A REVIEW OE THEIMPACT OE ACM CODE OE CONDUCT ON INEORMATION

TECHNOLOGY MORAL JUDGMENT AND INTENT

ALAN R. PESLAKPenn State UniversityDunmore, PA 18512

ABSTRACT

One of the most widely recognized code of ethics in infor-mation technology (IT) is the ACM (Association for ComputingMachinery) Code of Ethics. Adopted in 1992, the code coversmany of the key ethical areas that are encountered in informationtechnology practice. But this code has been lightly studied in theliterature, including its recognition and its acceptance. Likewise,its effectiveness in influencing moral intent has not previouslybeen established. This manuscript reviews selected key state-ments from the ACM Code of Ethics to determine the level ofagreement with these statements. The surveyed group includes ITstudents, faculty, and staff. In general, agreement on all issues isfound, though varying in degree. Next, the study analyzes the re-lationship between ACM code agreement and ethical intent. Therelationships in nearly all cases are positive and significant. Fi-nally, it examines the infiuence this code has among participantsin a hypothetical hostile work situation. Specifically, it examinesmoral intent when a supervisor recommends an action directlycontrary to the code. The difference between actions in a hostilesituation versus no supervisor influence is found to be significantin some cases.

Keywords: information technology ethics, ethics, code ofconduct, code of ethics, managerial influence

INTRODUCTION

The development of codes of ethics within professional orga-nizations has had a long history. Perhaps the most famous codeis the medical code first promulgated in the Hippocratic Oathwritten about 400 B.C. The modem American Medical Associa-tion (AMA) code of ethics dates back to 1847. Other professionalorganizations such as the American Bar Association (ABA), theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), theNational Association of Realtors, and the Society of ProfessionalJournalists have followed suit and developed codes of ethics andconduct so that their clients and customers can have a level oftrust and reliance in their professional work. Shaver [31] suggeststhat occupational ethics and their codes "address the imbalancebetween the practitioner group and the community . . . they servethrough practices that cultivate a relationship of trust." Withinthis environment, several professional computer and informationscience and systems organizations have developed codes of ethicsto provide a level of confidence and security in the work of infor-mation technology (IT) professionals. Perhaps the most widelyrecognized and publicized is the ACM (Association for Comput-ing Machinery) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct enactedin 1992. [1]

The preamble of the code includes the following:

Commitment to ethical professional conduct is expectedof every member (voting members, associate members,and student members) of the Association for ComputingMachinery (ACM).

This Code, consisting of 24 imperatives formulated asstatements of personal responsibility, identifies the ele-ments of such a commitment It contains many, but not all,issues professionals are likely to face. Section 1 outlinesfundamental ethical considerations, while Section 2 ad-dresses additional, more specific considerations of profes-sional conduct. Statements in Section 3 pertain more spe-cifically to individuals who have a leadership role, whetherin the workplace or in a volunteer capacity such as withorganizations like ACM. Principles involving compliancewith this Code are given in Section 4.

* * *

The Code and its supplemented Guidelines are intendedto serve as a basis for ethical decision making in the con-duct of professional work. Secondarily, they may serve asa basis for judging the merit of a formal complaint pertain-ing to violation of professional ethical standards. [1]

But as was apparent with Enron and the AICPA code, allcodes of ethics are dependent on members and practitioners actu-ally adhering to the code. This work will review the Associationfor Computing Machinery Code of Ethics and its perception. Itwill accomplish this by selecting passages from the code and sur-veying levels of agreement/disagreement with these provisions.The process of converting moral judgments to moral intentionsand the correlation between code agreement and moral decisionswill be explored. This will be analyzed in both a hostile envi-ronment where management recommends an action contrary tothe code as well as a non-hostile environment with no externalinfluence.

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

There is a variety of research which has studied various as-pects of codes of ethics, information technology ethics, andmoral decision making. As an example. Stead and Gilbert [36]noted the rise of many ethical issues related to electronic com-merce including privacy, spam, security, cookies, and children.But generally, we have not been able to keep pace ethically withtechnology. Marshall [23] discusses Ogbum's cultural lag theorywhere technology is moving faster than our ability to keep upwith ethical issues associated with the technology. One way toaddress these issues is a professional code. Bush, Venable, and

Spring 2007 Journal of Computer Information Systems

Bush [5] found 82% of marketing executives believe that codesof ethics should exist in companies for Internet marketing. Unfor-tunately, only 44% believe companies consider ethics in decisionmaking.

Business codes of ethics and information technology ethicscodes in particular, have been studied to a modest extent by pastresearchers. Support for codes has been the subject of limitedstudy as well. Rezaee, Elmore, and Szendi [30] found supportamong higher educational institutions for a code of conduct, butmost prior research has focused on one particular aspect of a busi-ness code of ethics. Chen, Sawyers, and Williams [7] propose thatethical behavior can only start with the "ability to recognize thatethical issues exist." They suggest that ethics can be developedthrough corporate culture and through Total Quality processesrather than codes of ethics. Cleek and Leonard [8] studied ethicaldecision in situations where there was a code of ethics and wherethere was no code of ethics. The authors found that for none ofseven common ethical scenarios did the existence of a code makea significant difference in ethical decisions. Vitell and Davis [39]found that codes of ethics had little impact on unethical behaviorof MIS professionals.

Harrington [9] related specific findings with regard to infor-mation systems (IS) codes of ethics. Her results are shown intable 1.

Table 1 - Harrington [9] IS Code Findings

Presence of generic codes of ethics has no effect on ISpersonnel's judgments about computer abuse

Presence of generic codes of ethics has no effect on ISpersonnel's intentions about computer abuse

Presence of IS codes of ethics has no effect on ISpersonnel's judgments about computer abuse

Presence of IS codes of ethics has no effect on ISpersonnel's judgments about computer abuse except forsabotage

Presence of IS codes of ethics has no effect on cracking,copying software, damaging fraud/viruses, less damagingfraud or viruses.

Overall, Harrington [9] found that codes of ethics have somesmall effect on IS personnel behavior. They are effective in situ-ations where responsibility is seen as a significant issue. Overall,codes had limited effects relative to an individual's psychologicaltraits. Loch, Conger, and Oz [21] suggest that codes of conductare viewed as very important but generally ineffective in regulat-ing behavior. Healy and lies [11] found that company codes ofethics are limited and do not address all key issues. They notethe "lack of reference to personal data", "the ineffectiveness ofcodes in influencing end-user behavior", and the gap betweentechnology and control of that technology. Lindblom and Ruland[19] found that in the AICPA code semantic interpretations led todifferent meaning for readers of the code. The mere existence ofcodes of ethics have had limited impact but Peterson [24] how-ever did not just study the existence of codes of ethics but ratherthe implementation of codes in clear computer guidelines. It wasfound that with clearly communicated guidelines the codes didinfluence behavior.

The theoretical foundation for this article is the model of Rest[29]. Rest proposed the four stage model for ethical decisionmaking - recognition of a moral issue, making a moral judgment,establishing moral intent, and engaging in moral behavior. This

manuscript deals with the middle two stages of ethical decisionmaking, making a moral judgment and establishing moral intent.There are many researchers who have supported this general ap-proach. Quinn [25] emphasizes two stages in ethics - judgmentand action. These follow from the concepts of determining whatshould I do and then how do I act. The author suggests that thereare "moderating influences" at both stages. A moderating influ-ence can be a code of ethics or a supervisor suggesting otherbehavior. Strong relationships have been found between ethi-cal judgments and behavioral intentions [3]. Lin and Ding [18]found a strong relationship between ethical attitude and ethicalbehavioral intentions. Vitell and Ho [38] summarize the differentscales and variables measured in a variety of business ethics stud-ies over the past 20 years. The major variables studied over thepast 20 years include intentions and ethical behavior. Singhapkdi[34] found a significant and positive relationship between ethi-cal perception and ethical intention. Rallapalli, Vitell, and Barnes[27] found that in some situations organizational and professionalethical environments affected ethical decision making. The orga-nizational environment and cultural environment could include acode of ethics.

The concept of influences on ethical decision making has alsobeen extensively theorized. According to the theory of plannedbehavior, behavior has as an immediate antecedent, intention. Butintention is moderated by perceived behavior control. Therefore,intentions can be affected by external or internal influences [4].Banerjee, Cronan, and Jones [2] found no significant moderat-ing variables in their study of ethical behavior intention. Moraljudgment, attitude, ego strength, locus of control, and organiza-tional ethical climate all were not statistically significant. Lochand Conger [20] found attitudes and social norms were significantin two of three computer ethical intentions; attitudes were signifi-cant in all three; individual characteristics relate to attitude andthen intentions.

Impact of managerial influence is suggested by the work ofKuo and Hsu [14] who found significant difference in behav-ioral intention depending on volitional control. When externalforces are intensified, morality decreases. Leonard, Cronan, andKreie [17] found that attitude and personal normative beliefswere significant factors in all ethical scenarios with a relativelyhigh degree of correlation. Also sex, ego strength, and perceivedimportance were significant in all but one scenario. Perceivedimportance may be affected by a code of ethics. Sims and Keon[33] found a relationship between the level of discomfort andconflict and a mismatch between an organization and their activ-ity expectation and the internal ethics of a member of the organi-zation. In other words, level of discomfort and conflict decreasedwhen there was a match between what the organization expectedin behavior and the individual's ethics. This manuscript alsoexplores this relationship. In this, we examine codes of ethics,beliefs in these codes, and hostile organizational environmentsand their effect on ethical intentions. Turpinseed [43] found thatgood soldiers or those with high organization citizenship behav-ior also were rated more ethical and were more productive. Ral-lapalli, Vitell, and Szeinbach [27] found significant relationshipsbetween personal values and marketers' ethical norms for market-ing issues (i.e. pricing, product, information).

HYPOTHESES

Incorporating the result of the preceding literature review,a series of hypotheses were prepared to better understand the

Journal of Computer Information Systems Spring 2007

significance of a code of ethics for information technology. Formany of the questions, similar to Lawson [15], the study devel-oped alternate hypotheses (with implied null hypotheses) to studythe influences of the ACM Code of Ethics.

Rezaee, Elmore, and Szendi [30] suggest a high level of supportamong higher educational institutions for code of conduct. Loch,Conger, and Oz [21] suggest an IT code is seen as important.Support for an IT code of conduct is tested in hypothesis 1.

HI There will be general support for the ACM Code of Ethicsprinciples.

The Association for Computing Machinery is one of the larg-est computing organizations in the world. Influence of their mem-bership is explored in hypothesis 2.

H2 Membership in ACM will have a significant and positiveimpact on agreement with code provisions.

Familiarity with the code provisions is explored in hypothe-sis 3.

H3 Having read the ACM Code of Ethics will have a signifi-cant and positive impact on agreement with code provisions.

Strong relationships have been found in the past between ethi-cal judgments and ethical intentions [3], [18]. This leads to hy-pothesis 4.

H4 A direct correlation will exist between each identified codeof ethics moral judgment and the forming of a related moral in-tent.

Researchers have found relationships between external forcesand morality [14], [33]. Hypothesis five explores the power of ahostile work environment.

H5 A hostile work environment, where management recom-mends actions contrary to the ACM code of ethics, will signifi-cantly reduce the ethical level of moral intent.

METHODOLOGY

To determine the answers to the preceding research questions,an online web-based survey was prepared. Recruitment consistedof in-class participation by the authors' undergraduate IT classesand an e-mail request to our information technology listserv. Thepopulation surveyed was the same in each survey but was sepa-rated by a four week interval. Our listserv includes all IT studentsas well as staff, faculty, and our graduates who have entered intothe workforce. Students have often been accepted as represen-tative in many past ethical studies including Loch and Conger[20], Cleek and Leonard [8], Whitman, Perez, and Beise [41],and Smith, Milberg, and Burke [35]. Cleek and Leonard [8] sug-gest "that students, especially those in their senior or graduateyears will be fairly representative of employees in most givenorganizations. Most undergraduate students have worked in atleast entry-level positions in the workforce . . . thus they shouldbe fairly representative of new employees in many organiza-tions." Whitman, Townsend; Hendrickson, and Rensvold [42]used university students as well since "these students will gradu-ate and begin performing various roles as business persons andcan be expected to possess a fundamental understanding of . . .ethical perspectives." Ramakrisna, Kini, and Vijayaraman [28]and Lee and Lee [16] also used university students in their ethicsstudies. Specifically, in our study, respondents are asked to reviewa particular portion of the ACM Code of Ethics and determinewhether they agree or disagree with the issue - they are asked tomake a moral judgment. Next, they are asked to determine howthey will act in a situation based on the code portion. Here theyare determining and we are measuring moral intent. The other

two stages of the Rest moral decision-making process are notincluded in this study. Similar to Peterson [24] ethical intentionsare used rather than actions due to the potential bias for not ad-mitting ethical violations. The specific code extracts (and relatedabbreviations used in subsequent tables) are presented in table2. The participants were asked their general level of agreementwith the code extracts. The 5 point Likert scale ranged from: 0strongly agree to 4 strongly disagree. The entire ACM code wasreviewed and major items were selected by the author based onperceived immediacy. The elimination of some items was madeto improve attention and participation and reduce respondentfatigue. The selection of the specific items is subject to question.The complete texts of the questionnaires are presented in the ap-pendix.

Table 2 - ACM Code Extracts

Code Extract

In the work environment the computingprofessional has the additional obligation toreport any signs of system dangers that mightresult in serious personal or social damage.

(You should) not make deliberately false ordeceptive claims about a system or systemdesign, but. . . instead provide full disclosureof all pertinent system limitations andproblems.

Unauthorized duplication of materials mustnot be condoned.

Specifically, one must not take credit forother's ideas or work, even in cases where thework has not been explicitly protected bycopyright, patent, etc.

It is the responsibility of professionals tomaintain the privacy and integrity of datadescribing individuals

Respect all obligations of confidentiality toemployers, clients, and users unless dischargedfrom such obligations by requirements of thelaw or other principles of this Code.

Strive to achieve the highest quality,effectiveness and dignity in both the processand products of professional work.

Give comprehensive and thorough evaluationsof computer systems and their impacts,including analysis of possible risks.

Access computing and communicationresources only when authorized to do so.

Ensure that users and those who will beaffected by a system have their needs clearlyarticulated during the assessment and designof requirement.

Abbreviation

Danger

False

Copy

Credit

Privacy

Confidential

Quality

Risk

Resources

Users

The specific ethical situations where a moral intent was que-ried were phrased in two ways in two separate studies. In the first,the following instructions were given followed by an examplequestion.

Your supervisor at work has asked you to perform a taskcontrary to the following Code of Conduct excerpt. How

Spring 2007 Journal of Computer Information Systems

likely would you follow your supervisor and not follow theCode of Conduct.

definitely not follow supervisor , not likely to follow su-pervisor, uncertain, likely to follow supervisor, definitelywould follow supervisor

1. Your supervisor asks you not report a sign ofsystem danger that might result in serious per-sonal or social damage.

The scale ranged from 0 = definitely not to 4 = definitely. Thisis the hostile situation. You are asked to perform contrary to theCode.

The second survey duplicated the questions on the ACMCode but had the following instructions and example ques-tion. This was measuring moral intent without management infiu-

Age, student status, and gender all demonstrated a diverse and var-ied sample. Average age was approximately 31. There was aboutan 80/20 gender mix (male). And about a third of the respondentswere non-students. (See tables 3 thru 7). There were 131 respon-dents to the first survey and 35 respondents to the second survey.The second survey was only used to compare responses in non-hostile versus hostile work environments. The two samples weretested for significant difference in demographic characteristics.There was no significant variance in the makeup of each samplegroup except for gender at p < .031 (table 8). Many research-ers have failed to find gender bias in business ethics situation,so it is assumed that the samples do not vary significantly. Hay,Larres, Oyelere, and Fisher [10] found no gender effect in ethicalcomputer situations. Calluzo and Cante [6] found no differencebetween females and males in the evaluation of eleven ethicalstatements.

RESULTS

How likely are you to perform the following action as anemployee of an organization?

Not report a sign of system danger that might result inserious personal or social damage.

Definitely not Not likely Uncertain Likely Definitely

The scale ranged from 0 = definitely not to 4 = definitely. This isthe non-hostile situation. There is no management infiuence.

The groups surveyed included undergraduate informationtechnology students, faculty, and staff at a small Northeast uni-versity. Response rate ranged from 100% in author's class to 10%from the faculty/staff/graduate listserv. The survey was complete-ly anonymous. There was an opportunity for participants to sub-mit their email for a chance to win one of four random drawingsfor $25. The email addresses were kept completely separate fromthe survey results in a separate database.

Overall, there was a good demographic mix with both samples.

HI There witt be general support for the ACM Code of Ethicsstatements.

In the survey of 131 information technology students, faculty,and staff, all statements scored a mean of between 0 and 1 whichequates to strongly agree to agree. The results are presentedbelow in table 9. Similar to Lawson [15] results of one-samplet-tests were performed using a null hypothesis that the popu-lation mean was 2.0 ("undecided") versus an alternative hy-pothesis that the mean differs from 2.0. The results are shownin Table 9. The null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alter-nate hypothesis one. The results suggest that the ACM codestatements are generally accepted. This is despite the fact thatonly 15% of the participants are members of the ACM and only22% have read the Code of Conduct. This supports Hilton [12]who found positive results of computer ethics in organizationswith 97% suggesting companies should define proper computeruse; 63% reported that computer use was well defined in theirorganization; and 55% had no knowledge of abuses of computerusage.

Table 3Age Distribution

18-2425-3031-4041-5051-6060+Total

HostilePercent

46.69.9

20.612.29.21.5

100

Non-HostilePercent

502.9

14.75.9

17.68.8

100

Table 7Readcode Distribution

ReadNotReadTotal

Non-HostilePercent

22.1

77.9100

HostilePercent

31.4

68.6100

Table 4Gender Distribution

FemaleMaleTotal

Non-HostilePercent

15.484.6

100

HostilePercent31.468.6

100

Table 5Student Distribution

StudentFaculty/StaffITProfessionalOtherTotal

HostilePercent

67.9

21.4

9.90.8

100

Non-HostilePercent

65.7

28.6

5.70

100

Table 6Member Distribution

MemberNon-MemberTotal

Non-HostilePercent

14.5

85.5100

HostilePercent

20

80100

Table 8 - Survey Differences of Sample DemographicsSampleHostileNon-hostile

Sig. p basedon one-way

ANOVA

MeanMean

Sig.

Age1.32061.6471

0.278

Gender0.84620.6857

0.031

Student0.43510.4

0.787

Member0.8550.8

0.43

Readcode0.77860.6857

0.256

Journal of Computer Information Systems Spring 2007

Table 9 - Code Means Sorted by Level of Agreement

Danger

Quality

Credit

Privacy

Risk

Users

Confidential

False

Copy

Resources

N

131

130

129

131

131

128

131

131

131

131

Mean

0.3893

0.4231

0.5039

0.5115

0.542

0.5703

0.5725

0.5802

0.9084

0.9466

Sig. (2-tailed)

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

H2 Membership in ACM will have a significant and positiveimpact on agreement with code provisions.

As shown in table 10, a one-way ANOVA was performed todetermine whether there was no significatit difference betweenthe mean agreement score of ACM members and non-members.In this analysis, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Resultssuggest that membership in ACM does not affect agreement withcode provisions.

Table 1 0 -

CodeExtract

Danger

False

Copy

Credit

Privacy

Confidential

Quality

Risk

Resources

Users

Effect of membership on code support

MeanMember

0.4211

0.6316

0.6316

0.6842

0.5263

0.4211

0.4737

0.5263

0.6316

0.375

MeanNon-

member

0.3839

0.5714

0.9554

0.4727

0.5089

0.5982

0.4144

0.5446

1

0.5982

Sig. p basedon one-way

ANOVA

.786

.713

.143

.245

.923

.333

.696

.895

.117

.199

H3 Having read the ACM Code of Etbics will have a signifi-cant and positive impact on agreement with code provi-sions.

For four of the ten code provisions, reading the code had asignificant impact in agreement with code provisions. In all cases,reading of the code had a positive impact. As other researchershave suggested, knowledge and education may play a role in in-creasing awareness and support for IT ethics. The null hypothesisthat there was no significant difference in levels of agreement be-tween having read the Code or not having read the Code can berejected for certain provisions but not for others. Having read thecode is suggested to have an impact on agreement with some codeprovisions as follows.

1. In the work environment the computing professionalhas the additional obligation to report any signs ofsystem dangers that might result in serious personalor social damage. SIGNIFICANT

2. (You should) not make deliberately false or deceptiveclaims about a system or system design, but . . . in-

stead provide full disclosure of all pertinent systemlimitations and problems.

3. Unauthorized duplication of materials must not becondoned.

4. Specifically, one must not take credit for other's ideasor work, even in cases where the work has not beenexplicitly protected by copyright, patent, etc.

5. It is the responsibility of professionals to maintain theprivacy and integrity of data describing individuals

6. Respect all obligations of confidentiality to employ-ers, clients, and users unless discharged from suchobligations by requirements of the law or other prin-ciples of this Code. SIGNIFICANT

7. Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectivenessand dignity in both the process and products of pro-fessional work.

8. Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations ofcomputer systems and their impacts, including analy-sis of possible risks. SIGNIFICANT

9. Access computing and communication resources onlywhen authorized to do so. SIGNIFICANT

10. Ensure that users and those who will be affected by asystem have their needs clearly articulated during theassessment and design of requirement

Table 11 - Means for code extract by read versus not read

READCODE

Danger

False

Copy

Credit

Privacy

Confidential

Quality

Risk

Resources

Users

ReadMean

0.1379

0.4483

0.7241

0.3214

0.3448

0.2759

0.2414

0.3103

0.6207

0.4483

Not ReadMean

0.4608

0.6176

0.9608

0.5545

0.5588

0.6569

0.4752

0.6078

1.0392

0.6061

Sig. p basedon one-way

ANOVA

.005

.221

.207

.136

.157

.013

0.68

.011

.035

.251

H4 A direct correlation will exist between each identified codeof ethics moral judgment and the forming of a relatedmoral intent.

The Likert scales of Code agreement and moral intent matchup as shown in table 12.

Table 12 - Likert scales of Code and intent

0

1

2

3

4

ACM policy position

Strongly agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Perform action contrary to code

Definitely not

Not likely

Uncertain

Likely

Definitely

To determine the validity of this hypothesis, two differentmeasures of this were taken. Questions were specifically askedabout the code and then followed questions related to moral in-tentions without any external influence. In addition, the same

Spring 2007 Journal of Computer Information Systems

Table 13 - Moral Judgment and Moral Intent

WithoutInfluence(Non-Hostile)

Pair

Danger

False

Copy

Credit

Privacy

Confidential

Quality

Risk

Resources

Users

R2

.294

.196

.139

.535

.201

.024

.297

.130

.239

.186

Coeff

.569

.372

.329

.618

.328

.239

.583

.307

.382

.511

Sig

.001

.008

.027

.000

.007

.372

.001

.033

.004

.010

WithInfluence(Hostile)

Pair

Danger

False

Copy

Credit

Privacy

Confidential

Quality

Risk

Resources

Users

R2

.164

.167

.190

.011

.047

.053

.174

.086

.095

.148

Coeff

.846

.500

.538

.346

.247

.364

.688

.562

.349

.641

Sig

.000

.000

.000

.002

.013

.008

.000

.001

.000

.000

questions were posed related to the code, but the moral intentionquestions included the proviso that your supervisor at work hasasked you to perform an act contrary to the code. In both situ-ations, as shown in table 13, there was a significant correlationbetween the moral judgment and the moral intension (with oneexception). The null hypothesis that there is no significant cor-relation between the judgment and intent is rejected.

H5 A hostile work environment where management recom-mends actions contrary to the ACM code of ethics willsignificantly reduce the ethical level of moral intent.

Analysis of group means similar to Weeks, Longenecker,McKinney, and Moore [40] was used to study this question.

Table 14 -

Code Extract

Danger

False

Copy

Credit

Privacy

Confidential

Quality

Risk

Resources

Users

MgmtMean

1.076

0.792

1.198

0.578

0.569

1.115

1.183

1.315

1.1

1.408

Code means comparison

No mgmtMean

0.657

0.429

1.057

0.4

0.486

0.8

0.771

0.914

0.971

0.629

Difference

-0.419

-0.364

-0.141

-0.178

-0.084

-0.315

-0.412

-0.401

-0.129

-0.779

Sig. p basedon one-way

ANOVA

0.041

0.013

0.468

0.213

0.574

0.142

0.024

0.035

0.516

0.000

For all variables, management influence had an unfavorableeffect, increasing the likelihood that the violation of the code ofethics will be performed. For only one of the ten code violationswithout management influence were scores above 1 (table 14),which indicated not likely. In other words, the means for nine ofthe ten were below not likely to perform the action and movingtoward definitely not (the tenth of making unauthorized copieswas marginally above 1). For the ten actions where managementcontrary direction was involved, only two of the ten were belownot likely, 1.0. All were moving towards an uncertain score of 2.

For five of the ten factors this negative influence was statisticallysignificant at p < .05 and averaged nearly a full .5 on a Likert 5point scale confirming the effect that management can have oncommon information technology ethical situations.

The five areas where a significant impact was found were:

• Not report a sign of system danger that might result insedous personal or social damage.

• Make deliberately deceptive claims about a system.• Not disclose possible impacts and risks of your computer

systems.• Sacrifice quality in your work.• Not solicit user input on a systems design

The five areas where a significant influence was not foundwere:

• Make unauthorized copies of materials.• Take credit for someone else's ideas or work.• Violate the privacy of data describing individuals.• Forgo taking precautions to ensure the accuracy of cus-

tomer data.• Use computing or communication resources against com-

pany policy.

The causes behind the areas where an influence was noted andwhere it was not were not specifically studied in this manuscriptbut holds strong interest for both researchers and practitioners.The null hypothesis that there was no significant difference in lev-els of intent between a hostile and on-hostile work environmentcan be rejected for certain provisions but not for others. Manage-ment can have a significant impact on moral intentions in certainsituations. Further study is warranted to confirm and clarify thesefindings.

LIMITATIONS

As with any study there are limitations. The study was basedon a convenience sample of students as well as faculty/staff ata small northeast US university. Though many researchers haveused such an approach, this may not be representative of other lo-cations or groups. In addition, the sample though significant may

Journal of Computer Information Systems Spring 2007

not be representative of the poputation as a whole. More exten-sive sampling with other groups and in other regions of the US aswetl as internationally should be undertaken to verify results. Thestudy also only measures moral judgment and moral intention.It does not measure the other two steps in Rest's (1986) model,recognition of a moral issue and engaging in moral behavior. Anyassumptions regarding these two steps are problematic. Thoughthe survey was carefully prepared and tested successfully, theremay have been some confusion with regard to the extracted pas-sages. This may be clarified through more detailed inclusion ofCode provisions. The author perhaps erred on the side of simplic-ity so as not to burden the reader with unnecessary detail thatwould have reduced response. This may have had some limitedambiguity issues. Finally, the survey only reviewed ten aspects ofthe ACM Code. Though they were selected by the author basedon importance and currency, other sections of the Code may havehad different results. A similar study with other sections should beundertaken to verify these findings.

This work, similar to other studies noted, includes IT faculty,staff, and students. As other researchers have proposed, studentsare seen to be similar to new professionals in their approach toethical issues. It is therefore suggested that the findings can beextrapolated and relevant to current work situations. One cau-tion may be related to the relative level of financial flexibilityand assets that students and new employees may have. Generallyyounger employees and students have less job stability and com-mitment. Age has been shown to be a significant influence in jobturnover [13]. This may sway their moral judgments and inten-tions. Caution should be taken when extrapolating these results toa broader age and life stage population. The results should still beuseful for practical real world situations with primarily youngeremployees. A study with a broader age group of IT professionalsshould be undertaken to validate results among an older work-force.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FORRESEARCHERS AND PRACTITIONERS

One of the most recognized and respected code of ethics ininformation technology is the ACM Code of Ethics. But the ac-ceptance, importance and influences of this code have not beensignificantly studied prior to this report. This study had four ma-jor goals. The first goal was to determine the overall level of ac-ceptance of the ACM Code. On the positive side, the selected pro-visions of the code that were surveyed are generally supported bythe survey participants. Though there were low levels of recogni-tion and actual reading of the code, when presented with the ex-tracted content, agreement was the norm. All were better than themean level of 1 which was agree on the Likert 0 to 4 scale. Withinthis goal however, was also a review of whether different portionsof the code are viewed differently. There were differences in levelof agreement with the code based on the ten extracted statements.Generally, it was found that danger and quality scored very highin agreement. This is significant for practitioners, since this sug-gests that professionals and students take their work seriously andunderstand the commitment that is required to develop valuableand safe information technology work product. This may suggestto researchers that there is an inherent motivation on the part ofinformation technology users and creators to create and use ITproperly. Efforts can be made to study how to best enhance andreinforce this nature. On the other hand, there was weaker supportfor information technology property issues of unauthorized dupli-

cation and unauthorized utilization of computing resources. Ef-forts need to be taken on the part of practitioners to strengthen theimportance of IT property ethics to users and creators. This maybe a particular problem for young and entering IT professionals.Generally, regard for intellectual property has been problematicamong college students raised in the era of Napster and other filesharing processes. Researchers need to study further the motiva-tion behind this weaker support and suggest methods of improve-ment. In the middle of the group were statements related to takingcredit, privacy, risk, users, false statements, and confidentiality.The somewhat lesser support for privacy and confidentiality issurprising given the strong concerns often expressed by consum-ers. It may be possible that experienced users and professionalsunderstand more clearly the difficulties associated with IT pri-vacy and have lowered their expectations and ethics accordingly.This is a fertile area for further research.

The second goal of the study was to determine what effectACM membership and actual past reading of the Code have onsupport for the Code. It was found that membership in ACM perse did not have any significant impact on higher ethical levels butthat prior reading of the Code was significant in increased supportfor Code provisions in four of the ten segments. This suggestsfor both researchers and practitioners that education and requiredreading may improve ethical behavior to some extent.

The third goal of the study was to determine if there was arelationship between agreement with abstract code provisionsand proposed action in a work situation. The study examinedcorrelations between each of the code statements and an actualwork situation that violated the code. This was studied both insituations where your manager recommended an action contraryto the code and one where no manager influence was present. Innineteen of the twenty situations there was a statistically signifi-cant correlation between code agreement and moral intent. Thisfinding supports many other researchers who have found strongrelationships between moral judgment and moral intent. Thisfinding also suggests that researchers can study either moral judg-ments or moral intent and make assumptions about the other. Thiscan reduce the response burden and simplify questionnaire designand implementation. This work also furthers the models of Rest.Practitioners can measure their ethical climate more abstractlyby reviewing codes of ethics with prospective and current em-ployees rather than dealing with moral intent or action scenarios.Problems can perhaps be uncovered earlier and dealt with prior toactual ethical violations.

The final goal was to examine the impact of managerial influ-ence on information technology ethical decisions. Past research-ers have suggested that employees will follow managers' ordersin opposition to their own ethics. Lu and Lin [22] have notedthe short term effects of ethics education. Sims and Brinkmann[32] in their analysis of Enron suggest that in a company, cultureis more important that codes of conduct. The leadership, rewardsystem, and hiring practices all foster the true ethics in an orga-nization. This study attempted to determine whether there wasa reduced level of ethical moral intent when a hostile manage-ment influence was present versus when there was no manage-ment influence. In all cases, it was found that the managementinfluence reduced moral ethical intent. And in five of ten casesthis reduction was statistically significant. This holds strong op-portunities for both research and practice. Researchers can focuson the causes and situations where hostile management environ-ments influence moral intent. This research suggests that at leastfor some IT situations, management can have influence but in

Spring 2007 Journal of Computer Information Systems

other situations this influence is not significant. Practitioners needto understand and address the managerial ethical structures andprocesses within the organization. Reliance on the inherent ethicsof subordinates is insufficient for control of unethical behavior. Innnany cases subordinates may follow orders that are not in concertwith their underlying beliefs. Rather they may just obey. The risksassociated with whistle blowing perhaps play a role in this moralintent impact.

CONCLUSION

This work has extended the research with regard to code ofethics for information technology issues. Most researchers havestudied the relationship between institution of codes of ethicsand improved ethical behavior. Many have found that codes bythemselves do not directly improve moral behavior. But thiswork examined and explored relationships and agreement withan established professional IT code and resulting moral deci-sion making. With a clear relationship established, further workcan be undertaken to determine the influences on support for theunderlying code. This work has begun this process by establish-ing that merely having read the Code can improve ethical moraljudgments in certain situations. This work should be expanded touncover further relationships and opportunities to improve infor-mation technology ethical support.

APPENDIX

Actual surveys

Welcome to the Code of Conduct Survey

Please complete this only if you are over 18 years of age.Please provide your age:

18-2425-3031-4040-5050-6060+

Please provide your Gender:FemaleMale

Please indicate your agreement with the follow provisions ofthe ACMs (Association for Computing Machinery) Code of Con-duct

Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagreeor Strongly Disagree

1. In the work environment the computing professional has theadditional obligation to report any signs of system dangersthat might result in serious personal or social damage.

2.

4.

6.

7.

9.

10.

(You should) not make deliberately false or deceptive claimsabout a system or system design, but... instead provide fulldisclosure of all pertinent system limitations and problems.

3. Unauthorized duplication of materials must not be con-doned.

Specifically, one must not take credit for other's ideas orwork, even in cases where the work has not been explicitlyprotected by copyright, patent, etc.

5. It is the responsibility of professionals to maintain the pri-vacy and integrity of data describing individuals

Respect all obligations of confidentiality to employers, cli-ents, and users unless discharged from such obligations byrequirements of the law or other principles of this Code.

Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness and dig-nity in both the process and products of professional work.

Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computersystems and their impacts, including analysis of possiblerisks.

Access computing and communication resources only whenauthorized to do so.

Ensure that users and those who will be affected by a systemhave their needs clearly articulated during the assessmentand design of requirement

Please note whether you are primarily aStudentUniversity Faculty/StaffIT Professional

Are you a member of the ACM? Yes_ No_

Have you ever read the ACM Code of Conduct?Yes No_

There are 10 statements and then 10 questions. Please answerall questions, whether you are a student, faculty, or professional.If you are a student, please answer work-related questions as youbelieve you would act in a work setting. Total time to completeshould be less than 10 minutes. Thank you for participating!

Your supervisor at work has asked you to perform a taskcontrary to the following Code of Conduct excerpt. How likelywould you follow your supervisor and not follow the Code ofConduct.

definitely not follow supervisor,not likely to follow supervisor,

uncertain, likely to follow supervisor,definitely would follow supervisor

1. Your supervisor asks you not report a sign of system dangerthat might result in serious personal or social damage.

2. Your supervisor asks you to make deliberately deceptiveclaims about a system.

8 Journal of Computer Information Systems Spring 2007

3. Your supervisor asks you to make unauthorized copies orother material.

4. Your supervisor asks you to support him/her in taking creditfor someone else's ideas or work.

5. Your supervisor asks you to violate the privacy of data de-scribing individuals.

6. Your supervisor asks you to forgo taking precautions to en-sure the accuracy of customer data.

7. Your supervisor asks you to not disclose possible impactsand risks of your computer systems.

8. Your supervisor asks you to sacrifice quality in your work.

9. Your supervisor asks you to use computing or communica-tion resources against company policy.

10. Your supervisor asks you to not solicit user input on a sys-tems design.

If you wish to be considered for four of $25 drawings, pleaseprovide your email address. It will be stored separately and de-stroyed after the drawings.

REVISED Survey - Second Section

How likely are you to perform the following action as an em-ployee of an organization.

Definitely not Not likely Uncertain Likely Definitely

1. Not report a sign of system danger that might result in seri-ous personal or social damage.

2. Make deliberately deceptive claims about a system.

3. Make unauthorized copies of materials.

4. Take credit for someone else's ideas or work. Definitely not

5. Violate the privacy of data describing individuals.

6. Forgo taking precautions to ensure the accuracy of customerdata.

7. Not disclose possible impacts and risks of your computersystems.

8. Sacritice quality in your work.

9. Use computing or communication resources against com-pany policy.

10. Not solicit user input on a systems design.

REFERENCES

1. Association for Computing Machinery. "ACM Code ofEthics and Professional Conduct," 1997, Available at: http//www.acm.org/constitution/code.html

2. Banerjee, D. Cronan, T. and Jones, T. "Modeling IT Ethics:A Study in Situational Ethics." MIS Quarterly 22:(1), 1998,31-60.

3. Bass, K., Barnett, T., and Brown, G. "Individual Differ-ence Variables, Ethical Judgments, and Ethical BehavioralIntentions." Business Ethics Quarterly, 9:(2), 1999, 183-205.

4. Beck, L. and Ajzen, I. "Predicting Dishonest Actions Usingthe Theory of Planned Behavior." Journal of Research inPersonality, 25:(3), 1991, 285-301.

5. Bush, V., Venable, B., and Bush, A. "Ethics and Marketingon the Internet: Practitioners' Perceptions of Societal, Indus-try and Company Concerns," Journal of Business Ethics, 23,2000, 237-248.

6. Calluzo V. and Cante C. "Ethics in Information Technologyand Software Use," Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 2004,301-312.

7. Chen, A., Sawyers, R., and Williams, P. "Reinforcing EthicalDecision Making Through Corporate Culture," Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 16, 1997, 855-865.

8. Cleek, M. and Leonard, S. "Can Corporate Codes of EthicsInfluence Behavior?" Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1998,619-630.

9. Harrington, S. "The Effect of Codes of Ethics and PersonalDenial of Responsibility on Computer Abuse Judgments andIntentions." MIS Quarterly, 20:(3), 1996, 257-278.

10. Hay, D., Larres, P,Qyelere, P, and Fisher, A. "The EthicalPerception of Undergraduate Students in Computer-RelatedSituations: An Analysis of the Effects of Culture, Gender,and Prior Education," Teaching Business Ethics, 5, 2001,331-356.

11. Healy, M. and lies, J. "The Establishment and Enforcementof Codes," Journal of Business Ethics, 39:(l/2), 2002, 117-124.

12. Hilton, T. "Information Systems Ethics A Practitioner Sur-vey," Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 2000, 279-284.

13. Huselid, M. and Day, N. "Organizational Commitment, JobInvolvement, and Turnover: A Substantive and Methodolog-ical Analysis," Journal of Applied Psychology, 76:(3), 1991,380-391.

14. Kuo, F. and Hsu, M. "An Investigation of Volitional Controlin Information Ethics," Twenty-Second International Con-ference on Information Systems, 2001, 261 -270.

15. Lawson, R. "Is Classroom Cheating Related to BusinessStudents' Propensity to Cheat in the "Real World"?" Journalof Business Ethics, 49, 2004, 189-199.

16. Lee, S. and Lee, S. "Consumers' Initial Trust Toward Second-Hand Products In The Electronic Market", Journal of Com-puter Information Systems, 2005/2006; 46:(2), 2005/2006,85-98.

17. Leonard, L., Cronan, T., and Kreie, J. "What Influences ITethical behavior intentions - planned behavior, reasoned ac-tion, perceived importance, or individual characteristics?"Information and Management, 42, 2004, 143-158.

18. Lin, C. and Ding, C. "Modeling Information Ethics: TheJoint Moderating Role of Locus of Control and Job Insecu-rity," Journal of Business Ethics, 48:(4), 2003, 335- 346.

Spring 2007 Journal of Computer Information Systems

19. Lindblom, C. and Ruland, R. "Functionalist and ConflictViews of AICPA Code of Conduct Public Interest vs. SelfInterest," Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1997, 573-582.

20. Loch, K. and Conger, S. "Evaluating Ethical Decision Mak-ing and Computer Use," Communications of the ACM,39:(7), 1996,74-83.

21. Loch, K., Conger, S., and Oz, E. "Ownership, privacy andmonitoring in the workplace: A debate on technology andelhics," Journal of Business Ethics, 17:(6), 1998,653-663.

22. Lu, H. and Lin, J. "Effects of learning and living on IS eth-ics education," Journal of Computer Information Systems,39:(2), 1998-1999,96-100.

23. Marshall, K. "Has Technology Introduced New EthicalPTob\emsT' Journal of Business Ethics, 19, 1999, 81-90.

24. Peterson, D. "Computer Ethics: The Influence of Guidelinesand Universal Moral Beliefs," Information Technology &People, 15:(4), 2002, 346-361.

25. Quinn, J. "Personal Ethics and Business Ethics: The EthicalAttitudes of Owner/Managers of Small Business," Journalof Business Ethics, 16, 1997, 119-127.

26. Rallapalli, K., Vitell, S. and Barnes, J. "The Influence ofNorms on Ethical Judgments and Intentions: An EmpiricalStudy of Marketing Professionals," Journal of Business Re-search, 43, \99S, 157-168.

27. Rallapalli, K., Vitell, S., Szeinbach, S. "Marketers' Normsand Personal Values An Empirical Study of MarketingProfessionals," Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 2000, 6575.

28. Ramakrishna, H., Kini, R., and Vijayaraman, B. "Shapingof moral intensity regarding software piracy in universitystudents," Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2001,41:(4),2001, 47-53.

29. Rest, J. Moral Development Advances In Research and The-ory, Praeger, New York, 1986.

30. Rezaee, Z., Elmore, R., and Szendi, J. "Ethical Behaviorin Higher Educational Institutions: The Role of the Codeof Conduct," Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 2001, 171-183.

31. Shaver, D. "Toward an Analytical Structure for Evaluating

the Ethical Content of Decisions by Advertising Profession-als," Journal of Business Ethics, 48:(3), 2003, 291-300.

32. Sims, R. and Brinkmann, J. "Enron Ethics (Or Culture Mat-ters More than Codes)," Journal of Business Ethics, 45,2003, 243-256.

33. Sims, R. and Keon, T. "The Influence of Organizational Ex-pectations on Ethical Decision Making Conflict," Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 23, 2000, 228+.

34. Singhapakdi, A. "Perceived Importance of Ethics and Ethi-cal Decisions in Marketing," Journal of Business Research,45,1999,89-99.

35. Smith, H., Milberg, S. and Burke, S. "Information Privacy:Measuring Individuals' Concerns About OrganizationalPractices," MIS Quarterly, 20:(2), 1996, 167-196.

36. Stead, B. and Gilbert, J. "Ethical Issues in Electronic Com-merce," Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 2001, 75-85.

37. Turpinseed, D. "Are good soldiers good? Exploring the linkbetween organization citizenship behavior and personal eth-ics," Journal of Business Research, 55, 2002, 1-15.

38. Vitell S. and Ho, F. "Ethical Decision Making in Market-ing: A Synthesis and Evaluation of Scales Measuringthe Various Components of Decision Making in EthicalSituations," Journal of Business Ethics. 16:(7), 1997, 699-717.

39. Vitell, S. and Davis, D. "Ethical Beliefs of MIS Profes-sionals: The Frequency and Opportunity for UnethicalBehavior," Journal of Business Ethics, 9:(1), 1990, 63-70.

40. Weeks, W., Longenecker, J., McKinney, J., and Moore, C."The Role of Mere Exposure Effect on Ethical Tolerance aTwo-Study Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, 58:(4),2005, 281-294.

41. Whitman, M., Perez, J., and Beise, C. "A study of user at-titudes toward persistent cookies," Journal of Computer In-formation Systems, 4l:{3), 1-7.

42. Whitman, M. Townsend, A., Hendrickson, A., and Rensvold,R. "Computer aversion and computer-use ethics in U.S. andAsian cultures," Journal of Computer Information Systems,38:(4); 1998, 19-24.

10 Journal of Computer Information Systems Spring 2007