Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Action and Ethics Education

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper provides a model for testing the relation between a particular action (cheating) and ethics education. The test is for a difference in the incidence of cheating (answer copying) between two groups: students who have and students who have not taken a course in ethics. The model facilitates testing by obtaining a relation between the unobservable variable (cheating) and an observable variable (a wrong answer on the target question which is the same as the answer of a nearby student). The required sample size is large but roughly comparable to the size that has been used with an answer copying index. Unlike an answer copying index, the model does not rely on extensive copying by individual students. The model is best suited for faculty who use in-class, multiple-choice exams.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angoff, W. (1974). The development of statistical indices for detecting cheaters. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bay, D., & Greenberg, R. (2001). The relationship of the DIT and behavior: a replication. Issues in Accounting Education, 16(3), 367–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beggs, J., & Dean, K. (2007). Legislated ethics or ethics education?: Faculty views in the post-Enron era. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellezza, F., & Bellezza, S. (1989). Detection of cheating on multiple-choice tests by using error-similarity analysis. Teaching of Psychology, 16(3), 151–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloodgood, J., Turnley, W., & Mudrack, P. (2008). The influence of ethics instruction, religiosity, and intelligence on cheating behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 557–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. (1976). Can ethics be taught? Change Oct., 26–30.

  • Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P. (1985). Defining ‘business ethics’: like nailing Jello to a wall. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 377–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski, C., & Smith, C. (1985). Moral reasoning and moral conduct: an investigation prompted by Kohlberg’s theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4), 1016–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Sommer, A., & Roshwalb, A. (1996). An examination of the relationship between ethical behavior, espoused ethical values and financial performance in the U.S. defense industry: 1988–1992. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1249–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, B., & Murphy, P. (2009). The impact of ethics education on reporting behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 397–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKendall, M., DeMarr, B., & Jones-Rikkers, C. (2002). Ethical compliance programs and corporate illegality: testing the assumptions of the corporate sentencing guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D., & Williams, K. (2006). Predictors of a behavioral measure of scholastic cheating: personality and competence but not demographics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotaridona, L., & Meijer, R. (2003). Two new statistics to detect answer copying. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(1), 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D. (2004). The buck stops here: why universities must reclaim business ethics education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2, 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L., Weaver, G., & Brown, M. (2008). It’s lovely at the top: hierarchical levels, identities, and perceptions of organizational ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 233–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden, W., & Sotaridona, L. (2006). Detecting answer copying when the regular response process follows a known response model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(3), 283–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waples, E., Antes, A., Murphy, S., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, T., Ravenscroft, S., & Shrader, C. (2004). Cheating and moral judgement in the college classroom: a natural experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 173–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wollack, J. (1997). A nominal response model approach for detecting answer copying. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(4), 307–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. The views in this manuscript are mine and are not necessarily the views of any organization with which I am affiliated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. P.O. Box 1115, State College, PA, 16804, USA

    Robert Liebler

Authors
  1. Robert Liebler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Liebler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liebler, R. Action and Ethics Education. J Acad Ethics 8, 153–160 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-010-9114-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-010-9114-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation