Assessing IT Students’ Intentions to Commit Unethical Actions

References

• Masrom M, Ismail Z, Hussein R, Mohamed N. An ethical assessment of computer ethics using scenario approach. Int J Electron Commerce Stud. 2010;1:25–36.
   Google Scholar
• Shurden SB, Santandreu J, Shurden MC. How student perceptions of ethics can lead to future business behavior. J Legal, Ethical, Regul Issues. 2010;13(1):117.
   Google Scholar
• Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). Acm Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Nonis S, Swift CO. An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: a multicampus investigation. J Educ Bus. 2001;77(2):69. doi:10.1080/08832320109599052.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson RA. Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the “real world”? J Bus Ethics. 2004;49(2):189–99. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000015784.34148.cb.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harding TS, Passow HJ, Carpenter DD, Finelll CJ. An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and professional behavior. IEEE Antennas Propag Mag. 2004;46(5):133–38. doi:10.1109/MAP.2004.1388860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narayanan A, Vallor S. Why software engineering courses should include ethics coverage. Commun ACM. 2014;57(3):23–25. doi:10.1145/2566590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan ZR. Ethics courses for it students: why is it crucial in the era of millennials and technology immersion? December 2017. p 1–2; 2017. doi:10.3310/hta21010.
   Google Scholar
• Burton E, Goldsmith J, Mattei N. How to teach computer ethics through science fiction. Commun ACM. 2018;61(8):54–64. doi:10.1145/3241891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen KS. Literature for specific purposes: a literary approach to teaching ethics in science and technology. Configurations. 2018;26(3):337–43. doi:10.1353/con.2018.0030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: an Introduction to Theory and Research; 1975.
   Google Scholar
• Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajzen I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior1. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32(4):665–83. doi:10.1111/jasp.2002.32.issue-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone TH, Jawahar IM, Kisamore JL. Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic Appl Soc Psych. 2010;32(1):35–45. doi:10.1080/01973530903539895.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsiao C-H, Yang C. The impact of professional unethical beliefs on cheating intention. Ethics Behav. 2011;21(4):301–16. doi:10.1080/10508422.2011.585597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao C, Lin H-N, Liu Y-P. Predicting the use of pirated software: a contingency model integrating perceived risk with the theory of planned behavior. J Bus Ethics. 2010;91(2):237–52. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0081-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banerjee D, Cronan TP, Jones TW. Modeling it ethics: a study in situational ethics. MIS Q. 1998;22(1):31–60. doi:10.2307/249677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu AMY, Chau PYK, So MKP. Explaining the misuse of information systems resources in the workplace: a dual-process approach. J Bus Ethics. 2015;131(1):209–25. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2250-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peslak AR. A review of the impact of Acm code of conduct on information technology moral judgment and intent. J Comput Inf Syst. 2007;47:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AT&T.. At&T code of business conduct; 2018 Feb 12 [accessed 2018 Feb 12]. <https://ebiznet.sbc.com/attcode/index.cfm>
   Google Scholar
• Dell Technologies. Dell technologies code of conduct. Dell Technologies; 2018 Feb 12 [accessed 2018 Feb 12]. <https://corporate.delltechnologies.com/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/code-of-conduct.htm>
   Google Scholar
• Google. Relations; 2018 Feb 12 [accessed 2018 Feb 12]. <https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html>
   Google Scholar
• Microsoft. Conduct; 2018 Feb 12 [accessed 2018 Feb 12]. <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/compliance/sbc/default.aspx>
   Google Scholar
• Kaptein M, Schwartz MS. The effectiveness of business codes: a critical examination of existing studies and the development of an integrated research model. J Bus Ethics. 2008;77(2):111–27. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9305-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrington SJ. The effect of codes of ethics and personal denial of responsibility on computer abuse judgments and intentions. MIS Q. 1996;20(3):257–78. doi:10.2307/249656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaptein M. Toward effective codes: testing the relationship with unethical behavior. J Bus Ethics. 2011;99(2):233–51. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0652-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nitsch D, Baetz M, Hughes JC. Why code of conduct violations go unreported: a conceptual framework to guide intervention and future research. J Bus Ethics. 2005;57(4):327–41. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-8203-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull. 1977;84(5):888–918. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riemenschneider CK, Leonard LN, Manly TS. Students’ ethical decision-making in an information technology context: a theory of planned behavior approach. J Inf Syst Educ. 2011;22:203.
   Google Scholar
• Renwick JS, Riemenschneider CK. A model of ethical decision making by information technology students. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 2013;28(05):62–69.
   Google Scholar
• Buettner R. Towards a New Personal Information Technology Acceptance Model: conceptualization and Empirical Evidence from a Bring Your Own Device Dataset. 2015. AIS; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and Persuasion. New York, NY: Springer; 1986. p. 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken S, Eagly AH. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and. Unintended Thought. 1989;212:212–52.
   Google Scholar
• Evans JSBT. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59(1):255–78. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Bagozzi RP. The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Soc Psychol Q. 1992;55(2):178–204. doi:10.2307/2786945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajzen I, Madden TJ. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1986;22(5):453–74. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leone L, Perugini M, Ercolani AP. A comparison of three models of attitude–behavior relationships in the studying behavior domain. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1999;29(23):161–89. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<161::AID-EJSP919>3.0.CO;2-G.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Thong JY, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012;36(1):157–78. doi:10.2307/41410412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagozzi RP, Kimmel SK. A comparison of leading theories for the prediction of goal-directed behaviours. Br J Soc Psychol. 1995;34(4):437–61. doi:10.1111/bjso.1995.34.issue-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagozzi RP, Edwards EA. Goal setting and goal pursuit in the regulation of body weight. Psychol Health. 1998;13(4):593–621. doi:10.1080/08870449808407421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall: Cornell University; 2010. p. 816.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Podsakoff NP. Construct measurement and validation procedures in mis and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Q. 2011;35(2):293–A5. doi:10.2307/23044045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gefen D, Straub D. A practical guide to factorial validity using pls-graph: tutorial and annotated example. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2005;16:91–109. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.
   Google Scholar
• Cyr D, Head M, Larios H, Pan B. Exploring human images in website design: a multi-method approach. MIS Q. 2009;33(3):539–66. doi:10.2307/20650308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang TC, Agarwal R, Lucas HC. The value of it-enabled retailer learning: personalized product recommendations and customer store loyalty in electronic markets. MIS Q. 2011;35(4):859–81. doi:10.2307/41409964.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M. Smartpls 3. Bönningstedt: smartpls; 2015. [accessed 2019 Jan 1]. <http://www.smartpls.com>
   Google Scholar
• Diamantopoulos A. Incorporating formative measures into covariance-based structural equation models. MIS Q. 2011;35(2):335–A5. doi:10.2307/23044046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodhue DL, Lewis W, Thompson R. Does pls have advantages for small sample size or non-normal data? MIS Q. 2012;36(3):981–A16. doi:10.2307/41703490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Straub DW. A critical look at the use of Pls-Sem in Mis Quarterly. MIS Q. 2012;36(1):iiv–8. doi:10.2307/41410402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norberg PA, Horne DR, Horne DA. The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J Consum Affairs. 2007;41(1):100–26. doi:10.1111/joca.2007.41.issue-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar