Attitude toward ethical behavior in computer use: a shifting model
Abstract
Purpose – In this study the researchers attempt to identify factors that could influence an individual’s attitude toward ethical behavior in the information systems (IS) environment and compare them to the findings of an earlier study to determine any changes. Design/methodology/approach – A sample of university students is used to assess environmental influences (societal, belief system, personal, professional, legal, and business), moral obligation, consequences of the action, and gender, in order to determine what influences an individual’s attitude toward a behavior. Discriminant analysis is used to assess the factor influences. Findings – The findings indicate that many factors influence attitude toward ethical decisions and are dependent upon the type of ethical issue involved. Moreover, based on two time periods, the ethical attitude influencers have shifted over time. The gender findings indicate that attitude influencers are also dependent on the sex of the individual. Originality/value – The findings show that attitude influencers have shifted over time (since an earlier study), which means that organizations must periodically reassess their employees ’ ethical climate and adjust their ethics ’ programs as attitude influencers change. The findings also show that training programs need to focus on the different influencers for males and females.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Individuals often ignore or violate ICT policies and behave unethically in their use of ICT resources.
“Nonetheless, individuals often ignore or violate such policies and behave unethically in their use of ICT resources (Leonard and Cronan, 2005).”
From The influence of ethical principles and policy awareness priming on university students’ judgements about ICT code of conduct compliance (2022) · cites this paper as Leonard and Cronan, 2005
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2896 · Cited by 1,237 · see citing works
Morality and Computers: Attitudes and Differences in Moral Judgments
Gattiker, U. E., & Kelley, H. (1999) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.10.3.233 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Richards, D., Nazeer Khan, S. B., Formosa, P., & Bankins, S. (2022) · Organizational Cybersecurity Journal: Practice, Process and People · doi:10.1108/ocj-01-2022-0001 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Leonard, L. N. K., & Paul Cronan, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Tulsa (US)
- ORCID
- Leonard, Lori N.K.
- Venue
- Industrial Management & Data Systems
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1150-1171
- ISSN
- 0263-5577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2016061824
- Cited by
- 74
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 9.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Industrial Management & Data Systems (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Flooding and Environmental Impact
- Keywords
- moral behavior, information systems ethics, ethical decision-making, moral obligation, consequences of actions, gender differences, ethical climate, ethics training, university students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review