Predicting overall ethical climate, student retention, cheating, satisfaction with university, and perceived stress with student perceptions of faculty unethical behavior.

Schnake, Mel ; Dumler, Michael P. ; Fredenberger, William 等

ABSTRACT

A survey of undergraduate business students at two state universities, one in the Midwest and one in the South, revealed a significant relationship between unethical faculty behavior and student cheating behavior. Faculty unethical behavior related to course requirements and classroom behavior were significantly related to student cheating behavior but not to student satisfaction with their university experience, or student retention. Faculty unethical social behavior (e.g., dating students) was significantly related to student retention. Finally, the results suggest that student cheating behavior may be a more important predictor of student perceptions of the overall ethical climate of their university than faculty unethical behavior.

INTRODUCTION

Student retention and cheating, as well as related issues such as student satisfaction and perceived stress, are receiving renewed attention in colleges and universities. There is some evidence which suggests student cheating behavior continues to be a significant problem in colleges and universities. In 1963, Bowers (1963) published the results of a survey of over 5,000 students on 99 campuses across the U.S. Student respondents were asked to describe their cheating behavior on exams and major written assignments. Seventy-five percent of the respondents admitted they had engaged in at least some form of cheating behavior (e.g., copying off another student during an exam, using "cheat sheets"). During the 1990-91 academic year, McCabe and Trevino (1993) surveyed over 6,000 students at 31 small to medium sized colleges and universities having highly selective admissions policies across the U.S. They found that sixty-seven percent of the respondents admitted engaging in at least one form of cheating. Both studies suggest that the "ethical climate" of the college or university may be an important determinant of student cheating.

In 1993, McCabe and Trevino (1996) surveyed 1,800 students at nine medium-sized to large state universities which had participated in the Bowers (1963) study. Sixty-three percent of the respondents admitted engaging in at least one form of cheating behavior. They also found that specific forms of cheating behavior, including copying from another student during an exam, helping another student to cheat, and using "crib notes" or "cheat sheets," had all increased substantially. They concluded that while the numbers of students who are cheating may not have increased over the years, the students who do cheat are cheating more often and in a wider variety of ways (McCabe & Bowers, 1994).

A number of factors have been related to college student retention/attrition including demographics, attitudes, opinions, experiences, values and faculty attitudes and behaviors (Porter, 2003-2004; Lundquist, Spalding & Landrum, 2002-2003; Glynn, Sauer & Miller, 2003; Reason, 2003). There is also some evidence that the ethical climate of a university impacts student retention. Schulte (2001) examined graduate student perceptions of ethical climate at a Midwestern metropolitan university and found that a positive ethical climate was important in the retention of graduate students. In a study of undergraduate students at a Midwestern metropolitan university, Schulte, Thompson, Hayes, Noble and Jacobs (2001) similarly found undergraduate perceptions of ethical climate to be related to student retention. Recently, Schnake, Fredenberger and Dumler (2004) found student perceptions of faculty unethical behavior were related to student satisfaction with their university experience which was, in turn, related to student retention. Further evidence of the link between the ethical climate of organizations and the ethical behavior of organizational members (e.g., lying, disobedience, and being an accomplice) is provided by Wimbush, Shepherd & Markham, (1997) and Peterson, (2002).

There has been surprisingly little research on the outcomes of student perceptions of faculty unethical behavior (Tabachnick, Keith-Spiegel & Pope, 1991; Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick & Allen, 1993). Most previous research on student perceptions of faculty unethical behavior has focused on such topics as sexual harassment and has ignored the range of ethical dilemmas which occur in daily faculty-student interactions (Tabachnick, Keith-Spiegel & Pope, 1991).

One important influence on a college or university's ethical climate is the ethical/unethical behavior of faculty. Previous measures of university ethical climate have included several items pertaining to faculty behavior (Schulte, 2001). Thirty-five of the sixty items in the Undergraduate Ethical Climate Index employed by Schulte, et al., (2001) deal with faculty unethical behavior. The ethical climate of a college or university may influence several important outcome variables including student unethical behavior such as cheating, student satisfaction with their university experience, student perceived stress, and student retention.

Based on the previous research we expect that student perceptions of unethical faculty behavior will be positively related to student perceived stress and student cheating, and inversely related to student satisfaction with their university experience, perceptions of the overall ethical climate of the college/university, and student retention. The following hypotheses are proposed.

H1: Student perceptions of unethical faculty behavior will be
 significantly related to student responses to a measure of
 overall ethical climate (faces scale) of their university.

H2: Student perceptions of unethical faculty behavior will be
 significantly and positively related to student perceptions of
 stress after controlling for student age gender and GPA.

H3: Student perceptions of unethical faculty behavior will be
 significantly and positively related to student cheating after
 controlling for student age gender and GPA.

H4: Student perceptions of unethical faculty behavior will be
 significantly and inversely related to student retention after
 controlling for student age gender and GPA.

H5: Student perceptions of unethical faculty behavior will be
 significantly and inversely related to student satisfaction with
 their university experience after controlling for student age
 gender and GPA.

H6: Student perceptions of the overall ethical climate of their
 university will be significantly and negatively related to
 student perceptions of faculty unethical behavior and student
 perceptions of the frequency of student cheating after
 controlling for student age gender and GPA.

METHOD

Questionnaires were administered in undergraduate management courses at a large state university in the Midwest and a medium-sized state university in the South. The faculty unethical behavior questionnaire was administered during the first week of class, while the outcomes questionnaire (student cheating, satisfaction, stress, and retention) were administered approximately two months later. Student identification numbers were used to match students' questionnaires. The questionnaires were administered via a web page. The web page address was given to students and they were allowed approximately two weeks to complete the questionnaires after it was announced that the questionnaire was available online. Students were given bonus points (less than 1% of the course grade) for their participation in the research.

Measures

Student perceptions of faculty unethical behavior were measured with a 20-item scale developed by Schnake, Fredenberger and Dumler (2004). Student retention (intent to transfer to another college or university) and student satisfaction with their college/university were measured with 13 items (e.g., "I plan to finish my current degree program at this university," "I plan to start looking at other colleges/universities to transfer to," "I am very satisfied with my educational experience at this university," and "I'm very unhappy with my educational experience at this university"). Perceived stress in the class in which they were completing the questionnaire was measured with five items (e.g., "I work under a great deal of stress in this class," and "This class causes me to feel a lot of stress"). Perceptions of student cheating were measured with a four-item scale (e.g., "I frequently notice students cheating on exams," and "I frequently notice students cheating on individual term papers/projects"). Based on the "faces scale" employed in job satisfaction research (Kunin, 1955), we also asked respondents to "consider all aspects of your university, and select the image which best represents your feelings about the overall ethical climate of your university or college." Five faces ranging from a broad smile to a very sad face were the alternative responses available. Data were coded so that the higher the score, the more positive the perception of the ethical climate. A similar faces scale has been used to measure the level of pain in pediatric patients (Keck, Gerkensmeyer, Joyce & Schade, 1996).

Standard demographic data was also collected including gender, age, year in school, major and GPA. Average age of students was 22.16 years, average GPA was 2.83, and sixty percent were male. Sixty-one percent were juniors, and thirty-eight percent were seniors. Thirty-five percent were majoring in management, nineteen percent in marketing, five percent in accounting, one percent in economics, five percent in management information systems, nine percent in finance and the remaining twenty-seven percent were enrolled in majors outside the college of business (organizational communications, computer information systems, and other).

RESULTS

The faculty unethical behavior scale was submitted to a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation. This analysis produced three distinct factors which were interpreted as: (1) lowering course standards (to achieve higher student evaluations and/or be liked by students), (2) unethical classroom behavior, and (3) unethical socializing. The student satisfaction and retention items were also submitted to a principal components analysis with varimax rotation. The results supported the a priori two factors. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation of the perceptions of student cheating behavior scale resulted in all items loading cleanly on a single factor.

Means, standard deviations, reliability estimates and a correlation matrix appear in Table 1. As can be seen from this table, all coefficient alpha reliabilities are within acceptable ranges, ranging from .78 to .93. Student cheating is positively related to two dimensions of faculty unethical behavior, low course standards and unethical classroom behavior. Student cheating was not significantly related to unethical faculty social behavior. Student retention and student satisfaction were not significantly correlated to any of the three dimensions of unethical faculty behavior. Perceived stress was positively related to the faculty unethical behavior dimension low course standards. Finally, student age, GPA and gender were not related to any of the dimensions of unethical faculty behavior.

Results of the regression analysis of faculty unethical behavior on outcome variables appears in Table 2. First, student demographic variables were entered into the regression equation to control for the effects of student age, gender and GPA. Then the three dimensions of unethical faculty behavior were entered into the regression equation to assess the extent to which faculty unethical behavior contributions to explained variance in the outcome variables beyond the effects of the demographic variables. After controlling for these variables, we found some types faculty unethical behavior did influence student cheating behavior.

As Table 2 shows, faculty unethical behavior explained significant incremental variance beyond the student demographic variables on student cheating, providing support for Hypothesis H3. The student demographic variables were not significantly related to student cheating. Faculty unethical behavior did not explain significantly more variance beyond the student demographic variables on student retention and student satisfaction, although the amount of explained variance increased slightly in both cases. Neither Hypothesis H4 nor H5 was supported. Neither the student demographic variables nor the faculty unethical behavior variables were significantly related to student perceived stress. Thus, Hypothesis H2 was not supported.

To assess which dimensions of faculty unethical behavior contributed to explained variance in each of these outcome variables, beta coefficients, which appear in Table 3, were examined. Two dimensions of faculty unethical behavior, low course standards and unethical classroom behavior, significantly contributed to explained variance in student cheating, explaining a total of 13% of the variance. Student age and the faculty unethical behavior dimension of unethical socializing both contributed to explained variance in student retention (inverse relationships), explaining a total of approximately 9% of the variance. Only student age contributed to explained variance in student satisfaction with their university experience, explaining a total of 9% of the variance.

To assess the influences on perceptions of the overall ethical climate of the university a stepwise "usefulness analysis" regression analysis was performed (Darlington, 1988). Student age, gender and GPA were entered on step one as control variables. Then the three faculty unethical behavior scales were entered on step two, followed by the student cheating measure on step three. This was followed by a similar analysis alternating the order of the faculty ethical behavior scales and the student cheating measure. The faculty unethical behavior scales explained significant increment variance beyond the control variables (model [R.sup.2] = .11, p < .01). The student cheating measure explained significant incremental variance (change in [R.sup.2] = .08, p < .01) beyond the faculty unethical behavior scales (model [R.sup.2] = .19, p < .01). Conversely, faculty unethical behavior did not explain significant incremental variance (change in [R.sup.2] = .03, p = .08) beyond the student cheating measure. Thus, Hypothesis H1 is not supported.

DISCUSSION

This research provides evidence that faculty unethical behavior is significantly related to student cheating behavior. Specifically, unethical course-related behavior, but not unethical social behaviors, contributed to explained variance in student cheating, after controlling for student age, gender, and GPA. Apparently, faculty unethical course-related behaviors establish a climate or culture which may encourage or at least tolerate student unethical behavior in the form of cheating. Faculty may serve as models for students. As they observe faculty engaging in unethical course-related behaviors, it may facilitate similar behavior in students (Bandura, 1977; Manz & Sims, 1981). Models may have a "disinhibitory effect" on observers (Mantz & Sims, 1981). That is, students observe faculty engaging in unethical course-related behavior and not receiving a punishment, or perhaps even receiving some type of reward (e.g., better student evaluations for lowering course requirements). Students are then more likely to engage in unethical course-related behaviors such as cheating. Models may also have a "facilitation effect" (Mantz & Sims, 1981). In this case, the observed behavior of the model serves as a cue for observers to engage in similar types of behaviors.. It would appear that when students observe faculty engaging in unethical behaviors, they may be willing to overlook their own ethical beliefs and increase their risk taking by cheating. The message is that faculty are role modeling undesirable behavior when they exhibit unethical personal and classroom conduct. Their inapposite behavior encourages students to do likewise.

Unethical faculty socializing behavior was significantly and inversely related to student retention. It is interesting to note that unethical faculty classroom behavior was not significantly related to student retention, but unethical socializing such as dating students and attending student parties, did explain significant amounts of variance in student retention beyond the effects of student age, gender, and GPA. It is not clear why this difference was found. However, it does suggest that students' retention decisions are influence by faculty unethical social behavior, while students' cheating decisions are influenced by faculty unethical course-related behaviors.

The results suggest that faculty unethical behavior does not have a uniform effect on outcome variables. Certain types of faculty unethical behavior are related to student unethical behavior (i.e., cheating), while other types of faculty unethical behavior are related to student retention. One avenue for future research is to further examine which specific types of faculty unethical behavior are related to various outcome variables, such as overall ethical climate, student satisfaction, and retention.

This research has also provided some evidence that student perceptions of the prevalence of student cheating have a significantly stronger impact on perceptions of the ethical climate of the university than do perceptions of faculty unethical behavior. This contradicts somewhat with previous research which has used faculty unethical behavior as a major component in measures of ethical climate. Future research should address the specific factors which impact perceptions of ethical climate and not just assume that faculty unethical behavior is a major determinant.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bowers, W.J. (1964) Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.

Darlington, R.B. (1988) Multiple regression in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 79: 161-182.

Keck J, Gerkensmeyer J, Joyce B, and Schade J. (1996) Reliability and validity of the FACES and Word Descriptor scales to measure pain in verbal children, Journal of Pediatric Nursing 11(6):368-374.

Glynn, J.D., Sauer, P.L. & Miller, T.E. (2003) Signaling student retention with prematriculation data. NASPA Journal, 41:

Keith-Spiegel, P., G. Tabachnick & M. Allen (1993) Ethics in academia: Student's views of professors' actions. Ethics & Behavior, 3: 149-162.

Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 8:65-67.

Lundquist, C, R.J. Spalding & E.R. Landrum (2002-2003) College student's thoughts about leaving the university: The impact of faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Retention, 4: 123-133.

Mantz, C.C. & H.P. Sims (1981) Vicarious learning: The influence of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 6: 105-113.

McCabe, D.L. and W.J. Bowers (1994) Academic dishonesty among male college students: A thirty-year perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 35: 3-10.

McCabe, D.L. & L.K. Trevino (1993) Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64: 522-538.

McCabe, D.L. & L.K. Trevino (1996) What we know about cheating in college. Change, 1996, 28: 28-33.

Peterson, D.K. (2002) Deviant workplace behavior and the organization's ethical climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17: 47-61.

Porter, S.T. (2003-2004) Understanding retention outcomes: Using multiple data sources to distinguish between dropouts, stopouts, and transfer-outs. Journal of College Student Retention, 5: 53-70.

Reason, R.D. (2003) Student variables that predict retention: Recent research and new developments. NASPA Journal, 40:

Schnake, M.E., W.F. Fredenberger & M.P. Dumler (2004) Dimensions of student perceptions of faculty ethical behavior: Refining a measure and relationships with selected outcome variables. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 8: 1-16.

Schulte, L.E. (2001-2002) Graduate education faculty and student perceptions of ethical climate and its importance in the retention of students. College Student Retention, 3: 119-136.

Schulte, L.E., F. Thompson, K. Hayes, J. Noble & E. Jacobs (2001) Undergraduate faculty and student perceptions of the ethical climate and its important in retention. 35: 565-576.

Tabachnick, B.G., P.C. Keith-Spiegel & K.S. Pope (1991) Ethics of teaching: Beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as educators. American Psychologist, 46: 506-515.

Wimbush, J.C., J.M. Shepard & S.E. Markham (1997) An empirical examination of the relationship between ethical climate and ethical behavior from multiple levels of analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 16: 1705-1716.

Mel Schnake, Valdosta State University

Michael P. Dumler, Illinois State University

William Fredenberger, Valdosta State University

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Estimates, and a
Correlation Matrix

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3

1. Low Course Standards 2.06 0.9 1 .59 ** .55 **
2. Unethical Classroom Behavior 2.34 1 0.83 .68 **
3. Unethical Social Behavior 1.4 0.7 0.93
4. Student Cheating 3.04 1.3
5. Student Retention 4.68 0.6
6. Student Stress 2.16 1
7. Student Satisfaction 4.01 0.7
8. Student Age
9. Student Gender na na
10. Student GPA 2.83 0.5
11. Faces 4.16 0.7

Variable 4 5 6 7

1. Low Course Standards .30 ** 0 .15 * -0.12
2. Unethical Classroom Behavior .31 ** 0 0.07 0
3. Unethical Social Behavior 0.12 0 0.12 -0.12
4. Student Cheating 0.87 0 0.11 -21 *
5. Student Retention 0.9 -0.1 .43 **
6. Student Stress 0.93 0
7. Student Satisfaction 0.83
8. Student Age
9. Student Gender
10. Student GPA
11. Faces

Variable 8 9 10 11

1. Low Course Standards 0.09 -0.1 0.05 -.24 **
2. Unethical Classroom Behavior 0.04 0 0.08 -.25 **
3. Unethical Social Behavior 0.11 0.02 0.09 -.14 *
4. Student Cheating -0.1 0.01 0.06 -.33 **
5. Student Retention -.16 * 0.12 0.03 0.11
6. Student Stress 0.06 0.03 0.11 -0.1
7. Student Satisfaction .21 ** -0.1 0.11 .30 **
8. Student Age na 0 0.1 0.06
9. Student Gender na 0.07 0.03
10. Student GPA na 0.11
11. Faces na

N = 190 to 261 (missing data) Reliability estimates boldfaced
on the diagonal.

* p < .05 ** p < .01 na=not applicable

Table 2

Results of the Regression Analysis of Faculty Unethical Behavior on
Student Cheating, Satisfaction with University, Stress, and Retention

Student Cheating [R.sup.2] Change [R.sup.2]
 Step 1: Age, Gender, GPA 0.012
 Step 2: Faculty Unethical Behavior .129 ** .117 **

Student Retention
 Step 1: Age, Gender, GPA .054 *
 Step 2: Faculty Unethical Behavior .085 * 0.031

Student Satisfaction
 Step 1: Age, Gender, GPA .054 *
 Step 2: Faculty Unethical Behavior .092 * 0.038

Student Stress
 Step 1: Age, Gender, GPA 0.016
 Step 2: Faculty Unethical Behavior 0.053 0.037

* p < .05 ** p < .01

Table 3: Specific Variables Contributing to Explained Variance in
Dependent Variables

 Student
 Cheating Retention Satisfaction Stress

Student Age -0.09 -.17 * .21 ** 0.02
Student Gender .01 .13 -.09 .05
Student GPA .06 .03 .11 .11
Unethical Socializing -0.16 -.24 * -.13 .08
Low Course Standards .18 * .08 -.17 .18 *
Unethical Classroom 32 ** 0.16 0.14 -0.06
 Behavior

* p < .05 ** p < .01 Data in table are standardized beta coefficients.