Ethics Instruction and the Perceived Acceptability of Cheating

  • Bloodgood J
  • Turnley W
  • Mudrack P
  • 41

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 22

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. ABSTRACT. This study examined whether undergrad-uate students' perceptions regarding the acceptability of cheating were influenced by the amount of ethics instruction the students had received and/or by their personality. The results, from a sample of 230 upper-level undergraduate students, indicated that simply taking a business ethics course did not have a significant influence on students' views regarding cheating. On the other hand, Machiavellianism was positively related to perceiving that two forms of cheating were acceptable. Moreover, in testing for moderating relationships, the results indicated that the extent to which taking a business ethics course influenced attitudes varied substantially across individuals. Specifically, taking a course in business ethics did result in students who scored lower on Machiavellianism holding even more negative views regarding certain forms of cheating. In addition, individuals with higher grade point averages (GPAs) who had taken a course in business ethics were also less accepting of certain forms of cheating than individuals with similar GPAs who had not taken the business ethics course. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Author-supplied keywords

  • GPA
  • academic cheating
  • business ethics course
  • machiavellianism
  • passive cheating

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Authors

  • James M. Bloodgood

  • William H. Turnley

  • Peter E. Mudrack

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free