The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effect of Codes of Ethics and Personal Denial of Responsibility on Computer Abuse Judgments and Intentions1,2
Abstract
This research asks whether codes of ethics affect computer abuse judgments and intentions of information systems (IS) employees. Codes of ethics examined include both company codes of ethics and those written specifically to deal with IS issues. In addition, since the intent of codes of ethics is to clarify responsibility and deter unethical behavior, both the psychological trait of responsibility denial and its moderating effect on codes was studied. While company codes did not affect the computer abuse judgments and intentions of all IS personnel, they did affect those IS personnel who tend to deny responsibility, thus suggesting that company codes may clarify responsibility and reduce rationalizations for some people. Unlike company codes, IS-specific codes of ethics had a direct effect on computer sabotage judgments and intentions, but had no differential effect on those high in responsibility denial. Finally, responsibility denial was directly related to all computer abuse judgments and intentions studied. Overall, codes had little effect on computer abuse judgments and intentions relative to the psychological trait of responsibility denial.
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
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621794 · Cited by 10,127
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Normative explanations of helping behavior: a critique, proposal, and empirical test.
Schwartz, S. H. (1973) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(73)90071-1 · Cited by 763
Managerial values and corporate codes of ethics
Cressey, D. R., & Moore, C. A. (1983) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41165032 · Cited by 316
Cited by
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0017103 · Cited by 1,690
Coping With Systems Risk: Security Planning Models for Management Decision Making1
Straub, D. W., & Welke, R. J. (1998) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249551 · Cited by 1,120
In Pursuit of Moderation: Nine Common Errors and Their Solutions1
Carte, T. A., & Russell, C. J. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036541 · Cited by 565
Individual Swift Trust and Knowledge-Based Trust in Face-to-Face and Virtual Team Members
Robert, L. P., Denis, A. R., & Hung, Y.-T. C. (2009) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222260210 · Cited by 514
Toward a Unified Model of Information Security Policy Compliance1
Moody, G. D., Siponen, M., & Pahnila, S. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/13853 · Cited by 450
Metadata
- Authors
- Harrington, S. J.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1996-09-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 257-278
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W1538043169
- Cited by
- 397
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 25.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.