 179-188.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The
cognitive-development approach to socializa-
tion. In D. G o s h (Ed.), Handbook ofsocializa-
tioii theory arid research (pp. 347-380). New
York: Rand McNally.
Leming, J . S. (1980). Cheating behavior, subject
variables, and components of the internal-
external scale under high and low risk condi-
tions. Journal of Educational Reseurch, 74,
83-87.
Maass, A., & Volpato, C. (1989). Gender differ-
ences in self-serving attributions about sexual
experiences. Journal ofApplied Social Psychol-
OR>), 19. 5 17-542.
McCarty, P. A. (1986). Effects of feedback on the
self-confidence of men and women. Academy
of Management Journal, 29, 840-847.
Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Applying
theories of deviance to academic cheating.
Social Science Quarterly, 70, 870-885.
Molm, L. D. (1991). Affect and social exchange.
Satisfaction in power-dependence relations.
Americari Sociological Review, 56(4),475493.
Mussen, P., Rutherford, E., Harris, S., & Keasey,
C. B. (1970). Honesty and altruism among
preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 3,
169-1 94.
Ovcharchyn, C. A,, Johnson, H. H., & Petzel, T. P.
(198 I). Type “A” behavior, academic aspira-
tions, and academic success. Journal qf Person-
ality, 49, 248-256.
Perry, A. R., Kane, K. M., Bernesser, K. J., &
Spicker, €? T. (1 990). Type “A” behavior, com-
petitive achievement-striving and cheating
among college students. Psychological Reports,
66. 459465.
Piliavin, I., Thornton, G, Gartner, R., & Matsueda,
R. L. (1986). Crime, deterrence, and rational
choice. American Sociology Review, 51, 101-
119.
Powell, G. N.. (1990). One more time: Do female
and male managers differ’? Acculemy of’ Morr-
ugement E-recutive. 4, 68-75.
Sparacino, J., & Hansell, S. (1979). Physical
attractiveness and academic performance:
Beauty is not always talent. Jortrnul of Persoii-
ulity, 47, 449469.
Steininger, M., Johnson, R. E., & Kirts. D. K.
(1964). Cheating on college examinations as a
function of situationally aroused anxiety and
hostility. Journul oj‘ Edircatioriul P.sychology,
55(6), 3 17-324.
Suls, J., Becker, M. A,, & Mullen, B. (1981).
Coronary-prone behavior, social insecurity and
stress among college-aged adults. Jorrriirrl of
Hunian Stress, 7, 27-34.
Sykes, G., & Matza. D. (1957). Techniques of
neutralization: A theory of delinquency. Ameri-
cun Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.
Tang, T. L. (1988). Effects of Type “A“ personali-
ty and leisure ethic on Chinese college stu-
dents’ leisure activities and academic perfor-
mance. Jouniul of Social psycho log^. 128.
153-164.
Tittle, C. R., & Rowe, A. R. ( I 973). Moral appeal.
sanction threat, and deviance: An experimental
test. Social Problerns. 20. 488-98.
Trevino, L. & Nelson, K. (1995). Munaging birsi-
ness ethics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Trevino, L. K.. & Youngblood. S. A. (1990). Bad
apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis ofethi-
cal decision-making behavior. Journal of’
Applied Psychology 75(4), 378-385.
Vitro, F. T. (1971). The relationship of classroom
dishonesty to perceived parental discipline.
Journal of Colle,ye Student Per~soniiel,12, 427-
429.
Vitro, F. T., & Schoer, L. A. ( I 972). The effects of
probability of test success, test importance, and
risk of detection on the incidence of cheating.
Joyrnal ojSchool Psychology, 10, 269-277.
Ward; D. A. (1986). Self-esteem and dishonest
behavior revisited. Journul of’ Sociul Pswholo-
gy, 126. 709-713.
Ward, D. A,, & Beck, W. L. ( I 989). Gender and
dishonesty. Journal of Sociul Ps.vcholo~qy,130.
333-339.
Wright, M . (1995). Can moral judgment and ethi-
cal behavior be learned’?A review of the litera-
ture. Maiiagement Decision.33(9), 17-29,