Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 397

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

Harrington, Susan J.·1996·MIS Quarterly

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/249656

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 397

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.