Kevin L. Eastman

The ethics of insurance professionals: Comparison of personal versus professional ethics

This paper considers the level of ethics for insurance professionals for professional situations (measured with three insurance scenarios) compared to personal (consumer) situations (measured by Muncy and Vitells 1992 Consumer Ethics Scale). The results of the study illustrate that there are significant differences in the ethical behavior of insurance professionals in professional versus personal situations. The authors found that insurance professionals are more likely to actively engage in unethical behavior in order to benefit professionally than in a personal setting. In general, however, the average respondent was “unlikely” or “extremely unlikely” to engage in unethical conduct. The managerial implications and need for future research in this area are discussed.

Academic Dishonesty: An Exploratory Study Examining Whether Insurance Students Are Different From Other College Students

This exploratory study compares academic dishonesty scores for insurance students in one insurance program to those for other college students using survey data from business and nonbusiness students at two universities. Academic dishonesty was measured using a modified version of a scale developed by McCabe and Trevino, with a higher score indicating greater academic dishonesty. The average score on total academic dishonesty was significantly higher for insurance students than for other business students and lower, but not significantly so, than the scores for nonbusiness students. Regression analysis indicates that a significant predictor of academic dishonesty for both insurance students and other business students is the perceived relevance of the work to the students major coursework. There were some differences, however, in the other significant predictors for insurance students versus other business students. Specifically, year in school was significant only for insurance majors, while membership in a Greek social organization and a belief that there was a low risk of getting caught were significant only for other business majors. Furthermore, the significant predictors of academic dishonesty were different for insurance students and nonbusiness students. Overall, the results indicate that insurance students are more likely to engage in academically dishonest behavior than other business students, and the motivation for academic dishonesty differs for insurance students and other students (both nonbusiness and other business). This suggests a need for insurance educators to address academic dishonesty using an approach that is somewhat different than that used for other students.