Behaviour & Information Technology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20

What drives students’ Internet ethical behaviour:

an integrated model of the theory of planned
behaviour, personality, and Internet ethics
education

Yu-Yin Wang , Yi-Shun Wang & Yu-Min Wang

To cite this article: Yu-Yin Wang , Yi-Shun Wang & Yu-Min Wang (2020): What drives
students’ Internet ethical behaviour: an integrated model of the theory of planned behaviour,
personality, and Internet ethics education, Behaviour & Information Technology, DOI:
10.1080/0144929X.2020.1829053

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1829053

Published online: 10 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbit20
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1829053

What drives students’ Internet ethical behaviour: an integrated model of the

theory of planned behaviour, personality, and Internet ethics education
Yu-Yin Wanga, Yi-Shun Wangb and Yu-Min Wangc
a
Department of Computer Science and Information Management, Providence University, Taichung, Taiwan; bDepartment of Information
Management, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan; cDepartment of Information Management, National Chi Nan
University, Puli, Taiwan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

With the emergence of Internet technology, Internet ethics has become an important issue for Received 7 October 2019
academics and practitioners. This study aims to investigate the factors that influence students’ Accepted 19 September
behavioural intention to perform an Internet ethical behaviour based on an integrated 2020
perspective of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), Big-Five personality traits, and Internet
KEYWORDS
ethics education. This study empirically examines the research model using a cross-sectional Internet ethics; ethical
survey study, collecting data from a sample of 276 students, and using partial least squares behaviour; personality traits;
(PLS) for the analysis. The results show that intention of performing Internet ethical behaviours theory of planned behaviour
is influenced by attitude toward ethical behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural (TPB); Internet ethics
control. Moreover, personality trait agreeableness is positively related to attitude toward ethical curriculum
behaviour and subjective norms. Conscientiousness and openness are positively correlated with
attitude toward ethical behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Finally,
the existence of an Internet ethics curriculum significantly strengthened the positive
relationship between attitude toward ethical behaviour and intention of performing Internet
ethical behaviours. The findings enhance our understanding of the relationship between
students’ Internet ethical behaviour and Internet ethics education. The results also provide
several important theoretical and practical implications for Internet ethics education within the
university education context.

1. Introduction
The term ‘Internet ethics’ or ‘Cyberethics’ has been
applied to discussions or analysis of the legal, ethical,
and moral issues raised by the emergence of cyber tech-
nology (Willard 1998). Within the education field, there
is growing concern about unethical use of the Internet
with respect to plagiarism, piracy, dishonesty, falsifica-
tion, and misuse of academic materials (Philips and
Horton 2000; Underwood and Szabo 2003; Ross 2005;
Akbulut et al. 2008; Onyancha 2015; Parks et al.
2018). However, so far, very little attention has been
noticed factors that influence individuals’ intention to
perform an Internet ethical behaviour. The importance
of Internet ethical practices and the process of Internet
ethical decision-making deserve increased attention.
Current research supports that peoples’ personal cog-
nition, personality traits, background knowledge fac-
tors, perceptions, and interactions all affect Internet
ethical decision-making (Haines and Leonard 2007).
As such, the current study adopts and extends the the-
ory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen 1991) as a
theoretical base. Previous studies have revealed that
TPB is a common ground that illuminates the mechan-
ism of ethical/unethical behaviour (Lwin and Williams
2003; Cronan and Al-Rafee 2008; Chen, Pan, and Pan
2009; Wang et al. 2009; Yoon 2011a, 2011b; Wang
and McClung 2012; Blake and Kyper 2013; Doane, Pear-
son, and Kelley 2014). Though the predictability of TPB
is verified, most TPB studies focus on unethical actions;
to what extent TPB is able to predict Internet ethical
behaviour is less examined and unclear. As Armitage
and Conner (2001) stated, the relative importance of
attitude toward the behaviour, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioural control in the prediction of
behavioural intention may well vary across behaviours.
Accordingly, this study aims to explore whether individ-
uals’ attitudes toward ethical behaviour, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioural control may deter-
mine their intention to perform an Internet ethical
behaviour.
Moreover, in light of the aforementioned, it is impor-
tant to focus on factors that may influence Internet

CONTACT Yi-Shun Wang yswang@cc.ncue.edu.tw Department of Information Management, National Changhua University of Education, No.2, Shi-da
Road, Changhua 500, Taiwan
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y.-Y. WANG ET AL.
ethical behaviours. Prior studies pointed out that indi-
viduals’ personality traits impact behavioural intentions
and subsequent behaviours, and this is also the case in
an ethical situation. Nevertheless, how personality traits
influence a person’s intention of performing Internet
ethical behaviours has received less attention (Akbulut
et al. 2008; Karim, Zamzuri, and Nor 2009). According
to Boshoff and van Zyl’s (2011) research, individual
background factors such as personality traits may influ-
ence individuals’ decisions to behave ethically while
using the Internet. This study, therefore, strengthens
Leonard, Cronan, and Kreie’s (2004) theoretical argu-
ments by arguing that personality traits may influence
behavioural beliefs (i.e. attitude toward ethical behav-
iour), normative beliefs (i.e. subjective norms), and con-
trol beliefs (i.e. perceived behavioural control), resulting
in intention of performing Internet ethical behaviours.
In addition to how personality traits and personal
beliefs can be linked to Internet ethical behaviours,
the existence of an Internet ethics curriculum may
influence Internet ethical behaviours; however, this
has yet to be demonstrated. In recent years, an increas-
ing number of studies have indicated the significant
relationship between ethics education and a person’s
ethical judgment and behavioural intentions (e.g. Lau
2010; Shapiro and Stefkovich 2016). By strengthening
one’s ethical awareness, moral reasoning, and moral
courage, an ethics curriculum may influence ethical
behavioural intention (Earley and Kelly 2004; Waples
et al. 2009; May, Luth, and Schwoerer 2013). In turn,
an ethics curriculum may play a moderating role in
adjusting one’s personal beliefs and moral judgments.
However, whether an Internet ethics curriculum has
a moderating effect requires additional empirical evi-
dence (Abdolmohammadi and Reeves 2000), confi-
rming the necessity of research in this area, to
increase our knowledge and understanding regarding
these phenomena and make practical recommen-
dations regarding Internet ethical behaviours among
students. The current study, therefore, proposes an
integrated model that combines TPB, personality
traits, and an Internet ethics curriculum, to more
fully understand the behavioural intention to perform
an Internet ethical behaviour.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows.
The subsequent section reviews the relevant literature
and develops the research model and hypotheses.
Then, the methods section delineates the construct
measures, data collection methods, and analytic tech-
niques. After presenting the analytical results, the article
discusses the theoretical and practical implications of
the research results in relation to individuals’ Internet
ethical behaviours.
2. Theoretical foundations
2.1. Internet ethics and ethics education
Internet ethics can be defined as a set of moral principles
or values that govern an individual or a group in terms
of what is acceptable behaviour while using the Internet
(Karim, Zamzuri, and Nor 2009). The Internet can
facilitate the spread of various types of unethical beha-
viours such as fraud, plagiarism, falsification, delin-
quency, and attempts to obtain unauthorised
assistance (Akbulut et al. 2008). Internet ethical issues
are heavily discussed in the literature. Previous studies
have examined the impacts of unethical Internet beha-
viours such as purposely seeking to gain unauthorised
access to Internet resources, destroying the integrity of
computer-based information, compromising users’
privacy, and/or disrupting the intended use of the Inter-
net (DeLorme, Zinkha, and French 2001; Walther 2002;
Weber 2016).
Ethics education is a broad term for learning
experiences designed to help students develop ethi-
cally, whether in terms of enhancing ethical under-
standing and awareness, or a greater motivation to
exercise ethical behaviour (Burroughs 2015). An
Internet ethics curriculum often covers topics like
ethical psychology and ethical problems associated
with using the Internet, conducted using readings,
homework assignments, and case study discussions –
these are all designed to motivate students’ conversa-
tions about Internet ethical issues and to establish a
culture of proper use. Scholars have made suggestions
for learning experiences that can enhance the develop-
ment of each psychological process and skill within
the domain of Internet ethics (Crowell, Narvaez, and
Gomberg 2008). These psychological processes and
skills can be divided into four themes and used as a
curriculum framework: ethical sensitivity (e.g. taking
the perspectives of others, reading and expressing
emotion), ethical judgment (e.g. understanding Inter-
net ethical problems, developing ethical reasoning
skills), ethical motivation (e.g. respecting others, act-
ing responsibly, developing ethical integrity and iden-
tity), and ethical action (e.g. resolving conflicts and
problems, communicating well). Scholars advocate
that these four themes should be well represented in
the curriculum of any programme dealing with Inter-
net ethics (Smith 1992; Crowell, Narvaez, and Gom-
berg 2008).
2.2. Big-Five personality factor model
Personality is generally defined as the enduring dimen-
sions of individual differences in tendencies to show

consistent patterns of feelings, thoughts, behaviour, and
responses to environmental demands – that is, the dis-
position to show similar responses across a wide range
of situations over time (John and Srivastava 1999;
Caprara and Cervone 2000; McCrae et al. 2000). The
Big-Five personality factor model (Goldberg 1982,
1990) is regarded as the most comprehensive taxonomy
of personality traits (Costa and Widiger 1994). The
model allows users to score themselves on five personal-
ity domains: agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraver-
sion, neuroticism (emotional stability), and openness
(Digman 1990; Goldberg 1990; Costa and McCrae
1992). These five broad personality domains each
encompass six specific facet-level traits in the revised
NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa and
McCrae 1985, 1992), and the NEO-PI-R family of
instruments, which are two of the most common
means of operationalising the Big-Five personality fac-
tor model. For instance, agreeableness is defined by
the six facet-level traits of compliance, tender-minded-
ness, modesty, straightforwardness, trust, and altruism;
conscientiousness pertains to dutifulness, order, compe-
tence, achievement striving, deliberation, and self-disci-
pline; extraversion encompasses excitement-seeking,
assertiveness, warmth, gregariousness, active, and posi-
tive emotions; neuroticism comprises vulnerability,
depression, anxiety, anger-hostility, impulsiveness, and
self-consciousness; while openness covers values, aes-
thetics, ideas, imagination, feelings, and actions (John
and Srivastava 1999).
The Big-Five traits have been validated and used in
numerous studies in relation to various attitudinal,
behavioural and performance indicators, and have
been recognised as genetically based, stable, and cross-
culturally generalisable (Judge et al. 2001; Judge and
Ilies 2002; Lounsbury et al. 2004; Landers and Louns-
bury 2006; Furnham et al. 2007; Ranjbarian and Kiare
2010). In the literature, these traits have been found to
be related to (un)ethical activities and behaviours such
as ethical leadership (Walumbwa and Schaubroeck
2009; Kalshoven, den Hartog, and de Hoogh 2011),
privacy (Junglas, Johnson, and Spitzmüller 2008), aca-
demic dishonesty (Karim, Zamzuri, and Nor 2009),
computer criminal behaviour (Rogers, Seigfried, and
Tidke 2006), and Internet ethics (Karim, Zamzuri, and
Nor 2009). For example, in Leonard, Cronan, and
Kreie’s (2004) information technology (IT) ethical
behavioural model, TPB elements (i.e. attitude towards
ethical behaviour, personal normative beliefs, and per-
ceived behavioural control), individual characteristics
(e.g. gender and age) and locus of control were specified
as the antecedents of intention to behave ethically/
unethically. Pan and Sparks (2012) also identified a
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 3
correlation among personal demographic character-
istics (e.g. age and gender), psychological character-
istics, philosophical characteristics (e.g. locus of
control), and individual ethical judgment. On the
other hand, both Li (2012) and Mount et al. (2005)
found that personality traits may be related to an indi-
vidual’s style of information processing and belief sys-
tems. Moreover, Ajzen (2002) and Hoyt et al. (2009)
indicated that personality traits, a background factor,
are a potential antecedent of more specific and transient
constructs in the theory of planned behaviour (TPB).
The current study aims to test how the Big-Five person-
ality traits relate to TPB and Internet ethical behaviours.
2.3. Theory of planned behaviour (TPB)
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen 1985,
1991), an extension of the theory of reasoned action
(TRA; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein
1980), proposes that behavioural intention is deter-
mined by attitude toward the behaviour (behavioural
beliefs), subjective norms (normative beliefs), and per-
ceived behavioural control (control beliefs) (Ajzen
2002). According to TPB, a person’s perceived behav-
ioural control and behavioural intentions are the most
proximal behaviour-specific cognitive antecedents of
actual behaviour. Attitude toward the behaviour is
defined as a person’s overall evaluation regarding the
behaviour in question. Subjective norms refer to the
perceived social pressure to perform or not perform
the behaviour in question. Perceived behavioural con-
trol reflects a person’s perception of the ease or difficulty
of implementing the behaviour in question. The concept
of perceived behavioural control is similar to Bandura’s
(1982) notion of self-efficacy (Ajzen 1988). Perceived
behavioural control affects behavioural intentions and
actual behaviours because effort expended to success-
fully implement an intention may increase with greater
perceived behavioural control and because perceived
behavioural control may reflect actual control. Other
variables (i.e. background factors such as personality)
are potential antecedents to the formation of the
specified cognitions.
TPB is a well-researched intention model applied
extensively across several research fields that have pro-
ven successful in explaining and predicting behaviour.
Based on a reasoned action approach, TPB recognises
the potential importance of various kinds of back-
ground factors. There are a multitude of variables that
can potentially affect people’s beliefs such as personality,
past experiences, emotion, mood, education, intelli-
gence, general attitudes and values, age, gender, ethni-
city, socioeconomic status, nationality, religious
4 Y.-Y. WANG ET AL.
affiliation, group membership, coping skills, exposure to
information, social support, and so forth (Ajzen and
Fishbein 2005). Accordingly, this study suggests that
personality traits are an antecedent of cognition and
behaviour, as is implied by the TPB. Moreover,
researchers have adopted TPB frameworks to explore
ethical issues such as digital or software piracy (Peace,
Galleta, and Thong 2003; Cronan and Al-Rafee 2008;
Chen, Pan, and Pan 2009; Wang et al. 2009; Yoon
2011b), file or content sharing (Park, Jung, and Lee
2011; Blake and Kyper 2013), fabrication of information
(Lwin and Williams 2003), information privacy protec-
tion (Hsu and Kuo 2003), ethical computer use (Chiang
and Lee 2011), information ethics (Peace, Galleta, and
Thong 2003; Al-Rafee and Cronan 2006; Bebetsosi and
Antoniou 2009), IT ethics (Leonard, Cronan, and
Kreie 2004), and moral obligation (Cronan and Al-
Rafee 2008; Yoon 2011b). For example, Yoon (2011b)
integrated the TPB and ethics theory, and added
moral obligation, justice, perceived risk, perceived
benefits, and habits to explain the intention to commit
digital piracy. His findings suggest that these factors,
as well as TPB variables, play a significant role in pre-
dicting piracy behaviour. Cronan and Al-Rafee (2008)
also made use of the TPB as a framework to determine
factors that influence digital piracy. In addition to the
TPB variables, moral obligation and past piracy behav-
iour were used to determine the influence on intention
to commit digital piracy. The results show that attitude,
perceived behavioural control, moral obligation, and
past piracy behaviour are significant components of
piracy behaviour. Further, Rest’s (1986) ethical
decision-making model argued that four stages are
involved in a person’s ethical decision process: recog-
nition, judgment, intention, and behaviour. Similar to
Rest’s (1986) model, TPB is a cognition-based frame-
work that contends individuals’ behaviour is regulated
by their intention (Ajzen 2012). TPB expanded on
Rest’s (1986) ethical decision-making model and pre-
dicted that an individual’s behavioural intention is
determined by their attitude toward the behaviour
(e.g. ethical judgments), subjective norms, and per-
ceived behavioural control. Although these studies
include ethical factors in their research model, an inte-
grated model that fully combines TPB, personality traits
and Internet ethics education within the context of
Internet ethical behaviours is lacking.
3. Hypotheses development and research
model
The research model, shown in Figure 1, predicts how
students’ personality traits (i.e. agreeableness,
conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and open-
ness) and TPB concepts (i.e. attitude toward ethical
behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural
control) influence their intention of performing an
Internet ethical behaviour. Additionally, it identifies
an Internet ethics curriculum has a moderating effect
on the relationship between TPB factors (i.e. attitude
toward ethical behaviour) and behavioural intention.
The following section outlines the theoretical arguments
based on the proposed hypotheses.
3.1. The relationships between personality traits
and TPB
As mentioned above, one of the research purposes is to
determine the impact of personality traits on students’
perceptions and intentions to perform an Internet ethi-
cal behaviour. Of the various personality trait measure-
ment methods available in the literature, there is a
consensus among scholars of the appropriateness of
the Big-Five framework of personality traits (Digman
1990; Costa and McCrae 1992; Goldberg 1993; Picazo-
Vela et al. 2010). Thus, this framework is adopted to
explore the relationship between personality traits and
TPB measures.
Agreeableness reflects the tendency to be kind,
gentle, warm, honest, trusting, and altruistic (McCrae
and Costa 1987; Goldberg,1990; Kalshoven, den Hartog,
and de Hoogh 2011). In general, individuals high in
agreeableness are straightforward, altruistic, friendly,
helpful, modest, and trusted (Costa and McCrae
1992). Previous research has found that these character-
istics are expected to promote ethical leader behaviour
(Kalshoven, den Hartog, and de Hoogh 2011) and ethi-
cal leadership (Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009).
Since performing an Internet ethical behaviour can be
considered a social relation in the sense that an Internet
ethical behaviour helps potential Internet users make
better moral judgments, it is anticipated that individuals
high in agreeableness will show higher levels of per-
formance of good Internet ethical behaviours. Prior
studies indicate that agreeable individuals are more
likely to conduct Internet ethical behaviours because
they believe such behaviours are socially accepted (Mar-
kowitz et al. 2012). Üstüner (2017) and Sun et al. (2018)
pointed out that there is a significant positive corre-
lation between agreeableness and attitude towards per-
forming a behaviour. Individuals with a higher level of
agreeableness are more likely to affect individuals’ atti-
tudes. Therefore, this study hypothesizes the following:
H1a. Agreeableness is positively related to attitude
toward ethical behavior.

Figure 1. Research model.
In addition, individuals high in agreeableness are
more willing to comply with norms; as such, an individ-
ual with high agreeableness may think Internet ethical
behaviours are altruistic behaviours and have a positive
attitude toward performing them. They also may tend to
follow referents’ opinions or suggestions, and prevent
interpersonal conflicts (Rottinghaus et al. 2002; Tams
2008; Liang and Chang 2014). Li et al. (2019) showed
the path from agreeableness to subjective norms is posi-
tive and significant. Individuals with characteristics
associated with agreeableness (an inclination to be sym-
pathetic, caring, and cooperative) may obtain more
social support from others, so they are expected to be
more vulnerable to their referents’ behaviours. There-
fore, this study hypothesizes the following:
H1b. Agreeableness is positively related to subjective
norms.
Conscientiousness consists of two main facets:
dependability, which encompasses being thorough, duti-
ful, organised, self-disciplined, responsible, and self-
motivated; and achievement, which represents the
capacity to work hard, and meet challenges, while also
being achievement-oriented and task-oriented (McCrae
and Costa 1987; Digman 1990; Costa and McCrae
1992; Goldberg 1993; Kalshoven, den Hartog, and de
Hoogh 2011). Other researchers have also identified
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5
that high conscientious individuals are dependable, pur-
poseful (Witt et al. 2002), strong-willed, and motivated
to accomplish their goals (Costa and McCrae 1992).
Highly conscientious people often think carefully before
acting and adhere closely to their perceived responsibil-
ities and moral obligations (Costa and McCrae 1992;
Kalshoven, den Hartog, and de Hoogh 2011). Previous
researchers have found that these characteristics are
anticipated to facilitate ethical leader behaviour (Kalsho-
ven, den Hartog, and de Hoogh 2011) and ethical leader-
ship (Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009). While
performing an Internet ethical behaviour can be con-
sidered a part of overall social relations, it is expected
that highly conscientious people will engage in more
Internet ethical behaviours because they view these
behaviours as important steps in cultivating online social
relations. Previous research has found conscientiousness
has a positive effect on attitude (Conner and Abraham
2001; Üstüner 2017; Sun et al. 2018; Zhang, Wu, and
Rasheed 2020). Individuals with higher conscientious-
ness are more likely to recognise serious Internet ethical
issues because they have higher social concerns. They
also tend to take appropriate measures to protect society.
Therefore, this study hypothesizes the following:
H2a. Conscientiousness is positively related to attitude
toward ethical behavior.
6 Y.-Y. WANG ET AL.
Conscientious individuals tend to be highly self-dis-
ciplined, responsible, orderly, eager for achievements,
and follow rules and norms (McCrae and
Costa Jr 1985). In other words, individuals with higher
conscientious follow social norms more carefully, and
they feel a strong responsibility to perform their duties
and show self-discipline in order to improve society
(Hirsh 2010). Markowitz et al. (2012) pointed out that
conscientiousness is related to a tendency to be well
socialised and a ‘good citizen’. Zhang, Wu, and Rasheed
(2020) found that conscientiousness has a positive effect
on behavioural intention through subjective norms.
Hence, highly conscientious people are sensitive to sub-
jective norms and hold a positive attitude towards per-
forming a behaviour that is a benefit to society, such as
following Internet protocols. Therefore, this study
hypothesizes the following:
H2b. Conscientiousness is positively related to subjec-
tive norms.
Moreover, perceived behavioural control refers to
perceived ease or difficulty of performing a behaviour.
While personality is viewed as relatively unchangeable,
prior studies have shown that conscientiousness
(characterised by self-discipline, dependability, plan-
ning, responsibility, and adherence) has a positive
effect on perceived behavioural control (Hoyt et al.
2009; Lai 2019; Zhang, Wu, and Rasheed 2020). For
example, self-discipline is a key trait associated with per-
ceived behavioural control to engage in exercise behav-
iour. That is, more conscientious individuals have self-
discipline and tend to engage in more healthy habits
(Kern and Friedman 2008). Another example can be
found in Zhang, Wu, and Rasheed’s (2020) study.
They found that individuals with high conscientious-
ness have high perceived behavioural control which
increased recycling behaviours. In this vein, this study
predicts highly conscientious individuals will be more
self-disciplined and follow Internet ethics. Therefore,
this study hypothesizes the following:
H2c. Conscientiousness is positively related to per-
ceived behavioral control.
Extraversion reflects the tendency to be enthusiastic,
gregarious, assertive, energetic, adventurous, and posi-
tive (Costa and McCrae 1992). Previous research has
found that these characteristics are expected to promote
ethical leader behaviour (Kalshoven, den Hartog, and de
Hoogh 2011). In the Internet context, individuals high
in extraversion are expected to be more willing to per-
form an Internet ethical behaviour. Specifically, through
performing Internet ethical behaviours, extraverted
individuals, who value opportunities to be enthusiastic,
outgoing, sociable, talkative, and energetic, are able to
satisfy their desire for social relations (Costa and
McCrae 1992; Thoms, Moore, and Scott 1996). Some
studies have suggested that extraversion is positively
associated with an attitude towards performing a behav-
iour (Hoyt et al. 2009; Üstüner 2017; Sun et al. 2018). In
the context of Internet ethics, this study proposes that
individuals with high extraversion tend to express an
attitude toward ethical behaviour. Therefore, this
study hypothesizes the following:
H3a. Extraversion is positively related to attitude
toward ethical behavior.
On the other hand, Üstüner (2017) argued that indi-
viduals with extravert personality traits have higher self-
efficacy beliefs. In TPB, self-efficacy beliefs are perceived
behavioural control, which is associated with belief con-
trol. Perceived behavioural control refers to beliefs about
the ease or difficulty of performing a particular behav-
iour. The experimental evidence provided by Oehler
et al. (2018) shows that extroversion has a significant
effect on individuals’ behaviours. Similarly, Hoyt et al.
(2009) and Lai (2019) proposed that extroversion posi-
tively influences perceived behavioural control. Follow-
ing this logic, this study predicts that when ethical
behaviours are conducted within a complex Internet
environment, highly extraverted people will believe
they have adequate ability to perform these behaviours.
Therefore, this study hypothesizes the following:
H3b. Extraversion is positively related to perceived
behavioral control.
Neuroticism is used to describe a person’s emotional
stability. A neurotic person is often easily frustrated and
have a tendency to be hypersensitive to negative events
(David et al. 1997). De Dreu and Van Vianen (2001) and
Molleman, Nauta, and Jehn (2004) indicated that people
with low neuroticism are self-confident. Prior studies
have found that those who possess the character is
expected to understand ethical leader negative behav-
iour (Kalshoven, den Hartog, and de Hoogh 2011)
and ethical leadership (Walumbwa and Schaubroeck
2009). Lai (2019) found that neuroticism has a signifi-
cant negative effect on a person’s attitude towards per-
forming a behaviour. While performing an ethical
behaviour using the Internet, it is expected that highly
neurotic people will be easily frustrated when something
goes wrong during the process, and in turn, see Internet
ethical behaviours as negative events. Therefore, this
study hypothesizes the following:
H4a. Neuroticism is negatively related to attitude
toward ethical behavior.

Likewise, a tendency toward emotional instability
may reduce the perceptions of a neurotic person (e.g.
self-esteem, self-efficacy, and perceived behavioural
control) and intentions to perform an Internet ethical
behaviour because of the potential complexity of the
task (Conner and Abraham 2001; Kalshoven, den Har-
tog, and de Hoogh 2011). Previous research indicates
this personality trait significantly affects an individuals’
behaviours (Oehler et al. 2018), and it is inversely
related to perceived behavioural control (Uffen, Kaem-
merer, and Breitner 2013). People who always feel
inferior, anxious, and insecure tend to be neurotic indi-
viduals and avoid taking control of a situation (Uffen,
Kaemmerer, and Breitner 2013). In other words, neuro-
tic individuals are more skeptical. They form negative
beliefs about their own ability to perform particular
behaviours and their ability to take control of these
behaviours. Therefore, this study hypothesizes the
following:
H4b. Neuroticism is negatively related to perceived
behavioral control.
Openness is used to describe an individual’s creativ-
ity, broad-mindedness, and willingness to try new
things or to experiment (LePine 2003; Molleman,
Nauta, and Jehn 2004). Individuals with high openness
are often adventurous, imaginative, unconventional,
curious, intelligent, receptive to new and innovative
ideas, and willing to conduct socially beneficial beha-
viours (Uffen, Kaemmerer, and Breitner 2013). For
instance, Markowitz et al. (2012) and Sun et al. (2018)
found that openness is positively related to eco-friendly
attitudes and behaviours, such as participating in pro-
environmental actions and green buying. In the context
of this study, past research has found that those who
possess these characteristics are expected to understand
ethical leader behaviour (Kalshoven, den Hartog, and de
Hoogh 2011). It is expected that individuals with a high
degree of openness will have a tendency to perform
Internet ethical behaviours. Therefore, this study
hypothesizes the following:
H5a. Openness is positively related to attitude toward
ethical behavior.
Pan and Statman (2013) pointed out that individuals
with high levels of openness have higher tolerance for
pressure (e.g. risk tolerance). Individuals who prefer
variety and intellectual curiosity (i.e. openness) may
affect their perceptions regarding social pressure from
others (Lai 2019). People who are high in openness
are more creative and flexible, and thus may be better
able to utilise a number of coping strategies until they
find one that suitable for the demands of a stressful
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 7
situation (Roesch, Wee, and Vaughn 2006). Since per-
forming an Internet ethical behaviour can be considered
as a coping strategy to minimise an individual’s stress
levels, it is expected that people with a high degree of
openness will have higher levels of subjective norms.
Also, previous research has shown that the effect of
openness on subjective norms is significant and positive
(Lai 2019). Therefore, this study hypothesizes the
following:
H5b. Openness is positively related to subjective norms.
Among the five personality traits, openness is more
related to the various cognitive skills and abilities of
human beings (McCrae 1996). Individuals with open
personalities are characterised as creative, divergent
thinkers, with an openness to different ideas, experi-
ences, and values. McCrae and Costa (2003) found
that individuals scoring low on openness prefer famili-
arity over novelty and usually resist change. High open-
ness scores are linked to receptivity to new experiences,
different ideas, and multiple viewpoints. Prior studies
have proposed that openness is positively correlated
with self-efficacy and the motivation to accomplish
self-set targets (Judge et al. 2002). Openness signifi-
cantly affects perceived behavioural control (Lai 2019).
In this study, perceived behavioural control refers to
an individual’s perception of his or her ability to per-
form Internet ethical behaviours. A more open person
will have more capacity to perform Internet ethical
behaviours. Therefore, this study hypothesizes the
following:
H5c. Openness is positively related to perceived behav-
ioral control.
3.2. The relationships between TPB and intention
of performing Internet ethical behaviours
In addition to considering personality trait measures,
this study is designed to explore whether TPB variables
(i.e. attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behav-
ioural control) are predictive of students’ intentions to
perform an Internet ethical behaviour. Intention serves
as an indication of individuals’ desire to perform a given
behaviour (Ajzen 1991; Rhodes, Courneya, and Jones
2004). In this study, the intention is defined as an indi-
vidual’s willingness to perform an Internet ethical
behaviour. It is important to investigate intentions
toward a behaviour because the stronger the intention,
the more likely the performance of the behaviour
(Ajzen 1991, 2012). Intentions ‘can be predicted with
high accuracy from attitudes toward the behaviour, sub-
jective norms, and perceived behavioural control’
8 Y.-Y. WANG ET AL.
(Ajzen 1991, 179). TPB is contributed to predict and
explain human behaviours (Rawstorne, Jayasuriya, and
Caputi 2000). In ethical decision-making research,
measuring actual behaviour is often problematic, so
behavioural intention is a widely used proxy with
sufficient predictive validity to be used (Trevino 1992).
Considering the legal risks faced by respondents when
answering questions about behaviours, researchers
usually use ‘willingness to act’ as a proxy for the actual
behaviour. For example, Beebe and Clark (2006) utilised
behavioural intentions when surveying respondents’
willingness to engage in illegal hacking behaviour.
Questions used in their research to obtain a measure
of behavioural intention to hack included, ‘I am willing
to use my knowledge and skills to gain unauthorised
access to information systems to serve my own goals’
and ‘I used to be willing to use my knowledge and skills
to gain unauthorised access to information systems to
serve my own goals’. Similarly, Loch and Conger
(1996) used three dependent-variable measures of
behavioural intentions to understand ethical decisions
in computer use, including ‘taking technical application
documentation’, ‘reading others’ email’, and ‘running a
program at work for a friend’. If questions were related
to actual behaviour, respondent would interpret this an
admission of criminal activity, thereby introducing a
higher probability of response bias. Because of the
obvious difficulties associated with observing unethical
behaviour on the Internet, the dependent variable in
this study is the intention to perform Internet ethical
behaviours rather than actual behaviour.
Attitude is defined as the degree to which a person
has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation or appraisal
of performing an Internet ethical behaviour. That is,
attitude is a personal factor referring to an individual’s
positive or negative judgment about a specific issue
(Peace, Galleta, and Thong 2003; Al-Rafee and Cronan
2006; Bebetsosi and Antoniou 2009). Attitude is con-
sidered as an important antecedent of behavioural
intentions. An individual’s perception of society’s values
can influence their moral judgment (Leonard, Cronan,
and Kreie 2004). For instance, from an ethical perspec-
tive, if individuals believe that the act of stealing soft-
ware is wrong, they are unlikely to have the intention
to steal (Loch and Conger 1996). Ethics studies have
shown that attitude is an important predictor of stu-
dents’ lying, shoplifting, and cheating behaviours
(Beck and Ajzen 1991). Moreover, a person’s attitude
toward ethical behaviour has been shown to influence
their behavioural intention in the context of (un)ethical
decision-making (Kreie and Cronan 2000), information
ethics (Chiang and Lee 2011), piracy (Chen, Pan, and
Pan 2009; Wang et al. 2009; Yoon 2011a; Wang and
McClung 2012), illegal sharing (Blake and Kyper
2013), fabrication (Lwin and Williams 2003), and cyber-
bullying (Heirman and Walrave 2012; Doane, Pearson,
and Kelley 2014; Doane et al. 2016; Savage and Toku-
naga 2017). Since prior studies have shown that positive
attitudes have a positive effect on a person’s behavioural
intention to exhibit specific behaviours, the current
research hypothesizes that people with a positive atti-
tude toward performing Internet ethical behaviours
will have a favourable intention to perform Internet
ethical behaviours. Therefore, this study hypothesizes
the following:
H6. Attitude toward ethical behavior is positively
related to intention of performing Internet ethical
behaviors.
Subjective norms can be divided into personal,
behavioural, and social norms to better reflect primary
referents, such as parents and friends, who provide
norms and value judgments that can influence the beha-
viours (Burnkrant and Page 1988; Engel, Blackwell, and
Miniard 1995). Since TPB is based on the assumption
that the concepts of subjective norms and social
norms are similar, social norms are used to present
the concept of subjective norms in this study. The the-
ory argued that perceived social pressure to behave in
a certain way plays a role in shaping behavioural inten-
tions, which themselves constitute the main determi-
nant of actual behaviour (Doran and Larsen 2016). In
this study, subjective norms are defined as the degree
to which an individual perceives performing Internet
ethical behaviours as a norm among people who are
important to him or her. Previous studies have ident-
ified subjective norms as critical antecedents of behav-
ioural intentions. Stronger subjective norms,
supportive of ethical norms, lead to greater intention
to uphold computer ethics, information ethics, and
avoid piracy (Peace, Galleta, and Thong 2003; Al-
Rafee and Cronan 2006; Chen, Pan, and Pan 2009;
Wang et al. 2009), illegal sharing (Wang and McClung
2012; Blake and Kyper 2013), and cyberbullying (Heir-
man and Walrave 2012; Doane, Pearson, and Kelley
2014). For example, Peace, Galleta, and Thong (2003)
developed a model of software piracy from the deter-
rence theory, expected utility theory, and TPB. The
findings indicate that subjective norms area significant
precursor to the intention to illegally copy software. In
another study to apply the TPB to cyberbullying behav-
iour, Heirman and Walrave (2012) found that more
positive perceived subjective norms about cyberbullying
predicted higher cyberbullying intentions. As past
research has shown that there is a positive correlation
between subjective norms and behavioural intentions,

this study hypothesizes that the higher levels of subjec-
tive norms, the higher levels of intention to perform
Internet ethics behaviours. Therefore, this study
hypothesizes the following:
H7. Subjective norms are positively related to intention
of performing Internet ethical behaviors.
In this study, perceived behavioural control is
defined as the degree of ease or difficulty perceived by
a person with respect to performing an Internet ethical
behaviour. Perceived behavioural control is vital in that
it denotes how effectively one is capable of resolving the
ethical conflicts present in ethical dilemmas (Bandura
1991; Courneya and Bobick 2000; Hsu and Kuo 2003).
Perceived behavioural control has been found to be a
significant predictor of behavioural intentions. Specifi-
cally, Bandura (1991) and Courneya and Bobick
(2000) proposed that perceived behavioural control
included self-efficacy and facilitating conditions. Per-
ceived behavioural control can lead to the intention to
commit piracy (Peace, Galleta, and Thong 2003; Chen,
Pan, and Pan 2009; Wang et al. 2009; Yoon 2011a;
Wang and McClung 2012), information ethics breaches
(Chiang and Lee 2011), illegal sharing (Blake and Kyper
2013), and fabrication (Lwin and Williams 2003). Based
upon prior research results on the correlation between
perceived behavioural control and intention to exhibit
a concrete behaviour, this study hypothesizes that inten-
tion to perform an Internet ethical behaviour will be
higher for a person who sees performing an Internet
ethical behaviour as an easy task than for a person
who sees it as a difficult task. Therefore, this study
hypothesizes the following:
H8. Perceived behavioral control is positively related to
intention of performing Internet ethical behaviors.
3.3. The moderating effect of Internet ethics
curriculum
Educational ethics curriculums lead to some improve-
ment in individuals’ ethical awareness or reasoning
levels (Weber 1990; Lau 2010). Through ethics curricu-
lums, individuals can acquire a greater awareness of
ethical aspects, develop a greater appreciation of the
complexity of ethical issues, and learn ethical concepts
and principles that help them analyse and make ethical
decisions (MacFarlane 2001; Carroll 2005). Lau’s (2010)
research findings suggest that ethics education may
influence individuals’ ethical awareness and moral
reasoning, and further moderate their behavioural out-
comes. Past studies (e.g. Earley and Kelly 2004; Waples
et al. 2009; Lau 2010; Pan and Sparks 2012; May, Luth,
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 9
and Schwoerer 2013) have provided some evidence for
ethics curriculums enhancing individuals’ moral aware-
ness, moral reasoning, moral judgments, and percep-
tions of ethical behaviours. For example, May, Luth,
and Schwoerer (2013) found business ethics courses
can: positively influence participants’ confidence in
their ability to handle ethical problems at work (i.e.
moral efficacy), particularly when people or the
environment may provide opposition or pressure that
conflict with acting ethically; encourage them to be
more courageous in raising ethical problems at work
even when doing so is unpopular (i.e. moral courage);
and boost the relative importance of ethics in their
work lives (i.e. moral meaningfulness). In this vein, a
person’s moral efficacy and courage, as elements of
their moral conation capacities that contribute to
moral motivation and action, can be developed through
training (Hannah, Avolio, and May 2011).
As mentioned earlier, ethics education might enhance
students’ ethical awareness, moral reasoning, and ethical
behaviour. In Internet ethics curriculums, the ideal way
to test and develop moral courage is to put students in
training scenarios that simulate the real world. In this
way, students can develop an attitude that is reflected
in the students’ behaviour because this attitude is
based on practical experience and knowledge (Gamble
2009). In other words, an Internet ethics curriculum
must develop correct student attitudes towards ethis so
that their attitude is reflected in subsequent behaviours.
Accordingly, this study repositions the role of ethics edu-
cation, contending that it plays a moderating rather than
a direct role in the intention to perform Internet ethical
behaviours. To understand the effect of ethics education,
this study uses an Internet ethics curriculum as a proxy
of Internet ethics education and explores whether it
moderates the relationships between attitude toward
ethical behaviour and intention of performing Internet
ethical behaviours. In this regard, this study suggests
that an Internet ethics curriculum strengthens the indi-
viduals’ positive attitudes rather than any negative ones
and therefore enhance the positive impact of attitude
on the intention of performing an Internet ethical behav-
iour, as stated in the following:
H9. Attitude toward ethical behavior positively influ-
ences intention to perform Internet ethical behaviors
more strongly for students who have participated in an
Internet ethics curriculum than for those who have not.
4. Methods
This study was conducted using a convenience sampling
method with non-probability sampling techniques
10 Y.-Y. WANG ET AL.
because of the unavailability of a list of undergraduate,
graduate, or PhD level students that use the Internet.
Participants were informed they could withdraw from
the study at any time without prejudice, while their
anonymity and confidentiality were assured. To test
these hypotheses, data were collected through online
surveys. The self-administered questionnaire was
uploaded to a survey portal (https://www.surveycake.
com/) in Taiwan and made available to Internet users.
The respondents came from different universities, aca-
demic departments, and were of different ages, genders,
and religions. All respondents fulfilled the basic require-
ments to participate in this study.
4.1. Measures of the constructs
To ensure content validity, measurement items must
describe which concepts about which valid generalis-
ations can be made (Bohrnstedt 1970). All measures
of the 10 focal constructs in this study were adapted
from existing studies and then slightly modified to suit
the context of Internet ethical behaviours. In this
research paper, Internet ethical behaviours refer to
people’s behaviour in compliance with ethical norms
in cyberspace. Since the actual behaviour of people in
Internet ethical cases is almost impossible to observe
(Jafarkarimi et al. 2016b), the focus here is to design a
survey questionnaire to capture behavioural intentions
and related influencing factors including attitude
toward ethical behaviour, subjective norms, perceived
behavioural control, and intention of performing Inter-
net ethical behaviours. At the beginning of the question-
naire, the ‘Ten Commandments of Internet Ethics’
proposed by Vogel (2016) were adopted to specifically
describe Internet ethical behaviours: people shall not
use other people’s Internet resources without authoris-
ation or proper compensation, shall not snoop around
in other people’s Internet files, shall not use the Internet
to harm other people, shall not appropriate other
people’s intellectual output, shall not interfere with
other people’s Internetwork, shall think about the social
consequences of the programme they are writing or the
system they are designing, shall not use the Internet to
steal, shall not use the Internet to bear false witness,
shall not copy or use proprietary software for which
they have not paid (without permission), and shall
always use the Internet in ways that ensure consider-
ation and respect for their fellow humans. To measure
the five personality traits, John, Donahue, and Kentle’s
(1991) Big Five Inventory (BFI) scale was adopted. As
shown in Appendix 1, the BFI scale is a brief form of
a multidimensional personality inventory and consists
of 44 items in total. Agreeableness and
conscientiousness were measured with nine items,
with four of them in reverse form. Extraversion and
neuroticism were measured using an 8-item sub-scale
with three reversed items. Openness was measured
using a 10-item sub-scale with two reversed items.
Each item was short and used accessible language. The
reversed items were included to reduce respondents’
fatigue and the threat of common method bias (John,
Donahue, and Kentle 1991; Podsakoff et al. 2003).
Moreover, the measures for the four TPB constructs
were adapted from Yoon (2011b) because behavioural
theory and ethics theory were fully considered. In this
study, attitude toward ethical behaviour was assessed
with items relating to the favourableness or unfavour-
ableness of Internet ethical behaviours. Subjective
norms can be assessed by asking respondents whether
‘important others’ approve or disapprove the Internet
behaviours in question. Perceived behavioural control
is a measure of how easy or difficult it is for respondents
to perform the Internet ethical behaviours in question,
including the use of both a self-efficacy measure
(whether individuals believe that they have the knowl-
edge and abilities to perform Internet ethical beha-
viours) and control measures (whether individuals
believe they have control over performing Internet ethi-
cal behaviours). The intention of performing Internet
ethical behaviours measures the willingness of respon-
dents to perform the Internet ethical behaviours in
question. Since the questionnaire items were modified
to fit the Internet ethical behaviour context being
studied, a panel of information management and ethics
academics and professionals were invited and consulted
to comment on whether list items matched the con-
structs, including statement length, wording, and ques-
tionnaire format. All items were answered on 7-point
Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree)
(Viswanathan, Sudman, and Johnson 2004). Lastly, the
variable ‘Internet ethics curriculum’ was a nominal
scale – answered as either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. The item was
‘Have you ever been involved in a course related to
Internet ethics?’. The final survey items are listed in
Appendix 2.
4.2. Data collection
Since one of the purposes of this research was to explore
the determinants of students’ intention to perform
Internet ethical behaviours, participants were first
required to have experience using the Internet. Further-
more, respondents were asked whether they were
undergraduate, graduate, or PhD level students; if they
replied in the affirmative, they were asked to participate
in the survey. For each statement, respondents were
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 11

asked to circle the response that best described their (i.e. management major versus non-management
level of agreement. The survey produced 276 usable major), educational background (i.e. graduate student
responses (144 males and 132 females) and a valid versus PhD level student), and religious beliefs in
response rate of 84.92%. In total, 81.52% were under- relation to respondents’ intention to perform an Inter-
graduate students, and of this 57.61% studied in a col- net ethical behaviour. The results reveal no statistically
lege of management. Furthermore, just over half of significant differences with respect to academic depart-
the respondents had experience with an Internet ethics ment (F = 2.199, p > .05), educational background (F =
curriculum (57.61%). Table 1 shows the respondents’ 1.065, p > .05), or religious beliefs (F = .514, p > .05).
summarised demographic information.
Concerning the non-response issue, this study fol-
5. Results
lows the procedure proposed by Armstrong and Over-
ton (1977). Respondents were divided into two Data were analysed using the partial least squares struc-
groups, including early respondents and late respon- tural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) method which has
dents. According to the chi-squares test, the comparison multiple advantages over the covariance-based struc-
of gender and age variables between the two groups tural equation modelling (CB-SEM). Specifically, PLS-
showed there were no significant differences (p values SEM can be used to easily estimate much more complex
were 0.47 and 0.336, respectively). Therefore, non- research models with smaller sample sizes (Shiau and
response bias appears to be not a problem. Additionally, Chau 2016; Hair et al. 2019; Khan et al. 2019; Shiau, Sar-
a one-way ANOVA was conducted using SPSS to stedt, and Hair 2019). The research model in this study
further determine whether there were statistically sig- tends to be complex, which includes direct variables (i.e.
nificant differences in terms of academic department agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroti-
cism, and openness), indirect variables (i.e. attitude
toward ethical behaviour, subject norms, and perceived
Table 1. Respondent characteristics (n = 276). behavioural control), and a moderator variable (i.e.
Characteristic Items Frequency Percentage Internet ethics curriculum). Also, the sample size (n =
Gender Male 144 52.17 276) for analysis in this study was relatively small.
Female 132 47.83 Besides, since this study adopted the Big-Five frame-
Age 18 and under 9 3.26
19–22 145 52.54
work of personality and TPB components to develop
23–26 104 37.68 an exploratory, integrated model of Internet ethical
27–30 4 1.45 behaviour, PLS-SEM was considered to be highly appro-
31 and over 14 5.07
Educational background Undergraduate 225 81.52 priate for exploratory research of such theory develop-
student ment (Gefen, Rigdon, and Straub 2011; Shiau and
Graduate or PhD 51 18.48
level student Chau 2016; Hair et al. 2019; Khan et al. 2019; Shiau, Sar-
Academic department Engineering 27 9.78 stedt, and Hair 2019; Shiau et al. 2020).
College of 159 57.61
Management Moreover, this study utilised a product indicator
College of Science 14 5.07 approach to test the moderating effect. The product
Faculty of Arts 19 6.88
Academy of Social 11 3.99
indicator approach is a standard method for generating
Sciences interaction terms in regression analysis and also features
Medicine 10 3.62 prominently in PLS-SEM (Hair et al. 2016). The method
Faculty of Law 3 1.09
College of Education 5 1.81 involves multiplying the indicators of the exogenous
Others 28 10.15 latent variables with the indicators of the moderator
Religion Christian 15 5.43
Catholic 1 0.36 variable. These product terms are then used to reflect
Buddhist 48 17.39 the latent interaction variable (Chin, Marcolin, and
Taoist 80 28.99
Atheist 115 41.67 Newsted 2003). That is, product indicators are gener-
Other 17 6.16 ated from the two sets of indicators of the predictor
Daily Internet usage Less than 1 h 3 1.09
time 1–5 h 124 44.93
(X) and moderator (M) variables to represent the con-
6–9 h 98 35.50 struct of moderating effect (X × M). Before the poduct
Over 10 h 51 18.48 indicators are generated, the two sets of indicators of
Internet ethics Yes 159 57.61
curriculum No 117 42.39 the predictor (X) and moderator (M) variables have
Percentage of Agreeableness – 21.43 been stardardized. SmartPLS software (Ringle, Wende,
respondents Conscientiousness – 24.44
belonging to each Extraversion – 16.62 and Will 2005) was utilised during the two-stage data
personality trait Neuroticism – 11.03 analysis. The first stage was to examine the psycho-
Openness – 26.48
metric properties and measurement models, while the
12 Y.-Y. WANG ET AL.

hypotheses and structural model were tested in the
second stage.
5.1. Measurement model
Evaluation of the measurement models involved evalu-
ations of reliabilities, discriminant validities, and con-
vergent validities of the construct measures. Table 2
presents the descriptive statistics for the data. Items
with factor loadings less than .5 were removed (i.e.
A1, E6, N4, N7, and N8). All of the remaining items’
loadings were greater than .6; therefore, reliability at
the indicator level was satisfactory. Further, Henseler,
Ringle, and Sinkovics (2009) suggested that to show a
measure’s internal consistency, the composite reliability
(CR) and Cronbach’s α values must exceed .6. As shown
in Table 2, the CR and Cronbach’s α values of each con-
struct exceeded .8. Thus, reliability was also adequate at
the construct level.
Convergent validity was assessed using the average
variance extracted (AVE). All AVE values for each con-
struct exceeded .5, which means that more than half of
the variance observed in the indicators was accounted
for by its corresponding constructs. Moreover, compar-
ing the shared variances between constructs with the
AVE values of individual variables (Fornell and Larcker
1981) found that the shared variances between con-
structs were lower than the AVE values of individual
variables, thereby confirming the discriminant validity
(see Table 2). For heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio
of correlations test, the estimated correlations between
all construct pairs were below the suggested cutoff of
0.9 (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015), confirming
the discriminant validity of the construct measures
(see Table 3). To conclude, the measurement model
demonstrated adequate reliability, as well as convergent
and discriminant validity.
5.2. Structural model
PLS-SEM does not assume that the sample data are nor-
mally distributed (Hair et al. 2016). It relies on a non-
parametric bootstrap procedure to test the significance
of the coefficients (Efron and Tibshirani 1986; Davison
and Hinkley 1997). To obtain the normality signifi-
cance, this study used the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and
Shapiro–Wilk tests. The results in Table 4 suggest that
the significance level of all the constructs was less than
.05 (p < .05), meaning all variables were relatively not
normally distributed. Further, this study utilised a boot-
strap method (Efron 1979) to estimate the structural
model. This method is a resampling technique used to

Table 2. Inter-construct correlations and reliability measures.

Constructs Mean SD CR α A ATT C E IEC IIEB N O PBC SBN
A 4.874 0.911 0.899 0.873 .728
ATT 6.025 0.790 0.947 0.925 .299 .904
C 4.939 0.876 0.927 0.913 .500 .281 .767
E 4.320 1.170 0.944 0.931 .421 .179 .411 .841
IEC 0.580 0.495 1.000 1.000 .158 .397 .229 .060 1.000
IIEB 6.079 0.780 0.956 0.931 .372 .796 .426 .223 .526 .938
N 4.012 1.341 0.917 0.901 −.261 −.063 −.296 −.476 −.049 −.141 .831
O 4.816 0.984 0.925 0.910 .362 .299 .432 .496 .164 .318 −.269 .744
PBC 5.876 0.791 0.930 0.899 .302 .663 .340 .155 .423 .794 −.085 .252 .876
SBN 5.832 0.794 0.925 0.892 .385 .766 .346 .259 .417 .777 −.128 .301 .695 .869
Notes: 1. CR: composite reliability; α: Cronbach’s alpha. 2. A: agreeableness; ATT: attitude toward ethical behaviour; C: conscientiousness; E: extraversion; IEC:
Internet ethics curriculum; IIEB: intention of performing Internet ethical behaviours; N: neuroticism; O: openness; PBC: perceived behavioural control; SBN:
subjective norms. 3. Diagonal elements are the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) values; off-diagonal elements are correlations among
constructs.

Table 3. Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations.

Constructs A ATT C E IEC IIEB N O PBC SBN
A
ATT .312
C .555 .276
E .505 .189 .435
IEC .164 .412 .222 .074
IIEB .398 .857 .430 .233 .544
N .283 .066 .299 .481 .044 .126
O .402 .316 .421 .535 .162 .327 .259
PBC .319 .727 .352 .165 .446 .866 .082 .263
SBN .424 .843 .359 .283 .442 .851 .124 .321 .773
Notes: A: agreeableness; ATT: attitude toward ethical behaviour; C: conscientiousness; E: extraversion; IEC: Internet ethics curriculum; IIEB: intention of perform-
ing Internet ethical behaviours; N: neuroticism; O: openness; PBC: perceived behavioural control; SBN: subjective norms.
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 13

Table 4. Results of normality test. with attitude toward ethical behaviour (β = .188, p < .01;
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk β = .128, p < .05; β = .205, p < .01, respectively). How-
Components Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. ever, extraversion and neuroticism were found to have
A .062 276 .013 .987 276 .014 no significant relationships with attitude toward ethical
ATT .154 276 .000 .920 276 .000
C .053 276 .057 .990 276 .067 behaviour (β = −.021, p > .05; β = .068, p > .05, respect-
E .064 276 .008 .985 276 .006 ively). Thus, H3a and H4a are not supported.
IEC .380 276 .000 .628 276 .000
IIEB .164 276 .000 .899 276 .000 Hypotheses 1b, 2b, and 5b state that agreeableness
N .093 276 .000 .977 276 .000 (H1b), conscientiousness (H2b), and openness (H5b)
O .058 276 .026 .988 276 .027
PBC .120 276 .000 .950 276 .000
are positively related to subjective norms. The results
SBN .113 276 .000 .950 276 .000 support H1b, H2b, and H5b: agreeableness, conscien-
Notes: 1. a: Lilliefors significance correction. 2. ATT: attitude toward ethical tiousness, and openness had significant positive
behaviour; A: agreeableness; C: conscientiousness; E: extraversion; N: neur-
oticism; O: openness; SBN: subjective norms; PBC: perceived behavioural
relationships with subjective norms (β = .255, p < .001;
control; IIEB: intention of performing Internet ethical behaviours; IEC: Inter- β = .158, p < .05; β = .141, p < .05, respectively).
net ethics curriculum. Hypotheses 2c, 3b, 4b, and 5c state that conscien-
tiousness (H2c), extraversion (H3b), neuroticism
(H4b), and openness (H5c) are positively/negatively
estimate statistics of a population by independently related to perceived behavioural control. The findings
sampling a dataset with replacement from the original support H2c and H5c: conscientiousness and openness
sample. Path significance was tested with 500 bootstrap had significant positive relationships with perceived
samples, as recommended by Chin (1998). Table 5 behavioural control (β = .297, p < .001; β = .144, p < .05,
shows the statistics of the structural model, including respectively). However, extraversion and neuroticism
path coefficients, standard errors, t-values, and effect were found to have no significant relationships with
sizes. Path coefficients demonstrate the strength of the perceived behavioural control (β = −.024, p > .05;
relationships between the independent variables and β = .030, p > .05, respectively). Thus, the results fail to
dependent variables. Effect sizes were measured using support H3b and H4b.
Cohen’s f 2. As a benchmark effect sizes of 0.02, 0.15, Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8 state that attitude toward ethi-
and 0.35 are considered as small, medium, and large, cal behaviour (H6), subjective norms (H7), and per-
respectively (Cohen 1988). ceived behavioural control (H8) are positively related
Hypotheses 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a state that agreeable- to the intention of performing Internet ethical beha-
ness (H1a), conscientiousness (H2a), extraversion viours. The results support all of H6-H8: attitude toward
(H3a), neuroticism (H4a), and openness (H5a) are posi- ethical behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived
tively/negatively related to attitude toward ethical behavioural control had significant positive relation-
behaviour. As shown in Table 5, the results support ships with the intention of performing Internet ethical
H1a, H2a, and H5a: agreeableness, conscientiousness, behaviours (β = .310, p < .001; β = .186, p < .001;
and openness had significant positive relationships β = .369, p < .001, respectively).

Table 5. Statistical results of the structural model.

Dependent variable Independent variable Path coefficient Standard error t statistics Effect size ( f 2)
ATT A .188 .068 2.773** .028
C .128 .060 2.126* .012
E −.021 .041 0.507 .000
N .068 .065 1.055 .004
O .205 .067 3.048** .034
SBN A .255 .063 4.030*** .059
C .158 .064 2.468* .021
O .141 .060 2.345* .019
PBC C .297 .065 4.572*** .076
E −.024 .049 0.496 .000
N .030 .044 0.683 .001
O .144 .068 2.105* .016
IIEB ATT .310 .062 4.995*** .187
SBN .186 .055 3.381*** .064
PBC .369 .055 6.750*** .332
ATT × IEC .130 .028 4.722*** .081
Notes: 1. ATT: attitude toward ethical behaviour; A: agreeableness; C: conscientiousness; E: extraversion; N: neuroticism; O: openness; SBN: subjective norms;
PBC: perceived behavioural control; IIEB: intention of performing Internet ethical behaviours; IEC: Internet ethics curriculum. 2. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
(two-tailed test).
14 Y.-Y. WANG ET AL.

Among the moderating relationships, experience agreeableness and conscientiousness having strong
with an Internet ethics curriculum was observed to effects, respectively. Figure 3 is a visual representation
moderate the relationships between attitude toward of the standardised path coefficients of the research
ethical behaviour and intention of performing Internet model.
ethical behaviours (H9); this experience led to a more
positive relationship between attitude toward ethical
behaviour and the intention of performing Internet 6. Discussion
ethical behaviours (β = .130, p < .001). This finding sup- Understanding key influences on students’ intention of
ports H9. Figure 2 demonstrates how experience with an performing Internet ethical behaviours is crucial for
Internet ethics curriculum moderated the relationship Internet ethics education. Unlike previous studies that
between attitude toward ethical behaviour and intention focused on individual characteristics such as gender
of performing Internet ethical behaviours. This is con- and age (e.g. Leonard, Cronan, and Kreie 2004), or
sistent with the results of the one-way analysis of var- locus of control (e.g. Boshoff and van Zyl 2011), this
iance (ANOVA), which reveals a statistically article considered a wider range of factors related to
significant difference for experience with an Internet the Big-Five framework of personality traits and TPB,
ethics curriculum (F = 104.591, p < .001) in relation to and how they influence students’ intention of perform-
the intention to perform an Internet ethical behaviour. ing Internet ethical behaviours. In addition, this study
Participants who had experience with an Internet ethics investigated the interaction effect between an Internet
curriculum (mean = 6.43, SD = .77) tended to have a ethics curriculum and attitude toward ethical behaviour
higher behavioural intention to perform an Internet to determine the impact on the intention of performing
ethical behaviour than those with no experience Internet ethical behaviours.
(mean = 5.60, SD = .48). The results of hypotheses test- Most of the proposed hypotheses were supported,
ing are summarised in Table 6. but several findings were unexpected and especially
Altogether, about 81.1% of the variance in intention interesting. First of all, the empirical findings suggest
of performing Internet ethical behaviours was explained that attitude toward ethical behaviour, subjective
in the research model, with perceived behavioural con- norms, and perceived behavioural control positively
trol having the strongest correlation with intention of
performing Internet ethical behaviours among the
Table 6. Summary of hypotheses testing results.
explanatory variables. Additionally, about 14.5% of the
Hypothesis Supported
variance in attitude toward ethical behaviour was
H1a Agreeableness is positively related to attitude toward Yes
explained in the research model, with openness having ethical behaviour
a strong effect. Further, about 19.5% and 13.1% of the H1b Agreeableness is positively related to subjective norms Yes
H2a Conscientiousness is positively related to attitude Yes
variance in subjective norms and perceived behavioural toward ethical behaviour
control were explained in the research model, with H2b Conscientiousness is positively related to subjective Yes
norms
H2c Conscientiousness is positively related to perceived Yes
behavioural control
H3a Extraversion is positively related to attitude toward No
ethical behaviour
H3b Extraversion is positively related to perceived No
behavioural control
H4a Neuroticism is negatively related to attitude toward No
ethical behaviour
H4b Neuroticism is negatively related to perceived No
behavioural control
H5a Openness is positively related to attitude toward ethical Yes
behaviour
H5b Openness is positively related to subjective norms Yes
H5c Openness is positively related to perceived behavioural Yes
control
H6 Attitude toward ethical behaviour is positively related Yes
to intention of performing Internet ethical behaviours
H7 Subjective norms are positively related to intention of Yes
performing Internet ethical behaviours
H8 Perceived behavioural control is positively related to Yes
intention of performing Internet ethical behaviours
H9 Attitude toward ethical behaviour positively influences Yes
Figure 2. The moderating effect of an Internet ethics curriculum intention to perform Internet ethical behaviours more
on the link between attitude toward ethical behaviour and strongly for students who have participated in an
intention of performing Internet ethical behaviours. *p < .05; Internet ethics curriculum than for those who have
not
**p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

Figure 3. Standardised path coefficients.
influence the intention of performing Internet ethical
behaviours. This result is in line with the TPB, which
proposes that attitude toward the behaviour, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioural control are primary
driving forces of behavioural intentions. These all
clearly reflect one’s behavioural beliefs, normative
beliefs, and control beliefs (Ajzen and Fishbein 2005).
This result is similar to those obtained in prior studies
(e.g. Chiang and Lee 2011; Yoon 2011b). The results
of this research suggest that Internet ethics education
should focus on students’ internal and external influ-
ences regarding Internet ethical behaviour. They also
help to validate the use of TPB in Internet ethics
research by demonstrating that attitude toward ethical
behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural
control play a part in determining students’ intention of
performing Internet ethical behaviours.
Personality components were found to be determi-
nants of TPB. This reveals that agreeableness, conscien-
tiousness, and openness positively influence attitude
toward ethical behaviour and subjective norms. It also
echoes Ajzen and Fishbein (2005), who stated that indi-
viduals’ background factors (e.g. personality, general
attitude, and emotions) have a significant impact on
behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs, and control
beliefs. As expected, the effects of agreeableness on atti-
tude toward ethical behaviour and subjective norms,
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 15
and conscientiousness and openness on attitude toward
ethical behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioural control are significant and positive. When
one’s personality characteristics tend towards agreeable-
ness (i.e. individuals who show personal warmth and
cooperation with others), conscientiousness (i.e. indi-
viduals who are strong-willed and conscientious), and
openness (i.e. individuals who are open to new things
and ideas), their beliefs regarding Internet ethics are
stronger, resulting in increased behavioural intention
to perform Internet ethical behaviours. In line with
our expectations and previous findings (e.g. Brown, Tre-
viño, and Harrison 2005; Walumbwa and Schaubroeck
2009; Kalshoven, den Hartog, and de Hoogh 2011),
agreeableness and conscientiousness seem most relevant
for ethical issues (e.g. ethical leadership). Regarding
specific Internet ethical behaviours, agreeableness
appears to be the most important for fairness and
power-sharing, whereas conscientiousness appears
most important for role clarification. Unexpectedly,
extraversion (i.e. cheerful and extroverted people) and
neuroticism (i.e. people who feel inferior to others,
anxious, and insecure) were insignificantly related to
any of the beliefs, such as behavioural and control
beliefs, as well as subsequent behavioural intentions.
This result partially matches Kalshoven, den Hartog,
and de Hoogh’s (2011) and Picazo-Vela et al.’s (2010)
16 Y.-Y. WANG ET AL.
findings. One possible reason for the lack of support for
extraversion is that while Internet platforms may pro-
vide an opportunity for extroverts to satisfy their desire
for social interaction, the lack of face-to-face contact
may limit the impact of extraverted characteristics,
such as talkativeness and desire to be with others, on
the intention to perform online behaviours. On the
other hand, if an Internet platform is complicated, a
neurotic person may easily become frustrated, and in
turn exhibit less willingness to provide real ideas or per-
form specific online behaviours.
Experience with an Internet ethics curriculum was
found to have a positive moderating effect on the
relationship between attitude toward ethical behaviour
and the intention of performing Internet ethical beha-
viours. This result somewhat coincides with the results
obtained in Ajzen and Fishbein (2005), who found
that the relationship between behavioural beliefs and
behavioural intentions depends on the level of individ-
uals’ background factors (e.g. experience and knowl-
edge). The significant interaction supports the
prediction that when a user has experienced an Internet
ethics curriculum, the association between attitude
toward ethical behaviour and the intention of perform-
ing Internet ethical behaviours increases. In sum, the
research results broaden the existing Internet ethics lit-
erature by showing that attitudes toward ethical behav-
iour and experience with an Internet ethics curriculum
play important roles in determining individuals’ inten-
tion of performing Internet ethical behaviours. Indeed,
in line with previous findings in the field of business
ethics education (Weber, Gerde, and Wasieleski 2008;
May, Luth, and Schwoerer 2013), this study maintains
that ethics education is at the core of building an ethical
culture. Since ensuring transaction security and protect-
ing customer privacy are the most discussed ethical
issues relevant to electronic business (e.g. Internet bank-
ing) (Stead and Gilbert 2001), ethical conduct by all
individuals is critical to the success and prosperity of
electronic business. Along with Internet ethics edu-
cation, IT manager support, and software and hardware
tool support are core elements of doing business over
the Internet (Turban et al. 2009).
7. Implications
7.1. Theoretical implications
Considering the popularity of cyber technology, little
research has studied relevant factors that affect students’
Internet ethical behaviours. The current research pro-
poses and validates a theoretical model to gain a better
understanding of the key factors that influence students’
Internet ethical intention and behaviour. Although the
concept of ethical behaviours is complex, multidimen-
sional, and varies from discipline to discipline, it is fun-
damentally seen as behavioural decision-making. While
many studies (e.g. Leonard, Cronan, and Kreie 2004;
Chiang and Lee 2011; Kalshoven, den Hartog, and de
Hoogh 2011) have used either the Big-Five personality
traits or the TPB (i.e. attitude toward the behaviour,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control)
to study ethical behaviours, none have integrated the
two theories and considered whether an Internet ethics
curriculum could influence students’ Internet judgment
and decision-making. The combination of these three in
the current study has resulted in a deeper understanding
of the behavioural decision-making process regarding
Internet ethics.
Through the TPB, the Big-Five framework of person-
ality traits was investigated with regard to students’ atti-
tude toward ethical behaviour, subjective norms,
perceived behavioural control, and intention of per-
forming Internet ethical behaviours. Personality traits
are a salient motivator in attitude toward a behaviour,
subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and
behavioural intentions. The results of the current
study suggest that agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and openness increase students’ attitude toward ethical
behaviour, subjective norms, perceived behavioural
control, and behavioural intention to perform an Inter-
net ethical behaviour. An unexpected finding was extra-
version and neuroticism did not significantly influence
students’ attitude toward ethical behaviour, subjective
norms, or perceived behavioural control. Yet, overall,
these research results contribute to the Internet ethics
literature by suggesting that one’s background factors
are a crucial motivator of behavioural beliefs, normative
beliefs, control beliefs and intention of performing
Internet ethical behaviours.
Finally, this article broadens the conceptual
definitions of students’ beliefs for the intention of per-
forming Internet ethical behaviours and emphasises
aspects of experience and knowledge, including stu-
dents’ attitude toward ethical behaviour and an Internet
ethics curriculum. In such a curriculum, educators can
take advantage of a wealth of knowledge about ethical
developments from the field of ethical psychology to
help students develop appropriate ethical attitudes and
behaviours with respect to their use of the Internet
(Crowell, Narvaez, and Gomberg 2008). These psycho-
logical processes and skills training (e.g. ethical sensi-
tivity and judgment) are critical to forming students’
opinions and decision-making regarding the acceptabil-
ity of acting ethically while using the Internet (Friedman
1997). The empirical results suggest that experience

with an Internet ethics curriculum strengthens the posi-
tive relationship between attitude toward ethical behav-
iour and intention of performing Internet ethical
behaviours. These results not only show a moderating
role of an Internet ethics curriculum but also indicate
that within an Internet platform, an Internet ethics cur-
riculum may increase students’ intentions to perform
Internet ethical behaviours and strengthen the positive
relationship between students’ attitude toward ethical
behaviour and behavioural intentions. These results
contribute enormously to the existing understanding
of Internet ethics education.
7.2. Practical implications
Internet ethics education has an important responsibil-
ity with regard to cultivating Internet ethical behaviour
in students. Collegiate life represents a critical period
because this is when good ethical behaviours can be fos-
tered (Dalton and Crosby 2006). This study confirms
research showing that attitude toward ethical behaviour,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control
have significant influences on behavioural intention to
perform Internet ethical behaviours. The research
model shows that these variables are consistently signifi-
cant in influencing the awareness of behavioural conse-
quences. Though a college has little, if any, direct impact
on students’ personal and social environments, it should
emphasise ethical Internet policies (e.g. appropriate use)
and the consequences of not following them. Also,
many universities struggle with students’ lack of aware-
ness and/or understanding of ‘proper use’ policies.
Hence, universities should emphasise ethical Internet
policies in all courses, as well as the associated penalties
intended to decrease inappropriate or illegal use of the
Internet (Leonard, Cronan, and Kreie 2004).
Personal characteristics also provide support for uni-
versities actively pursuing an Internet ethics pro-
gramme. Personal background factors (i.e. personality
traits), behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs, and con-
trol beliefs can increase individual responsibility and
help foster ethical Internet decision-making; these can
be promoted through college courses. Research on stu-
dents has demonstrated that ethical discussions with
peers have some impact on moral reasoning (Nelson
and Obremski 1990; Dalton and Crosby 2006). Students
must believe that university Internet ethical policies
exist to promote Internet ethical behaviours, not just
to protect against immoral actions.
Finally, prior research has seen a trend in ethics
research that indicates a change in people’s opinions
regarding important ethical issues. Leonard, Cronan,
and Kreie (2004), Akbulut et al. (2008), and Parks
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 17
et al. (2018) indicated that unethical Internet behaviours
have increased significantly over time. Perhaps this is
due to a greater awareness of threats posed to people’s
privacy through cyber technology when using the Inter-
net. Accordingly, this study suggests that universities
add Internet ethics courses to their curriculum. Provid-
ing students with training before they enter the work-
place will aid them in the transition and in their
interactions with coworkers. Encouraging the develop-
ment of Internet ethical behaviours will aid in the devel-
opment of good moral judgment and social interactions.
8. Contributions
This research helps a more thorough understanding of
students’ intention of performing Internet ethical beha-
viours with respect to the impact of agreeableness, con-
scientiousness, openness, attitude toward ethical
behaviour, subjective norms, perceived behavioural
control, and an Internet ethics curriculum. The contri-
butions of this research to the theoretical development
of students’ intention of performing Internet ethical
behaviours are threefold. First, this study is one of the
earliest to successfully integrate the Big-Five personality
trait framework and the TPB to explain students’ inten-
tion of performing Internet ethical behaviours. Second,
the results of this study support the notion that agree-
ableness, conscientiousness, and openness significantly
influence the intention of performing Internet ethical
behaviours through the mediation of attitude toward
ethical behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioural control. Finally, the empirical results indi-
cate that an Internet ethics curriculum strengthens the
positive relationship between attitude toward ethical
behaviour and intention of performing Internet ethical
behaviours. This new finding is based on the moderat-
ing effect of an Internet ethics curriculum on the inten-
tion of performing Internet ethical behaviours, which
has rarely been explored.
9. Limitations and future research
The findings of this study should be interpreted in the
context of some limitations. First, the data was collected
from undergraduate, graduate, and PhD level students.
A nonparametric Chi-square test was used for statistical
analysis to examine its representativeness. Gender was
found that has no statistically significant difference
(χ 2 = .47, p > .05). Therefore, the sample represents the
population in terms of gender. However, the use of a
nonrandom volunteer sample in current research may
have associated risks of sampling bias. Since the existing
sample may be underrepresented in terms of the size
18 Y.-Y. WANG ET AL.
and geographical location of the population, this
sampling bias may also limit the generalizability of the
research results beyond the study sample. Future
researchers should first take a random sample including
other geographical regions and nationalities aside from
Taiwan, and then replicate this study so that the robust-
ness of the results can be established. Second, this study
considered only the factors of the Big-Five personality
traits and the TPB in examining students’ intention of
performing Internet ethical behaviours. However, the
influence of other personal background factors (e.g.
age, gender, ethnicity, and past experience etc.), differ-
ent Internet cultures (e.g. the difference between
known versus anonymous users), and different goals
of online interactions may also be important in deter-
mining whether Internet ethical behaviours are per-
formed. Future studies can extend the proposed
research model by including these potential variables.
Third, since actual Internet ethical behaviours are
impossible to investigate, all the collected data were
based on the ‘Ten Commandments of Internet Ethics’
used in the survey instrument. Nevertheless, it may be
feasible to design a scenario-based questionnaire to
investigate the effect of these scenarios on the observed
relationships in the research model (Jafarkarimi et al.
2016a, 2016b). Scholars can test the research hypotheses
based on different scenarios in the future. Finally, an
Internet ethics curriculum was used as a dummy vari-
able (Yes or No); details regarding the content, types
(elective or required courses), number of academic
credits, and teaching periods (a semester or academic
year) were excluded. Future research needs to establish
a reliable and valid measurement of these variables and
use it to retest the proposed model.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technol-
ogy, Taiwan [grant number MOST 105-2511-S-018-011-MY3].
References
Abdolmohammadi, M. J., and M. F. Reeves. 2000. “Effects of
Education and Intervention on Business Students’ Ethical
Cognition: A Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Study.”
Teaching Business Ethics 4 (3): 269–284.
Ajzen, I. 1985. “From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of
Planned Behavior.” In Action Control: From Cognition to
Behavior, edited by J. Kuhl and J. Beckman, 11–39.
Heidelberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. 1988. Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
50: 179–211.
Ajzen, I. 2002. “Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-efficacy,
Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior.”
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32 (4): 665–683.
Ajzen, I. 2012. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” In
Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Vol. 1, edited
by P. A. M. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins,
438–459. London: Sage.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 2005. “The Influence of Attitudes
on Behavior.” In Handbook of Attitudes, edited by D.
Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna, 173–221.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Akbulut, Y., S. Sendag, G. Birinci, K. Kilicer, M. C. Sahin, and
H. F. Odabasi. 2008. “Exploring the Types and Reasons of
Internet-Triggered Academic Dishonesty among Turkish
Undergraduate Students: Development of Internet-
Triggered Academic Dishonesty Scale (ITADS).”
Computers & Education 51 (1): 463–473.
Al-Rafee, S., and T. P. Cronan. 2006. “Digital Piracy: Factors
That Influence Attitude Toward Behavior.” Journal of
Business Ethics 63 (3): 237–259.
Armitage, C. J., and M. Conner. 2001. “Conner.Efficacy of the
Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-Analytic Review.”
British Journal of Social Psychology 40 (4): 471–499.
Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. 1977. “Estimating
Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of Marketing
Research 14 (3): 396–402.
Bandura, A. 1982. “Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human
Agency.” American Psychologist 37 (2): 122–147.
Bandura, A. 1991. “Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought
and Action.” In Handbook of Moral Behavior and
Development Vol. 1: Theory, edited by W. M. Kuritines
and J. L. Gewirtz, 45–103. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bebetsosi, E., and P. Antoniou. 2009. “Gender Differences on
Attitudes, Computer Use and Physical Activity among
Greek University Students.” The Turkish Online Journal
of Educational Technology 8 (2): 63–68.
Beck, L., and I. Ajzen. 1991. “Predicting Dishonest Actions
Using the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Journal of
Research in Personality 25 (3): 285–301.
Beebe, N. L., and J. Clark. 2006. “A Model for Predicting
Hacker Behavior.” AMCIS 2006 Proceedings, 409.
Blake, R. H., and E. S. Kyper. 2013. “An Investigation of the
Intention to Share Media Files Over Peer-to-Peer
Networks.” Behaviour & Information Technology 32 (4):
410–422.
Bohrnstedt, G. W. 1970. “Reliability and Validity Assessment
in Attitude Measurement.” In Attitude Measurement, edi-
ted by G. F. Summers, 80–99. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Boshoff, E., and E. S. van Zyl. 2011. “The Relationship
Between Locus of Control and Ethical Behaviour
among Employees in the Financial Sector.” Koers 76
(2): 283–303.
Brown, M. E., L. K. Treviño, and D. A. Harrison. 2005.
“Ethical Leadership: A Social Learning Perspective for

Construct Development and Testing.” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97 (2): 117–134.
Burnkrant, R. E., and T. J. Page Jr. 1988. “The Structure and
Antecedents of the Normative and Attitudinal
Components of Fishbein’s Theory of Reasoned Action.”
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 24 (1): 66–87.
Burroughs, M. 2015. Ask an Ethicist: What is ‘Ethics
Education’?, October 30. https://news.psu.edu/story/
377841/2015/10/30/impact/ask-ethicist-what-%E2%80%
98ethics-education%E2%80%99.
Caprara, G. V., and D. Cervone. 2000. Personality:
Determinants, Dynamics, and Potentials. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, A. B. 2005. “An Ethical Education.” https://bized.
aacsb.edu/articles/2005/january/an-ethical-education.
Chen, M.-F., C.-T. Pan, and M.-C. Pan. 2009. “The Joint
Moderating Impact of Moral Intensity and Moral
Judgment on Consumer’s Use Intention of Pirated
Software.” Journal of Business Ethics 90 (3): 361–373.
Chiang, L., and B. Lee. 2011. “Ethical Attitude and Behaviors
Regarding Computer use.” Ethics & Behavior 21 (6): 481–
497.
Chin, W. W. 1998. “The Partial Least Squares Approach to
Structural Equation Modeling.” In Modern Methods for
Business Research, edited by G. A. Marcoulides, 295–336.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chin, W. W., B. L. Marcolin, and P. R. Newsted. 2003. “A
Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach
for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results From a Monte
Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/
Adoption Study.” Information Systems Research 14 (2):
189–217.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conner, M., and C. Abraham. 2001. “Conscientiousness and
the Theory of Planned Behavior: Toward a More
Complete Model of the Antecedents of Intentions and
Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27
(11): 1547–1561.
Costa Jr., P. T., and R. R. McCrae. 1985. The NEO Personality
Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychology Assessment Resources.
Costa Jr., P. T., and R. R. McCrae. 1992. Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa Jr., P. T., and T. A. Widiger. 1994. Personality Disorders
and the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Courneya, K. S., and T. M. Bobick. 2000. “Integrating the
Theory of Planned Behavior with the Processes and
Stages of Change in the Exercise Domain.” Psychology of
Sport and Exercise 1 (1): 41–56.
Cronan, T. P., and S. Al-Rafee. 2008. “Factors That Influence
the Intentions to Pirate Software and Media.” Journal of
Business Ethics 78 (4): 527–545.
Crowell, C. R., D. Narvaez, and A. Gomberg. 2008. “Moral
Psychology and Information Ethics: Psychological
Distance and the Components of Moral Behavior in a
Digital World.” In Information Security and Ethics:
Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and ApplicationsH.
Nemati, 3269–3281. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 19
Dalton, J. D., and P. C. Crosby. 2006. “Ten Ways to Encourage
Ethical Values in Beginning College Students.” Journal of
College and Character 7 (7). doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1239.
David, J. P., P. J. Green, R. Martin, and J. Suls. 1997.
“Differential Roles of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and
Event Desirability for Mood in Daily Life: An Integrative
Model of Top-down and Bottom-up Influences.” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (1): 149–159.
Davison, A. C., and D. V. Hinkley. 1997. Bootstrap Methods
and Their Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
De Dreu, C. K. W., and A. E. M. Van Vianen. 2001.
“Managing Relationship Conflict and the Effectiveness of
Organizational Teams.” Journal of Organizational
Behavior 22 (3): 309–328.
DeLorme, D. E., G. M. Zinkha, and W. French. 2001. “Ethics
and the Internet: Issues Associated with Qualitative
Research.” Journal of Business Ethics 33 (4): 271–286.
Digman, J. M. 1990. “Personality Structure: Emergence of the
Five-Factor Model.” Annual Review of Psychology 41 (1):
417–440.
Doane, A. N., L. G. Boothe, M. R. Pearson, and M. L. Kelley.
2016. “Risky Electronic Communication Behaviors and
Cyberbullying Victimization: An Application of
Protection Motivation Theory.” Computers in Human
Behavior 60: 508–513.
Doane, A. N., M. R. Pearson, and M. L. Kelley. 2014.
“Predictors of Cyberbullying Perpetration among College
Students: An Application of the Theory of Reasoned
Action.” Computers in Human Behavior 36: 154–162.
Doran, R., and S. Larsen. 2016. “The Relative Importance of
Social and Personal Norms in Explaining Intentions to
Choose eco-Friendly Travel Options.” International
Journal of Tourism Research 18 (2): 159–166.
Earley, C. E., and P. T. Kelly. 2004. “A Note on Ethics
Educational Interventions in an Undergraduate Auditing
Course: Is There an ‘Enron Effect’?” Issues in Accounting
Education 19 (1): 53–71.
Efron, B. 1979. “Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the
Jackknife.” The Annals of Statistics 7: 1–26.
Efron, B., and R. Tibshirani. 1986. “Bootstrap Methods for
Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals, and Other
Measures of Statistical Accuracy.” Statistical Science 1 (1):
54–75.
Engel, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, and P. W. Miniard. 1995.
Consumer Behavior. 8th ed. ForthWorth, TX: Dryden
Press.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention,
and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18
(1): 39–50.
Friedman, B. 1997. “Social Judgments and Technological
Innovation: Adolescents’ Understanding of Property,
Privacy, and Electronic Information.” Computers in
Human Behavior 13 (3): 327–351.
Furnham, A., G. Dissou, P. Sloan, and T. Chamorro-
Premuzic. 2007. “Personality and Intelligence in Business
People: A Study of two Personality and two Intelligence
20 Y.-Y. WANG ET AL.
Measures.” Journal of Business and Psychology 22 (1): 99–
109.
Gamble, R. 2009. Door Supervising: The Low Profile Skills.
Morrisville, NC: Lulu.com.
Gefen, D., E. E. Rigdon, and D. Straub. 2011. “Editor’s
Comments: An Update and Extension to SEM Guidelines
for Administrative and Social Science Research.” MIS
Quarterly 35 (2): 3–14.
Goldberg, L. R. 1982. “From ace to Zombie: Some
Explorations in the Language of Personality.” In Advances
in Personality Assessment, edited by C. D. Spielberger and
J. N. Butcher, 203–234. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldberg, L. R. 1990. “An Alternative ‘Description of
Personality’: The Big-Five Factor Structure.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 59 (6): 1216–1229.
Goldberg, L. R. 1993. “The Structure of Phenotypic
Personality Traits.” American Psychologist 48 (1): 26–34.
Haines, R., and L. N. K. Leonard. 2007. “Individual
Characteristics and Ethical Decision-Making in an IT
Context.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 107
(1): 5–20.
Hair Jr., J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt.
2016. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage publications.
Hair, J. F., J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle. 2019.
“When to use and how to Report the Results of PLS-
SEM.” European Business Review 31 (1): 2–24.
Hannah, S. T., B. J. Avolio, and D. R. May. 2011. “Moral
Maturation and Moral Conation: A Capacity Approach to
Explaining Moral Thought and Action.” Academy of
Management Review 36 (4): 663–685.
Heirman, W., and M. Walrave. 2012. “Predicting Adolescent
Perpetration in Cyberbullying: An Application of the
Theory of Planned Behavior.” Psicothema 24 (4): 614–620.
Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2015. “A new
Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in
Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 43 (1): 115–135.
Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and R. R. Sinkovics. 2009. “The Use
of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International
Marketing.” In New Challenges to International Marketing
(Advances in International Marketing: Vol. 20), edited by
R. R. Sinkovics and P. N. Ghauri, 277–319. Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Hirsh, J. B. 2010. “Personality and Environmental Concern.”
Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2): 245–248.
Hoyt, A. L., R. E. Rhodes, H. A. Hausenblas, and P. R.
Giacobbi. 2009. “Integrating Five-Factor Model Facet-
Level Traits with the Theory of Planned Behavior and
Exercise.” Psychology of Sport and Exercise 10 (5): 565–572.
Hsu, M. H., and F. Y. Kuo. 2003. “The Effect of Organization-
Based Self-Esteem and Deindividuation in Protecting
Personal Information Privacy.” Journal of Business Ethics
42 (4): 305–320.
Jafarkarimi, H., R. Saadatdoost, A. T. H. Sim, and J. M. Hee.
2016a. “Behavioral Intention in Social Networking Sites
Ethical Dilemmas: An Extended Model Based on Theory
of Planned Behavior.” Computers in Human Behavior 62:
545–561.
Jafarkarimi, H., A. T. H. Sim, R. Saadatdoost, and J. M. Hee.
2016b. “Designing a Scenario-Based Questionnaire to
Assess Behavioral Intention in Social Networking Sites’
Ethical Dilemmas.” In Blurring the Boundaries Through
Digital Innovation. Lecture Notes in Information
Systems and Organisation Vol. 19, edited by F.
D’Ascenzo, M. Magni, A. Lazazzara, and S. Za, 145–
159. Cham: Springer.
John, O. P., E. M. Donahue, and R. L. Kentle. 1991. The Big
Five Inventory–Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA:
University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality
and Social Research.
John, O. P., and S. Srivastava. 1999. “The Big-Five Trait
Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical
Perspectives.” In Handbook of Personality: Theory and
Research Vol. 2, edited by L. A. Pervin, and O. P. John,
102–138. New York: Guilford Press.
Judge, T. A., J. E. Bono, R. Ilies, and M. W. Gerhardt. 2002.
“Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and
Quantitative Review.” Journal of Applied Psychology 87
(4): 765–780.
Judge, T. A., and R. Ilies. 2002. “Relationship of Personality to
Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (4): 797–807.
Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono, and G. K. Patton. 2001.
“The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A
Qualitative and Quantitative Review.” Psychological
Bulletin 127 (3): 376–407.
Junglas, I. A., N. A. Johnson, and C. Spitzmüller. 2008.
“Personality Traits and Concern for Privacy: An
Empirical Study in the Context of Location-Based
Services.” European Journal of Information Systems 17 (4):
387–402.
Kalshoven, K., D. N. den Hartog, and A. H. B. de Hoogh.
2011. “Ethical Leader Behavior and Big Five Factors of
Personality.” Journal of Business Ethics 100 (2): 349–366.
Karim, N. S. A., N. H. A. Zamzuri, and Y. M. Nor. 2009.
“Exploring the Relationship Between Internet Ethics in
University Students and the Big Five Model of
Personality.” Computers & Education 53 (1): 86–93.
Kern, M. L., and H. S. Friedman. 2008. “Do Conscientious
Individuals Live Longer? A Quantitative Review.” Health
Psychology 27 (5): 505–512.
Khan, G. F., M. Sarstedt, W.-L. Shiau, J. F. Hair, C. M. Ringle,
and M. Fritze. 2019. “Methodological Research on Partial
Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM):
An Analysis Based on Social Network Approaches.”
Internet Research 29 (3): 398–406.
Kreie, J., and T. P. Cronan. 2000. “Making Ethical Decisions:
How Companies Might Influence the Choices One Makes.”
Communications of the ACM 43 (12): 66–71.
Lai, C. P. 2019. “Personality Traits and Stock Investment of
Individuals.” Sustainability 11 (19): 5474-5493.
Landers, R. N., and J. W. Lounsbury. 2006. “An Investigation
of Big Five and Narrow Personality Traits in Relation to
Internet Usage.” Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2):
283–293.
Lau, C. L. L. 2010. “A Step Forward: Ethics Education
Matters!.” Journal of Business Ethics 92 (4): 565–584.
Leonard, L. N. K., T. P. Cronan, and J. Kreie. 2004. “What
Influences IT Ethical Behavior Intentions—Planned
Behavior, Reasoned Action, Perceived Importance, or
Individual Characteristics?” Information & Management
42 (1): 143–158.

LePine, J. A. 2003. “Team Adaptation and Postchange
Performance: Effects of Team Composition in Terms of
Members’ Cognitive Ability and Personality.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 88 (1): 27–39.
Li, Y. 2012. “Theories in Online Information Privacy
Research: A Critical Review and an Integrated
Framework.” Decision Support Systems 54 (1): 471–481.
Li, Y., Z. Huang, Y. J. Wu, and Z. Wang. 2019. “Exploring
How Personality Affects Privacy Control Behavior on
Social Networking Sites.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 1771.
Liang, C., and C.-C. Chang. 2014. “Predicting Scientific
Imagination From the Joint Influences of Intrinsic
Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Agreeableness, and Extraversion.”
Learning and Individual Differences 31: 36–42.
Loch, K. D., and S. Conger. 1996. “Evaluating Ethical Decision
Making and Computer use.” Communications of the ACM
39 (7): 74–83.
Lounsbury, J. W., R. P. Steel, J. M. Loveland, and L. W.
Gibson. 2004. “An Investigation of Personality Traits in
Relation to Adolescent School Absenteeism.” Journal of
Youth and Adolescence 33 (5): 457–466.
Lwin, M. O., and J. D. Williams. 2003. “A Model Integrating
the Multidimensional Developmental Theory of Privacy
and Theory of Planned Behavior to Examine Fabrication
of Information Online.” Marketing Letters 14 (4):
257–272.
MacFarlane, B. 2001. “Developing Reflective Students:
Evaluating the Benefits of Learning Logs Within a
Business Ethics Programme.” Teaching Business Ethics 5
(4): 375–387.
Markowitz, E. M., L. R. Goldberg, M. C. Ashton, and K. Lee.
2012. “Profiling the “Pro-Environmental Individual”: A
Personality Perspective.” Journal of Personality 80 (1):
81–111.
May, D. R., M. T. Luth, and C. E. Schwoerer. 2013. “The
Influence of Business Ethics Education on Moral Efficacy,
Moral Meaningfulness, and Moral Courage: A Quasi-
Experimental Study.” Journal of Business Ethics 124 (1):
67–80.
McCrae, R. R. 1996. “Social Consequences of Experiential
Openness.” Psychological Bulletin 120 (3): 323–337.
McCrae, R. R., and Costa P. T. Jr. 1985. “;Comparison of EPI
and Psychoticism Scales with Measures of the Five-factor
Model of Personality.” Personality and Individual
Differences 6 (5): 587–597.
McCrae, R. R., and P. T. Costa. 1987. “Validation of the Five-
Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and
Observers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
52 (1): 81–90.
McCrae, R. R., and P. T. Costa. 2003. Personality in
Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective. New York:
Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., P. T. Costa Jr., F. Ostendorf, A. Angleitner, M.
Hřebíčková, M. D. Avia, and P. B. Smith. 2000. “Nature
Over Nurture: Temperament, Personality, and Life Span
Development.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 78 (1): 173–186.
Molleman, E., A. Nauta, and K. A. Jehn. 2004. “Person–Job Fit
Applied to Teamwork: A Multilevel Approach.” Small
Group Research 35 (5): 515–539.
Mount, M. K., M. R. Barrick, S. M. Scullen, and J. Rounds.
2005. “Higher-order Dimensions of the Big Five
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 21
Personality Traits and the Big Six Vocational Interest
Types.” Personnel Psychology 58 (2): 447–478.
Nelson, D. R., and T. E. Obremski. 1990. “Promoting Moral
Growth Through Intra-Group Participation.” Journal of
Business Ethics 9 (9): 731–739.
Oehler, A., S. Wendt, F. Wedlich, and M. Horn. 2018.
“Investors’ Personality Influences Investment Decisions:
Experimental Evidence on Extraversion and
Neuroticism.” Journal of Behavioral Finance 19 (1): 30–48.
Onyancha, O. B. 2015. “An Informetrics View of the
Relationship Between Internet Ethics, Computer Ethics
and Cyberethics.” Library Hi Tech 33 (3): 387–408.
Pan, Y., and J. R. Sparks. 2012. “Predictors, Consequence, and
Measurement of Ethical Judgments: Review and Meta-
Analysis.” Journal of Business Research 65 (1): 84–91.
Pan, C. H., and M. Statman. 2013. “Investor Personality in
Investor Questionnaires.” Journal of Investment
Consulting 14 (1): 48–56.
Park, N., Y. Jung, and K. M. Lee. 2011. “Intention to Upload
Video Content on the Internet: The Role of Social Norms
and ego-Involvement.” Computers in Human Behavior 27
(5): 1996–2004.
Parks, R., P. B. Lowry, R. Wigand, N. Agarwal, and T.
Williams. 2018. “Why Students Engage in Cyber-cheating
through a Collective Movement: A Case of Deviance and
Collusion.” Computers & Education. Accepted April 9,
2018.
Peace, A. G., D. F. Galleta, and J. Thong. 2003. “Software
Piracy in the Workplace: A Model and Empirical Test.”
Journal of Management Information Systems 20 (1): 153–
177.
Philips, M. R., and V. Horton. 2000. “Cybercheating: Has
Morality Evaporated in Business Education?” The
International Journal of Educational Management 14 (4):
150–155.
Picazo-Vela, S., S. Y. Chou, A. J. Melcher, and J. M. Pearson.
2010. “Why Provide an Online Review? An Extended
Theory of Planned Behavior and the Role of Big-Five
Personality Traits.” Computers in Human Behavior 26 (4):
685–696.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P.
Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral
Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology
88 (5): 879–903.
Ranjbarian, B., and M. Kiare. 2010. “The Influence of
Personality Traits on Consideration set Size.” European
Journal of Social Sciences 15 (2): 262–269.
Rawstorne, P., R. Jayasuriya, and P. Caputi. 2000. “Issues in
Predicting and Explaining Usage Behaviors with the
Technology Acceptance Model and the Theory of
Planned Behavior When Usage is Mandatory.” In
Proceedings of the Twenty First International Conference
on Information Systems, 35–44. Association for
Information Systems.
Rest, J. 1986. Moral Development: Advances in Research and
Theory. New York: Praeger.
Rhodes, R. E., K. S. Courneya, and L. W. Jones. 2004.
“Personality and Social Cognitive Influences on Exercise
Behaviour: Adding the Activity Trait to the Theory of
Planned Behaviour.” Psychology of Sport and Exercise 5
(3): 243–254.
22 Y.-Y. WANG ET AL.
Ringle, C. M., S. Wende, and A. Will. 2005. SmartPLS 2.0
(Beta), SmartPLS, Hamburg. www.smartpls.de.
Roesch, S. C., C. Wee, and A. A. Vaughn. 2006. “Relations
Between the Big Five Personality Traits and Dispositional
Coping in Korean Americans: Acculturation as a
Moderating Factor.” International Journal of Psychology
41 (2): 85–96.
Rogers, M. K., K. Seigfried, and K. Tidke. 2006. “Self-reported
Computer Criminal Behavior: A Psychological Analysis.”
Digital Investigation 3: 116–120.
Ross, K. 2005. “Academic Dishonesty and the Internet.”
Communications of the ACM 48 (10): 29–31.
Rottinghaus, P. J., L. D. Lindley, M. A. Green, and F. H.
Borgen. 2002. “Educational Aspirations: The Contribution
of Personality, Self-Efficacy, and Interests.” Journal of
Vocational Behavior 61 (1): 1–19.
Savage, M. W., and R. S. Tokunaga. 2017. “Moving Toward
a Theory: Testing an Integrated Model of Cyberbullying
Perpetration, Aggression, Social Skills, and Internet
Self-Efficacy.” Computers in Human Behavior 71: 353–
361.
Shapiro, J. P., and J. A. Stefkovich. 2016. Ethical Leadership
and Decision Making in Education: Applying Theoretical
Perspectives to Complex Dilemmas. New York: Routledge.
Shiau, W.-L., and P. Y. K. Chau. 2016. “Understanding
Behavioral Intention to use a Cloud Computing
Classroom: A Multiple Model Comparison Approach.”
Information & Management 53 (3): 355–365.
Shiau, W.-L., M. Sarstedt, and J. F. Hair. 2019. “Internet
Research Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM).” Internet Research 29 (3): 398–406.
Shiau, W.-L., Y. Yuan, X. Pu, S. Ray, and C. C. Chen. 2020.
“Understanding Fintech Continuance: Perspectives from
Self-efficacy and ECT-IS Theories.” Industrial
Management & Data Systems.
Smith, M. W. 1992. “Professional Ethics in the Information
Systems Classroom: Getting Started.” Journal of
Information Systems Education 4 (1): 6–11.
Stead, B. A., and J. Gilbert. 2001. “Ethical Issues in Electronic
Commerce.” Journal of Business Ethics 34 (2): 75–85.
Sun, Y., S. Wang, L. Gao, and J. Li. 2018. “Unearthing the
Effects of Personality Traits on Consumer’s Attitude and
Intention to buy Green Products.” Natural Hazards 93
(1): 299–314.
Tams, S. 2008. “Self-directed Social Learning: The Role of
Individual Differences.” Journal of Management
Development 27 (2): 196–213.
Thoms, P., K. S. Moore, and K. S. Scott. 1996. “The
Relationship Between Self-Efficacy for Participating in
Self-Managed Work Groups and the Big Five Personality
Dimensions.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 17 (4):
349–362.
Trevino, L. K. 1992. “Moral Reasoning and Business Ethics:
Implications for Research, Education, and Management.”
Journal of Business Ethics 11 (5–6): 445–459.
Turban, E., D. King, J. Lang, and L. Lai. 2009. Introduction to
Electronic Commerce. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Uffen, J., N. Kaemmerer, and M. H. Breitner. 2013.
“Personality Traits and Cognitive Determinants–An
Empirical Investigation of the use of Smartphone Security
Measures.” Journal of Information Security 4: 203–212.
Underwood, J., and A. Szabo. 2003. “Academic Offences and
e-Learning: Individual Propensities in Cheating.” British
Journal of Educational Technology 34 (4): 467–477.
Üstüner, M. 2017. “Personality and Attitude Towards
Teaching Profession: Mediating Role of Self Efficacy.”
Journal of Education and Training Studies 5 (9): 70–82.
Viswanathan, M., S. Sudman, and M. Johnson. 2004.
“Maximum Versus Meaningful Discrimination in Scale
Response: Implications for Validity of Measurement of
Consumer Perceptions About Products.” Journal of
Business Research 57 (2): 108–124.
Vogel, P. S. 2016. The 10 Commandment of Internet Ethics.
August 4. https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/
2016/08/the-10-commandment-of-internet-ethics.
Walther, J. B. 2002. “Research Ethics in Internet-Enabled
Research: Human Subjects Issues and Methodological
Myopia.” Ethics and Information Technology 4 (3): 205–
216.
Walumbwa, F. O., and J. Schaubroeck. 2009. “Leader
Personality Traits and Employee Voice Behavior:
Mediating Roles of Ethical Leadership and Workgroup
Psychological Safety.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94
(5): 1275–1286.
Wang, C.-C., C.-T. Chen, S.-C. Yang, and C.-K. Farn. 2009.
“Pirate or buy? The Moderating Effect of Idolatry.”
Journal of Business Ethics 90 (1): 81–93.
Wang, X., and S. R. McClung. 2012. “The Immorality of Illegal
Downloading: The Role of Anticipated Guilt and General
Emotions.” Computers in Human Behavior 28 (1): 153–159.
Waples, E. P., A. L. Antes, S. T. Murphy, S. Connelly, and M.
D. Mumford. 2009. “A Meta-Analytic Investigation of
Business Ethics Instruction.” Journal of Business Ethics 87
(1): 133–151.
Weber, J. 1990. “Measuring the Impact of Teaching Ethics
to Future Managers.” Journal of Business Ethics 9 (3): 183–190.
Weber, R. H. 2016. “Ethics in the Internet Environment.”
Global Commission on Internet Governance, Paper series:
No. 39.
Weber, J., V. Gerde, and D. M. Wasieleski. 2008. “A Blueprint
for Designing an Ethics Program in an Academic Setting.”
In Advancing Business Ethics Education: A Ethics in Practice
Book Series, edited by D. L. Swanson and D. G. Fisher, 85–
101. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Willard, N. 1998. “Moral Development in the Information
Age.” In Proceedings of the Families, Technology, and
Education Conference, 215–222. Chicago, IL, October 30–
November 1, 1997.
Witt, L. A., L. A. Burke, M. R. Barrick, and M. K. Mount. 2002.
“The Interactive Effects of Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness on job Performance.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 87 (1): 164–169.
Yoon, C. 2011a. “Ethical Decision-Making in the Internet
Context: Development and Test of an Initial Model Based
on Moral Philosophy.” Computers in Human Behavior 27
(6): 2401–2409.
Yoon, C. 2011b. “Theory of Planned Behavior and Ethics
Theory in Digital Piracy: An Integrated Model.” Journal
of Business Ethics 100 (3): 405–417.
Zhang, Y., S. Wu, and M. I. Rasheed. 2020.
“Conscientiousness and Smartphone Recycling Intention:
The Moderating Effect of Risk Perception.” Waste
Management 101: 116–125.
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 23

Appendices Appendix 2. Measurement items used in this

study
Appendix 1. The Big Five Inventory (BFI) items
Attitude toward ethical behaviour
I see myself as someone who … ATT1: Internet ethical behaviours are sensible.
1. Is talkative 23. Tends to be lazy
ATT2: Internet ethical behaviours are beneficial.
2. Tends to find fault with others 24. Is emotionally stable, not easily ATT3: Internet ethical behaviours are a good idea.
upset ATT4: Overall, my attitude toward Internet ethical behaviours
3. Does a thorough job 25. Is inventive is favourable.
4. Is depressed, blue 26. Has an assertive personality
5. Is original, comes up with new 27. Can be cold and aloof Subjective norms
ideas SBN1: If my Internet behaviours are ethical, most of the
6. Is reserved 28. Perseveres until the task is finished
7. Is helpful and unselfish with 29. Can be moody people who are important to me would approve.
others SBN2: Most people who are important to me would look up to
8. Can be somewhat careless 30. Values artistic, aesthetic me if my Internet behaviours are ethical.
experiences SBN3: Most people who are important to me think it is okay
9. Is relaxed, handles stress well 31. Is sometimes shy, inhibited
10. Is curious about many 32. Is considerate and kind to almost
to perform Internet ethical behaviours.
different things everyone SBN4: My classmates think Internet ethical behaviours are
11. Is full of energy 33. Does things efficiently appropriate.
12. Starts quarrels with others 34. Remains calm in tense situations
13. Is a reliable worker 35. Prefers work that is routine Perceived behavioural control
14. Can be tense 36. Is outgoing, sociable PBC1: For me, it is easy to perform Internet ethical behaviours.
15. Is ingenious, a deep thinker 37. Is sometimes rude to others PBC2: I have the knowledge and ability to perform Internet
16. Generates a lot of enthusiasm 38. Makes plans and follows through
with them ethical behaviours.
17. Has a forgiving nature 39. Gets nervous easily PBC3: I could perform ethical behaviours on the Internet if I
18. Tends to be disorganised 40. Likes to reflect, play with ideas wanted to.
19. Worries a lot 41. Has few artistic interests PBC4: Internet ethical behaviours are entirely within my control.
20. Has an active imagination 42. Likes to cooperate with others
21. Tends to be quiet 43. Is easily distracted Intention of performing Internet ethical behaviours
22. Is generally trusting 44. Is sophisticated in art, music, or
literature
IIEB1: I intend to perform Internet ethical behaviours in the
near future.
Notes: Scoring (‘R’ denotes reverse-scored items): Agreeableness: 2R, 7, 12R,
17, 22, 27R, 32, 37R, 42; Conscientiousness: 3, 8R, 13, 18R, 23R, 28, 33, 38, IIEB2: If I have a chance, I will perform Internet ethical
43R; Extraversion: 1, 6R, 11, 16, 21R, 26, 31R, 36; Neuroticism: 4, 9R, 14, 19, behaviours.
24R, 29, 34R, 39; Openness: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35R, 40, 41R, 44. IIEB3: I always perform Internet ethical behaviours.