The academic ethics of undergraduate marketing majors.

Brown, Bob S. ; Abramson, Joseph

INTRODUCTION

College faculty and administrators have had concerns about the academic ethics, or academic misconduct, of students for several decades. A considerable amount of research has been conducted on the topic, most of which has been surveys of students to determine the extent of their participation in unethical practices, how they view the ethical level of these practices, and how unethical academic behavior is related to student characteristics. Students from many academic disciplines, including business administration, have been surveyed. However, relatively little has been done with respect to the individual majors within the business area. This paper reports the results of a survey of marketing majors.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Participation in unethical academic behavior by business students has been reported at alarmingly high levels. Tom and Borin (1988) found that 49% of undergraduate students taking a marketing course had engaged in at least 1 of 23 dishonest behaviors. Sims (1993) found 91% of undergraduate business majors reported dishonest behavior. Brown (1995) reported 81% of graduate business students had engaged in at least 1 of 15 unethical behaviors more than infrequently while in graduate school.

Rates of participation of business students have also been found to be high relative to other majors. Bowers (1966) found that 66% of business majors had engaged in dishonest behavior, the highest rate among nine majors. Other rates ranged from 58% for engineering majors to 37% for language majors. Baird (1980), though he did not report actual rates, found business majors more likely to cheat than liberal arts and education majors. Meade (1992) reported a study by McCabe at 31 top-ranked schools. Business majors showed a higher rate of dishonest behavior (87%) than engineering (74%), science (67%), or humanities majors (63%). Roig and Ballew (1994) found that business and economics majors showed more tolerant attitudes toward dishonest behavior than did social science students.

The relationship between unethical academic behavior and characteristics of students in various majors has been investigated. Several studies found males more likely to participate in unethical activities than females (Baird, 1980; Davis & Ludvigson, 1995; Genereux & McLeod, 1995; Karlins, Michaels, Freilinger, & Walker, 1989; Sierles et al., 1980). However, other studies reported no difference (Brown, 1995; Stern & Havlecek, 1986). McCabe & Trevino (1996) found equal rates for males and females, but the rate among females had increased from a decade earlier while the rate for males had stayed about the same. A study by Graham, Monday, O'Brien, and Steffen (1994) found rates of participation higher among females. A more consistent finding has been that cheating behavior varies inversely with GPA (Baird, 1980; Genereux & McLeod, 1995; Graham et al. 1994; Haines & Diekhoff, 1986; Singhal, 1982).

Two additional points about unethical academic behavior are apparent from the literature. First, students are more likely to engage in practices they view as less unethical (Brown, 1995; Graham, et al., 1994; Greene & Saxe, 1992; Newstrom & Ruch, 1976; Nuss, 1984; Stevens, 1984; Tom & Borin, 1988). Secondly, students tend to see themselves as more ethical than their peers (Greene & Saxe, 1992; Newstrom & Ruch, 1976; Stevens, 1984).

The desire to obtain a high grade and lack of adequate study time dominate the reasons cited for participating in unethical behavior (Baird, 1980; Brown, 1995; Davis & Ludvigson, 1995; Graham, et al., 1994; Meade, 1992; Nuss, 1984).

Studies of business students have not generally indicated the functional area of business in which the students were majoring. However, there is limited evidence that accounting majors have relatively high ethical standards. Nowell and Laufer (1997) reported a 1990 unpublished study by Moffat that found that among business students, economics majors were the most likely to cheat and accounting majors were the least likely to do so. Rates of student participation in unethical activities were not reported. Jeffery (1993) found that at both the beginning and senior levels accounting majors had more developed ethical reasoning capabilities than both non-accounting business majors and liberal arts majors, but acknowledged that the relationship between ethical development and behavior had not been determined.

Students enrolled in marketing classes have been the subjects of three studies. Tom and Borin (1988) surveyed students in seven marketing classes at a large university. Forty-nine percent said they had participated in at least one of 23 unethical behaviors. They rated as less severe those practices that they had engaged in at a high rate. Allen, Fuller, and Luckett (1998) surveyed students enrolled in mass lecture sections of an undergraduate marketing course at a large metropolitan university. Overall, thirty six percent of respondents reported cheating behavior. Management, marketing, and general business majors showed higher levels than other business majors, but specific rates were not reported. Nonis and Swift (1998) collected data from a convenience sample of students majoring in various business majors that were enrolled in marketing classes. Eighty four percent of respondents were found to have cheated in their college classes.

We found no studies of the academic ethics of students who had declared marketing as their major. This paper makes a contribution toward filling that gap in the literature.

METHODOLOGY

We administered a questionnaire used by Brown (1994, 1995) in two studies of graduate students, modified slightly to fit an undergraduate population, to marketing majors at an eastern state university during the Spring term of the 1998-99 academic year. The questionnaire contained 16 academic practices that were selected from the literature and that might be considered unethical. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they had engaged in each activity while a university student. A 6-point scale was utilized with six representing never, and a range of one, frequently, to five, infrequently, for those who had participated in the activity. Respondents were then asked to rate the ethical level of each practice from one, very unethical, to five, not at all unethical.

Eleven reasons why students might engage in unethical academic behavior were selected from the literature. Respondents were asked to rate on a 5-point scale from one, not at all likely, to five, very likely, the chance that each would be a reason why students would participate in unethical academic behavior. Demographics asked were grade point average (GPA), hours worked on a job per week, semester hours of course work carried, gender, and year of birth.

Questionnaires were administered during class meetings. Respondents were assured anonymity and were provided a plain envelope in which to seal their completed questionnaires before returning them to the instructor. Forty two completed questionnaires were returned.

RESULTS

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1. All of the respondents were juniors (26.2%) and seniors (73.8%). Most (95.2%) were under age 25, while the number of males and females was equal. Even though almost 93% carried a course load of more than 12 semester hours, 57% were employed 20 hours or more per week. A little more than half had GPAs less than 3.0.

Participation in the Practices

Results on the extent of participation in the 16 practices are presented in Table 2 in the columns labeled "Participation." For each practice, the percentage of respondents admitting participation in the activity is shown, as well as the practice's rank from highest (1) to lowest (16) level of participation. Each practice's rating on the 5-point frequency of participation scale is also shown. Four practices showed rates of participation in excess of 85%. They were: working with others on an individual project (85.7%), giving information about the content of an exam to someone who has not yet taken it (90.5%), asking about the content of an exam from someone who has taken it (92.9%), and having someone check over a paper before turning it in (100%). All four of these practices involve collaboration between or among students outside the classroom. Though collaborative learning is often encouraged, it appears to be spilling over into situations where it is not intended.

The three practices engaged in by the highest proportion of students were also the three engaged in most frequently. They were the only ones with means on the "frequently" side of the midpoint of the frequency of participation scale.

While asking for or giving information about the content of exams at times other than when they were being taken were among the practices engaged in by the highest proportion of students, four methods of cheating on exams while they were being taken accounted for four of the five least engaged in practices. They were: having information programmed into a calculator during an exam (28.6%), passing answers during an exam (35.7%), using exam crib notes (38.1%), and copying off another's exam (42.9%). All four practices had frequency of participation ratings on the "infrequently" side of the scale, but the frequency of participation reported for the two practices that are done alone was higher than for the two practices that involve other students.

The practice that ranked 16th was "turning in work done by someone else as one's own," with a substantial 26.2% of students admitting engaging in this practice while a university student. Levels of participation in the remaining seven practices ranged from 45.2% for "using a false excuse to delay an exam or paper" and "taking credit for full participation in a group project without doing a fair share of the work" to 78.6% for "padding a bibliography."

The level of participation in the practices was related to two student characteristics, GPA and sex. Characteristics were collapsed into two categories, and participation was indicated as did or did not participate. The chi-square test was used to determine significance. As shown in Table 3, significant differences in the level of participation were found between five practices and students' GPA and between four practices and students' sex. In all five instances, students with GPAs less than 3.0 showed higher levels of participation in the practices than students with GPAs of 3.0 or higher. Differences ranged from about 25% for padding a bibliography to 39% for taking credit for full participation in a group project without doing a fair share of the work. In all four instances, males showed higher levels of participation in the practices than females. Differences ranged from about 29% for looking at a copy of an exam before taking it to about 38% for using exam crib notes.

Ethical Levels of the Practices

Ratings of the ethical level of the practices and their ranks from least to most unethical are shown in the columns labeled "Ethical Level" in Table 2. Students rated most of the practices as unethical. Only five of the practices were rated higher than three, or on the "not at all unethical" side of the midpoint of the 5-point scale. When the practices were ranked from highest to lowest in terms of the proportion of students participating in them, and from least to most in terms of being unethical, the first four practices had identical ranks. This suggests that there is a tendency for students' behavior to be consistent with their ethical beliefs. However, the relationship is not perfect. While "visiting a professor to influence a grade" was the 5th least unethical practice, it was the 9th most engaged in practice. Perhaps the face-to-face encounter with an authority figure was a deterrent to participating in this practice.

The tendency for consistency between student behavior and ethics was again apparent with the practices engaged in by the smallest proportions of respondents. Four of the five practices engaged in by the smallest proportion of students were among the five practices seen as most unethical. The exception was "Allowing another to see exam answers." This practice was rated more unethical than 12 other practices, but was the seventh most engaged in practice.

Reasons for Unethical Behavior

The reasons cited for unethical academic behavior are shown in Table 4. The unethical student was seen as one wanting high grades in courses perceived as difficult, but unwilling to use available time to study. It is worth noting that although almost 60% of respondents worked 20 or more hours per week, "does not have time to study" was cited as only the sixth most likely reason for unethical behavior. Respondents believed that unethical behavior was not likely to be engaged in because everyone does it, it was a challenge or a thrill, or because of peer pressure.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that while the level of participation of marketing majors in unethical academic activities is very high, their behavior is typical of that of today's college students. It is incumbent on faculty and administrators in all academic disciplines to understand and deal with the problem of academic dishonesty.

Dishonest academic behavior has consequences on the campus and beyond. Chisholm (1992) enumerated the damages dishonest behavior does to an institution of higher learning. The reputation of the institution is diminished in the academic community and with the general public. Students lose faith in the institution and become alienated. The grades of honest students may suffer to the extent grading is done "on a curve." Dishonest behavior that is unchecked gives the impression it is acceptable, encouraging further participation in such activities.

Correlations have been found between dishonest academic behavior and behavior on the job. Sierles, Hendrickx, and Circle (1980) found students who cheated in academic classes in medical school were more likely to falsify patient records in a clinical setting. Sims (1993) found significant correlations between the number and severity of dishonest acts respondents engaged in as students and as employees. Crown and Spiller (1998) cite theoretical evidence that unethical behavior tends not to be limited to a specific situation. They found in their review of theories of organizational ethical decision making that most theories do not pose different models for different decision making situations.

Recommended actions that college faculty and administrators can take to minimize dishonest academic behavior have fallen into three categories. The first category consists of "clarification" activities. Their purpose is to make sure students and faculty know what is considered cheating at the institution. In one survey, of the respondents who said they had never cheated in college, 12% admitted to copying homework, 6% to allowing another person to copy from their exam, and 3% to plagiarism. About 25% of respondents said no college instructor had ever talked to them about what is considered cheating. The author recommends the formulation of a cheating policy at the institutional level, distributed to students in written form and explained by instructors in the classroom. Examples of forms of cheating that might not be clear to students, such as plagiarism, should be included. The policy should then be vigorously enforced (Portello, 1993).

The second category consists of "situational" activities. Their purpose is to create an environment in which cheating is difficult to carry out. These activities are applicable to forms of cheating that take place in the classroom, such as cheating on exams. They include refraining from re-using exams, using multiple versions of exams, and proctoring exams closely (Barnett & Dalton, 1981). Note that this approach addresses the issue of opportunity, not proclivity.

The third category consists of "values-oriented" activities. Their purpose is to get students to see learning as a valued activity rather than just as a means to an end such as getting into graduate school or getting a job. Shrophsire (1997) says students would not cheat at a sport because it ruins the game. The purpose of the game is to develop the skill of playing it. Education should be made more like a sport and less like a CPA exam review course, emphasizing the memorization of material and playing it back on an exam. Though it is uncertain how much influence instructors can have on the values of college-age people, this is the only alternative available for influencing the kinds of unethical practices that take place outside of the classroom, out of view of the instructor.

Three types of additional research are suggested. The first is to replicate the study with other populations of marketing majors to confirm the findings presented here. The second is to replicate the study over time to track trends in the academic ethics of marketing majors. The third is to assess the effectiveness of strategies for reducing unethical academic behavior as they are developed and implemented.

REFERENCES

Allen, J., Fuller, D.& Luckett, M. (1998). Academic integrity: Behaviors, rates, and attitudes of business students toward cheating. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(1), 41-53.

Baird, J. S. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17(4), 515-522.

Barnette, D. C. & Dalton, J. C. (1981). Why college students cheat. Journal of College Student Personnel, 22, 545-551.

Bowers, W. J. (1966). Student dishonesty and its control in college. (University Microfilms No. 679326)

Brown, B. (1994). Academic ethics of graduate engineering students. Chemical Engineering Education, 28(4), 242-265.

Brown, B. (1995). The academic ethics of graduate business students: A survey. Journal of Education for Business, 70(3), 151-156.

Chisholm, D. (1992). An epidemic of cheating? Political Science & Politics, 25(2), 264-272.

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

Davis, S. F., & Ludvigson, W. H. (1995). Additional data on academic dishonesty and a proposal for remediation. Teaching of Psychology, 22(2), 119-121.

Genereux, R. L. & McLeod, B. A. (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire study of college students. Research in Higher Education, 36(6), 687-704.

Graham, M., Monday, J., O'Brien, K. & Steffen, S. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Development, 35(4), 255-260.

Greene, A. S. & Saxe, L. (1992). Everybody (else) does it: Academic cheating. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, April 3-5, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document No. 347931).

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.

Jeffery, C. (1993). Ethical development of accounting students, non-accounting business students, and liberal arts students. Issues in Accounting Education, 8(1), 86-96.

Karlins, M., Michaels, C., Freilinger, P. & Walker, H. (1989). Sex differences in academic dishonesty: College cheating in a management course. Journal of Education for Business, 65 (October), 31-33.

McCabe, D. L. & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college: Longitudinal trends and recent developments. Change, 28(1), 28-33.

Meade, J. (1992). Cheating: Is academic dishonesty par for the course? Prism, 1(7), 30-32.

Newstrom, J. W. & Ruch, W. A. (1976). The ethics of business students: Preparation for a career. AACSB Bulletin, April, 21-30.

Nonis, S. A. & Swift, C. O. (1998). Deterring cheating behavior in the marketing classroom: An analysis of the effects of demographics, attitudes, and in-class deterrent strategies. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(3), 188-200.

Nowell, C. & Laufer, D. (1997). Undergraduate student cheating in the fields of business and economics. Journal of Economic Education, 28(1), 3-13.

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

Portello, P. (1993). First-year students and cheating: A study at Keene College. Research Strategies, 11(Summer), 174-179.

Roig, M. & Ballew, C. (1994). Attitudes toward cheating of self and others by college students and professors. Psychological Record, 44(1), 3-12.

Shropshire, W. O. (1997). Of being and getting: Academic dishonesty. Liberal Education, 83(4), 24-32.

Sierles, F., Hendrickx, I. & Circle, S. (1980). Cheating in medical school. Journal of Medical Education, 55(2), 124-125.

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

Singhal, A. C. (1982). Factors in student dishonesty. Psychological Reports, 51, 775-780.

Stern, E. B. & Havlicek, L. (1986) Academic misconduct: Results of faculty and undergraduate student surveys. Journal of Allied Health, 15(2), 129- 142.

Stevens, G. E. (1984). Ethical inclinations of tomorrow's citizens: Actions speak louder? Journal of Business Education, 59(4), 147-152.

Tom, G. & Borin, N. (1988). Cheating in academe. Journal of Education for Business, 63(January), 153-157.

Bob S. Brown, Marshall University Graduate College

Joseph Abramson, Marshall University

Table 1. Respondent Characteristic

Characteristic Percent

Class rank:

Junior 26.2
Senior 73.8

GPA:

Less than 3.0 52.4
3.0 and above 47.6

Hours of employment per week:

Less than 20 42.9
20 hours or more 57.1

Semester hour course load:

1 to 12 7.3
More than 12 92.7

Gender:

Female 50.0
Male 50.0

Age:

Under 25 95.2
25 and older 4.8

Table 2. Participation In and Ethical Level of Practices

 Participation

Practice Rank Pct. (1) Mean (2)

Having someone check over a paper 1 100.0 2.38
 before turning it in
Asking about the content of exam 2 92.9 2.67
 from someone who has taken it
Giving information about the content 3 90.5 2.84
 of an exam to someone who has not
 yet taken it
Working with others on an individual 4 85.7 3.64
 project
Padding a bibliography 5 78.6 3.73
Before taking an exam, looking at a 6 66.7 3.14
 copy that was not supposed to be
 available to students
Allowing another to see exam answers 7 64.3 4.26
Plagiarism 8 59.5 4.28
Visiting a professor to influence 9 54.8 3.74
 grade
Taking credit for full participation 10/11 45.2 4.16
 in a group project without doing a
 fair share of the work
Using a false excuse to delay an 10/11 45.2 4.53
 exam or paper
Copying off another's exam 12 42.9 4.56
Using exam crib notes 13 38.1 3.87
Passing answers during an exam 14 35.7 4.47
Having information programmed into a 15 28.6 3.33
 calculator during an exam
Turning in work done by someone else 16 26.2 4.64
 as one's own
Overall percent admitting 100.0
 participation

 Ethical Level

Practice Rank (3) Mean (4)

Having someone check over a paper 1 4.45
 before turning it in
Asking about the content of exam 2 3.43
 from someone who has taken it
Giving information about the content 3 3.40
 of an exam to someone who has not
 yet taken it
Working with others on an individual 4 3.24
 project
Padding a bibliography 6 2.88
Before taking an exam, looking at a 7 2.79
 copy that was not supposed to be
 available to students
Allowing another to see exam answers 13 2.17
Plagiarism 10 2.43
Visiting a professor to influence 5 3.05
 grade
Taking credit for full participation 8 2.52
 in a group project without doing a
 fair share of the work
Using a false excuse to delay an 9 2.45
 exam or paper
Copying off another's exam 16 1.86
Using exam crib notes 12 2.26
Passing answers during an exam 14 1.95
Having information programmed into a 11 2.33
 calculator during an exam
Turning in work done by someone else 15 1.93
 as one's own
Overall percent admitting
 participation

(1) Percent admitting participation

(2) Scale: 1 = frequently, 5 = infrequently

(3) Ranked from least to most unethical

(4) Scale: 1 = very unethical, 5 = not at all unethical

Table 3. Significant Differences in Participation by Student
Characteristics

 GPA

Practice <3.0 3.0 & up Chi sq. ** P

Padding a bibliography 90.9 * 65.0 4.18 .041
Before taking an exam, 81.8 50.0 4.77 .029
 looking at a copy that was
 not supposed to be available
 to students
Allowing another to see exam
 answers
Plagiarism 77.3 40.0 6.04 .014
Visiting a professor to 72.7 35.0 6.02 .014
 influence grade
Taking credit for full 63.6 25.0 6.31 .012
 participation in a group
 project without doing a fair
 share of the work
Using exam crib notes

 Sex

Practice F M Chi sq. ** P

Padding a bibliography
Before taking an exam, 52.4 81.0 3.86 .050
 looking at a copy that was
 not supposed to be available
 to students
Allowing another to see exam 47.6 81.0 5.08 .024
 answers
Plagiarism 42.9 76.2 4.84 .028
Visiting a professor to
 influence grade
Taking credit for full
 participation in a group
 project without doing a fair
 share of the work
Using exam crib notes 19.0 57.1 6.46 .011

* Percent participating

** df = 1 for all tests

Table 4. Reasons for Unethical Behavior

Reason Mean (1)

To get a high grade 4.43
Has the time but does not study 4.07
Difficulty of material 3.86
Feels no one is hurt by behavior 3.79
Low risk of getting caught 3.52
Does not have time to study 3.48
Feels work is irrelevant 3.10
Instructor is poor or indifferent 3.18
Everyone does it 2.76
Peer pressure to do it 2.45
Was a challenge or thrill 2.29

(1) Scale: 1 = not at all likely, 5 = very likely.