The purpose of this exercise is to explore ethics and decision- making within organizations.
Assignment Guidelines
After reading the case:
1) Name this section ‘Identification of Dilemma’ and address the following (1 page):
a. What is the overall ethical dilemma?
b. Who can be impacted by the dilemma (people and/or groups)?
2) Provide a brief overview of 2 Frameworks (Approaches) to Managerial Ethics (1+ pages). Name this section ‘Ethical Frameworks’. Name each sub-section after the ethical frameworks you choose.
a. Choose from: Utilitarian, Self-Interest (Ego), Rights, Justice,
Religious/Deontological, or Social/Cultural.
b. The textbook, presentations ( and video) and the Granitz & Loewy (2007)
journal article (pdf) provide brief explanations for the approaches above. Expand on these with external sources. Use in-paper citations and list the additional references at the end of your paper.
c. This is not copy/paste from the internet. Be sure to write this in your own words based on your research.
d. This section of your paper should not reference the case. Instead focus on
what you’ve learned (researched) regarding each ethical approach.
3) Provide outcomes to this ethical dilemma (1+ pages). Name this section ‘Evaluation of Ethical Dilemma’. Address the following in this section:
a. Based on what you’ve learned about George from the case, which framework
(from the two you’ve explained in the previous section) do you believe will guide George in this situation? Why do you believe he will go this direction?
b. What are the implications of this decision (who does it benefit? What are the
positive implications? What are the negative implications?)
c. If George had been guided by the other framework addressed in section 2, what would have been the positive and negative implications?
d. There’s no right/wrong answer choice, so I won’t grade this on your ability to
choose a particular ethical framework. Instead, I’m more concerned with your
ability to describe why you chose the approach and what happens next based on the approach. These will help me assess whether or not you understand the concepts.
e. No need for additional outside resources in this section, as you should refer to the case and the information provided from section 2.
Applying Ethical Theories: Interpreting
and Responding to Student Plagiarism
Neil Granitz
Dana Loewy
ABSTRACT. Given the tremendous proliferation of
student plagiarism involving the Internet, the purpose of
this study is to determine which theory of ethical rea-
soning students invoke when defending their transgres-
sions: deontology, utilitarianism, rational self-interest,
Machiavellianism, cultural relativism, or situational ethics.
Understanding which theory of ethical reasoning students
employ is critical, as preemptive steps can be taken by
faculty to counteract this reasoning and prevent plagiarism.
Additionally, it has been demonstrated that unethical
behavior in school can lead to unethical behavior in
business; therefore, correcting unethical behavior in
school can have a positive impact on organizational ethics.
To meet this objective, a content analysis was conducted
on the written records of students formally charged with
plagiarizing at a large West Coast university. Each case was
classified according to the primary ethical reasoning that
the student used to justify plagiarism. Results indicate that
students predominately invoke deontology, situational
ethics, and Machiavellianism. Based on these findings,
specific recommendations are offered to curb plagiarism.
KEY WORDS: academic dishonesty, ethical reasoning,
history of copyright, historic views of plagiarism, Internet
plagiarism, teaching academic integrity, theories of ethics
Introduction
While the use of the Internet has led to improved
efficiency and effectiveness in teaching, it has also
created an explosion in student plagiarism (Fialkoff
and St. Lifer, 2002; Groark et al., 2001; Rimer,
2003). Through online term paper mills (http://
www.cheater.com, http://www.schoolsucks.com),
Google searches, as well as access to library databases,
students literally have a world of information at their
fingertips. In a 2001 survey, conducted by McCabe,
41% of undergraduate students admitted that they
had engaged in one or more instances of ‘‘cut and
paste’’ plagiarism involving the Internet [Center for
Academic Integrity (CAI), 2002–2003]. Addition-
ally, non-Internet plagiarism continues to be a
problem. While instructors and students have tools
such as Turnitin.com at their disposal, a better ap-
proach would be to understand student reasoning
about Internet plagiarism and to devise methods to
stop it before it happens.
Past research has demonstrated that when faced
with an ethical dilemma, individuals will form their
ethical reasoning and moral intent based upon dif-
ferent theories of ethics (Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga,
1993; Mengue, 1998). Several researchers have
This research is the result of a long-standing interest in new
technology and plagiarism. Very early ideas on this subject
were presented by the authors at the ABC West Conference
in New Orleans in March 2003.
Dr. Neil Granitz teaches Marketing at Cal State Fullerton. He
has published articles in the Journal of Business Ethics,
Journal of Marketing Education, and the Quarterly
Journal of E-Commerce. Moreover, Neil is a consultant
for the fast-food industry, the airline industry, and an Internet
advertising agency. Before earning his MBA at McGill
University in Montreal and a Ph.D. in Marketing at
Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, Neil Granitz
gained extensive corporate experience in market and consumer
research. Neil’s research focuses on three areas: (1) Instilling
meaning and motivation into marketing education, (2) E-
Commerce: Development and effect on marketing educators
and practitioners, and (3) Awareness of ethics: Its influence on
the internal culture of organization.
Dr. Dana Loewy teaches Business Communication at Cal State
Fullerton. Having earned a Ph.D. from the University of
Southern California in English and translation, she is a well-
published freelance translator, interpreter, and brand-name
consultant. Fluent in several languages, among them German
and Czech, Dana has published critical articles in many areas
of interest and various poetry as well as prose translations,
most notably the 1997 volume The Early Poetry of
Jaroslav Seifert from Northwestern University Press.
Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 72:293–306 ! Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9171-9
demonstrated that students engage in varied rea-
soning based on these different theories: deontology,
utilitarianism, rational self-interest, Machiavellian-
ism, etc. (Ashworth and Bannister, 1997; Lewis and
Speck, 1990; McLafferty and Foust, 2004; Nickell
and Herzog, 1996; Swinyard et al., 1989; Webster
and Harmon, 2002). These findings should be tested
in the specific context of plagiarism.
The purpose of this paper is to understand the
reasoning students use when justifying the act of
plagiarism. More specifically, we have identified two
objectives:
(1) To determine which theory of ethical rea-
soning students invoke when defending the
act of plagiarism;
(2) Based on the theory of ethical reasoning to
which perpetrators appeal, to develop instructor
recommendations to prevent plagiarism in all
student populations.
Additionally, we will explore the data for demo-
graphic differences.
This research is significant for several reasons.
First, faculty members are looking for guidance in
recognizing and dealing with plagiarism. This study
will uncover student reasoning justifying plagiarism
and lead to specific action-oriented recommenda-
tions that faculty members can follow to reduce
plagiarism. Second, it has been demonstrated that
unethical behavior in school can lead to unethical
behavior in business and to financial ruin (Brubaker,
2003; Sims, 1993); hence, understanding and cor-
recting unethical behavior in school can have a
positive impact on organizational ethics and corpo-
rate profitability. Additionally, ethical learning about
copyright infringement may carry over to similar
unethical student behaviors such as illegally down-
loading music or movies from the Internet (Mark,
2004). Third, as the findings of this study are dis-
seminated to universities, academic disciplines, pol-
icy makers, and school boards, this research can serve
as a platform for designing and allocating funding for
programs that encourage originality, instruct in
academic honesty, and teach educators how to deal
with cheating. Finally, the bulk of past research has
focused on understanding the different determinants
(age, sex, locus of control, personality type, and
religious orientation) of general student cheating
(Allmon et al., 2000; Coleman and Mahaffey, 2000;
Crown and Spiller, 1998; Rawwas and Isakson,
2000; West et al., 2004); there is a dearth of
empirical research specifically on student plagiarism
and the reasoning behind this dishonest behavior.
In the next section, a brief historical overview
showing various changing attitudes toward plagia-
rism will be presented. Then, some of the back-
ground literature and statistics on plagiarism will be
reviewed. This will be followed by a discourse on
the different ethical theories and how they relate to
plagiarism. The methodology and results will then
be discussed, leading to the findings and recom-
mendations.
Background
The historical perspective
In traditional Western academic circles, plagiarism is
universally despised. In print and on the Internet,
definitions of cheating and instructions on how to
avoid it abound (Auer and Krupar, 2001; McKenzie,
1998; McLafferty and Foust, 2004; Ryan, 1998;
Sokolik, 2000). Yet rigorous studies of the phe-
nomenon, especially the justification for such
behavior, are still far and between (http://
www.academicintegrity.org). Thomas Mallon’s Sto-
len Words (1989) is sometimes called a definitive
investigation of intellectual theft, but in the absence
of other works about plagiarism this assessment
seems premature. As opposed to Mallon’s categorical
moral stance, Marilyn Randall’s Pragmatic Plagiarism:
Authorship, Profit and Power offers this contemporary
academic relativism of literary theft as a subversive,
almost revolutionary act: ‘‘Within the general frame
of ‘postmodernism,’ I posit ‘plagiarism’ as a mode of
guerilla warfare directed against an oppressive
hegemony’’ (Randall, 2001, p. xiii).
Mallon uncompromisingly denounces such apol-
ogetic rationalizations of plagiarism. In the afterword
to the 2000 edition of Stolen Words, he criticizes
those contemporary academics who, like Randall,
invoke Roland Barthes’ philosophy, casting doubt
on the preeminence of authorship and originality in
traditional Western thought.
Permissive attitudes are nothing new, albeit for
different reasons. In Aristotelian poetics, imitation
(mimesis) is a natural, instinctual quality of humans
and is seen in a positive light as a vehicle leading
294 Neil Granitz and Dana Loewy
both to pleasure and learning. Likewise, it is well
known that the Romans borrowed from and emu-
lated the Greeks. Moreover, all biblical books,
written over a period of approximately 1100–
1300 years, have been distorted by translation errors
and two or three millennia of manuscript copying by
ancient and medieval scribes (Hoberman, 1985).
In antiquity, in the Middle Ages, and in the
Renaissance, ideas of others were used liberally and
often without acknowledgment. In Shakespeare’s
time, theater companies staged plays that usually
bore no name of an author and were changed at will
by the actors after purchase (Clark, 1996). The Bard
himself adapted many a theme from predecessors.
Ovid’s Metamorphoses strongly influenced Shake-
speare, Dante, Chaucer, Milton, and other writers,
providing them with powerful classical myths.
Subsequently, literature featured themes and motifs
– for instance, the Faustus myth – that recur
throughout the history of letters.
It was not until the late 15th century that the
introduction of printing began to transform the idea
of authorship and, hence, that piracy emerged as a
threat, necessitating protection. Copyright was first
established in 1662 by the Licensing Act and by the
Statute of Anne in 1709 (UK Patent Office, 2004).
Only when ideas become a commodity worth
selling and protecting, can they also be stolen. Not
coincidentally, the Latin word plagiarius means
kidnapper. The emergence of copyright and the
insistence of the Romantics on originality (inspira-
tion perceived as divine afflatus) have shaped our
modern perception of plagiarism as morally repre-
hensible.
To describe the injurious effect of lifting ideas
from others, in today’s academic arena it is fre-
quently noted that plagiarism tips the scales of fair
competition, hampers learning, dilutes individual
and class grades, and cheapens the value of honest
work, hurting the perpetrator, other students, as well
as their professors (‘‘Did You Know?’’, 2004; Park,
2000; Ryan, 1998). Curiously, more than 30% of
instructors did nothing to pursue cheating although
they knew it was going on in their classes, as
McCabe found in his 1999 study involving more
than 1000 instructors at 21 college campuses. The
student respondents stated that they were more
likely to cheat if a faculty member was known as
lenient toward cheaters (CAI, 2002–2003).
Our goal was to view plagiarism historically,
briefly tracing changing attitudes toward the phe-
nomenon and the motivations and rationalizations
driving these changes. We were also interested in
juxtaposing the practice of plagiarism before the
advent of the Internet with the emergence of what
has been called ‘‘new plagiarism’’ (McKenzie, 1998;
Ryan, 1998).
Plagiarism – a new epidemic
The truth is that the available statistics are disturbing
indeed. At Virginia Tech, officials stated that
cheating involving electronic media rose dramati-
cally within one academic year, from 80 cases in
1995–1996 to 280 incidents in 1997 (Zack, 1998).
As reported by USA Today on May 21, 2001, at UC
Berkeley, academic dishonesty cases doubled be-
tween 1995 and 1999 alone (Groark et al., 2001). A
large 2000/2001 survey conducted by McCabe
indicates that cheating is rampant in high schools as
well. More than half of the high-school students
have plagiarized writing assignments in some form
specifically with the help of the Internet (CAI,
2002–2003).
But problems remain when we try to estimate the
true extent of cyber-plagiarism. Faculty members do
not always pursue and report dishonest behavior,
many cheaters probably get away, and some plagia-
rists may lie in interviews (Ryan, 1998). Compli-
cating matters further, as Roig (2001) shows, is the
fact that not even college professors always agree on
what constitutes plagiarism.
However, evidence of a rise in Internet-facilitated
plagiarism is the growth and apparent profitability of
electronic paper-mills that thrive on selling prefab-
ricated as well as custom-written assignments online
(‘‘Plagiarism and the Internet,’’ 2004). Kenneth
Sahr, one of the co-owners of schoolsucks.com, a
website that features advertising and about 5000 free
downloadable documents, claims two million hits
every month (Flynn, 2001).
Speculation about why Internet plagiarism is growing
Most sources (McKenzie, 1998; McLafferty and
Foust, 2004; ‘‘Plagiarism and the Internet,’’ 2004;
Applying Ethical Theories 295
Ryan, 1998) argue that old-style plagiarism was
arduous, required some degree of skill, and was
relatively easy to spot by knowledgeable faculty. As
opposed to that, the Internet has made cyber-
cheating as simple as a mouse click and has raised the
bar for instructors who may be struggling to keep up
with tech-savvy perpetrators. The Internet is
seductive with its ease and speed of access and sheer
bounty. To a student under pressure to produce an
assignment it may seem just too tempting: ‘‘Stealing
or copying someone’s work has become so effortless
[…] that students may be inured to the ethical or
legal consequences, much like drivers exceeding the
speed limit’’ (Zack, 1998).
Berkeley professor Alex Aiken, creator of an anti-
plagiarism software package, cites the anonymity of
the electronic medium, the growing capacity and
speed of computers, and the vast supply on the
Internet as factors contributing to the lowering of
inhibitions and acting on impulse (Zack, 1998).
Many professors are not as technologically savvy as
their students, so the plagiarists may not fear detection.
Transgression may present an ‘‘irresistible challenge’’
(Ryan, 1998) to vulnerable students, or cheaters may
experience a certain thrill when they get by without
the professor noticing (‘‘Preventing Plagiarism,’’
2004).
Deadline pressure, difficulty keeping up, and lack
of preparation for college may play a role, too, in
motivating cheating: ‘‘Plagiarism is almost always a
symptom of other educational problems’’ (‘‘Did You
Know?’’ 2004).
Reasoning and cheating
While several researchers have focused on classifying
the reasoning used by students to justify general
cheating behaviors, no work has been conducted
specifically focusing on plagiarism. The predominant
categorization scheme employed for general cheat-
ing has been Sykes’s and Matza’s Neutralization
Techniques (Sykes and Matza, 1957). It is main-
tained that delinquent behavior is based on justifi-
cations that are valid to the delinquent – but not the
legal system, and that these justifications can precede
the act. Thus, potential violators are tempted to
perform the unethical act, recognize that the act is
wrong, use one of the techniques to justify the act
and then perform the act. It is the enticement of gain
or pleasure that instigates the neutralization tech-
nique (Vitell and Grove, 1987). For example, one
technique of neutralization is Denial of Victim,
wherein the delinquent behavior is justified, as the
perpetrator believes that the victim deserved it
(rightful retaliation). Both LaBeff et al. (1990) and
McCabe (1992) classified students’ reasoning on
cheating according to the different neutralization
techniques. While some similarities between the
theories of ethical reasoning and neutralization
techniques exist, theories of ethical reasoning are
broader and, therefore, more useful for analysis. For
example, among the neutralization techniques,
deontology has no equivalent.
Ethical philosophies and plagiarism
After reviewing several key ethics journals and texts
(Loe et al., 2000), as well as examining past research
on the types of ethical reasoning students had used in
different ethical contexts (Ashworth and Banister,
1997; McLafferty and Foust, 2004; Nickell and
Herzog, 1996; Swinyard et al., 1989; Webster and
Harmon, 2002), we decided to include six ethical
theories. Below, each of the different theories will be
discussed in detail, along with examples of how
plagiarism would be considered wrong under each
theory. Then we will suggest what type of reasoning
students would use to justify plagiarism (if they
subscribed to that theory) and present extant
research pertaining to each theory.
Deontology
Deontologists subscribe to the belief that ‘‘human
beings have certain fundamental rights and that
should be respected in all decisions’’ (Cavanagh
et al., 1981, p. 366). Duty is the basis of morality,
and the locus of right and wrong is in self-directed
adherence to one’s moral duty by helping others
without regard for personal consequences (Ashmore,
1987; De George, 1990; Kant, 1959; Laczniak and
Murphy, 1991).
Deontology extends to an individual’s personal
rules (what he or she thinks is right), rules of an
organization (i.e., corporate codes of ethics), or to
religious deontology (one’s moral duty is to follow
g–d).
296 Neil Granitz and Dana Loewy
Under deontology, plagiarism is a morally wrong;
perpetrators are stealing and presenting someone
else’s work as their own. If students subscribe to this
theory, they can only plagiarize if they misunder-
stand or are unaware of the theory (e.g., ‘‘I didn’t
know what plagiarism was’’/‘‘I didn’t know that
plagiarism was wrong’’).
In a study focused on ethics towards animals,
Nickell and Herzog (1996) found that whether
students followed deontology accounted for varia-
tion in their reasoning. Bugeja (2001) reports a rise
in ignorance pleas and defenses invoking a lack of
intent among journalism students who thus imply
innocence when they are caught cheating. Altsch-
uler (2001) cites a Rutgers University focus group
that noted that many students seemed to be ‘‘blasé’’
about plagiarism – not seeing it as a true transgres-
sion (p. 15). Faculty members does not seem to offer
clear guidelines to help struggling students figure out
how to use the Internet in an acceptable fashion. At
least this is McCabe’s conclusion from two studies of
‘‘cut and paste’’ plagiarism (CAI, 1999, 2005). In the
former study, 77% of the students did not consider
such behavior a serious problem at all. In other
words, they did not understand what plagiarism was,
what the deontology was.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism holds that an individual should weigh
the costs versus the benefits and act to provide the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of peo-
ple. A moral decision is one that creates the greatest
total utility (De George, 1990; Frankena, 1973;
Mill, 1861/1957). Individuals who follow a utili-
tarian philosophy could only justify plagiarism if the
outcomes were good (e.g., ‘‘Plagiarism leads to
better learning or higher grades’’/‘‘Nobody gets
hurt’’).
Utilitarian philosophies used by students were also
identified by several researchers in a business context
(Swinyard et al., 1989). A transgression may present
an ‘‘irresistible challenge’’ (Ryan, 1998) to vulnera-
ble students, or cheaters may experience a certain
thrill when they get by without the professor
noticing (‘‘Preventing Plagiarism,’’ 2004). In a class
exercise where students had to decide what to do
with critical information about a coming earthquake,
Mallinger (1997) found that American MBAs were
most likely to appeal to utilitarianism.
Rational self-interest (social contract theory)
One acts to benefit oneself; however, no sacrifice is
involved – people should relate to one another
strictly on a trading basis, exchanging value for value
in all endeavors (Rand, 1964). From a capitalistic
perspective, an implicit agreement exists between a
society and corporations that society will allow the
corporations to exist and profit as long as they satisfy
consumers, employees, etc. (Donaldson and Dunfee,
1994; Hasnas, 1998; Rawls, 1971). Under this
theory, plagiarism could be justified only if the
plagiarists felt they were engaging in a fair exchange
(e.g., ‘‘I’m publicizing the author’s work’’/‘‘The
teacher doesn’t put much effort into this, so why
should I?’’).
Rational self-interest is discussed in a study by
Ashworth and Bannister (1997). Taking a transac-
tional view, students believe that plagiarism is justi-
fied if the assignment is boring and irrelevant.
Machiavellianism (ethical egoism)
Individuals embracing this philosophy have no
qualms about sacrificing others for their own benefit.
They are always motivated to act in their own
perceived self-interest. Therefore, for students sub-
scribing to Machiavellianism, plagiarism could be
justified if they managed to get away with it and did
not get blamed or caught (e.g., ‘‘Look how clever I
am… I can plagiarize, do well, and not get caught’’).
If caught, they’ll blame others (e.g., ‘‘It’s the tea-
cher’s fault’’).
In a longitudinal study, Webster and Harmon
(2002) discovered that college-age students had be-
come more Machiavellian over a 30-year period. In
studying student attitudes regarding plagiarism,
Ryan found denial, lack of remorse and shame, even
defiance (1998).
Cultural relativism
Words such as right, wrong, justice, and injustice derive
their meaning from attributes of a culture (Donald-
son, 1989, p. 14). Ethical standards are different
across cultures and an act that is ethical in one cul-
ture may be considered unethical in another culture
(Robertson and Fadill, 1999; Vitell et al., 1993).
Students justifying plagiarism with the help of this
theory would focus on how plagiarism is acceptable
in their culture (e.g., ‘‘It’s allowable in the country
where I come from’’).
Applying Ethical Theories 297
Demonstrating a relativistic approach, McLafferty
and Foust (2004) recount anecdotal information
about students who admit that they have never had
problems in other classes when cheating this way.
With regard to computer issues, Hay et al. (2001)
found that cultural background was an important
determinant of ethical behavior among undergrad-
uate business students.
Situational or contingent ethics
Ferrell and Gresham (1985) introduced a ‘‘contin-
gency’’ framework of ethics specifying that indi-
vidual (knowledge, values), social (significant
others), and organizational (opportunity, rewards,
punishment) situational elements could affect an
individual’s response to an ethical dilemma. Pratt
(1993) established that the most important variable
was the specific scenario related to the dilemma. To
avoid overlap with other categories, situational
ethics has been restricted to instances when students
justify an act due to circumstances beyond their
control (i.e., external locus of control); as in Pratt
(1993), the focus is on specific scenarios surrounding
the ethical dilemma. Students who plagiarize using
this theory of ethics would cite a situational element
as a justification (e.g., ‘‘My kid was sick’’/‘‘My
boyfriend just dumped me’’).
It should be noted that under deontology and
cultural relativism there is not necessarily an
awareness of a transgression. In other words,
perpetrators may not realize that they are doing
anything wrong. For utilitarianism, rational self-
interest, Machiavellianism and situational ethics, an
awareness of wrongdoing exists; however, it is
rationalized away by the circumstances of the
situation.
In general research that focused on the ethics of
business students, Galbraith and Stephenson (1993)
and Grover and Hui (1994) found that situational
influences affected the type of reasoning students
used. When studying general cheating behavior,
McCabe (1992) and Labeff et al. (1990) arrived at
similar findings.
Finally, in one of the few studies contrasting
several types of ethical theories in a general ethical
context, Brinkmann (2002) found that 51% of the
students used deontological arguments, 42% resorted
to utilitarian arguments, and 7% of the students
advanced Machiavellian reasoning.
Methodology
As our research focuses on ethics, it is necessary to
choose a realistic methodology (Aronson et al.,
1985; Mathison, 1988). Therefore, to identify and
understand the different types of reasoning that
students use to justify plagiarism, we conducted a
content analysis of past plagiarism cases at a large
West Coast university. Well suited for this study,
content analysis is, ‘‘an observational research
method that is used to systematically evaluate the
symbolic content of all forms of recorded commu-
nication’’ (Kolbe and Burnett, 1991, p. 243).
With the help of our university’s dean of students,
this analysis was conducted examining the rationales
offered by students caught plagiarizing. Once faculty
members discover that their students have plagia-
rized, they bring these individuals before the dean of
students where the offenders are formally charged
with plagiarism, given the chance to explain their
behavior, and then may receive a punishment, such
as writing an essay on plagiarism, suspension, course
failure, etc. All of this information is recorded in a
confidential file.
These files were categorized using the ethical
reasoning philosophies described above. One limi-
tation of this study is that students may not be
revealing their true justifications for plagiarizing
since they have been caught. In most cases, it does
appear as if the students are just coming clean and
telling the truth; however, even if some students are
not revealing the actual reasoning that they used to
justify the act of plagiarism, they are still exposing
the logic that they use to defend plagiarism – and
being able to understand and counter that logic is
valuable for faculty.
To avoid researcher bias, two judges were re-
cruited to independently evaluate and categorize the
reasoning of students (e.g., Kolbe and Burnett,
1991). For each case, the primary reasoning used by
the student was classified under one of the ethical
theories. Coders were given strict guidelines and
trained on how to classify reasoning. Before evalu-
ating the cases used in this study, each judge classi-
fied 20 identical ads. Their ratings were compared
and reasons for any disagreement were discussed and
resolved among the judges and the authors to help to
ensure a sufficient level of inter-rater reliability.
After the data collection was complete, the authors
298 Neil Granitz and Dana Loewy
independently evaluated a random sample of the ads
(10% of the total). The independent judges’ ratings
were compared with the authors’ ratings (e.g.,
Dilevko and Harris, 1997), and using Holsti’s (1969)
formula, the inter-rater agreement was 83.6%,
indicating a high degree of reliability (Kassarjian,
1977).
Results
Students invoked all six ethical theories (Table I).
The most commonly followed ethical theory was
deontology; 41.8% of respondents referred to
deontological reasoning. Students acknowledged
their adherence to the code by clearly apologizing
for violating it or by providing statements revealing
that they did not realize they were breaking it. Some
typical justifications include: ‘‘Yes, I did plagiarize
and I’m sorry;’’ ‘‘I accidentally left out some cita-
tions;’’ and ‘‘I didn’t know this was plagiarizing.’’
Not knowing falls under deontology because it
suggests that they were following the rules; they just
did not know that this was one of them.
The second most frequently invoked theory of
ethical reasoning was situational ethics (19.9%).
Individuals subscribing to this theory believe that
different conditions warrant different treatment.
Some typical quotations focused on extenuating
circumstances, such as, ‘‘I came to the U. S. with
nothing and I don’t know anybody;’’ and ‘‘I have to
support my brother.’’
The third most likely type of reasoning used was
Machiavellian, as 18.4% of students used it as a
rationale. Machiavellians are opportunists, lacking
concern for others (Christie and Geiss, 1970). When
caught, they blame others or deny the charge. Some
typical claims such students made were: ‘‘It was the
professor’s fault because he/she didn’t talk about it in
class;’’ ‘‘I accidentally handed in the wrong version of
my paper;’’ or ‘‘the other person had plagiarized
them.’’ Finally, they denied that they had plagiarized,
even in the presence of incontrovertible evidence.
Bound by the level of multiculturalism in the
sample, cultural relativism was used by 8.5% of
students to justify their behavior. Some characteristic
statements included: ‘‘I did it in community college
and it was OK;’’ ‘‘Everybody does it in Asia;’’ and
‘‘Everybody does it where I come from.’’
Finally, 5.7% of students called upon utilitarian
reasoning. Some representative rationales were, ‘‘I
didn’t think there was any harm being done;’’ and ‘‘I
was falling behind and doing poorly, so I thought
this would help.’’
The theory used the least was rational self-interest.
This is a position that takes the form of equal ex-
change. Some of the typical justifications included,
‘‘My friend gave it to me so that I could learn’’;
‘‘The instructor doesn’t use original materials – why
should I?’’ and ‘‘I got help online.’’
To determine potential differences across demo-
graphic variables, we ran several chi-square tests on
the demographic variables (Table II). No differences
emerged across sex (p = 0.123), ethnicity
(p = 0.173), GPA (p = 0.667), school or division
(p = 0.319), class status (p = 0.454) or repeated of-
fenses (p = 0.520). However, for the type of pla-
giarism (plagiarism from the Internet as opposed to
other types of plagiarism), a p-value of 0.008 was
found. Internet plagiarists were more likely to rely
Chi-square test of theory used versus demographic and
behavioral variables
Cross tab of theory used and … p-value
Sex 0.123
Ethnicity 0.173
GPA 0.667
School 0.319
Class status 0.454
Repeat offense 0.520
Type of plagiarism 0.008*
*Significant at 0.05 level.
Applying Ethical Theories 299
on situational ethics and utilitarianism. They were
less likely to call upon cultural relativism and
Machiavellianism (Table III).
Discussion and recommendations
The findings of this study strongly correlate with past
research. The most prevalent theory of ethics used
by students to justify plagiarism was deontology. In
accordance to Bugeja’s findings (2001), the key plea
students entered was that they were uninformed and
lacked intent to plagiarize. This recalls the observa-
tions of Altschuler (2001), who documented that
students appeared confused about the meaning of
plagiarism and were lacking in malice, as well as
McCabe’s conclusions (CAI, 2005) that faculty may
not be providing clear guidelines to students.
The second largest category was situational ethics,
under which many of the students cited situations
beyond their control (i.e., need to support brother;
having been adopted; coming home to house on
fire; grandmother died). This corresponds to
McCabe’s research (1992) that found that the most
prevalent technique used (68% of the time) to justify
general cheating was Denial of Responsibility. This
technique refers to cases when the individual cites
circumstance beyond his or her control. Addition-
ally, this is consistent with the observations of Zack
(1998), who found that a student under pressure may
be tempted by the effortless supply of information.
Given that Internet plagiarists were more likely to
call upon situational ethics, the ease of retrieval from
the Internet may be triggered by the slightest
external pressure. Relativism emerged at several
levels; consistent with McLafferty and Foust (2004),
students admitted that they had plagiarized in other
classes of the same institution, and parallel to Hay
et al. (2001), students from different nations and
cultures claimed that copying was acceptable in their
countries of origin. It is unclear whether they knew
that their transgression was wrong.
Machiavellianism was the third highest category at
18.4% of offenders. As expected, students who were
caught were quick to blame others, such as their peers
or the professor and often simply denied the trans-
gression. This was similar to McCabe’s research
(1992), where the second largest neutralization strat-
egy found was Condemning the Condemner (28%).
Skeptics may believe that many Machiavellians are
simply hiding behind deontological ignorance pleas.
In any case, the recommendations will address both of
these areas.
Utilitarianism was low at 5.7%. However, unlike
the thrill or lack of fear of detection proposed by
several researchers (Ryan, 1988; Swinyard et al.,
1989), justifications appear innocent (‘‘I didn’t think it
would hurt anyone’’). Internet plagiarists were more
likely to resort to utilitarianism and situational ethics.
Higher rates of utilitarianism may lend credence to the
beliefs of Zack (1998) and Turnitin, who have stressed
that the negative consequences to others are mini-
mized. Finally, offenders who subscribe to rational
self-interest indirectly or directly balance the trans-
gression with the actions of the professor.
Below are several recommendations that respond
directly to each of the different ethical philosophies.
Before implementing any of these solutions, faculty
and administrators must resolve several issues.
First, from this and previous research, evidence
exists that professors do not always agree on their
definition of plagiarism and that different professors
are allowing different practices in their classes (Roig,
2001). Therefore, common ground must be estab-
lished at the institution.
Second, whose responsibility is dealing with pla-
giarism, the faculty’s or the administration’s? Evidence
suggests that instructors are overloaded with higher
priority issues and often unsupported by administra-
tion (Boyer, 1990; Eble and McKeachie, 1985), par-
ticularly when it comes to writing instruction (Plutsky
and Wilson, 2001). Since faculty members are the
principal agents in detecting plagiarism, faculty
TABLE III
Cross-tab percentages of theory used versus type of
plagiarism
incentives and instructional materials are needed to
explicitly address integrity at the class and university
levels (Hair, 1991; Ives and Jarvenpaa, 1996; Mason,
1991; Padgett and Conceicao-Runlee, 2000).
The recommendations below are essential to
creating an ethical culture at our schools and to
instilling ethical values in our students; however,
there are also positive implications for the ethics of
organizations. Researchers have documented the
association between cheating in college and cheating
in business (Sims, 1993; Smith et al., 2002). Several
researchers studying student cheating or the link
between ethics education and business ethics have
called upon business schools to teach students what is
ethical behavior and what are its consequences for
the organization and society (Crane, 2004; Jennings,
2004; Lawson, 2004; Luthar and Karri, 2005; Smyth
and Davis, 2004).
The recommendations to answer each type of
reasoning follow (Table IV). As some philosophies
justifying plagiarism require similar steps, the action
is only explained the first time it is presented. Sub-
sequently it is just listed.
Deontology
Our recommendations focus on ensuring that stu-
dents understand what plagiarism is and that it is
wrong.
Contract honor
Most universities have honor codes, which cover
plagiarism. If they do not, the professor can easily
develop one for the department or class (for
examples please go to http://www.academicinteg-
rity.org). Much like organizations that protect
themselves from rogue employees with written
ethical codes (Stevens, 1996), academics should
attach the honor code to the syllabus and have
students read and sign it (Cole and Kiss, 2000).
Research by McCabe involving 12,000 students on
48 campuses indicates that educational institutions
with honor codes face significantly fewer breaches
of academic integrity. On campuses without honor
codes, 1 in 5 students self-reported more than three
incidents of cheating. On campuses with honor
codes, only 1 in 16 students reported such levels
(CAI, 2005).
Teach proper citation and documentation techniques
Rather than merely insisting that students cite
materials properly, instructors must concretely teach
them how to do it. This includes practicing para-
phrasing and assimilating sources into one’s text.
Additionally, faculty can distribute examples from
previous classes as well as materials on the correct use
of sources.
Act as a role model
One of the strongest determinants of ethics is peers
and superiors (Granitz, 2003). As role models to
students, professors should properly document all
course materials they develop, including presenta-
TABLE IV
Recommendations for each ethical theory
Theory Recommendation
Deontology Contract honor
Teach proper citation and
documentation techniques
Institute clear, severe penalties
Enforce penalties
Emphasize learning impairment and
other negative consequences
Rational
self-interest
Highlight inequitable exchange
for the original author
Highlight inequitable exchange for
the plagiarist
Stress professor’s effort
Machiavellianism Explain and emphasize surveillance
Institute clear, severe penalties
Enforce penalties
Contract honor
Teach proper citation and
documentation techniques
Cultural relativism Define plagiarism as wrong
Contract honor
Teach proper citation and
documentation techniques
Use anti-plagiarism software
Situational ethics Adopt zero tolerance approach
Institute clear, severe penalties
Enforce penalties
Applying Ethical Theories 301
tion slides, handouts, and exercises (Kienzler,
2004).
Avoid standardized, general assignments
Faculty need to design assignments that are chal-
lenging and difficult to plagiarize (Sokolik, 2000).
Many faculty members give rather broad research
topics to students, for example, a situational analysis
of Wal-Mart. Assignments can and should be made
more specific. For instance, if the class has focused
on strategic competitive responses, instructors may
have the students list and evaluate how Wal-Mart
has responded to competitive actions from K-Mart
and Target. Hence, students will need to synthesize
several sources. Under no circumstances should
instructors give the same assignment semester after
semester.
Use anti-plagiarism software
Rather than employing it as a fear-inducing deter-
rent, faculty should put anti-plagiarism software like
turnitin.com to better use. The software can be used
as a pedagogic tool, allowing students to submit a
draft version of their final project before submitting
it to faculty.
Utilitarianism
The recommendations focus on making the negative
consequences of plagiarism clear and significant.
Explain and emphasize surveillance
Students may evaluate the chances of getting caught
as very low and, hence, the consequences as very
low risk. Therefore, the professor must ensure that
students understand that they can be easily caught.
First, professors using anti-plagiarism software should
ensure that students know that the software is used in
their course. Second, if applicable, professors can
give examples of the different ways that students
were caught. For instance, in our study, instructors
had caught students by recognizing that the quality
of the paper was different from the students’ previ-
ous work. Third, faculty must keep abreast of new
technological trends and resources to combat aca-
demic dishonesty effectively.
Institute clear, severe penalties
Punishment must be strict (for example, failing the
class, suspension, or dismissal from the school), and
clear (Harris, 2002). To ensure that the negative
consequences are clear, the ‘‘contract honor’’
recommendation can apply.
Enforce penalties
If students only receive a slap on the wrist and the
promised penalty is waived, the offenders are
receiving a misleading message about cheating that
they will take with them to their next classes and
then into the working world.
Emphasize learning impairment and other negative
consequences
While it did not appear in this study, it is conceiv-
able that students subscribing to utilitarianism may
believe that their learning is maximized through
plagiarism (Harris, 2002). In that case, the professor
can demonstrate to them that learning is lost by
testing students on the plagiarized material.
Rational self-interest
In this case, responses must address how plagiarism is
not a fair trade for the authors of the original
material:
Highlight inequitable exchange for the original author
This recommendation focuses on accentuating
negative consequences to others. Since much of the
plagiarism is Internet-related, the professor can cover
the developing Internet copyright laws. For exam-
ple, researching the Napster case could be an
assignment.
Highlight inequitable exchange for the plagiarist
To prevent students from buying work from an
online term-paper mill, such as http://www.chea-
ter.com, http://www.schoolsucks.com, instructors
should explain to them that identical essays are sold
to thousands of their peers and are easily identifiable.
Hence, offenders are receiving an unfair exchange.
For the price, they obtain a document that will be
easily identifiable as a plagiarized text.
302 Neil Granitz and Dana Loewy
Stress professor’s effort
For the students who contend that their instructor is
not putting much effort into the class (So why
should they?), the efforts of this faculty member, if
indeed found to be questionable – which may not
be easy – must be investigated. At the same time,
professors must do a better job in communicating
their efforts to the class. Additionally, accentuating
the plight of other stakeholders (see Highlight ineq-
uitable exchange for the original author above) may
balance the scales against plagiarism. The trickiest
area here is the implicit understanding of hierarchies.
Ideally, the students should grasp that even profes-
sors who may seem uninvolved in their teaching
have significantly greater institutional authority than
their pupils do and that assuming equal right to
dereliction of duty will put the students at a disad-
vantage.
Machiavellianism
The faculty’s response must focus on making stu-
dents aware of how they can be caught and ensuring
these students learn and acknowledge what plagia-
rism is, so they cannot blame others for a ‘‘misun-
derstanding.’’ The following recommendations
apply:
(1) Explain and emphasize surveillance.
(2) Institute clear, severe penalties.
(3) Enforce penalties.
(4) Contract honor.
(5) Teach proper citation and documentation.
Cultural relativism
Since these individuals think that plagiarism is per-
missible, the professor should concentrate on
explaining why it is wrong and what exactly it is and
then teach proper behavior. The following recom-
mendations are offered:
(1) Define plagiarism as wrong. Explain why pla-
giarism, defined both as lying and stealing, is
wrong in the mainstream culture in the
U.S.
(2) Contract honor.
(3) Teach proper citation and documentation tech-
niques.
(4) Use anti-plagiarism software.
Situational ethics
Professors must communicate to their classes that no
leeway will be granted for situational excuses for any
course requirement. For example, does the instruc-
tor allow students to hand in papers late? And if yes,
does he or she impose a penalty? It is up to the
professors to maintain an atmosphere that will allow
the student to approach them if they have a genuine
situational problem, hopefully before the offense is
committed. In the context of these views, the fol-
lowing recommendations can be followed:
(1) Adopt zero tolerance approach. Ensure that
students know what plagiarism is. Assure
students that they will be ‘‘prosecuted’’ after
one infraction and that everyone will be
treated identically with regards to plagiarism
– regardless of the circumstances.
(2) Institute clear, severe penalties.
(3) Enforce penalties.
Conclusion
This study examined how students justify plagiarism
once they are caught. The recommendations ten-
dered can be employed to preempt any justification
of plagiarism. Future research can focus on the
changes that may have been wrought on the ethical
perceptions of the users of the new media. Likewise,
it would be difficult, yet intriguing to examine sys-
tematically whether the underlying reasons why
students plagiarize have changed as well.
References
Allmon, D. E., D. Page and R. Roberts: 2000, !Deter-
minants of Perceptions of Cheating: Ethical Orienta-
tion, Personality and Demographics”, Journal of Business
Ethics 23(4), 411–422.
Altschuler, G. C.: 2001, January 7, ‘Battling the Cheats’,
The New York Times online. Section 4A, p. 15. Re-
trieved July 20, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Applying Ethical Theories 303
Aronson, E., M. B. Brewer and J. M. Carlsmith: 1985,
!Experimentation and Social Psychology”, in J. Lindzey
and E. Aronson (eds.The Handbook of Social Psychology 1
(Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA), pp. 441–486.
Ashmore, R. B.: 1987, Building a Model System (Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
Ashworth, P. and P. Bannister: 1997, !Guilty in Whose
Eyes? University Students’ Perceptions of Cheating
and Plagiarism in Academic Work and Assessment”,
Studies in Higher Education 22(2), 187.
Auer, N. J. and E. M. Krupar: 2001, !Mouse Click Pla-
giarism: The Role of Technology in Plagiarism and
the Librarian’s Role in Combating It”, Library Trends
49(3), 415–432.
Boyer, E. L.: 1990, Scholarship Revisited: Priorities of the
Professoriate (Carnegie Endowment for the Advance-
ment of Teaching, Princeton, NJ).
Brinkmann, J.: 2002, !Moral Reflection Differences
among Norwegian Business Students. A Presentation
and Discussion of the Findings”, Teaching Business Ethics
6(1), 83–99.
Brubaker, H.: 2003, March 26, ‘Big Companies Teach
Business Ethics to Employees’, Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News, p. 1.
Bugeja, M.: 2001, November 26, ‘Collegiate Copycats’,
Editor & Publisher. Retrieved May 20, 2002 from
ProQuest database.
Cavanagh, G., D. Moberg and M. Velasquez: 1981, !The
Ethics of Organizational Politics”, Academy of Manage-
ment Review 6(3), 363–374.
Center for Academic Integrity (CAI): 2005, CAI Re-
search. Retrieved January 19, 2005 from http://
www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp.
Center for Academic Integrity (CAI): 2002–2003, CAI
Research. Retrieved July 31, 2004 from http://
www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp.
Center for Academic Integrity (CAI): 1999, CAI Re-
search. Retrieved January 19, 2005 from http://
www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp.
Christie, R. and F. L. Geiss: 1970, Studies in Machiavel-
lianism (Academic Press, New York).
Clark, I.: 1996, Taking a Stand 2nd edn, (Harper Collins
College Publishers, New York).
Cole, S. and E. Kiss: 2000, ‘Tips for Discouraging Pla-
giarism. What Can We Do About Student Cheating?
About Campus’. Retrieved September 12, 2004 from
http://www.academicintegrity.org/resources_inst.asp.
Coleman, N. and T. Mahaffey: 2000, !Business Student
Ethics: Selected Predictors of Attitudes Toward
Cheating”, Teaching Business Ethics 4(2), 121–136.
Crane, F.: 2004, !The Teaching of Business Ethics: An
Imperative at Business Schools”, Journal of Education for
Business 79(3), 149–151.
Crown, D. F. and M. S. Spiller: 1998, !Learning from the
Literature on Collegiate Cheating: A Review of
Empirical Research”, Journal of Business Ethics 17(6),
683–700.
De George, R. T. : 1990, Business Ethics 3rd edn,
(MacMillan, New York).
Did you know? 2004: Turnitin, Research Resources. Re-
trieved July 16, 2004 from http://www.turnitin.com/
research_site/e_what_is_plagiarism.html.
Dilevko, J. and R. M. Harris: 1997, !Information Tech-
nology and Social Relations: Portrayals of Gender
Roles in High Tech Product Advertisements”, Journal
of the American Society for Information Science 48(8), 718–
727.
Donaldson, T.: 1989, The Ethics of International Business
(Oxford University Press, New York, NY).
Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 1994, !Towards a
Unified Conception of Business Ethics, Integrative
Social Contracts Theory”, Academy of Management
Review 19(2), 252.
Eble, K. E. and W. J. McKeachie: 1985, Improving
Undergraduate Education Through Faculty Development
(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco)..
Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, !A Contingency
Model Framework for Understanding Ethical Deci-
sion-Making in Marketing”, Journal of Marketing 49(2),
87–96.
Fialkoff, F. and E. St. Lifer: 2002, ‘Bringing Order to an
Unruly Web’, Library Journal, Spring, 2–5.
Flynn, L. J.: 2001, September 10, ‘The Wonder Years:
Homework is Free Online’, The New York Times online.
Retrieved July 20, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Galbraith, S. and H. B. Stephenson: 1993, !Decision
Rules Used by Male and Female Business Students in
Making Ethical Value Judgments: Another Look”,
Journal of Business Ethics 12(3), 227–233.
Granitz, N.: 2003, !Individual, Social and Organizational
Sources of Sharing and Variation in the Ethical Rea-
soning of Managers”, Journal of Business Ethics 4(2),
101–124.
Groark, M., D. Oblinger and M. Choa: 2001, !Term
Paper Mills, Anti-plagiarism Tools, and Academic
Integrity”, EDUCAUSE Review 36(5), 40–48.
Grover, S. L. and C. Hui: 1994, !The Influence of Role
Conflict and Self-interest on Lying in Organizations”,
Journal of Business Ethics 13(4), 293–303.
Hair, J. F., Jr.: 1991, !Improving Marketing Education in
the 1990s”, Marketing Education Review 1(1), 23–29.
Harris, R.: 2002, ‘Anti-plagiarism Strategies for Research
Papers’, Virtual Salt. Retrieved September 12, 2004
from http://www.virtualsalt.com/antiplag.htm.
304 Neil Granitz and Dana Loewy
Hasnas, J.: 1998, !The Normative Theories of Business
Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed”, Business Ethics
Quarterly 8(1), 19–42.
Hay, D., P. McCourt Larres, P. Oyelere and A. Fisher:
2001, !The Ethical Perceptions of Undergraduate
Students in Computer Related Situations: An Analysis
of the Effects of Culture, Gender and Prior Education”,
Teaching Business Ethics 5(3), 331–356.
Hoberman, B.: 1985, February, ‘Translating the Bible’,
The Atlantic Monthly, pp. 43–58.
Holsti, O. R.: 1969, Content Analysis for the Social Sciences
and Humanities (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).
Hunt, S. and A. Z. Vasquez-Parraga: 1993, !Organiza-
tional Consequences, Marketing Ethics, and Salesforce
Supervision”, Journal of Marketing Research 30(1), 78–90.
Ives, B. and S. L. Jarvenpaa: 1996, !Will the Internet
Revolutionize Business Education and Research?”,
Sloan Management Review 37(3), 33–41.
Jennings, M.: 2004, !Incorporating Ethics and Profes-
sionalism into Accounting Education and Research: A
Discussion of the Voids and Advocacy for Training in
Seminal Works in Business Ethics”, Issues in Accounting
Education 19(1), 7–26.
Kant, I.: 1959, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals
(Bobbs-Merrill, New York).
Kassarjian, H.: 1977, !Content Analysis in Consumer
Research”, Journal of Consumer Research 4(1), 8–18.
Kienzler, D. S.: 2004, !Teaching Ethics isn’t Enough: The
Challenge of Being Ethical Teachers”, The Journal of
Business Communication 41(3), 292–301.
Kolbe, R. H. and M. S. Burnett: 1991, !Content-Analysis
Research: An Examination of Applications with
Directives for Improving Research Reliability and
Objectivity”, Journal of Consumer Research 18(2), 243–
250.
Labeff, E. E., R. E. Clark, V. J. Haines and G. M.
Diekhoff: 1990, !Situational Ethics and College Stu-
dent Cheating”, Sociological Inquiry 60(2), 190–198.
Laczniak, G. R. and P. E. Murphy: 1991, !Fostering
Ethical Marketing Decisions”, The Journal of Business
Ethics 10(4), 259–271.
Lawson, R. A.: 2004, !Is Classroom Cheating Related to
Business Students’ Propensity to Cheat in the ‘‘Real
World’’?”, Journal of Business Ethics 49(2), 189–199.
Lewis, P. V. and H. E. Speck, III: 1990, !Ethical Ori-
entations for Understanding Business Ethics”, The
Journal of Business Communication 27(3), 213–232.
Loe, T. L., L. Ferrell and P. Mansfield: 2000, !A Review
of Empirical Studies Assessing Ethical Decision-Mak-
ing in Business”, Journal of Business Ethics 25(3), 185–
204.
Luthar, H. K. and R. Karri: 2005, !Exposure to Ethics
Education and the Perception of Linkage between
Organizational Ethical Behavior and Business Out-
comes”, Journal of Business Ethics 61(4), 353–368.
Mallinger, M.: 1997, !Decisive Decision-Making: An
Exercise Using Ethical Frameworks”, Journal of Man-
agement Education 21(3), 411–417.
Mallon, T.: 1989, Stolen Words: Forays into the Origins and
Ravages of Plagiarism (Ticknor & Fields, New York).
Mark, R.: 2004, January, Music Downloading Demand
Dramatically Declines. Retrieved September 9, 2004
from http://www.clickz.com/stats/big_picture/appli-
cations/print.php/1301_3295201.
Mason, J. B.: 1991, !Improving Marketing Education in
the 1990s: A Dean’s Perspective”, Marketing Education
Review 1(1), 10–22.
Mathison, D. L.: 1988, !Business Ethics Cases and Deci-
sion Models: A Call for Relevancy in the Classroom”,
Journal of Business Ethics 7(2), 777–782.
McCabe, D. L.: 1992, !The Influence of Situational
Ethics on Cheating among College Students”, Socio-
logical Inquiry 62(3), 365–374.
McKenzie, J.: 1998 ‘The New Plagiarism: Seven Anti-
dotes to Prevent Highway Robbery in an Electronic
Age. From Now On’, The Educational Technology
Journal, 7(8). Retrieved July 31, 2004 from http://
www.fno.org/index.html.
McLafferty, C. L. and K. M. Foust: 2004, !Electronic
Plagiarism as a College Instructor’s Nightmare—Pre-
vention and Detection”, Journal of Education for Business
79(3), 186–189.
Mengue, B.: 1998, !Organizational Consequences, Mar-
keting Ethics, and Salesforce Supervision: Further
Empirical Evidence”, Journal of Business Ethics 17(4),
333–352.
Mill, J. S.: 1861/1957, Utilitarianism (Bobbs-Merrill,
Indianapolis).
Nickell, D. and H. A. Herzog, Jr.: 1996, !Ethical Ideology
and Moral Persuasion: Personal Moral Philosophy,
Gender and Judgments of Pro-and Anti-Animal
Research Propaganda”, Society and Animals 4(1), 53–64.
Padgett, D. L. and S. Conceicao-Runlee: 2000,
!Designing a Faculty Development Program on
Technology: If You Build It Will They Come?”,
Journal of Social Work Education 36(2), 325–334.
Park, E.: 2000, ‘Plagiarism at Oxy’, The Occidental.
Retrieved August 1, 2002 from http://www.oxy.edu/
!thepaper/archive/issue000128/stories/news1.htm.
Plagiarism and the Internet: 2004, Turnitin, Research
Resources. Retrieved July 16, 2004 from http://
www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_what_is_plagia-
rism.html.
Plutsky, S. and B. A. Wilson: 2001, !Writing Across the
Curriculum: College of Business and Economics”,
Business Communication Quarterly 64(4), 26–41.
Applying Ethical Theories 305
Pratt, C. B.: 1993, !Critique of the Classical Theory of
Situational Ethics in U.S. Public Relations”, Public
Relations Review 19(3), 219–234.
Preventing Plagiarism: Resources for Educators: 2004,
Turnitin, Research Resources. Retrieved July 16, 2004
from http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_pre-
venting_p.html.
Rand, A.: 1964, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of
Egoism (New American Library, New York).
Randall, M.: 2001, Pragmatic Plagiarism: Authorship, Profit,
and Power (University of Toronto Press, Toronto).
Rawls, J.: 1971, A Theory of Justice (Belknap Press,
Cambridge, MA).
Rawwas, M. Y. and H. R. Isakson: 2000, !Ethics of
Tomorrow’s Business Managers: The Influence of
Personal Beliefs and Values, Individual Characteristics
and Situational Factors”, Journal of Education for Business
75(6), 321–330.
Rimer, S.: 2003, September 3, ‘A Campus Fad that’s
Being Copied: Internet Plagiarism Seems on the Rise’,
The New York Times, p. B7.
Robertson, C. and P. Fadill: 1999, !Ethical Decision-
Making in Multinational Organizations: A Culture-
Based Model”, Journal of Business Ethics 19(4), 385–392.
Roig, M.: 2001, ‘Plagiarism and Paraphrasing Criteria of
College and University Professors’, Ethics and Behavior
11(3), 307–323. Retrieved May 20, 2002 from Psy-
cINFO database.
Ryan, J. J. C. H.: 1998, December, ‘Student Plagiarism in
an Online World’, ASEE Prism Magazine, pp. 1–5.
Retrieved July 31, 2004 from http://www.asee.org/
prism/december/html/student_plagiarism_in_an_on-
lin.htm.
Sims, R. L.: 1993, !The Relationship between Academic
Dishonesty and Unethical Business Practices”, Journal of
Education for Business 68(4), 207–211.
Smith, K. J., A. Davy, D. L. Rosenberg and G. T. Haight:
2002, !A Structural Modeling Investigation of the Influ-
ence of Demographics and Attitudinal Factors and
In-class Deterrents on Cheating Behavior among
Accounting Majors”, Journal of Accounting Education 20(1),
45–65.
Smyth, M. L. and J. R. Davis: 2004, !Perceptions of Dis-
honesty among Two-year College Students: Academic
versus Business Situations”, Journal of Business Ethics 51(1),
63–73.
Sokolik, M.: 2000, ‘Designing Writing Assignments’,
Writing Across Berkeley, 1(2), 1–2. Retrieved July 20,
2004 from http://www.writing.berkeley.edu/wab/1-
2-before.htm.
Stevens, B.: 1996, !Using the Competing Framework to
Assess Corporate Ethical Codes”, The Journal of Business
Communication 33(1), 71–84.
Swinyard, W. R., T. J. DeLong and P. S. Cheng: 1989,
!The Relationship between Moral Decisions and Their
Consequences: A Tradeoff Analysis Approach”, Journal
of Business Ethics 8(4), 289–297.
Sykes, G. M. and D. Matza: 1957, !Techniques of Neu-
tralization: A Theory of Delinquency”, American
Sociological Review 22(6), 664–670.
UK Patent Office: 2004, (n. d.). Intellectual Property: A
History of Copyright. Retrieved July 20, 2004 from
http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/re-
sources/copyright/history.htm.
Vitell, S. and S. Grove: 1987, !Marketing Ethics and
Techniques of Neutralization”, Journal of Business Ethics
6(6), 433–438.
Vitell, S., S. Nwachukwa and J. Barnes: 1993, !The Ef-
fects of Culture on Ethical Decision-Making: An
Application of Hofstede’s Typology”, Journal of Business
Ethics 12(10), 753–760.
Webster, R. L. and H. Harmon: 2002, !Comparing
Levels of Machiavellianism of Today’s College Stu-
dents with College Students of the 1960s”, Teaching
Business Ethics 6(4), 435–445.
West, T., S. Ravenscroft and C. Schrader: 2004,
!Cheating and Moral Judgment in the College Class-
room: A Natural Experiment”, Journal of Business Ethics
54(2), 173–183.
Zack, I.: 1998, September 16, ‘The Latest Academic
Vice: Computer-Assisted Cheating’, The New York
Times online. Retrieved July 20, 2004 from Lexis-
Nexis database.
Department of Marketing and Business Communication,
Cal State Fullerton,
College Park 900, 800 North State College Boulevard,
Fullerton, CA, 92834-6848, USA
Ethics
is
not
following
culturally
accepted
norms.
“But
Dad,
all
my
friends
are
going….”
What Ethics is not
“But, Prof. Williams,
as we become
adults, we no longer
act this way. We’re
not as easily
influenced by
people….”
Milgram
This is an illustration of the
setup of a Milgram experiment.
The experimenter (E) convinces
the subject (“Teacher” T) to
give what are believed to be
painful electric shocks to
another subject, who is actually
an actor (“Learner” L). Many
subjects continued to give
shocks despite pleas of mercy
from the actors.
Watch Youtube Video (link provided by Dr. Williams)
Asch
This is a sample item from the Asch study. Participants were asked
one by one to say which of the lines on the right matched the line
on the focal line on the left. While A is an exact match, many
participants conformed when others unanimously chose B or C.
Focal
Line A B C
Watch Youtube Video (link provided by Dr. Williams)
“But, Prof. Williams,
these two examples
aren’t business-
related. This
wouldn’t happen in
an organization….”
• Beginning Fall 2016, students can carry concealed handguns into
classrooms, dormitories and other buildings:
http://www.tamus.edu/campus-carry-rules/
• Supporters say it will make college campuses safer by allowing licensed gun owners
to defend themselves & others should a mass shooting occur
• Opponents say the notion that armed students would make a campus safer is an
illusion that will have a chilling effect on campus life
• The
Justice view:
– All
decisions
will
be
made
in
accordance
with
pre-‐
established
rules
or
guidelines.
The
Integrative
Social
Contracts (Common
Good)
view:
– Decisions
should
be
based
on
existing
norms
of
behavior,
including
cultural,
community,
or
industry
factors.
– The
ethical
corporate
action,
then,
is
the
one
that
follows
accepted
practices.
The
Deontological
view:
– Decisions
should
be
based
on
personal
or
religious
convictions.
– The
ethical
corporate
action,
then,
is
the
one
that
aligns
with
your
belief
system.
Perspectives (Views) on
Managerial (Organizational) Ethics
What Will You Get?
We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.
Premium Quality
Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.
Experienced Writers
Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.
On-Time Delivery
Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.
24/7 Customer Support
Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.
Complete Confidentiality
Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.
Authentic Sources
We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.
Moneyback Guarantee
Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.
Order Tracking
You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.
From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.
Preferred Writer
Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.
Grammar Check Report
Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.
One Page Summary
You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.
Plagiarism Report
You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.
Free Features $66FREE
Most Qualified Writer
$10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report
$10FREE
Unlimited Revisions
$08FREE
Paper Formatting
$05FREE
Cover Page
$05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography
$10FREE
Dedicated User Area
$08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking
$05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts
$05FREE
Our Services
Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.
On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources
Academic Writing
We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.
Professional Editing
We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals
Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!
We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing
We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.
Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.
We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services
We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.
Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.
We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades
We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.
Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.
