skip to main content
10.1145/3236024.3264833acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Does ACM’s code of ethics change ethical decision making in software development?

Published:26 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Ethical decisions in software development can substantially impact end-users, organizations, and our environment, as is evidenced by recent ethics scandals in the news. Organizations, like the ACM, publish codes of ethics to guide software-related ethical decisions. In fact, the ACM has recently demonstrated renewed interest in its code of ethics and made updates for the first time since 1992. To better understand how the ACM code of ethics changes software-related decisions, we replicated a prior behavioral ethics study with 63 software engineering students and 105 professional software developers, measuring their responses to 11 ethical vignettes. We found that explicitly instructing participants to consider the ACM code of ethics in their decision making had no observed effect when compared with a control group. Our findings suggest a challenge to the research community: if not a code of ethics, what techniques can improve ethical decision making in software engineering?

References

  1. 2018. About the ACM Code of Ethics. (2018). https://www.acm.org/about-acm/ code-of-ethics. 2018. World’s Largest Computing Association Affirms Obligation of Computing Professionals to Use Skills for Benefit of Society. (July 2018). https://www.acm. org/media-center/2018/july/acm-updates-code-of-ethics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Janet S. Adams, Armen Tashchian, and Ted H. Shore. 2001. Codes of Ethics as Signals for Ethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 29, 3 (2001), 199–211. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074455Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Tim Barnett, Ken Bass, and Gene Brown. 1994. Ethical ideology and ethical judgment regarding ethical issues in business. Journal of Business Ethics 13, 6 (June 1994), 469–480.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Steven RH Barrett, Raymond L Speth, Sebastian D Eastham, Irene C Dedoussi, Akshay Ashok, Robert Malina, and David W Keith. 2015. Impact of the Volkswagen emissions control defeat device on US public health. Environmental Research Letters 10, 11 (2015), 114005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Yoav Benjamini and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the royal statistical society. Series B (Methodological) (1995), 289–300.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Arthur P. Brief, Janet M. Dukerich, Paul R. Brown, and Joan F. Brett. 1996. What’s wrong with the treadway commission report? Experimental analyses of the effects of personal values and codes of conduct on fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 15, 2 (Feb. 1996), 183–198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Margaret Anne Cleek and Sherry Lynn Leonard. 1998. Can corporate codes of ethics influence behavior? Journal of Business Ethics 17, 6 (April 1998), 619–630.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. John B. Cullen, Bart Victor, and James W. Bronson. 1993. The ethical climate questionnaire: An assessment of its development and validity. Psychological reports 73, 2 (1993), 667–674.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Reeshad S. Dalal. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. American Psychological Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Robert C. Ford and Woodrow D. Richardson. 1994. Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics 13, 3 (01 Mar 1994), 205–221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Donelson R. Forsyth. 1985. Individual differences in information integration during moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49, 1 (1985), 264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Omar S Gómez, Natalia Juristo, and Sira Vegas. 2014. Understanding replication of experiments in software engineering: A classification. Information and Software Technology 56, 8 (2014), 1033–1048.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Susan J. Harrington. 1996. The Effect of Codes of Ethics and Personal Denial of Responsibility on Computer Abuse Judgments and Intentions. MIS Quarterly 20, 3 (1996), 257–278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. W. Harvey Hegarty and Henry P. Sims. 1979. Organizational philosophy, policies, and objectives related to unethical decision behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 64, 3 (June 1979), 331–338. 0021-9010.64.3.331Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dove Izraeli. 1988. Ethical beliefs and behavior among managers: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 7, 4 (April 1988), 263–271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Timothy A. Judge, Brent A. Scott, and Remus Ilies. 2006. Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology 91, 1 (2006), 126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Jennifer J. Kish-Gephart, David A. Harrison, and Linda Klebe Treviño. 2010. Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. American Psychological Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Theo Leggett. 2017. VW papers shed light on emissions scandal. (Jan. 2017). https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38603723.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Sheri Lynn Leonard. 1991. Can corporate codes of ethics influence behavior? Master’s thesis. Sacramento State University Library, Sacramento, California.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Nazanin Mansouri. 2016. A Case Study of Volkswagen Unethical Practice in Diesel Emission Test. International Journal of Science and Engineering Applications 5, 4 (2016), 211–216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Douglas R. May and Kevin P. Pauli. 2002. The role of moral intensity in ethical decision making: A review and investigation of moral recognition, evaluation, and intention. Business & Society 41, 1 (2002), 84–117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Donald L. McCabe, Linda Klebe Trevino, and Kenneth D. Butterfield. 1996. The Influence of Collegiate and Corporate Codes of Conduct on Ethics-Related Behavior in the Workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly 6, 4 (1996), 461–476.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Gael M. McDonald and Raymond A. Zepp. 1989. Business Ethics: Practical Proposals. Journal of Management Development 8, 1 (Jan. 1989), 55–66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Alexander Nill and John A. Schibrowsky. 2005. The impact of corporate culture, the reward system, and perceived moral intensity on marketing students’ ethical decision making. Journal of Marketing education 27, 1 (2005), 68–80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Sean O’Kane, Andrew J. Hawkins, and Sarah Jeong. 2018. Waymo and Uber reach a surprise settlement. (Feb. 2018). https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/9/16995254/ waymo-uber-lawsuit-trial-settlement.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. John O. Okpara. 2003. Can corporate ethical codes of conduct influence behavior? An exploratory study of financial managers in a developing economy. In Academy of Business & Administrative Sciences (ABAS) XI International Conference: Brussels, Belgium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Joseph GP Paolillo and Scott J. Vitell. 2002. An empirical investigation of the influence of selected personal, organizational and moral intensity factors on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics 35, 1 (2002), 65–74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Alan R. Peslak. 2007. A Review of the Impact of ACM Code of Conduct on Information Technology Moral Judgment and Intent. The Journal of Computer Information Systems; Stillwater 47, 3 (2007), 1–10. https://search.proquest.com/ docview/232575060/abstract/B5D6957065734F75PQ/1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Dane K. Peterson. 2002. Computer ethics: the influence of guidelines and universal moral beliefs. Information Technology & People 15, 4 (Dec. 2002), 346–361.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Jan Schwartz and Victoria Bryan. 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. VW’s Dieselgate bill hits $30 bln after another charge. (Sept. 2017). https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-uk-volkswagen-emissions/ vws-dieselgate-bill-hits-30-bln-after-another-charge-idUSKCN1C4271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. James Y. L. Thong and Chee-Sing Yap. 1998. Testing an Ethical Decision-Making Theory: The Case of Softlifting. Journal of Management Information Systems 15, 1 (1998), 213–237. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398379 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Linda Klebe Trevino. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: A personsituation interactionist model. Academy of management Review 11, 3 (1986), 601–617.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Linda Klebe TreviÃśo, Kenneth D. Butterfield, and Donald L. McCabe. 1998. The Ethical Context in Organizations: Influences on Employee Attitudes and Behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly 8, 3 (1998), 447–476. 2307/3857431Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Bart Victor and John B. Cullen. 1988. The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative science quarterly (1988), 101–125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Greg Wood and Malcolm Rimmer. 2003. Codes of Ethics: What Are They Really and What Should They Be? International Journal of Value - Based Management; Dordrecht 16, 2 (May 2003), 181–195. https://search.proquest.com/docview/ 195803009/abstract/21D0D4BF65164968PQ/1 Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Related Work 3 Methodology 3.1 Study Design 3.2 Analysis 4 Results 5 Threats to validity 6 Conclusion ReferencesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Does ACM’s code of ethics change ethical decision making in software development?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ESEC/FSE 2018: Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering
      October 2018
      987 pages
      ISBN:9781450355735
      DOI:10.1145/3236024

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 October 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate112of543submissions,21%

      Upcoming Conference

      FSE '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader