Read article and answer in 2 full pages the followings:1. What is the problem that the article states.2. Objectives3. Identify the Research Question4. Established Hypothesis5. Independent variables6. Dependent variables7. Conslusion
March/April 2008 187 tudents are confronted with a variety of ethical dilemmas in their work environments. Some may not be illegal but may be unethical. At California State University at Northridge, survey results from a questionnaire administered to the Dean’s Council in the College of Business and Economics showed that ethics was one of the highest concerns of employers who hire the graduates (College of Business and Economics, 2004). More than 50 business executives in the San Fernando Valley responded to the survey, which provided external data for program planning. As a result, the college’s mission states that the graduates should be ethical decision makers. Furthermore, one of the school’s program-learning goals states that the graduates should have an understanding of ethics and social responsibility. Now faculty members who teach the core courses in the program, which includes business communications, are responsible for integrating an ethics module into their curriculum. Using students’ reactions to unethical situations is one teaching technique used to meet the course-learning objective for ethical decision making. Objective of the Study Using four hypothetical unethical situations in the work environment (see Table 1), this study measured students’ intended behavior. More specifically, what is the likelihood that business students would intend to (a) enjoy a 4- day weekend on a regular basis without their manager’s knowledge by taking advantage of a work-at-home policy, (b) accept Los Angeles Lakers basketball tickets from a client that are worth $200, which exceeds the company policy by $150, (c) complete their homework on the job because their manager is offsite most of the time, or (d) use company time on a regular basis to visit a sister who was diagnosed with breast cancer? Theory of Planned Behavior Research in business ethics has focused on how to predict actual behavior. The most widely used intention model was introduced by Fishbein and Ajzen (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). According to this model, people generally do what they intend to do, and a measure of someone’s behavioral intention is often a good predictor of whether he or she will perform the specified behavior in the future. The theory of planned behavior is composed of three variables (belief, intention, and behavior) and projects that intention is correlated with behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Beliefs are the fundamental building blocks of the model and underlie the attributes Predicting Intended Unethical Behavior of Business Students BARBARA A. WILSON CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA S ABSTRACT. What is the likelihood that students would intend to act unethically in the work environment? The author measured business students’ intended behavior for 4 hypothetical unethical situations by investigating the following determinants: belief toward the behavior, subjective norms (i.e., pressure), perceived behavioral control, perceived personal outcome (i.e., benefit), and perceived social acceptance by others. In an expanded intention model, belief was consistently the most powerful predictor of intent in all 4 situations. Perceived behavioral control, perceived personal outcome, and perceived social acceptance by others were moderately good predictors of intent. Subjective norms was the weakest predictor of intent. Assessing students’ intended unethical behavior has implications for educators. Keywords: business communications, ethics, intended behavior Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications 188 Journal of Education for Business of a person, group, organization, policy, or code. In addition, beliefs are influenced by attitudes and feelings of people sharing experiences and include both personal and social aspects that interact in complex ways unexplained by the theory. Intentions are the immediate determinant of behavior. Specifically, the formation of an intention is influenced by beliefs about personal outcomes and social acceptance. The stronger the intent that a person will behave in a specified way, the stronger the likelihood that the person will engage in the behavior. Behavior is the action taken by the person. Once a person makes a decision for action, then the intent transfers to actual behavior. Literature Review First, I examine research studies investigating socially accepted behaviors, and then I shift the focus to socially unaccepted behaviors. The theory of planned behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) has a long history of being applied to approved behaviors. It has only recently been applied to undesirable behaviors such as cheating, shoplifting, lying, and academic dishonesty. Two meta-analyses investigating the effectiveness of the theory of planned behavior found overall evidence for the predictive utility of the model (Farley & Lehmann, 1981; Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). Furthermore, a traditional concern that parameter estimates obtained from student samples do not represent the real world does not appear to apply to the Fishbein results, according to Farley and Lehmann’s (1981) examination of 37 applications. Many researchers have used Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) model to predict, explain, and influence a wide variety of socially accepted behaviors practiced by blood donors (Warshaw, Calantone, & Joyce, 1998), voters (Fishbein, Ajzen, & Hinkel, 1980), physicians prescribing medication (Harrell & Bennett, 1974), employees accepting new jobs (Hom, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979), couples planning families (Jaccard & King, 1972), people seeking health care (Oliver & Berger, 1979), people involved in weight-loss programs (Sejwacz, Ajzen, & Fishbein, 1980), and employees receiving occupational orientations (Sperber, Fishbein, & Ajzen, 1980). However, little research has been done measuring the predictability of undesirable behaviors. Various researchers have investigated business students’ intent to report cheating. Weber and Gillespie (1998) investigated the behavior of 370 managers enrolled in an MBA program and found that intention was a significant predictor of dishonest behavior. Two studies found that the theory of planned behavior was moderately successful in the prediction of cheating (Beck & Ajzen, 1991; Johns & Strand, 2000). In addition, Beck and Ajzen measured the predictability of shoplifting and lying and enhanced the model. Subjective norms, the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform a behavior, and perceived behavioral control, the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior, were added to the theoretical framework. Prediction of intentions was quite accurate. The context of beliefs originally defined in the theory of planned behavior by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) has also been expanded in a study by Pratt and McLaughlin (1989a). Their results indicated an underlying structure that influences perceptions on the basis of (a) the amount of benefit received from performing a behavior, (b) the difficulty in performing a behavior, and (c) the likelihood of getting caught. For example, someone who contemplates the intent of punching a timecard for a friend who is late may consider his or her belief regarding the ethics of the behavior and the benefit received, the difficulty of performing the behavior, and the likelihood of getting caught. Choice set can also strengthen the predictability of the model (Davis & Warshaw, 1991). For instance, using a Likert-type scale would be more sensitive to measuring intent than a yes-orno response. According to Davis and Warshaw, measuring intention was sensitive to the range of responses when participants were asked if they intended to engage in specific behavior. Nonis and Swift (2001) tried to bridge the gap between findings related to academic dishonesty and those regarding dishonesty in the workplace. They found that students were more likely to engage in dishonest acts if they believed that dishonest acts were acceptable to other peers. In addition, they found that students who engaged in dishonest behavior in their college classes were more likely to engage in dishonest behavior on the job. METHOD All students participating in the present study were enrolled in the College of Business and Economics (COBAE). Because no demographic information was collected on the questionnaire, I provide information from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business– International (AACSB) accreditation self-study report (College of Buisness and Economics, 2004) so the reader can make comparisons to other student undergraduate populations. Most students had transferred units from other institutions (community colleges): 56% of all undergraduate students and 74% of juniors and seniors had transferred 30 or more units. Upper division students (72%) outnumbered lower division students. Freshmen (9%) were the least represented. COBAE had 5,223 students enrolled (52% women and 48% men). More than TABLE 1. Frequency Distribution of the Dependent Variable of Intended Behavior (N = 645) Response 2 (once in 3 4 5 (at every Unethical situation 1 (never) a while) (occasionally) (often) opportunity) 3-day week 68 143 180 140 114 Laker tickets 138 189 133 90 96 Homework on the job 121 235 170 75 44 Visit your sister 51 137 132 121 204 March/April 2008 189 80% of students received some sort of financial aid. More than 80% of the students held at least part-time jobs, and slightly more than 25% held full-time jobs. Almost half of students worked more than 20 hr per week, and a typical student worked 11–20 hr per week. One third of the business student population was between the ages of 25 and 28 years, and more than 14% were older than 39 years. There was no majority regarding ethnicity. The largest representations showed that the White population was 32%, and the Hispanic (Latino and Mexican American) population was 20%. Sample I used a convenience sample in this study. A total of 716 students enrolled in an analysis of business communication course were invited to participate in the study during the fall 2004 semester. The hypothetical unethical situations and questions were administered to all sections of the course during Week 5. A total of 645 business students completed the questionnaire; 71 students were absent. All students who attended class on the day when the questionnaire was administered voluntarily participated. Students were assured of anonymity. Variables and Hypotheses Intended unethical behavior (dependent variable) was measured by an expanded definition of beliefs (independent variables) by using the following determinants: attitude toward the behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), subjective norms (Beck & Ajzen, 1991), perceived behavioral control (Beck & Ajzen; Pratt & McLaughlin, 1989a), perceived personal outcome (Pratt & McLaughlin, 1989a), and perceived social acceptance by others (Nonis & Swift, 2001). The present study was the first study to use all five determinants identified in the literature review by using a Likert-type scale to measure the construct of belief. Questions representing the independent and dependent variables are shown in the Appendix. The null hypothesis for each hypothetical unethical situation was that the corresponding regression coefficients of the independent variables were zero across all levels of the dependent variable. The alternative hypothesis for each scenario was that the corresponding regression coefficients will have statistical significance across all levels of the outcome variable with the power to predict students’ intended unethical behavior. Thus, the hypotheses were: 1. Students’ intention to take advantage of a work-at-home policy and enjoy a 4-day weekend will be significantly influenced by the determinants of their beliefs: attitude toward the behavior, the likelihood of getting caught, the benefit received, and the perceptions of others’ ethical beliefs. 2. Students’ intention to accept basketball tickets from a client will be significantly influenced by the determinants of their beliefs. 3. Students’ intention to complete their homework on the job will be significantly influenced by the determinants of their beliefs. 4. Students’ intention to use company time on a regular basis to visit a sister will be significantly influenced by the determinants of their beliefs. The significance of this study is supported by Nonis and Swift’s (2001) finding that students’ intended behaviors in college will likely extend into the work environment. This has important implications for educators. Development of the Questions and Situations The process of developing the four hypothetical situations and the questionnaire had three stages. In Stage 1, an assignment was given to approximately 100 business communication students, requiring them to identify and describe an unethical situation in the workplace. Students were asked to write a one-page essay, and companies and individuals were not identified. From these essays, 12 scenarios and 6 questions representing belief (independent variables) and intent (dependent variable) were written. The same 6 questions were used for each scenario. In Stage 2, a pilot study was conducted. The 12 hypothetical unethical situations were divided into three groups. Each set of four unethical situations with questions was administered to two groups of business communication students, with approximately 20 students per group. After the students read the scenarios and completed the questions, a discussion was held. Students offered suggestions for clarity and shared their interpretations on how well each independent variable was represented in each of the four scenarios. In addition, a cross-tabulation analysis was run by using the gamma measure for ordinal fields because they can be ordered from high to low. Also, gamma tells the researcher the strength of the association and the direction: concordant, discordant, or tied. Each of the belief variables (independent) was computed with intent (dependent variable) separately. Using feedback from the students and the statistical results, the number of scenarios was reduced from 12 to 4, and I revised them for clarity. In Stage 3, the four unethical situations with questions were given to six groups of business communications students, with approximately 20 students per group. The same discussion process was followed. Again, a cross-tabulation analysis was run, and results were compared with the same unethical scenarios in the first pilot for reliability. The results were consistent, and I made minor revisions to the scenarios. Business students’ intended unethical behavior in the four hypothetical situations was measured by using determinants with independent variables (belief toward the behavior, subjective norms, perceived behavior control, perceived personal outcome, perceived social acceptance by others) and the dependent variable (intention to perform the behavior). In this article, I refer to the independent variables as believe, pressure, carrying out, benefit, and other people and refer to the independent variable as intent. I measured variables using 5-point Likert-type scales (Davis & Warshaw, 1991). Response options are listed in the Appendix. Statistical Analysis I used ordinal regression analysis in SPSS to examine the extent to which the independent variables were able to 190 Journal of Education for Business predict intended unethical behavior. Ordinal regression models can be built to generate predictions and evaluate the significance of predictor variables when the dependent variable is ordinal. Three decisions are required when building an ordinal regression model: location or predictor variables, scaling, and link functions. The location component includes the five independent variables: believe, pressure, carrying out, benefit, and other people. Scaling is not warranted in this model because the location-only model provides a good summary of the data. The link function transforms the cumulative probabilities and provides estimates (coefficients). Because ordinal data distributions may not represent a bell-shaped curve, the link function helps to transform the data during analysis. Five link functions are available in the ordinal regression procedure. Choosing the link function is guided by the frequency distribution of responses for the dependent variable. As Table 1 indicates, 3-day week is a normal distribution, so the probit function was applied. Lakers tickets and homework on the job have more responses in the lower categories, making negative-loglog the appropriate function. Last, an extreme outcome for visiting a sister justifies using the cauchit function. Because the analysis assumes that the responses follow a distribution pattern, the link option (logit, probit, complementary log-log, negative log-log, and cauchit) defines the transformation to make the model additive. RESULTS First, I discuss the most likely response category for each of the unethical situations (see Table 1). Of 645 students, 180 (28%) said they would occasionally work a 3-day week at the office and enjoy a 4-day weekend at home without the knowledge of their supervisor. Furthermore, independent variable responses for this category showed that 38% believed that this behavior is somewhat ethical, 42% felt some pressure from coworkers, 43% perceived that the behavior could be either easy or difficult to carry out, 48% thought the benefit is borderline risky, and 32% presumed that other people believed the behavior is ethically borderline. Most students believed taking an unauthorized 4-day weekend is on the ethical end of the Likert scale and perceived that their coworkers believed the behavior is on the unethical end of the continuum. In the next unethical situation, the most likely response shows that 189 (29%) of 645 students said they would accept Lakers tickets once in a while, even though it is against company policy. Independent variable responses for the 189 students revealed that 31% of them believed that this behavior is somewhat unethical, 33% felt some pressure from their client, 44% perceived that the behavior could be easy or difficult to carry out, 39% thought the benefit is borderline risky, and 34% presumed that other people believe the behavior is somewhat unethical. Most students believed that accepting Lakers tickets is more unethical than ethical and perceived that their fellow workers share this belief. Of all students, 36% said they would once in a while intend to do homework on the job when their manager was offsite. Independent variable responses for this category disclose that 38% of students believed that this behavior is somewhat unethical, 39% felt some pressure from their fellow group members, 42% perceived that the behavior could be easy or could be difficult to carry out, 43% thought the benefit was borderline risky, and 40% presumed that other people believe the behavior is somewhat unethical. Even though most students are uncertain about the risk and TABLE 2. Three-Day Week: Ordinal Regression Parameter Estimates for the Dependent and Independent Variables Variable Response Estimate SE Wald df p Threshold Intent 1 Never –3.903 .286 186.742 1http://nursingmodules.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/logo-300x60.png 0 0 prince http://nursingmodules.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/logo-300x60.png prince2021-01-31 07:20:142021-01-31 07:20:14Read article and answer in 2 full pages the followings: 1. What is the problem that the article.