Journal Article Critique

edina

AcademicDishonestyinGraduateBusinessProgramsPrevalenceCauses.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Journal Article Critique

S , , : :// . . / /238737968

Acade ic Di h e i G ad a e B i e P g a : P e a e ce, Ca e , a d P ed Ac i

A c e in A M L E , S 2006

DOI: 10.5465/AMLE.2006.22697018

CI A IONS

396 READS

1,350

3 a , :

S e f e a f b ca a e a e e e a ed ec :

M A B O : I I -R S C F

D L. M

R , S N J

42 P BLICA IONS 5,422 CI A IONS

SEE PROFILE

K B

31 P BLICA IONS 4,552 CI A IONS

SEE PROFILE

A D L. M 18 J 2014.

Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business Programs:

Prevalence, Causes, and Proposed Action

DONALD L. MCCABE Rutgers University

KENNETH D. BUTTERFIELD Washington State University

LINDA KLEBE TREVIÑO The Pennsylvania State University

Little is currently known about cheating among graduate business students. We collected data from more than 5,000 business (mostly MBA) and nonbusiness graduate students at 32 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada during the 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 academic years to test a series of hypotheses regarding the prevalence of graduate business student cheating and reasons why these students cheat. We found that graduate business students cheat more than their nonbusiness-student peers. Correlation results found cheating to be associated with perceived peer behavior, as well as the perceived certainty of being reported by a peer, and the understanding and acceptance of academic integrity policies by students and faculty. But, regression analysis results suggest that perceived peer behavior has the largest effect. Drawing from these findings and past research on undergraduate students, we propose strategies that business schools and faculty can use to promote academic integrity in graduate business programs.

........................................................................................................................................................................

“I think the WorldCom and Enron scandals point to the need for character in our busi-

ness schools. If the driver at the helm is un- ethical, so shall the crew be.”

—Comments of an MBA student at a large U.S. university.

As this student suggests, high-profile ethics scan- dals have once again focused attention on ethics and cheating in business. Some business schools are responding by expanding their attention to ethics in their curricula, and some are attempting to make judgments about an applicant’s ethical inclinations in admissions processes (Harker, 2005). In addition, some schools are promoting ac- ademic integrity as part of their strategy to en- hance the ethical development of their students. These efforts related to academic integrity com- monly include lectures during orientation ses- sions, website pages and chapters in student

handbooks devoted to ethical standards, and ad- monishments in course syllabi. Although such techniques have been found to be effective in un- dergraduate schools (Baird, 1980), little is known about their effectiveness among graduate busi- ness students. We also know very little about why graduate business students cheat and whether they cheat more than their peers.

Understanding cheating among graduate busi- ness students is important because these students are tomorrow’s business leaders. In addition, in light of recent scandals in corporations, business schools have been searching for ways to send stu- dents the message that ethics is important. Atten- tion to students’ cheating behavior likely has some role to play in that process. Finally, there is reason to believe that cheating may be more of a problem in business schools than it is elsewhere. Research has demonstrated that undergraduate business students cheat more than their nonbusiness peers

! Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2006, Vol. 5, No. 3, 294 –305.

........................................................................................................................................................................

294

and that they are less likely to disapprove of cheat- ing (e.g., Baird, 1980; Bowers, 1964; McCabe, 1997). Similar differences may exist between MBA stu- dents and their nonbusiness counterparts. Al- though previous research has examined cheating among various types of undergraduate and grad- uate students (e.g., Bowers, 1964; Haines et al., 1986; Stern & Havlicek, 1986; Davis et al., 1992; McCabe & Treviño, 1995, 1997), to our knowledge this is the first multicampus study to examine cheating among graduate business students.

This study has three major objectives: (1) to test hypotheses concerning the factors that influence graduate business students’ cheating behavior; (2) to examine the prevalence of cheating to deter- mine whether business graduate students cheat more than their nonbusiness graduate student peers, and; (3) to propose strategies for promoting academic integrity in graduate business pro- grams.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Cheating Among Graduate Business Students

In his classic study of cheating at the undergrad- uate level, Bowers (1964) documented higher levels of cheating among business students. He reported that 66% of the undergraduate business students in his survey of 99 campuses reported at least one incident of cheating (operationalized as plagia- rism, copying or using crib notes on a test, or turn- ing in work done by another) in the previous aca- demic year— 8 percentage points higher than engineering students, the next highest group, and 16 percentage points higher than the overall aver- age of 50% found in his survey of over 5,000 stu- dents. Using a more comprehensive definition of cheating, McCabe (1997) reported similar differ- ences for a sample of 16 schools with science and engineering programs— 84% of business students reporting one or more incidents of serious cheating in the past year vs. 72% of engineering students and 66% of all participating students. In a study of 31 undergraduate institutions, McCabe and Treviño (1995) also found that undergraduate stu- dents who aspired to a career in business reported higher levels of cheating than did students with other career aspirations. They proposed a number of reasons for this finding, including business- oriented students’ bottom-line mentality, their higher rating of the importance of being finan- cially well off, and their competitiveness vis-à-vis grades. Graduate business students are likely to share these characteristics.

There are multiple theoretical reasons why grad-

uate business students may cheat more. It is pos- sible that students who are prone to cheating se- lect themselves into business schools at a higher rate because of preexisting attitudes, such as the value of being financially well off. Or, students may be learning something in business school that leads them to have such attitudes. In support of the learning explanation, Ghoshal (2005) argued that the economic theories and free-market philosophy that form the foundation of much of the business school curriculum have a harmful impact on busi- ness students’ values, attitudes, and behavior. Ghoshal (2005: 76) claimed that “by propagating ideologically inspired amoral theories, business schools have actively freed their students from any sense of moral responsibility.” Business school curricula generally emphasize the maximization of shareholder wealth, without equal attention to other societal stakeholders.

Further supporting the learning explanation are studies (Frank, Gilovich, & Regan, 1993) demon- strating that economics students, perhaps driven by their exposure to the self-interest model, act in more self-interested ways than other students. In- deed, in the course of a single semester Frank and his colleagues observed a significantly greater de- cline in the honesty of students taking an introduc- tory economics course (and a correspondingly greater increase in self-interested behavior) com- pared to students taking an introductory course in astronomy. In addition, a recent study conducted by the Aspen Institute (2003) found that during their 2 years in an MBA program, students’ values shift away from customer needs and product quality and toward shareholder value as a measure of business success and corporate responsibility.

Finally, many graduate business students work while attending school, which only increases the pressures on them. They have less time to get their work done, and they may be under pressure to keep their grades up in order to continue getting financial support from their employers. In their work experience, these students may have also been exposed to the “get it done at all costs” cul- ture found in many corporate workplaces. Gradu- ate business students are also more mature, and their attitudes may be more entrenched than are those of undergraduate students or more influ- enced by others outside of the business school.

In light of the above factors, and the empirical evidence that undergraduate business students cheat more often than their nonbusiness peers (Bowers, 1964; McCabe, 1997), we propose that graduate business students will also engage in cheating behaviors more than their nonbusiness peers:

2006 295McCabe, Butterfield, and Treviño

Hypothesis 1: Graduate business students will re- port more cheating behavior than will their nonbusiness peers.

What Influences the Degree of Cheating?

Previous research on undergraduate students has shown that contextual variables can be a signifi- cant influence on a student’s cheating behavior (McCabe & Treviño, 1993, 1997; McCabe, Treviño, & Butterfield, 2002). These contextual variables in- clude deterrence-based variables such as per- ceived likelihood of being reported for cheating and the perceived severity of penalties, along with other factors likely to influence cheating behavior, such as the behavior of one’s peers and one’s un- derstanding and acceptance of campus academic integrity policies (e.g., McCabe, Treviño, & Butter- field, 2001). In our survey, we sought to explore similar relationships at the graduate student level.

Deterrence-based Factors

Deterrence theory suggests that misconduct results from a rational calculus that represents a joint func- tion of the perception of the likelihood that one will be caught and the perception of the severity of the penalties imposed for the misconduct (e.g., Gibbs, 1975). Researchers have applied this theory to cheat- ing behavior among college students, suggesting that the higher a student’s perception that cheating will be reported and the more severe the perceived penalty, the less likely a student will be to risk such behavior. In addition, because students may be able to hide cheating from faculty, student perceptions that a peer would report cheating are likely to be most relevant (McCabe & Treviño, 1993; Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Tittle & Rowe, 1973). Hypothesis 2: Cheating will be inversely related to

the perceived certainty of being re- ported by a peer.

Hypothesis 3: Cheating will be inversely related to the perceived severity of penalties.

Normative Factors

Much of the previous research on academic integ- rity has also taken into account the role of norma- tive factors in the contextual environment, espe- cially academic integrity policies such as honor codes, in reducing student cheating (May & Lloyd, 1993; McCabe & Treviño, 1993; McCabe & Pavela, 2000). These policies create standards of academic integrity that students and faculty are expected to follow. However, policies may or may not be widely communicated, understood, and followed.

Therefore, if students perceive that campus integ- rity policies are understood and accepted by both students and faculty, cheating should be lower (McCabe & Treviño, 1993). Such understanding and acceptance is likely to create a culture supportive of academic integrity. Indeed, in this previous re- search, students who perceived such a campus culture of integrity were likely to cheat less than those who did not perceive it.

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) suggests that “much of human behavior is learned through the influence of example” (p. 527) and that people do not need to be personally reinforced in order to learn. In fact, according to Bandura (1986), most of what individuals learn, they learn through vicari- ous processes. They observe others’ behavior and the outcomes of that behavior. As such, observing peers cheat successfully should increase the ten- dency of the observer to behave similarly. Peer behavior also provides normative support for cheating—when peers are seen cheating, cheating may come to be viewed as an acceptable way of behaving and of getting ahead (McCabe & Treviño 1993). Conversely, if students see their peers en- gaging in behaviors such as making pledges re- garding personal integrity, educating other stu- dents about the importance of academic integrity, and behaving honestly, then cheating should be less likely. Although our primary argument relies on social learning theory, it is also possible that observing peers cheating provides license to cheat or even creates competitive pressure to do so. If students see others getting ahead by cheating, they may feel free to or compelled to do the same.

Thus, we propose that the stronger students’ per- ception that faculty and students understand and accept academic integrity policies and the stron- ger their perceptions of ethical peer behavior, the less students will engage in academic dishonesty. Hypothesis 4: Cheating will be inversely related to

the perception that students and fac- ulty understand and accept campus academic integrity policies.

Hypothesis 5: Cheating will be positively related to a student’s perception of peers’ ac- ademic dishonesty (the perceived level of cheating among their peers).

METHODS

Data were collected at 54 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada in the 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 academic years as part of a larger project being conducted by the Center for Aca- demic Integrity at Duke University. Of these schools, 32 had graduate business programs and

296 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

were included in the final sample for this analy- sis—11 schools in Canada and 21 in the United States. The mean undergraduate and graduate en- rollments for the 11 Canadian universities were 19,450 and 3,340, respectively. The mean number of students at the 21 U.S. schools was 11,950 under- graduates and 1,510 graduate students.

Because survey procedures were not under our exclusive control, we could only estimate response rates. About half of the participating schools invited all their students to participate in this survey, while others chose to include select populations, typically a random sample of students (sometimes as few as 500 or 1,000). At those schools that invited all students to participate, a broadcast e-mail was sent to all students on campus, inviting them to complete the survey. Unfortunately, a large number of undeliver- able survey invitations were generated because many students do not use their official campus e- mail address. Using published data on the graduate student population at each participating school, we were able to estimate that the 5,331 responses we received equated to a 13% response rate. While this rate is low, participating schools stated that it was typical for a graduate student web-based survey on a sensitive topic. Nevertheless, readers should keep this low response in mind when interpreting our re- sults. Responses from graduate students majoring in business (N ! 623), almost all of whom were MBA students, represented 12% of the total graduate stu- dent response.

A cover letter introducing the survey to students informed them that their school was “participating in a nationwide survey of college students on the sub- ject of academic dishonesty . . . [a] study designed to get student and faculty opinions about the current state of academic integrity at our nation’s colleges and universities.” To encourage student participa- tion, students were assured their responses would remain anonymous. In addition, on most campuses, there was some advance publicity for the survey in the student newspaper or the invitation to complete the survey was preceded by or accompanied by a letter from a campus official—provost, dean or pres- ident. Although precise calculations cannot be made in this case, the results suggest that females are overrepresented in the response group, a finding that has been observed in earlier cheating surveys (e.g., McCabe & Treviño, 1993).

Measures

Academic Dishonesty

Similar to the measure used by McCabe and Treviño (1993), the measure of cheating included 13

different behaviors—five related to cheating on test and exams (explicit copying of another stu- dent’s paper during a test either with or without their permission, the use of unauthorized crib notes, helping someone else to cheat on a test, and learning in advance what was on a test from some- one who previously took the test); and 8 related to written work (plagiarism, collaborating on assign- ments when specifically asked for individual work, cut and pasting a few sentences from either a written or Internet source without attribution, fab- ricating or falsifying a bibliography, submitting work done by someone else, providing unautho- rized help to someone on an assignment, and sub- mitting a paper downloaded from a term paper mill or website). These questions were presented to respondents in a section of the survey entitled “Specific Behaviors” and were introduced by tell- ing respondents that “this section asks you some questions about specific behaviors that some peo- ple might consider cheating.” They were reminded that their answers would remain anonymous.

With three choices available for each of the 13 behaviors (never engaged in this behavior, en- gaged in the behavior once, engaged in the behav- ior more than once), this variable ranged from 13 to 39 and had a mean of 14.81, a standard deviation of 3.10, and a Cronbach’s alpha of .804. Because the resulting variable was skewed, values were stan- dardized and the log of the resulting variable (plus a constant of ten) was used in all analyses. This transformed variable had a mean of 10.00 and a standard deviation of .04.

Understanding and Acceptance of Academic Integrity Policies

Understanding and acceptance of academic integ- rity policies was measured with a 5-item scale: student understanding of campus academic integ- rity policies, student support of these policies, fac- ulty understanding of these policies, faculty sup- port of these policies, and effectiveness of these policies. Each item had four possible response cat- egories: a 4-point Likert scale ranging from very low to very high. This composite measure had a mean of 16.71, a standard deviation of 3.84, and a Cronbach’s alpha of .838.

Peers’ Behavior

Peers’ behavior was measured with a single 5- point Likert scale item (1 ! never, through 5 ! many times) that asked respondents how often they had observed another student cheating. This item had a mean of 1.82 and a standard deviation of 1.17.

2006 297McCabe, Butterfield, and Treviño

Perceived Certainty of Being Reported by a Peer

Certainty of being reported was measured by a single 4-point Likert scale item that asked respon- dents how likely they felt it was that the typical student on their campus would report an incident of cheating they observed (1 ! very unlikely, through 4 ! very likely). This measure had a mean of 1.98 and a standard deviation of 0.67.

Perceived Severity of Penalties

Severity of penalties was measured with a single 4-point Likert scale item (1 ! very low, to 4 ! very high) that asked students to rate the severity of penalties on their campus. The resulting measure had a mean of 3.42 and a standard deviation of 1.01.

Analyses

Hypothesis 1 was tested using simple t tests. We tested Hypotheses 2–5 using bivariate correlations and a multiple regression model with academic dishonesty as the dependent variable and under- standing and acceptance of campus academic in- tegrity policies, certainty of being reported, sever- ity of penalties, and peers’ cheating behavior as the independent variables.

RESULTS

A t test comparing the self-reported incidence of cheating among graduate business students ver- sus other graduate students supported Hypothesis

1. Graduate business students self-reported more cheating than their nonbusiness peers. The mean level of academic dishonesty reported by graduate business students using our transformed measure was 10.17 compared to 9.97 for all other graduate students (t ! 3.854, df ! 3453, p " .001). This differ- ence was also reflected in the percentage of stu- dents who admitted to one or more incidents of cheating in the past academic year—56% of grad- uate business students compared to 47% of their nonbusiness peers (t ! 3.674, df ! 3453, p " .001).

Table 1 shows the bivariate correlation analyses for the total graduate student sample as well as separate analyses for graduate business students and nonbusiness students. For the graduate busi- ness sample, as well as the nonbusiness sample and full sample, correlational analysis supports Hypotheses 2, 4, and 5, suggesting that cheating behavior is inversely related to the perceived cer- tainty of being reported by a peer and understand- ing and acceptance of academic integrity policies and positively related to perceptions of peer cheat- ing behavior. Hypothesis 3, which predicted an inverse relation between academic dishonesty and the perceived severity of penalties, was not sup- ported in any of the samples.

Table 2 summarizes the multiple regression models for both the full sample and the business and nonbusiness student samples. Similar to the correlational analysis, Table 2 shows that Hypoth- esis 2 (likelihood of being reported), Hypothesis 4 (understanding/acceptance of policy), and Hypoth- esis 5 (peer behavior) are significant for the full student sample at the p " .05 level. Hypothesis 3

TABLE 1 Intercorrelations of Study Variables

Measure N M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5

Full Sample 1. Peer behavior 4457 1.81 1.17 — — 2. Acceptance of policy 4525 16.71 3.84 .838 #.29* — 3. Severity of penalties 4699 3.42 1.01 — #.28* .59* — 4. Certainty of reporting 5105 1.98 0.67 — #.24* .31* .21* — 5. Academic dishonesty 3455 10.00 1.00 .804 .28* #.11* #.03 #.13* —

Business Students 1. Peer behavior 540 1.89 1.20 — — 2. Acceptance of policy 571 17.89 3.85 .863 #.40* — 3. Severity of penalties 588 3.04 1.01 — #.31* .57* — 4. Certainty of reporting 597 2.05 0.70 — #.27* .38* .22* — 5. Academic dishonesty 428 10.17 1.15 .822 .30* #.22* #.03 #.22* —

Nonbusiness Students 1. Peer behavior 3917 1.81 1.17 — — 2. Acceptance of policy 3954 16.54 3.80 .832 #.28* — 3. Severity of penalties 4111 3.39 1.00 — #.28* .59* — 4. Certainty of reporting 4508 1.97 0.66 — #.24* .30* .20* — 5. Academic dishonesty 3027 9.97 0.98 .801 .28* #.10* #.03 #.12* —

298 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

(severity of penalties) was not supported because the relationship, although significant, was in the opposite direction of the hypothesis (and also in the bivariate correlation, suggesting a suppres- sion effect as suggested by Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Table 2 also shows that in the regression analysis for the graduate business sample, only Hypothesis 5 (perceived peer behavior) was supported. In the regression analysis for the nonbusiness sample, Hypothesis 2 (likelihood of being reported by a peer) and Hypothesis 5 (peer behavior) were sup- ported. Hypothesis 3 (severity of penalties) was not supported in either sample. A similar suppression effect was found (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

DISCUSSION

The study results suggest that, as hypothesized, cheating among graduate business students is higher than cheating among nonbusiness grad- uate students. In this study, the perception that other students are cheating had the largest ef- fect. Correlation analysis also demonstrated a relationship between academic dishonesty and the perception that other students are unlikely to report cheating, as well as the perception that academic integrity policies are not supported by students or faculty. We discuss these findings and their implications for graduate business ed- ucation. Finally, we suggest strategies business schools and business school faculty may wish to adopt in response.

The Prevalence of Cheating Among Graduate Business Students

As hypothesized, graduate business students’ self- reports of cheating were higher than those re- ported by other graduate students. Unfortunately, cheating appears to be alarmingly high in both

groups. Fifty-six percent of the graduate business students, compared to 47% of their nonbusiness peers, admitted to engaging in some form of cheat- ing or questionable behavior during the past year. The fact that more than half of these graduate business students admitted to some form of cheat- ing within the previous year suggests that busi- ness schools have a significant problem that should be addressed.

In an attempt to better understand the most prob- lematic types of cheating, we conducted a post hoc analysis to look more closely at different types of cheating. This analysis revealed that 23% of grad- uate business students admitted to having en- gaged in one or more incidents of test cheating compared to 18% for their nonbusiness peers (t ! 2.758, df ! 4118, p " .01). This difference in test cheating appears to be driven by a single type of cheating behavior: learning what was on a test from a student who took that test in an earlier class period.

Next, looking at the four most serious forms of test cheating in our measure of academic dishon- esty (explicit copying of another student’s paper during a test either with or without their permis- sion, the use of unauthorized crib notes, helping someone else to cheat on a test) we found that 10% of the business students surveyed admitted to such serious test cheating compared to 8% percent of nonbusiness students—a nonsignificant differ- ence. Analysis of cheating on written work re- vealed that 53% of the business students admitted to one or more incidents versus 43% for nonbusi- ness students (t ! 3.720, df ! 3724, p " .001). Two specific types of cheating that revealed important differences were collaboration cheating (collabo- rating on written assignments for which the in- structor has explicitly asked for individual work) and technology-based cheating. Research has shown that collaboration and technology-based

TABLE 2 Regression of Contextual Factors on Academic Dishonesty

Variables

Model 1 Full Sample

Model 2 Business Students

Model 3 Other Students

! t ! t ! t

Peer’s behavior .261 12.71*** .280 5.01*** .253 11.42*** Severity of penalties .088 3.61*** .142 2.29* .074 2.81** Certainty of being reported #.069 #3.38*** #.100 #1.83 #.064 #2.87** Understanding/acceptance of policy #.056 #2.25* #.120 #1.79 #.051 #1.88 Adjusted R2 .08 .13 .08 F 57.02*** 12.57*** 44.96*** n 2,533 358 2,176

* p " .05. ** p " .01. *** p " .001.

2006 299McCabe, Butterfield, and Treviño

cheating are increasing (e.g., Masur, 2001). We found that 28% of the graduate business students surveyed admitted to collaboration cheating com- pared to 23% of nonbusiness students (t ! 2.670, df ! 4670, p " .01). Further, the Internet and other new technologies continue to create new opportu- nities for plagiarism and other forms of technolo- gy-based cheating (e.g., McCabe, 2001–2002). A few decades ago, students were asked to clear the memory of their programmable calculators to pre- vent cheating. Today, cheaters are armed with a variety of new technologies, including handheld computers and cell phones with Internet capability (e.g., Argetsinger, 2003). One indicator of the in- creasing use of technology to cheat is plagiarism from Internet websites where students use, without citation, small clips of material from multiple sources and weave them together to complete a written assignment. Thirty-three percent of the graduate business students admitted to such “cut and paste” plagiarism compared to only 22% for nonbusiness students (t ! 5684, df ! 4867, p " .001).

Our findings suggest that a significant number of graduate business students cheat, and that they cheat more than their nonbusiness graduate stu- dent peers. In fact, if we can assume that those who cheat more would be less likely to respond to a survey (or more likely to lie about their cheating if they did), the results may actually underestimate the extent of cheating behavior. However, we do not believe that such response bias is likely to differentially influence business and nonbusiness students. Therefore, we believe that we can have some confidence in the differences we found be- tween these business and nonbusiness groups. Nevertheless, it is possible that business students are more willing than nonbusiness students to self-report cheating because they see cheating as more acceptable or necessary in order to get ahead. Future research should consider this possi- bility. In addition, as noted in the Methods section, the low response rate suggests that all of the find- ings should be interpreted cautiously.

Why Do Graduate Students Cheat?

Similar to previous results found for undergradu- ate students, observed peer behavior was the most important of the influences studied for all of the graduate students—more influential than deter- rence-based factors such as the perceived cer- tainty of being reported and the perceived severity of penalties (McCabe et al., 2002; McCabe & Treviño 1993, 1997) and more influential than per- ceived understanding/acceptance of academic in- tegrity policies. The regression results showed that

these other factors did not significantly influence cheating among graduate business students. Ap- parently, these factors do not have the same im- pact on graduate business students that they have on undergraduate students. This may be because academic integrity policies (including their report- ing and penalty components) are weaker in grad- uate business programs, or more weakly enforced. It may also be because graduate students have a wider array of commitments to people and organi- zations outside of their educational institutions than do undergraduates. As a result, the educa- tional context is likely to have more competitors in the lives of graduate students and therefore less of an effect on students’ attitudes and behaviors.

We proposed a number of theoretical explana- tions for cheating, but our data do not allow us to conclude that these are in fact the best or the only theories. Note that, for graduate business school students, the regression results explained only 12% of the variance in self-reported cheating. Clearly, future research should consider addi- tional factors that may help to explain more of the variance in such behavior. For example, given that perceptions of unfairness have been associated with antisocial behavior, including theft (e.g., Greenberg, 1990) students’ perceptions of the fair- ness or unfairness of grading policies may influ- ence cheating. Other theoretical explanations may also be possible, and we encourage others to pro- pose them and to conduct research in this arena. In addition, we may need different theories to explain different types of cheating behavior (e.g., collabo- ration cheating vs. plagiarism vs. exam cheating). Finally, students may find it easier to rationalize some types of cheating over others. Therefore, fu- ture research may wish to delve further into how students think about different types of cheating with different levels of perceived seriousness.

Future researchers should also construct multi- item measures of the independent variables. Both peers’ behavior and student perceptions of the se- verity of penalties were measured using a single item. In the case of peers’ behavior, future re- searchers may want to expand the measure to in- clude student perceptions of how often peers en- gage in different types of cheating (e.g., copying on a test, using crib notes on a test, etc.) versus the more global measure employed here.

What Can and Should Be Done?

At a minimum, the results summarized above sug- gest that individual faculty should consider using strategies that reduce students’ perception that other students are cheating. For example, if stu-

300 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

dents are aware that some students are getting information about exams from students in other sections, faculty should create multiple versions of the exam. This open-ended comment from an MBA student at a large Canadian university suggests that students expect faculty to avoid creating cheating opportunities: “A professor should never use the same exam twice.”

Although creating multiple versions of exams represents significantly more work for the faculty member, it sends a message that the professor cares about integrity in the classroom and it makes cheating more difficult, if not impossible, thus con- tributing to a perception that students are not cheating.

Similarly, technology-based cheating and col- laboration on written work may respond to individ- ual faculty intervention. For example, faculty can reduce technology-based cheating by insuring that students do not bring technology such as cell phones to exams and by demonstrating how tech- nology can be used to catch “cut and paste” cheat- ing from the Internet. A brief demonstration (per- haps during orientation) of how faculty can use websites such as turnitin.com to find such cheat- ing could help reduce such behavior.

Students’ open-ended comments on the survey also suggested that faculty members are sending mixed messages regarding teamwork. In many MBA courses, students are assigned to teams and are encouraged to collaborate on projects and other assignments. Students are also taught that collaboration is a critical business skill that is valued in corporations. Yet, students are often re- quired to complete assignments by themselves, with no outside assistance. Many students view this as a confusing disconnect between academic norms and business practice. Some even argue that corporations value collaborative skills, and engaging in those activities now, even when not permitted by a faculty member on a specific as- signment, is appropriate training. This problem is exacerbated by inconsistencies across faculty. As a result, students may not always understand when collaboration is acceptable or unacceptable or accept faculty directives. The nature of team- work can further contribute to the problem. Student teams often develop powerful group norms and high levels of cohesiveness, each of which may support a strong sense of loyalty to the team. As such, when a team member cheats or otherwise behaves inappropriately, other team members are unlikely to prevent the behavior or report it.

Faculty should address collaboration issues on an assignment-specific basis and, when collabo- ration is prohibited, clearly explain why. Assign-

ments can also be designed to reduce the likeli- hood of collaboration. For example, assignments can and should be changed from year to year (to reduce cross-year collaboration) and, where possi- ble, assignments can be personalized to make col- laboration more difficult. For example, if an anal- ysis must be related to one’s own work experience, it becomes more difficult to get answers from someone else.

Finally, faculty should be aware that their grad- ing policies may influence cheating and students’ willingness to report their peers. Although we can not document it quantitatively, students’ open- ended comments revealed an interesting tension that exists for many students when it comes to cooperative cheating behaviors (e.g., unauthorized collaboration on an assignment or helping another during a test or exam) and the reporting of cheat- ing by others. In a community where grade compe- tition seems to be so important to students, one might expect students to be unwilling to assist others and even to report the transgressions of others. But this does not appear to be the case. Rather, students seem to establish different stan- dards for courses graded on the curve and those where a student’s grade is not greatly impacted by the grades of others. Responding to questions about whether they would report cheating they might observe, students seem to make a clear dis- tinction between these two conditions. While the vast majority would be unwilling to report cheat- ing under any circumstances, others suggest they would seriously consider reporting in courses where the success of other students might impact their own grade. This is consistent with research suggesting that the interests of group members influence students’ willingness to report a peer’s cheating (Treviño & Victor, 1992). But even for these students, concerns about retribution and not want- ing to be labeled as a “rat” or “tattle-tale” remain a strong deterrent to reporting others’ cheating be- havior.

Although they are likely to reduce cheating, the approaches presented thus far represent only piecemeal responses that depend upon individual faculty members taking more responsibility for ac- ademic integrity in their particular courses. Unfor- tunately, some faculty members may not be will- ing to do so, as suggested by students’ answers to open-ended questions in our survey. For example, many students perceive that faculty fail to monitor academic dishonesty and fail to respond or take action when cheating is reported.

I noticed students cheating last semester and continuously tried to report it. I called the

2006 301McCabe, Butterfield, and Treviño

professor during office hours (he was never there), I called him at home (I left messages with his wife, which were never returned), and I sent e-mails (which were never replied to) —MBA student at a large public university

in the U.S.

I have witnessed cheating on several occa- sions and even reported it to the professors. On one occasion I was told no action was going to be taken against them since they were doing a poor job of cheating . . . —MBA

student at a private university in the U.S.

Faculty need to be more active in monitoring academic dishonesty as well as punishing those students that participate in it. Faculty often turn their heads or “punish” on their own terms rather than follow university pol- icy. —MBA student at a large public univer-

sity in the U.S.

If students believe that faculty members either don’t care or don’t want to get involved in cases of academic dishonesty, they are less likely to get involved themselves. Why would a student risk reporting a peer, a difficult thing to do under any circumstances, if the faculty member is unlikely to take action? And, if faculty members take no ac- tion, students can only believe that cheating is going to be commonplace.

We are not surprised by these open-ended com- ments about business school faculty. Previous re- search has found that many college faculty are reluctant to get involved in academic integrity cases for a variety of reasons (Schneider, 1999), including fear of litigation if they accuse a student of cheating (Jendrek, 1989). But, the failure to act sends students the message that cheating is ac- ceptable or at least that no serious consequences will result. So, although individual faculty mem- bers’ efforts such as the ones we have described should help, we do not believe that administrators can rely on them because of faculty reticence in taking action.

Instead, we propose that administrators work with faculty and students to develop broader pro- grammatic efforts based upon notions of ethical community building. The ethical community-build- ing approach involves creating a “culture of integ- rity and responsibility” within the academic pro- gram. Such a culture of integrity and responsibility has been found to be effective in undergraduate education and at least some of these ideas should be applicable to graduate business education (e.g., McCabe, Treviño, & Butterfield, 2001a; Treviño &

McCabe, 1994; McCabe & Treviño, 1993). Further, ethical context (climate and culture) has been found to influence ethical/unethical behavior in corporate settings as well (see Treviño, Butterfield, & McCabe, 1998).

In an ideal culture of integrity and responsibil- ity, faculty and administrators engage students in an ongoing dialogue about academic integrity that begins with recruiting, continues in orientation sessions and initiation ceremonies, and continues throughout the program. Such efforts create expec- tations for faculty, administrators, and students, and seek to bring everyone together into a commu- nity of trust. An ethical community approach as- sumes that community members will adhere to cultural values and norms that are developed to- gether. It emphasizes the moral socialization and training of all community members, clear commu- nication of rules and expectations, creation of nor- mative pressures, commitment to prosocial values and norms, and mutual respect (McCabe et al., 2001a). Developing an ethical community happens outside the classroom as much as inside it, and thus involves creating a “hidden curriculum” in which students are actively engaged in develop- ing moral reasoning skills through regular facili- tated discussion of real-life ethical dilemmas that face them in the context of their educational pro- gram (e.g., Treviño & McCabe, 1994). In addition, students can be involved in the development and enforcement of a code of conduct. Unlike the deter- rence approach that focuses exclusively on catch- ing and punishing cheaters, the ethical communi- ty-building approach emphasizes a more positive message about creating a culture in which all members benefit from living in a culture of integ- rity.

Student involvement is central to the ethical community-building approach (McCabe & Pavela, 2000): “Such an approach not only communicates to students that [their] institution is committed to ac- ademic integrity, it also encourages students to take responsibility for their own behavior” (p. 35). With proper guidance, students can play a vital role in designing and enforcing academic integrity standards in their program. Ethical communities establish academic integrity as part of students’ role responsibilities (McCabe et al., 2001b). Stu- dents learn that being part of an ethical commu- nity requires that they help to create the rules and then actively participate in their enforcement. This is particularly important given our findings re- garding the role of peer behavior in influencing cheating among MBA students. If students see their peers behaving with honesty and integrity, designing academic integrity policies, living up to

302 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

pledges regarding personal integrity, and educat- ing other students about the importance of aca- demic integrity, then cheating should be less likely (McCabe et al., 2002, 2001a; McCabe & Treviño, 1993).

An increasingly common part of an ethical com- munity-building strategy is establishing a code of conduct or honor code. Traditional academic honor codes typically include unproctored exams, the use of some form of honor pledge on exams and assignments, and a strong student role in a judi- cial process that addresses allegations of cheat- ing. Many traditional honor codes also obligate students to report any violations of the honor code they may observe. Research at the undergraduate level has consistently shown that honor codes re- duce cheating and promote student integrity (e.g., McCabe & Treviño, 1997; McCabe, Treviño, & But- terfield, 2002). But, little is known about whether codes of conduct would have the same impact on graduate business students for reasons discussed below. Thus, unique strategies may be required.

One promising approach that has worked in un- dergraduate programs and may hold promise for graduate business programs involves the use of “modified” honor codes (McCabe, Treviño, & But- terfield, 2002). Modified codes represent an alter- native to traditional codes and are increasingly common at large, public universities such as the University of Maryland (McCabe & Pavela, 2000). Like traditional codes, modified codes emphasize the promotion of integrity among students rather than the detection and punishment of dishonesty, and the underlying thrust is to address the issue of student cheating through the development of strong community standards and the significant involvement of students in the formation and im- plementation of these standards. Modified codes differ from traditional codes in that they usually leave issues of exam proctoring and the use of an honor pledge to the instructor’s (or program direc- tor’s) discretion, and they generally do not man- date reporting requirements. Thus, a graduate business program might shape its culture around a “professional code of business conduct.” Students could be required to sign a pledge upon entry into the program that affirms their obligation to act in a professional manner, including behaving with honesty and integrity at all times. Faculty and administrators could engage students in discus- sions of the code at several points during their program, introducing it during orientation ses- sions and discussing its application at the begin- ning of each course and when specific assign- ments are being made. Each faculty member would be expected to discuss academic integrity

expectations and standards in their course and include such information in syllabi. A primary goal would be to reinforce the code and embed it in an overall culture of integrity. Student participation in the process of creating the code would be essential to increase student acceptance of and commitment to the code. Students could also participate in an academic integrity committee that is responsible for dealing with suspected code violations and contribute to decision making about sanctions.

A stumbling block may be faculty resistance to any type of honor code system. Research has found that faculty often resist any efforts to minimize their authority to handle suspected cases of cheat- ing on their own, often because they are skeptical that such approaches work or they don’t fully un- derstand, or agree with, the consequences stu- dents may face if found responsible for cheating (Nuss, 1984; Jendrek, 1989). In the case of honor codes, they may also resist what they perceive to be additional work such as requiring students to sign statements at the end of exams, papers, or projects that pledge that they have acted in accor- dance with the code and emphasizing the code in the course syllabus and in other important course documents. However, research also suggests that faculty typically benefit in honor code environ- ments. At institutions that lack honor codes, faculty members are more squarely “on the front lines” because their institutions depend upon them to catch and report cheating incidents. By contrast, honor code faculty share responsibility with stu- dents for the monitoring of academic dishonesty and adjudicating suspected cases of cheating, and therefore, have less responsibility for catching and dealing with cheaters themselves. As a result, fac- ulty at honor code institutions are more likely to support the institution’s academic integrity system and to view it as fair and effective (McCabe, Treviño, & Butterfield, 2003). The practical implica- tion for business schools is that honor codes, in- cluding modified codes, reduce the burden on fac- ulty to monitor and enforce regulations concerning cheating and help cultivate students’ character by holding them responsible for sustaining the ethi- cal community.

We believe that ethical community-building ef- forts may be more of a challenge in the graduate business context because it is difficult to build community unless faculty and students feel that they are part of one. Most undergraduate institu- tions that have done this successfully have stu- dents for 4 years in a residential campus environ- ment. But, in graduate business programs, students are in their programs for a relatively short period of time (usually 2 years or less for an MBA

2006 303McCabe, Butterfield, and Treviño

student), and many of them attend school part time, attend classes at an off-campus facility, and are not part of a student cohort. In addition, many students have families and live off campus. They also generally have organizational experience (in fact, they may be currently working). All of this is likely to reduce the program’s opportunity to create a strong culture of academic integrity and to influ- ence student attitudes and behavior.

However, we have found that graduate students in general are cheating at an alarming rate, and business school students are cheating even more than others. To us, that means that business school faculty and administrators must do something be- cause doing nothing simply reinforces the belief that high levels of cheating are commonplace and acceptable. In today’s post-Sarbanes–Oxley envi- ronment, businesses are expected to create strong ethical cultures, to monitor employee conduct, and to create programs and processes (e.g., reporting systems) that support compliance with laws and regulations. At a minimum, business schools should be attempting to do the same. There is some evidence from undergraduate students (Mc- Cabe, Treviño, & Butterfield, 1996) to suggest that having experienced such a culture in school can help to prepare students for their organizational experiences.

But, whether in a corporation or a business school, developing an ethical culture is a com- plex task that should be undertaken only if there is a strong and ongoing commitment to it. For example, if a code is developed, but it is not enforced, or it is seen as window dressing, it may create only cynicism and do more harm than good. Clearly, we would like to see graduate business schools and programs focus more on academic integrity. But, we recognize that it will be challenging and the approaches that will work will certainly vary given the nature of the program. A full-time 2-year on-campus program is more likely to be able to effectively develop our ideal proposed culture of integrity than is a part-time program. Part-time programs may need to focus on the individual faculty efforts recom- mended above and simply coordinate and rein- force such efforts as much as possible in order to send a unified message to students. We encour- age our colleagues to experiment with ways to reduce cheating among graduate business stu- dents and to send the message that academic integrity matters in their courses and programs. We hope that they will evaluate their efforts and share the results with all of us.

REFERENCES

Artsenger, A. 2003, January 25. U-Md. says students use phones to cheat. The Washington Post, p. B1

Aspen Institute 2003. Where will they lead: MBA student atti- tudes about business and society. Retrieved from https:// www.aspeninstitute.org/AspenInstitute/files/CCLIBRARY- FILES/FILENAME/0000000203/sas.pdf (Accessed April 1, 2005).

Baird, J. S. 1980. Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 515–522.

Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Bowers, W. J. 1964. Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/corre- lation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hills- dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. 1992. Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, tech- niques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19(1): 16 –20.

Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. 1993. Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Per- spectives, 7(2): 159 –171.

Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1): 75–91.

Gibbs, J. P. 1975. Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Amster- dam: Elsevier.

Greenberg, J. 1990. Employee theft as a reaction to underpay- ment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 75: 561–568.

Harker, P. 2005. Cheating: the new epidemic. Global Agenda Magazine, retrieved from http://www.globalagenda magazine.com/2005/patrickharker.asp. Accessed April 7, 2005).

Haines, V. J., Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., &, Clark, R. E. 1986. College cheating: Immaturity, lack of commitment and the neutralizing attitude. Research in Higher Education, 25(4): 342–354.

Jendrek, M. P. 1989. Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development, 30: 401– 406.

Masur, K. 2001. Papers, profits, and pedagogy: Plagiarism in the age of the internet. Perspectives, retrieved from http://www. historians.org/perspectives/issues/2001/0105/0105new3.cfm (Ac- cessed April 11, 2005).

May, K. M., & Lloyd, B. H. 1993. Academic dishonesty: The honor system and students’ attitudes. Journal of College Student Development, 34: 125–129.

McCabe, D. L. 1997. Classroom cheating among natural science and engineering majors. Science & Engineering Ethics, 3: 433– 445.

McCabe, D. L. (2001–2002). Cheating: Why students do it and how we can help them stop. American Educator, Winter: 38 – 43.

McCabe, D. L., & Pavela, G. 2000. Some good news about aca- demic integrity. Change, 33(5): 32–38.

McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. 1993. Academic dishonesty: Honor

304 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64(5): 522–538.

McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. 1995. Cheating among business students: A challenge for business leaders and educators. The Journal of Management Education, 19(2): 205–218.

McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. 1997. Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multi-campus inves- tigation. Research in Higher Education, 38: 379 –396.

McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. 2003. Faculty and academic integrity: The influence of current honor codes and past honor code experiences. Research in Higher Education, 44( 3): 367–385.

McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. 1996. The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4: 471– 476.

McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. 2001a. Dishon- esty in academic environments: The influence of peer re- porting requirements. Journal of Higher Education, 72( 1): 29 – 45.

McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. 2001b. Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3): 219 –233.

McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. 2002. Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic integ- rity. Research in Higher Education 43( 3): 357–378.

Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. 1989. Applying theories of devi- ance to academic cheating. Social Science Quarterly, 70(4): 870 – 885.

Nuss, E. M. 1984. Academic integrity: Comparing faculty and student attitudes. Improving College and University Teach- ing, 32(3): 140 –144.

Schneider, A. 1999, January 22. Why professors don’t do more to stop students who cheat. The Chronicle of Higher Educa- tion, A8.

Stern, E. B., & Havlicek, L. 1986. Academic misconduct: Results of faculty and undergraduate student surveys. Journal of Al- lied Health, 5: 129 –142.

Tittle, C. R., & Rowe, A. R. 1973. Moral appeal, sanction threat, and deviance: An experimental test. Social Problems, 20: 488 – 497.

Treviño, L. K., & McCabe, D. L. 1994. Meta-learning about busi- ness ethics: Building honorable business school communi- ties. Journal of Business Ethics, 13( 6): 405– 416.

Treviño, L. K., & Victor, B. 1992. Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 35(1): 36 – 64.

Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. 1998. The ethical context of organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3): 447– 476.

Donald McCabe is a professor of management & global business at Rutgers University. He received his PhD in management from New York University. His research focuses on issues of academic integrity and student dishonesty.

Kenneth Butterfield is an associate professor in the Department of Management and Opera- tions at Washington State University. He received his PhD in organizational behavior from the Pennsylvania State University. His research focuses on managing ethical decision making and behavior in organizations.

Linda K. Treviño is professor of organizational behavior in the Smeal College of Business at The Pennsylvania State University. She received her PhD in management at Texas A&M University. Her research focuses on the management of ethics in organizations.

2006 305McCabe, Butterfield, and Treviño

View publication statsView publication stats