FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — When Tim West discovered that nearly 75 percent of his students cheated on an examination, the University of Arkansas researcher decided to turn the event into a learning experience rather than a punitive one. He found that college students rationalize or justify unethical behavior by participating in various “ethical distancing” strategies to try to separate themselves from the wrongfulness of the act.

West,an associate professor of accounting in the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas, and his colleagues at Iowa State University will publish findings from their new study this year in the Business & Professional Ethics Journal. The research provides insight for teachers and managers searching for guidelines to encourage ethical behavior in the classroom or workplace.

“The strategies students used to rationalize cheating are an important warning about the future professional behavior of today’s students,” said Timothy West, associate professor of accounting at the University of Arkansas. “If tomorrow’s managers are going to be able to prevent unethical behavior, then the processes by which these strategies emerge need to be clearly understood.”

The researchers set up the project after West discovered that 47 of the 64 students, or 73 percent, in his introductory course in managerial accounting had violated rules on part of a midterm examination. West had given the students a take-home problem after explicitly telling them they were not allowed to use the Web or other computer sources to obtain help in solving the problem. He also explained that the students were forbidden to collaborate with others to find the answer.  

Rather than punishing the students, West decided to turn the situation into a learning experience for himself and his students. He collaborated with Jeffrey Kaufmann, Sue Pickard Ravenscroft and Charles Shrader, professors at Iowa State University, to collect data. After explaining that results of the take-home part of the exam would be thrown out, the researchers asked students to complete a questionnaire about their behaviors and attitudes regarding the situation. The students were told that participation was voluntary, and anonymity was assured if they elected to participate. The researchers also explained that the students would not face any disciplinary action.

Questionnaire responses revealed that students tried to increase the distance between themselves and the action as a way of rationalizing their involvement in unethical behavior. The researchers identified several strategies students used to achieve this separation, which the researchers called “ethical distancing.”

Some students attempted separate themselves from the action by blaming a third party or claiming they would not have cheated if someone else had not interfered. Others made moral distinctions between themselves and the action.

“The reasoning here is 'that I did the action, but I am not the kind of person to do the action,’” West said. “Focusing on this differentiation allows the actor to avoid personal responsibility and distance themselves from the behavior.”

Another method students used to distance themselves from their behavior involved focusing on something good about the action while ignoring its negative aspects. These students rationalized that collaborating was good if it was done to help someone learn. The result was that students acknowledged that they had participated in the unethical action, but they were able to distance themselves from its wrongfulness.

Some students rationalized their behavior by arguing that the act was socially acceptable. Another strategy focused on alternative outcomes from the behavior. These students acknowledged their behavior was wrong but compared it to another situation that was more wrong. Finally, some students analyzed the various outcomes and focused on the positive ones. For example, these students reasoned that collaborating may result in both cheating and an increase in what a student learns. 

“Students could then compare the two outcomes and rationalize their decision by arguing that the good outweighs the bad,” West said.

The researchers’ findings provide insight for encouraging ethical behavior in the classroom and workplace. By identifying and explaining the processes in which people justify unethical behavior, managers and teachers can employ moral imagination -- the ability to place oneself in an objective, dispassionate position to evaluate actions and consider alternatives -- to counteract possible rationalizations.

“For example, managers can emphasize that competing social norms are not relevant, that a given action is wrong regardless of the underlying intent,” West said. “Or, managers can explain that it is the wrongfulness of the action that is important and not the degree of wrongfulness.”