Testing a Model of Academic Ethics:
Mapping the Pathways to Possible Ethical Misconduct in Higher Education
Dr. Avi Kay(1), David Desplaces(2), Sue Bosco, Laura Beauvais
1. Department of Management, Lev Academic Center, Israel
2. The Citidal, United States
Synopsis
This study tests a new model of faculty ethical misconduct. Survey data from global faculty reveal a justice/power/cognition pathway influencing acceptance of unethical behavior. Procedural justice and moral disengagement emerge as the strongest predictors across various domains of faculty activities. Findings highlight structural and cognitive mechanisms that shape ethical climates and inform interventions in higher education.
Key Questions
• Do distributive, procedural, and interactional justice perceptions impact faculty attitudes toward unethical behavior across various areas of faculty activities?
• Does feelings of powerlessness impact faculty attitudes toward unethical behavior across various areas of faculty activities?
• Does powerlessness activate moral disengagement among faculty?
• Does moral disengagement impact unethical behavior across various areas of faculty activities?
Keywords
Faculty ethical misconduct; Organizational justice; Moral disengagement. Powerlessness
Overview
Unethical behavior among faculty represents a critical yet understudied dimension of academic life. While research on student misconduct has grown substantially in recent years (Bretag, 2020; Curtis, 2023; Hendy et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022), far less empirical attention has been directed toward understanding the ethical behavior of faculty, despite their central role in shaping academic norms and mentoring future scholars. Existing studies highlight a range of faculty-related ethical concerns—including interpersonal mistreatment (Miller et al., 2019), boundary violations in faculty–student relationships (Snijders et al., 2022), misconduct toward employing institutions (Lawrence, 2012), and research-related unethical practices (Paruzel‑Czachura et al., 2021)—yet the field lacks an integrative framework explaining how such behaviors emerge and how academics cognitively evaluate them. The present study addresses this gap by drawing on a newly developed comprehensive model of faculty ethical misconduct (Desplaces et al., 2024) to examine how organizational justice perceptions, feelings of powerlessness, and moral disengagement jointly shape faculty attitudes toward ethically questionable behaviors.
The model proposes that faculty may encounter ethical dilemmas across four primary spheres of academic work: teaching, research, interpersonal relations, and sabotage. Teaching-related dilemmas include inadequate preparation or inequitable grading; research dilemmas involve data falsification or misrepresentation of authorship; interpersonal dilemmas encompass disrespectful or harmful treatment of colleagues and students; and sabotage refers to intentional actions that undermine others or damage institutional functioning. These behaviors may be influenced by individual characteristics, organizational structures, and broader environmental pressures within higher education (Altbach, 2011; Brennan & Magness, 2019; Hoole, 2019). For example, competitive climates and “publish or perish” expectations may normalize questionable research practices (Gopalakrishna et al., 2022), while opaque decision-making processes may foster feelings of powerlessness that contribute to disengagement and retaliatory behavior (Shoss et al., 2021).
Central to the model is the proposition that organizational justice—comprising distributive, procedural, and interactional fairness—plays a critical role in shaping ethical cognition. Justice perceptions serve as interpretive frameworks through which academics evaluate ambiguous behaviors, determine the legitimacy of institutional norms, and assess whether questionable actions are acceptable or justified (Colquitt et al., 2013; Fortin et al., 2020). Distributive justice concerns the fairness of outcomes such as workload and recognition; procedural justice reflects the fairness of decision-making processes; and interactional justice pertains to respectful interpersonal treatment. Prior research suggests that perceived injustice can weaken moral obligation, increase tolerance for unethical conduct, and activate cognitive mechanisms that facilitate moral disengagement (Treviño et al., 2006; De Cremer et al., 2021).
Moral disengagement, a key component of the model, refers to meta-cognitive strategies that allow individuals to justify unethical behavior without self‑condemnation (Bandura et al., 1996). These mechanisms include moral justification, diffusion of responsibility, euphemistic labeling, and distortion of consequences. Extensive research demonstrates that moral disengagement predicts unethical decision‑making across organizational contexts (Detert et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2012; Newman et al., 2020). The model posits that moral disengagement mediates the effects of justice perceptions and perceived powerlessness on ethical attitudes, enabling faculty to reinterpret questionable behaviors as necessary, understandable, or normatively acceptable.
To test this model, the study surveyed 2,008 faculty in the allied business fields across global higher education institutions. Participants completed recognized and validated measures assessing organizational justice, perceived powerlessness, moral disengagement, and permissiveness toward unethical behaviors across the four domains. Analyses included descriptive statistics, reliability assessments, hierarchical regressions, and mediation models.
Findings reveal a consistent justice–power–cognition pathway shaping faculty ethical perceptions. Procedural justice emerged as the strongest and most consistent negative predictor of permissive ethical attitudes, underscoring the centrality of fair and transparent decision-making processes in shaping moral evaluations. Interactional justice demonstrated domain‑specific effects, particularly influencing judgments related to interpersonal and sabotage behaviors, reflecting the importance of respectful treatment in collegial environments. Distributive justice showed more limited but meaningful associations, particularly in research‑related ethical evaluations.
Perceived powerlessness was strongly associated with moral disengagement, suggesting that diminished agency may be a critical precursor to cognitive justification processes (Jia et al., 2022). Moral disengagement itself was the most robust predictor of permissive attitudes toward unethical behavior, significantly increasing explained variance in all ethical domains. Mediation analyses confirmed that moral disengagement partially mediated the relationships between justice perceptions, powerlessness, and ethical permissiveness.
The results suggest that faculty misconduct reflects a justice–power–meta-cognition dynamic: when academics perceive unfair procedures and limited agency, they are more likely to engage in moral disengagement, increasing tolerance for unethical behavior. These findings suggest that it is important to improve improving procedural transparency, fostering respectful interactions, and reducing feelings of powerlessness in order to try to strengthen ethical decision-making. Institutions should therefore prioritize fair governance practices, clear accountability structures, and supportive organizational climates to mitigate disengagement and promote ethical conduct while simultaneously assessing faculty perceptions of the above.
References
Altbach, P. G. (2011). Leadership for world-class universities. In P. G. Altbach & J. Salmi (Eds.), The road to academic excellence: The making of world-class research universities (pp. 11–32). World Bank.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364
Brennan, J., & Magness, P. W. (2019). Cracks in the ivory tower: The moral mess of higher education. Oxford University Press.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757
Curtis, G. J. (2023). Academic integrity and student misconduct: Trends and challenges. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2045205
De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. R. (2021). Unfairness and deviant behavior in organizations: A moral disengagement perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04354-4
Desplaces, D. E., Beauvais, L., Kay, A., & Bosco, S. (2024). Understanding Unprofessional Conduct of Faculty. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 43(1), 1-26.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374
Fortin, M., Cojuharenco, I., Patient, D., & German, H. (2020). It is time to be consistent: A meta-analysis of the consistency of justice effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(9), 829–848. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2472
Gopalakrishna, G., ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Bouter, L. M. (2022). Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLOS ONE, 17(2), e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
Hendy, N. T., Montargot, N., & Pichault, F. (2021). Academic dishonesty among university students: The role of contextual and individual factors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 19(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09405-3
Hoole, C. (2019). Workplace pressures and ethical challenges in academia. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v45i0.1601
Huang, L., Chen, Y., & Liu, Y. (2022). Student ethics and academic misconduct in higher education: A cross-cultural perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 47(6), 1182–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859677
Jia, L., Li, D., & Xu, Y. (2022). Powerlessness and unethical behavior: The mediating role of moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04864-4
Lawrence, T. B., & Kacmar, K. M. (2012). Institutional pressures and unethical behavior in organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3), 519–551. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201222332
Miller, A. N., Taylor, S. G., & Bedeian, A. G. (2019). Workplace mistreatment in higher education: Faculty experiences and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(2), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000359
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x
Newman, A., Le, H., North-Samardzic, A., & Cohen, M. (2020). Moral disengagement at work: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(3), 535–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04173-7
Paruzel-Czachura, M., Blachnio, A., & Przepiorka, A. (2021). Academic dishonesty and research misconduct: Psychological predictors and ethical implications. Ethics & Behavior, 31(6), 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1780887
Shoss, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Vera, D. (2021). Job insecurity, moral disengagement, and unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000502
Snijders, I., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Loyens, S. M. M. (2022). Faculty–student boundary violations in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 35, 100430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100430
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258