25482311

7/28/2019 25482311

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/25482311 1/16

The Influence of Ethics Instruction, Religiosity, and Intelligence on Cheating BehaviorAuthor(s): James M. Bloodgood, William H. Turnley and Peter MudrackSource: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82, No. 3 (Oct., 2008), pp. 557-571Published 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 [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25482311?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/25482311?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

7/28/2019 25482311


Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 82:557-571 ? Springer 2007

DOI 10.1007/sl0551-007-9576-0

The Influence of Ethics Instruction,

Religiosity, and InteUigence on CheatingBehavior

James M. BloodgoodWilliam H. Turnley

Peter Mudrack

ABSTPj\CT. This study examines the influence of

ethics instruction, religiosity, and inteUigenceon

cheating

behavior. A sample of 230 upper level, undergraduate

business students had the opportunityto increase their

chances of winning money in anexperimental situation

by falsely reportingtheir task performance.

Ingeneral,

the

results indicate that students who attended worshipser

vices morefrequently

were less likelyto cheat than those

who attended worshipservices less

frequently, but that

students who had taken a course in business ethics were

no less likelyto cheat than students who had not taken

such a course. However, the results do indicate that the

extent to whichtaking

a business ethics course influenced

cheating behavior was moderated bythe

religiosity and

inteUigence ofthe individual student. Inparticular,

wrnle

students who were highly religious were unUkely to cheat

whether or notthey

had taken a business ethics course,

students who were nothighly reUgious

demonstrated less

cheating ifthey had taken a business ethics course. In

addition, the extent of cheating among highly inteUigentstudents was

significantly reduced if such students had

taken a course in business ethics. Likewise, individuals

who were highly inteUigent displayed significantly less

cheating if theywere also highly religious. The implica

tions of these findingsare discussed.

KEY WORDS: cheating, ethics instruction, inteUi

gence, religiosity

Cheating suggests behavior that diverges from

ethical norms and involves violating rules deceptivelyin an effort to gain something of value. Althoughestimates vary on both the frequency and magnitudeof cheating behaviors (West et al., 2004), cheatingdoes seem

prevalent in business schools (Premeaux,

2005) and in academic settings more broadly (Granitz

and Loewy, 2007; Kerkvliet and Sigmund, 1999;

Lawson,2004). Cheating

in both academic and

business settings has the potential to cause serious

problems.

In the classroom, cheating distorts the assessment

of learning and may put those who donot

cheatat a

disadvantage both in terms of the grades they receive

and their ability to compete successfiiUy for positions

upon graduation (CaUahan, 2004). For example,

many firms that engage in on-campus recruiting

require minimum grade point averages for students

who sign up for interviews. Thus, the advantage

gained by students who have cheated may extend

beyond the grade earned in aparticular course. In

addition, even in cases where companies do not

requirea

specific grade point average to interview,

students' GPAs are typicaUy considered to be an

important selection criterion. Likewise, in the busi

ness world, cheating may put honest organizations

and individuals at an unfair disadvantage and may

result in the inequitable distribution of scarce re

sources. For instance, if a division manager inflates

the expected revenue from a proposed new productin order to achieve a

higher projectedreturn on

investment (ROI), corporate leaders may end up

selecting that project for funding.The purpose of cheating seems obvious; that is, to

gain personal advantagein a situation. However,

cheating is generaUy viewed as inappropriate and

unethical for avariety of reasons. Most broadly,

cheating violates norms of justice and fairness (Westet al., 2004). Cheaters seemingly have an unfair

advantageover others in that their performance is

not based on skiU, ability, preparation or even ran

dom occurrence. Moreover, cheating may create

additional consequences that are less immediately

apparent. Peers of the cheater may be harmed

throughno fault of their own. For

example,aU

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




7/28/2019 25482311


558James M. Bloodgood et al

students in a classroom oremployees in an organi

zation, even honest ones, may come under a cloud

of suspicion and experience tighter surveillance

when instances of cheating arise. Likewise, cheating

may foster distrust and result in lower quaHty

interpersonal relationships between individuals and

theircoUeagues

orsupervisors.

In addition, a chea

ter's peers may be tempted to cheat themselves (e.g.,

Lanza-Kaduce and Klug, 1986; McCabe et al., 2006;

West et al., 2004), either to level the playing field or

simply because of a contagion effect. From a utili

tarian perspective, then, cheatingseems to create a

greater balance of harm than good, in that only the

cheaters themselves stand to benefit in any significant

way from cheating activities while others incur the

associated direct and indirect costs (DeGeorge,

2006).In general, it is not possible to eUminate cheating

altogether by means of stricter rules or tighter controls

(KerkvHet and Sigmund, 1999). These approaches

may lessen the opportunities to cheat or to escape

detection if one does cheat, but as long as some indi

viduals perceive a benefit to cheating and they beHeve

that activities that are personaUy beneficial should be

acted upon when feasible, cheating wiU continue.

Moreover, systems with such tight controls are costly

from both a financial and human perspective. In the

long run, amore effective approach might be to train

potential cheaters to recognize for themselves that

cheating is wrong. Two possible approaches for

training individuals to behave ethicaUy include formal

ethics instruction in the classroom and the ethics

instruction that is provided through regular partici

pation in reHgious activities. In this study, we exam

ined the effects of both of these on actual cheating

behaviors (not merely self-reports of such behavior),

and also considered the role of inteUigenceas a

moderator of these relationships.

This study has four general objectives. First, we

examine the influence of two types of ethics training

on cheating behavior. SpecificaUy, the influence of

both classroom instruction and religious participation

wiU be investigated. Second, we examine whether

reHgiosity moderates the relationship between taking

anundergraduate business ethics course and cheating.

Third, we investigate the extent to which inteUi

gence acts as amoderator of the effects that academic

training and religious participation have on cheating.

Fourth, and finaUy, we focus our study on actual

cheating in aspecific context rather than attitudes

toward cheating.

Theory

Ethics instruction and cheating behaviors

Recent business scandals have highlighted the harm

that can come toemployees, shareholders, and

communities when business leaders behave unethi

caUy (Velthouse and Kandogan, 2007). While few

suggest that business schools are intentionaUy train

ing students to behave unethicaUy, many have

questioned whether business schools are doingen

ough to train students to behave ethicaUy (Preme

aux, 2005). As a result, many business schools have

recently made a concerted effort to increase the

attention paid to ethics in the classroom.

Prior research suggests that ethics instruction has

the potential to make people less likely to engage in

unethical behavior. For example, various forms of

training and interventions are able to increase moral

reasoning for some individuals (e.g., Brendel et al.,

2002; DeUaportas, 2006; Duckett et al., 1997; Giv

ner and Hynes, 1983; Holm et al., 1995; Reiman

and DeAngelis Peace, 2002; Self et al., 1993; Selfet al., 1998a, b). Advanced moral reasoners differ

from less advanced reasoners in the complexity of

the rationale they use to make decisions (Kohlberg,

1976; Rest, 1979, 1986; Rest et al., 1999). Specifi

caUy, advanced moral reasoners are less likely to

focus exclusively on self-interest when making

decisions and are more inclined to emphasize ab

stract notions such as "fairness" and the "greater

good". On aconceptual level, then, advanced moral

reasoners should be less likely than others to seek

personal advantage by cheating, and some empiricalevidence supports this possibility (Cummings et al.,

2001; Leming, 1978; Mahnowski and Smith, 1985;

for less supportive evidence, however, see Bernardi

et al., 2004; Bruggeman and Hart, 1996; West et al.,

2004).Likewise, prior research indicates that university

classes in "business ethics" and "business and soci

ety" (hereafter coUectively referred to as courses in

business ethics) may improve ethical understanding

and attitudes (e.g., French, 2006; Gautschi and

Jones, 1998; Laditka and Houck, 2006; Ritter, 2006;





7/28/2019 25482311


The Influence ofEthics Instruction, Religiosity, and Intelligenceon

Cheating Behavior 559

Sims and Felton, 2006; Weber and Glyptis, 2000;

WiUiams and Dewett, 2005). For the purposes of this

study, a business ethics course is defined as one that

has a significant portion of the course devoted to

principles and theories associated with moral and

ethical managerial decision-making (e.g., utilitariantheory, theory of rights, etc.). A study conducted by

Glenn (1992) revealed that business students who

had completed a stand-alone business ethics course

were more likely than their control group counter

parts to regard specific examples of cheating as

objectionable (e.g., classroom cheating, shady busi

ness practices, insider trading). However, there is no

guarantee that individuals who better understand

ethical concepts and adoptmore desirable ethical

attitudes wiU actuaUy make decisions in an ethical

manner. In other words, providing individuals with

formal instruction in ethics does not ensure that they

wiU behave ethicaUy either inside or outside the

classroom (Menzel, 1997).

The question of whether such courses do indeed

positively influence individual behavior and reduce

the incidence of behaviors such as cheating is an

important one from both theoretical and practical

perspectives. The sheer amount of time and effort

put into ethics instruction, the attention it receives,

and the calls for more such trainings rest on the

assumption that ethics instruction "works" as in

tended. For example, the Association to Advance

CoUegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) has issued

guidelines which require coverage of ethics in the

curriculum at both the undergraduate and graduatelevels (Henle, 2006). Moreover, students generaUybelieve that additional training would help them

make more ethical decisions at work (Verschoor,

2003) and many executives also support the need for

ethics instruction in business schools (e.g., Henle,

2006). Likewise, corporations frequently providesuch training directly to their employees (Harring

ton, 1991).

As mentioned above, however, there is noguar

antee that a better understanding of ethical concepts

and principles wiU directly translate into an

improvement in individual behavior (Furman,

1990). Indeed, most prior research on ethics traininghas examined whether such training enhances the

moral reasoning and/or improves the ethical "atti

tudes" of the individuals who receive it. In contrast,

little research has examined whether ethics training

actuaUy influences the extent to which individuals

behave ethicaUy. In this investigation, we examined

cheating behaviors among undergraduate business

students in the context of an in-class exercise (de

scribed in more detail later). Unlike other studies

that considered cheating on tasks with Uttle tangibleincentive to cheat (e.g., Bruggeman and Hart, 1996;

Leming, 1978), participants in this study could rea

sonably expect to earn cash for high task performance: up to 15U.S. doUars. Moreover, participants

could increase their likelihood of earning money by

cheating, with little obvious risk of detection and

exposure. The preceding discussion about the pre

sumed value and benefits of ethics instruction sug

gests the first hypothesis to be investigated here:

Hypothesis 1 Ethics instruction wiU be negativelyrelated to the extent of cheating. SpecificaUy,

business students who have taken a stand-alone

course in business ethics wiU cheat less than

business students who have not taken the course.

Religiosity and cheating behaviors

Issues related to the role of religion and spirituality in

the context of business have received increasingattention in recent years (e.g., Graafland et al., 2006;

Longenecker et al., 2004; Schwartz, 2006; Worden,

2005). Prior research indicates that religious trainingand beliefs have the potential to influence behavior by

providing a framework to help distinguish between

nght and wrong (KeUey, 1972; MagiU, 1992).

However, the actual influence of such training in

various circumstances stiU needs to be examined.

While various religious traditions differ in important

ways and obviously do not share identical doctrines

andcreeds,

there arebroadly

sharedassumptions that

influence the teachings of most major religions

(Epstein, 2002). Indeed, no major religion implicitlyor

explicitly considers cheating to be generaUy

appropriate.

Researchers have provided a variety of workingdefinitions of religiosity (Ebaugh et al., 2006; ViteU

et al., 2006). Based on these researchers' approaches,we define religiosity as

understanding, committing

to, and foUowinga set of religious doctrines

orprinciples. Religiosity may be assessed with such

behavioral indicators as attendance at religious





7/28/2019 25482311


560James M. Bloodgood et al.

services, reHgious affiliation, prayer frequency,

reading of sacred texts, and participation in religious

discussions with others (see Conroy and Emerson

(2004) for someexamples). While viewed as an

important indicator of the importance of religion in

one's life, direct evidence of possible connectionsbetween religiosity and cheating behaviors is rela

tively sparse and open to multiple interpretations.

For example, moral reasoning does not seem to be

clearly associated with religiosity. Prior research has

found evidence of both positive and negative rela

tionships, as weU as nonsignificant relationships,

between religiosity and moral reasoning (Enright

et al., 1989; Glover, 1997).

Somewhat more consistent relationships involv

ing reHgiosityoccur with ethical relativism and

idealism. Religiosity tends to correlate positively

with idealism and negatively with relativism (Barnett

et al., 1996; Singhapakdi et al., 1999; Steenhaut and

Van Kenhove, 2006; ViteU and PaoliUo, 2003).

Ethical idealists tend to accept universal rules (e.g., it

iswrong to cheat). In contrast, ethical relativists tend

to reject the existence of universal moral rules, be

lieve that morality can be examined from different

perspectives, and feel that notions of "right" and

"wrong" depend largelyon the situational context

(Forsyth, 1980). For instance, in contrast to ethical

idealists, ethical relativists tend to see little wrong

with ethicaUy questionable actions performed by

consumers (Al-Khatib et al., 2004; Erffmeyer et al.,

1999), accountants (Elias, 2002), or marketers

(Kleiser et al., 2003), regard some manifestations of

academic dishonesty as relatively appropriate

(Rawwas et al., 2006), are less likely to recognize the

presence of ethical issues (Sparks and Hunt, 1998),

and are inclined to be MachiaveUian, opportunistic,

and calculating (Al-Khatib et al., 2004; Al-Khatib

etal., 2005). High idealists,

in contrast, tend to re

ject most forms of academic, business, and consumer

dishonesty (Dubinsky et al., 2004; Rawwas et al.,

2006, Steenhaut and Van Kenhove, 2006; ViteU and

PaoliUo, 2003), believe that ethics is important in

business contexts (Etheredge, 1999; Singhapakdi

et al., 1996; ViteU and Hidalgo, 2006), tend not to

be MachiaveUian (Al-Khatib et al., 2004; Ho et al.,

1997), and feel that ethical infractions should be

punished severely (Barnett et al., 1996; Chiu and

Erdener, 2003; Giacalone et al., 1995). Since highly

religious people are more likely to be ethical ideal

ists, this may suggest that such individuals wiU be less

inclined to cheat.

While there is little prior research that directly

examines the relationship between religiosity and

cheating, such arelationship can be inferred from the

findings of the studies discussed above. Moreover,this inference is also consistent with other tangen

tiaUy related research. For example, Allmon et al.

(2000) reported that students with a strong religious

orientation were more likely than others to believe

that various forms of cheating behaviors were wrong

(e.g., not teUing an instructor about an adding mis

take that gave the students higher exam scores than

they actually earned). Similarly, ViteU et al. (2006)

found that religiosity was positively associated with

beliefs that ethicaUy questionableconsumer activities

were inappropriate and negatively associated with

greed concerning money. In addition, Conroy and

Emerson (2004) found that reUgiosity was, for the

most part, negatively related to the acceptability of

potentiaUy unethical business scenarios. As individ

uals who make religion central to their lives tend to

internalize the expectations and tenets of their faith

traditions (Weaver and Agle, 2002), it seems rea

sonable to expect that highly reUgious individuals

wiU be less likely than their less reUgious counter

parts to cheat. The evidence and logic discussed

above lead us to the foUowing hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 Religiosity wiU be negatively related

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

As discussed above, classroom ethics instruction and

religious teachings both provide frameworks that help

guide individuals' behaviors and influence the way

they distinguish between "right" and "wrong". Thus,

individuals who are immersed in their faith traditions

may already be familiar with some of the concepts

presented during classroom ethics instruction.

Moreover, even if some ofthe concepts presentedare

different, highly religious individuals may already

have a framework in place to provide guidance when

making decisions of an ethical nature. For less religious

persons, however, the subject matter ofa

business





7/28/2019 25482311


The Influence of Ethics Instruction, Religiosity, and Intelligence on Cheating 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 that cheating is inappropriate, and such

beHefs seem unHkely to change markedly foUowingthe formal instruction presented in a business ethics

course. On the other hand, less reHgious students may

have more "room togrow"

in an ethical sense. In such

cases, ethics instruction may be especiaUy important in

helping less reHgious students to recognize and

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

tion in predicting cheating. In particular, we expect

that the hypothesized negative relationship between

ethics instruction and cheating wiU be stronger among

students who are less reHgious and weaker among

students who are morereligious.

Hypothesis 3 The hypothesized negative relation

ship between ethics instruction and cheating

behaviors wiU be stronger among business stu

dents who are relatively low in religiosity than

among their morereligious peers. In other words,

religiosity wiU moderate the negative relationship

between ethics instruction and the extent of

cheating behaviors.

Intelligenceas a moderator

The above hypotheses examine the effect that ethics

instruction (either in a classroom or a traditional

religious setting) is likely to have on the extent of

cheating. However, individuals often differ mark

edly in their ability and motivation to learn in both

classroom and religious settings. In particular, theindividuals that seem most likely to benefit from

ethics training in either arena may be those who are

moreinteUigent than their peers. The discussion

now turns to connections between inteUigence and

morality, and morespecifically to the potential role

of inteUigence as a moderator of the relationshipsbetween ethics instruction (either in classroom or in

traditional religious settings) and cheating behavior.

Psychologists have long discussed the relationshipbetween inteUigence and morality. Wechsler (1958)

viewed the capacity to control instinctive or impulsive

responses as basic to inteUigence (cf. Sternberg, 1990).

Cheating, which provides the apparent opportunity

for personal gain, seems an obvious example of such an

impulse that can be controUed. Moreover, inteUectual

flexibility is often conceptualized as an integral part of

inteUigence (e.g., Anastasi, 1992). Indeed, a relativelack of flexibility suggests that less inteUigent people

may have difficulty imagining anything other than a

self-interested response when faced with a temptation

to cheat. In contrast, individuals operating at ahigher

level of inteUectual complexity may be able to discern

the less obvious ramifications and implications of their

actions (Furman, 1990).

In addition, moreinteUigent individuals should be

better able to learn from both classroom instruction and

reUgious participation than relatively less inteUigent

persons. In particular, in a classroom setting, highly

inteUigent individuals are presumably better able than

others to appreciate the relevance of course material, to

see connections among diverse topics, to understand

the linkage between actions and results, and thus to

apply what they have learned in other contexts

(Kingston et al., 2003). In short, the potential impact of

ethics instruction oncheating behaviors may be par

ticularly pronounced for relatively inteUigent students

who seem likely to learn more and to think more

deeplyabout the

topicof ethics.

Likewise, highlyinteUigent individuals may also be relatively more adeptat applying reUgious teachings across a variety of situ

ations. Such individuals may be able to recognize

quickly that cheating in an in-class exercise represents

an obvious ethical dilemma that has broader implications than the potential for a short-term monetary gain.

Highly reUgious students who are less inteUigent, on the

other hand, may be more Ukely to cheat even if their

reUgious background and experiences predispose them

to understand that cheating iswrong. Such individuals

may simply be less likely to think through the broaderimpUcations that such a situation presents when com

pared to their more inteUigent counterparts. These

ideas lead directly to the foUowing hypotheses:


ship between ethics instruction and cheatingbehaviors wiU be stronger among relatively

inteUigent business students than among their less

inteUigent peers. In other words, inteUigence wiU

moderate the negative relationship between ethics

instruction and the extent of cheating behaviors.





7/28/2019 25482311




ship between religiosity and cheating behaviors

will be stronger among relatively inteUigentbusiness students than among their less inteUigent

peers. In other words, inteUigence wiU moderate

the negative relationship between religiosity and

the extent of cheating behaviors.

Method

Sample

The hypotheses were examined by coUecting data

from 230 university students in six upper-level

undergraduate management courses. The students

were aU majoring in business (management, mar

keting, finance, oraccounting)

at alarge, state-sup

ported university in the Midwestern United States.

There were 146 (63.5%) male and 84 (36.5%) female

subjects. The vast majority of the individuals (84%)were in their early twenties.

Measures

There were three independent variables and one

dependent variable examined in this study. The

three independent variables included whether the

individual had taken a formal course in business

ethics, the extent to which the individual partici

pated in religious activities, and the individual's

inteUigence. The main outcome examined was the

extent towhich the individual cheated on an activity

where he/she had the opportunity to win money.

Ethics course

Within business schools, ethics instruction is com

monly presented in one of two ways. In some

schools, students are required to take a stand-alone

course in business ethics. In other schools, ethics

instruction is integratedas a component in a variety

of subject-specificcourses (e.g., organizational

behavior, accounting, marketing). Although the

integration method providesaway to easUy place the

ethics instruction in context and reinforces the idea

that ethical considerations

apply

in aU business dis

cipHnes, the stand-alone approach ismore likely to

provide sufficient time to examine broad-based

ethical theories and approaches in away that is not

feasible when ethics is onlyone (sometimes relatively

minor) component within a class. The stand-alone

approach also aUows for the use of ethics experts for

instruction (Evans et al., 2006).

Students attending the university where the data

were coUected take a business ethics course as a

requirement for graduation from the CoUege of

Business Administration. Each student was asked to

specify whether they had completed the business

ethics course (orwhether they werecurrently taking

it). Since data were coUected during the final week

of class before exams, students who indicated that

they were currently enroUed in the ethics course

were counted ashaving

taken the course.Approxi

mately 55% ofthe students had completeda business

ethics course (coded "2"), while about 45% had not

(coded "1").

Religiosity

Although there are a variety of potential measures of

religiosity (see Roth and KroU (2007) for examples),

frequency of attendance at religious services has been

shown to be one appropriate and effective way to

assess this construct (Conroy and Emerson, 2004).

To assess the individuals' degree of reUgiosity, the

participantswere asked to respond to the statement

"I attend religious services regularly." Responses

were made on afive-point (1) Strongly Disagree to

(5) Strongly Agree scale. The mean score was 2.8,

indicating that the average respondent neither

strongly agreed nor strongly disagreed with the

statement examining religious participation.

Intelligence

InteUigencewas assessed using a self-reported ACT

score. The ACT is the required entrance exam at the

university where the study took place. The average

scorereported

was 24, which is a little higher than

the national average of 21 but which is fairly typical

of those who graduate from the CoUege of Business

Administration.

Cheating

Before completing any survey questions, each par

ticipant was given a packet containing four "word

search"

puzzles

created

by

the authors. Each

puzzlecontained a different number of hidden words (17,





7/28/2019 25482311


The Influence of Ethics Instruction, Religiosity, and Intelligenceon Cheating Behavior 563

19, 21, and 23). The participantswere given the

packet and told they had about 4 min to complete

each word search. Theywere instructed to circle

each word they found and upon completion towrite

down the total number of words circled on a sepa

rate taUy sheet. Between each of the four rounds, the

completed word searches were thrown into the trash

and each participant turned in only his/her taUy

sheet reporting the number of words found to the

facilitator. Participants created their own confiden

tial identification number (known only to them) and

included this identification number on each of the

four taUy sheets they turned in. They did not write

the identification number on the four word search

pages that they discarded. To make sure the process

was consistent for aU participants, the same individ

ual administered the word searches and question

naire in aU sessions. This individual was not the

instructor for any of the courses inwhich data were

coUected.

The participants were given monetary incentives

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 highscorer within each group would receive $10. An

additional incentive of $5 would be given to each

memberof the

highest scoring group.One key component of this study was the fact that

participants disposed of their word searches after

each round. Only the taUy sheet was turned in to the

facilitator. Thus, the participants could write down

any score they chose (up to the total number of

words included in the search) because they were

under the impression that any evidence of their ac

tual performance (the word searches) had been

thrown away with no identification numbers written

on them. The facilitator made this clear by having

the participants personaUy dispose of their wordsearch before handing in their taUy sheet with their

score written down. Thus, participantswere under

the impression that any artificial increase in their

score (i.e., cheating) could not be tracked.

Unbeknownst to the participants, the disposedword searches could be matched to the taUy sheets.

Although the actual word searches were identical,

each one was labeled ororganized slightly differ

ently. However, the differences between the sheets

were subtle enough and smaU enough that they were

unlikely to be noticeable to the participants. For

example, some word searches were labeled with aU

capital letters while others were labeled with just the

first letter capitalized. In addition, the order of the

word searches differed. For example,some of the

four searches were ordered from smaUest to largest

(17, 19, 21, and 23 words), while others were ordered from largest to smaUest (23, 21, 19, 17) or in

other arrangements (e.g., 21, 17, 23, and 19). There

were a total of 48 uniquely identifiable configura

tions available for use in each class (48 was the

maximum number of students in a class).

The discarded word searches were removed from

the trash can after the last participant had left the room

and sorted into the predetermined configurations.

Then each subject's set of four word searches was

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

ered to be engaged in cheating. The difference in the

number of words actuaUy circled and the number

written on the taUy sheet provided the measure ofthe

extent of cheating. Approximately 16% ofthe par

ticipants wrote down a score on their answer sheet that

was higher than what their word search showed. No

participants wrote down a score that was lower than

the number of words they circled.

Control variables

Some researchers have shown there to be a differ

ence between men and women in terms of ethical

attitudes (Ruegger and King, 1992) and the likeli

hood of behaving unethicaUy (e.g., McCabe et al.,

2006). For example, women have been found to

behave more ethicaUy than men with regard to such

things asbribery, personal use of company time, and

responsibility for employee safety. Moreover, men

and women may be motivated to cheat for different

reasons. For example, men who cheat have been

shown to be higher in aggression while women who

cheat have been shown to be higher in impulsivity

(KeUy and WoreU, 1978). Therefore, gender was

controUed for in aU of the analyses. Gender was

scored such that (1)=

Male and (2)=

Female.

Results

The means, standard deviations, and correlations

among aU of the variables in the study are presented





7/28/2019 25482311



TABLE I

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations

Variable 1 2 3 4

Mean SD

Gender 1.37 0.48

Ethics course 1.55 0.50 0.11

ReHgiosity 2.81.27 0.25*** -0.17*

InteUigence 24.44.50 0.04 0.19** -0.15*

Cheating 1.12 4.230.10 -0.09 -0.16* 0.05

n =230.

*/?<0.05, **/><0.01, ***p< 0.001.

in Table I. Hierarchical ordinary least squares

regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses.

The results of these analyses are presented in

Table II.

The control and independent variables were

entered in the first step ofthe regressions. In terms of

the main effects, the results suggest that classroom

ethics instruction was not significantly related to

cheating, but that religiositywas

negatively related

to cheating (/?=

-0.18, p< 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis

1 was not supported but there was support for

Hypothesis 2. However, because the interaction

terms were significant (discussed below), it is cus

TABLE II

Results of moderated regression analysis

Dependent variable: Cheating

Step 1 Step 2

Independent variables

Gender -0.07 -0.04

Ethics course ?0.12 0.55

Religiosity -0.18* 0.61

InteUigence 0.05 0.89**

Interaction

ReUgiosity x Ethics course 0.54*

InteUigencex Ethics course -1.18*

Religiosity x InteUigence ?1.28*

F 2.54* 3.00**

Adjusted R2 0.03 0.07

Change in adjusted R2 0.04*

h 230 230

Standardized regression coefficients arereported.

*/><0.05, **/><0.01, ***;>< 0.001.

tomary to interpret any main effect that is significant

with caution.

In viewing the results in Table II, it is clear that

the interaction terms were significantly related to

cheating. In particular, when the interaction terms

were added in Step 2, the change in adjusted R for

the model wassignificant

as were the betas for aU

three of the interaction terms. In order to better

understand these results, median splits were used to

plot the interactions.

The first plot, Figure 1, displays the interactive

effects of the ethics course and religiosity on cheating

behavior. This figure indicates that individuals whowere relatively high in religiosity cheated less than

did individuals who were relatively low in religios

ity. However, taking an ethics course differentiaUy

influenced the cheating behavior of individuals

depending upon how religious they were. For

individuals who are relatively high in religiosity,

3, Effect of Ethics Course and Religiosity on Cheating

\ I - LowReligiosity^s. -HighReligiosity

2 \.

u \i

0 No Yes

Ethics Course

Figure 1. Effect of ethics course and religiosityon

cheating.





7/28/2019 25482311


The Influence of Ethics Instruction, Religiosity, and Intelligenceon Cheating Behavior 565

3 j Effect of Ethics Course and Intelligence on Cheating

-Low Intelligence

-High Intelligence

2\'8

u_^_

i?

^\~"

0No Yes

Ethics Course

Figure 2. Effect of ethics course and inteUigence on

cheating.

taking an ethics course tended to further decrease

cheating behavior, but only to a slight degree.

However, for individuals who are relatively low in

religiosity, those who had taken an ethics course

displayed much less cheating behavior than those

who had not taken the course. Thus, as hypothe

sized, takinga course in business ethics had amore

pronounced effect on the cheating behavior of those

who scored low on religiosity than of those who

scored high on religiosity. Therefore, H3 was sup

ported.

Figure 2 shows the interactive effects that taking

the ethics course and inteUigence had on cheating

behavior in this study. Among individuals who

scored relatively high in inteUigence, those that had

completedan ethics course cheated less than those

individuals who had not completedan ethics course.

For individuals of relatively lower inteUigence, the

extent of cheating remained about the same whether

they had taken such a course or not. Thus, H4 was

supported.

Finally, Figure 3 displays the interactive effectsthat religiosity and inteUigence had on cheating.

Among individuals who scored relatively high in

inteUigence, those who scored highon religiosity

cheated much less than those who scored low on

religiosity. For individuals who scored relatively low

on inteUigence, the effect of religiosityon

cheatingwas much less pronounced. As such, the influence of

religiosity oncheating was much stronger among

participants of relatively high inteUigence than

among participants of relatively low inteUigence.

Thus, H5 was supported.

3j

Effect of Religiosity and Intelligence on Cheating

s -Low Intelligence

s^n -High Intelligence

2

I4S \

0Low High

Religiosity

Figure 3. Effect of reHgiosity and inteUigence on cheat

ing.

Discussion

One of the basic questions guiding this research is

whether ethics instruction helps to promote ethical

behavior. On average, students who had taken a

business ethics course cheated as much as students

who had not taken such a course. However, class

room ethics instruction seemed to influence the

cheating behaviors of some individuals more than

others.

In particular, the results suggest that classroom

ethics instruction was more likely to reduce the ex

tent of cheating among individuals who rarely at

tended religious services than among those who

attended religious services more frequently. One

possible explanation for this finding is that highly

religious individuals seemunlikely to cheat under any

circumstances. Perhaps this disinclination to cheat

arises because their religious training has already

created the belief that cheating iswrong and has broad

negative consequences. In contrast, less religious

individualsmay

have more"room

togrow"

in an

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 onreligiosity might have occurred because the

course material focused on issues towhich they were

exposed less regularly in other aspects of their lives.

In addition, the results also suggest that individuals

who were relatively more inteUigent tended to cheat

less than less inteUigent persons after exposure to

either academic orreligious instruction in ethics.

The simplest explanation for these results may be





7/28/2019 25482311



that relatively more inteUigent individuals are better

at learning and applying the ethical lessons presentedin either context (academic or

religious). In contrast,

individuals who arerelatively less inteUigent may

have a harder time understanding the ideas discussed

and may have a tougher time conceptualizing how

cheating in cases like the one under investigation

have broader implications than those immediately

apparent.

Contributions

One of the contributions of this study is that it

demonstrated that ethics training may not be equaUy

efficacious for aU individuals. Most

priorresearch has

simply examined whether ethics training influences

individuals' attitudes, values, or behaviors. Such

studies have not always yielded consistent results. In

this investigation, ethics instruction by itself had no

apparent effect on the extent of cheating. If, how

ever, ethics training is particularly beneficial for

certain types of individuals, then significant rela

tionships in other studies may have been hidden or

masked by not considering moderated relationships.

By examining the interactions between ethics

training and religiosity and ethics training and

inteUigence,we were able to discover that classroom

ethics training worked better for some individuals

(those relatively low in religiosityor

relatively high

in inteUigence) than for others (those relatively high

in reHgiosity or relatively low in inteUigence).

Understanding the interaction pattern helps to

identify the specific circumstances in which ethics

training is likely to be relatively more or less effec

tive. A clear strength of this study is that it investi

gated actual cheating behaviors rather than simply

examining attitudes toward cheating. Moreover, our

participants had a tangible monetary incentive to

cheat with little to no apparent risk of detection.

Although the cheating demonstrated in this study

was based on relatively smaU sums of money, the

results provide a baseline for cheating that can be

extended to include more sizable rewards for

cheating in future research activities. The percentage

of participants that cheated in this study (approxi

mately 16%) was somewhat lower than prior reports

of academic

cheating(Lawson, 2004), however it is

likely that this rate would increase with bigger stakes.

Limitations

There are several limitations with this study. First,

the findings of this study may not generalize to aU

other contexts. Inparticular, business students may

not react the same way as individuals outside of a

university eventhough the experiment was not

based on academic criteria. In addition, the Mid

western U.S. setting may have influenced the find

ings asweU. For example, perceptions ofthe relative

appropriateness orinappropriateness of various

behaviors can vary by geographic region (Harries,

1988) or across cultures (Narvaez et al., 1999).

Moreover, the relatively smaU rewards offered in this

study may have limited the cheating that took place.

Some students who did not cheatmight

have

cheated, and those who did cheat might have done

so to a greater extent, had the financial stakes been

larger.

Another limitation involves the use of self-re

portedmeasures for religiosity and inteUigence. For

instance, it is possible that a self-reported measure for

religiosity may be influenced by social desirability.

However, to the extent that social desirability plays a

role, it should actually work to reduce the magni

tude of the correlation between religiosity and

cheating. Moreover, the fact that the average scorefor religiosity

was 2.8 (on a 5-point scale) provides

some evidence that social desirabihty did not playa

major role in this case.

In addition, it is possible that participants' intel

ligence influenced the results in non-hypothesized

ways. For instance, to the extent that more inteUi

gent students tended to score better on the exercises,

then thismay have reduced their need or motivation

to cheat. However, the fact that there was nosig

nificant correlation between inteUigence and cheat

ing makes this possibility less of a concern. Likewise,

more inteUigent students may have been able to

generate awider variety of possibilities for how their

results could be tracked. Prior research suggests that

the perceived chance of getting caught is likely to

influence the incidence of cheating (O'Leary and

Radich, 2001). Although multiple steps were taken

in this study to highlight that participants had little to

no chance of getting caught cheating (e.g., word

searches were discarded after every round, noper

sonaUy identifying information was coUected), we

did not directly assess participants' perceptions





7/28/2019 25482311


The Influence ofEthics Instruction, Religiosity, and Intelligence onCheating Behavior 567

regarding the likelihood that they could be caught

cheating.

FinaUy, motivations for cheating may be more

complex than those assessed here. For example,

students who feel as if they have been treated un

fairly bythe

universitycould

respond by cheatingin

a desire to"get even". After aU, research suggests

that employees who steal from their employers be

lieve that they are justified if they have been

exploited and treated unfairly (Greenberg, 1990),

and coUege students who feel unfairly treated

sometimes engage in vandalism at their institutions

(DeMore etal., 1988). Thus, a sense of perceived

injustice could influence cheating asweU.

Implications for future research and practice

In this study, inteUigence interacted with ethics

instruction to influence individuals' cheatingbehavior. However, there may be additional per

sonal characteristics that play animportant role in

determining how individuals react to ethics

instruction. For example, an individual characteristic

like self-confidence may not be directly associated

with ethical attitudes or behaviors. However, it is

possible that individuals low in self-confidence may

feel less secure that their existing viewpoints are

correct and may be moreopen to course material

that questions the appropriateness of their typicalactions. For this reason, taking

an ethics course may

have amore dramatic effect on the personal ethics of

individuals who lack self-confidence than it would

for individuals who enter the course with more self

confidence. In contrast, it is possible that students

with low self-efficacy (those who do not believe

they arefuUy competent to carry out a particular

task)may

be less inclined to

actuallyalter their

behaviors, even if their attitudes arechanged,

as a

result oftaking

an ethics course. Thus, there are

several personal characteristics that could be studied

in an effort to better understand when ethics

instruction wiU be most likely to change individuals'

behavior.

Moreover, there could be someimportant prac

tical considerations if future research supports the

idea that traditional ethics instruction influences the

behaviors of some individuals more than others.

Knowing who ismost likely to benefit from such

instruction may help organizations and universities

utilize their resources more effectively. For example,

Furman (1990) discussed how the capacity for post

conventional moral reasoning enables some people

to get more benefit out of higher-level ethics

instruction.Thus, designing

courses that benefit

individuals with post-conventional reasoning

capacity may be especiaUy beneficial to those indi

viduals, but it may provide little to no benefit to

others who do not possess this capacity. In addition,

future studies might suggest that specific types of

ethics instruction are more 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 instruction (which tends to focus on

specific actions rather than reasoned thought) versus

principle-based ethics instruction (which tends to

focus on reasoned thought rather than specific ac

tions). It may be that specific types of ethics

instruction are likewise more beneficial to certain

types of individuals than others. Thus, providing a

larger set of elective courses that students may pickfrom may enhance an individual's chance to maxi

mize his or her learning. However, providing a

wider array of course options clearly comes at some

cost (which universities may or may not be wiUingto bear).

In addition, organizations and universities may

benefit in other ways from adeeper understanding of

the fact that ethics instruction is likely to benefit

some individuals more than others. Simply put, in

regards tocheating, not everyone "needs" ethics

instruction and even some of those who do "need"

it may not be wiUing to change their attitudes or

behaviors as a result of their classroomexperience.

Indeed, this study suggests that ethics instruction had

relativelylittle influence on the

cheatingbehavior of

students who were highly religious. However, ethics

instruction is clearly intended to address a wide

variety of issues beyond cheating. Moreover, while

religious participation is likely to expose one to clear

guidelines with regard to an issue like cheating,

participation in religious activities may not provide

very clear guidance with regard to other ethical is

sues that are likely to be addressed in a business ethics

course(e.g., stakeholder analysis). Thus, academic

ethics instruction might play abigger role in influ

encing other behaviors than it does with regard to





7/28/2019 25482311



cheating. It is also important for future research to

examine how different amounts of rewards influence

individuals' decisions. Doing so would help to fur

ther estabUsh the importance of contextual influ

ences on ethical decision-making (Trevino, 1986;

Trevino et al., 2006). For instance, some highly

religious individuals may not consider engaging in

unethical behavior under any circumstances, while

others may be tempted to cheat once the potential

reward reaches a certain threshold amount.

Another important consideration both in research

and practice is to focus on the reasons for ethical and

unethical behavior. Although the focus of this study

was on those who chose to cheat, there were many

individuals who did not cheat on this activity. Just as

there are multiplereasons that individuals may have

cheated, there may also have been a variety of reasons why individuals chose not to cheat on this

activity. Future research could attempt to distinguish

between those who avoid cheating because they fear

getting caught and those who avoid cheating be

cause they believe it is wrong. Weber (2007) sug

gests that the reason for acting moraUycan help to

identify the stage of cognitive moral development of

the individual (based on Kohlberg's Theory ofMoral

Development (1976)). For example, those who

avoid cheating because they fear getting caught

might be operating from a self-interested and pre

conventional moral reasoning framework, whereas

persons who avoid cheating because they respect

societal rules and norms may be more conventional

moral reasoners.Alternatively,

advanced orpost

conventional moral reasoning is suggested when

individuals avoid cheating because itwould be unfair

to others or damaging to society. The implication is

that it becomes important to understand not only the

motivations of those who choose to cheat but also

the motivations of those who do not.

FinaUy, this study examined onlyone type of

ethical behavior (cheating within a very specific

context). It is possible that ethics instruction has a

greater (or lesser) influence on awhole host of other

outcomes that are also important to investigate.

Moreover, in addition to presenting widely shared

ideals regarding appropriate ethical behavior, an

other important component of business ethics

instruction is to encourage individuals from different

backgrounds to examine ethicaUy-charged issues in

new ways and through a variety of lenses. This

would provide individuals with an increased abiHty

to more criticaUy analyze these issues including the

abiHty to better discern appropriate ethical behav

iors. Thus, while some portion of business ethics

training may focus on teaching commonly accepted

perspectiveson

"right" and "wrong",an increased

awareness of other viewpoints (for critical analysis) is

also an important component of such training.

In conclusion, the present research estabHshes

support for the position that completingan ethics

course influences the cheating behaviors of some

individuals more than others. These findings support

the viewpoints that business ethics instruction can be

a beneficial endeavor and that more attention needs

to be directed toward understanding how different

types of individuals are influenced by ethics training

and education.

References

Al-Khatib, J. A., A. D'Auria Stanton and M. Y. A.

Rawwas: 2005, 'Ethical Segmentation of Consumers

in Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis',

InternationalMarketing Review 22, 225-246.

Al-Khatib, J. A., C.J. Robertson and D. N. Lascu: 2004,

'Post-Communist Consumer Ethics: The Case of

Romania', Journal ofBusiness Ethics 54, 81?95.AUmon, D. E., D. Page and R. Roberts: 2000, 'Deter

minants of Perceptions of Cheating: Ethical Orienta

tion, Personality andDemographies', Journal ofBusiness

Ethics 23, 411-422.

Anastasi, A.: 1992, 'What Counselors Should Know

About the Use and Interpretation of Psychological

Tests', Journal of Counseling and Development 70(5),

610-615.

Barnett, T., K. Bass and G. Brown: 1996, 'Religiosity,

Ethical Ideology, and Intentions toReport

a Peer's

Wrongdoing', Journal ofBusiness Ethics 15, 1161-1174.

Bemardi, R. A., R. L. Metzger, R. G. S. Bruno, M. A.

W. Hoogkamp,L. E. Reyes and G. H. Barnaby: 2004,

'Examining the Decision Process of Students' Cheat

ing Behavior: An Empirical Study', Journal of Business

Ethics 50, 397-414.

Brendel, J. M., J. B. Kolbert and V. A. Foster: 2002,

'Promoting Student Cognitive Development', Journal

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.





7/28/2019 25482311


The Influence of Ethics Instruction, Religiosity, and Intelligence on Cheating Behavior 569

CaUahan, D.: 2004, The Cheating Culture (Harcourt,

Orlando, FL).

Chiu, R. K. and C. B. Erdener: 2003, The Ethics of Peer

Reporting in Chinese Societies: Evidence from Hong

Kong and Shanghai', International Journal of Human

Resource Management 14, 335-353.

Conroy, S. J. and T. L. N. Emerson: 2004, 'Business

Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of

Ethical Awareness Among Students', Journal of Business

Ethics 50(4), 383-396.

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

man: 2001, 'PrincipledMoral Reasoning and Behavior

of Preservice Teacher Education Students', American

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 BusinessEthics 65, 391-404.

DeMore, S. W., J. D. Fisher and R. M. Baron: 1988,

'The Equity-Control Model as a Predictor of Van

dalism Among College Students', Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology 18, 80-91.

Dubinsky,A.

J., R.Nataraajan and W. Y.

Huang: 2004,

'The Influence of Moral Pfnlosophy on Retail Sales

peoples' Ethical Perceptions', Journal of Consumer Af

fairs 38, 297-319.

Duckett, L., M. Rowan, M. Ryden, K. Krichbaum, M.

MiUer, H.Wainwright and K. Savik: 1997, 'Progress

in the Moral Reasoning of Baccalaureate Nursing

Students Between Program Entry and Exit', Nursing

Research 46, 222-229.

Ebaugh,H. R., J. S. Chafetz and P. F.

Pipes: 2006,

'Where's the Faith in Faith-based Organizations?

Measures and Correlates ofReligiosity

in Faith-based

Social Service Coalitions', Social Forces 84, 2259-2272.

Elias, R. Z.: 2002, 'Determinants of Earnings Manage

ment Ethics Among Accountants', Journal of Business

Ethics 40, 33-45.

Enright, R. D., M.J. D. Santos and R. Al-Mabuk: 1989,

'The Adolescent as

Forgiver', Journal ofAdolescence

12,95-110.

Epstein, E. M.: 2002, 'Religion and Business-

The

Critical Role of ReUgious Traditions inManagement

Education', Journal ofBusiness Ethics 38, 91-96.

Erffhieyer, R. C, B. D. KeiUor and D. T. LeClair: 1999,'An

Empirical Investigation of Japanese Consumer

Ethics', Journal ofBusiness Ethics 18, 35-50.

Etheredge, J, M.: 1999, 'The Perceived Role of Ethics

and Social Responsibility: An Alternative Scale

Structure', Journal of Business Ethics 18, 51-64.

Evans, J. M., L. K. Trevino and G. R. Weaver: 2006,

'Who's in the Ethics Driver's Seat? Factors Influencing

Ethics in theMBA Curriculum', Academy ofManagement Learning & Education 5(3), 278-293.

Forsyth, D. R.: 1980, 'A Taxonomy of Ethical Ideolo

gies', Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 39, 175?

184.

French, W.: 2006, 'Business EthicsTraining:

Face-to

Face and at a Distance', Journal of Business Ethics 66,

117-126.

Furman, F. K.: 1990, 'Teaching Business Ethics: Ques

tioning the Assumptions, Seeking New Directions',

Journal of Business Ethics 9, 31-38.

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

the

Ability of Business Students to Recognize Ethical Is

sue:An Empirical Assessment of the Effectiveness of a

Course inBusiness Ethics', Journal ofBusiness Ethics 17,

205-216.

Giacalone, R. A., S. Fricker and J.W. Beard: 1995, 'The

Impact of Ethical Ideology on Modifiers of EthicalDecisions and Suggested Punishment for Ethical

Infractions', Journal of Business Ethics 14, 497-510.

Givner, N. and K. Hynes: 1983, 'An Investigation of

Change inMedical Students' Ethical Thinking', Med

ical Education 17, 3-7.

Glenn, J. R., Jr.: 1992, 'Can a Business andSociety

Course Affect the Ethical Judgment of Future Man

agers?', Journal ofBusiness Ethics 11, 217-223.

Glover, R. J.: 1997, 'Relationships inMoral Reasoningand Religion Among Members of Conservative,

Moderate, and Liberal Religious Groups', Journal ofSocial Psychology 137, 247-254.

Graafland, J., M. Kaptein and C. der Mazereeuw-van

Duijn 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

Theories: Interpreting and Responding to Student

Plagiarism', Journal of Business Ethics 72, 293?306.

Greenberg, J.: 1990, 'Employee Theft as a Reaction to

Underpayment Inequity: The Hidden Cost of PayCuts', Journal ofApplied Psychology 75, 561-568.

Harries,K. D.:

1988, 'Regional Variations in Homicide,

Capital Punishment, and Perceived CrimeSeverity

in

the United States', Geografiska Annaler 70 B(3), 325

334.

Harrington, S. J.: 1991, 'WhatCorporate America is

Teaching About Ethics', Academy of ManagementExecutive 5, 21-30.

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., S. J. ViteU, J. H. Barnes and R. Desborde:

1997, 'Ethical Correlates of Role Conflict and Role





7/28/2019 25482311



Ambiguity in Marketing: The Mediating Role of

Cognitive Moral Development', Journal ofthe Academy

ofMarketing Science 25, 117-126.

Holm, S., G. H. Nielsen, M. Norup, A. Vegner, F.

Guldmann and P. H. Andreasen: 1995, 'Changes in

Moral Reasoning and the Teaching of Medical Ethics',

Medical Education 29, 420-423.

KeUey, D. M.: 1972, Why Conservative Churches are

Growing (Harper & Row, New York).

KeUy, J. A. and L. WoreU: 1978, 'Personality Charac

teristics, Parent Behaviors, and Sex of Subject in

Relation to Cheating', Journal ofResearch inPersonality

12, 179-188.

KerkvUet, J. and C. L. Sigmund: 1999, Can We Control

Cheating in the Classroom? Journal ofEconomic Educa

tionFaU, 331-343.

Kingston,P. W., R. Hubbard, B. Lapp, P. Schroeder and

J.WUson: 2003, 'Why Education Matters', Sociology ofEducation 76, 53-70.

Kleiser, S. B., E. Sivadas, J. J. KeUaris and R. F. Dahl

strom: 2003, 'Ethical Ideologies: Efficient Assessment

and Influence on Ethical Judgements of Marketing

Practices', Psychologyand Marketing 20, 1-21.

Kohlberg, L.: 1976, 'Moral Stages andMoralization: The

Cognitive-Developmental Approach',in T. Lickona

(ed.), Moral Development and Behavior (Holt, Rinehart

& Winston, New York), pp. 31-53.

Laditka, S. B. and M. M. Houck: 2006, 'Student

Developed Case Studies: An Experiential Approach

for Teaching Ethics inManagement', Journal ofBusiness

Ethics 64, 157-167.

Lanza-Kaduce, L. and M.Klug: 1986, 'Learning

to Cheat:

The Interaction of Moral-Development and Social

Learning Theories', Deviant Behavior 7, 243-259.

Lawson, R.: 2004, 'Is Classroom Cheating Related to

Business Students' Propensityto Cheat in the "Real

World"?', Journal of Business Ethics 49, 189-199.

Leming, J. S.: 1978, 'Cheating Behavior, Situational

Influence, and Moral Development', Journal of Educa

tional Research 71, 214-217.

Longenecker, J.G.,

J.

A.

McKinney

and C. W. Moore:

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 theReligious Imagination', Journal of Business Ethics

11, 129-135.

Malinowski, C. I. and C. P. Smith: 1985, 'Moral Rea

soning and Moral Conduct: An Investigation Promp

ted by Kohlberg's Theory', Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 49, 1016-1027.

McCabe, D. L., K. D. Butterfield and L. K. Trevino:

2006, 'Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business

Programs: Prevalence, Causes, and Proposed Action',

Academy ofManagement Learning & Education 5(3), 294

305.

McCabe, A. C, R. Ingram and M. C. Dato-on: 2006,

'The Business of Ethics and Gender', Journal of Business

Ethics 64, 101-116.

Menzel, D. C: 1997, 'Teaching Ethics and Values in

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,

'Individual Moral Judgment and Cultural Ideologies',

Developmental Psychology 35, 478-488.

O'Leary, C. O. and R. Radich: 2001, 'An Analysis of

Australian Final Year Accountancy Students' Ethical

Attitudes', Teaching Business Ethics 5, 235-249.

Premeaux, S. R.: 2005, 'UndergraduateStudent Per

ceptions Regarding Cheating: Tier 1 versus Tier 2

AACSB Accredited BusinessSchools', Journal of

Busi

ness Ethics 62, 407-418.

Rawwas, M. Y. A., Z. Swaidan and J. Al-Khatib: 2006,

'Does Religion Matter? A Comparison Study of the

Ethical Beliefs ofMarketing Students inReligious and

Secular Universities in Japan', Journal of Business Ethics

65, 69-86.

Reiman, A.J. and S. DeAngeHs

Peace: 2002, 'Promoting

Teachers' Moral Reasoning and CoUaborative Inquiry

Performance: ADevelopmental Role-Taking and

Guided Inquiry Study', Journal ofMoral Education 31,

51-66.

Rest, J. R.: 1979, Development inJudging Moral Issues

(University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN).

Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Theory

and Research (Praeger, New York).

Rest, J., D. Narvaez, M.J. Bebeau and S.J. Thoma: 1999,

Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian

Approach (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ).

Ritter, B. A.: 2006, 'Can Business Ethics be Trained? A

Study of the Ethical Decision-Making Process in

Business Students', Journal of Business Ethics 68, 153?

164.

Roth, L. M. and J. C. KroU: 2007, 'RiskyBusiness:

Assessing Risk Preference Explanations for Gender

Differences inReligiosity', American SociologicalReview

72, 205-220.

Ruegger, D. and E. W. King: 1992, 'A Study of the

Effect of Age and Gender Upon Student Business

Ethics', Journal of Business Ethics 11, 179-186.

Schwartz, M. S.: 2006, 'God as aManagerial

Stake

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

Self, D. J., D. C. Baldwin, Jr.and M. Olivarez: 1993,

'Teaching Medical Ethics to First-Year Students by

Using Film Discussion to Develop Their Moral Rea

soning', Academic Medicine 68, 383-385.





7/28/2019 25482311


The Influence of Ethics Instruction, Religiosity, and Intelligenceon

Cheating Behavior 571

Self, D. J., M. Olivarez and D. C. Baldwin Jr.: 1998a,

'Clarifying theRelationship of Medical Education and

Moral Development', Academic Medicine 73, 517-519.

Self, D. J.,M. Olivarez and D. C. Baldwin, Jr.: 1998b,

'The Amount of SmaU-Group Case-StudyDiscussion

Needed to Improve Moral Reasoning SkiUs of Med

ical Students', Academic Medicine 73, 521-523.

Sims, R. R. and E. L. Felton, Jr.: 2006, 'Designing and

DeliveringBusiness Ethics Teaching and Learning',

Journal ofBusiness Ethics 63, 297-312.

Singhapakdi, A., S. J. ViteU and G. R. Franke: 1999,

'Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Effects of

Perceived Moral Intensity and Personal Moral Phi

losophies', Jo urnal ofthe Academy ofMarketing Science 27,

19-36.

Singhapakdi, A. S., S. J. ViteU, K. RaUapalli and K. L.

Kraft: 1996, 'The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social

Responsibility: A New Scale Development', Journal ofBusiness Ethics 15, 1131-1140.

Sparks, J. R. and S. D. Hunt: 1998, 'Marketing

Researcher Ethical Sensitivity: Conceptualization,

Measurement, and Exploratory Investigation', Journal

ofMarketing 62(2), 92-109.

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

Role of Anticipated Guilt in Consumers' Ethical

Decision-Making', Journal of Business Ethics 69, 269

288.

Sternberg, R. J.: 1990, Metaphors ofMind: Conceptions oftheNature of Intelligence (Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge).

Trevino, L. K.: 1986, 'Ethical Decision Making in

Organizations: A Person Situation Interactionist

Model', Academy of Management Review 11(3), 601?

617.

Trevino, L. K., G. R. Weaver and S. J. Reynolds: 2006,

'Behavioral Ethics in Organizations:A Review', Jour

nal ofManagement 32(6), 951-990.

Velthouse, B. and Y. Kandogan: 2007, 'Ethics in Practice:

What areManagers ReaUy Doing?', Journal of Business

Ethics 70, 151-163.

Verschoor, C. C: 2003, 'Is Ethics Education of Future

Business Leaders Adequate?', Strategic Finance August:

20-23.

ViteU, S. J. and E. R. Hidalgo: 2006, 'TheImpact of

Corporate Ethical Values and Enforcement of Ethical

Codes on the Perceived Importance of Ethics in

Business: AComparison of U.S. and Spanish Manag

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

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

The Role of Religiosity', Journal of Business Ethics 46,

151-162.

ViteU, S. J., J. G. P. PaoliUo and J. J. Singh: 2006, 'The

Role of Money and Religiosity in Determining

Consumers' Ethical Beliefs', Journal of Business Ethics

64, 117-124.

Weaver, G. R. and B. R.Agle: 2002, 'Religiosity and

Ethical Behavior inOrganizations: A Symbolic Inter

actionist Perspective', Academy of Management Review

27(1), 77-97.

Weber, J. A.: 2007, 'Business Ethics Training: Insightsfrom Learning Theory', Journal of Business Ethics 70,

61-85.

Weber, J. and S. M. Glyptis: 2000, 'Measuring the Impactof a Business Ethics Course and Community

Service

on Students' Values andOpinions', Teaching Business

Ethics 4, 341-358.

Wechsler, D.: 1958, The Measurement and Appraisal ofAdult Intelligence (WiUiams andWilkins, Baltimore).

West, T., S. P. Ravenscroft and C. B. Shrader: 2004,

'Cheating and Moral Judgment in the CoUege Class

room: A Natural Experiment', Journal ofBusiness Ethics

54, 173-183.

WiUiams, S. D. and T. Dewett: 2005, 'Yes, You Can

Teach Business Ethics: A Review and Research

Agenda', Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies

12(2), 109-120.

Worden, S.: 2005, 'Religion in Strategic Leadership: A

Positivistic, Normative/Theological, and Strategic

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

James M. Bloodgood, William H. Turnley,and Peter Mudrack

Department ofManagement,

Kansas State University,

101 Calvin Hall, College of Business Administration,

Manhattan, KS, 66502, U.S.A.E-mail: [email protected]

25482311

Documents