


































Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

19 

 

Original Paper 

Business School Student Deception: Tracking and Learning 

from Actual Behavior 

Stephen B. Castleberry
1*

 & Joshua T. Coleman
2
 

1
 Department of Marketing, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN, USA 

2
 Department of Marketing, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO USA 

*
 Stephen B. Castleberry, Department of Marketing, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN, 

USA 

 

Received: June 24, 2021      Accepted: August 23, 2021     Online Published: September 7, 2021 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v4n3p19              URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v4n3p19 

 

Abstract 

Business educators’ mission is to help students develop knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and skills that 

will help them be successful once they graduate. This is certainly true of ethical issues, including the 

use of deception. This study reports on an assignment that can increase students’ awareness of their 

own capacity for deceptiveness, self-reflection on what this means for them and the greater business 

world, and awareness of the different types of deceptiveness that can and do occur. Data is provided 

from 239 undergraduate/graduate students at two universities on three campuses who completed a 

five-day deception measurement exercise. Students measured and categorized their deception behavior 

and reflected upon the results. Results suggest the objectives were met regardless of school location, 

method of classroom delivery, level of instruction, or whether the assignment was mandatory or not. 

The fact that this exercise has been used at multiple universities under almost every class modality 

suggests it can be successfully replicated at other universities for many courses. 

Keywords 

deception, business school, exercise, lying, self-reflection 

 

1. Introduction 

Deception occurs when an individual makes statements and/or engages in behaviors which 

intentionally mislead another party (Gaspar et al., 2019). The definition implies that deception can be 

informational (e.g., telling a lie) or emotional (e.g., acting angry to achieve a desired reaction from the 

other party when one is in fact not angry), and that the object is always to intentionally mislead. By 

contrast, providing misinformation through error is not considered deception. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

As educators, much of our mission is to help students develop knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and 

skills that will help them be successful once they graduate. This is certainly true of ethical issues, 

including the use of deception (Degen, 2018). There is evidence that college interventions, exercises, 

and experiences have an impact at various levels, including attitudes about ethics in future work 

situations (Luthar & Karri, 2005), skills in evaluating future work-related ethical issues (Carlson & 

Burke, 1998), and actual future ethical decisions in work settings (McCabe, 1996). 

With regard to one’s character, living without deception is often espoused as one of the most important 

traits in life and in business (Jacobs, 2012; Kujala, 2004; Schwepker, 2015; Tanner et al., 2015). 

Organizations value non-deception (Castleberry & Tanner, 2019), and many have created systems of 

rewarding it (Wang & Murnighan, 2017). Part of our role as educators is to help students develop a 

moral compass and live as ethical, non-deceptive business people (Natale & Doran, 2012).  

Research has demonstrated that college students do engage in deception (e.g., Simkin & McLeod, 2010; 

Smith & Shen, 2013), and deceptive behaviors by college students can actually continue when they 

enter into the business world (Furutan, 2017). Shu and Gino (2012) found that engaging in some 

deception can lead a person to perform more acts of deception.  

Employers have many sources of potential employees, and the pressure is on business schools to adapt 

to the needs and desires of the marketplace (Schlegelmilch, 2020). It is therefore concerning that 

employers are not always happy with deception found in the students universities are graduating 

(Moosmayer, 2012; Robles, 2012). Newly minted business school graduates and those entering the 

business world often engage in deception (Coyne & Bartram, 2000; Jaakson et al., 2017; Strategies & 

Tactics, 2020), regularly finding justification for their deceptions. One commonly cited justification is 

that “everyone is doing it”, alluding that deceit is just one of many tools available for businesspeople to 

use (Chelliah & Swamy, 2018). At other times, non-deception is deemed just too hard to achieve, 

resulting in deception being seen as an acceptable alternative (Lee et al., 2019).   

For many college students and businesspeople, deciding whether to engage in deception is a function of 

doing the math and seeing if the consequences of non-deception are worth it (Balasubramanian et al., 

2017; Kamat & Kanekar, 1990; Tang et al., 2018; Tseng, 2019). For some, the situation itself helps 

determine whether to lie as well as the extent of the deception that is acceptable (Acke et al., 2011). For 

example, in one study, students viewed cheating as not only justified but honorable (McKay et al., 

2019). Deception can also have cultural dimensions, as people from collectivist societies may view and 

act differently than those from individualist societies (Brodowsky et al., 2020). Finally, some people 

choose to be deceptive by delegating the deception; in essence, having others lie on their behalf (Gawn 

& Innes, 2019; Rottenburger et al., 2019).   

How can we educate students about deception and prepare them for the business world where 

employers are hoping for more non-deceptive employees? There are a number of possibilities. As one 

example, students can reflect upon case studies based upon real world business decisions where 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

21 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

deception occurred. Another option is to use simulations which allow students to choose to deceive but 

then reap the consequences of that deception. And of course, guest speakers can share their experiences 

with deception and the resulting outcomes.  

What is missing in these tools is an explicit way to incorporate students’ explorations of their own 

personal deception practices. Do they know how much they actually engage in deception right now in 

their lives? How many students’ deceptions are premeditated, as opposed to deceptions they choose to 

employ in the spur of the moment? Additionally, do students recognize that deception includes much 

more than simply lying? There are many aspects of being deceptive, including such factors as 

intentionality (being deceptive for the benefit of the self or for the benefit of society), the type of 

deceptive content (deceptive information, the use of deceptive emotions), and the type of activity (a 

deceptive act of omission, commission, or to act/talk insincerely or misleadingly) (Carson, 2001; 

Gaspar et al., 2019).  

To answer these questions and provide students more information about their own capacity for 

deception, the following exercise was created and deployed. 

 

2. Method 

2.1 Objectives 

The primary goal of the exercise is for students to identify the extent of their deception. While people 

no doubt remember some of the big lies they have told, many have never reflected upon the number of 

times overall they have deceived others. In other words, people might not realize the extent of their 

own deceptive behavior.  

A secondary goal is to have students reflect upon what they have learned from completing the exercise. 

Do they deceive more often than they thought? Are there certain times of the day or certain situations 

in which they practice deception more often? Are there certain types of deception they seem more 

prone to commit? This self-reflection will likely be different for each student and can be influenced by 

culture, teachings they have received, what others have claimed about their deception in the past, and 

so forth. 

A final goal is for students to become aware of the myriad ways by which they might be deceiving 

others. This will contribute to long-term growth in that, perhaps for the first time, students will become 

aware that deception can manifest itself in a variety of contexts and through a variety of ways in their 

own lives.  

The purpose of the exercise and reporting on its use is to provide an easy-to-adopt tool that educators 

can utilize to help students achieve the stated goals. Educators need assignments that can be used 

across various modalities (online, live instruction, synchronous web instruction, and so forth), courses 

with varied content, as well as courses at various levels of education (undergraduate, graduate, 

executive education).  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

22 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

2.2 Administering the Exercise 

To assess deception, students are asked to self-report all types of deception for a period of five days. 

Self-reporting has been used successfully in academic studies of lying (Ennis et al., 2008; Serota & 

Levine, 2015), although it is possible for students to deceive using this methodology. The use of a 

five-day period was chosen in an effort to provide enough time for students to potentially exhibit the 

various types of deception, while also trying to not make the exercise onerous. 

Before recording their deceptions, students first carefully study the document “Examples of Deception” 

(Appendix). It lists the kinds of deceptive acts in which people often engage and is intended to broaden 

the students’ perspectives about what constitutes deception.   

Students are told that the assignment will be turned in, but they are explicitly told not to identify 

themselves in any way when making their list of deceptions. The goal of this instruction is to increase the 

students’ willingness to share information about their deceptions without fear that the instructor might be 

able to identify them and, therefore, know their listed deceptions.  

In addition to listing each and every time they deceive during the period of time, students are also 

required to code each deception using the following scale: (Type 1) = “Deliberate, premeditated 

statement that was not true (a lie). I planned ahead of time to lie in this situation”. (Type2) = “Deliberate 

lie, but I didn’t plan ahead of time. It just happened at the moment”. (Type 3) = “I deceived, but not by 

giving a false statement. I either didn’t give all the pertinent facts, or I displayed non-verbal cues or other 

means that led another to a false conclusion”. The purpose of having the three categories is to try to tweak 

out various forms of deception (Carson, 2001; Gaspar et al., 2019). Sometimes, one deceives by making 

a false statement, so one distinction is whether that is premeditated (Type 1 in our scale) or not 

premeditated (Type 2 in our scale). But other times, one deceives without actually giving a false 

statement (hence, Type 3 in our scale). 

For each deception listed, students are asked to provide a reason why they engaged in the deception. 

They are to compile their results in a spreadsheet consisting of three columns (describe the deception, 

code assigned, reason why they engaged in the deception). For paper version administration of the 

exercise, the phrase, “Please attach another sheet of paper if you need more room to record entries”, is 

added to the bottom of the spreadsheet. 

Administration of the exercise in paper copy is rather straightforward. Early in the semester students 

are handed a paper version of the spreadsheet and provided access to the “Examples of Deception” 

handout. Students are told to choose any five-day period before the assignment’s due date and record 

all deceptions. When the exercise is due, the instructor passes a 9” x 12” clasp envelope around the 

room, and students slide their anonymous completed spreadsheets into the envelope. Note that until this 

moment in the semester, students have not been told exactly how their work will be gathered. Use of 

the clasp envelope prevents students from seeing what others have written. After all assignments have 

been collected, a sheet of paper is passed around, and students are required to provide their written 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

23 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

name and their signature in order to get credit for doing the assignment. At the top of the sheet is this 

statement of certification: “I certify that I completed the Deception Exercise exactly as required and 

turned it in on time.” Finally, students are directed to complete an online, anonymous survey to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the exercise. 

The exercise can also be administered completely online, via a Course Management System (CMS) 

like Blackboard or Canvas, in the following way. The students are provided an electronic version of the 

spreadsheet, directions on how to complete it, and the document “Examples of Deception” (Appendix) 

to study before beginning. After they have completed the exercise, they upload the completed 

spreadsheet anonymously to the instructor in the CMS. In a totally separate online assignment, due at 

the same time/date, students are instructed to indicate that they did complete the exercise, agreeing to 

the same certification statement described earlier. Students are then directed to complete an online, 

anonymous survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the exercise.  

 

3. Results 

3.1 Learner Objective #1: Identify the Extent of Their Own Deception 

We report here the results of the exercise of 239 students by two professors at three different campuses 

across many classes, including undergraduate (Fundamentals of Selling, Advanced Selling, Principles 

of Advertising, Marketing Ethics) and MBA (Selling Ideas at Work, Business Ethics, Contemporary 

Issues in Advertising). Approximately 98% of students in classes where the assignment was mandatory 

successfully completed the assignment, and 32% did so when the exercise was offered purely as an 

extra credit opportunity. No students turned in blank forms or forms with gibberish. However, there 

were two instances where the number of students who claimed to complete the exercise (on the 

certification form) was one more than the actual number of exercises actually turned in.  

The primary goal of the exercise is to help students identify and measure the extent of their deception. 

This goal was certainly met, as every student measured and reported their deceptions. The amount and 

extent of each type of deception can be found in Table 1. Type 2 deceptions, deliberate lies that were 

not planned in advance, were the most used, with an average of 3.24 times per student. Type 1 and 

Type 3 deceptions were used an average of 1.64 and 1.66 times, respectively, per student. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

24 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Table 1. Average Number of Deceptive Actions Per Student 

Type of Deception Deceptions Per Student 

(mean, sd, range) 

Type 1: Deliberate, premeditated statement that was not 

true (a lie). I planned ahead of time to lie in this 

situation. 

1.64 (1.35, 0-6) 

Type 2: Deliberate lie, but I didn’t plan ahead of time. It 

just happened at the moment. 
3.24 (1.89, 0-12) 

Type 3: I deceived, but not by giving a false statement. I 

either didn’t give all the pertinent facts, or by non-verbal 

cues or other means, I led another to a false conclusion. 

1.66 (1.32, 0-6) 

All types combined. 6.54 (2.99, 0-17) 

 

3.2 Learner Objective #2: Self Reflection  

Another goal of the exercise is to have students reflect upon what they learned from completing the 

exercise. When asked “What did you learn about yourself?” answers suggest that students took the 

exercise seriously and that they engaged in appropriate self-reflection. Here are representative 

examples of the type of responses provided: 

 It was disappointing in a way to learn how much lies and deception are involved in a day of life. 

It was a great exercise to kind of hold a mirror to our internal selves. No matter how 

introspective I thought I was, this showed that my subconscious self was almost hidden from 

my thought process, and it was making subtle deceptive decisions all the time. 

 I learned that I am good at justifying lying to myself and the people I love.  

 I learned that most of my lies are done for selfish reasons, like avoiding discomfort. This exercise 

also made me reflect on my past instances of lying to analyze why I decided to lie in those 

situations. 

 The main thing that I have learned is to constantly be in check with myself and create some “me 

time”, that allows me to reflect on my actions.  

 This exercise has been eye opening because it shows how much I alter my personality depending 

on the situation.  

 After five days of recording this, I have realized that there is a lot of unintentional deceiving that 

I do on a daily basis. I consider myself an extremely upfront and honest person, so the 

deception [exercise] was a wakeup call. 

 I learned that to be honest all the time is really hard. Most of the deception I made came naturally 

and from my subconscious.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

25 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 I learned that I deceive in ways that can easily be avoided. I’ve always been an honest person, 

and I’m pretty open with everything, but being straightforward in situations would help me be 

less deceiving. In all of my situations over these past five days, I realized I could’ve just 

changed one or two very little things, and I wouldn’t have been lying at all.  

 I found this to be an incredibly difficult assignment. I’ve been reflecting on it today. I think I 

found this assignment so challenging because my life is incredibly full of deception, and 

coming to that conclusion is very difficult. I slowly realized as the days passed that I was 

missing many deceptions; often these were deceptions to myself. I plan to continue this 

assignment on my own to try to be more open with myself about the deception in my life. 

Overall, findings such as these demonstrate that students took time to learn about themselves through 

this exercise. This is especially important in that it has allowed students to learn about deceptive 

practices through real, personal examples.  

3.3 Learner Objective #3: Learn the Myriad Ways by Which They are Deceptive 

A final goal is for students to become aware of the myriad ways by which they might be deceiving 

others. As indicated earlier, results about the extent of each type of deception can be found in Table 1. 

To further evaluate this and other aspects of the exercise, students provided anonymous evaluations. 

Results (Table 2) suggest that the exercise achieved this objective, in addition to providing encouraging 

indications that the exercise is an effective tool to use in classes. Students took the exercise seriously, 

tried to record all of their deceptions, did not try to purposefully avoid deceiving others during the 

exercise, and found that the exercise helped them learn about how they deceive others. In terms of 

whether students found they deceived more than they realized, results were varied, but overall, students 

did learn this fact. Importantly, students expressed strong beliefs that others could benefit from 

completing the exercise, suggesting that the goal of advancing business education could be achieved if 

other instructors adopted this exercise. To further understand the results, a series of analyses was 

conducted to see if differences existed between various groups for each of the six assessment 

statements. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

26 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Table 2. Results from Post-Exercise Survey 

Assessment Statement Findings 

mean (sd) 

The exercise helped me realize the many different ways that I 

might deceive others.  

4.3 (.785) 

I took the exercise seriously.  4.5 (.727) 

I tried to be complete and record all of my deceptions.  4.4 (.734) 

I found that I deceive others more often that I realized.  3.5 (1.239) 

During the recording period, I purposefully tried to avoid 

deceiving others.  

2.8 (1.225) 

I believe others could benefit from doing this exercise. 4.5 (.707) 

Note. *Each item used a 5-point scale, from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). 

 

3.4 Comparing Undergraduate vs. MBA students 

While both groups (undergraduate and MBA students) felt that the exercise helped them realize the 

many different ways that they might deceive others, undergraduates felt this more strongly (t = 2.751, 

df = 287, p = .006). The only other significant difference (t = 3.182, df = 287, p = .002) was with regard 

to discovering that they deceived more than they realized, with MBA students feeling less strongly that 

this was the case (mean = 3.09) compared with undergraduates (mean = 3.63). Both of these results 

seem to suggest MBA students, who have more years of education and are often older in age than 

undergraduate students, might possess higher levels of self-awareness regarding deceptive practices. 

3.5 Comparing Completely Online Classes vs. In-Person Classes 

An assessment was also conducted to see whether holding the class in a completely online format 

affects the findings. The only significant difference (t = -2.114, df = 287, p = .035) of the six 

assessment questions was with regard to taking the exercise seriously, with online students feeling 

more strongly this was the case (mean = 4.56) compared with non-online students (mean = 4.37). This 

could be due to some students exhibiting greater self-motivation and independence, which is often 

required when purposely taking a course solely online (as opposed to having their course converted to 

online after the fact, as occurred when most courses were transferred to an online modality in some 

fashion during the COVID-19 pandemic). It is important to note that results indicate both sets of 

students did take the exercise seriously (overall mean = 4.5). 

3.6 Comparing COVID-19 with non-COVID 19 

The exercise was also used during the semester when COVID-19 caused regular live classes to move to 

a Zoom format with synchronous class meetings in a virtual space. It is important that exercises in 

business courses be robust, even with such disruptive experiences as the COVID-19 pandemic 

(Rayburn et al., 2020). The only significant difference (t = -2.063, df = 287, p = .040) of the six 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

27 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

assessment questions was with regard to students believing that others could benefit from completing 

this exercise, with Zoom-format students feeling more strongly this was the case (mean = 4.59) 

compared with non-Zoom-format students (mean = 4.41). However, both sets of students did feel that 

others could benefit from completing this exercise (overall mean = 4.5). 

3.7 Comparing across Campuses 

Using ANOVA, no significant differences were found in any of the three campuses for any of the six 

assessment questions 

3.8 Comparing Required Assignment with Optional Extra-Credit Assignment 

A series of t-tests were performed, and no significant differences were found for any of the six 

assessment questions depending upon if the exercise has been used as an extra-credit vehicle for 

students rather than a required, graded assignment. 

 

4. Discussion 

One of our roles as educators to ensure we develop a proper moral and ethical direction for students to 

prevent, or at least mitigate, the frequency with which deceptive behaviors occur (Natale & Doran, 

2012), especially since deceptive behaviors can carry over into the real world (Furutan, 2017). As lying 

and deception are rarely researched broadly in the business or business school context (Jenkins & 

Delbridge, 2017), finding ways to address these concerns is urgent and important. One method to 

achieve this goal is the exercise described herein, whereby students are made aware of their own 

capacity for deception through self-tracking and reflection.  

Bacon (2016) encourages educational researchers to specify the types of learning being assessed. The 

data presented here includes both indirect assessments of perceived learning (for example, a student’s 

ratings of whether the various assignment goals were met) as well as direct assessments of actual 

learning. Direct assessments include, for example, actual student work and performance that can be 

examined directly against stated learning outcomes (Elbeck & Bacon, 2015). For this exercise, students 

actually performed the identification of their deceptions and classified them into various categories. 

Additionally, the results across multiple distributions of the exercise demonstrate that both perceived 

and actual learning occurred in a variety of classroom settings. Thus, through both direct and indirect 

methods of assessments, several learning objectives have been met which contribute to the 

advancement of business education. 

By tracking their deceptive behaviors over a brief period of time, students are made aware of their own, 

personal deceptive practices in a real and tangible way. At times, instances of business deception are 

presented in the classroom as abstract and highly obvious breaches of confidence, such as 

embezzlement or whistleblowing. While this approach has merits, its relevance is limited to 

hypothetical eventualities which may seem inapplicable to many students. Such high-profile ethical 

breaches also do not provide space for an understanding of the more nuanced or gray areas of deception. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

28 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

This exercise allows students to reflect that, in addition to such high impact ethical violations, white 

lies and omissions of truth can also be harmful, and the continued practice of such behaviors, if left 

unchecked, will eventually lead to deceptions of greater consequence. The importance of this cannot be 

overstated, as this exercise moves beyond hypothetical scenarios to advance a more tangible focus on 

real learning outcomes. 

Additionally, through this exercise, students are given the opportunity to reflect on their own character 

and capacity for deception. Rather than view the potential for moral crises through the lens of someone 

else, who is most always of worse moral fiber in the eyes of any student (see Spake et al., 2007), this 

exercise allows for students to create their own baseline for deception. Based on personal beliefs, 

family values, and other influential factors, many students are naturally more or less deceptive than 

others. This exercise reveals that, no matter their upbringing, all students are capable of deception on 

some level. As students reflect, they are able to understand this truth about themselves in a very 

personal way. This may even be the first occurrence where they realize certain behaviors and 

nonverbals are actually deceptive, and it can help lead to the realization that deception unfettered can 

grow into acts of greater consequence. 

Finally, students learn through this exercise that there is more to deception than embezzlement and 

fraud. By classifying their deceptive behavior across the three provided categories, students are able to 

more clearly articulate the multifaceted nature of deception. Numerous students who were surveyed 

reported their surprise at how many deceptive behaviors were not premeditated, as well as the amount 

that were deceptive by simple omissions of the truth. Similar results were found in another study, in 

that it could be argued most lies were small (white) lies, rather than big lies (Serota & Levine, 2015). 

Through this exercise, students not only become more aware of their capacity for deceptive behaviors, 

but they clearly see the many ways these behaviors can manifest themselves in everyday life as well. 

As business students are increasingly shown to engage in acts of deception (Simkin & McLeod, 2010), 

finding innovative ways to facilitate their understanding of this issue is of utmost importance. This 

exercise is extremely relevant to today’s world of business, in which everyone has a voice on social 

media, and where individuals have more power and reach in using their voice than ever before. As 

educators, we must ensure the communication tactics we are teaching our students are grounded in 

non-deceptive behaviors. We must ensure they understand that a life of deception begins not in the 

embezzlements and whistleblowing of which they are often warned in business school, but in the gray 

areas of deception, the daily interactions they have with friends and family. And we must act toward 

promoting the discernment that a future life of deception can be halted, and perhaps even reversed, by 

working to advance a life of non-deception right now. 

Deception practiced by business students is an issue which transcends far beyond the classroom. 

Educators must be diligent to begin making students aware of their own capacities for deceptive 

behavior now, as well as the long-term implications of the seemingly innocent behavior (the “white 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

29 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

lies”) in which they may be engaged. The exercise described in this manuscript is a valuable tool to 

make students aware of deceptive practices in personal and tangible ways, overcoming much of the 

hypothetical and unrelatable limitations of high-profile cases of deception often taught in classes.   

Pedagogically, this exercise is relatively easy to implement, and the results indicate that students take 

deceptive behavior seriously and learn about themselves. Because issues of deception apply to all 

facets of business, this exercise can be used in any course. Furthermore, the results indicate that this 

exercise can be effective in many types and formats of class offerings, whether undergraduate, graduate, 

in-person, online, hybrid or synchronous (as in the case of COVID-19 class changes), and as 

extra-credit or required. 

Future work with this exercise could extend its application in a variety of ways. It would be interesting 

to investigate the role of culture. Collectivist societies may have different ethical standards than 

individualist societies (Brodowsky et al., 2020). For some cultures, practices Americans perceive as 

deception, such as failing to report bribery, are tolerated more liberally. The role of culture further 

illustrates the need for students to develop their own personal self-awareness in terms of deceptive 

practices, as what is looked down upon or even punishable in one society may have little to no negative 

ramifications in another. 

A follow up exercise would help to determine the influence that students’ newfound self-awareness 

may have on future business practices. After completing the exercise, for example, students could 

complete a case study involving an ethical dilemma to measure the extent to which their awareness of 

deceptive practices plays a role in decision making. A more robust activity could even provide a similar 

case study, if not the exact same one, at an earlier point in the class, thereby measuring the difference 

between pre- and post-deception exercise awareness. This would allow students to more readily 

connect their capacity for deception with its implementation in the business world. 

This exercise provides educators one more way by which we can train and prepare students to be 

non-deceptive, ethical individuals as they prepare for the business world into which they will enter 

upon completing their college educations. Since deceptive practices turn exponentially into deceptive 

habits (Shu & Gino, 2012), working to change those deceptive behaviors brought to light by this 

exercise into honest, non-deceptive behaviors may slow, or even reverse, the development of the bad 

habits. Making deception personal by increasing students’ self-awareness of their own capacity for 

deception can have long-lasting impacts if they are able to take the lessons they learn and, if necessary, 

change their behaviors accordingly. 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

30 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

References 

Ackert, L. F., Church, B. K., Xi, K., & Qi, L. (2011). Lying: An experimental investigation of the role 

of situational factors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 605-632. 

https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201121438 

Bacon, D. R. (2016). Reporting actual and perceived student learning in education research. Journal of 

Marketing Education, 38(1), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475316636732 

Balasubramanian, P., Bennett, V. M., & Pierce, L. (2017). The wages of dishonesty: The supply of 

cheating under high-powered incentives. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 137, 

428-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.03.022 

Brodowsky, G. H., Tarr, E., Ho, F. N., & Sciglimpaglia, D. (2020). Tolerance for cheating from the 

classroom to the boardroom: A study of underlying personal and cultural drivers. Journal of 

Marketing Education, 42(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475319878810 

Carlson, P. J., & Burke, F. (1998). Lessons learned from ethics in the classroom: Exploring student 

growth in flexibility, complexity and comprehension. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(11), 

1179-1187. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005740923813 

Carson, T. (2001). Deception and withholding information in sales. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(2), 

275-306. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857750 

Castleberry, S. B., & Tanner, J. F. (2019). Selling Building Partnerships. New York: McGraw Hill. 

Chelliah, J., & Swamy, Y. (2018). Deception and lies in business strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 

39(6), 36-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-09-2017-0135 

Coyne, I., & Bartram, D. (2000). Personnel managers’ perceptions of dishonesty in the workplace. 

Human Resource Management Journal, 10(3), 38-45. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2000.tb00025.x 

Degen, R. J. (2018). How business school professors can assist in reducing today’s lack of ethics in 

business. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estratégia (RIAE), 17(2), 5-17. 

https://doi.org/10.5585/riae.v17i2.2680 

Eabrasu, M. (2020). Cheating in business: A metaethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 

162(3), 519-532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4003-2 

Elbeck, M., & Bacon, D. (2015). Toward universal definitions for direct and indirect assessment. 

Journal of Education for Business, 90(5), 278-283. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1034064 

Ennis, E., Vrij, A., & Chance, C. (2008). Individual differences and lying in everyday life. Journal of 

Social and Personal Relationships, 25(1), 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507086808 

Furutan, O. (2017). The relationship between tolerance for scholastic dishonesty and tolerance for 

dishonest work place practices amongst university business management students. Proceedings of 

the American Society of Business & Behavioral Sciences, 24(1), 217-228. 

https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201121438
https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475316636732
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.03.022
https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475319878810
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005740923813
https://doi.org/10.2307/3857750
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-09-2017-0135
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2000.tb00025.x
https://doi.org/10.5585/riae.v17i2.2680
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4003-2
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1034064
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507086808


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

31 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Gaspar, J. P., Methasani, R., & Schweitzer, M. (2019). Fifty shades of deception: Characteristics and 

consequences of lying in negotiations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(1), 62-81. 

https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0047 

Gawn, G., & Innes, R. (2019). Lying through others: Does delegation promote deception? Journal of 

Economic Psychology, 71, 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.08.005 

Gupta, S., Sakamoto, K., & Ortony, A. (2013). Telling it like it isn’t: A comprehensive approach to 

analyzing verbal deception. In F. Paglieri, L. Tummolini, R. Falcone, & M. Miceli (Eds.), The 

goals of cognition. Essays in honor of Cristiano Castelfranchi. London: College Publications. 

Jaakson, K., Vadi, M., Baumane-Vitolina, I., & Sumilo, E. (2017). Virtue in small business in small 

places: Organisational factors associated with employee dishonest behaviour in the retail sector. 

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 168-176. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.09.017 

Jacobs, D. L. (2012). How to stay honest in a dishonest work world. Forbes, May, 27. Retrieved from 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/05/31/how-to-stay-honest-in-a-dishonest-work

-world 

Jenkins, S., & Delbridge, R. (2017). Trusted to deceive: A case study of “strategic deception” and the 

normalization of lying at work. Organization Studies, 38(1), 53-76. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616655481 

Kamat, S. S., & Kanekar, S. (1990). Prediction of and recommendation for honest behavior. Journal of 

Social Psychology, 130(5), 597-607. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1990.9922951 

Kujala, J. (2004). Managers’ moral perceptions: Change in Finland during the 1990s. Business Ethics: 

A European Review, 13(2‐3), 143-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2004.00360.x 

Lee, J. J., Ong, M., Parmar, B., & Amit, E. (2019). Lay theories of effortful honesty: Does the 

honesty-effort association justify making a dishonest decision? Journal of Applied Psychology, 

104(5), 659. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000364 

Luthar, H. K., & Karri, R. (2005). Exposure to ethics education and the perception of linkage between 

organizational ethical behavior and business outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 353-368. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-1548-7 

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (n.d.). The influence of collegiate and corporate 

codes of conduct on ethics-related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(4), 

461-476. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857499 

McKay, R., Cray, D., & Mittelman, R. (2019). We’re not in Kansas anymore: Academic honesty in an 

international business program. International Journal of Management Education, 17(1), 1-14. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.10.004 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0047
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.08.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.09.017
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616655481
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1990.9922951
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2004.00360.x
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000364
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-1548-7
https://doi.org/10.2307/3857499
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.10.004


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

32 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Moosmayer, D. C. (2012). A model of management academics’ intentions to influence values. 

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(2), 155-173. 

https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0053 

Natale, S. M., & Doran, C. (2012). Marketization of education: An ethical dilemma. Journal of 

Business Ethics, 105(2), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0958-y 

Rayburn, S. W., Anderson, S., & Sierra, J. J. (2020). Future thinking continuity of learning in 

marketing: A student perspective on crisis management in higher education. Marketing Education 

Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2020.1837633 

Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace. 

Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 453-465. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912460400 

Rottenburger, J. R., Carter, C. R., & Kaufmann, L. (2019). It’s alright, it’s just a bluff: Why do 

corporate codes reduce lying, but not bluffing? Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 

25(1), 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2018.02.004 

Schlegelmilch, B. (2020). Why business schools need radical innovations: Drivers and development 

trajectories. Journal of Marketing Education, 42(2), 93-107. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475320922285 

Schwepker Jr, C. H. (2015). Influencing the salesforce through perceived ethical leadership: The role of 

salesforce socialization and person-organization fit on salesperson ethics and performance. 

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35(4), 292-313. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2015.1106769 

Serota, K. B., & Levine, T. R. (2015). A few prolific liars: Variation in the prevalence of lying. Journal 

of Language and Social Psychology, 34(2), 138-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14528804 

Shu, L. L., & Gino, F. (2012). Sweeping dishonesty under the rug: How unethical actions lead to 

forgetting of moral rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1164-1177. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028381 

Simkin, M., & McLeod, A. (n.d.). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 

441-453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0275-x 

Smith, B., & Shen, F. (2013). We all think it’s cheating, but we all won’t report it: Insights into the 

ethics of marketing students. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 21(1), 27-37. 

Spake, D. F., Megehee, C. M., & Franke, G. R. (2007). Students’ views of ethical behavior and the 

impact of association. Marketing Education Review, 17(3), 33-47. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2007.11489012 

Strategies & Tactics. (2020). New survey finds striking levels of résumé dishonesty. Public Relations 

Strategies & Tactics. 

 

https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0053
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0958-y
https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2020.1837633
https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912460400
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2018.02.004
https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475320922285
https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2015.1106769
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14528804
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028381
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0275-x
https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2007.11489012


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

33 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Ansari, M. A., Lim, V. K., Teo, T. S., Arias-Galicia, F., & Vlerick, P. 

(2018). Monetary intelligence and behavioral economics: The Enron effect—Love of money, 

corporate ethical values, Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), and dishonesty across 31 

geopolitical entities. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(4), 919-937. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2942-4 

Tanner, E. C., Tanner, J. F., & Wakefield, K. (2015). Panacea or paradox? The moderating role of 

ethical climate. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35(2), 175-190. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2015.1010540 

Tseng, L. M. (2019). How implicit ethics institutionalization affects ethical selling intention: The case 

of Taiwan’s life insurance salespeople. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(3), 727-742. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3723-z 

Wang, L., & Murnighan, J. K. (2017). How much does honesty cost? Small bonuses can motivate 

ethical behavior. Management Science, 63(9), 2903-2914. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2480 

 

Appendix   Examples of Deception 

1. Provide false information 

2. Make a purposefully vague or unclear statement 

3. Pretend that something is someone else’s fault 

4. Gossip, but do so by telling others that you’re only telling them because they have a "need to know"  

5. Relay information in such a way that  you look better than you really should 

6. Give someone a compliment that you don’t actually believe 

7. Leave out some important details to make yourself or your product or your company look better 

8. Say something untrue or make an excuse to try and hide your failures  

9. Provide untrue facts that you know can never be verified 

10. Blame others for your behavior instead of accepting responsibility 

11. Claim that others are deceiving instead of admitting that you are the one being deceptive 

12. Tell yourself that this lie is an exception and you won’t lie again 

13. Tell a lie and believe the action is okay as long as you don't get caught doing it 

14. If someone has done me wrong then it is okay for me to tell a lie about them  

15. If you don’t know the answer to a question, just make something up so you look smarter  

16. Downplay the truth (for example, telling your parents it was a small party, when in fact it was a 

huge party) 

17. Use nonverbals to purposefully mislead the person 

18. If you are caught, act like the lie was just a joke, and you weren’t really being serious 

19. Pretend you have a memory about something, when you really do not 

20. Convince yourself that everyone lies, so it must be okay to lie 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2942-4
https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2015.1010540
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3723-z
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2480


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 

34 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

21. Claim you can’t do something when actually you just don’t want to do it   

22. Pretend to be sick so you don’t have to do something or be somewhere 

23. Say something different behind a person’s back than what you actually said to them 

24. Exaggerate facts or embellish things 

25. Do not admit that you made a mistake or were guilty of something 

26. Hide from the truth by avoiding situations or conversations that would bring the truth out 

27. Pretend to give something as a gift, but actually expect to get something in return 

28. Take credit for things that others have done  

29. Pretend to be in pain to get sympathy  

30. Pretend to not know something for which you actually have full knowledge. 

31. Claim that your motives are pure even though your words are not honest 

Sources: Adapted from examples provided from student assignments; Gupta, et al. (2013); 

http://www.geocities.com/changes1611/ as viewed Sept. 9, 2008. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


