Research in Higher Education

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 367–385 | Cite as

Faculty and Academic Integrity: The Influence of Current Honor Codes and Past Honor Code Experiences

  • Donald L. McCabe
  • Kenneth D. Butterfield
  • Linda Klebe Treviño

Abstract

This survey of faculty at honor code and non-honor code institutions investigated the influence of honor codes on faculty attitudes and behaviors. As hypothesized, we found that honor code faculty have more positive attitudes toward their schools' academic integrity policies and are more willing to allow the system to take care of monitoring and disciplinary activities. Faculty in noncode institutions have less positive attitudes and are more likely to take personal actions designed to both catch and deal with cheaters. We also investigated the potential influence of a student honor code experience on faculty attitudes. We found that, in noncode environments, faculty who had an honor code experience as a student were more likely to believe that students should be held responsible for peer monitoring and to say that they deal personally with cheating. Implications for higher education institutions are discussed.

academic integrity cheating honor codes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ball, G. A., Treviño, L. K., and Sims, H. P. (1994). Just and unjust punishment: Influences on subordinate performance and citizenship. Acad. Manage. J. 37: 299–322.Google Scholar
  2. Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student Dishonesty and Its Control in College, Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, W. G. (1935). A Comparative Investigation of Students Under an Honor System and a Proctor System in the Same University, University of Southern California Press, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  4. Canning, R. (1956). Does an honor system reduce classroom cheating? An experimental answer. J. Exp. Educ. 24: 292–296.Google Scholar
  5. Crown, D. F., and Spiller, M. S. (1998). Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: A review of empirical research. J. Bus. Ethics 17: 683–700.Google Scholar
  6. Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization numbers. Acad. Manage. Rev. 6: 309–318.Google Scholar
  7. Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Acad. Manage. Rev. 9: 47–53.Google Scholar
  8. Graham, M. A., Monday, J., O'Brien, K., and Steffen, S. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 35: 255–260.Google Scholar
  9. Hogan, R., and Emler, N. P. (1981). Retributive justice. In: Lerner, M. J., and Lerner, S. C. (eds.), The Justice Motive in Social Behavior, Plenum, New York, pp. 125–143.Google Scholar
  10. Jendrek, M. P. (1989). Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 30: 401–406.Google Scholar
  11. McCabe, D. L. (1993). Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student honor codes. Res. Higher Educ. 34: 647–658.Google Scholar
  12. McCabe, D. L., and Pavela, G. (2000). Some good news about academic integrity. Change 33(5): 32–38.Google Scholar
  13. McCabe, D. L., and Treviño, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. J. Higher Educ. 64: 522–538.Google Scholar
  14. McCabe, D. L., and Treviño, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multi-campus investigation. Res. Higher Educ. 38: 379–396.Google Scholar
  15. McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., and Butterfield, K. D. (1996). The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related behavior in the workplace. Bus. Ethics Q. 4: 461–476.Google Scholar
  16. McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., and Butterfield, K. D. (1999). Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: A qualitative investigation. J. Higher Educ. 70: 211–234.Google Scholar
  17. McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., and Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Dishonesty in academic environments: The influence of peer reporting requirements. J. Higher Educ. 72: 29–45.Google Scholar
  18. McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., and Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code settings. Res. Higher Educ. 43: 357–378.Google Scholar
  19. Melendez, B. (1985). Honor Code Study, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Nuss, E. M. (1984). Academic integrity: Comparing faculty and student attitudes. Improv. Coll. Univ. Teach. 32: 140–144.Google Scholar
  21. Roig, M., and Ballew, C. (1994). Attitudes toward cheating of self and others by college students and professors. Psychol. Rec. 44: 3–12.Google Scholar
  22. Sheppard, B. H. (1984). Third-party conflict intervention: A procedural framework. In: Staw, B. M., and Cummings, L. L. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 6, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 141–190.Google Scholar
  23. Singhal, A. C. (1982). Factors in students' dishonesty. Psychol. Rep. 51: 775–780.Google Scholar
  24. Stern, E. B., and Havlicek, L. (1986). Academic misconduct: Results of faculty and undergraduate student surveys. J. Allied Health 15: 129–142.Google Scholar
  25. Thibaut, J., and Walker, J. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  26. Treviño, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev. 17: 647–676.Google Scholar
  27. Treviño, L. K., and Ball, G. A. (1992). The social implications of punishing unethical behavior: Observers cognitive and affective reactions. J. Manage. 18: 751–768.Google Scholar
  28. Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., and McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical context of organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Bus. Ethics Q. 8: 447–476.Google Scholar
  29. Wright, J. C., and Kelly, R. (1974). Cheating: Student/faculty views and responsibilities. Improv. Coll. Univ. Teach. 22: 31–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald L. McCabe
    • 1
  • Kenneth D. Butterfield
    • 2
  • Linda Klebe Treviño
    • 3
  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNewark
  2. 2.Washington State UniversityPullman
  3. 3.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park

Personalised recommendations