Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gauging the Ethicality of Students in Turkish Institutions of Higher Education

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

Abstract

We investigated the ethical behavior of Turkish university students to (a) compare the difference in ethical behavior between business students and non-business students, (b) examine the impact of key contingency variables on how they make decisions when confronted with an ethical dilemma, and (c) investigate the process underlying the ethical behavior of Turkish students. Data were collected from business students (n = 158) at a major private university in Western Turkey. The results indicate that a Turkish student’s peers, marital status, and education level exert a significant effect on their ethical behavior. Further, business students specifically differed from non-business students in their enhanced use of egoism when confronted with an ethical dilemma. The results of this research may have important educational policy implications for business ethics in Turkey.

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

Notes

  1. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  2. The cost of starting a business is has decreased from 36.8 % of per capita income to 12.7 % of per capita income between 2004 and 2014, according to the World Bank (2014) Doing Business Report.

  3. More explicitly, the instrument consists of three different scenarios--a retail automobile scenario, a neighborhood store scenario and a retail salesman scenario--, and each of the three scenarios is viewed as a different "treatment.” The same respondents answered scenario 1 at t1, scenario 2 at t2, and scenario 3 at t3 during the administration of the instrument. A repeated measures design is needed to control for the correlation among the repeated measures, and a MANOVA to control for the correlation among the dependent variable (Girden 1992). Quoting from the introduction by Michael Lewis Beck, Sage Series Editor to Girden’s book, he explains when a repeated measures methodology is appropriate - "Unlike a classic design, a group of individuals may be subjected to more than one treatment. This approach has certain obvious advantages. The number of individuals needed for the design is much smaller. Further, the group serves as its own control. Take as an example a political science experimenter who wants to measure affective response to the pictures of six different presidential candidates. In a traditional approach, that experiment might require six treatment groups with 30 subjects each for a total of 180 subjects. As an alternative, a repeated measures approach might use only 30 subjects, simply administering each of the six treatments to those in that same group." On p. 2 of her book, Ellen Girden also states, "In other situations, the intent may be to compare the relative effectiveness of different drugs, or dosages of the same drugs when few individuals are available. Rather than randomly assigning them to the various conditions, the same individuals can be measured at all levels".

References

  • AACSB. (2009). Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, Tampa, FL), pp. 1–78.

  • Ahmed, M. M., Chung, K. Y., & Eichenseher, J. W. (2003). Business students’ perception of ethics and moral judgment: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1/2), 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akdag, M., & Gunes, H. (2002). Cheating behaviors and attitudes toward cheating. Educational Administration in Theory and Practice, 31, 330–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, J. S. (1998). Ethical dilemma survey of undergraduate and graduate students. Doctoral Dissertation. The H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship. Nova Southeastern University.

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. E. (Eds.). (1997). Ethical theory and business (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beekun, R. I., Stedham, Y. E., Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2010). Effects of justice and utilitarianism on ethical decision-making: A cross-cultural examination of gender similarities and differences. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(4), 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, R., Lecca, C. L., Murphy, J. C., & Sturgis, E. M. (2011). Does education influence ethical decisions? An international study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(3), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozkurt, S., & Doğan, A. (2013). Investigating the relationship of work values and work ethics: A comparative study on public and private sector employees. Business and Economics Research Journal, 4(4), 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracey, G. W. (2005). A nation of cheats. The Phi Delta Kappan, 86(5), 412–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çınar, H. & Kazancı, Z. (2010). Office management and executive assistance program students’ sensitivity on professional ethics: Proceedings of the case of Gaziosmanpaşa University, pp. 1–17.

  • Clark, L. (2012). Major universities reveal explosion in student cheating over the last three years’. Mailonline. http://tinyurl.com/lwj5b6o.

  • Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (1998). The effect of gender and academic discipline diversity on the ethical evaluations. Accounting Horizons, 3(12), 250–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coşkun, R., & ve Karamustafa, O. (1999). An empirical study on business students’ ethical perceptions. Bilgi, 1, 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crown, D. F., & Spiller, M. S. (1998). Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: A review of empirical research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 683–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, K. A. (1997). Corruption and the global economy. USA: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erturhan, H. & Filizöz, B. (2011). Business ethics and research on banking sector. Cumhuriyet Universitesi Journal of Economics & Administrative Sciences.

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacalone, R., Payne, S. L., & Rosenfeld, P. (1988). Endorsement of managers following accusations of breaches in confidentiality. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(8), 621–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girden, E. (1992). ANOVA; repeated measures. New York: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J., & MacDonald, C. (2014). Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity and social responsibility. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, T., & McGee, R. W. (2012). Ethical attitudes toward taking a bribe: A study of four European countries. Euro-Asia Journal of Management, 22(1/2), 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Geert Hofstede (Ed.). Sage.

  • Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1992). The general theory of marketing ethics: A retrospective and revision. In J. Quelch & C. Smith (Eds.), Ethics in marketing. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, W. A, Jr. (1990). Student views of ethical issues: A situational analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(3), 201–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. E., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1996). An experimental examination of the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 511–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, A. T. (2012). Foreign direct investment confidence index. https://www.atkearney.com/research-studies/foreign-direct-investment-confidence-index/2012.

  • Keith, N. K., Pettijohn, C. E., & Burnett, M. S. (2003). An empirical evaluation of the effect of peer and managerial ethical behaviors and the ethical predispositions of prospective advertising employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kekes, J. (1983). Constancy and purity. Mind, 92/368, pp. 499–518.

  • Kekes, J. (1983). Constancy and purity. Mind, 92/368, pp. 499–518.

  • Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, K. L., & Singhapakdi, A. (1995). The relative importance of social responsibility in determining organizational effectiveness: student responses II. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(4), 315–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, R. (2004). Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the ‘real world?’. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, D. R., Luth, M., & Schwoerer, C. E. (2009). The effects of business ethics education on moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness and moral courage: A Quasi-experimental Study. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2009, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. (2008). Which types of students cheat most? US News and World Report, Octer 3.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. S., & Radloff, S. E. (1996). Attitudes towards business ethics held by South African students. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(8), 863–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motlagh, N. E., Hassan, M. S., Bolong, J. B., & Osman, M. N. (2013). Role of journalists’ gender, work experience and education in ethical decision making. Asian Social Science, 9(9), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicole, E. (2011), “Is Your Business Glocal? How to Think Globally and Act Locally.” YFS Magazine - Startups, Small Business News and Entrepreneurial Culture. Retrieved 21 January 2015 from http://tinyurl.com/ougewmc.

  • Nonis, S., & Smith, C. (2001). Personal value profiles and ethical business decisions. Journal of Education for Business Ethics, 76(5), 251–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paşa, S. F., Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, organizations, and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 559–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, T. A. (2013). Turkey’s faltering economy, not protesters, could bend Erdogan. Christian Science Monitor, June 11.

  • Premeaux, S. R. (2005). Undergraduate student perceptions regarding cheating: Tier 1 Versus Tier 2 AACSB Accredited Business Schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 407–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism. Cambridge: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1988). Some initial steps towards improving the measurement of ethical evaluations of marketing activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 871–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1990). Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 639–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R., & Thoma, S. J. (1985). Relation of moral judgment development to formal education. Developmental Psychology, 21(4), 709–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, W. H. (1999). Business Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), 207–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swift, C., Denton, L., & Nonis, S. (1998). Cheating internet style: Guarding against online term paper mills. Marketing Education Review, 8(2), 19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teck-Chai, L., & Kum-Lung, C. (2010). Attitude towards business ethics: Examining the influence of religiosity, gender and education levels. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(1), 225–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Today’s Zaman (2009). Average marriage age on the rise, but early marriages still persist in Turkey. http://tinyurl.com/l3r6szf.

  • Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unal, A., & Celik, I. T. (2008). A cross cultural study on work ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(2), 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, S. (2001). Corruption and globalization., Policy Brief Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerman, J. W., Beekun, R. I., Stedham, Y. E., & Yamamura, J. H. (2007). Peers vs. national culture: An empirical analysis of antecedents to ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3), 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2014). Doing Business 2014, World Bank Group, USA.

  • Yazici, A., Yazici, S., & Erdem, M. S. (2011). Faculty and student perceptions on college cheating: Evidence from Turkey. Educational Studies, 37(2), 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yücel, R., & Çiftci, G. E. (2012). Employees’ perceptions towards ethical business attitudes and conduct. Turkish Journal of Business Ethics, 5(9), 151–161.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Managerial Sciences Department/28, College of Business, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, 89557-0206, USA

    Rafik I. Beekun

  2. Faculty of Business and Management Sciences, İstanbul Medipol Üniversity, Kavacik Campus, Unkapanı, Atatürk Bulvarı No:27, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey

    Nihat Alayoğlu

  3. Faculty of Commercial Sciences, Istanbul Commerce University, Sütlüce Campus, Sütlüce Mah., Imrahor Cad., No: 90, Beyoglu, 34445, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ali Osman Öztürk & Mehmet Babacan

  4. Walker College of Business, Appalachian State University, Peacock Hall 4095, ASU Box 32089, Boone, NC, 28608-2089, USA

    James W. Westerman

Authors
  1. Rafik I. Beekun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nihat Alayoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Osman Öztürk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mehmet Babacan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James W. Westerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafik I. Beekun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beekun, R.I., Alayoğlu, N., Öztürk, A.O. et al. Gauging the Ethicality of Students in Turkish Institutions of Higher Education. J Bus Ethics 142, 185–197 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2779-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2779-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation