ArticlesOn November 27, the president signed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act Source: Issues in Science and Technology. 29.2 (Winter 2013): p25. From Academic OneFile. Document Type: Brief article

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2013 National Academy of Sciences http://www.issues.org Full Text:* On November 27, the president signed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which protects government employees from retaliation when disclosing evidence of gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, or abuse of authority within the government. Of interest to the research community, the legislation includes language that protects against censorship related to research, including efforts "to distort, misrepresent, or suppress research, analysis, or technical information." * An effort to pass cybersecurity legislation failed, after Republican leaders objected because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would not allow an open amendment process. The Senate also failed to pass cybersecurity legislation in August. At that time, Republicans were concerned that mandatory security standards in the bill would put unnecessary burdens on the private sector. Source Citation (MLA 7th Edition) "On November 27, the president signed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act." Issues in Science and Technology 29.2 (2013): 25. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.Document URLhttp://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA319229564&v=2.1&u=cclc_trade&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w

Gale Document Number: GALE|A319229564

Back to Search ResultsPrevious1 2 3 4 5 6 NextSave this document

Results for Basic Search Keyword (retaliation for whistleblowers) LIMITS: With Full Text Title: Retaliation for whistleblowing is on the rise Author(s): Curtis C. Verschoor Source: Strategic Finance. 94.5 (Nov. 2012): p13. From Academic OneFile. Document Type: Article Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2012 Institute of Management Accountants http://www.imanet.org Full Text:Many favorable outcomes have resulted from the courageous actions of whistleblowers. Examples include the disclosures revealing the efforts of tobacco companies to get smokers hooked on nicotine, UBS's massive efforts to help U.S. taxpayers evade federal income taxes, and drug giant Pfizer's illegal marketing efforts that resulted in $2.3 billion of criminal and civil penalties. Unfortunately, those blowing the whistle on such events are likely to face the painful cost of retaliation. The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that were enacted to encourage whistleblowers and protect them from retaliation are still being adjudicated in the court system. One recent case is Kramer v. Trans-Lux Corp., Case No. 3:11-cv-01424-SRU (D. Conn. September 25, 2012). The result was encouraging for whistleblowers. The U.S. District Court for Connecticut held that a whistleblower may pursue claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) as well as Dodd-Frank. The court also ruled that a whistleblower doesn't have to report a tip to the SEC in the manner prescribed by the SEC in order to qualify as a whistleblower under Dodd-Frank. Instead, the individual only must allege that he or she had a reasonable belief that the information relates to a possible violation of securities laws. Though the courts continue to address the Dodd-Frank provisions, a report issued September 4, 2012, by the Ethics Resource Center (ERC) highlights the need for greater protection for whistleblowers. Titled Retaliation: When Whistleblowers Become Victims, the report details the practices of reporting illegal and unethical conduct in U.S. companies. Retaliation analyzes data obtained in the 2011 National Business Ethics Survey (NBES), conducted before the protections of Dodd-Frank became effective. The NBES survey interviewed U.S. employees at all levels working at least 20 hours per week in the for-profit sector. Data was weighted for gender, age, and education. (The NBES study was covered in the April 2012 column, "New Survey of Workplace Ethics Shows Surprising Results.") Retaliation analyzes data obtained in the 2011 National Business Ethics Survey (NBES), conducted before the protections of Dodd-Frank became effective. The NBES survey interviewed U.S. employees at all levels working at least 20 hours per week in the for-profit sector. Data was weighted for gender, age, and education. (The NBES study was covered in the April 2012 column, "New Survey of Workplace Ethics Shows Surprising Results.") According to ERC's Retaliation report, retaliation against work-place whistleblowers is now extending to previously safe groups such as senior managers and is involving more acts of physical violence. "Addressing workplace retaliation should be a high priority for business leaders," ERC President Patricia J. Harned said. "When an employee experiences retaliation for reporting misconduct, companies have two new problems. A second form of misconduct has been observed, and the reporter is now a victim. Additionally, retaliation can create an environment that is cancerous to the organization." The rate of retaliation against whistleblowers is increasing far more quickly than the rate of people reporting misdoing. Since 2007, the rate of reporting misconduct, or whistleblowing, has increased from 58% of those who observe improper behavior to 65%. Of the reporting group, the rate of employees experiencing retaliation increased from 12% in 2007 to 22% in 2011. Among the unfavorable side effects of retaliation is the dampening of motivation for future whistleblowers and the increased risk that unreported wrongdoing will continue and expand because management has no opportunity to take corrective action. Perhaps the most surprising findings set forth in Retaliation involve the striking increases in specific types of retaliatory acts--particularly those related to managerial employees. In the past two years alone, traceable retaliation (those that leave proof of having happened, such as physical harm, online harassment, harassment at home, job shift, demotion, or cuts to hours or pay) increased from 4% of those who experienced retaliation to 31%, managerial demotions increased from 18% to 32%, and relocations or reassignments increased from 27% to 44%. This is the first time in the history of the ERC's studies of ethics that supervisory and managerial employees are now more likely to experience retaliation after whistle-blowing. In addition, retaliation among union employees (another group with higher job security) increased dramatically in the past two years. Retaliation rates for union members were 25 percentage points higher (42%) than the rate for nonunion employees (17%). Employees who feel comfortable enough to first report misconduct to their supervisor experience far less retaliation (17%) than those who first report to higher management (27%) or to their organization's hotline (40%). Possible explanations for this disparity are that (1) more significant violations would be reported to higher executives directly so that they could take immediate corrective action or (2) the reporter's supervisor may have some involvement with the situation. The severity of the wrongdoing also may be a factor here. Logically, more significant violations are more likely to result in retaliation. If the action being reported is serious enough that the reporting would be escalated above a supervisor or done through a hotline, it's also more likely that there would be retaliation for reporting that action. But in organizations with an open culture, speaking up to benefit the firm in the long run is more likely to be accepted. The ERC report also shows a direct link between increased retaliation and job pressures or stress. Fifty-two percent of people who report wrongdoing and feel pressure to compromise standards also end up experiencing retaliation. But only 12% of those who didn't feel such pressures experience retaliation. This suggests that an open and ethically strong culture encourages whistleblowing, while an unethical culture is more likely to result in employees "going along to get along." The ERC study measures critical aspects of ethical culture, including management's trustworthiness, whether managers at all levels talk about ethics and model appropriate behavior, and the extent to which employees value and sup-port ethical conduct, accountability, and transparency. Openness and the willingness to report misbehavior for the good of the organization is a positive outcome. The best news in Retaliation is that ethics and compliance pro-grams, strong ethical cultures, high standards of accountability that are applied consistently, and positive management behaviors are all linked to a reduced likelihood of retaliation. Though the rate of retaliation increased in stronger ethical cultures, that rate (15%) was still lower than the retaliation rate in ethically weak cultures, which increased to 27% from 24%. In addition, retaliation is lower in organizations with comprehensive ethics and compliance programs (2% of reporters) than it is in companies that lack all of the standard program elements (36%). Using other measurements, retaliation is far less likely when employees agree that management is accountable. Managers also have the power to curb retaliation. When they are perceived as trustworthy and committed to ethics, retaliation is far less likely. Some of the measures of accountability include: * Trust supervisor to keep promises and commitments, * Trust top management to keep promises and commitments, and * Trust coworkers to keep promises and commitments. Retaliation includes additional recommendations from the ERC for organizations that want to reduce the likelihood of the damaging effects of retaliation for whistleblowers. They include: * Assess the views of the organization regarding whistleblowing and the protection of those who come forward with concerns about actions they have observed. * Target managers with anti-retaliation training so they can recognize reporting, address the issues if possible, and interact with reporters in ways that aren't perceived as retaliatory. * Communicate the reporting process broadly among all employees so they can feel reassured that progress is being made and are aware of the protections for those that do the reporting. * Move investigations along and provide information as to the status of the issue so that reporters will feel they are being heard and won't need to bring up the same issues multiple times. * Take steps to ensure that retaliation doesn't happen--show that fairness and consistency are the norms in the organization. * Implement systems and procedures that ensure confidentiality. * When a claim of retaliation is substantiated, take action in a way that is both decisive and, if possible, visible to employees. * Track progress and periodically check up on reporters. In view of the motivations for whistleblowing contained in Dodd-Frank--and the Act's greater protection against retaliation--the subject of whistleblowing and its influence in helping to establish and maintain a strong ethical culture within an organization deserves immediate attention and is likely to remain important for many years to come. A report from the ERC shows that retaliation against whistleblowers is increasing. While provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act strengthen the protection of whistleblowers, companies can still do more to strengthen their ethical culture and encourage employees to report misconduct. Curts C. Verschoor, CMA, Editor Curtis C. Verschoor is the Emeritus Ledger & Quill Research Professor, School of Accountancy and MIS, and an honorary Senior Wicklander Research Fellow in the Institute for Business and Professional Ethics, both at DePaul University, Chicago. He was selected by Trust Across America as one of North America's Top Thought Leaders in Trust-worthy Business Behavior-2012. His e-mail address is curtisverschoor@sbcglobal.net. Verschoor, Curtis C. Source Citation (MLA 7th Edition) Verschoor, Curtis C. "Retaliation for whistleblowing is on the rise." Strategic Finance Nov. 2012: 13+. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.Document URLhttp://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA309735343&v=2.1&u=cclc_trade&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w

Gale Document Number: GALE|A309735343 Top of page Can ethics education improve ethical judgment? An empirical study Author(s): Peggy A. Cloninger and T.T. Seivarajan Source: SAM Advanced Management Journal. 75.4 (Autumn 2010): p4. From Academic OneFile. Document Type: Report Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2010 Society for the Advancement of Management http://islander.tamucc.edu/~cobweb/sam/ Full Text:Ethics scandals and corrupt practices can ruin a business. Can good judgment and ethical decision-making be taught in business schools? While these schools are now trying to incorporate ethics education, few studies have examined the effectiveness of such courses. This study focuses on the influence of successful outcomes on perceptions of ethical behavior. Is a successful person more likely to be considered ethical, regardless of other factors? A statistical analysis of responses from 175 people who were working and also pursuing master's degrees in business supported the hypothesis that a comprehensive course with an ethical focus mitigated bias in judging the ethical standing of others. ********** Ethical behavior has interested business researchers for decades (e.g., Akaah and Lund, 1994), but recent ethical scandals in major organizations worldwide (e.g., WorldCom, Adelphia, Parmalat, WIPRO, Sanlu Group) have brought business school curricula under intense scrutiny. Masters of business administration programs have been subject to criticism for failing to develop critical competencies such as decision-making (Rubin and Dierdorff, 2009) and for fostering amoral theories based on opportunistic behavior and lack of trust (Ghoshal, 2005). Business organizations and society alike are demanding that business schools examine their curricula and work toward graduating managers who will perform their jobs in an ethical manner. The primary accrediting organization for business schools has responded to this demand and has indicated that schools should ensure that all students understand the symbiotic relationship between business and society (AACSB International, 2004). Business students themselves also are interested in having classes explore issues related to corporate social responsibility (Net Impact, 2006). Many of the 2009 graduates of the Harvard Business School took a voluntary student-led pledge to "serve the greater good" (Wayne, 2009). Yet, the effectiveness of education to improve ethical judgment and performance remains in doubt. Many suggest that a business school course is unlikely to make students more ethical decision-makers (Giacalone and Thompson, 2008). However, the differences in the day-to-day ethical judgments of those who have completed required courses covering ethics are not well understood. Much research in ethics has tended to be either prescriptive or focused on surveys regarding perceptions or opinions of ethical performance. Empirical research has often been correlational and exploratory (Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe, 2008). Theoretical work has consisted primarily of developing models that propose various personal and organizational variables as the determinants of ethical behavior (Akaah and Lund, 1994). It has been argued that the influence of organizational context is often unrecognized and unappreciated by researchers (e.g., Johns, 2006). Yet, relatively little research has examined whether or not completing a course on ethical decision-making can reduce organizational influences and improve ethical judgment and performance. Our research addresses this gap in the literature. In particular, this study examines whether or not ethics education reduces the influence of performance outcomes and results in improved ethical judgment. Performance outcome, that is, whether or not an employee is considered successful or unsuccessful on the job, has been found to bias ethical judgments (e.g., Selvarajan and Cloninger, 2009). Those considered successful have been judged to behave more ethically than those deemed unsuccessful. In other words, employees' performance levels have been found to influence judgments of whether they are ethical or not. Furthermore, the respondent's personal beliefs do not affect this finding. That is, the evidence suggests that organizational influences (e.g., job performance levels), can override respondents' personal ethical systems. Since personal ethics are developed over a lifetime, this finding raises the question of whether or not ethics education can help students improve their ethical reasoning skills sufficiently so that their ethical judgments overcome the influence of job performance levels. Specifically, this research tests if a single comprehensive course that includes substantial attention to ethics can accomplish this task. Or simply put, can ethics education reduce job performance outcome bias? This research is important for theory and practice. From a practical perspective, job performance appraisals are used by most organizations to improve job performance. Yet job outcomes (performance levels achieved by employees) have been shown to bias the ethical judgments. In particular, employees who receive positive appraisals are judged to be more ethical than employees who receive negative appraisals. If ethics education reduces bias and improves ethical judgment, implications for businesses seeking to hire ethical managers are significant. From a theoretical perspective, this research is important because it systematically examines whether or not ethics education can mitigate the influence of job outcome bias. Performance appraisals are subject to the cognitive limitations (Selvarajan and Cloninger, 2009; Cardy and Dobbins, 1994), and given their prevalence, the influence of job outcome bias on ethical judgments is likely to be common. Yet job outcome bias is relatively unstudied. Also, unlike the previous ethics research examining undergraduates (e.g., Neubaum, Pagell, Drexler, MckeeRyan and Larson, 2009), this research examines ethical judgments of graduate students who are full-time employees, are generally older, and have more experience than undergraduates entering the field of management. The judgments of full-time employees are of greater practical interest and relevance in the field of management, and ethical judgments of older individuals have frequently been found to differ from those of younger individuals. Finally, systematic examination of the influence of bias may shed light on the mixed findings of prior studies regarding the influence of education on ethical judgment. Therefore, this research provides new empirical evidence evaluating the relationship of ethics education to performance appraisal systems, and can be used to help build better theories. Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses Performance appraisals and ethics Researchers have recommended recently that ethical behavior be explicitly incorporated into performance appraisals (Buckley, 2001; Weaver and Trevino, 1999), suggesting that incorporating ethical dimensions into performance appraisal systems will help integrate ethical expectations into formal role identities. Yet many organizations primarily reward other measures of performance, especially financial, regardless of ethical or unethical behavior. Although research remains limited, theoretical evidence suggests that job performance outcomes influence ethical judgments (e.g., Selverajan and Cloninger, 2009). Ashkanasy, Windsor, and Trevino (2006) found that perceptions that an organization rewards unethical behavior or punishes ethical behavior influences employees' decision-making. Other studies have found that respondents judged those with successful job performance outcomes to have exhibited more ethical behaviors than those who had unsuccessful job performance outcomes (Selvarajan and Cloninger, 2009). Furthermore, the ethical judgments in these studies were consistent regardless of the respondent's personal ethical beliefs. Education and ethics Arguments on the effectiveness of ethics education vary. Some research finds that integrating ethics into the curriculum is significant and decreases tolerance for unethical behavior (e.g., Lopez, Rechner, Sundaramurthy and Olson-Buchanan, 2005). Hartman (2006) suggests that ethics education can help students think critically about their values and how to put them into practice. In other words, ethics education can help students better assess complex situations and realize that being ethical is in their own best interests. Alternatively, Neubaum, et al. (2009) found the moral philosophies of undergraduate business students and nonbusiness students were similar as they progressed through four years of college, and that seniors were more likely than freshman to expect businesses to behave ethically. This finding is consistent with O'Fallon and Butterfield's (2005) review of the literature that indicates that more education, employment, or work experience is positively related to ethical decision-making, but that the type of education has little or no effect. Organizations support and undermine ethical judgment On the other hand, some make the argument that managers already know what is ethical, and know that they should be ethical (e.g., Velthouse and Kandogan, 2006), but that ethical judgments are undermined by organizational behavior. Moral reasoning may be context-specific and only weakly linked to behavior (Svanberg, 2008). Evidence suggests that organizations can support or oppose ethical behaviors (Hartman, 2006; Shelley, 1994). Organizations can foster an ethical environment or one in which customers, suppliers, or employees are treated dishonestly or unfairly (Shelley, 1994). In the latter, rationalizing unethical actions may be easy. Similarly, some organizations require managers to meet unrealistic performance goals (Shelley, 1994), and meeting an immediate financial goal is rewarded while ethical behavior is not. In these organizations, ethics simply doesn't 'fit' into managers' daily tasks (Velthouse and Kandogan, 2006:153). Ethical judgments are subject to biases Given that unethical behavior can take a variety of forms, ranging from convenient disregard of company policies to breaking civil or criminal law, improving the ethical judgments of employees is vitally important to an organization. Although evidence suggests that more education generally improves ethical judgment (O'Fallen and Butterfield, 2005), ethical judgments are subjective. The ethical nature of behavior is seen as a social reality (Payne and Giacalone, 1990) rather than as an objective fact, and is subject to biases arising from cognitive limitations of the person rating the performance. Biases degrade decision outcomes (Doerr and Mitchell, 1998). The performance appraisal literature suggests that performance judgments (positive or negative) can be biased by outcomes achieved by the ratee, the characteristics of the respondent (e.g., education) as well as trait inferences made by the respondent (e.g., Cardy and Dobbins, 1994). From a schematic perspective (e.g., Neisser, 1967), a worker who achieves excellent work outcomes may be placed in a successful-performance cognitive category by the respondent. Thus, an outcome schema may influence the evaluation of the performer's ethical nature. Unethical behavior may be ignored, discounted, or reinterpreted as consistent with the schema of a high performer. This is consistent with research that finds people tend to rate the ethical nature of a successful employee more favorably than that of an unsuccessful employee (Selvarajan and Cloninger, 2009; Cardy and Selvarajan, 1997). Improving ethics education Recently, researchers have called for business courses to emphasize ethical and social responsible behavior as an aspirational standard for business and as a strategic way to earn greater long-term benefits for the firm (Kashyap, Mir, and Iyer, 2006). As an aspirational standard, ethical and socially responsible behaviors are expected much in the same way that the Hippocratic Oath is an aspirational standard for the medical profession, that is, an ideal that should be pursued regardless of other rewards. On the other hand, from a strategic perspective courses should seek to convince students that ethical and socially responsible behavior increases the likelihood of short- and long-term advantages for themselves and the firm. The twofold approach is posited to be more meaningful for students. In this thinking, a comprehensive business and society course with a significant ethics component can be expected to improve ethical judgments by providing a body of information, ethical tools and reasoning methods, and a variety of relevant cases and examples to which students can refer as they make ethical judgments. Education may increase a person's capacity for ethical reasoning (Svanberg, 2008), and education focused explicitly on improving ethical reasoning should improve ethical judgment. Therefore, this research posits that education, specifically a comprehensive business and society course with an extensive focus on ethics, will improve ethical judgment such that the respondents' ethical judgments are less biased by job performance outcomes. Hypothesis 1. Ethical judgments of students who complete a comprehensive business and society course will be less biased by job outcomes than ethical judgments of students who have not completed the course. Rater age Rater characteristics have been found to significantly affect performance judgments (Cardy and Dobbins, 1994). In the appraisal literature, rater characteristics such as personality and ability have been recognized as potentially important influences on ratings (e.g., Lee 1988). Many studies have reported that age appears to be positively correlated with more ethical decisions. In O'Fallon and Butterfield's (2005) review of 37 studies on the effect of age and ethical decision-making, 10 found a positive relationship and six a negative relationship, but 14 reported no significant differences based on age. They concluded that the relationship between age and ethical decision-making is complicated and not necessarily captured by previous studies. This is likely true, but studies continue to find that age appears to be related to improved ethical judgments. Therefore, to focus more effectively on the influence of education on bias and improve our confidence in the results, this study will also examine if the students' age influences the relationship between ethics education and ethical judgments, or if there is an interaction effect between age and education. However, it will not make a hypothesis with respect to student age, although there is a general expectation that older respondents are likely to make better ethical judgments due to their greater work and life experiences. Methodology Self-selection bias All students in the program used in the study were required to take the business and society class, so the sample was not biased by self-selection. In other words, students who took the class were not necessarily more interested in ethics or social responsibility than those who took the class for other reasons (e.g., it fit their schedule). Sample The convenience sample consisted of 175 (90 men and 85 women) with an average work experience of 9.1 years. The average age of the respondents was 30.9 years. The respondents were employed in organizations ranging from large firms employing more than 1,000 to smaller firms employing fewer than 100. The respondents were all pursuing master's degrees, primarily in business at a Southwestern University. There were 82 participants in the after condition and 93 participants in the before condition (before and after taking a course). Experimental vignettes The basic material for this research was a vignette that described the performance of a fictitious sales person. The respondents randomly received one of four written vignettes (ethical-high performer, unethical-high performer, ethical-low performer, unethical low-performer). An example of the vignette is in the Appendix. Each vignette contained 10 critical incidents describing a salesperson's ethical or unethical behavior. The critical incidents represented five of the six dimensions (two incidents for each dimension) of ethical behavior. The six dimensions of ethical behavior (personal use, bribery, deception, padding expense accounts, passing blame, and falsification) were based on the research by Newstrom and Ruch (1975) and Akaah and Lund (1994). Ethical behavior was manipulated by providing ethical or unethical incidents for each of the four ratees. The "ethical" ratees had ethical incidents and "unethical" ratees had unethical incidents for all the dimensions of ethical performance. In addition to critical incidents of ethical behavior, the vignettes also contained summary statements regarding sales performance outcomes. The summary statements were drawn from the dimensions of sales performance (salesmanship, product knowledge, and ability to initiate/utilize sales innovations) identified from research in marketing (Bush, Bush, Ortinau, and Hair, 1990; Lucas, 1985). These statements summarized the salespersons' outcomes for each of these dimensions. For example, a ratee with poor outcomes was described as failing to close sales on the salesmanship dimension. In addition to these summary statements, the overall performance of each ratee was described as successful or unsuccessful, as appropriate; a successful ratee was described as a star performer who consistently exceeded all performance targets and an unsuccessful ratee was described as a dismal performer who never achieved performance targets. In summary, ethical behavior was manipulated by providing unethical or ethical critical incidents for each of the four ratees. Job performance outcomes were manipulated by providing performance outcome descriptions for the sales performance dimensions and by summarizing the level of success or failure in the overall performance description. A total of four ratee vignettes were formed by crossing the two levels of ethical behavior (ethical or unethical) with the two levels of outcomes (success or failure). Validity and reliability of the vignettes Scale development work (Cardy and Selvarajan, 2004) confirmed the dimensions and effectiveness of the ethical and unethical incidents. In brief, the development work generated a six-dimension behavioral scale for assessing ethical judgment using the behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) procedure outlined by Bernardin and Beatty (1984). For each of the six dimensions, the authors generated critical incidents representing ineffective, average, and effective ethical behaviors. This is a variation from the BARS procedure outlined by Bernardin and Beatty (1984), in which students generated critical incidents. Retranslation was conducted by 47 undergraduate student raters who indicated the dimension to which each of the critical incidents belonged. Finally, the effectiveness of the items surviving the retranslation process was evaluated by a separate group of 84 student raters. Based on the effectiveness levels of items, behaviorally anchored rating scales were constructed for the six dimensions of ethical behavior. Each scale had approximately five behavioral anchors spanning the range of each scale. Further details can be found in Cardy and Selvarajan (2004). In addition, the dimensions of ethical behavior used in this study roughly correspond to the types of misconduct observed most frequently in organizations. In a national business ethics survey of 1,500 employees, the Ethics Resource Center (2003) found that the most often observed misconducts were lying, withholding needed information, abusive or intimidating behavior toward employees, and misreporting actual hours worked. Measures The rating scales included (a) a 12 item behavioral observation scale (BOS), (b) one 7-point global ethical rating scale, (c) one 7-point global performance rating scale, and (d) a 16-item, 7-point Likert scale for measuring individual differences in ethical beliefs (Daniel, Elliot-Howard and Dufrene, 1997). The behavioral observation scale contained a 12-item checklist on which participants were asked to print Y (yes) or N (no) depending on whether the sales person had exhibited the specific behavior. Ten of these items represented the 10 critical incidents provided in the vignette. Two items served as "lures" to calculate false alarm rates (explained later on). This scale was used for calculating the dependent measure "bias." A scale developed by Daniel, Elliot-Howard, and Dufrene (1997) was used for measuring individual differences in ethical beliefs. This scale included five dimensions of ethical beliefs: personal integrity issues, corporate integrity issues, individual rights issues, environmental issues, and international issues. For this study, the items representing the three most relevant dimensions, namely, personal integrity issues, corporate integrity issues, and individual rights issues, were used. Sample items for this scale include: "It's acceptable to use investment resources from questionable resources," and "It's acceptable to restrict legal actions by damaged customers." The alpha reliability for this 16-item scale in the present study was 0.77. Dependent measure The signal detection measure of "bias" was used as the dependent measure for this study. Signal detection measures have been used extensively in determining judgment accuracy (e.g., Larson, Lingle and Scerbo, 1984; Lord, 1985; Snodgrass and Corwin, 1988; Sulsky and Day, 1992). Sulsky and Day (1992) define bias as "the probability of saying "yes" to an item when faced with a recognition task under conditions of uncertainty." That is, bias is a function of the probability of saying "yes" to lure items (items not presented in the ratee description vignette but appearing in behavioral observation scale). Bias is measured by the following formula recommended by Snodgrass and Corwin (1988): Bias = false-alarm rate/[1-(hit rate-false alarm rate)] Higher scores on this index are associated with more lenient decision criteria. A hit rate is the proportion of items correctly identified as observed, and a false alarm rate is the proportion of items incorrectly identified as observed. Since bias is undefined for hit rates of 1.0 and corresponding false-alarm rates of 0, the following corrections recommended by Snodgrass and Corwin (1988) were used: HR' = [hit-rates +0.5]/[no. of relevant items +1] FAR' = [false-alarm rates +0.5]/[no. of relevant items +1] Snodgrass and Corwin (1988) recommend the routine use of this correction in analyses using signal detection theory. Procedures The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions (success, unethical; success, ethical; failure, unethical; failure, ethical). The packet of materials given to the participants included one ratee vignette, one set of rating forms, the ethical belief scale, and a demographic data form. Participants were instructed to read each vignette carefully and fill out the various rating forms. They were specifically asked not to look back at the description of the salesperson while they were filling out the rating forms. Results This research hypothesized that ethical judgments of students who complete a comprehensive business and society course will be less biased by job outcomes than ethical judgments of students who have not completed the course. In addition, to focus more effectively on the influence of education on bias and to improve our confidence in the results, this study also examined if the student's age influenced the relationship between the ethics education and ethical judgments, or if there was an interaction effect between age and education. We did not make a hypothesis with respect to student age, because evidence remained mix, but expected older respondents would make better ethical judgments due to greater work and life experiences. Our findings follow. Bias To test for before and after effects, that is whether or not the students who had completed the course demonstrated improved ethical judgment (less bias) than students who had not completed the course, we used analysis of variance. The mean bias score for the before condition was 0.53, and the mean bias score for the after condition was 0.41. Analysis of variance showed that the bias scores between these two conditions was significant (F (1,171) = 3.96; (p