Dishonesty in the Classroom: The Effect of Cognitive Dissonance and the Mitigating Influence of Religious Commitment

Abstract

A controlled experiment was conducted with a cohort of graduate accounting students, which involved a mild form of deception during a class ethics quiz. One of the answers to a difficult question was inadvertently revealed by a visiting scholar, which allowed students an opportunity to use the answer in order to maximise test scores and qualify for a reward. Despite an attempt to sensitize students prior to the test to the importance of moral codes of conduct, a high incidence of cheating was reported. Students who took the opportunity to cheat were more condoning of the behaviour compared to control group members and this difference in attitudes was consistent regardless of the intensity of the issue specified in the survey. The cognitive dissonance associated with the academic dishonesty is believed to reveal behavioural orientations that reflect conscious and unconscious desires to alleviate the discomfort associated with the behaviour by attempting to condone it. This inappropriate behaviour appears to attract students professing no religious faith and is significantly influenced by the reported level of religious commitment.

Appendix 1

Extracts from Questionnaire

Case Scenario

It is nearing year end and the Phoenix Mineral Sands PL received official notice from the lawyer of a former senior employee, Bob Jackson that it was being sued for wrongful dismissal. The lawyer indicated that his client, Bob Jackson would consider a settlement figure of $2,500,000.

The company’s own lawyers advised the Chairperson, Jim Di Nero that there was a strong probability that the company would be substantially liable. The chairperson was further advised that it would take another 10 months before a trial was held and a subsequent appeal process could delay payment for a year or two.

Chairperson Di Nero passed the news onto the CFO(Chief Financial Officer), Meryl Street who advised that there was insufficient cash flow to accommodate an early settlement and that the profit and equity figures for the year would be adversely affected by the disclosure of the liability. The chairperson argued that the settlement amount was far from certain and there was perhaps a small chance that they could win the case in any event. He directed the CFO to keep mention of the contingent liability out of this year’s financial statements.

Place yourself in the position of the CFO. You have been instructed by your boss, Chairperson Di Nero, not to disclose a contingent liability in the financial statements although you are fully aware that you should disclose the law suit as a contingent liability.

Part B Intensity Related Questions Referring to Scenario

Students to circle 7-point Likert scale (1 = Total agreement to disclosure through to 7 = Total opposition to disclosure)

• 1. Given the nature of the events described in the case, to what extent do you as Meryl Street agree with the Chairperson’s direction? (Social consensus)

• 2. As Meryl Street, you become aware that non-disclosure of this liability would result in significant legal consequences which could financially cripple the company in the long term. Magnitude of consequences)

• 3. As Meryl Street, you have an intimate personal relationship with Chairman Di Nero. Your action to disclose the liability could affect this relationship. (Proximity)

• 4. If the information was to be disclosed in the accounts, the company’s share price would immediately fall and hundreds of small investors could lose their capital. (Concentration of effect)

Part C Intensity Related Questions Referring to Inadvertent Disclosure

Students to circle 7-point Likert scale (1 = Behaviour was totally appropriate through to 7 = Behaviour was totally inappropriate)

• 1. At the commencement of the quiz in Part A, your instructor inadvertently disclosed the answer to one of the difficult questions. You may have taken advantage of the slip-up by taking note of the answer, and thereby increase your chance of getting all questions correct.

  Regardless of whether you took advantage of the slip-up, indicate the extent to which you believe that behaviour in itself was appropriate by placing a circle around one of the numbers in the following scale. (Social consensus)

• 2. Assume that you were informed just prior to the quiz that you would earn bonus 5 marks towards your final grade for this unit if you got all answers correct (or zero if you get any questions wrong). (Magnitude of consequences)

• 3. You have friends and colleagues in other tutorials who will not benefit from the instructor’s indiscretion (inadvertent disclosure). (Proximity)

• 4. You and possibly the majority of your colleagues in this tutorial may benefit from the instructor’s slip-up; however another 180 students in other tutorials will not benefit and not receive a reward. (Concentration of effect)