View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Capitalism and Crime in the Classroom: An Analysis of Academic Dishonesty and Latent Student Attitudes

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Capitalism and Crime in the Classroom: An Analysis of Academic Dishonesty and Latent Student Attitudes
Language: English
Authors: Burrus, Robert T., Jones, Adam T., Schuhmann, Peter W.
Source: Journal of Education for Business. 2016 91(1):23-31.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2016
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Student Attitudes, College Students, Social Systems, Prediction, Correlation, Cheating, Ethics, Risk, Factor Analysis, Likert Scales, Predictor Variables, Student Surveys, Online Surveys, Questionnaires, Statistical Distributions
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1110105
ISSN: 0883-2323
Abstract: University students' latent attitudes toward capitalism were quantified and used to predict self-reported cheating behaviors. Results suggest that the relationship between student academic dishonesty and attitudes toward capitalism are complex. Students indicating a strong degree of risk aversion are less likely to report cheating behaviors. Students demonstrating a preference for equality over efficiency, while no more likely to be cheaters, may cheat more often. Efficiency-minded students do not appear to be more likely to cheat, but may engage in fewer instances of cheating. Implications for curriculum development in economics and business programs are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 28
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1084172
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEHqBNBkS5rKudIyrtlI2xKAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGoaCcSeEhT9c9m9gwIBEICBmwpEyVJpPBUjTQyfDNZYGKa0BrWdtvxGNydNQm8P0Qfz7jOAsWrNMQSyX0fgXx5kfC70aQmJRrphUTGZ03CVYH488TIqLxjS2Yyk_eIbU2ao-vdLwy-VK43dji4gFOQ8lqilf6hJulLIVw0B6nWoZEDU9XLSX3nJayel-RVm3S069XYjoXhWlMhhK8io6K3dZBT48Rv3J3JPzdie
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0111480529;jeb01jan.16;2019Mar06.14:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0111480529-1">Capitalism and crime in the classroom: An analysis of academic dishonesty and latent student attitudes. </title> <p>University students' latent attitudes toward capitalism were quantified and used to predict self-reported cheating behaviors. Results suggest that the relationship between student academic dishonesty and attitudes toward capitalism are complex. Students indicating a strong degree of risk aversion are less likely to report cheating behaviors. Students demonstrating a preference for equality over efficiency, while no more likely to be cheaters, may cheat more often. Efficiency-minded students do not appear to be more likely to cheat, but may engage in fewer instances of cheating. Implications for curriculum development in economics and business programs are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: business ethics; capitalism; cheating; instruction</p> <p>The recent financial crisis and subsequent corporate scandals have drawn public attention to business practices on Wall Street and activities at other large corporations. Critics claim that unfettered capitalism and intense competition breed dishonesty (Bennett, Pierce, Snyder, & Toffel, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]) and may lead to a short-term focus that incentivizes unethical practices (Siben, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]). Yet the foundation of capitalism rests on a strong set of institutions including trust among market participants. As Bruner ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]) pointed out, without trust between market participants, society is forced to rely on laws to govern all details of transactions and a world of all laws and little trust is neither desirable nor feasible.</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between academic dishonesty and latent attitudes toward capitalism among university students. Results suggest that the relationship between student academic dishonesty and attitudes toward the basic tenets of capitalism are multifaceted. These results have implications for curriculum development in economics and business programs.</p> <hd id="AN0111480529-2">Ethics in introductory courses</hd> <p>Despite the seeming prerequisite nature of trust and ethical behavior for the efficiency of market outcomes, a review of introductory economics texts reveals scant mention of their importance. The possibility that the promotion of self-interest in introductory business and economics courses may lead to unethical behaviors by students has been addressed empirically, with mixed results. Carter and Irons ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>]) found that training in the rational self-interest model does not influence behavior in a simple ultimatum bargaining game. However, they do find that economics students were more likely to behave in accordance with the rational/self-interest model (i.e., accepting less and keeping more in the game), suggesting that "economists are born, not made." Frank, Gilovich, and Regan ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref5">9</reflink>]) found that exposure to the mainstream self-interest model encourages less cooperative behavior in the context of a prisoner's dilemma game and more unethical behavior in hypothetical scenarios. Yet, Yezer, Goldfarb, and Poppen ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref6">27</reflink>]) found that economics students tended to behave more cooperatively than other students in an experiment involving returning a lost envelope holding cash and, in a replication of the scenario aspect of Frank et al. , found no change in unethical behavior related to exposure to the neoclassical economics model. We wish to extend this literature by examining whether student attitudes toward free markets and capitalism are associated with academic dishonesty.</p> <hd id="AN0111480529-3">Academic dishonesty</hd> <p>Numerous studies have shown that academic dishonesty at the university level is widespread (for a review, see Whitley, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref7">26</reflink>]). The literature includes numerous empirical examinations of the relationship between cheating by college students and individual, situational, and institutional factors. As noted in Schuhmann, Burrus, Barber, Graham, and Elikai ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>]), results are varied. However, studies show that increased probabilities of detection, higher levels of punishment, and decreased perceptions that other students are cheating all tend to deter student cheating. Honor codes, especially traditional codes that require signed pledges, policing of cheating, and student-centric honor councils, also reduce cheating behavior.</p> <p>There is also a growing literature that investigates whether business students are more likely to cheat than other students. Roig and Ballew ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref9">20</reflink>]) and Simha, Armstrong, and Albert ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref10">23</reflink>]) found business students are more tolerant of cheating than other students with, according to Klein, Levenburg, McKendall, and Mothersello ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>]), a looser definition of cheating. McCabe and Trevino ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]) and Smyth and Davis ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref13">25</reflink>]) found that business school students are more likely to cheat and rationalize their behavior. Crittenden, Hanna, and Peterson ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref14">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref15">8</reflink>]b) suggested that business school students in the United States have similar views on cheating behaviors as those in highly corrupt countries (though incidents of cheating are much higher for students in corrupt countries). Iyer and Eastman ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref16">11</reflink>]), however, tempered these results by finding that nonbusiness students are more likely to cheat than business students. Nowell and Laufer ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]) used observed cheating behavior, comparing self-reported quiz scores with actual scores, and found economics students are no more likely to cheat than others.</p> <p>Empirical examinations of academic dishonesty and real-world behaviors, including Sims ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref18">24</reflink>]), are consistent in finding clear links between cheating in academic settings and dishonest behavior in the workplace. Nonis and Swift ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]) suggested students with weaker morals are more dishonest in both academic and work settings. Carpenter, Harding, Finelli, and Passow ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]) examined a sample of undergraduate engineering students with professional workplace experience and reinforce the consensus that prior academic dishonesty is an indicator of workplace dishonesty. In response to hypothetical academic and business scenarios, Smyth and Davis ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref21">25</reflink>]) found that business majors exhibit a lower degree of ethical behavior in both contexts than nonbusiness majors.</p> <hd id="AN0111480529-4">Motivation</hd> <p>Given that our market system depends on honesty, that our institutions of higher education (and business schools in particular) suffer from widespread academic dishonesty, and that dishonesty at the academy translates to the workplace, we seek to understand the linkages between free market attitudes and academic dishonesty. Using survey data, we identified three dimensions of student views as externally versus internally focused, risk averse versus entrepreneurial, and efficiency versus equality oriented, with the second and third dimensions most associated with the capitalist mindset promoted in principles of economics courses. Next, we attempted to determine whether these leanings are correlated with the decision to cheat and the frequency of cheating by undergraduate business students.</p> <p>This research is important for two reasons: the identification of a possible association between undergraduate market philosophy and future business practice and additional business curriculum development. A failure to promote the primacy of trust and morality in a free market economy might embolden capitalists—through greed—to undermine the system they claim to support.</p> <hd id="AN0111480529-5">Data</hd> <p>Data for this study were collected using an online questionnaire administered to more than 1,000 undergraduate students in business school classes at a regional state university at the end of the spring and fall semesters in 2009 and 2010.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]The questionnaire included questions regarding perceptions, attitudes, and frequency of cheating, demographics, involvement in scholastic and extracurricular activities, and statements designed to elicit attitudes toward capitalism. Our survey was anonymous and respondents were reminded of this at the beginning of the survey and before completing survey questions related to cheating. Prior to the cheating questions on the survey, survey respondents were provided with a definition of cheating following Burrus, McGoldrick, and Schuhmann ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>After removing incomplete questionnaires, responses from students who had completed the survey on a previous occasion, surveys containing incorrect answers to attention checks, graduate students, the relatively few non–business school students, and students with no knowledge or opinion regarding the extent to which cheating occurs, the penalties, or the probability of being caught, the sample contained 617 completed questionnaires.</p> <p>Variable descriptions for demographic and contextual variables are presented in Table 1 and descriptive statistics are given in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic and contextual variable descriptions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Type</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cheater</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if self-reported any cheating</td></tr><tr><td>Number of cheats</td><td>Discrete</td><td>Number of cheating incidents a student self-reported</td></tr><tr><td>Cheat in high school</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if a student reported cheating in high school</td></tr><tr><td>Extent cheating occurs</td><td>Discrete</td><td>Never occurs = 1 (3%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Sometimes but not very often = 2 (52%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Often = 3 (36%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>All the time = 4 (10%)</td></tr><tr><td>Probability caught</td><td>Continuous</td><td>Most or all caught, 75–100% (15%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Some caught, 50–74% (30%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Few caught, 25–59% (28%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Majority not caught, 1–24% (27%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>None (.16%)</td></tr><tr><td>Penalty description</td><td>Discrete</td><td>Severe = 4 (38%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Moderate = 3 (41%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Mild or none = 2 or 1 (21%)</td></tr><tr><td>Caught</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if caught at university (4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if respondent is female (44%)</td></tr><tr><td>Athlete</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if student is an athlete (9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>Discrete</td><td>Age in years</td></tr><tr><td>Drink</td><td>Discrete</td><td>Number of times drunk in a month</td></tr><tr><td>Job</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if the student has a job or similar (56%)</td></tr><tr><td>Grade point average</td><td>Continuous</td><td>Student's GPA at the university (3.11)</td></tr><tr><td>Years</td><td>Discrete</td><td>Years of school attended at the university</td></tr><tr><td>Honest</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if considers themselves honest (94%)</td></tr><tr><td>Accounting</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if accounting major (30%)</td></tr><tr><td>Economics</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if economics major (9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Finance</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if finance major (18%)</td></tr><tr><td>Management information systems</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if management information systems major (7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing</td><td>Binary</td><td>Coded to 1 if marketing major (20%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Percentages in parentheses represent percent of responses.</p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive statistics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>Min</td><td>Max</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Externally focused</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td char=".">−4.96</td><td char=".">2.88</td></tr><tr><td>Risk averse</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td char=".">−3.28</td><td char=".">3.04</td></tr><tr><td>Efficiency oriented</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td char=".">−3.08</td><td char=".">3.30</td></tr><tr><td>Cheater</td><td char=".">0.665</td><td char=".">0.473</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Number of cheats</td><td char=".">2.314</td><td char=".">2.68</td><td>0</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Cheat in high school</td><td char=".">0.726</td><td char=".">0.446</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Extent cheating occurs</td><td char=".">2.533</td><td char=".">0.704</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Probability caught</td><td char=".">45.50</td><td char=".">26.13</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Penalty description</td><td char=".">3.165</td><td char=".">0.776</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Caught</td><td char=".">0.036</td><td char=".">0.186</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">0.441</td><td char=".">0.497</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Athlete</td><td char=".">0.092</td><td char=".">0.290</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">20.63</td><td char=".">2.266</td><td>18</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>Drink</td><td char=".">6.348</td><td char=".">5.134</td><td>0</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Job</td><td char=".">.562</td><td char=".">.496</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Grade point average</td><td char=".">3.113</td><td char=".">0.651</td><td>0</td><td char=".">3.875</td></tr><tr><td>Years</td><td char=".">2.726</td><td char=".">0.969</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Honest</td><td char=".">0.942</td><td char=".">0.235</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Accounting</td><td char=".">0.295</td><td char=".">0.456</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Economics</td><td char=".">0.092</td><td char=".">0.290</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Finance</td><td char=".">0.177</td><td char=".">0.382</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Management information systems</td><td char=".">0.068</td><td char=".">0.252</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing</td><td char=".">0.204</td><td char=".">0.403</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>617</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To explore the relationship between attitudes toward capitalism and cheating behavior, students were asked to state the degree to which they agreed with a series of 14 statements. These statements are listed in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3. Question response distributions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Strongly agree</td><td>Agree</td><td>Neutral</td><td>Disagree</td><td>Strongly disagree</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Externally focused</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate greed was a key contributor to the recent collapse of the financial sector.</td><td>177</td><td>271</td><td>136</td><td>29</td><td>4</td><td char=".">3.95</td><td char=".">0.868</td></tr><tr><td>In making business decisions, companies should consider the public good even though it might lower profits.</td><td>89</td><td>375</td><td>101</td><td>44</td><td>8</td><td char=".">3.80</td><td char=".">0.819</td></tr><tr><td> The government should not strictly regulate pollution if such regulations increase consumer prices.</td><td>15</td><td>66</td><td>178</td><td>257</td><td>101</td><td char=".">2.41</td><td char=".">0.965</td></tr><tr><td> Unregulated companies will ultimately end up swindling their consumers and employees.</td><td>51</td><td>234</td><td>241</td><td>73</td><td>18</td><td char=".">3.37</td><td char=".">0.90</td></tr><tr><td> The government should not protect domestic industries from foreign competitors who sell at lower prices</td><td>19</td><td>104</td><td>167</td><td>273</td><td>54</td><td char=".">2.61</td><td>0,967</td></tr><tr><td> Banks should not charge higher interest rates to lower income families</td><td>75</td><td>239</td><td>165</td><td>120</td><td>18</td><td char=".">3.38</td><td char=".">1.02</td></tr><tr><td>Risk averse</td></tr><tr><td> To boost the economy during a recession, the government should follow a borrow-and-spend approach.</td><td>8</td><td>106</td><td>264</td><td>168</td><td>71</td><td char=".">2.70</td><td char=".">0.930</td></tr><tr><td> One of the roles of the government is to make sure that farmers get fair prices for their crops.</td><td>39</td><td>290</td><td>187</td><td>84</td><td>17</td><td char=".">3.41</td><td char=".">0.898</td></tr><tr><td> It is more important to have a strong and growing economy than a society that distributes wealth fairly and equally.</td><td>122</td><td>228</td><td>168</td><td>91</td><td>8</td><td char=".">3.59</td><td char=".">1.01</td></tr><tr><td> Unions have been a key contributor to the collapse of the American automobile industry.</td><td>68</td><td>142</td><td>308</td><td>89</td><td>10</td><td char=".">3.274</td><td char=".">0.898</td></tr><tr><td> Companies should not adopt cost-cutting technology if it will cause worker lay-offs</td><td>18</td><td>141</td><td>214</td><td>218</td><td>26</td><td char=".">2.85</td><td char=".">0.920</td></tr><tr><td>Efficiency oriented</td></tr><tr><td> Workers should be compensated based on what they contribute to society.</td><td>71</td><td>320</td><td>159</td><td>62</td><td>5</td><td char=".">3.62</td><td char=".">0.845</td></tr><tr><td> When corporations make more profit, all of us will eventually be better off.</td><td>28</td><td>182</td><td>245</td><td>140</td><td>22</td><td char=".">3.09</td><td char=".">0.916</td></tr><tr><td> The recent corporate bailouts by the U.S. government are a bad idea because they will encourage more risky behavior in the future.</td><td>76</td><td>229</td><td>207</td><td>94</td><td>11</td><td char=".">3.429</td><td char=".">0.951</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Possible responses were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Statement orientation was mixed such that agreement was not always consistent with a procapitalism or anticapitalist response. Responses are summarized in Table 3.</p> <hd id="AN0111480529-6">Methods</hd> <p>Exploratory factor analysis was applied to statement responses in order to quantify students' latent views toward different facets of capitalism. Horn ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]) parallel analysis, confirmed with a scree test executed in the manner of Costello and Osborne ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]), was used to determine the number of factors to retain, three. Factors were extracted using the principal factors method.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>] We labeled these factors externally focused, risk averse, and efficiency oriented. While labels were chosen arbitrarily for illustrative purposes, the loads assigned to the individual statements used to generate the factors were driven by the data. Obliquely rotated factor loadings are presented in Table 4 along with each item's uniqueness. Positive loadings indicate that agreement with the statement is positively associated with the factor and negative values indicate that agreement is inversely associated with the factor. Factor values are standardized to mean zero and unit standard deviation.</p> <p>Table 4. Factor loadings.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Factor loading</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Externally focused</td><td>Risk averse</td><td>Efficiency oriented</td><td>Uniqueness</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Externally focused</td></tr><tr><td> Corporate greed was a key contributor to the recent collapse of the financial sector.</td><td char=".">0.5204</td><td char=".">−0.0486</td><td char=".">0.1080</td><td char=".">0.7205</td></tr><tr><td> In making business decisions, companies should consider the public good even though it might lower profits.</td><td char=".">0.5032</td><td char=".">0.0166</td><td char=".">0.0677</td><td char=".">0.7322</td></tr><tr><td> The government should not strictly regulate pollution if such regulations increase consumer prices.</td><td char=".">−0.4913</td><td char=".">0.0179</td><td char=".">0.1433</td><td char=".">0.7542</td></tr><tr><td> Unregulated companies will ultimately end up swindling their consumers and employees.</td><td char=".">0.3578</td><td char=".">0.2559</td><td char=".">0.0273</td><td char=".">0.7513</td></tr><tr><td> The government should not protect domestic industries from foreign competitors who sell at lower prices</td><td char=".">−0.2716</td><td char=".">−0.2056</td><td char=".">0.1109</td><td char=".">0.8354</td></tr><tr><td> Banks should not charge higher interest rates to lower income families</td><td char=".">0.2758</td><td char=".">0.2245</td><td char=".">0.0528</td><td char=".">0.835</td></tr><tr><td>Risk averse</td></tr><tr><td> To boost the economy during a recession, the government should follow a borrow-and-spend approach.</td><td char=".">−0.1396</td><td char=".">0.4402</td><td char=".">0.0129</td><td char=".">0.8256</td></tr><tr><td> One of the roles of the government is to make sure that farmers get fair prices for their crops.</td><td char=".">0.1194</td><td char=".">0.4326</td><td char=".">0.0218</td><td char=".">0.7695</td></tr><tr><td> It is more important to have a strong and growing economy than a society that distributes wealth fairly and equally.</td><td char=".">0.0130</td><td char=".">−0.3675</td><td char=".">0.1141</td><td char=".">0.8414</td></tr><tr><td> Unions have been a key contributor to the collapse of the American automobile industry.</td><td char=".">−0.0128</td><td char=".">−0.3372</td><td char=".">0.1578</td><td char=".">0.8424</td></tr><tr><td> Companies should not adopt cost-cutting technology if it will cause worker lay-offs</td><td char=".">0.0036</td><td char=".">0.3873</td><td char=".">0.0797</td><td char=".">0.8523</td></tr><tr><td>Efficiency oriented</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Workers should be compensated based on what they contribute to society.</td><td char=".">0.1476</td><td char=".">0.0514</td><td char=".">0.3397</td><td char=".">0.8537</td></tr><tr><td> When corporations make more profit, all of us will eventually be better off.</td><td char=".">−0.2710</td><td char=".">−0.0036</td><td char=".">0.3136</td><td char=".">0.8397</td></tr><tr><td> The recent corporate bailouts by the U.S. government are a bad idea because they will encourage more risky behavior in the future.</td><td char=".">0.1139</td><td char=".">−0.1010</td><td char=".">0.3488</td><td char=".">0.8453</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Figure 1 provides a representation of the three factors. Each factor represents a latent dimension of students' views about capitalism and economics rather than identifying specific student cohorts. Figure 1 includes labels at the terminus of each of the three axes to help put the dimension into perspective. In addition, each axis includes a description regarding the relationship between behavior and the factor. These relationships are discussed below.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Dimensions of economic perspective.</p> <p>The external focus factor is primarily constructed from six statements that suggest that students are distrustful of others' motives and believe others may not follow an implicit social contract regarding responsibility to society. This position is consistent with an external locus of control (i.e., external events are responsible for an individual's situation) and corresponds to an emphasis on regulating others' behavior. Students who believe that companies should consider the public good and, if left unregulated, will "swindle consumers and employees" have higher external focus scores, while students who believe "government should not strictly regulate pollution" and that unregulated companies will not swindle their customers or employees have lower external focus scores. These students might be considered internally focused, an attitude that can be associated with favoring self-regulation.</p> <p>The risk-averse factor is dominated by five statements which all suggest an emphasis on stability and protection against downside risk for individuals and groups within society. Students who suggest that "government should borrow and spend in a recession," that the government needs to "ensure high prices for farmers," or that equality is more important than economic growth have higher scores on the risk-averse factor<emph>.</emph> Students who believe the government should not stabilize the economy during recession, allow prices to fluctuate, favor growth, and oppose unions have lower risk averse scores. These students display a higher tolerance for economic risk and are considered entrepreneurial<emph>.</emph></p> <p>The third factor, efficiency oriented is primarily made up of student responses to three statements that suggest that economic efficiency trumps other concerns such as social contracts and stability. Students who believe that workers should be compensated based on their productivity, that corporate profits benefit society, and that governments should not bail out failing companies have higher efficiency oriented scores. Students who believe that compensation should be based on factors other than productivity, that corporate profits are bad, and that government bailouts aren't necessarily bad are viewed as equality oriented.</p> <p>Table 5 shows mean factor scores for different student subsamples. Because the mean values for each factor are normalized to zero for the sample, positive (negative) values for the subsample averages denote relatively high (low) factor scores for that group of students. Mean scores for the external focus factor show a notable association with age, with seniors having considerably higher values for this factor than freshmen. The most striking difference is the factor scores between men and women. Male students in our sample appeared to be less externally focused, less risk averse, and more efficiency oriented than were female students.</p> <p>Table 5. Means and standard deviations of factor scores for student subsamples.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td>Externally focused</td><td>Risk averse</td><td>Efficiency oriented</td></tr><tr><td>Subsample</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Accounting majors</td><td>182</td><td char=".">−0.0090</td><td char=".">0.7945</td><td char=".">0.0454</td><td char=".">0.7090</td><td char=".">−0.0374</td><td char=".">0.5830</td></tr><tr><td>Economics majors</td><td>57</td><td char=".">−0.1580</td><td char=".">0.8250</td><td char=".">−0.2372<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t5fn0002" /></td><td char=".">0.8305</td><td char=".">−0.0548</td><td char=".">0.5715</td></tr><tr><td>Finance majors</td><td>109</td><td char=".">0.0236</td><td char=".">0.9477</td><td char=".">−0.1025</td><td char=".">0.7897</td><td char=".">0.0965<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t5fn0001" /></td><td char=".">0.5696</td></tr><tr><td>Management information systems majors</td><td>42</td><td char=".">0.2113<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t5fn0001" /></td><td char=".">0.8651</td><td char=".">0.0761</td><td char=".">0.9130</td><td char=".">0.1090</td><td char=".">0.6941</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing majors</td><td>126</td><td char=".">0.0001</td><td char=".">0.6662</td><td char=".">0.0714</td><td char=".">0.6799</td><td char=".">−0.0296</td><td char=".">0.5229</td></tr><tr><td>Management majors</td><td>156</td><td char=".">−0.0180</td><td char=".">0.7154</td><td char=".">−0.0241</td><td char=".">0.7393</td><td char=".">0.0140</td><td char=".">0.5903</td></tr><tr><td>Freshman</td><td>67</td><td char=".">−0.1083</td><td char=".">0.7389</td><td char=".">0.0439</td><td char=".">0.6262</td><td char=".">−0.0335</td><td char=".">0.4563</td></tr><tr><td>Sophomores</td><td>196</td><td char=".">−0.0335</td><td char=".">0.7830</td><td char=".">0.0582</td><td char=".">0.6787</td><td char=".">−0.0140</td><td char=".">0.5567</td></tr><tr><td>Juniors</td><td>193</td><td char=".">0.0229</td><td char=".">0.7706</td><td char=".">0.0523</td><td char=".">0.6925</td><td char=".">−0.0026</td><td char=".">0.5860</td></tr><tr><td>Seniors</td><td>161</td><td char=".">0.0584</td><td char=".">0.7937</td><td char=".">−0.1519<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t5fn0003" /></td><td char=".">0.8869</td><td char=".">0.0340</td><td char=".">0.6550</td></tr><tr><td>Females</td><td>272</td><td char=".">0.1377<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t5fn0003" /></td><td char=".">0.6147</td><td char=".">0.2030<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t5fn0003" /></td><td char=".">0.5294</td><td char=".">−0.0742<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t5fn0003" /></td><td char=".">0.5132</td></tr><tr><td>Males</td><td>345</td><td char=".">−0.1085<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t5fn0003" /></td><td char=".">0.8701</td><td char=".">−0.1601<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t5fn0003" /></td><td char=".">0.8399</td><td char=".">0.0585<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t5fn0003" /></td><td char=".">0.6265</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 Asterisk indicate difference from rest of population.</item> <item>50001 <emph>p</emph> <.10.</item> <item>50002 <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> <item>50003 <emph>p</emph> <.01.</item> </ulist> <p>To analyze the relationship between students' attitudes toward capitalism and cheating behavior, we estimate the following model using two definitions of the dependent variable, academic dishonesty:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>where <bold><emph>capitalism</emph><emph><subs>i</subs></emph></bold> is a the vector of capitalism factor variables constructed from the Likert-type scale responses to the capitalism statements; <bold><emph>context</emph><emph><subs>i</subs></emph></bold> is a vector of contextual variables such as <emph>probability</emph>_<emph>caught</emph>, <emph>extent</emph>_<emph>cheating</emph>_<emph>occurs</emph>, <emph>penalty</emph>_<emph>description</emph>, and <emph>honest</emph>; <bold><emph>dem</emph><emph><subs>i</subs></emph></bold> is a vector of demographic variables; and <bold>β</bold>, <bold>λ</bold>, and <bold>γ</bold> are vectors of the respective coefficients.</p> <p>Our first model examines the extensive margin of a student's cheating decision (whether to cheat) using a logit model with a binary dependent variable coded as 1 if the student admits having cheated while at the university (zero otherwise). The second model considers the intensive margin of cheating (how much to cheat) with the dependent variable equal to the number of incidents of reported cheating including zero values for students who did not cheat. This estimation employs a zero-inflated negative binomial with an exposure control for the number of years a student has attended the university.</p> <hd id="AN0111480529-7">Results and discussion</hd> <p>Model estimation results are reported in Table 6.</p> <p>Table 6. Estimation results.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Dependent variable</td><td>Cheater</td><td>Number of cheating incidents</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Externally focused</td><td char=".">0.084<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(2.73)</td><td char=".">−0.096</td><td char="(">(−0.56)</td></tr><tr><td>Risk averse</td><td char=".">−0.098<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(−2.78)</td><td char=".">−0.030</td><td char="(">(−0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Efficiency oriented</td><td char=".">−0.025</td><td char="(">(−0.71)</td><td char=".">−0.473<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(−2.74)</td></tr><tr><td>Probability caught</td><td char=".">−0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0001" /></td><td char="(">(−1.74)</td><td char=".">−0.004</td><td char="(">(−0.98)</td></tr><tr><td>Extent cheating occurs</td><td char=".">0.126<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(4.14)</td><td char=".">0.803<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(5.13)</td></tr><tr><td>Penalty description</td><td char=".">−0.031</td><td char="(">(−1.16)</td><td char=".">0.329<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0002" /></td><td char="(">(2.34)</td></tr><tr><td>Honest</td><td char=".">−0.213<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(−3.87)</td><td char=".">−1.089<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0002" /></td><td char="(">(−2.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">0.036</td><td char="(">(0.79)</td><td char=".">−0.515<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0002" /></td><td char="(">(−2.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Grade point average</td><td char=".">−0.024</td><td char="(">(−0.74)</td><td char=".">0.228</td><td char="(">(1.30)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">−0.036<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(−2.99)</td><td char=".">−0.474<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(−6.34)</td></tr><tr><td>Years</td><td char=".">0.080<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(3.00)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Athlete</td><td char=".">0.118<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0002" /></td><td char="(">(2.02)</td><td char=".">−0.421</td><td char="(">(−1.51)</td></tr><tr><td>Drink</td><td char=".">0.012<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(2.82)</td><td char=".">0.033</td><td char="(">(1.52)</td></tr><tr><td>Job</td><td char=".">−0.011</td><td char="(">(−0.25)</td><td char=".">−0.282</td><td char="(">(−1.21)</td></tr><tr><td>Cheat in high school</td><td char=".">0.302<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(6.41)</td><td char=".">0.398</td><td char="(">(1.57)</td></tr><tr><td>Caught</td><td char=".">0.282<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0003" /></td><td char="(">(6.15)</td><td char=".">0.322</td><td char="(">(0.61)</td></tr><tr><td>Accounting</td><td char=".">0.054</td><td char="(">(1.05)</td><td char=".">−0.439<xref ref-type="fn" rid="t6fn0001" /></td><td char="(">(−1.76)</td></tr><tr><td>Economics</td><td char=".">0.031</td><td char="(">(0.43)</td><td char=".">−0.377</td><td char="(">(−1.07)</td></tr><tr><td>Finance</td><td char=".">−0.078</td><td char="(">(−1.30)</td><td char=".">0.270</td><td char="(">(0.79)</td></tr><tr><td>Management information systems</td><td char=".">0.029</td><td char="(">(0.36)</td><td char=".">0.023</td><td char="(">(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing</td><td char=".">−0.033</td><td char="(">(−0.57)</td><td char=".">0.238</td><td char="(">(0.69)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>N</italic></td><td char=".">617</td><td /><td>617</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Pseudo <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td char=".">0.174</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 Marginal effects; <emph>t</emph> statistics in parentheses.</item> <item>60001 <emph>p</emph> <.10.</item> <item>60002 <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> <item>60003 <emph>p</emph> <.01.</item> </ulist> <p>While contextual variables are broadly consistent with the literature, our analysis suggests that a one standard deviation increase in the <emph>external focus</emph> factor correlates with a 8.4% increase in the likelihood of having self-reported cheating in the past, as demonstrated by the positive and significant coefficient for external focus in the first column of Table 6 and illustrated in Figure 1. This result may suggest that students who favor more corporate regulation to combat greed also require or expect external controls on behavior. The absence of such controls may induce a tendency for cheating behavior. This may suggest externally focused students who do not trust others are more likely to cheat, a particularly concerning result in light of Knack and Keefer ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>]) finding that trust is positively related to economic growth and Zak and Knack ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]) result that a lack of trust also leads to a reduced levels of investment; one would presume this includes educational effort as well. Future research should examine the link between an external focus and perceptions of trust, potentially using additional items in the survey and an interaction term between a measure of trust and the measure of external focus.</p> <p>An increase of one standard deviation in the risk aversion dimension, a preference for government intervention in the macroeconomy, correlates to a 10% reduction in a student's likelihood to report having cheated. Students scoring low on the risk aversion dimension, potentially considered capitalist along this dimension are termed <emph>entrepreneurial</emph> in Figure 1, may be more likely to accept volatility in return for reward and are more likely to admit having cheated.</p> <p>Students scoring high on the efficiency-oriented dimension, while neither more nor less likely to admit having cheated as demonstrated by the insignificance of the coefficient in the first model, admit to fewer incidents of cheating. A lower efficiency score, termed <emph>equality oriented</emph> in Figure 1, is associated with more frequent cheating behaviors when they do they report cheating. A one standard deviation movement toward equality suggests the quantity of cheating increases by 47%. Lower scores on this factor are coincident with favoring fair wages (based on social impact) and opposing the notion that corporate profits promote the common good. This result is in line with previous findings such as those by MacGregor and Stuebs ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref29">15</reflink>]), who found that students did not find it unethical to cheat when they believed they were at a disadvantage or that they would not gain an advantage through their dishonesty. Lower efficiency scores also seem to correlate with the neutralization techniques of condemning the condemners and denial of injury (LaBeff, Clark, Haines, & Diekhoff, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref30">14</reflink>]; McCabe, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]). The former may involve rationalizing cheating through a perceived need to stay ahead while the latter justification rests on the claim that cheating is acceptable if no harm is induced.</p> <p>Assuming that high scores on the efficiency oriented dimension and lower scores along the external focus and risk aversion dimensions are consistent with the free-market connotation of the term <emph>capitalist</emph>, our results suggest that market-oriented students may be no more likely to cheat than others. A lower external focus factor score corresponds to a decrease in the likelihood that a student self-reports cheating, but a lower risk-aversion factor corresponds to an increased probability of self-reported cheating.</p> <p>At the other end of the spectrum, the relationship between a preference for government involvement in markets and cheating seems to depend on the target of the government intervention. Students that show a preference for government intervention aimed at regulating corporations (high external focus) appear to be more likely to cheat, yet students who favor government involvement directed at economic stability and fairness (high risk aversion) seem less inclined to cheat.</p> <p>We therefore cannot clearly associate preferences for or against capitalism with cheating behavior. However, our results do suggest that when capitalism-oriented students do cheat, they are likely to engage in fewer cheating behaviors than their noncapitalist, equality-oriented, peers. Along the same lines, we note that students with efficiency, individualist, and risk-averse orientations demonstrated a lower propensity to engage in academic dishonesty. These students believed that rewards are generated based on productivity and behavior should be regulated as little as pragmatically possible, but were also in favor of a social safety net should market forces fail to adequately provide for market participants.</p> <hd id="AN0111480529-8">Conclusion</hd> <p>The finding that externally oriented and equality-oriented students cheat and at a higher rate than their peers is certainly alarming for academics and business leaders who may already be concerned about the cheating behavior of students with higher tolerances for risk. Notions of neoclassical economic inefficiency (e.g., self-interest leads to a tragedy of the commons or negative externalities that can only be corrected with regulatory action) may reinforce a distrustful worldview for students who are oriented toward equality and tend to be externally focused. Promoting such lessons in business and economics courses may strengthen a general skepticism with regard to market forces and lead to academic dishonesty. On the other hand, lessons about productivity and efficiency may provide support for internally focused students' belief that cheating is not necessary to be successful.</p> <p>If we assume that risk-averse students are less likely to be future entrepreneurs, the finding that risk aversion is correlated with a reduced likelihood of cheating raises concern about future proprietors and has important implications for business curricula. To the extent that the risk-reward paradigm is a tenet of free markets, business instructors should take care to delineate risks that are morally acceptable from those that might be considered dishonest.</p> <p>Finally, while it is possible to conservatively assume that most employees at large corporations are generally honest, media attention may be skewed toward coverage of the dishonest minority. Accepting such distortions as the norm may induce unethical behaviors in those individuals who place importance on equality and are willing to cheat if they believe others are cheating. The results presented here emphasize the importance of ethics education with an emphasis on honest business practices and the importance of trust and honesty as a foundational institution in a capitalist system.</p> <p>Our research suggests that there is indeed a relationship between preferences for free markets and academic dishonesty, but that this relationship is multifaceted. Future research should attempt to explore how and when these preferences are developed and how attitudes toward capitalism and free markets are affected by business instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0111480529-9">Notes</hd> <ref id="AN0111480529-10"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> While the data used in this study were collected in 2009 and 2010, the results have implications for current students. First, it is unlikely that student characteristics have changed significantly since the time of data collection. The 2009/2010 sample is representative of the current University student body in terms of gender, race, graduation rates, and in- versus out-of-state percentages. As well, institutional surveys of students conducted in 2009, 2011, and 2013 show that the percentage of students who report cheating is the same as in 2000, as reported in Burrus et al. ([3]). Further, a deep body of literature suggests that many factors related to academic dishonesty have remained relatively consistent over time. For example, factors associated with cheating such as age, fraternity/sorority membership and involvement in extracurricular activities found by Baird (1980) and Houston (1986) were confirmed more recently by Burrus et al. ([3]), Klein et al. ([12]) and Schuhmann et al. ([21]). Studies have consistently found that students with lower grades are more likely to cheat in college, including Bunn et al. ([16]), Kerkvliet and Sigmund (1999), Burrus et al. ([3]), and Schuhmann et al. ([21]). Attitudes toward the tenets of capitalism and the relationship between these attitudes and student behaviors have not been examined or tracked over time; hence this study serves as an important benchmark for future research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alternative factor extraction and rotation methods were used for comparison and with only minor quantitative differences but identical qualitative results.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0111480529-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Bennett, V. M., Pierce, L., Snyder, J. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2013). Customer driven misconduct: How competition corrupts business practices. Management Science, 59, 1725–1742.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruner, R. (2009, January 6). Captialism and trust. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://blogs.darden.virginia.edu/deansblog/2009/01/capitalism-and-trust/">http://blogs.darden.virginia.edu/deansblog/2009/01/capitalism-and-trust/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref23" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Burrus, R. T., McGoldrick, K., & Schuhmann, P. (2007). Self-reports of student cheating: Does a definition of cheating matter? Journal of Economic Education, 38, 3–16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref20" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Carpenter, D. D., Harding, T. S., Finelli, C. J., & Passow, H. J. (2004). Does academic dishonesty relate to unethical behavior in professional practice? An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 311–324.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carter, J. R., & Irons, M. D. (1991). Are economists different, and if so, why? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 171–177.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations fro getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref14" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Crittenden, V. L., Hanna, R. C., & Peterson, R. A. (2009a). Business Students' attitudes toward unethical behavior: A multi-country comparison. Marketing Letters, 20, 1–14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref15" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Crittenden, V. L., Hanna, R. C., & Peterson, R. A. (2009b). The cheating culture: A global societal phenomenon. Business Horizons, 52, 337–346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref5" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7, 159–171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iyer, R., & Eastman, J. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty: Are business students different from other college students? Journal of Education for Business, 82, 101–110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein, H. A., Levenburg, N. M., McKendall, M., & Mothersello, W. (2007). Cheating during the college years: How do business school students compare? Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 197–206.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1251–1288.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E., Haines, V. J., & Diekhoff, G. M. (1990). Situational ethics and college student cheating. Sociological Inquiry, 60, 190–198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacGregor, J., & Stuebs, M. (2012). To cheat or not to cheat: Rationalizing academic impropriety. Accounting Education, 21, 265–287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCabe, D. L. (1992). The influence of situtational ethics on cheating among college students. Sociological Inquiry, 62, 365–374.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1995). Cheating among business students: A challenge for business leaders and educators. Journal of Management Education, 19, 205–218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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, 69–77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nowell, C., & Laufer, D. (1997). Undergraduate student cheating in the fields of business and economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 28, 3–12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roig, M., & Ballew, C. (1994). Attitudes toward cheating of self and others by college students and professors. The Psychological Record, 44, 3–12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schuhmann, P. W., Burrus, R. T., Barber, P. D., Graham, E., & Elikai, M. F. (2013). Using the scenario method to analyze cheating behaviors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11, 17–33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siben, M. (2010). Investing versus speculating: Short-term thinking and securities fraud. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.dstlegal.com/blog/2010/03/08/investing-speculating-short-term-thinking-securities-fraud/">http://www.dstlegal.com/blog/2010/03/08/investing-speculating-short-term-thinking-securities-fraud/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simha, A., Armstrong, J. P., & Albert, J. F. (2012). Who leads and who lags? A comparison of cheating attitudes and behaviors among leadership and business students. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 316–324.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sims, R. L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68, 207–211.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smyth, L. M., & Davis, J. R. (2004). Perceptions of dishonesty among two-year college students: Academic versus business situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 63–73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yezer, A. M., Goldfarb, R. S., & Poppen, P. J. (1996). Does studying economics discourage cooperation? Watch what we do, no what we say or how we play. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 177–186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zak, P. J., & Knack, S. (2001). Trust and growth. The Economic Journal, 111, 295–321.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Robert T. Burrus; Adam T. Jones and Peter W. Schuhmann</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref31"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1084172
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Capitalism and Crime in the Classroom: An Analysis of Academic Dishonesty and Latent Student Attitudes
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burrus%2C+Robert+T%2E%22">Burrus, Robert T.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jones%2C+Adam+T%2E%22">Jones, Adam T.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schuhmann%2C+Peter+W%2E%22">Schuhmann, Peter W.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Education+for+Business%22"><i>Journal of Education for Business</i></searchLink>. 2016 91(1):23-31.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Systems%22">Social Systems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prediction%22">Prediction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cheating%22">Cheating</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Risk%22">Risk</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Analysis%22">Factor Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Likert+Scales%22">Likert Scales</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Surveys%22">Student Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Surveys%22">Online Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Distributions%22">Statistical Distributions</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1110105
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0883-2323
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: University students' latent attitudes toward capitalism were quantified and used to predict self-reported cheating behaviors. Results suggest that the relationship between student academic dishonesty and attitudes toward capitalism are complex. Students indicating a strong degree of risk aversion are less likely to report cheating behaviors. Students demonstrating a preference for equality over efficiency, while no more likely to be cheaters, may cheat more often. Efficiency-minded students do not appear to be more likely to cheat, but may engage in fewer instances of cheating. Implications for curriculum development in economics and business programs are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 28
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1084172
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1084172
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1110105
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 23
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Systems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prediction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cheating
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Risk
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Likert Scales
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Distributions
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Capitalism and Crime in the Classroom: An Analysis of Academic Dishonesty and Latent Student Attitudes
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burrus, Robert T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jones, Adam T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schuhmann, Peter W.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2016
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0883-2323
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 91
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Education for Business
              Type: main
ResultId 1