Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320109599052

Journal of Education for Business

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

An Examination of the Relationship Between
Academic Dishonesty and Workplace Dishonesty:
A Multicampus Investigation
Sarath Nonis & Cathy Owens Swift
To cite this article: Sarath Nonis & Cathy Owens Swift (2001) An Examination of the
Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Workplace Dishonesty: A Multicampus
Investigation, Journal of Education for Business, 77:2, 69-77, DOI: 10.1080/08832320109599052
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320109599052

Published online: 31 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 906

View related articles

Citing articles: 89 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]

Date: 13 January 2016, At: 00:15

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:15 13 January 2016

An Examination of the Relationship
Between Academic Dishonesty and
Workplace Dishonesty:
A Multicampus Investigation

zyxwvuts

W

SARATH NONE

Arkansas State University

CATHY OWENS SWIFT
Georgia Southern University

State University, Arkansas

Statesboro, Georgia

hat is the relationship between
academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty? If a student is prone
to cheating in college, will that same
student be prone to cheating in the
workplace? Although an extensive body
of literature deals with either academic
dishonesty or workplace dishonesty,
only a single study to date (Sims, 1993)
has dealt with the possible relation
between these behaviors. In this study,
we attempted to bridge the gap between

these related fields of study.
One need only read today’s headlines
to know that unethical behavior seems
to be on the increase. The scandals in
the Oval Office regarding sexual harassment, infidelity, lying under oath, and
illegal campaign contributions only
confirm that unethical behavior can be
found at all levels. Indeed, Jones and
Gautschi (1988) have suggested that the
fall of television evangelists, pollution
controversies, and leveraged buyouts
and hostile takeovers leading to downsizing and layoffs over the past decades
have convinced some that “the sky is
falling” in terms of ethical conduct.
Polls have shown that business executives are the lowest ranked category
among professional groups in perceived
ethical behavior (Stevens, Harris, &
Williamson, 1994). Members of the
business profession have been accused
of subordinating, abusing, and ignoring

their ethical responsibilities (Stevens &

zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zyxwvu

ABSTRACT. This article addresses
academic integrity in both the classroom and the work environment. The
authors distributed an in-class questionnaire to a sample of business students from 6 different campuses (N =
1,051). The study was an attempt to
bridge the gap between findings related to academic dishonesty and those
regarding dishonesty in the workplace. The authors found that students
who believed that cheating, or dishonest acts, are acceptable were more
likely to engage in these dishonest
behaviors. Additionally, students who
engaged in dishonest acts in college
classes were more likely to engage in
dishonest acts in the workplace. The
authors suggest some techniques to
discourage dishonesty in the classroom.

Stevens, 1987). Increasingly, corporations are the targets of accusations of
ethical violations. In fact, Cole and
Smith (1995) suggested that the term
“business ethics” has become an oxymoron to some. Recent headlines have
highlighted unethical business practices, such as those by 13 engine makers
in the United States who were fined for
illegally equipping engines with computerized devices to ensure that they
would run cleaner in federal emissions
tests than they would under normal conditions on the road (Cole, 1998).
What message do these unethical
behaviors send to today’s youth, who

will compose our future workforce?
Studies report that the incidence of
cheating on college campuses is at an
all-time high, with the percentage of
students cheating ranging from 30% to
96% (Berton, 1995; Diekhoff, et al.,
1996; Haines, LaBeff, Clark, &

Diekhoff, 1986; Nonis & Swift, 1998).
Some studies have reported that business students have lower ethical values
than nonbusiness students (Harris,
1989). Others have found that business
students are more willing to engage in
questionable behaviors than are nonbusiness students (Wood & Longenecker, 1988). Stevens, Harris, and
Williamson (1994) found that business
faculty have a slightly higher tolerance
for questionable business practices than
do faculty in other disciplines.
What impact does dishonest behavior
in college have on future behavior in the
workplace? In study of the medical profession, Baldwin and Daugherty (1996)
found that the best predictor of cheating
in medical school was having cheated
previously in one’s academic career,
either in high school or college. Fass
(1990) observed a correlation between
cheating in school and cheating in public arenas such as income tax payment,
politics, and college athletics. Another

study indicated that communications
majors who cheat in college will become
the next dishonest communications professionals (Todd-Mancillas, 1987).

zyxwvutsr
zy
zy
NovembedDecember 2001

69

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:15 13 January 2016

The purpose of the current study was
threefold. First, we evaluated business
students’ beliefs about various forms of
dishonest behaviors at work. Second,
we attempted to determine the relationship between student beliefs about dishonest behaviors and the frequency of
occurrence of these behaviors in the
workplace. If a relationship exists, this

result should provide additional confirmation of the need for moral training
among college students in colleges and
universities. Finally, we attempted to
determine the relationship between
dishonesty in college and dishonesty in
the workplace. Even though we are
neither proposing nor evaluating a
cause-and-effect relationship in this
study, if a significant relationship
should exist, the results will downplay
the situational (contextual) influence
on dishonest behavior. That is, if dishonest behaviors are situation-specific,
there should not be a relationship
between dishonest behaviors in college
and dishonest behaviors in the workplace.
The problem of academic dishonesty
in higher education has received considerable attention in the past decade
(McCabe & Trevino, 1997). However,
only Sims (1993) has investigated the
relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty among

business students. One limitation of the
Sims study was the very small sample
of 57 graduate students included in the
study. In our study, we used a multicampus sample including both graduate
and undergraduate students. Thus, our
findings should be generalizable to the
larger business student population.

sures, and opportunity (Albrecht,
Wernz, & Williams, 1995). One theory
is that personal values and organizational values determine ethical behavior,
regardless of anything that is learned in
college (Gellerman, 1986). Hosmer
( 1 988) suggested that ethical standards
are set by families, schools, churches,
and peers long before a student reaches
college.

Academic Dishonesty
The undergraduate experience is

often the first time a student is away
from home and family. Students are
exposed to new influences, new peers,
and new ideas while in the university
environment. Glenn (1992) found that
students can learn to make more ethical
decisions by taking a business ethics
course. Therefore, studying academic
dishonesty at college may provide some
clues to dishonesty at work.
According to the American Council
on Higher Education, academic dishonesty, or cheating, is on the increase
(Nowell & Laufer, 1997). The percentages of those found to have cheated
range from 40% to 60% (Rittman,
1996) to 80% (Nonis & Swift, 1998).
Other reports (CAI, 1998) have indicated that chronic cheating is prevalent, and that those who cheat once are
more likely to cheat with increasing
frequency. Another study on student
attitudes toward cheating found that
70% of the students either did not view

cheating as a problem or viewed it as a
trivial one (Bunn, Caudill, & Gropper,
1992).
Marketing students who cheated said
that they did so because dishonesty surrounds them in college and society
(Allen, 1998). Another study on marketing students determined that those who
had cheated in the past were likely to
cheat again (Nonis & Swift, 1998).
Additionally, those who cheated on
exams were likely to cheat on out-ofclass assignments and projects (Swift &
Nonis, 1998). However, Duizend and
McCann (1998) found that taking a
business ethics class affected students’
propensity to engage in unethical or illegal business practices.
Roig and Ballew (1994) found that
business and economics majors had

zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqp
z
zyxwvutsr

Dishonesty in the Workplace

Workplace crime,
particularly
employee theft, is a major problem facing American business and industry
today (Payne & Pettingill, 1983). Losses from fraud and theft by employees
exceed losses from fire (Gray, 1997).
According to U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates, American businesses
lose more than $50 billion annually to
employee-related crimes (Fitzpatrick,
1995). That figure, of course, does not
include the billions of dollars spent on
protecting against such thefts, including
70

security guards, security systems, and
insurance.
The National Retail Federation found
that over several years there was a slight
decline in the percentage of crime losses attributed to shoplifting but an
increase in those committed by employees (McCormick, 1997). The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
(Gray, 1997) recently estimated that
fraud and other employee crimes cost
employers more than $400 billion per
year, or $9 per day per worker on average. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
has noted that 75% of employees likely
steal at least once and that half of these
steal repeatedly (U.S. Mutual Association, I998), and the American Management Association has estimated that
employee dishonesty causes as much as
20% of the nation’s business failures
(McCormick, 1997). Not only is
employee theft increasing but the average amount stolen is staggering. One
survey showed that retail employees
steal seven times as much as shoplifters
(Meyer, 1994), and Trendwatch (1998)
suggested that one dishonest employee
steals nine times as much as the average
shoplifter.
Over time, studies on crime have
indicated an increase in frequency of
such crimes. Homing (1970) found that
workers in an industrial plant regarded
stealing small items from the company
not as stealing but as “taking things
from the plant.” Hollinger and Clark
(1983) discovered that two thirds of
employees in a sample admitted to
some level of counterproductive behavior and one third admitted that they had
stolen company property. In a 1991
study, over 96% of employees considered themselves honest yet admitted to
having stolen something from their
employers (Roderick, Jelley, Coiok, &
Forcht, 1991). Additionally, when they
were asked if they felt guilty about stealing, over 60% of those who had stolen
things from their employers answered
“no.”
What is the origin of this increase in
employee dishonesty? Frustration with
the job accounts for 5% to 10% of
employee theft (Albrecht & Wernz,
1993).Another study suggested that dishonesty comes from three factors: lack
of individual integrity, personal pres-

Journal of Education for Business

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:15 13 January 2016

zyxwvutsrqp

more tolerant attitudes toward cheating
than did those in other majors. Business
faculty were also found to have a higher
tolerance for unethical situations than
faculty in other disciplines (Stevens,
Harris, & Williamson, 1994). Harris
(1 989) determined that business students had lower ethical values than nonbusiness students did, and Wood and
Longenecker (1 988) determined that
business students were more willing to
engage in questionable behaviors than
their nonbusiness counterparts were.
Etzioni (1989) even suggested that the
average curriculum of the business
school has hidden assumptions that
could lead business students to believe
that unethical decisions are necessary
for success. Business schools have
been blamed for teaching students to
be successful at the cost of social and
ethical responsibilities (Stevens et al.,
1993).

Relationship Between Dishonesty at
College and Dishonesty at Work

Media reports of school surveys and
work behavior have highlighted the
state of intellectual dishonesty in American schools and social institutions
(Deursch, 1988; McLoughlin, 1987).
Bunn, Caudill, and Gropper (1992) saw
a similarity between cheating in the
classroom and the crime of theft. They
likened the professor and student peers
to policemen and the cheating student to
the criminal. Although Glenn and Van
Loo (1993) found that business students
make less ethical choices than business
practitioners, they questioned whether
the reason is that the students have
lower ethical standards or whether they
are just naive and not knowledgeable
about what is right and wrong.
Sims (1993), in a study of business
students, suggested that if students
cheat in college and are then hired on
academic credentials that they obtained
dishonestly, employers who hire them
will suffer. He determined that students
who engage in a wide range of academic dishonesty also engage in a wide
range of work-related dishonesty. His
findings suggest that if individuals
believe that dishonesty is an appropriate
behavior in one context (college), they
will believe that it is appropriate in others (work). Ogilby (1995) discovered
that a majority of students believe that
there is a direct correlation between academic behavior and behavior in the
business world. These findings led us to
our second hypothesis:

were men, and 48% were women. Seventy-four percent of the respondents
were undergraduates; 26% were graduate students. We compared the sample
characteristics with demographic characteristics of college students in the United
States (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1998) and found that they were
comparable in that no demographic characteristic was over- or underrepresented.
Therefore, the sample can be considered
representative of the population.
Beliefs About Dishonest Acts at Work

We measured beliefs about dishonest
behaviors at work through 18 items
from Sims (1993) and three items adapted from Hilbert (1988). We asked students to respond to this section of the
questionnaire only if they had had a
part-time or full-time job in the previous
5 years. We provided a list of behaviors
and asked students, “Please indicate
whether you believe each of the following activities is dishonest by circling the
correct number, where 1 = dejnitely
cheating, 2 = probably cheating, 3 =
probably not cheating, and 4 = dejnitely not cheating.”

z
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
zy
zyxwvuts

Development of Hypotheses

Beliefs and Attitudes About Dishonest
Behaviors on the Job

Research on the theories of reasoned
action and planned behavior has established that attitude is a reliable predictor
of intentions and behavior (Ajzen,
1969; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein
& Ajzen, 1975). Fishbein and Ajzen
( 1994) defined attitude toward an act as
the degree to which an individual has a
favorable or unfavorable evaluation of
the behavior in question. Attitude is
therefore dependent on the individual’s
beliefs and his or her evaluation of those
beliefs.
These theories can be applied to dishonest behavior in college and in the
workplace. If beliefs and attitudes influence behaviors, it is reasonable to
expect that individuals who believe dishonest acts to be acceptable behavior
are more likely to engage in dishonest
behavior in the workplace than those
who believe dishonest acts to be less
acceptable. Thus, we formulated our
first hypothesis:
H,: Individuals who believe dishonest acts to be acceptable behavior
will engage in dishonest acts more frequently than individuals who believe
dishonest acts to be less acceptable.

H,: The frequency of cheating in
college is positively related to the frequency of cheating at work.

Method
We collected data from a sample of
1,051 business students in both graduate
and undergraduate business classes at
six AACSB-accredited universities in
the South and Midwest. We selected
classes at each university to obtain a
proportional sample of classes, majors,
ages, and class levels. The questionnaires were administered in class, and
students were assured of confidentiality
and anonymity.
Fifty-two percent of the respondents

Academic Dishonesty

We measured academic dishonesty
through 44 separate items adapted from
a variety of studies (Ferrell & Daniel,
1995; Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead,
1995; Sims, 1993; Stevens & Stevens,
1987; Tom & Borin, 1988). After providing a list of behaviors representing a
continuum of cheating and noncheating activities, we asked students to
think about their experiences in college
and indicate, in general, how often they
had participated in each of the activities
on a scale ranging through 1 (never), 2
(seldom),3 (occasionally),4 (ofen),and
5 (very ofen). We averaged the scores of
these 44 items to form a composite score
of academic dishonesty frequency.
The majority of studies on cheating
behavior have used either experimental
situations or self-reported dishonest
behavior. It has been suggested that the
self-reporting of one’s own deviant
behavior, as in this study, may result in
underreporting of these behaviors
(Scheers & Dayton, 1987). However,
NovembedDecember 2001

71

zyxwv
zyxwvutsr

Rost and Wild (1994) have claimed that
questionnaires are a standard instrument
and that providing conditions of
anonymity ensures an honest response.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:15 13 January 2016

Work-RelatedDishonest Behavior

We measured work-related dishonest
behavior through the same items taken
from Sims (1993) and Hilbert (1988). As
previously, we asked students to respond
to this section of the questionnaire only if
they had had a part-time or full-time job
in the previous 5 years. Behaviors were
provided, and students were asked to
indicate how often they participated in
them on the job by circling the corresponding number on the same 5-point
scale used to measure academic
(dis)honesty. We averaged the scores of
these 2 1 items to form a composite score
of work-related dishonest behavior.

of cheating at college. The negative correlation coefficients (in the data entry,
men were coded as “0’ and women
were coded as “1”) demonstrate that
male students and younger students
were more dishonest in college than
female students and older students. In
the workplace, gender demonstrated ‘a
significant relationship with dishonest
work behaviors. However, in this situation, age was not significant.
The first objective of the study was to
evaluate business students’ beliefs about
various forms of dishonest behaviors at
work. For this purpose, we obtained frequencies for the 21 statements of measured dishonest actions at work (see
Table 2). For over half (12) of the dishonest actions, more than 10% of the
respondents felt that they were probably
not or definitely not cheating (dishonesty). This finding has significant implications and will be discussed later.
Because the sample consisted of both
undergraduate and graduate students,
we decided to determine whether the
beliefs held differed between the two
groups. We conducted cross-tabulations
and chi-square tests for this purpose.
For every belief regarding the seven dishonest actions included in Table 3, there
were significant relationships between
these variables and student classification (graduate or undergraduate) at the
.05 level. Beliefs not included in Table 3
did not demonstrate any significant relationship with student classification. The
contingency coefficient shows the
strength of the relationship between the
two variables, student classification and
beliefs about dishonest actions. For all
items, graduate students felt these
actions to be more dishonest than undergraduate students did.

We tested our first hypothesis
through one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. Because we
found significant differences in beliefs
about dishonest behaviors between
graduate and undergraduate students,
we conducted separate analyses for the
two groups. In both analyses, the independent variable was the measure of
students’ beliefs and the dependent variable was the frequency of dishonest
behaviors at the workplace.
To allow analysis, we divided students’ average response to the composite value of dishonest beliefs into three
subgroups based on lower third (33rd
percentile), middle third (between the
33rd and 67th percentiles) and upper
third (67th percentile) for both undergraduates and graduates separately.
Results from the ANOVA and Tukey’s
test are provided in Table 4. We found
significant differences in means for
work-related
dishonest
behavior
between students categorized as “low”
and “medium” regarding beliefs about
dishonest actions and those categorized
as “high” regarding those beliefs, at the
.05 significance level. We identified differences in means for both graduate and
undergraduate samples. These results
support H,, that individuals who believe
dishonest acts to be acceptable will
engage in dishonest acts more frequently than those who believe dishonest acts
to be less acceptable.
We tested our second hypothesis
through partial correlation coefficients,
controlling for the variables gender and
age. Numerous studies (including this
one) have indicated that these two variables are significantly correlated with
dishonest behaviors in college. Both
Pearson’s product moment correlation

zyxwvuts

Results

In Table 1, we provide the means,
standard deviations, and simple correlation coefficients (Pearson product
moment correlation coefficients) for
selected demographic variables (gender
and age) and variables under investigation. Reliability coefficients for frequency of academic dishonesty, beliefs
about work-related dishonest actions,
and work-related dishonest actions
(behaviors) are provided on the diagonal. All scales demonstrated excellent
reliability coefficients with the guidelines provided by Nunnally (1978).
Consistent with previous studies
(McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Nonis &
Swift, 1998), both demographic variables gender and age showed significant
correlation coefficients with frequency

zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrqp

TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability Coefficients’ for the Sample

Variable

Gender
Age
Beliefs about dishonesty at work
Frequency of academic dishonesty
5 . Frequency of workplace dishonesty

1.
2.
3.
4.

SD

24.25
1.71
1.49
1.55

5.86
0.44
0.4 1
0.38

72

< .01.

Journal of Educationfor Business

1

2

3

4

5

(91)
.37**
.64**

(.93)
.64**

(39)

-

“Reliability coefficients are provided within parentheses
*p < .05. **p

zyx
zyxwvutsrq

M

-.05

-.09*
-.12**
-.15**

-

-.12**
-.24**
-.02

TABLE 2. Beliefs About Dishonest Work-Related Behaviors, by Percentage of Respondents
Definitely
cheating
(1)

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:15 13 January 2016

Dishonest behavior
Photocopying or mailing personal papers
Giving preferential treatment to family/friends
Completing personal business on company time
Taking office supplies for your own use
Calling in sick when you were not
Withholding the total truth to cover up other people’s mistakes
Doing less than your share of work in a group project
Giving a false reason for missing work
Making long-distance personal telephone calls from work
Taking long lunches or leaving early when your supervisor is not present
Withholding the total truth to cover up for your own mistakes
Breaking something that belongs to your company and not reporting it
Taking office supplies for other people’s use
Using unethical behaviors to earn a promotion/gain a sale
Taking merchandise/equipment for one’s own personal use
Coming to work under the influence of drugs, including alcohol
Reporting expenses incurred different from the actual total
Taking credit for work that someone else completed
Reporting hours worked different from the actual total
Taking merchandise/equipment to be resold for profit
Taking money from the company

20.0%
20.9
21.3
31.8
35.9
33.0
35.0
43.1
44.7
45.8
45.8
47.2
62.8
66.4
71.3
76.7
74.8
77.8
80.1
91.6
92.0

Probably
cheating
(2)
35.2%
42.6
50.2
45.4
40.4
50.1
48.3
37.5
40.5
40.2
42.7
40.4
28.7
25.5
22.3
15.4
21.4
18.1
15.7
5.4
5.4

zyxw
zy

Probably not
cheating
(3)

Definitely not
cheating
(4)

37.1%
28.3
25.2
19.5
20.3
15.2
14.6
16.6
12.1
12.0
9.7
9.9
7.0
5.8
5.0
5.5
2.6
2.7
3. I
1.6
1.4

7.2%
8.0
2.8
2.4
3.2
1.5
1.9
2.7
2.5
1.8
1.7
2.2
1.2
2.0
1.2
2.3
1.1
1.3
0.9
1.2
1.1

Ma

2.32
2.23
2.10
1.92
1.91
1.85
1.83
1.79
1.72
1.70
1.67
1.67
1.46
1.43
1.36
1.33
I .30
1.27
1.25
1.12
1.12

”Mean was computed on the basis of each respondent’s raw score on the item.

zy

zyxwvuts

TABLE 3. Beliefs About Dishonest Work-Related Behaviors: Differences Between Graduate and Undergraduate
Students

Dishonest behavior
Taking office supplies for your own personal use
Undergraduates
Graduates
Photocopying or mailing personal papers
Undergraduates
Graduates
Giving a false reason for missing work
Undergraduates
Graduates
Taking office supplies for other people’s use
Undergraduates
Graduates
Taking merchandiselequipment to be resold for
profit
Undergraduates
Graduates
Using unethical behaviors to earn a promortion/
gain a sale
Undergraduates
Graduates
Calling in sick when you were not
Undergraduates
Graduates

Definitely
cheating

Probably
cheating

Probably not
cheating

Definitely not
cheating

(%I

(%>

t%)

(%I

x2

Contingency

29
40

47
41

21
16

3
3

13.66

0.1 I

18

34
40

40
31

8
4

19.45

0.13

25
39
54

40
32

18
12

3
2

19.14

0.13

60
70

30
24

8
4

2
2

11.88

0.11

91
93

5
6

2
0

2
1

9.23

0.09

zyxw
zyxwvutsr
zy
zy
64
74

27
22

7
2

2
2

14.81

0.12

33
44

41
38

22
16

4
2

14.79

0.12

Note. All relationships were significant at p < .05.

November/December 2001

73

zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrq

TABLE 4. Mean Scores of Work-Related Dishonest Actions: High,
Medium, and Low Beliefs About Academic Dishonesty
Variable:
Belief that dishonest actions
Frequency of
are not cheating
dishonest
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Univariate
actions at work
(low)
(medium) (high)
F value

Tukey’s test for

group differences

honest work behaviors. More than 10%
of the respondents identified 12 of the
21 dishonest behaviors as probably not
or definitely not examples of cheating.
Some of these behaviors may be
viewed as rather innocuous, such as
“withholding the total truth to cover up
for your own mistakes” or “doing less
than your share of work in a group project.’’ Diekhoff et al. (1996) expressed
concern that cheating in the academic
environment may have become normative behavior for today’s students, as
they are under tremendous pressure to
get good grades. There is also a concern that cheating is a “slippery slope”
that starts with a relatively minor
infraction and leads to more serious
ethical blunders. This deterioration of
ethical behavior has been blamed on
changing attitudes toward education
(Schulman, 1998). Whereas education
was valued for its own sake in the
1960s, today the university is viewed
more as a credentialing institution, and
thus students are more easily able to
rationalize cheating.
Even company attitudes toward dishonest work behavior may have
changed. Payne & Pettingill (1983)
have noted the significant problem of
“local tolerance.” Some companies take
a strict position and punish employees
for any type of cheating behavior, no
matter what the circumstance. Other
companies take a more tolerant position
and allow small levels of dishonesty
without disciplinary action.
Assuming that graduate students
would have more actual work experience than undergraduates, we compared the responses for each of these
groups. As discussed earlier, there
were significant differences between
the two groups on seven, or one third,
of the responses. Regarding the corresponding seven behaviors, graduate
students were much less tolerant than
undergraduates and believed the
actions to be more dishonest. This finding supports Byrne’s (1992) suggestion
that ethical values and the process for
determining ethical behavior cannot be
taught but rather must be learned in
actual life settings. Thus undergraduates, with less real work experience,
may not be aware of the ethicality of
some of these actions.

zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrqponmlk

Undergraduates

1.33

1.41

1.60

Graduates

1.35

1.46

1.65

38.82*

18.62*

Group 1 from Group 3
Group 2 from Group 3
Group 1 from Group 3
Group 2 from Group 3

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:15 13 January 2016

Note. Dishonest actions were measured on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
* p < ,005.

TABLE 5. Correlations Between Dishonesty at School and at Work for
Graduate and UndergraduateStudents

Independent variable: Frequency of academic dishonesty
Undergraduates

Graduates

Pearson’s
correlation

Partial
correlation”

0.66
0.61

0.62
0.60

“Partial correlation after controlling for the demographic variables gender and age.

coefficients (simple correlations) and
partial correlation coefficients (see
Table 5) support H,, that the frequencies
of academic dishonesty and work dishonesty are positively correlated (p <
,005). The partial correlations were
somewhat lower than simple correlations for both groups due to overlapping
variance of controlled variables with the
independent variable and frequency of
dishonesty at work.

Discussion
Our study’s findings are similar to
those from other studies focusing on the
relationship between cheating and certain demographic characteristics. Academic dishonesty occurred more frequently among younger students and
male students. These two subgroups
also were more tolerant of workplace
dishonesty. Dishonest behavior in the
workplace was related only to gender:
that is, male students were more likely
to actually engage in workplace dishonesty than female students were.
May and Loyd (1993), Terpstra,

74

Journal of Education for Business

Rozell, and Robinson (1993), and Budner (1987) have suggested that these
differences can be explained by genderrole socialization theory. That is,
throughout history, women have been
conditioned socially and culturally to be
more concerned with obediance to rules
and acting morally. Terpstra et al. have
also suggested that, because men tend to
be more competitive, the finding that
competitive individuals exhibit a
predilection for unethical behavior provides additional support for such a difference between genders.
What significance does this knowledge have for faculty members? Obviously, instructors cannot be advised to
try to identify potential cheaters according to gender alone. A more proactive
solution would be to plan active discussion of moral behavior during class and
encourage female students to share their
ethical reasoning with other students.

zyxwv

Beliefs About Dishonest Work Behavior

Perhaps our most disturbing findings
related to student beliefs regarding dis-

zyxwvutsrqp
zy
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:15 13 January 2016

Beliefs Versus Actions

We found a significant relationship
between students’ beliefs about whether
a work behavior is cheating and the frequency of their actually engaging in it.
This finding, which held true for both
undergraduates and graduates, has
important implications for both academic institutions and business organizations. Students who believe that there is
nothing wrong with taking office supplies for their own personal use also tend
to be people who take the supplies for
their own use. This demonstrates the
importance of helping to increase students’ awareness and understanding of
what is unethical behavior. Roth and
McCabe (1 995) suggested that it may
not be possible to convince students to
value integrity and honesty if they do not
do so already when they arrive on campus. However, faculty members may be
able to persuade them to change their
behaviors during their college stay. By
means of a pre- and posttest, Glenn and
Van Loo (1993) found that students in an
ethics class learned to make more ethical
choices by the end of the semester. On
the other hand, Kumar, Borycki, Nonis,
and Yauger (1991) found that students
who were exposed to the strategic decision framework, commonly taught to
business students in the study of ethics,
gave less consideration to ethical issues
involved in decisionmaking than did students not exposed to the framework.
Their conclusion was that the business
curriculum and the way that it is taught
may give students the mistaken impression that success requires unethical or
less-than-ethical decisions.
Findings from both Glenn (1992) and
Kumar et al. (1991) clearly suggest the
importance of discussing ethics
throughout the business curriculum and
not simply in a specialized class. Such
discussion will enable the students to
understand the implications of dishonest behaviors in a variety of settings and
possibly change students’ attitudes as
well as the behaviors.
Relationship Between Academic
Dishonesty and Workplace Dishonesty

In this study, we found a high correlation between the frequency of cheat-

ing at college and the frequency of
cheating at work. Even controlling for
age and gender differences, we found
that students who cheated in the academic setting tended to cheat in the corporate setting also. This finding, which
supports previous findings regarding
business students (Ogilby, 1995; Sims,
1993), also has important implications
for both academic institutions and business organizations. Results seem to
indicate that cheating is not situation
specific. Once an individual forms the
attitude that cheating is acceptable
behavior, he or she is likely to use this
behavior, not only in the educational
arena but also in other areas.
Other studies have found that certain
deterrents can influence the level of
cheating in the classroom (Barnett &
Dalton, 1981; Nonis & Swift, 1998;
Singhal, 1982). If students can be convinced not to cheat in their college
classes, they may continue that pattern
of behavior in the workplace and
become more honest employees.
Business organizations should also
have an interest in curbing academic
dishonesty. With the increase in workplace fraud and white-collar crime,
there is a need for a workforce that is
grounded in ethical behavior. What better place to learn this ethical behavior
than in the college classroom? If college
prepares students for successful careers,
then the college experience should also
prepare students for how to deal with
unethical behaviors inside and outside
of the classroom.
Call for Faculty Action

Faculty members are responsible for
encouraging ethical behavior among students. Faculty should establish a university-wide climate of academic integrity
by enforcing ethical standards, modeling
appropriate behavior, and teaching ethical decisionmaking in the classroom.
McCabe (1993) suggested that the real
key to curbing academic dishonesty is to
involve every member of the academic
community in honest and open communication about the value and importance
of academic integrity. If students are
involved in establishing and evaluating
academic integrity, their own classroom
behaviors may be improved.

The university must consistently
communicate its rules regarding academic dishonesty to students, faculty, and
administrators, and all parties must be
willing to accept and support the concepts. Campus-wide forums should be
conducted to educate all parties. Sharing
these responsibilities will help develop a
sense of community and create a sense of
pride and honor among all.
McCabe and Trevino (1996) called
for the creation of an environment in
which academic dishonesty is “socially
unacceptable.” However, academic honesty cannot be imposed on students; it
must be accepted by them. Student participation in the development of the standards of ethical conduct as well in the
enforcement of those standards should
help establish involvement and committment. Students can also be involved in
peer education and the continual evaluation of academic integrity policies.

Ethical standards in the classroom.
Having an Academic Dishonesty Policy
is not enough. In one study (Jendrek,
1989), 60% of faculty members
observed cheating in their classrooms,
but only 20% of them actually met with
the student and a higher authority.
Diekhoff et al. (1996) suggested that
faculty members hesitate to deter cheating because they believe that they will
not be supported at the administration
level, Saunders (1993) also suggested
that instructors may tend to ignore
cheating to avoid potential litigation
and/or disciplinary hearings. It is also
possible that faculty rationalize that a
cheating student will cheat in other
classes, too, and hope that some other
professor will report the student. However, if most faculty members do not
report a student who cheats, that individual could cheat his or her way
through school. If instructors do not follow the policies set forth by the institution, they may be sendng a message to
students that cheating is acceptable.
As suggested by Davis (1987), to
ensure that students internalize academic standards, faculty members “must
openly and uniformly support such ethical behaviors” (p. 19). Therefore,
instructors should clearly state their
own academic dishonesty policies and
clearly define dishonest behavior on the

zyx
zy

NovembedDecember 2001

75

zyxw
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrqp

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:15 13 January 2016

syllabi. Additionally, they should hold
discussions about what they regard as
cheating and plagiarism, as well as the
consequences for students who are
caught cheating.

Faculty as role models. In addition to
enforcing academic standards of behavior in the classroom, instructors should
also model high standards of ethical
conduct. David, Anderson, and Lawrimore (1990) found that 92% of graduates who had been out of school for several years believed business professors’
actions to be one of the most important
factors in students’ development of ethical standards and values. One study
(Jones & Gautschi, 1988) found that
MBA students saw faculty members as
more attentive to ethical standards than
other parties, including student peers,
workplace supervisors, and business
executives. Sauser (1990) also found
that the behavior of business professors
taught students more about ethical
behavior than any other technique.
Daniel, Adams, and Smith (1994)
suggested that students resent some professors who spend too much time outside of class on research and consulting
efforts. If the professors are not involved
actively in the classroom, this resentment
could lead students to pay less attention
to their own class commitments and
therefore be more susceptible to cheating. Faculty members must be models of
integrity for students and follow all of the
rules of conduct themselves.

Ethics classes. Many experts as well as
parents of students (Nazario, 1992)
believe that ethics can be taught and that
business professors have a responsibility to teach ethical skills and decisionmaking. Yet more than two thirds of students in one study reported that the
topic of white-collar crime had received
little or no emphasis in business classes
(Roderick et al., 1991), even though the
topic of ethics is recommended for the
AACSB-accredited curriculum.
Students need to learn that ethical
issues are an important part of the business world and that these decisions have
an impact on the company beyond legal
ramifications (Kumar et al., 1991).
Integrity must be taught and ethical
issues discussed in every course, with

76

particular emphasis in the capstone
course. Through lecture, class discussion, cases, role playing, guest speakers,
and outside readings, students should be
exposed to a wide variety of ethical situations, with discussions of right and
wrong courses of action, so that a strong
ethical foundation is ingrained in them
by the time they enter their first fulltime positions.

Conclusion

Using a sampling frame of business
students (from all business disciplines)
at six different campuses, in this study
we obtained two major results: (a) Students who believed that dishonest acts
are acceptable were more likely to
engage in those dishonest acts than were
those who believed the dishonest acts
were unacceptable, and (b) students
who engaged in dishonest behavior in
their college classes were more likely to
engage in dishonest behavior on the job.
Our results suggest that if students do
not respect the climate of academic
integrity while in college, they will not
respect integrity in their future professional and personal relationships. Education and communication can create a
shared commitment to academic integrity among students, faculty, and administrators. It is essential that institutions
demonstrate a commitment to the
enforcement of academic dishonesty
policies and provide the resources to
help deter cheating in the classroom.
Students have indicated that, when
they feel like real members of the campus community, believe that faculty
members are committed to ethical standards, and are aware of their institutions’ policies regarding academic dishonesty, they are less likely to cheat
(McCabe & Trevino, 1996). When students support standards of academic
integrity, they realize their responsibilities in regard to ethical behavior. This
core value of the institution becomes
their own individual core value, which
they carry into their future careers.
REFERENCES

tion of behavior intentions in a choice situation.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 5,
234-244.
Albrecht, W. S . , & Wernz, G. W. (1993). The three
factors of fraud. Security Management, 37(7),
95-96.
Albrecht, W. S . , Wernz, G. W., &Williams, T. L.
(1995). Fraud: Bringing light to the dark side of
business. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional
Publishing.
Allen, J., Fuller, D., & Luckett, M. (1998). Academic integrity: Behaviors, rates, and attitudes of
business students toward cheating. Journal of
Marketing Education, 20( I), 41-52.
Baldwin, D. C., & Daugherty, S. R. ( 1 996). Cheating in medical school: A survey of second-year
students at 3 1 schools. Academic Medicine, 71,
267-273.
Barnett, D. C., & Dalton, J. C. (1981). Why college students cheat. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 22(6), 545-55 1.
Berton, L. (1995, April 25). Business students
hope to cheat and prosper, a new study shows.
Wall Street Journal, 225(80), B I .
Budner, H. R. (1987). Ethical orientation of marketing students. The Delta Phi Epsilon Journal.
29(3), 91-99.
Bum, D. N., Caudill, S . B., & Gropper, D. M.
(1992). Crime in the classroom: An economic
analysis of undergraduate student cheating
behavior. Research in Economic Education.
23(3), 197-208.
Byrne, J . A. (1992, April). Can ethics be taught?
Harvard gives it the old college try. Business
Week, 6, 34.
Center for Academic Integrity (CAI). (1998).
Some research highlights. Retrieved from

zyxwv
z

http://www.academicintegrityorg/cai-research.
asp
Chronicle of Higher Education. (1998). Almanac.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Cole, B. C., & Smith, D. L. (1995). Effects of
ethics instruction on the ethical perceptions of
college business students. Journal of Education
for Business, 70(6), 351-356.
Cole, K. (1998, October 23). Engine makers tined
$1 billion. The Detmit News, 75.
Daniel, L. G., Adams, B. N., & Smith, N. M .
(1994). Academic misconduct among nursing
students: A multivariate investigation. Journal
of Professional Nursing, 10(5),278-288.
David, F. R., Anderson, L. M., & Lawrimore, K.
W. (1990). Perspectives on business ethics in
management education. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 9.26-32.
Davis, L. (1987). Moral judgement development

zyxw

of graduate management students in two cultures: Minnesota and Singapore. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Deursch, C. H. (1988). Cheating: Alive and tlourishing. New York Times Educational Supplement, 131, 25-29.
Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E.,
Williams, L. E., Francis, B., & Haines, V. I.
(1996). College cheating: Ten years later.
Research in Higher Education, 37(4), 487-502.
Duizend, J., & McCann, G. K. (1998). Do collegiate business students show a propensity to
engage in illegal business practices? Journal qf
Business Ethics, 17, 229-238.
Etzioni, A. (1989). The moral dimension. New
York: Free Press.
Fass, R. A. (1990). Cheating and plagiarism. In W.
W. May (Ed.), Ethics and higher edudcation
(pp. 170184. New York Macmillan.
Ferrell, C. M., & Daniel, L. G . (1995). A frame of
reference for understanding behaviors related to

zyxwvutsr

Journal of Education for Business

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding
attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I. F., & Fishbein, M. (1969). The predic-

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:15 13 January 2016

zyxwvutsrqpon
zyxwvutsrqpon
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrqponm
zyxwvutsrqpon
zyxw

the academic misconduct of undergraduate
teacher education students. Research in Higher
Education, 36(3), 345-375.
Fishbein, L. (1994). We can curb college teaching.
The Educatioan Digest, 59(7), 58-61,
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliej attitude,
intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fitzpatrick, D. (1995). Insurance from theft. Fairfield County Business Journal. 34(20), 13.
Franklyn-Stokes, A,, & Newstead, S. E. (1995).
Undergraduate cheating: Who does what and
why? Studies i n Higher Education, 20(2),
159-172.
Gellerman, G. W. (1986). Why “good” managers
make bad ethical choices. Harvard Business
Review, 86, 85-90.
Glenn, J. R., Jr. (1992). Can a business and society course affect the ethical judgement of future
managers? Journal of Business Ethics, I1(3),
217-223.
Glenn, J., & Loo, M. F. V. (1993). Business students’ and practitioners’ ethical decisions over
time. Journal of Business Ethics, 12. 835-847.
Gray, R. T. (1997, April). Clamping down on
worker crime. Nation’s Business, 4 4 4 5 .
Haines, V. J., LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E., &
Diekhoff, G. M. (1986). Student cheating and
perceived social control by college students.
Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 14( I),
13-16.
Harris, J. (1989). Ethical values and decision
processes of male and female business students.
Journal of Education for Business, 64(February), 234-238.
Hilbert, G. A. (1988). Moral development
andunethical behavior among students. Journal
of Professional Nursing, 4(3), 163-167.
Hollinger, R., & Clark, J. (1983). The3 by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Homing, D. (1970). Blue collar theft New York
Wiley.
Hosmer, L. T. (1988). Adding ethics to the business curriculum. Business Horizons, 31,9-15.
Jendrek, M. P. (1989). Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student
Development, 30(September), 401406.
Jones, T. M., & Gautschi, 1. (1988). Will the ethics
of business change’?Journal of Business Ethics,
7, 231-248.
Kumar, K.,Borycki, C., Nonis, S. A,, & Yauger,
C. (1991). The strategic decision framework:
Effect on students’ business ethics. Journal of
Education for Business, 67(2), 74-79.
May, K.M.,& Loyd, B. H. (1 993). Academic dishonesty: The honor system and students’ attitudes. Journal of college student development,
34(2), 125-139.
McCabe. D. L.(1993). Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student
honor codes. Human Sciences, 9,647-658.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Acade-

mic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education,
64(5), 522-538.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we
know about cheating in college. Change(Januarymebruary), 29-33.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation.
Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379-396.
McCormick, R. C. (1997). Reviewing business
theft and fidelity exposures. Rough Notes, 140,
42, 80.
McLoughlin, M. (1987, February 23). A nation of
liars. U.S. News and World Report, 54-60.
Meyer, H. (1994). Corns in the crow. Insights.
Retrieved
October
28,1998,
from
www.insights-inc.com/articles/crows.html
Nazario, S. L. (1992, September 1 I). Right and
wrong: Teaching values makes a comeback as
schools see a need to fill a moral vacuum. The
Wall Street Journal, B6.
Nonis, S . , & Swift. C. 0. (1998). Deterring cheating behavior in the marketing classroom: An
analysis of the effects of demographics, attitudes and in-class deterrent strategies. Journal
of Marketing Education, 20(3), 188-199.
Nowell, C.. & Laufer, D. (1997). Undergraduate
student cheating in the fields of business and
economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 28(1), 3-12.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Ogilby, S. M. (1995). The ethics of academic
behavior: Will it affect professional behavior?
Journal of Education for Business, 71(2),
92-96.
Payne, S . L., & Pettingill, B. (1983). Theft perceptions. Personnel Administrator, October,
102-111.
Rittman, A. L. (1996, Fall). Academic dishonesty
among college students. Missouri Western State
Col