The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating ethical decision making and computer use
Open accessAbstract
The authors present the results of an exploratory survey identifying users' attitudes and behavior when computer privacy and resource-ownership situations are encountered.T HE Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), frequently used to describe ethical decision-making behavior, relates attitudes and social norms to individual behavioral intentions [2,17].The components of this theory appear to be present in ethical decision situations [11], but they may be insufficient in their usual characterizations to completely describe an ethical decision process [17,18].Computer users face an increasing number of ethical dilemmas in their use of computers, and novel situations appear with each new technology.This article presents an exploratory evaluation of the TRA and extensions to attempt to better understand ethical decisions in computer use.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888 · Cited by 7,611
Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior
Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/0092-6566(91)90021-h · Cited by 1,325
Culnan, M. J. (1993) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249775 · Cited by 618
Cited by
Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice
(2004) · IFIP International Federation for Information Processing · doi:10.1007/b115738 · Cited by 3,122
Analysis of end user security behaviors
Stanton, J. M., Stam, K. R., Mastrangelo, P., & Jolton, J. (2005) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2004.07.001 · Cited by 665
Theory of Planned Behavior and Ethics Theory in Digital Piracy: An Integrated Model
Yoon, C. (2011) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0687-7 · Cited by 334
Rhee, H.-S., Kim, C., & Ryu, Y. U. (2009) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2009.05.008 · Cited by 332
Leonard, L. N. K., Cronan, T. P., & Kreie, J. (2004) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.12.008 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Loch, K. D., & Conger, S.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 1996-07
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 74-83
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W1983921390
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 43.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating ethical decision making and computer use. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/233977.233999
- The paper
- Loch, K. D., & Conger, S. (1996). Evaluating ethical decision making and computer use. Communications of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/233977.233999
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
