Abstract
Since there are so few controls over detecting and preventing faculty misconduct, one of the most common ways in which it is discovered is through student reports (in other words, whistleblowing). Given the importance of student reports in bringing to light faculty’s ethical lapses, this paper seeks to understand what factors influence students’ likelihood to report faculty misconduct. We develop an empirical model that integrates the decision process of the Prosocial Organizational Behavior (POB) Model with insights from the emotional perspective on whistleblowing. Specifically, we use an experimental survey to examine how students’ perceived unfairness of the faculty misconduct, feelings of anger, and the students’ self-interest in the situation in conjunction with situational “cues for inaction” lead to the intention to blow the whistle. Overall, the results from our structural model partially support our theoretical model. Interestingly, these findings demonstrate that, in the case of faculty member misconduct, anger and perceptions of unfairness play a greater role than the more rational cost-benefit process of the POB model. These results could aid in development of ethics education for students and could also inform the development of university policies that encourage students to come forward when faced with faculty misconduct.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As one study concluded, although faculty member misconduct is not rampart, it is also not rare (Swazey et al. 1993).
This calculation is conservative since it only includes those respondents who substantially completed all of the survey.
Given the nature of the course, introductory managerial accounting, the questions are math type problems which, if given in advance, the students can clearly do better than those students who have not seen the questions. In the actual case, the average of “Professor Lewis’s” section was 20 % higher than the other sections (Jones and Spraakman 2011).
In order to control for any variation due to gender of the student or the instructor, the names were gender neutral. In addition, the scenario was randomly changed for the student’s and/or instructor’s gender.
We used reverse coded items to encourage respondents to actually pay attention to the questions they were reading. However, the use of reverse coded items requires that these items be transformed so that all of the items in a scale are in the same direction. We did this by performing the following transformation: new value = 8 − the old value. Therefore a high score (6 or 7) on this scale would represent a perceived unfair behavior of the instructor’s actions. Similarly, a low score (1 or 2) would represent a fair behavior by the instructor’s actions.
While others have argued that use of Paulhaus’ (1991) impression management scale is a more effective measure of social desirability response bias (SDRB), Cohen et al. (2007) demonstrated that there was no correlation between the “halo effect” and the SBRB.
Since these two items were reverse coded in the questionnaire a transformation was required in order to insure that high scores of this variable represented high levels of likelihood to whistleblow and low scores to represent low levels of likelihood to whistleblow. Thus, we performed the transformation: new value = 8 - the old value. We then calculated the average score for the variable likelihood to whistleblow by adding the individual scores of each item and dividing by the number of items. Therefore, a high score (6 or 7) on this scale would represent a high likelihood to whistle blow. Similarly, a low score (1 or 2) would represent a low likelihood to whistleblow.
We used the SmartPLS 2.0 software package (Ringle et al. 2005).
Note: Since there was not a significant effect between self-interest and the likelihood to whistleblow; therefore no mediation test was performed for hypothesis 6b.
The students in MacGregor and Steubs (2013) study were enrolled at a university that had a honor code that required students to report academic misconduct. Students who did not report misconduct violated the honor code.
Anderson et al. (1994) define interpersonal misconduct as sexual harassment, discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender, or faculty member using their position to manipulate or exploit others.
References
Allmon, D., Page, D., & Roberts, R. (2000). Determinants of perceptions of cheating: Ethical orientation, personality and demographics. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 411–424.
Anderson, M. S. (1999). Uncovering the covert: Research on academic misconduct. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences (pp. 283–314). Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
Anderson, M. S., Louis, K. S., & Earle, J. (1994). Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 65, 331–350.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2, 285–324.
Barnett, T. (1992). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between selected organizational characteristics and external whistleblowing by employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(12), 949–959.
Barnett, T., Bass, K., & Brown, G. (1994). Ethical ideology and ethical judgment regarding ethical issues in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 469–480.
Barnett, T., Bass, K., & Brown, G. (1996). Religiosity ethical ideology, and intentions to report a peer’s wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1161–1174.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bayer, A. E. (2000). Academic faculty deviance. In C. D. Bryant (Ed.), Encyclopedia of criminology and deviant behavior (pp. 1–3). London: Taylor and Francis.
Bernardi, R., Banzhoff, C., Martino, A., & Savasta, A. (2011). Cheating and whistleblowing in the classroom. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 15, 165–191.
Blenkinsopp, J., & Edwards, M. (2008). Chapter 8: On not blowing the whistle: Quiesecent silence as an emotion episode. In W. J. Zerbe, C. E. J. Härtel, & N. M. Ashkanasy (Eds.), Emotions, ethics and decision-making (research on emotion in organizations, volume 4) (pp. 181–206). London: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bloodgood, J., Turnley, W., & Mudrack, P. (2008). The influence of ethics instruction, religiosity, and intelligence on cheating behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 557–571.
Braxton, J. (2010). The criticality of norms to the functional imperatives of the social action system of college and university work. Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 416–429.
Braxton, J. M., & Bayer, A. E. (Eds.). (2004). Faculty and student classroom improprieties. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Braxton, J., Bayer, A., & Noseworthy, J. (2002). Students as tenuous agents of social control of professional misconduct. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(3), 101–124.
Braxton, J., Proper, E., & Bayer, A. (2011). Professors behaving badly: Faculty misconduct in graduate education. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Bray, N. J., & Del Favero, M. (2004). Sociological explanations for faculty and student classroom incivilities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 99, 9–19.
Brennan, N., & Kelly, J. (2007). A study of whistleblowing among trainee auditors. The British Accounting Review, 39, 61–87.
Brief, A. P., & Motowildo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviours. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725.
Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2006). Managing academic dishonesty in Australian universities: Implications for teaching, learning and scholarship. Accounting, Accountability and Performance, 2(1), 32–63.
Bruhn, J. G., Zajac, G., Al-Kazemi, A. A., & Prescott, L. D. (2002). Moral positions and academic conduct: Parameters of tolerance for ethics failure. Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 461–493.
Burton, B. K., & Near, J. P. (1995). Estimating the incidence of wrongdoing and whistle-blowing: Results of a study using randomized response technique. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 17–30.
Cahn, S. M. (1986). Saints and scamps: Ethics in academia. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
Chapell, M., Casey, D., De La Cruz, C., Ferrell, J., Forman, J., Newsham, M., et al. (2004). Bullying in college by students and teachers. Adolescence, 39, 53–64.
Chen, G., Gully, S., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods., 4, 62–83.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chory-Assad, R. (2002). Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation, learning, and aggression. Communication Quarterly, 50(1), 58–77.
Christensen Hughes, J., & McCabe, D. L. (2006). Understanding academic misconduct. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 36(1), 49–63.
Cohen, J., Holder-Webb, L., Sharp, D., & Pant, L. (2007). The effects of perceived fairness on opportunistic behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24, 1119–1138.
Cohen, J., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (2001). An examination of differences in ethical decision-making between Canadian business students and accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(4), 319–336.
Curtis, M. B., & Taylor, E. (2009). Whistleblowing in public accounting: Influence of identity disclosure, situational context, and personal characteristics. Journal of Accounting and the Public Interest, 9(1), 191–220.
DeCoo, W. (2002). Crisis on campus: Confronting academic misconduct. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dill, D. (2003). The degradation of the academic ethic: Teaching, research, and self regulation. Plenary Session of the Society for Research in Higher Education Conference (SRHE), December 17, 2003, London, UK.
Dozier, J. B., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10, 823–836.
Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. (1991). Modeling Galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteering. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 770.
Edwards, M., Ashkanasy, N., & Gardner, J. (2009). Deciding to speak up or remain silent following observed wrongdoing: The role of discrete emotion and climate of silence. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organization (pp. 83–109). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Elliott, T., Marquis, L., & Neal, C. (2012). Business ethics perspectives: Faculty plagiarism and fraud. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1234-S.
Firmin, M., Burger, A., & Blosser, M. (2009). Affective responses of students who witness classroom cheating. Educational Research Quarterly, 32, 3–15.
Flint, N., & Johnson, B. (2011). Towards fairer university assessment. London: Routledge.
Flory, S., Phillips, T., Reidenbach, R., & Robin, R. (1992). A multidimensional analysis of selected issues in accounting. The Accounting Review, 67(2), 284–302.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.
Fritzsche, D. J., & Oz, E. (2007). Personal values’ influence on the ethical dimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 335–343.
Geisser, S. (1975). The predictive sample reuse method with applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 320–328.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(June), 9–22.
Grimes, P. W. (2004). Dishonesty in academics and business: A cross-cultural evaluation of student attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 273–290.
Gundlach, M., Douglas, S., & Martinko, M. (2003). A decision to blow the whistle: A social information processing framework. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 107–123.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.
Haidt, J., Koller, S., & Dias, M. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613–628.
Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, G. T. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Henik, E. (2008). Mad as hell or scared stiff? The effects of value conflict and emotions on potential whistleblowers. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 111–119.
Hollings, J. (2012). Let the story go: The role of emotion in the decision-making process of reluctant, vulnerable witness or whistleblower. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1361-z.
Houston, M. B., & Bettencourt, L. A. (1999). But that’s not fair! An exploratory study of student perceptions of instructor fairness. Journal of Marketing Education, 21, 84–96.
Hutcherson, C. A., & Gross, J. J. (2011). The moral emotions: A social-functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 719–737. doi:10.1037/a0022408.
Jenkel, & Haen, (2012). Influences on students’ decisions to report cheating: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10, 123–136.
Jones, J., & Spraakman, G. (2011). A case of academic misconduct: Does self-interest rule? Accounting Perspectives, 10(1), 1–22.
Kelley, P., & Chang, P. (2007). A typology of university ethical lapses: Types, levels of seriousness and originating location. Journal of Higher Education, 78(4), 402–429.
Kelly, P., Agle, B., & DeMott, J. (2005). Mapping our progress: Identifying, categorizing, and comparing universities’ ethics infrastructures. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3(2–4), 205–229.
King, G. (1999). The implications of an organization’s structure on whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(4), 315–326.
Kirsch, I. (1995). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy: A concluding commentary. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 341–345). New York, NY: Plenum.
Kisamore, J., Stone, T., & Jawahar, I. (2007). Academic integrity: The relationship between individual and situational factors on misconduct contemplations. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 381–394.
Knoll, & Van Dick, (2013). Do I hear the whistle….? A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 349–362.
Lawson, R. (2004a). Business students’ willingness to engage in academic dishonesty and whistleblowing. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 9, 1–19.
Lawson, R. (2004b). Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the “Real World”? Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 189–199.
Lerner, J., & Tiedens, L. (2006). Portrait of the anger decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 115–137.
Loeb, S. (1990). Whistleblowing and accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 6(2), 281–294.
Lohmo¨ller, J. B. (1989). Latent variables path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.
MacFarlane, B., Zhang, J., & Pun, A. (2012). Academic integrity: A review of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 1, 1–20.
MacGregor, J., & Steubs, M. (2013). The Silent Samaritan syndrome: Why the whistle remains unblown. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1639-9.
MacNab, B., & Worthley, R. (2008). Self-efficacy as an intrapersonal predictor for internal whistleblowing: A US and Canada examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 407–421.
McCabe, D., Butterfield, K., & Trevino, L. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(3), 294–305.
McKay, R. B., Kidwell, L., & Kling, J. (2007). Faculty ethics from the perspective of college of business administrators. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 10(1), 105–124.
Medina, B. (2011). To encourage ethical behavior by graduate advisers, 3 scholars call for detailed codes of conduct, The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 7).
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 277–297.
Miceli, M., & Near, J. (1985). Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decisions. Personnel Psychology, 38, 525–544.
Miceli, M., & Near, J. (2005). Standing up and standing by: What predicts blowing the whistle on organizational wrongdoing. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 24, 95–136.
Miceli, M., Near, J., & Dworkin, T. (2008). Whistleblowing in organizations. New York: Routledge.
Miceli, M., Van Scotter, J. R., Near, J., & Rehg, M. (2001). Responses to perceived organizational wrongdoing: Do perceiver characteristics matter? In J. Darley, D. Messick, & R. Tyler (Eds.), Social influences on ethical behavior in organizations (pp. 119–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Mintz, s, & Morris, R. (2011). Ethical Obligations and Decision Making in Accounting. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Mowday, R. T. (1991). Equity theory predictions of behaviour in organizations. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behaviour (5th ed., pp. 111–131). New York: McGraw Hill.
Murphy, K., & Tyler, T. (2008). Procedural justice and compliance behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology., 38, 652–668.
Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, (2005). Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 267–281.
Near, J., & Miceli, M. (1985). Organizational dissendence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1–16.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1986). Retaliation against whistleblowers: Predictors and effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 137–145.
Near, J., & Miceli, M. (2011). Integrating models of whistleblowing and wrongdoing: A proposal for a new research agenda. In J. Jetten & M. Hornsey (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference, and defiance (pp. 302–323). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Patel, C. (2003). Some cross-cultural evidence on whistle-blowing as an internal control mechanism. Journal of International Accounting Research, 2, 69–96.
Perez-Pena, D. (2012). Harvard students in cheating scandal say collaboration was accepted. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/education/students-of-harvard-cheating-scandal-say-group-work-was-accepted.html?_r=0.
Pershing, J. (2003). To snitch or not to snitch? Applying the concept of neutralization techniques to the enforcement of occupational misconduct. Sociological Perspectives, 46(2), 149–178.
Rabl, T., & Kuhlmann, T. M. (2008). Understanding corruption in organizations—development and empirical assessment of an action model. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 477–495.
Rennie, S. C., & Crosby, J. R. (2002). Students’ perceptions of whistle blowing: Implications for selfregulation. A questionnaire and focus group survey. Medical Education, 36(2), 173–179.
Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, S. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta, Hamburg, http://www.smartpls.de.
Robie, C., & Kidwell, R. (2003). The “ethical” professor and the undergraduate student: Current perceptions of moral behavior among business school faculty. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1, 153–172.
Robinson, S. R., & Curtis, M. (2012). The effects of contextual and wrongdoing attributes on whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 109–124.
Rodriguez, N. (2010). Former University of Louisville dean Robert Felner faces 63 months in prison, restitution. Retrieved Dec 31, 2013 from http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100108/NEWS01/1080376/Former-University-Louisville-dean-Robert-Felner-faces-63-months-prison-restitution.
Rose, M., & Fischer, K. (1998). Do authorship policies impact students’ judgments of perceived wrongdoing? Ethics and Behavior, 8(1), 59–79.
Rosvosky, M., & Hartley, M. (2002). Evaluation and the academy: Are we doing the right thing? Grade inflation and letters of recommendation. Cambridge: Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Rothschild, J., & Meithe, T. (1999). Whistleblower disclosures and management retaliation: The battle to control information about organizational corruption. Work and Occupation, 26, 107–128.
Schmidt, T., Houston, M., Battencourt, L., & Bughton, P. (2003). The impact of voice and justification on students’ perceptions of professors’ fairness. Journal of Marketing Education., 25(2), 177–186.
Schoderbek, P. P., & Deshpande, S. P. (1996). Impression management, overclaiming, and perceived unethical conduct: the role of male and female managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(4), 409–415.
Schweitzer, M., & Gibson, D. (2007). Fairness, feelings, and ethical decision-making: Consequences of violating community standards of fairness. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 287–301.
Simon, C., Jim, R., Carr, J., Mccullough, C., Morgan, S., Oleson, T., et al. (2004). Gender, student perceptions, institutional commitments and academic dishonesty: Who reports in academic dishonesty cases? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 75–90.
Spooner, R. (2012). Curtin’s cash for grades scandal widens. WAtoday. Retrieved May 13, 2013 from http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/curtins-cash-for-grades-scandal-widens-20121207-2b1c7.html.
Stevens, R. E., Harris, O. J., & Williamson, $. S. (1993). A comparison of ethical evaluations of business school faculty and students: A pilot study. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(8), 611–619.
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 36, 111–147.
Stone, T., Kisamore, J., Kluemper, J., & Jawahar, J. (2012). Whistle-blowing in the classroom? Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 12(5), 11–26.
Styles, A., & French, K. (2010). Curtin lecturer implicated in ‘sex-for-marks’ scandal with students. WA Today.
Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S., & Lewis, K. S. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist, 81, 542–553.
Treviño, L. K., & Victor, B. (1992). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 36–64.
Treviño, L., & Weaver, G. (2003). Managing Ethics in Business Organizations: Social Scientific Perspectives. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Turner, S. (1999). Research universities and scientific misconduct: Histories, policies and the future. In J. M. Braxton & A. E. Bayer (Eds.), Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences (pp. 75–98). Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
Twale, D., & De Luca, B. (2008). Faculty incivility: The rise of the academic bully culture and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vadera, A., Aguilera, R., & Caza, B. (2009). Making sense of whistle-blowing’s antecedents: Learning from research on identity and ethics programs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(4), 553–586.
Valentine, S., & Kidwell, L. (2008). Business students’ ethical evaluation of faculty misconduct. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 287–300.
Van Scotter, J., Miceli, M., Near, J., & Rehg, M. (2004). What difference can one person make? Organizational dependence relations as predictors of whistleblowing effectiveness. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and Change Management, 4, 11–20.
Venard, B., & Hanafi, M. (2008). Organizational isomorphism and corruption in financial institutions: Empirical research in emerging countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 481–498.
Victor, B., Trevino, L., & Shapiro, D. (1993). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: The influence of justice evaluations and social context factors. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 235–263.
Wasley, P. (2010). Auburn U. Settles With Professor Who Handed Out Easy Grades to Athletes The Chronicle of Higher Education. 53.49.
Wold, H. (1979) Model Construction and Evaluation When Theoretical Knowledge is Scarce: An Example of the Use of Partial Least Squares (Cahiers du De′partement D E′conome′trie, Faculte′ des Sciences E′ conomiques et Sociales, Universite′ de Gene`ve, Gene`ve).
Youngblood, S., Trevino, L., & Favia, M. (1992). Reactions to unjust dismissal and third-party dispute resolution: A justice framework. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 283–307.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Version 1: Low Self-Interest/Uniform Grading Policy
Chris was going over his/her notes to prepare for his/her Introductory Management Accounting final exam. The course was challenging and, although Chris was a straight A student, he/she was struggling to maintain a B in the course. Chris’s friend, who had a much lower GPA than Chris, was confident he/she would get an A in the course but he/she was taking it from Professor Lewis.
Chris’s friend said that Professor Lewis didn’t have the greatest teaching skills but he/she had the desire to help the students succeed. Of all the professors who taught the course, only Professor Lewis showed advance copies of the quizzes and exams to his/her students; Chris knew that students in Professor Lewis’s section were getting higher grades than students in other sections.
Once word had gotten around about Professor Lewis, students from other sections “unofficially” attended the last class where the final exam was presented. Although his/her friend told Chris about Professor Lewis, Chris did not “unofficially” attend Professor Lewis’s class. It bothered Chris that he/she worked so hard and others were going to do better with little effort.
The more Chris thought about Professor Lewis’s actions, the more he/she thought that Professor Lewis was trying to make the students happy so that they would not complain about his/her poor teaching skills. Chris figured that since the University’s grading policy was to check for class grades that were out of line with the overall average, it was likely that Professor Lewis’s students would have their grades reduced. However, he/she was not so sure if the University would be aware that Professor Lewis had shown the exam.
Chris is considering whether or not to report that Professor Lewis had shown the exam to his/her students.
Version 2: Low Self-Interest/Uniform Grading Policy
Chris was going over his/her notes to prepare for his/her Introductory Management Accounting final exam. The course was challenging and, although Chris was a straight A student, he/she was struggling to maintain a B in the course. Chris’s friend, who had a much lower GPA than Chris, was confident he/she would get an A in the course but he/she was taking it from Professor Lewis.
Chris’s friend said that Professor Lewis didn’t have the greatest teaching skills but he/she had the desire to help the students succeed. Of all the professors who taught the course, only Professor Lewis showed advance copies of the quizzes and exams to his/her students, Chris knew that students in Professor Lewis’s section were getting higher grades than students in other sections.
Once word had gotten around about Professor Lewis, students from other sections “unofficially” attended the last class where the final exam was presented. Although his/her friend told Chris about Professor Lewis, Chris did not “unofficially” attend Professor Lewis’s class. It bothered Chris that he/she worked so hard and others were going to do better with little effort.
The more Chris thought about Professor Lewis’s actions, the more he/she thought that Professor Lewis was trying to make the students happy so that they would not complain about his/her poor teaching skills. Chris figured that since the University’s grading policy gave the professor total discretion over student grades, it was unlikely Professor Lewis’ students’ grades would be reduced, because they were higher than other classes. He/she figured it was also unlikely that the University would be aware that Professor Lewis had shown the exam.
Chris is considering whether or not to report that Professor Lewis had shown the exam to his/her students.
Version 3: High Self-Interest/Discretionary Grading Policy
Chris was going over his/her notes to prepare for his/her Introductory Management Accounting final exam. The course was challenging and, although Chris usually struggled to get a C+ or B− in his/her other courses, he/she was confident he/she would get an A in this course thanks to Professor Lewis.
Chris knew that Professor Lewis didn’t have the greatest teaching skills but he/she had a desire to help students succeed. Of all the Professors who taught the course, only Professor Lewis showed advance copies of quizzes and exams to his/her students. Chris knew that students in Professor Lewis’s section were getting higher grades than students in other sections.
Once word had gotten around about Professor Lewis, students from other sections “unofficially” attended the last class where the final exam was presented. Chris told his/her friend about Professor Lewis, but his/her friend would not “unofficially” attend class. His/her friend felt that Professor Lewis was trying to make the students happy so that they would not complain about his/her poor teaching skills and it was not fair that students were doing well with little effort.
The more Chris thought about Professor Lewis’ actions, the more he/she thought that his/her friend was right. Chris figured that since the University’s grading policy gave the professor total discretion over student grades, it was unlikely Professor Lewis’ students’ grades would be reduced, because they were higher than other classes and Chris would get the A he/she needed to maintain the required GPA. He/she figured it was also unlikely that the University would be aware that Professor Lewis had shown the exam.
Chris is considering whether or not to report that Professor Lewis had shown the final exam to his/her students.
Version 4: High Self-Interest/Uniform Grading Policy
Chris was going over his/her notes to prepare for his/her Introductory Management Accounting final exam. The course was challenging and, although Chris usually struggled to get a C+ or B− in his/her other courses, he/she was confident he/she would get an A in this course thanks to Professor Lewis.
Chris knew that Professor Lewis didn’t have the greatest teaching skills but he/she had a desire to help students succeed. Of all the Professors who taught the course, only Professor Lewis showed advance copies of quizzes and exams to his/her students. Chris knew that students in Professor Lewis’ section were getting higher grades than students in other sections.
Once word had gotten around about Professor Lewis, students from other sections “unofficially” attended the last class where the final exam was presented. Chris told his/her friend about Professor Lewis, but his/her friend would not “unofficially” attend class. His/her friend felt that Professor Lewis was trying to make the students happy so that they would not complain about his/her poor teaching skills and it was not fair that students were doing well with little effort.
The more Chris thought about Professor Lewis’ actions, the more he/she thought that his/her friend was right. Chris figured that since the University’s grading policy was to check for class grades that were out of line with the overall average, it was likely Professor Lewis’ students would have their grades reduced and he/she may not get the A he/she needed to maintain the required GPA. However, he/she was not so sure if the University would be aware that Professor Lewis had shown the exam.
Chris is considering whether or not to report that Professor Lewis had shown the final exam to his/her students.
Primary measures
Likelihood to whistleblow | |
Item 1 | If you were Chris, how likely is it that you would report that the Professor has shown the final exam? (1 very likely, 7 very unlikely) (reverse coded) |
Item 2 | If my friends were in the same position as Chris, the probability that they would report the Professor is… (1 very likely, 7 very unlikely) (reverse coded) |
Perceived unfairness | |
Your views on the Professors actions: showing quizzes and final exam is.. | |
Item 1 | 1 just; 7 unjust |
Item 2 | 1 unfair; 7 fair; (reverse coded) |
Item 3 | 1 morally right; 7 morally wrong |
Anger | |
If you were Chris, how would you feel about Professor Lewis showing the exams to his/her students: | |
Item 1 | Happy? (1 not at all/7 very much) (reverse coded) |
Item 2 | Angry? (1 not at all/7 very much) |
Self-interest | |
0 = Student was not in the classroom where the professor showed the final exam; | |
1 = Student was in the classroom where the professor showed the final exam in the classroom | |
Grading policy | |
0 = no uniform university wide grading policy; | |
1 = there is a uniform university wide grading policy | |
Ethics training | |
0 = The student has not taken any course on ethics; | |
1 = The student has taken at least one course on ethics | |
GPA (cumulative GPA scale) | |
| |
Nationality | |
0 = The student was not born in Canada 1 = The student was born in Canada | |
General self-efficacy | |
To what extent do you agree or disagree (1 strongly disagree; 5 strongly agree): | |
Item 1 | In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me. |
Item 2 | I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor that I set my mind to. |
Item 3 | I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges |
Item 4 | I am confident that I can perform effectively many different tasks. |
Item 5 | Compared to other people, I can do most tasks well. |
Item 6 | Even when things are tough I can perform quite well |
Whistleblowing self-efficacy | |
To what extent do you agree or disagree (1 strongly disagree; 5 strongly agree): | |
Item 1 | If I were to report an improper act committed by a faculty member, I would get results. |
Item 2 | I know I could get the university to take action if I were to lodge a complaint. |
Item 3 | When I have problems at the University I know how to get the right people involved to solve them |
Ethical orientation: idealism | |
To what extent do you agree or disagree (1 strongly disagree; 5 strongly agree): | |
Item 1 | A person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to a small degree. |
Item 2 | Risks to another should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might be. |
Item 3 | The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained. |
Item 4 | One should never psychologically or physically harm another person. |
Item 5 | One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare of another individual. |
Ethical orientation: relativism | |
To what extent do you agree or disagree (1 strongly disagree; 5 strongly agree): | |
Item 1 | No rule concerning lying can be formulated; whether a lie is permissible or not permissible totally depends upon the situation |
Item 2 | Whether a lie is judged to moral or immoral depends upon the circumstances surrounding the action. |
Descriptive statistics and measurement model
Construct/item | Mean | Standard deviation | Standardized loads |
|---|---|---|---|
Likelihood to whistleblow | |||
Item 1 | 3.58 | 2.11 | 0.90 |
Item 2 | 3.36 | 2.05 | 0.86 |
Perceived unfairness | |||
Item 1 | 5.29 | 1.95 | 0.94 |
Item 2 | 5.48 | 1.91 | 0.93 |
Item 3 | 5.54 | 1.84 | 0.92 |
Anger | |||
Item 1 | 4.37 | 2.19 | 0.92 |
Item 2 | 3.61 | 2.21 | 0.91 |
Self-interest | 1 | ||
Grading policy | 1 | ||
Control variables | |||
Ethical training | 1 | ||
GPA | 1 | ||
Nationality | 1 | ||
Gender | 1 | ||
General self-efficacy | |||
Item 1 | 4.25 | 0.71 | 0.81 |
Item 2 | 4.21 | 0.82 | 0.81 |
Item 3 | 4.08 | 0.74 | 0.81 |
Item 4 | 4.11 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
Item 5 | 3.87 | 0.88 | 0.81 |
Whistleblowing Self-efficacy | |||
Item 1 | 3.22 | 0.97 | 0.86 |
Item 2 | 3.13 | 1.09 | 0.89 |
Item 3 | 2.97 | 1.09 | 0.80 |
Idealism | |||
Item 1 | 3.96 | 0.96 | 0.78 |
Item 2 | 3.81 | 0.98 | 0.80 |
Item 3 | 3.85 | 1.06 | 0.82 |
Item 4 | 4.38 | 0.88 | 0.78 |
Item 5 | 4.34 | 0.83 | 0.83 |
Relativism | |||
Item 1 | 3.09 | 1.11 | 0.88 |
Item 2 | 3.37 | 1.09 | 0.90 |
Appendix 2
The following tables report the correlation results for the four versions (conditions) of scenario.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, J.C., Spraakman, G. & Sánchez-Rodríguez, C. What’s in it for Me? An Examination of Accounting Students’ Likelihood to Report Faculty Misconduct. J Bus Ethics 123, 645–667 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2015-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2015-5