thermore, a formal code is not the only way to achieve the desired result. As sug-gested earlier, a strong culture of academic integrity can exist at an institution that has no formal code but communicates the importance the community places on in-tegrity in other ways. McCabe, Treviño, and Butterfield's (1996) study of 318 alumni of two private liberal arts colleges suggested honor codes can have long-term effects on behavior. The study focused on alumni who had graduated from their respective colleges be-tween 1962 and 1989, allowing the researchers to test hypotheses about the long-term effects of collegiate honor codes as well as the effect of codes of ethics at their current work organizations. The results supported previous work by show-ing that dishonest behavior in the workplace can be reduced by an organizational code of ethics. The results also show that dishonest behavior in the workplace var-ies inversely with the strength of implementation of an organizational code of eth-ics (i.e., the degree of managerial commitment to the code and the degree to which an organization attempts to communicate its code to employees and to ensure com-pliance) and the degree to which a code of ethics is deeply embedded in the organi-zation's culture (i.e., the degree to which the code is understood and accepted by employees and guides their day-to-day interactions and activities). The results also indicate that college honor codes can have an enduring effect: Dishonest behavior in the workplace was lowest for participants who had experienced an honor code environment in college and who currently worked in an organization that had a strongly implemented code of ethics. Overall, this work suggests that participation in multiple honor code communities can play a part in reducing dishonest behav-ior, particularly if the honor codes are well implemented and strongly embedded in the organizational culture. Faculty Views of Academic Integrity Policies Faculty members' views of academic integrity policies, and how these views differ across code and noncode schools, was the subject of McCabe's (1993) study of 800 faculty at a geographically diverse sample of 16 U.S. colleges and universities. This study showed that faculty at code schools were more likely to rate their school higher than noncode schools on factors such as students' understanding of aca-demic integrity policies, faculty support of these policies, and the overall effective-ness of the policy. Faculty at code schools were also more likely to believe that stu-dents should play a significant part in the judicial process associated with academic cheating. This study also revealed that faculty at both code and noncode schools are reluctant to report cheating and prefer to handle suspected cases of cheating on their own rather than appeal to institutional policies and procedures. Furthermore, this study confirmed student perceptions that many faculty do not treat cases of aca-demic dishonesty very harshly. For example, more than half of the noncode faculty reported that their most likely reaction to an incident of cheating would be failure