This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]On: 08 October 2014, At: 22:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Information Privacy andSecurityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uips20

Student Perceptions of Computer UseEthics: A Decade in ComparisonMichael E. Whitmana & Humayun Zafara

a Kennesaw State UniversityPublished online: 16 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Michael E. Whitman & Humayun Zafar (2014) Student Perceptions of ComputerUse Ethics: A Decade in Comparison, Journal of Information Privacy and Security, 10:2, 95-107, DOI:10.1080/15536548.2014.924815

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15536548.2014.924815

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Information Privacy and Security, 10: 95–107, 2014Published with license by Taylor & FrancisISSN: 1553-6548 print / 2333-696X onlineDOI: 10.1080/15536548.2014.924815

Student Perceptions of Computer Use Ethics:A Decade in Comparison

Michael E. Whitman and Humayun ZafarKennesaw State University

This study examines student attitudes toward software piracy and questionable computer use accept-ability. The study included computer use scenarios describing situations with ethical considerationsand questions that examined the role of the individuals in the scenarios. Results from the currentpopulation of students were compared with the results from prior data collection. While the findingsindicated only minor differences from the previous study, the true value of this research is in the pro-vision of a set of scenarios and other perspectives that can be used in in-class discussions of ethics,policy and law.

INTRODUCTION

Global use of information systems continues to drive computer use across all cultures. Whereastechnology infrastructure tends toward a commonality of hardware and operating systems, howpeople use technology-based systems retains some differences based on the culture in which thetechnology is used. This study asks the question, “Will information technology be used in themanner in which it is intended?” This focus is not to anticipate malevolent intent, but is ratherto ask about the ethical disposition of the diverse consumers of information technology nowfound around the world. The legal systems used in various cultures are drawn from the ethics andmorays found in the culture. In theory, the ethical framework of a culture should be aligned withthe laws of that self-same culture. The more fundamental question is whether unethical behav-ior has occurred. This study specifically sought to identify ethical position regarding frequentlyencountered scenarios and how those positions may have changed over time. The subjects of thestudy are upper-level collegiate business students. These students, nearing entry to their chosefields of study are perceived to possess a fundamental understanding of ethical perspectives andshould be equipped to respond to the scenarios offered them.

PREVIOUS WORK

Researchers have investigated ethics from varying perspectives (Aiken, 1983; Banerjee, Jones, &Cronan et al., 1998; Harrington, 1996; Loch & Conger, 1996; Workman & Gathegi, 2007). Quinn

© Michael E. Whitman and Humayun ZafarCorrespondence should be addressed to Michael E. Whitman, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Rd.,

Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA. E-mail: mwhitman@kennesaw.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

96 WHITMAN AND ZAFAR

(2010) stated that, in an era when information technology (IT) changes constantly, a thoughtfulresponse to these changes is needed via a basic understanding of IT history, an awareness ofcurrent issues, and a familiarity with ethics. In that vein, Siegfried (2004) focused on student atti-tudes on software piracy and related issues of computer issues, and found that students consideredcopying of commercial software and downloading music to be acceptable. Furthermore, the studyhighlighted that most students found certain questionable habits to be ethically acceptable. Forexample, use of a university computer for personal benefit was not considered a problem since itwould not impact others negatively.

The relation between gender and ethics has also been explored. Adam (2000) argues that ethicsstudies that target student audiences emphasize the result of an ethical decision over the processof arriving at the decision. According to Adam, traditional ethical theories have largely ignoredgender, which in turn has opened the door for feminist point of view to be offered. However,some IS research has introduced gender as a possible indicator of behavioral intention (Banerjeeet al., 1996; Leonard & Cronan 2001). Therefore, it is hardly a surprise that a critical review ofthe foundations of computer ethics research has also been presented (Floridi and Sanders, 2002).

Some studies have investigated employee security behaviors from an ethics perspective(Banerjee et al., 1998; Harrington, 1996; Leonard & Cronan, 2001). Ethics in these studies refersto informal norms and behaviors that may help deal with situations for which there are no formalrules or policies (Dhillon & Backhouse, 2000). This viewpoint is shared among other researchersas well (Brey, 2000). A limitation in this line of research is the general difficulty in classify-ing behaviors as being ethical or unethical. It is not always straightforward. According to priorstudies (Calluzzo & Cante, 2004), some undesirable behaviors related to use of organizationalIT property were viewed as being neither ethical nor unethical. An example of such behav-iors is downloading files at the workplace or at an educational institution from the internet forpersonal use.

METHODOLOGY

Survey Instrument

This study used an updated series of ethical scenarios from previous work by Whitman et al.(1998a, 1998, 1999) and Townsend et al. (1998), which in turn were adapted from original worksby Paradice (1990). In addition to standard demographical questions the study included 13 com-puter use scenarios describing a situation with ethical considerations, with a total of 24 questionsthat examined the role of the individuals in the scenarios.

Responses to the scenarios used a standard 5-point, Likert-type scale with responses rangingfrom: very unethical, unethical, neither unethical nor ethical, ethical, to very ethical. This rangeposed a concern considering the 1997 study used a 7-point Likert-type scale with responses rang-ing from: very unethical, unethical, somewhat unethical, neither unethical nor ethical, somewhatethical, ethical, to very ethical. However, a mechanism to standardize the responses was derivedthat allowed a direct comparison. This mechanism converted the 1–5 scales and 1–7 scales to apercentage response, referred to as the standardized mean (std. mean), through a simple math-ematical conversion (r-1/s-1: where r is the individual response value and s is the scale value)resulting in a range of zero (0) to 1.0 for both sets of responses allowing a direct comparison.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF COMPUTER USE ETHICS 97

Minor modifications were also made to the original scenarios. Whereas the initial scenariosin 1997 used references to “Dial-up Bulletin Board Systems,” the 2011 study converted thesereferences to “WEBSITES.” The three researchers reviewed all proposed changes to the instru-ment and were in agreement that these minor updates did not change the intent or ethical dilemmaposed in the scenarios.

Subjects

The subjects of the study consisted of two groups. First were the students from U.S. institutionswho responded to the original study in 1997. The second consisted of undergraduate studentscurrently enrolled in U.S. universities (the 2011 study). Subjects were solicited by posting a callfor participants for faculty on the AIS ISWorld list server. Interested faculty members were pro-vided a survey URL corresponding to their institution. The 1997 study resulted in approximately256 usable responses with 467 usable responses from the 2011 study.

FINDINGS

Demographics

As indicated the 1997 study resulted in 256 responses, while the 2011 study resulted in 469.Table 1 shows respondents by gender by year. Study respondents ages for 1997 were a mean of25 years (sd = 6.98) compared with those of 2011 with a mean of 26.24 years (sd = 7.60).

Respondents were asked to indicate their academic level and major. The results are presentedin Tables 2 and 3. Despite initial concern about the differences in the respondents’ academiclevels, based on the similarities in average age in the two groups, the differences were determinedto be non-substantial.

Although the proportion of computing major students was higher in the 2011 study, one ofthe criteria for inclusion in the study was that the faculty distributing the study had not given thestudents formal instruction on computer use ethics that term.

TABLE 1Respondents by Gender and Year

Male Female Not Disclosed Total

Year N % N % N % N %

1997 132 54.3% 111 45.7% 0 0.0% 243 100.0%2011 301 70.3% 101 23.6% 26 6.1% 428 100.0%Total 433 64.5% 212 31.6% 26 3.9% 671 100.0%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

98 WHITMAN AND ZAFAR

TABLE 2Respondents by Academic Level and Year

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Not disclosed Total

Year N % N % N % N % N % N %

1997 17 7.0% 161 66.3% 61 25.1% 3 1.2% 1 .4% 243 100.0%2011 28 6.6% 41 9.6% 160 37.5% 189 44.3% 9 2.1% 427 100.0%Total 28 4.2% 58 8.7% 321 47.9% 250 37.3% 12 1.8% 670 100.0%

TABLE 3Respondents by Academic Major and Year

Academic major N and % by year 1997 2011 Total

Computing (CS/IS/IT/InfoSec) N 60 268 328% 24.7% 62.9% 87.6%

Business (non-computing) N 107 114 221% 44.0% 26.8% 70.8%

Non-Business N 76 44 120% 31.3% 10.3% 41.6%

Total N 245 426 671% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Ethical Scenarios

As indicated earlier, the study focused on student responses to 13 ethical scenarios and their cor-responding 24 questions. The responses were initially subjected to both Kolmogorov-Smirnovand Shapiro Wilkes tests to determine normality. As both tests indicated that the responses werenon-normal (at sig<.05), the study responses were evaluated with non-parametric statics for anal-ysis of variance. Since the results also comprised two difference scales (7-point scale for 1997 and5-point scale for 2011), Z scores were calculated for each data set for comparison. As a result,Table 3 includes a Mann-Whitney “U” value, Wilcoxon “W” and Kruskal-Wallis “Z” value and2-tailed significance score, with the later used for analysis of variance. For p < 0.05 a statisti-cally significant KW result implies that there is a difference between the groups. The findingsfrom the two study comparison are as presented in Table 4, with scenario by scenario discussionsfollowing. The graphic bar diagrams accompanying the scenario discussions visually depict thedifferences in the two survey standard means for each question.

Scenario 1

State College charges its departments for computer time usage. A student had access to theuniversity computer system because a class she was taking required extensive computer usage.The student enjoyed playing games on the computer and frequently had to request extra computerfunds from her professor in order to complete her assignments.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF COMPUTER USE ETHICS 99

TABLE 4Survey Results for 1997 and 2011 Studies

ITEM Group Mean N Standard Deviation Standard mean Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon Kruskal-Wallis KW Sig.∗

ES01a (a) 1997 2.27 245 0.95 0.212 49361.5 158172.5 −3.201 .001(b) 2011 2.05 466 0.927 0.262

ES02a (a) 1997 5.84 245 1.447 0.807 12041.5 117152.5 −17.492 .000(b) 2011 3.52 458 1.046 0.629

ES02b (a) 1997 3.27 245 1.708 0.378 46343.5 151913.5 −3.971 .000(b) 2011 2.65 459 0.991 0.413

ES03a (a) 1997 2.9 245 1.482 0.317 39790.5 145820.5 −6.696 .000(b) 2011 2.13 460 0.888 0.283

ES04a (a) 1997 2.94 245 1.215 0.323 43453 149483 −5.305 .000(b) 2011 2.45 460 0.811 0.361

ES05a (a) 1997 3.79 245 1.603 0.465 32475 138045 −9.568 .000(b) 2011 2.71 459 0.944 0.428

ES05b (a) 1997 1.75 245 1.079 0.125 53993.5 159563.5 −0.967 .334(b) 2011 1.61 459 0.795 0.153

ES05c (a) 1997 3.04 243 1.375 0.34 35296 140866 −8.288 .000(b) 2011 2.22 459 0.886 0.306

ES06a (a) 1997 2.45 245 1.288 0.242 53070 158640 −1.3 .193(b) 2011 2.23 459 0.839 0.307

ES07a (a) 1997 1.49 245 0.908 0.081 43801.5 73936.5 −5.273 .000(b) 2011 1.78 457 0.895 0.196

ES08a (a) 1997 2.04 245 1.178 0.173 54694 159347 −0.534 .593(b) 2011 1.9 457 0.918 0.225

ES09a (a) 1997 4.58 245 1.471 0.597 19698.5 124351.5 −14.595 .000(b) 2011 2.86 457 0.942 0.464

ES09b (a) 1997 3.69 244 1.62 0.449 27118.5 131771.5 −11.553 .000(b) 2011 2.26 457 0.996 0.315

ES10a (a) 1997 5.31 245 1.246 0.719 12448 114826 −17.368 .000(b) 2011 3.28 452 0.938 0.57

ES10b (a) 1997 2.34 245 1.107 0.224 54850.5 157681.5 −0.274 .784(b) 2011 2.24 453 0.792 0.309

ES11a (a) 1997 2.95 244 1.494 0.324 47273 150104 −3.266 .001(b) 2011 2.51 453 0.977 0.378

ES11b (a) 1997 2.36 244 1.207 0.226 53214 156045 −0.856 .392(b) 2011 2.17 453 0.876 0.294

ES11c (a) 1997 1.77 244 1.029 0.128 48248 78138 −2.966 .003(b) 2011 1.91 453 0.896 0.228

ES12a (a) 1997 2.56 244 1.37 0.26 44198 147029 −4.63 .000(b) 2011 2.02 453 0.816 0.255

ES12b (a) 1997 2.34 244 1.225 0.223 49417.5 152702.5 −2.504 .012(b) 2011 2.03 454 0.811 0.257

ES12c (a) 1997 2.27 244 1.274 0.212 48384 151215 −2.87 .004(b) 2011 1.91 453 0.867 0.228

ES13a (a) 1997 1.35 244 0.902 0.059 44546.5 74436.5 −5.013 .000(b) 2011 1.58 452 0.821 0.145

ES13b (a) 1997 2.25 243 1.493 0.209 49891.5 152269.5 −2.117 .034(b) 2011 1.83 452 0.87 0.208

ES13c (a) 1997 1.25 243 0.826 0.041 43675 73321 −5.824 .000(b) 2011 1.54 454 0.885 0.136

Group (a) 1997 results on 7-point Likert-type scale while Group (b) 2011 were on a 5-point Likert-type scale∗KW results indicate significance at p < 0.05

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

100 WHITMAN AND ZAFAR

The student’s use of the computer to play games was: (ES01a - sig<.001)

The graph presented illustrates the relative responses between the two groups’ standard meanon a bi-polar, semantic differential scale. While both groups found the student’s actions in thescenario objectionable, the 2011 group found them less so.

Scenario 2

An engineer needed a program to perform a series of complicated calculations. She found acomputer programmer capable of writing the program, but would only hire the programmer ifhe agreed to share any liability that may result from an error in the engineer’s calculations. Theprogrammer said he would be willing to assume any liability due to a malfunction of the program,but was unwilling to share any liability due to an error in the engineer’s calculations.

The programmer’s position in this situation is: (ES02a – sig.<.000)

The engineer’s position in this situation is: (ES02b – sig<.000)

In this scenario, the two response groups again had statically significant differences in responseswith generally similar perspectives. A more substantial difference was evident in the two groups’perspectives of the role of programmer, however, than the role of the engineer.

Scenario 3

A scientist developed a theory that required construction of a computer model to prove. Hehired a computer programmer to build the model, and the theory was shown to be correct. Thescientist won several awards for the development of the theory, but he never acknowledged thecontribution of the computer programmer.

The scientist’s failure to acknowledge the computer programmer was: (ES03a – sig<.000)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF COMPUTER USE ETHICS 101

Again the responses of the two groups were significantly different, yet similar in generality.Interestingly enough, the subject of “work for hire” arose in in-class discussions of the surveyresults, but apparently did not substantially influence respondent results.

Scenario 4

The owner of a small business needed a computer-based accounting system. One day, he iden-tified the various inputs and outputs he felt were required to satisfy his needs. Then he showedhis design to a computer programmer and asked the programmer if she could implement such asystem. The programmer knew she could implement the system because she had developed muchmore sophisticated system in the past. In fact, the programmer thought that this design was rathercrude and would soon need several major revisions. However, the programmer did not say any-thing about her feelings because the business owner did not ask her and the programmer thoughtmaybe she could be the one hired to implement the needed revisions later.

The programmer’s decision not to point out the design flaws was: (ES04a – sig<.000)

As illustrated while both groups indicated a generally unethical perspective, the results stillindicated statistically significant responses with the newer group less sensitive to the scenario.

Scenario 5

A student suspected and found a loophole in the university computer’s security system thatallowed him access to student records. He told the system administrator about the loophole, butcontinued to access his and other students’ records until the problem was corrected 2 weeks later.

The student’s action in searching for the loophole was: (ES05a – sig<.000)

The student’s action in continuing to access others’ records for 2 weeks was: (ES05b –sig<.334)

The system administrator’s failure to correct the problem sooner was: (ES05c – sig<.000)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

102 WHITMAN AND ZAFAR

Of particular interest is the overall perspective of both groups of the actions of the scenariostudent in searching for a loophole in a university system. The action is clearly defined in manyinstitutions’ codes of ethics as unauthorized and possibly illegal behavior, yet the respondentstook a more tolerant perspective of the student searching for a loophole than they did of a systemadministrator who failed to resolve a student-reported issue within a 2-week period.

Scenario 6

A computer user visited an online computer program store to order a particular accountingsystem. When he received his order, he found out that the store had accidentally sent him a veryexpensive word processing program as well as the accounting package that he had ordered. Helooked at the invoice, and it indicated only that the accounting package had been sent. The userdecided to keep the word processing package.

The user’s decision to keep the word processing package was: (ES06a – sig<.193)

Both groups indicated that the action to keep unordered software was unethical, but the morerecent group indicating a higher degree of tolerance than the earlier group of respondents. Yetwith a significance level < .193 it cannot be concluded with assurance that the two groups trulyhad differing perspectives.

Scenario 7

A manager of a company that sells computer processing services bought similar services froma competitor. She used her access to the competitor’s computer to try to break the security system,identify other customers, and cause the system to “crash” (cause loss of service to others). Sheused the service for more than 1 year and always paid her bills promptly.

The manager’s actions were: (ES07a – sig<.000)

In this scenario both groups clearly identified the described behavior as highly unethical, yetthe original study group found it more so than the latter. While the study focused on the ethicalaspects of the scenarios, discussions of legality dominated in-class discussions of the results. Thestate of Georgia, for example, has clear legislation that makes the actions of the individual in thescenario illegal (s.f. http://www.oit.gatech.edu/georgia-computer-systems-protection-act).

Scenario 8

A programmer at a bank realized that he had accidentally overdrawn his checking account. Hemade a small adjustment in the bank’s accounting system so that his account would not have an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF COMPUTER USE ETHICS 103

additional service charge assessed. As soon as he made a deposit that made his balance positiveagain, he corrected the bank’s accounting system.

The programmer’s modification of the accounting system was: (ES08a – sig<.583)

This scenario, which has been used as an ethical discussion point in computer programmingclasses for many years, also depicts a scenario that is both unethical and illegal. While both groupsclearly indicated their perspective of the described activities as illegal, the low significance levelprevents interpretation of one group as more or less tolerant than the other.

Scenario 9

A computer programmer enjoyed building small computer programs to give his friends. Hefrequently went to his office on Saturday when no one was working to use his employer’s com-puter to develop the programs. He did not hide the fact that he was going into the building; hehad to sign a register at a security desk each time he entered.

The programmer’s use of the company’s computer was: (ES09a – sig<.000)

If the programmer sold the programs, his use of the company computer was: (ES09b –sig<.000)

In this scenario both groups recognized the described actions as questionable (midrange) yet aswas highlighted in in-class discussions, the true level of ethicality would depend on organiza-tional policy, which was not indicated in the scenario. In the presence of policy that prohibitedsuch action, the described scenario would more clearly indicate unethical actions, than either thepresence of a more tolerant organizational stance or the lack of policy in totality. In any case, themore recent study found a significantly more questionable perspective than the former.

Scenario 10

A student enrolled in an information systems class also was employed at a local businesspart time. Frequently her homework in the IS class involved using popular word processing andspreadsheet packages. Occasionally she would work on her homework on the office computer ather part-time job, but only during her coffee or meal breaks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

104 WHITMAN AND ZAFAR

The student’s use of the company’s computer was: (ES10a – sig<.000)

If the student would have worked on her homework during “company time” (not during abreak), the student’s use of the company computer would have been: (ES10b – sig<.784)

Just as with the previous scenario, the question of ethicality would appear to hinge on organiza-tional policy, rather than independent action. Yet in the absence of this additional information themore recent group found the general use of organizational equipment for personal use less tolerantthan the former study, especially during “breaks”. Unfortunately the lack of significance betweenthe two studies on the topic of “company time” efforts both indicated a much less tolerant viewof organizational use yet no statistically discernible differences.

Scenario 11

A student at a university learned to use an expensive spreadsheet program in her accountingclass. The student often went to the university computer laboratory, used the spreadsheet software,completed her assignment, and returned the software. Signs were posted in the laboratory indi-cating that copying software was forbidden. One day, she decided to copy the software anywayso she could work on her assignments at her apartment.

If the student destroyed her copy of the software at the end of the term, her action in copyingthe software was: (ES11a – sig<.001)

If the student forgot to destroy her copy of the software at the end of the term, her action incopying the software was: (ES11b – sig<.392)

If the student never intended to destroy her copy of the software at the end of the term, heraction in in copying the software was: (ES11c – sig<.003)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF COMPUTER USE ETHICS 105

Again, in-class discussions of results focused on legality rather than ethicality; however, in allthree questions, the former group was much less tolerant of software piracy than the more recentgroup, although interpretation becomes difficult over the “forgot” question as the significancelevel prohibits delineation of the two perspectives.

Scenario 12

A student at a university found a website that contained a “pirate” section (a section containinga collection of illegally copied software programs). He subscribed to the site, and proceededto download several games and programs (including several very expensive word processing,spreadsheet, and database programs), which he then distributed to several of his friends.

The student’s actions in downloading the games were: (ES12a – sig<.000)

The student’s actions in downloading the other programs were: (ES12b – sig<.012)

The student’s actions in sharing the games and other programs with his friends were: (ES12c– sig<.004)

Across the board both groups indicated a clear perspective of the actions in the described scenarioas strongly unethical. Although visually not very distinctive, each question had a statisticallysignificant difference in the two groups’ perspectives.

Scenario 13

A “virus” is a computer program (typically) that performs tasks that a user has not requested,or does not want to perform. Some virus programs erase all files on a hard drive, some just printsilly messages. One day, a very good student programmer decided to write a virus program. Virusprograms usually make copies of themselves on other computers automatically, so the virus willspread to unsuspecting users. The student wrote a program that caused the computer to ignoreevery fifth command entered by a user. The student took his program to the university computinglaboratory and installed it on one of the computers. Before long, the virus spread to hundreds ofcomputers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

106 WHITMAN AND ZAFAR

The student’s action infecting hundreds of computers was: (ES13a – sig<.000)

If the virus program output the message “Have a nice day.”, then the student’s actions infectinghundreds of computers would have been: (ES13b – sig<.034)

If the virus erased files, then the student’s action infecting hundreds of computers would havebeen: (ES13c – sig<.000)

The three questions illustrate a low tolerance on both the previous and more recent groupof respondents. Across the board, the ethical sensitivity to malware is extremely high with aperceived unacceptability for the creation of viruses regardless of intent.

CONCLUSIONS

While the statistical results of the new study in 2011 proved only somewhat different than theprevious study over a decade ago in 1997, the true value of this research is in the provisionof a set of scenarios and other perspectives that can be used in in-class discussions of ethics,policy and law. In several of the scenarios, the discussion and perspectives may vary radicallyif an organizational policy prescribed one behavior as acceptable or unacceptable. However, asmatters of law do not differ as radically as organizational policies, students generally were ableto identify and denote illegal activities as unethical as well.

REFERENCES

Adam, A. (2000). Gender and computer ethics. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 30(4), 17–24.Aiken, R. M. (1983). Reflections on teaching computer ethics. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 15(3), 8–12.Banerjee, D., Cronan, T. P., & Jones, T. W. (1998). Modeling it ethics: A study in situational ethics. MIS Quarterly, 22(1),

31–60.Banerjee, D., Jones, T. W., & Cronan, T. P. (1996). The association of demographic variables and ethical behaviour of

information system personnel. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 96(3), 3–10.Brey, P. (2000). Method in computer ethics: Towards a multi-level interdisciplinary approach. Ethics and Information

Technology, 2(2), 125–129.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF COMPUTER USE ETHICS 107

Calluzzo, V. J., & Cante, C. J. (2004). Ethics in information technology and software use. Journal of Business Ethics,51(3), 301–312.

Dhillon, G., & Backhouse, J. (2000). Information system security management in the new millennium. Communicationsof the ACM, 43(7), 125–128.

Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. (2002). Mapping the foundationalist debate in computer ethics. Ethics and InformationTechnology, 4(1), 1–9.

Harrington, S. (1996). The effect of codes of ethics and personal denial of responsibility on computer abuse judgmentsand intentions. MIS Quarterly, 20(3), 257–278.

Leonard, L. N. K., & Cronan, T. P. (2001). Illegal, inappropriate, and unethical behavior in an information technologycontext: A study to explain influences. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1, 12.

Loch, K. D., & Conger, S. (1996). Evaluating ethical decision making and computer use. Communications of the ACM,39(7), 74–83.

Paradice, D. B. (1990). Ethical attitudes of entry-level MIS personnel. Information & Management, 18(3), 143–151.Quinn, M. J. (2010). Ethics for the information age (4th ed). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Siegfried, R. M. (2004). Student attitudes on software piracy and related issues of computer ethics. Ethics and Information

Technology, 6(4), 215–222.Townsend, A. M., Whitman, M. E., Hendrickson, A. R., & Fields, D. A. (1998). An examination of computer-use ethics

in Hong Kong and the United States. Journal of International Information Management, 7(1), 29–38.Whitman, M. E., Townsend, A. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1999). Cross-national differences in computer-use ethics: A

nine-country study. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4), 673–687.Whitman, M. E., Townsend, A. M., Hendrickson, A. R., & Fields, D. A. (1998a). An examination of cross-national

differences in computer-related ethical decision making. Computers and Society, 28(4), 22–27.Whitman, M. E., Townsend, A. M., Hendrickson, A. R., & Rensvold, R. B. (1998b). Computer aversion and computer-use

ethics in US and Asian cultures. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 38(4), 19–24.Workman, M., & Gathegi, J. (2007). Punishment and ethics deterrents: A study of insider security contravention. Journal

of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 212–222.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

22:

23 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014