Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 110, Issue 3, pp 355–376 | Cite as

Moral Reasoning in Computer-Based Task Environments: Exploring the Interplay between Cognitive and Technological Factors on Individuals’ Propensity to Break Rules

Article

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between cognitive moral development (CMD), productivity features of information technology (IT) and unethical behavior or misconduct. Using an experimental design that randomly assigns subjects to one of four unique technology conditions, we assess the relationship between a subjects’ predominant level of CMD and ethical misconduct on IT-oriented work tasks. Our results show that both higher levels of CMD and increased levels of IT productivity features at one’s disposal have a significant role to play in explaining observed behavior in our sample. We find that CMD as measured by the Defining Issues Test’s P-score is negatively related to task misconduct. Conversely, IT productivity features such as copy-and-paste are positively related to task misconduct. In addition, the CMD—misconduct relationship is significantly diminished by the introduction of IT productivity features. Lastly, a series of hazard analyses are conducted to explore the boundaries of our principal findings. These results demonstrate the significant role of technology in enabling negative behavior and the relative inability of subjects’ use of principled moral reasoning to overcome it. Implications of these findings for academics and business managers are offered, as well as recommendations for mitigating misconduct in both academic and workplace environments.

Keywords

Cognitive moral development Defining issues test Ethical decision-making Information technology Rule violations 

Abbreviations

ICT

Information and communication technologies

IT

Information technology

CLT

Construal level theory

CMD

Cognitive moral development

CMC

Computer-mediated communication

COND

Technology condition

TC0

Technology experimental condition—control group with access to no IT productivity features

TCs

Technology experimental condition—search only

TCcp

Technology experimental condition—copy-and-paste only

TCcps

Technology experimental condition—both copy-and-paste and search

TOE

Time in minutes spent completing the experiment exercise

WORDCNT

Number of words contained in a submitted response document

TECHSAVY

Average score on the technology assessment instrument

GRMEMB

Similarity index group membership indicator variable. A dichotomy indicating whether or not the similarity index for a subject’s response document is greater than or equal to the group membership cutoff value. Where cutoff values range from 0 to 50 by 5 percentage point increments

PSI

Person–situation interactionist perspective

TECH

An indicator variable designating whether a subject was in any three of the technology experimental conditions TCs, TCcp, or TCcps

References

  1. Anandarajan, M. (2002). Internet abuse in the workplace. Communications of ACM, 45(1), 53–54.Google Scholar
  2. Andreoli, N., & Lefkowitz, J. (2009). Individual and organizational antecedents of misconduct in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 309.Google Scholar
  3. Atmeh, M., & Al-Khadash, H. (2008). Factors affecting cheating behavior among accounting students. Journal of Accounting, Business & Management, 15(1), 109–125.Google Scholar
  4. Auer, N. J., & Krupar, E. M. (2001). Mouse click plagiarism: The role of technology in plagiarism and the librarian’s role in combating it. Library Trends, 49(3), 415–432.Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin, D. C. J., Daugherty, S. R., Rowley, B. D., & Schwarz, M. D. (1996). Cheating in medical school: A survey of second-year students at 31 schools. Academic Medicine, 71(3), 267–273.Google Scholar
  6. Baumeister, R., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. (2000). Ego depletion: A resource model of volition, self-regulation, and controlled processing. Social Cognition, 18(2), 130.Google Scholar
  7. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 339.Google Scholar
  8. Baumeister, R., Vohs, K., & Tice, D. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351.Google Scholar
  9. Bequai, A. (1998). Employee abuses in cyberspace: Management’s legal quagmire. Computers & Society, 17, 667–670.Google Scholar
  10. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187–217.Google Scholar
  11. Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
  12. Bloomfield, L.A. (2010). The plagiarism resource site windows software page. Retrieved 16 June 2010, http://plagiarism.phys.virginia.edu/Wsoftware.html.
  13. Bolin, A. U. (2004). Self-control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as predictors of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Psychology, 138(2), 101.Google Scholar
  14. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14(1), 63–82.Google Scholar
  15. Brinkman, R. L., & Brinkman, J. E. (1997). Cultural lag: Conception and theory. International Journal of Social Economics, 24(6), 609.Google Scholar
  16. Bunz, U. (2004). The computer-email-web (CEW) fluency scale–development and validation. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 17(4), 479.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, S. (2010). An investigation of the determinants of employees’ decisions to use organizational computing resources for non-work purposes. Dissertation 3412543, 178 pp. The University of North Carolina, Charlotte.Google Scholar
  18. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Wadsworth, L. L. (2002). The impact of moral intensity dimensions on ethical decision making: Assessing the relevance of orientation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14(1), 15.Google Scholar
  19. Cavusoglu, H., Cavusoglu, H., & Raghunathan, S. (2004). Economics of IT security management: Four improvements to current security practices. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 14, 1.Google Scholar
  20. Celik, C. (2009). Perceptions of University students on academic honesty as related to gender, University type and major in Turkey. Journal of American Academy of Business, 14(2), 271–278.Google Scholar
  21. Chatterjee, S. (2008). Unethical behavior using information technology. Dissertation 3370378, 115 pp. Washington State University.Google Scholar
  22. Chester, G. (2001). Plagiarism detection and prevention: JISC. 2011(2/9/2011).Google Scholar
  23. Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment: Vol. 1. Theoretical foundations and research validations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Comas-Forgas, R., & Sureda-Negre, J. (2010). Academic plagiarism: Explanatory factors from students’ perspective. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(3), 217–232.Google Scholar
  25. Crowell, C. R., Narvaez, D., & Gomberg, A. (2005) Moral psychology and information ethics: Psychological distance and the components of moral behavior in a digital world. In L. Freeman & A. G. Peace (Eds.), Information ethics: Privacy and intellectual property, (pp. 19–37). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.Google Scholar
  26. Doherty, N. F., & Fulford, H. (2005). Do Information security policies reduce the incidence of security breaches: An exploratory analysis. Information Resources Management Journal, 18(4), 21.Google Scholar
  27. Eastin, M. S., Glynn, C. J., & Griffiths, R. P. (2007). Psychology of communication technology use in the workplace. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(3), 436–443.Google Scholar
  28. Edmondson, V. C. (2010). Ethical leadership: The quest for character, civility, and community. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(2), 360–371.Google Scholar
  29. Etter, S., Cramer, J. J., & Finn, S. (2006). Origins of academic dishonesty: Ethical orientations and personality factors associated with attitudes about cheating with information technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 133.Google Scholar
  30. Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1204–1209.Google Scholar
  31. Fass, R. A. (1990). Cheating and plagiarism: Ethics in higher education. New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  32. Fitzgerald, M. (2002). A plague of plagiarism. Writer, 115(7), 16.Google Scholar
  33. Friedman, B. (1997). Social judgments and technological innovation: Adolescents’ understanding of property, privacy, and electronic information. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(3), 327–351.Google Scholar
  34. Friedrich, R. J. (1982). In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science, 26(4), 797–833.Google Scholar
  35. Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological science (Wiley-Blackwell), 17(4), 278–282.Google Scholar
  36. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime (p. 297). Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Graham, C., Litan, R. E., & Sukhtankar, S. (2002) The bigger they are, the harder they fall: An estimate of the costs of the crisis in corporate governance. The Brookings Institution, (1 February 2006). www.brookings.edu/views/papers/graham/20020722Graham.pdf).
  38. Graves, S. M. (2008). Student cheating habits: A predictor of workplace deviance. Journal of Diversity Management, 3(1), 15–22.Google Scholar
  39. Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 985.Google Scholar
  40. Halvorsen, R., & Palmquist, R. (1980). The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. American Economic Review, 70(3), 474.Google Scholar
  41. Hardy, M. A. (1993). Regression with dummy variables (p. 90). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Higgins, R., Power, C., & Kohlberg, L.A. (1984). The relationship of moral atmosphere to judgements of responsibility. In W. M. Kurtines, & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development, (pp. 74-106-425). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1994). The generality of deviance (p. 277). New Brunswick, USA: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Roefs, A. (2009). Three ways to resist temptation: The independent contributions of executive attention, inhibitory control, and affect regulation to the impulse control of eating behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 431.Google Scholar
  45. Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5.Google Scholar
  46. IDC. (2005). Worldwide security appliance market: forecast and analysis. International Data Corporation, December 2005.Google Scholar
  47. iParadigms, LLC. (2010). Turnitin—originality check. Retrieved 3 June 2010, http://turnitin.com/static/products.html.
  48. Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J. W., & Lacity, M. C. (2006). A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research. Journal of Information Technology, 21(1), 1.Google Scholar
  49. Jickling, M. (2010). Causes of the financial crisis, congressional research service: Report 40173. Accessed August 2010. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40173_20100409.pdf.
  50. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.Google Scholar
  51. Kaptein, M., & Schwartz, M. (2008). The effectiveness of business codes: A critical examination of existing studies and the development of an integrated research model. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 111–127.Google Scholar
  52. Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43(1), 23–34.Google Scholar
  53. Kim, M., Bergman, L., Lau, T., & Notkin, D. (2004). An ethnographic study of copy and paste programming practices in OOPL’, in ISESE ‘04: Proceedings of the 2004 international symposium on empirical software engineering (pp. 83–92). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  54. King, P. M., & Mayhew, M. J. (2002). Moral judgement development in higher education: Insights from the defining issues test. Journal of Moral Education, 31(3), 247.Google Scholar
  55. Kisamore, J. L., Stone, T. H., & Jawahar, I. M. (2007). Academic integrity: The relationship between individual and situational factors on misconduct contemplations. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 381–394.Google Scholar
  56. Kish-Gephart, J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
  57. Klein, H. A., Levengurg, N. M., McKendall, M., & Mothersell, W. (2007). Cheating during the college years: How do business school students compare? Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 197–206.Google Scholar
  58. Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  59. Kohlberg, L. (1981). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior (pp. 31–53). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  60. Lawson, R. A. (2004). Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the “real world”? Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 189–199.Google Scholar
  61. Lazonder, A. W., Biemans, H. J. A., & Wopereis, I. G. J. H. (2000). Differences between novice and experienced users in searching information on the world wide web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 576–581.Google Scholar
  62. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed., p. 319). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  63. Lessig, L. (2000). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  64. Lim, V. K. G. (2002). ‘The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing. Neutralizing and Organizational Justice’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 675–694.Google Scholar
  65. Loch, K. D., & Conger, S. (1996). Evaluating ethical decision making and computer use. Association for computing machinery. Communications of the ACM, 39(7), 74.Google Scholar
  66. Malachowski, D. (2005). Wasted time at work costing companies billions. Salary.com. Accessed April 2011. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2005/07/11/wastingtime.TMP.
  67. Mann, Z. (2006). Three public enemies: Cut, copy, and paste. Computer, 39, 31–35.Google Scholar
  68. Marshall, K. P. (1999). Has technology introduced new ethical problems? Journal of Business Ethics, 19(1), 81.Google Scholar
  69. May, D. R., & Pauli, K. P. (2002). The role of moral intensity in ethical decision making. Business and Society, 41(1), 84.Google Scholar
  70. Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2006). Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25(1), 117–126.Google Scholar
  71. McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 219.Google Scholar
  72. McMahon, J. M., & Harvey, R. J. (2006). An analysis of the factor structure of Jones’ moral intensity construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 381.Google Scholar
  73. Meckbach, G. (1998). The secret world of monitoring software. Computing Canada, 24(1), 4.Google Scholar
  74. Misangyi, V. F., Weaver, G. R., & Elms, H. (2008). Ending corruption: The interplay among institutional logics, resources, and institutional entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 750–770.Google Scholar
  75. Moore, D. A., & Lowenstein, G. (2004). Self-interest, automaticity, and the psychology of conflict of interest. Social Justice Research, 17, 189–202.Google Scholar
  76. Morris, M. G., Venkatesh, V., & Ackerman, P. L. (2005). Gender and age differences in employee decisions about new technology: An extension to the theory of planned behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(1), 69.Google Scholar
  77. Myyry, L., Siponen, M., Pahnila, S., Vartiainen, T., & Vance, A. (2009). What levels of moral reasoning and values explain adherence to information security rules? An empirical study. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(2), 126.Google Scholar
  78. Narvaez, D., & Bock, T. (2002). Moral schemas and tacit judgment or how the defining issues test is supported by cognitive science. Journal of Moral Education, 31(3), 297–314.Google Scholar
  79. NBES. (2009). 2009 NBES (National Business Ethics Survey). Retrieved 12 May 2010, http://www.ethics.org/nbes/download.html.
  80. Needleman, S. E. (2010). A facebook-free workplace? Curbing cyberslacking. Wall Street Journal (Online). Accessed June 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703691804575254443707831052.html.
  81. Nonis, S., & Swift, C. O. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 77(2), 69.Google Scholar
  82. O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413.Google Scholar
  83. Ogburn, W. F. (1966). Social change with respect to cultural and original nature with a new introd (p. 393). New York: Dell, Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  84. Oh, H., Curley, S. P., & Subramani, M. R. (2008). The death of distance?: The influence of computer mediated communication on perceptions of distance. In International conference on information systems (ICIS).Google Scholar
  85. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
  86. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(3), 238–259.Google Scholar
  87. Renard, L. (1999). Cut and paste 101: Plagiarism and the net. Educational Leadership, 57(4), 38.Google Scholar
  88. Resick, C. J., Harges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2006). Cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 345–352.Google Scholar
  89. Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  90. Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  91. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999a). A Neo-Kohlbergian approach to moral judgment: An overview of defining issues test research. Educational Psychology Review, 11(4), 291–324.Google Scholar
  92. Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S. J., & Bebeau, M. J. (1999b). DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644–659.Google Scholar
  93. Riviere, P. (2010) What’s ours will stay that way. Le Monde Diplomatique (http://mondediplo.com/2010/07/18acta).
  94. Rubin, R. (1994). Moral distancing and the use of information technologies: the seven temptations. In Proceedings of the conference on ethics in the computer age (pp. 151–155). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  95. Ryan, J. J. (2001). Moral reasoning as a determinant of organizational citizenship behaviors: A study in the public accounting profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 33, 233–244.Google Scholar
  96. Sims, R. L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68, 207–211.Google Scholar
  97. Siponen, M., & Vance, A. (2010). Neutralization: New insights into the problem of employee information systems security policy violations. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 487.Google Scholar
  98. Smith, T. (2000). Challenging academe’s mystique: Applying criminological theories to college student cheating. Ph.D. Dissertation. School of Criminal Justice University at Albany, State University of New York.Google Scholar
  99. Smith, T. R. (2004). Low self-control, staged opportunity, and subsequent fraudulent behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(5), 542–563.Google Scholar
  100. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science (1986–1998), 32(11), 1492.Google Scholar
  101. Stevens, G. E. (1984). Ethical inclinations of tomorrow’s citizens: Actions speak louder? Journal of Business Education, 59(4), 147–152.Google Scholar
  102. Stolee, K. T., Elbaum, S., & Rothermel, G. (2009). Revealing the copy and paste habits of end users. CSE Conference and Workshop Papers. Paper 133. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cseconfwork/133.
  103. Sussman, S. W., & Sproull, L. (1999). Straight talk: Delivering bad news through electronic communication. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 150.Google Scholar
  104. Swanson, D. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporation. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 43–65.Google Scholar
  105. Szwajkowski, E. (1992). Accounting for organizational misconduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 401–411.Google Scholar
  106. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (p. 185). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.Google Scholar
  107. Tesch, D. B., Murphy, M. C., & Crable, E. A. (2006). Implementation of a basic computer skills assessment mechanism for incoming freshmen. Information Systems Education Journal, 4(13), 1.Google Scholar
  108. Thoma, S. J. (2006). Research using the defining issues test. In Killen and Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral psychology. Mawah, NJ: L. Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  109. Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self: Positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 379.Google Scholar
  110. Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617.Google Scholar
  111. Treviño, L. K. (1992). Moral reasoning and business ethics: Implications for research, education and management. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 445–459.Google Scholar
  112. Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990.Google Scholar
  113. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.Google Scholar
  114. Veiga, J. F., Golden, T. D., & Dechant, K. (2004). Why managers bend company rules. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 84–89.Google Scholar
  115. Venkatraman, S. (2008). The “Darth” side of technology use: Cyberdeviant workplace behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.Google Scholar
  116. Warming-Rasmussen, B., & Windsor, C. A. (2003). Danish evidence of auditors’ level of moral reasoning and predisposition to provide fair judgements. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(2), 77.Google Scholar
  117. Wasieleski, D. M., & Hayibor, S. (2008). Breaking the rules: Examining the facilitation effects of moral intensity characteristics on the recognition of rule violations. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 275–289.Google Scholar
  118. Weatherbee, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). A case of cyberdeviancy: Cyberaggression in the workplace. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 445–485). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  119. Weber, J. (1996). Influences upon managerial moral decision making: Nature of the harm and magnitude of consequences. Human Relations, 49(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  120. Weber, J., & Gillespie, J. (1998). Differences in ethical beliefs, intentions, and behaviors: The role of beliefs and intentions in ethical research revisited. Business and Society, 37, 447–467.Google Scholar
  121. Weber, J., & Wasieleski, D. (2001). Investigating influences on managers’ moral reasoning. Business and Society, 40(1), 79.Google Scholar
  122. Willard, N. (1998). Moral development in the information age. Proceedings of the families, technology, and education conference (pp. 215–222). Chicago, IL, October 30–November 1, 1997.Google Scholar
  123. Williams, M. S., & Hosek, W. R. (2003). Strategies for reducing academic dishonesty. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 21, 87.Google Scholar
  124. Winter, S. J., Sylianou, A. C., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). Individual differences in the acceptability of unethical information technology practices: The case of machiavellianism and ethical ideology. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 279–301.Google Scholar
  125. Zou, G. (2004). A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159(7), 702–706.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Duquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Cerefige-ICN Business SchoolNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations