See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241447932

The Role of the Environment in Student Ethical Behavior

Article · January 2006

DOI: 10.2202/1940-1639.1195

CITATIONS READS
6 168

1 author:

Sandie Nadelson
University of Central Arkansas
27 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Online Evidenced Based Practice Resources for Health Care Professionals View project

Enhancing Education through Massive Open Online Courses View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sandie Nadelson on 04 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

______________________________________________________________________________

Journal of College & Character VOLUME VII, NO. 5, June 2006

The Role of the Environment in Student Ethical Behavior

Sandra Nadelson, University of Nevada Las Vegas

1
_____________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

Developing citizens of character has been a key goal of higher education for many years. However,
obtaining this objective can be challenging since there are many factors that can influence students’
thought and behavior. In this article, I describe some of the research on student academic honesty,
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Action, and ways that faculty, student
affairs professionals, and administrators can positively influence students’ actions.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Ethical Behavior in Higher Education

T he function of higher education has been changing (Chickering & Stamm, 2002). Previously,
students went to college in order to get a good “liberal education” that prepared them to meet
the challenges of adult life. Recently though, more students are attending higher education to
ready themselves for employment opportunities. As a result, programs that focus on “practical
arts” have been increasing in numbers (Brint, Riddle, Turk-Bicakci, & Levy, 2005) while
programs that encourage deeper understandings of the human condition have been dwindling.
This change in students’ objectives and programs has resulted in graduates with more cognitive
training and less development of character than in the past (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005).
As a student and an educator, I have a sense that the moral environments on campuses are
changing. Others sense the same (Chickering, Dalton, & Stamm, 2006; Chickering & Stamm,
2002) and wonder how students are being affected (Daloz Parks, 2000).
One of the reasons that student growth has been falling behind is that these fast track
programs are not allowing time for reflection, the contemplation of “big questions” about the
meaning of life, and a mentoring environment to be fostered. All of these activities are important
for student development (Daloz Parks, 2000).
Evidence of this change in educational focus can be seen everyday on campus. Hallways
are filled with students rushing from class to class. As my colleagues and I sit in the classroom,
we hear about theories, formulas, and work site applications, but not about how to develop into
good citizens. In addition, tight schedules and hours of studying leave no time to reflect on these
larger questions of life or for the development of mentoring relationships.
This change in the focus of higher education is disconcerting. Many wonder if universities
are really developing students to be good citizens, or are we merely producing workers who lack
an understanding of themselves and direction in life. How then should we or can we promote
moral development and behaviors in students?

Sandra Nadelson is a doctoral student in higher educational leadership at University of Nevada Las Vegas.
She is also a faculty member.

________________________________________________________
2 Journal of College and Character VOLUME VII, NO.5 , June 2006

In this paper, I will present research regarding environmental factors that affect student
moral behavior. This will be followed by a theoretical perspective on the topic by Bandura.
Finally, suggestions regarding what we can be do both inside and outside of classrooms to
enhance student moral development and behavior will be presented.

Research on Ethical Behavior

E ducators have struggled with the issue of how best to direct student moral development.
Some people feel that cognitive approaches that focus on decision making and reasoning are
better, while others believe that character-based approaches that stress virtues are more effective
(Kirshner, 2005). One best method has not been clearly identified.
This enigma of how to best promote moral development has led to the creation of theory
and some research in this area. Investigators have found that there are many of variables that
affect student behavior. These factors include age, gender, moral developmental level, and
students’ actions seem to be important in the determination of behavior (Bennett, 2005).
However, there seems to be more than just personal attributes. Other researchers have looked
beyond individual characteristics and instead studied environmental factors that affect student
behavior (Pulvers & Dierkhoof, 1999).
In the next paragraphs, several of the studies that focused primarily on environmental
variables will be presented. The hope is that these studies will give the reader a better
understanding of the complex relationships between the many factors that influence student
behavior and some insight into interventions that promote development.
Pulvers and Dierkhoff (1999) were interested in how academic honesty is affected by
students’ environments. Their quantitative research project primarily examined the relationship
between internal student variables, classroom environments, and academic dishonesty. The
findings suggest that there are differences in both internal and external factors that influence
unethical activities. It seems that students who admitted to dishonest behavior found their classes
to be “less personalized, less satisfying, and less individualized” (p. 496) than those who did not
report unethical behavior. The researchers speculated that depersonalization may have reduced
the students’ interest in pleasing the teachers, encouraged students to cheat as a form of
punishment of faculty members, or caused a devalued view of the course. This then made it
easier for the students to justify cheating behaviors.
Because the research performed by Pulver et al. used a non-experimental study design, it is
impossible to know conclusively if there is truly a cause and effect relationship between these
variables. It is conceivable that students who cheated felt that their classes were less personalized
before they cheated. It is also possible that the feelings of depersonalization happen after the
cheating occurred in order to help justify the behavior. It is possible that both scenarios are true.
Nonetheless, it is fair to conclude from the research results that there is a connection between
students and faculty members when it comes to behavior.
Another environmental factor that seems to play a role in the academic honesty of college
students is institutional use of honor codes. These policies designate expected behavior, the
personal rewards of honest behavior, and consequences of breaking the code. Honor codes seem
to have an effect on students’ moral development through increasing students’ feelings of
responsibility and accountability to themselves and others. As a result, students act more
honestly and are more likely to report classmates cheating than students at schools without honor
codes in place (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001).
Besides affecting students, honor codes may also affect faculty members’ beliefs about
their environment and possibly their behavior as well. Research findings indicate that teachers
who work in institutions with honor codes had more positive feelings about the schools’ academic

______________________________________________________________________________
 The Role of Environment 3

integrity policies. In addition, they were more willing to allow the “system to take care of
monitoring and disciplinary activities” (p. 397) than those who do not have honor codes in place
(McCabe, Butterfield & Trevino; 2003).
Punishment and rewards are environmental factors that research has shown to be important
in influencing behavior. Faculty members can create situations that produce high levels of
student fear. Research findings indicate that students who have a greater fear of being caught and
of being punished are less likely to perform dishonest actions (Hutton, 2006).
Concern over consequences of behavior also appeared to be a factor in a study performed
by Love and Simmons (1998). Through qualitative research methods, they found that pressure to
achieve, probability of being caught and punished, and aspects of professors’ behavior influenced
student actions. During interviews, graduate students said that their desire to cheat was related to
instructors’ leniency and their beliefs about faculty members’ likelihood of acting on cheating
and plagiarism.
A surprising finding was that students actually blamed teachers for cheating behaviors.
Those who placed fault on the teachers felt that faculty members had allowed students the
opportunities to be dishonest and thus were culpable for students’ misbehavior. One could
conjecture that these students lacked the maturity to take responsibility for their own actions and
were acting in an authority-bound view of the world (Daloz Parks, 2000) where the authority
figure is placed in charge. As such, students considered their teachers to be accountable for them
not engaging in dishonest activity.
These last studies focused on higher education students and their moral behavior.
Unfortunately, research on moral behavior in higher education is limited in scope and breadth.
Many questions regarding motivation, actions, and interventions are left unanswered. One can
look to research outside of academia for answers. For example, a study conducted by Trevino,
Butterfield, and McCabe (1998) provides insight into moral behavior. In this study, the
researchers examined the relationship between ethical leadership and employees (Brown,
Trevino, & Harrison; 2005). The findings suggest that ethical leadership affected employees’ job
satisfaction, dedication, and willingness to report problems at work to their leaders. Thus, the
results indicate that moral leaders do help set up organizational behavioral norms as role models
and mentors. In defining acceptable behavior, the tone is set for employee action or inaction in
terms of beliefs and confronting unethical behavior. It can be concluded from this that the role of
leadership is a key to building strong moral climates.
Even though this research was performed in the business world, it can be easily applied to
education with the “employees” being the faculty, students, or student affairs professionals and
the “leadership” being higher education administrators or in some situations faculty, student
affairs professionals, or students. From this one can conclude that college leaders do affect
conduct both inside and outside of classrooms through role modeling and mentoring.
Both role modeling and mentoring are very important to moral development (Daloz Parks,
2000). Mentors do not work alone. In higher education, their efforts along with others create a
mentoring community that can provide students with insights, hope, visions of possibilities for
their future, and guidance along what can be a long journey of development (Daloz Parks, 2000).
In summary, fostering student growth and development are key roles of higher education.
Unfortunately, promoting moral student behavior is not an easy process to understand and
enhance. Educators believe that students need time fostering environments, and they need people
who are willing to mentor them through their journey. Administrators, faculty members, and
student affairs professionals do provide guidance to students as they develop ethical behavior
within colleges and universities.

______________________________________________________________________________
4 Journal of College and Character VOLUME VII, NO.5 , June 2006

Theoretical Framework

T here are many theories that can help explain student moral behavior. Commonly referenced
theorists include Kohlberg and Gilligan (Tappan, 2006). One less recognized theory was
developed by Bandura (1991a, 1991b) called the “Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought
and Action.” This theory can help explain the many variables that affect students’ actions.
In defining this theory, Bandura explains that action is affected by cognitive and
environmental factors (see figure 1). Cognitive processes include intellectual and moral
developmental level, reaction to situations, and commitment to social norms (1991a). Bandura
suggests in that these factors influence our interpretation of our environments. In other words, we
create our own meaning of the world depending on our ability to reason and past experiences.
For example, two employees, Amanda and Susan, meet for the first time a trainee named
Karen. Amanda immediately feels that Karen is warm and friendly because she reminds her of an
old friend. However, Susan has a very different reaction to Karen. Instead, she feels that Karen is
aloof and insulting because Karen looks similar to Susan’s previous supervisor: a person whom
she never liked. As a result of the two employees’ personal analysis of Karen, Amanda invites
Karen out for lunch. In contrast, Susan decides to walk away without saying anything.
Bandura believes that feelings of belonging and personalization are important in
determining behavior. A sense of depersonalization and bureaucratization can increase negative
actions. In other words, people who do not feel socially connected to others find it easier to
justify socially unacceptable behavior (Bandura, 1991b).
From this theory, it seems evident that the emotional connections between individuals are
an important variable in determining behavior. Thus, one can surmise that when individuals
believe that environments are personal and welcoming, they behave in more socially acceptable
ways.
Connections are important, but so are social norms and role modeling according to
Bandura. He postulates that these two factors also strongly affect behavior since people look to
others for direction on how to act.

Cognitive Factors:
Moral development/ thought,
affective self-reaction,
commitment to social norms,
& feelings of
dehumanization.

Environmental Factors: Behavior:

Social norms, possible sanctions,
Actions that show academic
codes of conduct, classroom
college environment, role integrity or dishonesty.
modeling & respect for others.

Figure 1. Adapted from Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Action
(1991a).

______________________________________________________________________________
 The Role of Environment 5

Even though Bandura did not design this theory with higher education in mind, Bandura’s
model can easily be applied to higher educational settings. One can see that in terms of academic
honesty, the cognitive factors of moral reasoning and intelligence are important. These personal
variables influence students’ perceptions of their environments, including their feelings of
belonging and alienation.
According to this theory, social norms and students’ commitment to them also play a part
in determining how they behave at school. Social norms may be in part set through the
implementation of codes of conduct and also actions of faculty, administrators, student affairs
professionals, and other students.
It is reasonable then to think that students who attend higher educational institutions with
codes of conduct may or may not adhere to them depending on several other factors. One issue is
their beliefs regarding other students’ faithfulness in upholding codes as a social norm. In
addition, how much students want to align themselves with the norms of an institution and the
students there will affect their behavior. Some students have a great need to “fit in” while others
do not feel that adhering to social norms is important.
Bandura also points out that sanctions can deter dishonest behavior. Punishment may
come from classmates, faculty, administrators, and parents. Fear arises and dishonest behavior is
reduced when students perceive that the penalties are harsh. According to Bandura, students
perform a mental cost-benefit calculation. When the costs are too high, they are less likely to
carry out dishonest actions. Conversely, rewards can enhance behavior if rewards are seen as
worthy of action.
In summary, Bandura’s theory can be used in higher education workers, in order to
understand better student behavior. In applying the theory, people at colleges and universities can
greatly impact students’ beliefs through role modeling, establishing morally correct social norms,
and though creating rewards and also educating about the negative consequences of dishonest
behavior.

Campus Implications

F aculty, student affairs personnel, and administrators influence students’ behavior. Changes in
actions are mediated through the creation and maintenance of ethical campus environments.
McCabe (2005) believes that there is a need to work together toward a common end of improved
behavior. Through working as a team, he wrote, “Our goal should not simply be to reduce
cheating; rather, our goal should be to find innovative and creative ways to use academic integrity
as a building block in our efforts to develop responsive students and, ultimately, more responsible
citizens” (p. 29). To do this, a holistic approach that incorporates a variety of interventions is
needed (Duggan, 2006).
In the next several paragraphs, interventions that institutional employees can utilize in order
to promote the development of more ethical behaviors will be presented. These will be separated
by institutional roles: campus administrators, faculty members, and student affairs professionals.
However, the work of these groups of people is not easily divided into such discrete categories
and thus activities do overlap considerably (Helfgot, 2005).
Administrators are sometimes overlooked as people who influence student behavior
because of their lack of contact with students. Even though administrators may not frequently
interact with students, these college leaders can play a significant role in developing student
ethical behavior (Kuh et al 2005). They greatly influence campus behavior because modeling and
coordinating efforts give students opportunities to grow morally (McCabe & Pavela, 2004).

______________________________________________________________________________
6 Journal of College and Character VOLUME VII, NO.5 , June 2006

Deans and administrators often play the role of educators regarding appropriate behavior
(Worthen, 2004). Teaching efforts can be geared toward students, student affairs personnel, and
faculty. To students, leaders may inform the campus community regarding what is acceptable in
terms of moral behavior. To faculty and student affairs personnel, administrators can provide
education regarding policies, procedures, and appropriate actions for promoting a strong moral
environment (Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2001).
In addition, assisting in the development of policies, such as codes of conduct, is a function
to foster honest student behavior. Directing such activities helps identify to everyone on campus
that ethical behavior is a key priority. The work of leaders also provides role modeling on how
individuals can work together in order to achieve higher purposes.
Faculty collaboration is very important to the development of codes of conduct. This is
because the partnership of teachers are particularly essential for the implementation of a new code
and for ongoing discussions about how the code relates to student conduct. Through
conversations about the code, faculty can provide students with expectations about action and
show genuine interest in students’ behavior (Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2002).
In addition to the use of codes of conduct, there are many other responsibilities that faculty
can take on as they assist in the development of moral student behavior. According to McCabe et
al. (2004), providing guidance and role modeling are important ways to promote honest behavior.
In addition, faculty can work to:

• let students know that the institution has academic integrity as a core value,
• help students take responsibility for their academic integrity,
• develop assessment methods that are fair and creative,
• take action when academic dishonesty happens, and
• help create and uphold campus standards that promote integrity.

Many faculty members are already performing these activities. Research being conducted
at University of Nevada Las Vegas, indicates that a large number of faculty regularly counsel
students on how to act in an ethical manner. Even so, several faculty members reported that they
suspected unethical student behavior. Common problems reported were plagiarism and cheating
on exams. Oftentimes, the plagiarism was believed to be unintentional, and education of the
students was helpful in improving behavior issues. A few of the faculty surveyed did feel the
need to report misconduct to the Office of Student Conduct for further student instruction on
appropriate behavior and follow-up.
Many colleges and universities have developed the role for academic conduct officers
(McDonald & Carroll, 2006). Activities of officers included evaluation of possible academic
dishonesty, student and faculty education, and student discipline. Thus, both students and faculty
are benefited by having academic officers at campuses. Even though these academic conduct
officers are valuable, there are other roles for student affairs professionals.
Those who provide student services play a central role in student development out of the
classroom (Helfgot, 2005) because they are often able to work closely with students. These
professionals are able to be role models and to present students with out of the classroom learning
opportunities. In doing so, students become involved and spend time in self exploration. By
looking at their basic beliefs, students can identify their own moral values and work to align them
with others (Daloz Parks, 2000).
Involvement, inclusion, and self exploration seem to be ways students develop self-
authorship and ethical behavior (Baxter-Magolda, 2001). But it is not easy to understand what
interventions have the greatest affect on students (Dalton & Henck, 2004). Thus assessment and

______________________________________________________________________________
 The Role of Environment 7

the making of improvements are ongoing tasks that are needed in the promotion of student
development (Helfgot, 2005).
Some of the ways to enhance services were delineated by the American College Personnel
Association (1996). This organization declared that in order to assist in personal development on
campuses, student affairs professionals need to:

• adopt a mission that enhances students’ learning and personal development,

• allocate resources to activities that enhance student involvement,
• collaborate with other institutional agents and agencies,
• staff that are experts in the area, and
• base activities on research.

In performing the tasks described by the ACPA, environments are developed that foster
growth of students, faculty, and administrators. Even so, setting parameters for moral
environments is not all that can be done to bring about development. Student affairs
professionals also need to be (Blimling & Whitt, 1998):

• committed to learning,
• appreciative of differences between people,
• encouraging personal responsibility,
• fostering good citizenship, and
• setting high ethical standards to follow.

In conclusion, administrators, student affairs professionals, or faculty members can do

many things to foster student growth. Some key interventions are working collaboratively on
policies, being role models, allowing time for self reflection, and asking the bigger questions of
life.

Final Thoughts

D eveloping students who behave ethically is an important mission for higher education.
Unfortunately, there is not a comprehensive understanding of how to easily develop moral
behaviors in students. Research and theory on student development do give direction in terms of
efforts needed to foster personal growth of students. As such, open discussions on the
development of healthy environments need to be ongoing.
As part of the conversation, faculty, administrators, student affairs personnel, and
students need to discuss how collaboration can be improved in order to foster healthy
environments and also ethical behavior in students. Working towards a common goal through
thoughtful activities can enhance learning and development in higher education.

______________________________________________________________________________
8 Journal of College and Character VOLUME VII, NO.5 , June 2006

Bibliography

American College Personnel Association (1996). The Student learning imperative: Implications
for student affairs. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.
Bandura, A. (1991a). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1991b). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines &
J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 45-103).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baxter-Magolda, M. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher
education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bennett, R. (2005). Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post-1992 university.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 137-162.
Blimling, G., & Whitt, E. (1998). Principles of good practice for student affairs. About Campus,
3(1), 10-15.
Brint, S., Riddle, M., Turk-Bicakci, L., & Levy, C. (2005). From the liberal to the practical arts
in American colleges and universities: Organizational analysis and curricular change. The
Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 152-180.
Brown, M., Trevino, L., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective
for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 97, 117-134.
Chickering, A., & Stamm, L. (2002). Making our purpose clear. About Campus, 7(2), 30-32.
Chickering, A, Dalton, J, & Stamm, L. (2006). Encouraging authenticity and spirituality in
higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A., & Reiser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Daloz Parks, S. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search
for meaning, purpose, and faith. SF: Jossey-Bass.
Dalton, J. C.; & Henck, A.F. (2004). Introduction. New Directions for Institutional Research,
122, 3-6.
Duggan, F. (2006). Plagiarism: prevention, practice and policy. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 31(2), 151-154.
Helfgot, S. (2005). Core values and major issues in student affairs practice: What really matters?
New Directions for Community Colleges, 131, 5-18.
Hutton, P. (2006). Understanding student cheating and what educators can do about it. College
Teaching, 54(1), 171-176.
Kishner, B. (2005). Moral voices of politically engaged urban youth. New Directions for Youth
Development, 108, 31-43.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.,& Whitt, E. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions
that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Love, P., & Simmons, J. (1998). Factors influencing cheating and plagiarism among graduate
students in a college of education. College Student Journal, 32(4), 539-551.
McCabe, D. (2005). Academic dishonesty. Liberal Education, 91(3), 26-31.
McCabe, D., Butterfield, K., & Trevino, L. (2003). Faculty and academic integrity: The
influence of current honor codes and past honor code experiences. Research in Higher
Education, 44(3), 367-385.
McCabe, D., & Pavela, F. (2004). Ten [Updated] principles of academic integrity. Change,
36(3), 10-15.

______________________________________________________________________________
 The Role of Environment 9

McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (2001). Dishonesty in academic environments. The
Journal of Higher Education, 72(1), 29-45.
McDonald, R., & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism—a complex issue requiring a holistic
institutional approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 233-245.
Pulver, K., & Diekhoff, G. (1999). The relationship between academic dishonesty and college
classroom environment. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 487-498.
Tappan, M. (2006). Moral functioning as mediated action. Journal of Moral Education, 35(1),
1-18.
Whitley, B., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2001). Academic integrity as an institutional issue. Ethics &
Behavior, 11(3), 325-342.
Whitley, B., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002). Academic dishonesty: An educator’s guide.
Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Worthen, K. J. (2004) Discipline: An academic dean’s perspective on dealing with plagiarism.
Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2, 441-448.

______________________________________________________________________________

View publication stats