The Influence of Ethics Instruction, Religiosity, and Intelligence on Cheating Behavior Author(s): James M. Bloodgood, William H.

Turnley and Peter Mudrack Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82, No. 3 (Oct., 2008), pp. 557-571 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25482311 . Accessed: 09/07/2013 11:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 82:557-571 DOI 10.1007/sl0551-007-9576-0

? Springer

2007

The

Influence

of Ethics

Instruction,

Religiosity,
Behavior

and InteUigence on Cheating

James M. Bloodgood William H. Turnley Peter Mudrack

ABSTPj\CT.
ethics behavior. business chances by falsely instruction, A

This

study
of 230 the

examines
and upper opportunity in an

the
level, to

influence
on cheating

of

business

settings

has

the potential

to cause

serious

religiosity,

inteUigence

sample had

undergraduate increase their

students of winning reporting indicate

money their that

experimental

situation the ser those that were taken that influenced and wrnle to cheat the

problems. In the classroom, of learning and may

cheating distorts the assessment put those who do not cheat at a

task performance. who less attended likely less

In general, worship to cheat than but ethics had indicate course the In not

results vices who

students were

more attended who

frequently worship had to

disadvantage both in terms of the grades they receive and their ability to compete successfiiUy for positions For example, upon graduation (CaUahan, 2004). many that engage in on-campus recruiting minimum require grade point averages for students who the advantage Thus, sign up for interviews. have cheated may extend gained by students who the grade earned in a particular course. In beyond firms addition, require students' a even in cases where specific grade point are typicaUy GPAs selection criterion. Likewise, in the busi important ness world, cheating may put honest organizations at an unfair disadvantage and individuals and may result in the inequitable distribution of scarce re sources. For
to

services a course than the a business moderated

frequently,

students no such extent cheating inteUigence students whether students cheating less

taken cheat

in business who do

likely a course. to which

students results

However, taking was

ethics by

behavior ofthe who or who were not were

religiosity

individual highly

student. religious were

particular, unUkely

do not companies to interview, average to be an considered

if they

a business taken ethics course, they had not demonstrated less highly reUgious a business course. had taken In ethics

addition,
students taken

the extent of cheating among highly

was reduced ethics. if such Likewise,

inteUigent
had individuals

significantly a course in business

students

who
tions

were
of

highly
if they were

inteUigent displayed
also highly religious. are discussed.

significantly
The implica

less

the expected
in order

inflates instance, if a division manager revenue from a proposed new product

achieve a higher projected return on

cheating

these

findings

investment
inteUi

KEY gence,

WORDS: religiosity

cheating,

ethics

instruction,

leaders may end up (ROI), corporate that for selecting project funding. The purpose of cheating seems obvious; that is, to
gain personal advantage in a situation. However,

that diverges from suggests behavior Cheating ethical norms and involves violating rules deceptively in an effort to gain something of value. Although on estimates vary both the frequency and magnitude of cheating behaviors (West et al., 2004), cheating does seem prevalent in business schools (Premeaux, 2005) and in academic settings more broadly (Granitz and Loewy, and Sigmund, 2007; Kerkvliet 1999; Lawson, 2004). Cheating in both academic and

cheating unethical

as inappropriate is generaUy viewed and for a variety of reasons. Most broadly, cheating violates norms of justice and fairness (West et al., 2004). Cheaters have an unfair seemingly

is advantage over others in that their performance not based on skiU, ability, preparation or even ran
dom occurrence. Moreover, cheating may create

additional apparent. through

consequences Peers of the no fault of

that are cheater own.

their

may For

less immediately be harmed example, aU

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

558James M. students
zation,

Bloodgood

et al context rather than attitudes

in a classroom
even honest ones,

or employees
may come

in an organi
under a cloud

in a specific cheating toward cheating.

and experience surveillance suspicion tighter instances of cheating arise. Likewise, cheating and result in lower quaHty foster distrust may individuals and between relationships interpersonal when
their coUeagues or supervisors. In addition, a chea

of

Theory Ethics Recent that instruction and cheating behaviors business can come the harm scandals have highlighted to employees, and shareholders, when business leaders behave unethi few train have en

ter's peers may be tempted (e.g., et al., 2006; and Klug, 1986; McCabe Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2004), either to level the playing field or West effect. From a utili simply because of a contagion
tarian perspective, then, cheating seems to create a

to cheat themselves

communities caUy

greater balance of harm than good, in that only the stand to benefit in any significant cheaters themselves others incur the way from cheating activities while associated direct and indirect costs (DeGeorge,

and Kandogan, 2007). While (Velthouse are business schools that suggest intentionaUy to behave many unethicaUy, ing students schools are doing

business questioned whether to to behave train students ough aux, 2005). As recently made attention Prior

2006).
In general, altogether it is not possible to eUminate cheating by means of stricter rules or tighter controls

ethicaUy (Preme a result, many business schools have a concerted effort to increase the

1999). These (KerkvHet and Sigmund, approaches to cheat or to escape the lessen may opportunities if one does cheat, but as long as some indi detection viduals perceive a benefit to cheating and they beHeve should be that activities that are personaUy beneficial Moreover, from both feasible, cheating systems with such tight controls are costly a financial and human perspective. In the to more a train be effective approach might long run, that to for themselves cheaters recognize potential upon for Two is wrong. approaches possible cheating to formal include behave individuals ethicaUy training and the ethics in the classroom ethics instruction instruction that is provided in reHgious activities. of both (not merely considered through regular partici In this study, we exam of these on actual cheating acted when wiU continue.

paid to ethics in the classroom. research suggests that ethics instruction has to make people less likely to engage in the potential behavior. For training and interventions various forms of example, are able to increase moral

unethical

et al., (e.g., Brendel reasoning for some individuals et Duckett 2006; al., 1997; Giv 2002; DeUaportas, et ner and Hynes, Holm 1983; al., 1995; Reiman and DeAngelis 2002; Self et al., 1993; Self Peace, reasoners differ et al., 1998a, b). Advanced moral reasoners in the complexity of from less advanced use to decisions make the rationale they (Kohlberg, et al., 1999). Specifi 1979, 1986; Rest 1976; Rest, caUy, focus advanced moral on reasoners self-interest inclined are less likely to exclusively and are more such making to emphasize ab and the "greater when

pation ined the effects behaviors and also moderator This

decisions

stract notions

as "fairness"

self-reports of such behavior), as a the role of inteUigence

of these relationships. First, we study has four general objectives. examine the influence of two types of ethics training

level, then, advanced moral good". On a conceptual reasoners should be less likely than others to seek some empirical personal advantage by cheating, and et al., this evidence (Cummings supports possibility and Smith, 1985; 1978; Mahnowski 2001; Leming, see Bernardi for less supportive evidence, however, et al., et al., 2004; Bruggeman and Hart, 1996; West

the influence of on cheating behavior. SpecificaUy, and both classroom instruction religious participation wiU be investigated. Second, we examine whether the relationship between taking reHgiosity moderates an undergraduate business ethics course and cheating. inteUi we the extent to which Third, investigate
gence acts as a moderator of the effects that academic

2004).
Likewise, prior research classes in "business ethics" indicates that university and "business and soci referred to as courses in

have on cheating. training and religious participation we our focus and Fourth, study on actual finaUy,

ety" (hereafter coUectively business ethics) may improve ethical understanding and and attitudes 2006; Gautschi (e.g., French, and Laditka 2006; Ritter, Houck, 2006; 1998; Jones,

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Influence of Ethics Instruction, Religiosity, and Felton, 2006; Weber and Glyptis, 2000; For the of this and Dewett, 2005). purposes as one a course is ethics defined that business study, to of the course devoted has a significant portion and theories associated principles ethical managerial decision-making theory, Glenn had were parts with moral and (e.g., utilitarian study conducted by students who ethics course group counter as of cheating shady busi there is no understand Sims

and Intelligence on Cheating

Behavior

559

WiUiams

the extent to which individuals actuaUy influences behave ethicaUy. In this investigation, we examined business behaviors among undergraduate cheating an students in the context of in-class exercise (de scribed incentive Leming, in more that considered other studies later). Unlike on with Uttle tasks cheating tangible to cheat (e.g., Bruggeman and Hart, 1996; detail

theory of rights, etc.). A that business (1992) revealed a stand-alone than their control

completed more likely to regard

business

objectionable ness practices,

specific examples classroom (e.g., cheating,

in this study could rea participants earn to cash for high task perfor sonably expect mance: up to 15 U.S. doUars. Moreover, participants could increase their likelihood of earning money by 1978), cheating, with The little obvious preceding and benefits risk of detection about and exposure. sumed value gests discussion of ethics the pre instruction sug here:

guarantee ethical concepts attitudes wiU manner. formal wiU

insider trading). However, that individuals who better

and adopt more ethical desirable in an ethical actuaUy make decisions

the first hypothesis 1 to Ethics the

to be investigated instruction of have ethics wiU

In other words, providing individuals with instruction in ethics does not ensure that they ethicaUy either inside or outside the (Menzel, 1997). question of whether influence one from individual both of behaviors The

Hypothesis related business course business

be negatively

extent

behave

students who in business students who

cheating. SpecificaUy, taken a stand-alone wiU cheat less than taken the course.

classroom The

such courses behavior such

do indeed

have not

positively the incidence important

and reduce as cheating is an time and practical and effort Religiosity and cheating behaviors

theoretical of

perspectives. put into ethics and

sheer amount

it receives, the attention instruction, more on the rest the calls for such trainings as in that ethics instruction "works" assumption tended. For example, Schools of Business the Association to Advance (AACSB) has issued coverage of ethics in the and graduate students generaUy help them

Issues related to the role of religion and spirituality in the context of business have received increasing in recent years (e.g., Graafland et al., 2006; et al., 2004; Schwartz, 2006; Worden, Longenecker 2005). Prior research indicates that religious training attention and beliefs have the potential to influence behavior by a framework to help distinguish between providing and 1972; MagiU, wrong nght (KeUey, 1992). the actual influence of such training in However,
various circumstances stiU needs to be examined.

CoUegiate

guidelines which require at both the undergraduate curriculum levels believe make

(Verschoor, also support the need for 2003) and many executives ethics instruction in business schools (e.g., Henle, Likewise, 2006). corporations frequently provide to their employees such training directly (Harring ton,
As

(Henle, 2006). Moreover, that additional training would more at work ethical decisions

While

1991).
mentioned above, however, there is no guar

religious do not ways and obviously and creeds, there are broadly shared assumptions that the most influence of teachings major religions (Epstein, 2002). Indeed, no major religion implicitly or to be generaUy considers explicitly cheating appropriate. Researchers

various

traditions

in important share identical doctrines

differ

antee and

that a better understanding wiU principles directly

of ethical translate

concepts an into

in individual behavior improvement (Furman, 1990). Indeed, most prior research on ethics training has examined whether such training enhances the moral the ethical "atti reasoning and/or improves tudes" of the individuals who receive it. In contrast, little research has examined whether ethics training

a variety of have provided working of religiosity (Ebaugh et al., 2006; ViteU et al., 2006). Based on these researchers' approaches, we define as understanding, religiosity committing a set of to, and foUowing doctrines religious or be assessed such with may principles. Religiosity as attendance behavioral indicators at religious definitions

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

560James M. affiliation, prayer reHgious frequency, in religious of sacred and texts, participation reading others and Emerson discussions with (see Conroy (2004) for some indicator important one's life, direct between religiosity viewed examples). While of the importance of religion in of possible connections evidence as an services,

Bloodgood

et al. that such individuals wiU be less

ists, this may suggest inclined to cheat. While examines there the

is little prior research that directly and between relationship religiosity

is rela and cheating behaviors interpretations. tively sparse and open to multiple seem to be not does For example, moral reasoning Prior with research has associated clearly religiosity. found evidence of both as weU rela and negative positive as nonsignificant relationships, and moral reasoning (Enright 1997). consistent involv relationships relativism and ethical

cheating, such a relationship can be inferred from the above. Moreover, findings of the studies discussed is also consistent with other tangen this inference et al. For example, Allmon a that with students strong (2000) reported religious orientation were more likely than others to believe tiaUy related research. forms of cheating behaviors were wrong not (e.g., teUing an instructor about an adding mis take that gave the students higher exam scores than they actually earned). Similarly, ViteU et al. (2006) that various associated with that religiosity was positively consumer activities beliefs that ethicaUy questionable were with associated and negatively inappropriate found In addition, Conroy and greed concerning money. for the that Emerson found (2004) reUgiosity was, most part, negatively of related to the acceptability scenarios. As individ business potentiaUy unethical uals who make religion central to their lives tend to and tenets of their faith internalize the expectations it seems rea traditions 2002), (Weaver and Agle, wiU to expect that highly reUgious individuals less likely than their less reUgious counter and logic discussed evidence parts to cheat. The above lead us to the foUowing hypothesis: sonable be

tionships, between

religiosity et al., 1989; Glover, Somewhat more

occur with ing reHgiosity tends to correlate positively idealism. Religiosity with idealism and negatively with relativism (Barnett et al., 1999; Steenhaut and et al., 1996; Singhapakdi Van and PaoliUo, 2006; ViteU Kenhove, 2003). Ethical idealists tend to accept universal rules (e.g., it to cheat). In contrast, ethical relativists tend iswrong to reject the existence of universal moral rules, be can be examined from different that morality notions of feel that and "right" and perspectives, on context the situational largely "wrong" depend lieve (Forsyth, 1980). For instance, in contrast to ethical idealists, ethical relativists tend to see little wrong actions performed with by ethicaUy questionable et al., et consumers al., 2004; Erffmeyer (Al-Khatib or marketers accountants (Elias, 2002), 1999), of (Kleiser et al., 2003), regard some manifestations as academic appropriate relatively dishonesty the (Rawwas et al., 2006), are less likely to recognize and issues ethical of Hunt, 1998), presence (Sparks and are inclined to be MachiaveUian, opportunistic, et Al-Khatib and calculating 2004; al., (Al-Khatib et al., 2005). High idealists, in contrast, tend to re

2 Religiosity related wiU be negatively Hypothesis to the extent of cheating; that is, highly religious business students wiU be less likely to cheat than less religious business students.

The

interaction between ethics instruction and religiosity above, classroom ethics instruction and

As discussed

forms of academic, business, and consumer et al., et al., 2004; Rawwas (Dubinsky dishonesty 2006; ViteU and 2006, Steenhaut and Van Kenhove, ject most (Etheredge, et al., 1996; ViteU and Hidalgo, be MachiaveUian (Al-Khatib et al., 2004; Ho et al., infractions should be that feel ethical and 1997), et Chiu and al., 1996; (Barnett severely punished Since et al., 1995). Erdener, 2003; Giacalone highly to more ideal are be ethical likely religious people PaoliUo, business 2003), contexts believe that ethics in is important 1999; Singhapakdi tend not to 2006),

guide

religious teachings individuals'

both provide frameworks and influence behaviors

that help the way

they distinguish between "right" and "wrong". Thus, individuals who are immersed in their faith traditions some of the concepts may already be familiar with presented Moreover, instruction. ethics classroom during some even if ofthe concepts presented are individuals may different, already religious highly in place to provide guidance when have a framework decisions persons, of an ethical nature. For less religious of a business the subject matter however,

making

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Influence of Ethics

Instruction, Religiosity,

and Intelligence on Cheating responses

Behavior

561

ethics course may be less familiar, and the aforemen tioned framework may be less fuUy developed. As such, students with strong reHgious backgrounds may enter into an academic setting already holding firm beHefs and such that cheating is inappropriate, seem to beHefs unHkely foUowing change markedly in a business ethics the formal instruction presented course. On
have more

as basic to inteUigence (cf. Sternberg, 1990). the apparent opportunity which Cheating, provides for personal gain, seems an obvious example of such an inteUectual impulse that can be controUed. Moreover, as an integral part of conceptualized 1992). Indeed, a relative (e.g., Anastasi, inteUigence lack of flexibility suggests that less inteUigent people have may difficulty imagining anything other than a flexibility is often response when faced with a temptation to cheat. In contrast, individuals operating at a higher level of inteUectual complexity may be able to discern self-interested the less obvious actions ramifications and implications of their (Furman, 1990). In addition, more inteUigent individuals should be better able to learn from both classroom instruction and than relatively less inteUigent participation In persons. particular, in a classroom setting, highly inteUigent individuals are presumably better able than others to appreciate the relevance of course material, to reUgious among diverse topics, to understand the linkage between actions and results, and thus to what have learned in other contexts they apply (Kingston et al., 2003). In short, the potential impact of ethics instruction on cheating behaviors may be par for relatively inteUigent students ticularly pronounced seem likely to learn more who and to think more deeply topic of ethics. Likewise, highly inteUigent individuals may also be relatively more adept at applying reUgious teachings across a variety of situ ations. Such individuals may be able to recognize about the see connections

the other hand,

"room to grow"

less reHgious
in an ethical

students may
sense. In such

cases, ethics instruction may be especiaUy important in to recognize less reHgious students and helping appreciate, perhaps for the first time, the ethical issues associated with cheating. Thus, we expect there to be an interaction between religiosity and ethics instruc In particular, we expect tion in predicting cheating. that the hypothesized negative relationship between and ethics instruction cheating wiU be stronger among are less reHgious and weaker students who among
students who are more religious.

Hypothesis

The

ship between behaviors wiU dents who

among their more

hypothesized negative ethics instruction and stronger

relation

be

are relatively
religious

cheating stu among business low in religiosity than

peers. In other words,

the negative relationship religiosity wiU moderate instruction ethics between of and the extent cheating behaviors.

Intelligence as a moderator The above hypotheses

(either in

examine
a classroom

the effect
or a

that ethics
traditional

instruction

quickly that cheating in an in-class exercise represents an obvious ethical dilemma that has broader implica tions than the potential for a short-term monetary gain. Highly reUgious students who are less inteUigent, on the other hand, may Ukely to cheat even if their and reUgious background experiences predispose them to understand that cheating iswrong. Such individuals simply be less likely to think through
that such a situation presents

religious setting) is likely to have on the extent of individuals often differ mark cheating. However, in to learn in both their and motivation edly ability and religious classroom the settings. In particular, individuals to that seem most from benefit likely ethics more now training in either arena may be those who are than their peers. The discussion inteUigent turns to connections and more between specifically as a moderator instruction and inteUigence to the potential role of the relationships in classroom or in

be more

may

the broader
when com

impUcations

pared ideas lead directly Hypothesis ship behaviors 4 between

to their more

inteUigent counterparts. to the foUowing hypotheses: hypothesized negative ethics instruction and be stronger among students than among

These

morality, of inteUigence between traditional

The wiU

relation cheating relatively their less

(either religious settings) and cheating behavior. have long discussed the relationship Psychologists between inteUigence and morality. Wechsler (1958) viewed the capacity to control instinctive or impulsive

ethics

inteUigent

business

inteUigent peers. In other words, inteUigence wiU the negative relationship between moderate ethics instruction and the extent of cheating behaviors.

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

562James M. 5 The hypothesized relation Hypothesis negative between and ship religiosity cheating behaviors will be among stronger relatively inteUigent business students than among their less inteUigent peers. In other words, inteUigence wiU moderate the negative between relationship the extent of cheating behaviors. religiosity and

Bloodgood

et al

sufficient time to examine broad-based provide ethical theories and approaches in a way that is not feasible when ethics is only one (sometimes relatively a class. The stand-alone within component minor) approach also aUows for the use of ethics experts for instruction Students were (Evans et al., 2006). the university attending take a business where the data as a

coUected

ethics

course

for graduation from the CoUege of requirement Business Administration. Each student was asked to Method the business specify whether they had completed course were ethics (or whether they currently taking coUected during the final week it). Since data were by coUecting data in six upper-level students courses. The students management in business
or accounting)

Sample The were hypotheses from 230 university examined

indicated that exams, students who were course in enroUed the ethics they currently were counted as having taken the course. Approxi mately ethics (coded 55% ofthe course "1"). a business students had completed while about had not 45% (coded "2"),

of class before

undergraduate were aU majoring

keting, finance,

(management,
at a large,

mar

state-sup

in the Midwestern United States. ported university 146 (63.5%) male and 84 (36.5%) female There were of the individuals (84%) subjects. The vast majority were in their early twenties.

Religiosity Although religiosity there are a variety of potential measures of Roth and KroU (2007) for examples), (see of attendance at religious services has been appropriate

frequency shown to be one

Measures

assess this construct To were three variable variables in this and one The were

to and effective way and Emerson, 2004). (Conroy assess the individuals' the degree of reUgiosity, to respond to the statement services religious regularly." Responses on a five-point to (1) Strongly Disagree asked
Agree scale. The mean score was 2.8,

There

dependent three independent individual ethics, pated had

study. variables included whether the in business taken a formal course to which the individual partici individual's

independent examined

participants "I attend were

(5)

made
Strongly

the extent

indicating

that

and the in religious activities, outcome The main examined was the inteUigence. extent to which the individual cheated on an activity he/she course business is com schools, ethics instruction In some in one of two ways. are required to take a stand-alone ethics. In other ethics had the opportunity to win money.

strongly agreed statement examining Intelligence InteUigence was score. The ACT

the nor

average strongly religious

respondent disagreed participation.

neither with the

where Ethics Within

assessed using is the required

a self-reported ACT entrance exam at the

monly presented schools, students course in business instruction

the study took place. The average university where score reported was 24, which is a little higher than the national of those who Administration. average of 21 but which from graduate the CoUege is fairly typical of Business

schools, in a variety is integrated as a component courses of (e.g., organizational subject-specific the behavior, marketing). Although accounting, integration method provides in context ethics instruction that ethical cipHnes, considerations the stand-alone away to easUy place the and reinforces the idea apply approach in aU business is more likely dis to

Cheating Before completing ticipant was given

each par any survey questions, a packet containing four "word search" puzzles created by the authors. Each puzzle a different number of hidden words contained (17,

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Influence of Ethics Instruction, Religiosity, the and 23). The participants were given to complete min 4 had about told and they packet to circle instructed search. They were each word 19, 21, to write they found and upon completion a sepa on circled down the total number of words rate taUy sheet. Between each of the four rounds, the each word were thrown completed word searches in only turned and each participant the number of words sheet reporting facilitator. into the trash his/her found taUy to the

and Intelligence on Cheating example, some word

Behavior

563 labeled with aU

searches were

were labeled with just the capital letters while others In addition, the order of the first letter capitalized. some of the searches differed. For example, word smaUest to largest others were or (17, 19, 21, and 23 words), while dered from largest to smaUest (23, 21, 19, 17) or in other arrangements (e.g., 21, 17, 23, and 19). There a total of 48 uniquely were identifiable configura four ordered from tions The and available for use maximum number of students the class (48 was in a class). searches were removed from in each had left the room searches were

created their own confiden Participants number tial identification (known only to them) and number on each of the included this identification

discarded word

they turned in. They did not write search number on the four word sure To the make that discarded. process pages they was consistent for aU participants, the same individ four taUy sheets the identification ual administered naire instructor
coUected.

the word This

searches individual

in aU sessions.

and question was not the data were

configurations. searches was subject's set of four word matched with its set of four taUy sheets. Subjects who wrote down a higher score on their taUy sheet than the number of words they actuaUy circled were consid Then each ered to be engaged number of words written extent in cheating. The difference in the actuaUy circled and the number

the trash can after the last participant sorted into the predetermined

for any of the courses

in which

incentives The participants were given monetary to perform weU on the word search assignment. They were told they would be randomly assigned to groups of six or seven individuals and that the high scorer within additional member One each incentive group would of $5 would $10. An be given to each receive

on the taUy sheet provided the measure ofthe of cheating. Approximately 16% ofthe par a score on answer wrote down their sheet that ticipants than what wrote of words their word they circled. search showed. No lower than down a score that was

was higher participants the number Control Some

of the highest key component

participants disposed each round. Only the taUy sheet was turned in to the facilitator. Thus, the participants could write down to the total number of any score they chose (up words
under

scoring group. of this study was the fact that searches after of their word

variables researchers men have shown there to be a differ and the likeli and women in terms of ethical 1992) et al., (e.g., McCabe to have been found

ence between attitudes hood

included
the

in the
that

search)
any

because
evidence of

they were
their ac

impression

and King, (Ruegger of behaving unethicaUy 2006). For example, women behave more ethicaUy than men

tual performance searches) had been (the word no thrown away with identification numbers written on them. The facilitator made this clear by having the participants of their word personaUy dispose in their taUy sheet with search before handing their
score written down. Thus, participants were under

with regard to such as use of company time, and things bribery, personal men for Moreover, responsibility employee safety. to cheat for different and women may be motivated
reasons. For example, men who cheat have been

to be higher in aggression while women who cheat have been shown to be higher in impulsivity shown (KeUy and WoreU, 1978). Therefore, gender controUed for in aU of the analyses. Gender scored such that (1) = Male and (2) = Female. was was

that any artificial increase in their (i.e., cheating) could not be tracked. to the participants, Unbeknownst the disposed to word searches could be matched the taUy sheets. impression score the actual word searches were identical, Although each one was labeled or organized slightly differ the differences between the sheets ently. However, were subtle enough and smaU enough that they were to be noticeable to the participants. For unlikely

the

Results The standard deviations, and correlations means, aU of the in variables the among study are presented

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

564James M.

Bloodgood I

et al

TABLE
Descriptive statistics and

intercorrelations

Variable Mean Gender

Ethics course

1 SD 0.48
0.50-0.11

1.37
1.55

ReHgiosity InteUigence Cheating

n = 230. **/><0.01,

2.81 1.27 24.44 3.50 1.12 4.23 -0.10

0.25*** 0.04

-0.17* 0.19** -0.09 -0.15* -0.16* 0.05

*/?<0.05,

***p<

0.001.

least squares ordinary was to test the used regression analysis hypotheses. are presented in The results of these analyses II. Table entered and independent variables were control in the first step ofthe regressions. In terms of the main effects, the results suggest that classroom related to ethics instruction was not significantly The cheating, to cheating 1 was Hypothesis terms were but that religiosity was negatively related = -0.18, p< 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis (/? but there was support for supported 2. However, the interaction because significant (discussed below), it is cus

in

Table

I. Hierarchical

tomary to interpret with caution.

any main

effect

that is significant

In viewing the results in Table II, it is clear that were terms the interaction related to significantly terms In particular, when the interaction cheating. were three added of the the model understand plot The was in Step 2, the change in adjusted R for as were the betas for aU significant interaction terms. In order splits were to better used to

these results, median the interactions.

not

first plot, Figure 1, displays the interactive effects of the ethics course and religiosity on cheating behavior. This figure indicates that individuals who were cheated less than relatively high in religiosity were did individuals who relatively low in religios ity. However, taking an ethics course differentiaUy behavior of individuals the cheating influenced For how upon they were. religious depending are relatively high in religiosity, individuals who
,

TABLE II
Results of moderated regression analysis

Dependent

variable:

Cheating Step 1 Step 2

Independent

variables

Effect

of Ethics Course

and Religiosity

on Cheating

Gender Ethics course Religiosity InteUigence

Interaction

-0.07 ?0.12 -0.18* 0.05

-0.04 0.55 0.61 0.89**

2

- Low Religiosity
^s. -HighReligiosity

\.

ReUgiosity
InteUigence

x Ethics course
x Ethics course

0.54*
-1.18*

u i
2.54* 3.00** 0.07

Religiosity

x InteUigence

?1.28* F

0.03 Adjusted R2 Change in adjusted R2 0.04*

No

Yes

h 230
are reported.

230
Figure cheating. 1. Effect of

Ethics Course

Standardized */><0.05,

regression **/><0.01,

coefficients ***;>< 0.001.

ethics

course

and

religiosity

on

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Influence of Ethics

3 j Effect of Ethics Course

Instruction, Religiosity,

and Intelligence on Cheating

3 j Effect of Religiosity

Behavior

565

and Intelligence on Cheating Low Intelligence -High Intelligence

and Intelligence on Cheating s -

Low Intelligence s^n -High Intelligence

2\ '8
u I 4S

?_^_ ^\~"
0 Low High Religiosity Ethics Course

No Yes

Figure 2. Effect
cheating.

of ethics

course

and

inteUigence

on

Figure 3. Effect of reHgiosity and inteUigence on cheat

ing.

taking cheating However,

an ethics

course but

tended only who

to further to a

decrease

Discussion One of the basic this research is questions guiding ethical ethics instruction helps to promote a who had taken On students average, course taken instruction of the cheated as much as students class such a course. However, to influence the seemed some results individuals more than

behavior, for individuals those who much

religiosity,

had

slight degree. are relatively low in taken an ethics course than those as hypothe ethics had a more

whether behavior. business who room cheating

others.

displayed who had not sized,

less cheating behavior taken the course. Thus,

ethics ethics

taking a course in business effect on the cheating behavior of those pronounced than of those who low on religiosity scored who H3 was sup scored high on religiosity. Therefore,
ported.

had not

behaviors

Figure the ethics behavior scored

2 shows course in this

the interactive and inteUigence

effects

that taking had on cheating

ethics

In particular, instruction

was more

suggest that classroom likely to reduce the ex

individuals who study. Among in those that had relatively high inteUigence, an course ethics cheated less than those completed individuals who the inteUigence, remained about the same whether they had taken such a course or not. Thus, H4 was
supported.

tent of cheating tended religious attended possible religious

circumstances.

individuals who among rarely at services than among those who more One services frequently. religious is for that this explanation finding highly individuals
Perhaps

For individuals extent of cheating

had not completed of relatively lower

an ethics course.

seem unlikely
this

to cheat under any

to cheat

disinclination

arises because created

negative individuals

their

the belief

already religious training that cheating iswrong and has broad

In more contrast, "room to less grow" religious in an

has

consequences. may have

the interactive effects Finally, Figure 3 displays and inteUigence had on cheating. that religiosity Among individuals who those who inteUigence, cheated much less than relatively high high on religiosity those who scored low on scored scored in

ethical sense from exposure to the concepts discussed in a business ethics class. That is, the significant de crease in cheating among those who scored relatively low on religiosity might have occurred because the course material focused on issues to which they were in less other of their lives. aspects exposed regularly In addition, the results also suggest that individuals who were relatively more inteUigent tended to cheat to less than less inteUigent persons after exposure either The academic simplest in ethics. instruction religious for these results may be explanation or

scored relatively low religiosity. For individuals who on inteUigence, the effect of religiosity on cheating was much As such, the influence of less pronounced. on was much stronger among religiosity cheating relatively high of relatively among participants Thus, H5 was supported. participants of than inteUigence low inteUigence.

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

566James M. that relatively more inteUigent individuals are better at learning and applying the ethical lessons presented in either context (academic or religious). In contrast, are relatively individuals who less inteUigent may have a harder time understanding the ideas discussed and may have a tougher time conceptualizing how in cases like the one under investigation cheating have broader implications than those immediately
apparent.

Bloodgood

et al.

Limitations There are several

contexts. In

limitations

with not
business

this study. generalize

students

the findings
other

of this study may

particular,

First, to aU
may

not

react

university based on western ings as weU.

the same way even though academic

as individuals the

outside was

of a not

criteria.

setting may For example, perceptions or appropriateness inappropriateness or

U.S.

experiment In addition, have influenced ofthe of

the Mid the find relative various

Contributions One study is that it demonstrated that ethics training may not be equaUy efficacious for aU individuals. Most prior research has ethics training influences simply examined whether or behaviors. individuals' Such attitudes, values, studies have not always yielded consistent results. In this investigation, ethics instruction by itself had no If, how apparent effect on the extent of cheating. is for beneficial ever, ethics training particularly rela then significant types of individuals, in have other studies may been hidden or tionships masked by not considering moderated relationships. interactions the between ethics By examining certain training and inteUigence, better for some individuals ethics training worked in low (those relatively religiosity or relatively high in inteUigence) than for others (those relatively high in reHgiosity or Understanding identify the the and ethics religiosity we were able to discover and training that classroom of the contributions of this

behaviors 1988) Moreover,

can vary by geographic (Harries, region across cultures et al., 1999). (Narvaez the relatively smaU rewards offered in this limited who did the cheating that took place. not cheat might have have done stakes been of self-re

study may have Some students

cheated, and those who did cheat might so to a greater extent, had the financial
larger.

Another

limitation

involves

the use

For for religiosity and inteUigence. ported measures instance, it is possible that a self-reported measure for by social desirability. religiosity may be influenced extent to that social the However, desirability plays a role, tude it should of the to reduce the magni actually work and between correlation religiosity

the fact that the average score cheating. Moreover, was 2.8 for religiosity scale) provides (on a 5-point some evidence that social desirabihty did not play a major role in this case. In addition, intel it is possible that participants' in the results non-hypothesized ligence influenced
ways. gent For students instance, tended to to the score extent better that more on the inteUi exercises,

in inteUigence). low relatively to interaction pattern helps in which ethics circumstances specific

training is likely to be relatively more or less effec tive. A clear strength of this study is that it investi rather than simply gated actual cheating behaviors our toward attitudes cheating. Moreover, examining to a incentive had tangible monetary participants no to risk of detection. little cheat with apparent in this study the cheating demonstrated Although the was based on relatively smaU sums of money, a baseline for cheating that can be results provide extended to include more sizable rewards for research activities. The percentage cheating in this study (approxi that cheated of participants was than prior reports lower somewhat 16%) mately in future of academic (Lawson, 2004), cheating rate increase with would that this likely however bigger it is stakes.

then this may

to cheat.

have

reduced
the fact

their need
that there

or motivation
was no sig

However,

nificant

correlation

between

ing makes this possibility more students may have inteUigent a wider variety of possibilities generate results could be tracked. Prior

inteUigence less of a concern.

and cheat Likewise, able to their

been

for how

suggests that chance of getting caught is likely to the perceived of cheating the incidence influence (O'Leary and taken steps were Radich, 2001). Although multiple to little that participants had in this study to highlight research no chance
were

of getting
discarded

caught
after

cheating
every round,

(e.g., word
no per

searches

sonaUy identifying did not directly

information assess

was

coUected),

we

participants'

perceptions

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Influence of Ethics regarding

cheating.

Instruction, Religiosity, be caught be more

and Intelligence on Cheating instruction

Behavior 567

the likelihood

that they could for cheating may assessed here. For

example, feel as if they have been treated un could respond by cheating in fairly by the university students who
to a desire "get even". After aU, research suggests

FinaUy, motivations than those complex

and universities may help organizations For example, utilize their resources more effectively. Furman (1990) discussed how the capacity for post conventional moral reasoning enables some people to get more out of higher-level benefit ethics courses instruction. benefit that Thus, designing individuals with reasoning post-conventional

steal from that employees who lieve that they are justified and treated unfairly exploited and coUege sometimes engage (DeMore injustice students who

their employers be if they have been

1990), (Greenberg, feel unfairly treated at their institutions in vandalism

to those indi capacity may be especiaUy beneficial no it to to little benefit viduals, but may provide others who do not possess this capacity. In addition, future studies might suggest that specific types of are more ethics instruction effective for improving the personal ethics of particular subsets of individu als. For instance, Furman's (1990) research also dis cussed the advantages and disadvantages of virtue based ethics actions instruction specific (which tends to focus on rather than reasoned thought) versus (which tends to than specific ac types of ethics to certain

a sense of perceived etal., 1988). Thus, could influence cheating as weU.

Implications for future In this instruction behavior.

research and practice interacted individuals' with ethics

study, inteUigence to influence

ethics instruction principle-based focus on reasoned thought rather

However, sonal characteristics how

determining instruction.

there may be that play an important role in to react individuals ethics an individual not characteristic

cheating additional per

It may be that specific tions). are likewise more instruction beneficial types of individuals larger set of elective mize from may his cost enhance or her than others. courses

a Thus, providing that students may pick chance to maxi

be directly associated with ethical attitudes or behaviors. However, it is that in individuals low self-confidence possible may are feel less secure that their existing viewpoints
correct and may be more open to course material

For example, like self-confidence may

an individual's

wider

a learning. However, providing course comes some of at array options clearly (which universities may or may not be wiUing

that questions
actions. For this

the appropriateness
reason, taking an

of
ethics

their
course

typical
may

have

effect on the personal ethics of individuals who lack self-confidence than it would for individuals who enter the course with more self dramatic confidence. In contrast,

amore

to bear). In addition, and universities may organizations benefit in other ways from a deeper understanding of the fact that ethics instruction is likely to benefit some individuals more than others. Simply put, in not everyone "needs" ethics regards to cheating,
instruction and even some of those who do "need"

it is possible that students with low self-efficacy do not believe (those who are to carry out a particular they fuUy competent to actually alter their task) may be less inclined
behaviors, result of even taking if an their ethics attitudes course. are changed, there as are a Thus,

it may
behaviors

not
as

be wiUing
a result of

to change
their

their attitudes
experience.

or

classroom

this study suggests that ethics instruction had relatively little influence on the cheating behavior of students who were highly religious. However, ethics Indeed, is clearly intended to address a wide while variety of issues beyond cheating. Moreover, one is to to clear religious participation expose likely an to with issue like cheating, guidelines regard in religious activities may not provide participation very clear guidance with regard to other ethical is sues that are to be in a business ethics addressed likely course (e.g., stakeholder academic analysis). Thus, ethics instruction might play a bigger role in influ than it does with encing other behaviors regard to instruction

several personal characteristics that could be studied in an effort to better understand when ethics instruction wiU be most likely to change individuals'
behavior.

there could be Moreover, tical considerations if future idea that traditional behaviors Knowing of who some ethics individuals likely

some

important prac research supports the influences than from the such more to benefit others.

instruction

is most

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

568James M. It is also important for future research to cheating. examine how different amounts of rewards influence so would individuals' decisions. Doing help to fur ther estabUsh ences Trevino religious unethical on the importance of contextual influ 1986;

Bloodgood would

et al. an increased abiHty issues the criticaUy analyze including to better discern appropriate ethical behav individuals with these while of business ethics portion focus on teaching commonly accepted an increased on "right" and "wrong", (for critical analysis) of such training. is some

provide

to more

abiHty iors. Thus,

(Trevino, decision-making some highly et al., 2006). For instance, not in consider engaging individuals may while under any circumstances, behavior

ethical

training may

perspectives awareness of other viewpoints also an important component

others may be tempted to cheat once the potential reward reaches a certain threshold amount. both in research Another important consideration and practice is to focus on the reasons for ethical and the focus of this study unethical behavior. Although
was on those who chose to cheat, there were many

estabHshes research In conclusion, the present an ethics that for the support completing position course influences of some the cheating behaviors individuals more than others. These findings support that business ethics instruction can be the viewpoints a beneficial endeavor and that more attention needs to be directed toward types of individuals and education. how different understanding are influenced by ethics training

did not cheat on this activity. Just as reasons that individuals may have there are multiple there cheated, may also have been a variety of rea individuals who sons why activity. between individuals Future research those who chose could not to cheat on this attempt to distinguish avoid cheating because they fear

References
A. D'Auria 'Ethical Countries: Stanton Segmentation A Comparative and M. Y. A.

avoid cheating be caught and those who getting cause they believe it is wrong. Weber (2007) sug can reason for the that help to acting moraUy gests of moral of the development stage cognitive identify the individual Development avoid cheating Theory of Moral (based on Kohlberg's For example, those who (1976)). because caught they fear getting and pre from a self-interested reasoning framework, whereas cheating
may

Al-Khatib, Rawwas:

J. A., 2005,

of Consumers Analysis',

in Developing

InternationalMarketing Review 22, 225-246.

Al-Khatib, J. A., C.J. Robertson Consumer and D. Ethics: N. Lascu: The Case 2004, of 'Post-Communist

be operating might moral conventional persons

societal moral

Romania',
AUmon, D.

Journal of Business Ethics 54, 81?95.

E., D. Page and R. Roberts: 2000, 'Deter

who
rules reasoners.

avoid
and

because
be more advanced

minants

they
or

respect
post

norms

conventional

of Perceptions of Cheating: Ethical Orienta tion, Personality and Demographies', Journal of Business Ethics 23, 411-422.
A.: 1992, 'What Counselors Should Know

Alternatively,

Anastasi,

is suggested when moral conventional reasoning individuals avoid cheating because itwould be unfair is to society. The implication to others or damaging not only the to understand that it becomes important choose to cheat but also of those who motivations of those who do not. the motivations only one type of FinaUy, this study examined a very specific within ethical behavior (cheating has a instruction ethics that It is possible context). on awhole host of other greater (or lesser) influence to investigate. outcomes that are also important to shared in addition Moreover, presenting widely an ethical behavior, ideals regarding appropriate ethics of business other component important individuals from different is to encourage issues in to examine ethicaUy-charged backgrounds a This lenses. of new ways and through variety instruction

About
610-615. Barnett, Ethical T.,

the Use

Tests', Journal
K.

and Interpretation of Psychological of Counseling and Development 70(5),

and and G. Brown: 1996, to Report 'Religiosity, a Peer's

Bass

Ideology,

Intentions

Wrongdoing',
Bemardi, W. R. A., Hoogkamp,

Journal of Business Ethics 15, 1161-1174.

R. L. Metzger, L. E. Reyes the Decision R. G. S. Bruno, Barnaby: Students' M. A. and G. H. Process of 2004, Cheat

'Examining

ing Behavior: An Empirical Ethics 50, 397-414.

Brendel, J. M., J. B. Student Kolbert Cognitive 'Promoting

Study', Journal of Business

and V. A. Foster: 2002, Journal

Development',

ofAdult Development 9, 217-227.

Bruggeman, E. L. and K.J. Hart: 1996, 'Cheating, Lying,

and Moral Reasoning by ReHgious and Secular High School Students', Journal of Educational Research 89,
340-344.

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Influence of Ethics CaUahan,

Instruction, Religiosity,

and Intelligence on Cheating

Behavior 569

D.: 2004, The Cheating Culture (Harcourt, Orlando, FL). Chiu, R. K. and C. B. Erdener: 2003, The Ethics of Peer in Chinese Societies: Evidence from Hong Reporting
Kong Resource Conroy, and Shanghai', 14, T. L. N. International 335-353. Emerson: 2004, 'Business Journal of Human Management S. J. and

Ethics in the MBA Curriculum', Academy ofManage ment Learning & Education 5(3), 278-293. Forsyth, D. R.:
184. French, Face W.: and 2006, 'Business Ethics Journal Training: of Business Face-to Ethics 66,

1980,

'A Taxonomy

of Ethical

Ideolo

gies', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 175?

at a Distance',

Ethics
Ethical

and Religion:
Awareness

Religiosity
Students',

as a Predictor
Journal of Business

of

117-126. Furman, tioning F. K.: the 1990, 'Teaching Business Seeking New Ethics: Ques

Among

Ethics 50(4), 383-396.

Cummings, R., L. Dyas, CD. Maddux and A. Koch

Assumptions,

Directions',

Journal of Business Ethics 9, 31-38.

Gautschi, F. H. and T. M. Jones: 1998, 'Enhancing the

man: 2001,
of Preservice

'Principled Moral Reasoning

Teacher Education

and Behavior
American

Students',

Educational Research Journal 38, 143-158. DeGeorge, R. T.: 2006, Business Ethics (Pearson Prentice HaU, Upper Saddle River, NJ). DeUaportas, S: 2006, 'Making a Difference with a Dis
crete Course on Accounting Ethics', Journal of Business

Is Ability sue: An Empirical Assessment of the Effectiveness of a Course in Business Ethics', Journal of Business Ethics 17, Ethical
205-216. Giacalone, R. A., S. Fricker and J. W. Beard: 1995, 'The

of Business

Students

to Recognize

Ethics 65, 391-404.

DeMore, 'The S. W., J. D. Fisher Model and R. as M. Baron: 1988, of Van Equity-Control a Predictor

of Ethical Impact of Ethical Ideology on Modifiers Decisions and Suggested Punishment for Ethical
Infractions', Givner, N. and Ethics 14, 497-510. Journal of Business K. Hynes: 'An 1983, Investigation of

dalism Among College Students', Journal of Applied Social Psychology 18, 80-91.
Dubinsky, A. J., R. Nataraajan and W. Y. Huang: 2004,

Change
Glenn,

inMedical
17, Jr.: 3-7.

Students' Ethical Thinking', Med

1992, 'Can a Business and Society

ical Education J. R.,

'The Influence of Moral

Pfnlosophy

on Retail

Sales

peoples' Ethical Perceptions', fairs 38, 297-319.

Duckett, MiUer, in L., M. H. Rowan, M. Wainwright the Moral Reasoning Students Between Program and K. of

Journal of Consumer Af
K. Savik: Krichbaum, 1997, M. 'Progress Nursing Exit', Nursing

Ryden,

the Ethical Judgment of Future Man agers?', Journal of Business Ethics 11, 217-223. Glover, R. J.: 1997, 'Relationships inMoral Reasoning and Religion of Conservative, Among Members and Liberal Religious Moderate, Social Psychology 137, 247-254.
Graafland, J., M. Kaptein and C.

Course Affect

Groups', Journal of
der Mazereeuw-van

Baccalaureate and

Entry

Research 46, 222-229.

Ebaugh, H. R., the J. S. Chafetz in and Faith-based of Religiosity P. F. Pipes: 2006, 'Where's Measures Faith

Organizations? in Faith-based

and Correlates

Schouten: 2006, 'Business Dilemmas and ReH gious Belief: An Explorative Study Among Dutch Executives', Journal of Business Ethics 66, 53-70. Granitz, N. and D. Loewy: 2007, 'Applying Ethical Duijn Theories:
Plagiarism', Greenberg, J.:

Social Service Coalitions',

Elias, ment R. Z.: Ethics 2002, Among

Social Forces 84, 2259-2272.

of Earnings Journal Manage of Business

Interpreting
Journal 1990,

and Responding
Ethics Theft 72,

to Student
293?306. to

'Determinants Accountants',

of Business 'Employee

as a Reaction

Ethics 40, 33-45.

Enright, R. D., M.J. D. as Santos and R. Journal Al-Mabuk: of Adolescence 1989, 12, 'The Adolescent 95-110. Epstein, E. M.: 2002, 'Religion and Business The Forgiver',

Underpayment Inequity: The Hidden Cost of Pay Cuts', Journal ofApplied Psychology 75, 561-568.
Harries, Capital K. D.: 1988, 'Regional and Variations Crime in Homicide, Severity in Punishment, Perceived

the United
334. Harrington, S.

of ReUgious Traditions inManagement Education', Journal of Business Ethics 38, 91-96. Erffhieyer, R. C, B. D. KeiUor and D. T. LeClair: 1999,
'An Empirical Investigation of Japanese Consumer

Critical Role

States', Geografiska Annaler 70 B(3),

J.: 1991, 'What Corporate America

325
is

Teaching
Executive

About
5, 21-30.

Ethics',

Academy

of Management

Ethics', Journal of Business Ethics 18, 35-50. Etheredge, J, M.: 1999, 'The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: An Alternative Scale
Structure', Evans, J. M., Journal L. K. of Business Trevino Driver's Ethics and G. 18, R. 51-64. Weaver: 2006,

Henle, C. A.: 2006, 'BadApples or Bad Barrels? A Former CEO Discusses the Interplay of Person and Situation with Implications for Business Education', Academy of Management Learning & Education 5(3), 346-355.
Ho, F. N., 1997, S. J. ViteU, 'Ethical Correlates J. H. Barnes of Role and R. Conflict Desborde: and Role

'Who's

in the Ethics

Seat?

Factors

Influencing

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

570James M. in Marketing: Role The Mediating of Ambiguity Cognitive Moral Development', Journal ofthe Academy ofMarketing Science 25, 117-126.
Holm, S., G. H. and Nielsen, P. H. M. Norup, A. 1995, Vegner, 'Changes F. in Guldmann Andreasen:

Bloodgood

et al.
and

Programs:

Prevalence,

Causes,

Proposed

Action',

Management Learning & Education 5(3), 294 Academy of 305.

McCabe, A. C, R. Ingram and M. and Gender', C. Dato-on: Journal 2006, of Business 'The Business of Ethics

and the Teaching ofMedical Ethics', Moral Reasoning Medical Education 29, 420-423. 1972, Why Conservative Churches are KeUey, D. M.: Growing (Harper & Row, New York). 1978, 'Personality Charac KeUy, J. A. and L. WoreU: and Sex of Subject in teristics, Parent Behaviors, to Cheating', Journal ofResearch in Personality Relation 12, 179-188. KerkvUet, J. and C. L. Sigmund: 1999, Can We Control Cheating in the Classroom? Journal of Economic Educa tion FaU, 331-343.
Kingston, P. W., R. Hubbard, B. Lapp, P. Schroeder and

Ethics 64, 101-116. 1997, 'Teaching Ethics and Values in Menzel, D. C: Public Administration: Are We Making aDifference?', Public Administration Review 57(3), 224-230.
Narvaez, D., I. Getz, J. R. Rest and S. J. Thoma: 1999,

Judgment and Cultural Ideologies', Developmental Psychology 35, 478-488. O'Leary, C. O. and R. Radich: 2001, 'An Analysis of 'Individual Moral
Australian Final Year Accountancy Students' Ethical

Attitudes',
Premeaux,

Teaching Business Ethics 5, 235-249.

S. R.: 2005, 'Undergraduate Student Per

J.WUson:
Education Kleiser, S. B.,

2003,
76, E.

'Why Education Matters',

Sivadas, J. J. KeUaris and R.

Sociology of
F. Dahl

53-70.

Cheating: Tier 1 versus Tier 2 ceptions Regarding AACSB Accredited Business Schools', Journal of Busi ness Ethics 62, 407-418.
Rawwas, M. Y. A., Z. Swaidan and J. Al-Khatib: 2006,

strom: 2003, 'Ethical Ideologies: Efficient Assessment and Influence on Ethical Judgements of Marketing
Practices', Psychology and Marketing 20, 1-21.

'Does Religion Matter? A Comparison Study of the and Ethical Beliefs of Marketing Students inReligious in Japan', Journal of Business Ethics Secular Universities
65, Reiman, Teachers' Performance: 69-86. A. J. and Moral A S. DeAngeHs Reasoning Developmental Peace: 2002, 'Promoting Inquiry and

Kohlberg,

L.: 1976, 'Moral Stages andMoralization:

Approach', in T.

The

Cognitive-Developmental

Lickona

(ed.), Moral Development

& Winston, Laditka, S. B. New and York), M. M.

and Behavior (Holt, Rinehart

pp. 31-53. 2006, 'Student Houck:

and CoUaborative Role-Taking

Guided
51-66.

Inquiry Study', Journal ofMoral Education 31,

Case Studies: An Experiential Approach Developed for Teaching Ethics inManagement', Journal ofBusiness Ethics 64, 157-167.
Lanza-Kaduce, L. and M. Klug: 1986, 'Learning to Cheat:

Rest,

The
Learning Lawson, Business

Interaction
Theories', R.: 2004, Students'

of Moral-Development
Deviant 'Is Classroom Propensity Behavior 7, Cheating to Cheat

and Social
243-259. Related in the "Real to

1979, Development in Judging Moral Issues J. R.: (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN). Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Theory and Research (Praeger, New York).
J., D. Narvaez, M.J. Bebeau and S.J. Thoma: 1999,

Rest,

Thinking: Approach (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ).

Ritter, B. A.: 2006, 'Can Business

Postconventional Moral

Neo-Kohlbergian
be Trained? A

World"?',
Leming, J. Influence,

Journal of Business Ethics 49, 189-199.

S.: 1978, 'Cheating Development', 214-217. J. A. McKinney and C. W. Moore: Behavior, Journal Situational of Educa and Moral 71,

Ethics

Study
Business 164. Roth,

of

the Ethical
Students',

Decision-Making
of Business Ethics

Process
68,

in
153?

Journal

tional Research Longenecker,

J. G.,

L. M.

and

J. C.

KroU:

2007,

'Risky

Business:

2004, 'ReUgious Intensity, Evangelical Christianity, and Business Ethics: An Empirical Study', Journal of Business Ethics 55, 373-386. MagiU, G.: 1992, 'Theology in Business Ethics: Appealing to the Religious Imagination', Journal of Business Ethics 11, 129-135.
Malinowski, soning C. I. and C. P. Smith: An 1985, Investigation 'Moral Rea and Moral Conduct: Promp

for Gender Assessing Risk Preference Explanations inReligiosity', American Sociological Review Differences 72, 205-220. Ruegger, D. and E. W. King: 1992, 'A Study of the Student Business Effect of Age and Gender Upon Ethics', Journal of Business Ethics 11, 179-186.
Schwartz, M. S.: 2006, 'God as a Managerial Stake

holder?', Jo urnal of Business Ethics 66, 291-306.

Self, D. J., D. C. Medical Baldwin, Ethics 'Teaching Olivarez: 1993, Jr. and M. to First-Year Students by

ted by Kohlberg's Theory', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49, 1016-1027.
McCabe, D. L., K. D. Butterfield and L. K. Trevino:

Using
soning',

Film Discussion
Academic Medicine

to Develop
68,

Their Moral Rea

2006,

'Academic Dishonesty

in Graduate

Business

383-385.

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Influence of Ethics

Instruction, Religiosity,

and Intelligence on Cheating Codes

Business:

Behavior

571 of Ethics
Manag

Self, D. J., M. Olivarez and D. C. Baldwin Jr.: 1998a, of Medical Education and 'Clarifying the Relationship Academic Medicine 73, 517-519. Moral Development',
Self, D. J., M. Olivarez of and D. C. Baldwin, Jr.: 1998b, 'The Amount SmaU-Group Case-Study Discussion

on
A

the Perceived
Comparison

Importance
of U.S. and

in

Spanish

ers', Journal of Business Ethics 64, 31-43.

ViteU, S.J. and J. G. P. PaoliUo: 2003, 'Consumer Ethics:

The Role
151-162.

of Religiosity',

Journal of Business Ethics 46,

Needed
ical Sims, R. R.

to Improve Moral Reasoning

Academic E. L. Medicine Felton, Ethics Jr.: 73, 2006, and

SkiUs of Med
521-523. 'Designing and Learning', and

Students',

ViteU, S. J., J. G. P. PaoliUo and J. J. Singh: 2006, 'The in Determining of Money and Religiosity Role
Consumers' 64, 117-124. G. R. and B. R. Agle: 2002, 'Religiosity and Ethical Beliefs', Journal of Business Ethics

Delivering

Business

Teaching

Journal of Business Ethics 63, 297-312. Singhapakdi, A., S. J. ViteU and G. R.

'Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating

Franke:

1999,
of

Weaver,

Effects

Ethical Behavior
actionist Perspective',

in Organizations:
Academy

A Symbolic

Inter
Review

Perceived Moral Intensity and Personal Moral Phi urnal Marketing Science 27, ofthe Academy of losophies', Jo
19-36.

of Management

27(1), 77-97. Weber, J. A.: 2007,

61-85. Weber, of on

Singhapakdi, A. S., S. J. ViteU, K. RaUapalli and K. L. Kraft: 1996, 'The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Journal of Responsibility: A New Scale Development', Business Ethics 15, 1131-1140.
Sparks, J. R. and Ethical and S. D. Hunt: 1998, 'Marketing Researcher Measurement, Sensitivity: Exploratory Conceptualization, Investigation', Journal

from Learning Theory',

'Business Ethics Training: Insights Journal of Business Ethics 70,

the Impact Service Business

2000, J. and S. M. Glyptis: 'Measuring a Business Course Ethics and Community Students' Values and Opinions', Teaching

Marketing 62(2), 92-109. of

Steenhaut, S. and P. VanKenhove: 2006, 'The Mediating

Ethics 4, 341-358. D.: 1958, The Measurement and Appraisal Wechsler, Adult Intelligence (WiUiams andWilkins, Baltimore).
West, T., S. P. Ravenscroft and C. B. Shrader: 2004,

of

Role
288.

in Consumers' of Anticipated Guilt Ethical Business Ethics 69, 269 Journal of Decision-Making',

'Cheating and Moral Judgment in the CoUege Class room: A Natural Experiment', Journal of Business Ethics 54, 173-183.
WiUiams, Teach Agenda', S. D. Business Journal and T. Dewett: A 2005, Review 'Yes, and You Can Ethics: of Leadership Research Studies

Sternberg, R. J.: 1990, Metaphors ofMind: Conceptions of theNature of Intelligence (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Trevino, L. K.: 1986, A 'Ethical Person of Management Decision Situation Review Making Interactionist 11(3), 601? in Organizations: Model', 617. Trevino, L. K., G. R. Ethics Weaver and S. J. Reynolds: A Review', 2006, Jour Academy

and Organizational

12(2), Worden,

109-120. S.: 2005,

'Religion

in Strategic Leadership: A
and Strategic

Positivistic,

Normative/Theological,

Analysis', Jo urnal of Business Ethics 57, 221-239.

in Organizations: 951-990. 32(6), Kandogan: ReaUy 2007, Doing?',

'Behavioral nal Velthouse, What

James M.

ofManagement B. and Y. are Managers

Bloodgood, William H. Turnley, and Peter Mudrack Department ofManagement, Kansas State University, College of Business Administration, Manhattan, KS, E-mail: 66502, U.S.A. jblood@ksu.edu

'Ethics Journal

in Practice: of Business

Ethics 70, 151-163.

Verschoor, Business 20-23. ViteU, S. J. and E. R. Hidalgo: and 2006, Enforcement 'The Impact of Ethical of C. C: 2003, 'Is Ethics Education Finance of Future Leaders Adequate?', Strategic August:

101 Calvin Hall,

Corporate

Ethical

Values

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:07:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions