PROFESSIONAL ETHICAL SENSITIVITY: THE CASE
OF MARKETING RESEARCHERS
by
JOHN RANDOLPH SPARKS. B.B.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
May, 1995
^01
i / V .
Copyright 1995, John Randolph Sparks
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am very fortunate to have been assisted in this effort by friends,
colleagues and faculty too numerous to mention. However, I would like to
extend my thanks and gratitude to several people for their especially helpful
support during the course of my doctoral education. First, the members of my
dissertation committee. Professors Larry Austin, Don Finn and Roy Howell, all
provided timely and insightful guidance throughout the preparation of this
dissertation. My special thanks go to Professor Dale Duhan, also a member of
my dissertation committee, who has been a good friend and great source of
encouragement during the ups and downs of the doctoral program.
I am particularly Indebted to my dissertation chairman, Professor Shelby
Hunt. His commitment to my education and his willingness to assume the role
of mentor will remain a positive influence on my life in general and my career
in particular.
I reserve the greatest measure of gratitude, however, for my mother,
Gerda Brownlow. Her considerable support of this endeavor, her unwavering
belief in my abilities, and her boundless love and friendship have been, and
will always be, a most important contribution to whatever personal and
professional success I achieve.
II
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT ix
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of the Research 2
Summary of the Research 4
Hypotheses 4
Sample 4
Measurement 4
Results 5
Organization of the Dissertation 6
II. LITERATURE REVIEW 7
Models of Ethical Decision Making 8
Rest's Four Component Model 8
Component One: Ethical Perceptions 10
Component Two: Moral Judgments 12
Component Three: Intentions 13
Component Four: Behavior 14
Ferrell and Gresham's Contingency Model
for Ethical Decision Making In Marketing 15
Trevino's Person-Situation Interactionist Model 18
Jones's Issue-Contingent Model of
Ethical Decision Making in Organizations 22
Hunt and Vitell's General Theory of Marketing Ethics 26
Overview of Empirical Research in Marketing Ethics 31
Ethics and Organizational Factors 33
Ethics and Personal Characteristics 36
Ethics and Personal Success 39
Perceptions of Marketing Professionals 43
Extent of Ethical Problems 43
Attribution of Unethical Behavior 45
Nature of the Ethical Situation 46
Conclusion 49
HYPOTHESES 51
Ethical Sensitivity 52
Definition of Ethical Sensitivity 52
Empirical Research on Ethical Sensitivity 56
Organizational Socialization 59
Professional Socialization 61
Organizational Rank 63 iv
Empathy 65
Machiavellianism 68
Education and Ethics Education 72
IV. METHOD AND MEASUREMENT 74
Research Design, Response Rate and Sample Charactenstics . . . . 74
First Mailing 75
Second Mailing 76
Sample Characteristics 76
Test for Nonresponse Bias 79
Measurement of the Dependent Variable: Ethical Sensitivity 80
Background 80
Developing a Marketing Research Scenario 84
First Informal Pretest 85
Second Informal Pretest 86
Weighting of Ethical Issues by
Marketing Research Ethicists 88
Measurement of Independent Variables 90
Organizational Socialization 90
Professional Socialization 92
Organizational Rank 93
Empathy 95
Education 95
Machiavellianism 97
Other Measures 97
Scale Purification 98
Exploratory Factor Analysis 98
Confirmatory Factor Analysis 101
Assessment of Internal Consistency 106
V. RESULTS 108
Calculation of Variables for Use in Regression 108
Dependent Variable: Ethical Sensitivity 108
Calculation of Independent Variables I l l
Regression Analysis 112
Assumptions of Regression 113
Correct Functional Model Specification 113
Constancy of Residual Variance 117
Normally Distributed Residuals 118
Correlation of Residuals 120
Multlcolllnearity 120
Hypotheses Tests 122
Hypothesis One 124
Hypothesis Two 124
vi
%/'
Hypothesis Three 127
Hypotheses Four and Five 127
Hypothesis Six 128
Hypotheses Seven and Eight 128
Stepwise Regression Results 129
Comparison of Ethical Sensitivity Measure
with Shaub Procedure 130
Summary 132
VI. DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 134
Discussion 134
Organizational Socialization 135
Professional Socialization 136
Organizational Rank 138
Empathy 138
Perspective Taking 138
Emotional Contagion 139
Machiavellianism 140
Education Level 141
Ethics Education 141
Summary 142
Limitations 143
VII
Measurement of Ethical Sensitivity 143
Other Limitations 146
Opportunities for Future Research 148
REFERENCES 150
APPENDIX
A: PRENOTIFICATION AND COVER LETTERS 158
B: MARKETING RESEARCH SCENARIO
AND INSTRUCTIONS 163
C: MARKETING RESEARCH ETHICIST QUESTIONNAIRE 167
D: MACHIAVELLIANISM SCALE 169
E: PARTIAL REGRESSION PLOTS 172
VIM
ABSTRACT
Empirical research in marketing ethics has focused primarily on two
facets of ethical decision making: ethical judgments and unethical behavior.
This study examines a key input to ethical decision making, ethical sensitivity,
the ability to recognize decision making situations that have ethical content. A
decision making situation has ethical content when one or more alternative
courses of action (including "no action") would violate a formal or informal
moral code.
This study develops and tests a measure of professional ethical
sensitivity for marketing researchers. Professional ethical sensitivity is
hypothesized to be a positive function of organizational socialization,
professional socialization, organizational rank, two dimensions of empathy
(perspective taking and emotional contagion), Machiavellianism, education
and formal training in ethics.
Significant positive relationships with ethical sensitivity were found for
organizational and professional socialization and emotional contagion.
Surprisingly, significant negative relationships with ethical sensitivity were
found for perspective taking and formal training in ethics. A possible
explanation for these unexpected results is offered.
IX
• • • i-r' '-
LIST OF TABLES
4.1 First Mailing Response Rate 75
4.2 Second Mailing and Total Response Rate 11
4.3 Sample Characteristics 78
4.4 Ethicist Mean Ratings of Issue Egregiousness 90
4.5 Rotated Factor Pattern of Exploratory Factor Analysis 99
4.6 Standardized Factor Loadings from
Final Measurement Model 105
4.7 Coefficient Alpha for Multi-Item Constructs 107
5.1 Ethical Sensitivity Statistics and Frequencies 110
5.2 Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables I l l
5.3 Simple Correlations 121
5.4 Summary of Regression Results 122
5.5 Stepwise Regression Results 130
5.6 Summary of Regression Results: Shaub Measurement Procedure 131
j.nBBm^mmi^
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Rest's Four Component Model 9
2.2 Ferrell and Gresham's Contingency Model 16
2.3 Trevino's Person-Situation Interactionist Model 20
2.4 Jones's Issue-Contingent Model 23
2.5 The Hunt-Vitell General Theory of Marketing Ethics 27
3.1 Suggested Refinement to the Hunt-Vitell
General Theory of Marketing Ethics 54
4.1 Organizational Socialization Scale Items 92
4.2 Professional Socialization Items 94
4.3 Empathy Items 96
4.4 Proposed Measurement Model 102
4.5 Final Measurement Model 104
4.6 Final Multi-Item Scale Items for Independent Variables 106
5.1 Residual Plot: Constancy of Variance Assessment 117
5.2 Normal Probability Plot 119
E.1 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Org. Soc 173
E.2 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Firm 174
E.3 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Prof Soc 175
E.4 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Field 176
E.5 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Prof Prog 177
XI
.mity
E.6 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Social 178
E.7 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Training 179
E.8 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Rank 180
E.9 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Pers. Take 181
E.10 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Emo. Cont 182
E.11 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Mach 183
E.12 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Ed. Level 184
E.13 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Ethic Ed 185
E.14 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Age 186
E.15 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Time 187
XII
0y
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
For several decades, marketing scholars have exhibited regular interest
in the subject of ethics In marketing research. The attention given to this topic
is a part of the more general Interest in ethics-related issues across most
functions of marketing, including marketing management (Chonko and Hunt
1985; Ferrell and Weaver 1978; Hunt, Wood and Chonko 1989), personal
selling (Chonko and Burnett 1983; Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga 1993; Belizzi
and Hite 1989), and advertising (Castleberry, French and Carlin 1993; Hunt
and Chonko 1987; Krugman and Ferrell 1981). From this considerable
interest in marketing ethics, several frameworks or theories have been
proposed, that seek to explain how people render ethical judgments or why
some people behave unethically (Bartels 1967; Dubinsky and Loken 1989;
Ferrell and Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986; Wotruba 1990).
In part guided by these theories, empirical studies In marketing ethics
have sought to explain or describe ethical judgments and unethical behavior
through several identifiable and often overlapping streams of research. Some
studies have examined various dimensions of marketing ethics in the context
of organizational factors (Akaah and Riordan 1989; Ferrell and Skinner 1988;
Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga 1993; Hunt et al. 1989), and personal factors
(Betz, O'Connell and Shephard 1991; Chonko and Hunt 1985; Goolsby and
Hunt 1992; Hunt and Chonko 1984; Singhapakdi and Vitell 1991; Sparks
1994). The beliefs and perceptions of marketing professionals about ethical
Issues are explored in still other studies (Akaah and Riordan 1990; Chonko
and Hunt 1985; Crawford 1970; Ferrell and Weaver 1978; Fritzsche and
Becker 1983; Hunt, Chonko and Wilcox 1984).
Hunt and Vitell (1986) observe that most empirical research in
marketing ethics "simply documents the existence of different ethical
judgments among different populations" (p. 14). This focus on ethical
judgments — outputs of the ethical decision making process — has largely
overlooked the key input to that process: ethical sensitivity, which is an
individual's ability to recognize when an issue has ethical content.
Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this research is to explore this key input to the ethical
decision making process. To this end, this study will define ethical sensitivity,
discuss its role in ethical decision making, describe a procedure for measuring
the construct, and test its relationships to several possible antecedents using
a sample of marketing research practitioners.
The concept of ethical sensitivity is supported by several theoretical
models. In particular, models proposed by Rest (1986), Hunt and Vitell (1986,
1992), Trevino (1986) and Ferrell and Gresham (1985) (all of which are
detailed in the next chapter) contend that the ethical decision making process
begins when an individual is confronted by an ethical issue. In other words,
ethical decision making begins with an individual's recognition that an issue
has ethical content. It Is the ability to recognize — or the sensitivity to —
ethical Issues that is the input to the ethical decision making process.
A very limited body of empirical research exists regarding ethical
sensitivity, none of it specifically pertaining to marketing. However, three
nonmarketing studies have developed techniques for measuring the construct.
Bebeau, Rest and Yamoor (1985) measured the ethical sensitivity of dental
students; Volker (1984) focused on professional counselors; and Shaub
(1989) studied public accountants. Building on this work, the present research
proposes refinements to the measurement of ethical sensitivity and explores
its relationships to several possible antecedents.
Two points should be emphasized regarding ethical sensitivity. First,
ethical sensitivity is in large part context specific. The norms, values and
codes that guide ethical behavior differ across contexts. For example, the
accountants in Shaub's (1989) study could not be expected to be sensitive to
many of the ethical issues faced by dental students or professional
counselors. Second, ethical sensitivity is learned. As noted by Hunt and Vitell
(1986), individuals learn through socialization the moral codes and norms that
delineate what is or is not appropriate behavior In varying contexts. Thus,
ethical sensitivity should not be regarded as an inherent trait of one's
personality.
Summarv of the Research
Hvpotheses
Ethical sensitivity is hypothesized to be positively associated with
several independent vanables: organizational socialization, professional
socialization, organizational rank, empathy (two dimensions: perspective
taking and emotional contagion), Machiavellianism, level of education, and
amount of formal training in ethics.
Sample
The sample consisted of marketing research practitioners of the
American Marketing Association. Approximately 2,000 questionnaires were
mailed to respondents, of which 125 responses were returned, for an overall
response rate of 6.6%.
Measurement
Ethical sensitivity was measured by having respondents read a brief
case scenario about a marketing researcher working on an important project.
The case raises a variety of technical and research management issues as
well as four ethical Issues. To avoid sensitizing respondents to the purpose of
the study, they were asked to simply "Identify the issues raised by the case."
The more ethical issues identified, the more ethically sensitive the respondent.
The four ethical issues were weighted by their egregiousness, as determined
by a panel of marketing research ethicists.
Multi-item measures were developed for several of the independent
measures, including organizational socialization, professional socialization,
and the two dimensions of empathy, i.e., perspective taking and emotional
contagion. These measures were purified using both exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis. Other independent variables were either
measured using single items (rank, education level, amount of ethics training)
or were measured with well-established scales (Machiavellianism).
Results
The data were analyzed using multiple regression. Several models
were estimated to test the hypotheses. Independent variables were regressed
separately against ethical sensitivity, while controlling for respondent age,
gender, and the time spent Identifying the issues. Additionally, full models
with and without control variables were estimated. The analysis indicated
positive and significant relationships between ethical sensitivity and
organizational socialization, as well as the emotional contagion dimension of
empathy. A modest relationship between ethical sensitivity and professional
socialization was also noted. Surprisingly, a strong negative relationship
between ethics education and ethical sensitivity was indicated.
Organization of the Dissertation
The dissertation is divided into six chapters. The second chapter
presents a review of the literature on ethics in marketing, including
presentation of important theoretical models and an overview of empirical
studies. In Chapter III, the focal construct, ethical sensitivity, is examined and
defined. Hypotheses about specific antecedents of ethical sensitivity are also
developed and presented. Chapter IV discusses the methodology proposed to
test the hypotheses and the measurement of variables. Results of the
statistical analysis used to test the hypotheses are presented in Chapter V.
Chapter VI presents the study's conclusions, limitations and implications for
future research.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Almost fifteen years ago, Murphy and Laczniak (1981) identified
approximately 100 articles on the subject of marketing ethics. Since then, the
literature has grown rapidly, helped by the publication of several journals
devoted exclusively to business ethics. The sheer size of the literature
prevents a complete review. Thus, this review is limited to selected positive,
rather than normative, studies and is Intended to accomplish several goals.
First, various theoretical and empirical streams of research are identified and,
where possible. Integrated. Second, consistent empirical findings are
discussed. Third, the review will lay the foundation for developing the ethical
sensitivity construct and related hypotheses presented in the next chapter.
To accomplish these goals, the review first discusses five theoretical
models of ethical decision making: two from marketing (Ferrell and Gresham
1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986, 1992), two from the management literature
(Trevino 1986; Jones 1991) and one from cognitive psychology (Rest 1983,
1986). Results from direct empirical testing of the models, especially the
model by Hunt and Vitell, are incorporated into this discussion. Finally, an
overview of empirical research in marketing ethics is presented.
8
Models of Ethical Decision Makino
Rest's Four Component Model
The discussion of ethical decision making models begins with the four
component model of James Rest (1983, 1986). His model is quite
parsimonious, yet offers a rich and intuitively appealing view of the ethical
decision making process. Moreover, Rest's model is grounded in theory from
social and cognitive psychology, making It a logical place to begin this review.
Rest's research focuses on the psychology of morality. His definition of
morality is rooted In a social-psychological view of the world. In that morality is
a "social value" that refers to "how humans cooperate and coordinate their
activities in the service of furthering human welfare" (Rest 1986, p. 3).
According to Rest, morality exists because people live in groups;
morality provides "a basis for social cooperation and coordination of activity"
(p. 1). To function together, humans must create guidelines for interaction.
Morality serves as the basis for those guidelines. The social dimension of
morality proposed by Rest stresses the importance of how the consequences
of one's actions affects others.
Rest (1983, 1986) asserts that for a person to behave morally, he or
she performs four psychological processes, which provide the outline of his
"four component model" (Figure 2.1). Rest (1986) is quick to emphasize that
these components represent steps in the process one undergoes when he or
0 • D O
C 0) c o Q. E o O i _
o LL
"55 0
CM
(0 o f"
LU
(0 c o a. 0 o 0
CL
10
she decides to behave morally; thus, the components are not "traits" or
"virtues" (1986, p. 5). Furthermore, Rest stresses that the components are not
intended to represent a linear sequence of events, but may interact with each
other In rather complex ways.
Component One: Ethical Perceptions
The first component in Rest's framework encompasses the notion of
ethical sensitivity, the focal variable of this study. According to Rest (1986), to
perceive an ethical or moral situation requires that the Individual imagine what
courses of action are possible and connect those actions to consequences
that might affect the welfare of others. This process can range from conscious
and extensive deliberations to only a minimal recognition that one's actions
may affect others. In either case, the recognition of possible consequences to
others may be quite specific or simply a general knowledge that all people in
society have a stake In the actions of one person through the existence of
laws, rules, or norms. The basic test is only that an individual realize that his
or her actions have consequences that may affect others.
Rest (1983) cites research findings pertinent to how people differ in
their perceptions of moral issues.
11
Three findings regarding Component I stand out from psychological research: (1) many people have difficulty in interpreting even relatively simple situations, (2) striking Individual differences exist among people in their sensitivity to the needs and welfare of others, and (3) the capacity to make these inferences generally develops with age. (p. 559)
The differences cited by Rest point to the effects of personal and
situational characteristics on a person's ability to perceive the moral issues
contained In a given event. Situational cues may exert an influence on how
easily people perceive the ethical content of their circumstances. For
example, in a study of bystander reactions to emergencies, Staub (1978)
found that when cues were ambiguous and people were not sure of what was
happening, they were less likely to help. This may be In part due to their
inability to perceive the moral content of the situation with the information they
have. Even in the presence of strong cues, personal differences impact how
sensitive they are to the welfare of others. For some to realize a moral issue
is involved "they have to see blood flowing," while with others "every act, work
or grimace takes on momentous overtones" (Rest 1986, p. 6). Although
personal and situational characteristics may account for differences In ethical
sensitivity, to Rest these differences center on the individual's ability to infer
the effects of an action on others.
A fundamental contention of the research proposed here is that
sensitivity to ethical Issues In marketing research can be measured and
certain organizational and personal variables may explain the variance in
12
ethical sensitivity among marketing researchers. More extensive discussion of
empirical research by Rest and others supporting this contention will be
presented when formal hypotheses are developed in the next chapter.
Component Two: Moral Judgments
Ethics research in marketing has frequently focused on what ethical
judgments marketing professionals would make when faced with different
situations (cf., Akaah and Riordan 1989, 1990; Crawford 1970; Ferrell and
Weaver 1978; Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga 1993). According to Rest (1986),
the second component is the stage in which people decide which of the
considered courses of action is actually morally right.
Rest suggests that making moral judgments "seems to come naturally to
people" (1986, p. 8), including children. He also contends that how people
make moral judgments is learned through socialization. For example,
differences in moral judgments made by one Individual over time about the
same moral dilemma would reflect the effects of the learning process.
Kohlberg (1969, 1976) referred to this process as "cognitive moral
development," or one's capacity for moral reasoning.
Component two also incorporates the affective dimensions of moral
judgments. Rest recognizes the interconnectedness of cognitive and affective
processes. Affect plays a role in moral judgment through "the association of a
person's conceptions of organizing social cooperation and the distinctive
13
sense of fairness that accompanies them" (1986, p. 12). It is probably the
affective portion of the process captured in component two that most
individualizes the moral judgments people make, while the part learned
through socialization produces the commonalties in moral judgments often
found among people.
Component Three: Intentions
The third component in Rest's model is also frequently studied in
marketing ethics research (cf., Dubinsky and Loken 1989; Fritzsche and
Becker 1983; Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga 1993; Singhapakdi 1993). Studies
that ask respondents to indicate what course of action they would take after
reading a scenario describing a situation with ethical content are to some
degree measuring Intentions.
Intentions draw the link between what people believe to be right or
wrong and how they actually behave. As Rest (1986) points out, "It is not
unusual for nonmoral values to be so strong and attractive that a person will
choose a course of action that preempts or compromises the moral ideal" (p.
13). When choosing between two actions, one the "moral Ideal," the other
something less, people prioritize their moral values relative to other values.
Other things equal, the result of that prioritization is a particular behavior.
Like the second component, affect and cognition strongly interact in the
third. This interaction is at work as the individual prioritizes his or her moral
14
and non-moral values. Theories well known to cognitive and consumer
behaviorists may lend Insight into the part of the moral decision making
process. For example, Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) theory of reasoned action
posits that behavioral Intentions are a function of a person's attitude toward a
particular behavior and of subjective norms that are often determined socially
(see Dubinsky and Loken 1989).
Component Four: Behavior
Translating good intentions Into good deeds is the essence of the fourth
component of Rest's model. While researchers like Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
note that behavioral intentions are a good predictor of actual behavior. Rest
draws upon "popular wisdom" to argue that, where moral behavior is
concerned, "perseverance, resoluteness, competence and character" (1986, p.
15) are often required to act faithfully to one's good moral intentions. He
describes how arduous the process can be.
Component IV, executing and implementing a plan of action, involves figuring out the sequence of concrete actions, working around impediments and unexpected difficulties, overcoming fatigue and frustration, resisting distractions and other allurements and not losing sight of the eventual goal. (1983, p. 569)
Rest's description, however, should not be taken to Imply that engaging in
moral behavior is necessarily a lengthy process. Indeed, overcoming
distractions or impediments may require only a few seconds. The point being
15
made by Rest is that it can be difficult. Rest also discusses the role of "self
regulatory processes" in the ability of people to remain true to their moral
convictions. Other elements of this self-regulation may include ego strength
and character.
Another Important factor in the transition between intentions and
behavior is opportunity. A person who has intentions to behave unethically
may not follow through with those intentions only because he or she lacked the
opportunity to do so. Opportunity is one of several variables that some
theorists propose moderate ethical decisions or ethical behavior. Two models
that focus on such moderators are discussed next.
Ferrell and Gresham's Contingency Model for Ethical Decision Making In Marketing
Ferrell and Gresham (1985) developed one of two models of ethical
decision making specifically for marketing. The other, by Hunt and Vitell
(1986, 1992), will be discussed later. Ferrell, Gresham and Fraedrich (1989)
"synthesized" these two models Into a unified framework; however, a clearer
understanding of the theoretical bases of ethical sensitivity may be obtained
by considering the models separately. Hence, discussion here will focus on
the original Ferrell and Gresham (1985) model, illustrated in Figure 2.2.
Similar to Rest's (1983, 1986) four component model, Ferrell and
Gresham propose that a person confronts a situation with ethical content,
16
>^
o c o
D (0 >
k .
o ' > (D 0)
LU m
cal
sz
?^
thi(
(U
LU 3 • •
t
(A k_ O
• ^ u «2 g, — T 3 </>
idu
a
owie
lu
es
itude
.-> C CO $s • o ^ > < s • • •
V) c
entio
«-> c •
2 i2 E 3 £ c g 0) .2 c:
off « - O CO ^ O d) (u c -» "D w .2 Q) _ , 0) (A
(0 .E a> = w 12 c Q = E >, <3
s ^ ^ s •S "O 75 C
Ui 0) .a •c
£ CO .S C O UJ • • • •
CD C (3)
id r
i
x) •
t
Op
po
rtu
nity
•
prof
essi
onal
cod
es
• co
rpor
ate
polic
y •
rew
ards
/pun
ishm
ent
0 • D O
O
c 0 O) _c "c o o V)
E CO
V)
0 i _
CD "D C (D "0 fc_
0 LL CSI
csi
0
G)
(0 3 ^
O 3 c CO O UJ
17
undergoes some individual process of decision making and then behaves in
accordance with that decision. Unlike Rest's model, Ferrell and Gresham are
more explicit in their incorporation of contingency factors that may influence
the nature of ethical decision making. These include "individual factors,"
"significant others," and "opportunity."
In a series of propositions, the authors take the position that ethical
behavior is learned. For example, they propose that greater awareness of
moral philosophies will lead to their Incorporation into a person's decision to
behave in a particular way. Similarly, they propose that significant others,
including top management and peers, can exert influence on one's decision to
behave ethically or otherwise. These influences take a variety of forms
including professional and organizational codes of ethics, the willingness of
management to reward or punish ethical or unethical behavior, and the extent
to which the individual has contact with ethical versus unethical patterns in the
organization.
Interestingly, Ferrell and Gresham do not propose that the norms
embodied by codes of ethics and the behavior of significant others must be
internalized by the individual. Instead, the authors suggest that to influence
decision making and behavior these norms simply must be learned. Moreover,
the authors specifically Incorporate feedback in their model to show that the
consequences of behavior influence future decision making through the
various contingency factors.
18
Both Rest's and Ferrell and Gresham's models suffer from an element
of incompleteness. Rest's model ends with behavior but does not explicitly
Incorporate an explanation of how the consequences of behavior affect future
ethical decisions. Rest's social-psychological perspective of ethical decision
making, however, provides a parsimonious and plausible depiction of the basic
decision process that leads to ethical or unethical behavior. The
incompleteness In Ferrell and Gresham's model is their depiction of the
decision making process itself as a black box. The major contribution of
Ferrell and Gresham's model is the incorporation of the contingencies that
affect decision making and behavior. Additionally, they include cultural and
societal influences and model how the evaluation of past decisions influences
future ethical decisions.
Trevino's Person-Situation Interactionist Model
Trevino (1986) includes some dimensions of both the models by Rest
(1986) and Ferrell and Gresham (1985) in her "person-situation interactionist
model." From Rest's approach, Trevino includes the cognitive dimension of
ethical decision making, specifically relying on Kohlberg's (1969, 1984) model
of cognitive moral development. Like Ferrell and Gresham (1985), she
explicitly models situational and organizational contingency vanables that
moderate the process of decision making. Trevino (1986, pp. 601-602) states
19
that her intention is to "capture the important interfaces among individual and
situational variables." Her model is illustrated in Figure 2.3.
Like the other models, Trevino's begins with an Individual's perception
of an ethical dilemma or problem. Once recognized, the individual cognitively
processes information about the situation similar to components two and three
in Rest's (1986) four component model. The result of these cognitions is
ethical or unethical behavior. This sequence is moderated by individual and
situational variables.
According to Trevino, how people react cognitively to a particular
ethical dilemma is a function of their level of cognitive moral development.
Kohlberg (1969, 1976) divided moral development into three levels, each
composed of two stages. A person's progress through the levels and stages
reflects his or her more advanced capacity for moral reasoning. An interesting
aspect of Kohlberg's model is its claim of universality. That is, Kohlberg
(1984) asserts that all individuals pass through the stages in an Invariant
sequence, though few actually reach the most advanced stage.
The personal and situational moderators In Trevino's model exert
differential effects on behavior depending on the level of cognitive moral
development the person has attained, individual moderators include ego
strength, field dependence and locus of control. Ego strength , as noted by
Rest (1986), refers to the strength of one's convictions and the ability to
regulate behavior. Field dependence represents a person's tendency to rely
20
(U o (~ 0 c 3 m o f-^^ UJ
k.
o > CD 0 CD
(O
o *A
(D i_ 0 {.i O S ^ _ (0
X3 > Tl C
SI •*-> o> c 0 ^ in o O) LU A
0 o _ ^ 9 0 is •o c c o
1 § • •
0 JO ^ o o
0
(A (A
0 .Q * ;
O ~5 0 2 0 E . — "JiS 0 0
O 0 £ Jn ••3 c c 0 3 E^g • i — a: O CO •
2>
o CO
(A
(A 0 O c
0 <.
^ ^ o 0
5 o o c < «Ji
c o O
o
•5 fli O ^ * - = ••*= CD O
c
0
0 5 .i2 o ~ »-c < 0
m 0 0 >
C 0
O) E «*±! 0 (A* m ^ O ni 13 rt» J2
o ^
0 "a = o
Q. XL
O) c c 2 o
(D 5 0) ^ tt: O Q: o
O 0 sue
•-<
c o o o
•*-
o 0 O) 0 CO
0
Mor
0 >
iti
c O)
4.^
men
Q.
o 0 > 0
o°
0 • D O
(A ' c o t5 0
c o
" 0
CO I
c o (O 0 Q-(A ~o c ' > 0
CO
CNJ 0
i_
C3)
i I
0 1 E :b 0 UJ =
^
21
on others as social referents in the face of ambiguous information about an
ethical situation. Locus of control is a person's perception of how much
control he or she exerts over events in life.
Situational moderators are identified as one's immediate job context,
organizational culture and characteristics of the work. All three are presumed
to moderate the relationship between cognition and behavior. Organizational
culture and work characteristics feed back to cognitive moral development.
Trevino (1986) offers no explanation why certain plausible relationships
are not included in her model. For example, one important question is to what
degree are individual moderators affected by a person's level of cognitive
moral development? Another is, to what degree do they affect cognitive moral
development? It seems reasonable to assume that variables such as field
dependence would be influenced by cognitive moral development. A similar
question might be raised about ego strength. Additionally, like Rest's model,
Trevino has not included consequences or evaluation of behavior. While
Trevino's model has the admirable quality of parsimony, to the extent that a
great deal of explanatory power of her model relies on Kohlberg's concept of
cognitive moral development, it seems reasonable to expect that her model
would include the personal mechanisms for learning of this type.
22
Jones's Issue-Contingent Model of Ethical Decision Making In Organizations
Jones (1991) presents a synthesis of several models of decision
making, including all of those reviewed here, and adds to it the construct,
"moral intensity," to create his "issue-contingent model" of ethical decision
making (Figure 2.4). Jones stresses that moral intensity can be incorporated
into any of the generally accepted models of ethical decision making. His
purpose is not to comment on these models; rather, it is to define moral
intensity and discuss its theoretical implications. Thus, apart from moral
Intensity, the remainder of his model "includes only the major components of
ethical decision making present in earlier models," primarily Rest's four-
component model, which he calls "a worthy starting point" (Jones 1991, p.
379).
Jones's primary thesis is that, in addition to the various moderators and
environmental influences posited in other models, ethical decision making is
influenced by the qualities of the moral issue itself. Moral issues, according to
Jones (1991, p. 380) are present "if a person's actions, when freely performed,
may harm or help others." Jones's view of morality, like Rest's, is teleologlcal;
that is, based on an act's consequences. This teleological perspective
influences the nature of moral intensity, which Jones divides into six
component parts.
23
tors
o 0 u.
nal
o • • I B
iza
0 o k.
O
ses
(A 0 o
<A W O
mic
ct
or
iPr
0 0 k C LL . 2 ^ >» 0
oup
thor
ci
ali
»- 3 O 0 < CO
0 O
C 0 CJ)
_c "c o O 0 (A
i2 (A
"(A 0 C o
CNi 0 i _ D
0} 0 N 3
•= (A C (A O) —
l 2 i» o o^s
24
The first component of moral intensity is "magnitude of consequences,"
which Jones defines as "the sum of the harms (or benefits) done to the victims
(or beneficiaries) of the moral act in question" (1991, p. 374). "Social
consensus," the second component of moral intensity, which is defined as "the
degree of social agreement that a proposed act is good or evil" (p. 375). Third
is "probability of effect," which is "the joint function of the probability that the
act in question will actually take place and the act in question will actually
cause the harm (or benefit) predicted" (p. 376). Fourth, Jones (p. 376) defines
"temporal immediacy" of a moral issue as is "the length of time between the
present and the onset of consequences of the moral act in question." The fifth
component is "proximity," "the feeling of nearness (social, cultural,
psychological, or physical) that the moral agent has for victims (beneficiaries)
of the evil (beneficial) act in question" (p. 376). Sixth, "concentration of effect"
is "an Inverse function of the number of people affected by an act of given
magnitude" (p. 377, emphasis in original). All six component parts are posited
to be positively related to moral Intensity.
Of the six components, only the second, social consensus, might be
interpreted as having a deontological perspective. Social agreement on the
good or evil of an act may rely on a social group's moral code, which
encourages or proscribes the act in question, with no reference to its
consequences. However, to remain cx)nsistent with his teleological definition
25
of moral issue, Jones's notion of social consensus might be recast as the
degree of social agreement that the consequences of an act are good or evil.
Jones contends that moral intensity affects all stages of the ethical
decision making process. Using the four stages In Rest's (1986) model as a
guide, Jones proposes that the more morally intense an issue, (1) the more
frequently it will be recognized, (2) the more sophisticated moral reasoning it
will elicit, (3) the more frequently moral intent will be established, and (4) the
more frequently ethical behavior will be observed.
Jones's model (Figure 2.4) is explicitly limited to organizational ethical
decision making, although the concept of moral intensity could easily be
extended beyond organizational boundaries. Jones contends that
organizational factors, such as group dynamics, authority factors and
socialization processes, influence only establishing moral intent and engaging
in moral behavior — the last two major steps in the ethical decision making
process. However, as will be discussed in the next chapter, certain
organizational factors, such as socialization, may influence earlier steps in the
process, particularly recognition of a moral issue. Socialization into
organizations that value ethical behavior may serve to sensitize employees to
the presence of moral issues, regardless of the consequences. Thus, Jones's
heavy reliance on teleology (like Rest's) may lend an incompleteness to his
model.
26
Hunt and Vitell's General Theorv of Marketing Ethics
The three models discussed thus far offer valuable insights into how
marketers and others reach decisions about ethical issues, how they choose
to behave, and how certain individual, situational and organizational variables
may influence those choices. These models, however, tend to lack
completeness in terms of their explanatory abilities. The most complete model
of ethical decision making is the general theory of marketing ethics proposed
originally by Hunt and Vitell (1986) and later revised (Hunt and Vitell 1992; see
Figure 2.3).
The revision of the original model centers on how the cultural
environments, business environments and personal experiences influence the
ethical decision making processes of marketing professionals. Hunt and Vitell
(1992, p. 779) state, "Many scholars pointed out that most of the theory was
really applicable to ethical decision making in general, not just to marketing or
business." To reflect the broader scope of their theory. Hunt and Vitell (1992)
re-divided the components of the total environment to more specifically identify
those parts that influence ethical decision making in business, and those parts
that also apply to ethical decision making outside work. The other
relationships in the ethical decision making process were essentially
unchanged in the revision.
The Hunt-Vitell model follows, at its most basic level, the sequence of
events put forth by Rest (1983, 1986). Similar to Rest's component one, the
27
c o •S -fe •j? c i? o < o
i -
o •5 (D
.C 0)
CD
8 .c I I I
Ived
8 ^ a> 0 .
E 4) . 0 2
Q.
(0
s a> 111 "O
—>
.Si 8*1 . • i i i
c « U
JU
p • > c HI 15 r 0
fess
i
p Q.
1 Nor
ms
ni
iform
^ •
"2 0)
si 0 c ^mt
orm
a
u. •
I I I
ode
0 •
1
"H « b c 0
nvir
i l l
(0
•J: 0) F
felB8 i ? z 0 (0 —
istr
y fo
rm
srm
a
.J • 0 _c
SiL • •
nfor
III
ode
0 •
(A O
!c UJ
c»
0 0
o
o 0
0
>
c
0 x: in csi 0 t_
CJ)
t c « E c 0 k .
•5 C (0
4 . ^
c 0) p
l i igSS
lona
IN
o
Cod
aniz
at
form
a or
mal
2 > i u-0 • •
nfor
O
deE
0 •
8 -s
ract
eri
ra
sona
l C
h
<ii Q.
elig
ion
^ « •5 E (0
0 E
® » » -
alue
Sys
el
ief
Sys
tr
engt
h 0
or
al
5
ogni
tive
Q: > CD CO u • • • • •
•5 «
leio
ptr
« Q
sitiv
ity
c
thic
al S
e
LU
•
28
Hunt-Vitell model proposes that an ethical problem Is first perceived and
various alternative responses and their consequences are then considered for
their effects on others' welfare. Like component two in Rest's model, the
individual then evaluates or judges the morality of the various alternatives. An
ethical judgment results from the evaluations. Intentions are then formed, as
in Rest's component three, and like component four, behavior follows.
Unlike Rest's model, the Hunt-Vitell model explicitly includes both
deontological and teleological approaches to decision making. Deontology
appears to be implicit in Rest's model to the extent that societal norms and
values influence the desirability of consequences. Morality itself, according to
Rest, relies on consequences. Explicit inclusion of normative ethical theories
in the Hunt-Vitell model explicates the process by which evaluations and
responses to ethical situations are made. Hunt and Vitell (1986, p. 8) draw on
Frankena (1963, p. 14) to describe the two theories.
Deontologists believe that "certain features of the act itself other than the value it brings into existence" make an action or rule right. Teleologists, on the other hand, "believe that there is one and only one basic or ultimate right-making characteristics, namely, the comparative value (nonmoral) of what is, what probably will be or Is intended to brought into being."
Thus, deontologists maintain that an act is morally right or wrong based
on some moral code (e.g., the "Golden Rule"), without regard to
consequences. For example. If one makes a promise and later discovers that
29
keeping that promise may harm others, the deontologist might advise that the
morally right behavior would be to honor the promise anyway. The teleologist,
however, might first ask whether the harm done by breaking the promise would
be greater than the harm done by keeping it. If breaking the promise did less
harm than keeping it, the teleologist might then suggest that breaking the
promise would be the morally correct course of action.
The inclusion of deontological norms in the Hunt-Vitell model brings
attention to the rules and codes that people often use to help govern their
lives. Teleological evaluations explain how people consider consequences to
others, a key part of Rest's notions of morality.
The Hunt-Vitell model also shows how behavior leads to consequences
and consequences influence future ethical decisions. Moreover, the model
specifies the existence of "action control" (Hunt and Vitell 1992; called
"situational constraints" in the original 1986 model), which reflects that often
circumstances prevent an individual from behaving as he or she had intended.
The main contribution of the models by Trevino (1986) and Ferrell and
Gresham (1985) is the identification of Individual, situational and
organizational moderators that affect the ethical decision making process.
Neither model, however, specifies the mechanisms by which these moderating
effects take place. The Hunt-Vitell model shows how the characteristics of the
external environment, as well as the internal beliefs of the individual, might
enter into the decision making process.
30
Direct empirical testing of the Hunt-Vitell model has been generally
supportive. Three studies have investigated what Mayo and Marks (1990) and
Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga (1993) call the "core relationships" of the Hunt-
Vitell model (Mayo and Marks 1990; Vitell and Hunt 1990; Hunt and Vasquez-
Parraga 1993). The partial test of the model conducted by Vitell and Hunt
(1990) showed that managers do distinguish between, and depend, on
teleological and deontological factors in rendering ethical judgments. Taken
together, however, the specific hypotheses tested by Vitell and Hunt (1990)
offer only limited support for the theory, possibly due to the scenario used to
test the model. The authors speculate that the scenario they used may not
have been perceived as a true ethical dilemma. Consequently, they urge
future researchers to be certain that when scenarios are used to test the
model, respondents perceive them as dilemmas.
Mayo and Marks (1990, p. 169) call the results of their test of the core
relationships of the Hunt-Vitell model "encouraging." Like Vitell and Hunt
(1990), Mayo and Marks (1990) also note measurement difficulties, particularly
in the operationalizatlon of variables. Still, support is found for the concurrent
use of deontological and teleological approaches to rendering ethical
judgments.
Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga (1993) tested a similar set of relationships
using an experimental design. The authors also found support for the use of
both deontological and teleological factors, and noted that the teleological
31
factors tended to mitigate the degree of severity perceived by managers in
assessing the ethicality of deontologically unethical acts. That Is,
deontologically unethical acts are seen as "less unethical when the
consequences are positive" (p. 87).
These studies have directly tested the portion of the Hunt-Vitell model
that perhaps most distinguishes it from other models of ethical decision
making. The collective results point to the generalization that marketers tend
to use both deontological and teleological approaches to rendering ethical
judgments on intentions. However, operationallzation of constructs and
measurement in general remain issues that hinder more complete testing of
the model.
These direct empirical tests of the Hunt-Vitell model are but a small part
of the considerable amount of research done in marketing ethics. Their
relationship to the Hunt-Vitell model warranted reviewing them in this section.
In the following section, other empirical research findings are reviewed.
Overview of Empirical Research in Marketing Ethics
The previously discussed theories notwithstanding. Hunt and Vitell
(1986) note that much of the considerable amount of theoretical research in
marketing has been normative rather than positive in nature. "That is, almost
all previous theoretical works have focused on developing guidelines or rules
to assist marketers in their efforts to behave in an ethical fashion" (p. 6). An
32
understandable outcome of this state of affairs has been the descriptive rather
than predictive nature of empirical research in marketing ethics. Formal
testing of hypotheses grounded in a priori theory is somewhat uncommon.
However, the development of positive theoretical models in marketing ethics,
particularly by Hunt and Vitell (1986) and Ferrell and Gresham (1985), should
change the direction of empirical research. While empirical research in
marketing ethics has generally provided rich insights into the ethical
perceptions and behaviors of various groups of marketing professionals, the
theoretical models now available should continue to help systematize and
Integrate future empirical research.
The following review of empirical research in marketing ethics is
organized to reflect what regularities exist across studies in the variables for
which results were reported. The literature is divided into four broad
categories: (1) ethics and organizational factors; (2) ethics and personal
factors; (3) ethics and job performance/success; and (4) ethical beliefs of
marketing professionals. This organization attempts to capture the cross-
category results reported in several studies, and hopefully provides an
overview that reflects the state of knowledge gained from marketing ethics
research. This categorization of the literature also highlights the amount of
empirical research directed at exploring various dimensions of the personal,
situational, organizational and cultural moderators, which are posited in
several of the theories of ethical decision making.
33
Ethics and Organizational Factors
The complexity of organizations produces a wealth of variables that
might be used to explain variation in the ethical behaviors, perceptions, and
judgments of marketing professionals. In general, the research seems to
indicate that the actions of top management have the strongest influence on
marketing ethics.
Ferrell and Skinner (1988) selected several organizational factors that
might predict ethical behaviors among marketing professionals in three types
of organizations; data subcontractors, marketing research firms and corporate
research departments. The presence of an ethical code and the degree of
formalization were found to be the two best predictors of ethical behavior in all
three types of firms. The perceived degree of enforcement of the code was a
significant predictor for all but corporate research departments.
These results partially support Hunt et al. (1984) who found that "top
management In reprimanding unethical behavior can significantly reduce the
ethical problems of marketing researchers" (p. 319). Hunt et al., however, did
not find support for the contention that, by itself, an industry or corporate code
of ethics made any difference in the ethical problems faced by marketing
researchers. Similar results were reported for a study of marketing managers
by Chonko and Hunt (1985).
Akaah and Riordan (1989) also found that "top management actions"
were generally a significant predictor of the degree of approval or disapproval
34
to decisions presented in eleven brief ethical scenarios ohginally used by
Crawford (1970). Akaah and Riordan found that, alone, the presence or
absence of a code of ethics did not affect how respondents evaluated the
scenarios. Enforcement by management did, however, have an impact on
the degree of approval expressed by respondents for actions described in
many of the scenarios.
Consistent with the finding on formalization of organizational structure
reported by Ferrell and Skinner (1988), Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga (1993)
also report that formalization of organizational structure affects ethical
judgments. In a study of salesforce supervision. Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga
found that In more formalized organizations, sales managers tended to rely
more on teleological (e.g., outcome-based) considerations in making ethical
judgments. Ferrell and Skinner (1988) explain the significance of formalization
of structure on ethical behavior in terms of the guidance offered to employees
by codes of ethics and enforcement procedures.
In another study supporting the Influence of top management on
employee behavior. Hunt et al. (1989) found that corporate ethical values tend
to relate positively with high organizational commitment. These authors
strongly recommend that management "should institutionalize the ethical
principles underlying their policies, practices and goals" (p. 88, italics in
original). To the extent that organizational commitment is linked with valued
outcomes for the organization (e.g., low turnover, high satisfaction, low
35
absenteeism), then strong corporate ethical values promoted by management
can contribute to realizing those desired outcomes. To this end, Robin and
Reidenbach (1987) suggest that issues of social responsibility and ethical
behavior should be incorporated into a firm's strategic planning process.
Differential responses to ethical issues also seem to be influenced by
the type of organization or the role of the respondent in the organization.
Ferrell and Skinner (1988) report differences in significant predictors of ethical
behaviors between data subcontractors, marketing research firms, and
corporate research departments. Akaah and Riordan (1989) found that the
role of the respondent (executive versus researcher) was a significant
predictor of the degree of approval to actions described in several of the
scenarios in their study. Hunt et al. (1989) report differences in the corporate
ethical values of marketing managers, marketing researchers, and advertising
managers. While these differences may be explained in terms of the different
problems and perspectives of different groups and different organization types,
no noteworthy patterns are discernible in these results.
The studies mentioned so far have also reported many organizational
factors that either do not predict well the perceptions and behaviors of
marketing professionals, or produce inconclusive results. Type of industry
(Akaah and Riordan 1989), centralization, and organization controls (Ferrell
and Skinner 1988) were among the organizational factors found to be poor
predictors.
36
The most consistent result reported in these studies is that the single
organizational factor that exerts the most influence on marketing ethics is top
management. First, top management can impact the extent of ethical
problems encountered by employees as well as their ethical behavior through
formulating, adopting, and. In particular, enforcing corporate codes of ethics.
Second, top management can foster a climate and culture that promotes high
ethical standards. This can involve many specific actions including training
and leadership by example (Hunt et al. 1989).
Ethics and Personal Characteristics
Personal characteristics are often reported in studies of marketing
ethics by way of describing the sample used (cf., Akaah and Riordan 1989,
1990; Chonko and Hunt 1985; Hunt and Chonko 1984; Hunt et al. 1984,
1989). In only a few of these studies, however, were personal characteristics
tested against focal ethical variables. Thus, generalizations about the
significance of many personal characteristics with respect to their effects on
ethical perceptions or behavior should be made carefully. One personal
variable for which differences are often tested (and often found) is gender.
Findings for several other personal characteristics have been reported in a few
studies on marketing ethics including age, education and marital status.
Hunt and Chonko (1984) studied Machiavellianism among marketing
professionals and found significant relationships between Machiavellianism
37
and some personal traits. It should be emphasized that high Machiavellianism
does not imply unethical behavior per se. Singhapakdi (1993, p. 407) notes
that "to equate Machiavellianism with 'dishonesty' or 'deception' would be at
best inaccurate." Still, people high in Machiavellianism tend to manipulate and
exploit others to achieve their personal or organizational goals (Hunt and
Chonko 1984). Thus, there is a sometimes warranted belief that high
Machiavellianism increases the likelihood of unethical behavior (Hegarty and
Simms 1978, 1979; Singhapakdi 1993).
Hunt and Chonko (1984) found that marketers, despite popular
(mis)conceptions, were about average in Machiavellianism compared to other
groups. Personal characteristics such as age, marital status and gender,
however, explained some of the variance in Machiavellianism. Among
marketers, those "who are high In Machiavellianism have a tendency to be
younger, single and female" (Hunt and Chonko 1984, p. 37). The results for
age (negatively related to Machiavellianism) and marital status (single people
are more Machiavellian) are consistent with past research reviewed by Hunt
and Chonko. Conversely, other research has shown women to be less
Machiavellian than men, unlike the results reported by Hunt and Chonko
(VIeeming 1979). Education levels of marketers were not found to be related
to Machiavellianism; however, one explanation for this finding is that the
overwhelming majority of respondents had college degrees. A statistical
38
relationship might exist among a broader sample that includes Individuals who
are not college graduates.
Another personal variable frequently used in ethics research Is
cognitive moral development (Kohlberg 1969). As mentioned, cognitive moral
development (CMD) is a way of conceptualizing an individual's capacity for
moral reasoning. In marketing, Goolsby and Hunt (1992) investigate CMD by
examining many of the same questions posed about Machiavellianism posed
by Hunt and Chonko (1984). Goolsby and Hunt (1992) found that
"professional marketing practitioners compare favorably [In their levels of
CMD] with other groups of similar age and education" (p. 62). Of the personal
characteristics studied, education and age are significant predictors of CMD In
women but not in men. Indicating also a gender difference. The authors
conclude that "marketers who are high In CMD tend to be female and highly
educated" (p. 64).
At first glance, these results on CMD seem somewhat inconsistent with
the results reported for Machiavellianism by Hunt and Chonko (1984).
However, it is not logically inconsistent to conclude that women marketers can
be both more Machiavellian and higher in CMD than their male counterparts.
Moreover, to the extent that moral reasoning is learned and Machiavellianism
is a personality trait less affected by external factors, then the results between
the two studies are not at all contradictory.
39
Gender differences have also been noted for other variables studied in
marketing ethics research. These include perceptions of ethical problems
(Chonko and Hunt 1985) and ethical behavior (Ferrell and Skinner 1988). The
extent or nature of the gender differences is not explored here, other then to
say that some studies report a statistically significant difference between men
and women with respect to ethical variables. Patterns of results across
studies, however, have been Inconclusive enough to withhold judgment about
whether women are more or less ethical than men.
Ethics and Personal Success
Leo Durocher, the great baseball manager, once remarked that "nice
guys finish last." Critics of marketing (and business in general) would
probably agree with Mr. Durocher's assessment. A popular conception among
many is that success in marketing probably requires unethical behavior and
that highly ethical and socially responsible behavior may actually impede
one's career.
Several studies in marketing have Investigated the Durocher hypothesis
in various contexts. Wood, Chonko and Hunt (1986) studied the relationship
between social responsibility and personal success in marketing. Using a two-
item scale for social responsibility, the authors found that, among marketers,
social responsibility was not a significant predictor of either income or job title,
their criterion variables for personal success.
40
Given the conceptual overlap between business ethics and social
responsibility, great potential exists for incorrectly equating these two
concepts. Confounding the problem is a lack of consensus on exactly what
corporate social responsibility is. Robin and Reidenbach (1987, p. 45) define
social responsibility as "the set of generally accepted relationships, obligations
and duties" between business and society. Wood et al. (1986) note that
different groups have very differing views about the nature of these
relationships and duties. Herein lies the difference between these two
concepts. Social responsibility attempts to define the nature of business-
society relationships and not whether or why those relationships are
themselves considered moral.
Recognizing the potential inadequacies and the potential for criticism of
the two item measure for social responsibility. Hunt, Keicker and Chonko
(1990) extended the work of Wood et al. (1986) by refining the measure of
social responsibility and testing its relationship with personal success among
advertising managers. Items were added to the scale to encompass both
behavioral and attitudinal dimensions of social responsibility. Testing first only
the two items from the scale in Wood et al. (1986), then the entire refined
social responsibility measure. Hunt et al. (1990) were unable to link social
responsibility and personal success (again measured by Income and job title)
among advertising managers.
41
In their study on Machiavellianism, Hunt and Chonko (1984)
investigated whether marketers high In the trait tended to be more successful.
If some popular perceptions of marketers as deceptive and manipulative are
accurate, then one might suspect that marketers high in Machiavellianism
would be more successful. No relationship, however, could be found between
Machiavellianism and either income or job title. Using the same data. Sparks
(1994), however, found that a situational variable, latitude for improvisation,
moderated the relationship between personal success and Machiavellianism.
When given the latitude to behave improvisationally. Machiavellian marketers
were no more successful than others. In the absence of such latitude.
Machiavellian marketers were actually less successful. Goolsby and Hunt
(1992) explored the same Issue of personal success with respect to CMD.
The authors posited a positive relationship; however, no statistically significant
association between CMD and either income or job title could be established.
Perceptions of success and unethical behavior by people employed In
marketing management or marketing research were reported by Hunt et al.
(1984) and Chonko and Hunt (1985). In both these studies, respondents did
not believe that, in general, managers needed to behave unethically to
become successful in their firms. A greater proportion of respondents, but still
less than half, did link specific unethical behaviors to successful managers In
their firms.
42
In sum, these results on ethics, social responsibility and personal
success should be evaluated from two perspectives; the degree to which
ethical or socially responsible behavior enhance personal success, versus the
degree to which they are perceived to hinder personal success. In general,
the collective evidence suggests that marketers are not typically rewarded for
ethical behavior. However, modest evidence Indirectly suggests that unethical
behavior is punished. Thus, the norm among marketing professionals appears
to be that ethical behavior is simply expected as a general rule, while unethical
behavior is discouraged.
A less direct relationship between success and ethics in marketing can
be drawn on the basis of findings reported by Hunt et al. (1989). As
mentioned, these authors found corporate ethical values to be positively
associated with organizational commitment, which in turn has been associated
with desired organizational outcomes like highly satisfied employees, lower
employee turnover, and lower absenteeism. To the extent that committed
employees are personally more satisfied (a "softer" measure of personal
success) and that companies with more committed workforces enjoy benefits
that contribute to organizational success (e.g., lower training costs, higher
productivity), then one can reasonably argue that high ethics leads to success.
-v
43
Perceptions of Marketing Professionals
A significant stream of research in marketing ethics has focused on
describing the perceptions of marketing professionals about various
dimensions of ethics. Marketing managers, researchers, salespeople and
others have been asked for their impressions of their own ethical standards
and behavior, the standards and behavior of others within and outside their
own organizations, the extent of ethical problems in their company and in their
industry, and the relative importance of various types of ethical issues.
Research from each of these areas will be addressed.
A method commonly employed in this stream of research requests
respondents to read scenarios or vignettes containing a variety of ethical
problems. One limitation of this method is that the researcher, not the
respondent, picks the ethical problem, a potential source of bias. A few
studies, however, have asked respondents to list the ethical problems most
important to them (Chonko and Hunt 1985; Crawford 1970; Hunt et al. 1984).
Both types of studies have produced reasonably consistent results with
respect to the perceptions of professional marketers.
Extent of Ethical Problems
The studies of marketing researchers by Hunt et al. (1984) and
marketing managers by Chonko and Hunt (1985) report similar findings
regarding perceptions of the extent of ethical problems. These studies
44
categorized Items according to respondents' perceptions of opportunities for
unethical behavior and the frequency of unethical behavior. Responses were
fairly uniform across different groups In each study. Marketing researchers in
the Hunt et al. (1984) study were grouped according to whether they worked
for a corporate research department or a marketing research agency. About
half in both groups believed that ample opportunities existed for unethical
behavior by managers. Both groups indicated that greater opportunity existed
for unethical behavior at other firms in their industry than their own firm.
Chonko and Hunt (1985) found similar results for marketing managers.
Beliefs about the frequency of unethical behavior by respondents in
both studies also followed similar patterns. A much lower percentage (15% of
agency researchers, 18% of In-house researchers, and 12% of marketing
managers) believed that managers in their companies frequently engaged in
unethical behavior. Predictably, a much higher percentage (44%, 27% and
26%, respectively) believed that managers in their Industry frequently engaged
in unethical behavior.
Akaah and Riordan (1990) studied the perceptions of the incidence of
unethical research practices among marketing executives and researchers.
Using scenarios adopted from Crawford (1970), the authors found that the
incidence of unethical behavior in marketing research was believed to be
highest when the ethical situation involved the treatment of respondents as
opposed to unethical treatment of clients or the general public. Differences in
45
the perceived frequency of unethical behavior were reported between
executives and researchers. Executives tended to perceive a higher incidence
of unethical research practices.
Taken together, the research seems to indicate that unethical behavior
in marketing and marketing research, while not uncommon, Is still perceived to
be the exception. Indeed, the research reviewed points to a belief by most
professional marketers that they and their colleagues abide by a reasonably
high set of ethical standards.
Attribution of Unethical Behavior
The preceding discussion points to another fairly consistent finding in
marketing ethics research. In general, marketers tend to believe that their own
ethical behavior is of a higher standard than that of others. The findings by
Hunt et al. (1984) and Chonko and Hunt (1985) that marketers perceive more
unethical behavior outside their company than within is typical of this trend.
Ferrell and Weaver (1978) investigated the attribution of unethical
behavior in marketing along several dimensions. They hypothesized that no
differences would exist in perceived ethical beliefs and conduct with respect
to: (1) what the respondents believe and what they think their peers believe;
(2) what the respondents do and what they think their peers do; (3) what the
respondents believe and what they think top management believes; and (4)
what respondents believe and their understanding of corporate ethical policy.
46
Three of the four hypotheses were rejected and one was labeled
"inconclusive." In no case was the "no difference" hypothesis clearly
supported. These results led Ferrell and Weaver (1978, p. 72) to conclude
that "respondents believe that they make decisions in an organizational
environment where peers and top management have lower ethical standards
than their own."
Aspects of Ferrell and Weaver's study were replicated and extended by
Fritzsche and Becker (1983). Using vignettes describing different ethical
dilemmas, respondents were asked how likely they would be to respond in
some particular way. Respondents were also asked the likelihood of a similar
response by their peers and top management. The results consistently
supported those reported by Ferrell and Weaver (1978). Respondents believe
they behave more ethically than their peers or top management.
Nature of the Ethical Situation
That marketing professionals and others in business would be able to
list in order the ethical problems most important to them (Chonko and Hunt
1985; Hunt et al. 1984) provides evidence that people perceive some ethical
situations as worse than others. Jones (1991) contends that what has been
missing from theoretical efforts to describe ethical decision making has been
explicit consideration of the nature of the situation. Indeed, there is some
47
empirical evidence supporting his contention that different ethical issues elicit
different responses.
Crawford (1970) asked a sample of marketing executives about several
ethical scenarios involving the activities of marketing researchers. While the
classification of the ethical issues into categories was somewhat arbitrary and
unsystematic, Crawford's results clearly demonstrate wide differences in
opinion across a variety of ethical situations. The most discernible pattern in
respondents' rate of approval or disapproval to the scenario seemed to be
whether outright deception was involved. When it was, respondents typically
voiced very high disapproval. While Crawford's study offers valuable
information, methodologically it lacks the rigor to enable anything but tentative
conclusions, a point the author himself makes (p. 52).
In addition to studying the tendency to attribute poorer ethical behavior
to others, Ferrell and Weaver (1978) also examined variation In perceived
ethicality of the seventeen ethically questionable actions rated by
respondents. In no specific order, respondents rated as most unethical
passing the blame for errors to innocent co-workers, falsifying
time/quality/quantity reports, claiming credit for another's work, padding an
expense account by more than ten percent, divulging confidential information
and pilfering company materials and supplies.
The authors speculate that these acts were perceived as more
unethical than others because "they Involve overt deceptive acts, which clearly
48
might hurt another person or damage the organization" (Ferrell and Weaver
1978, p. 72). Moreover, they "require a direct action that would usually result
In a conscious or planned activity to deceive, steal or cheat" (p. 72). Thus,
similar to Crawford's (1970) results, respondents in the Ferrell and Weaver
(1978) study took exception to the bvert deception required In certain
behaviors. In addition, the conscious and premeditated nature of some acts
may contribute to the seriousness with which they are regarded by marketers.
Fritzsche and Becker (1983) also used scenarios to study perceived
differences In the seriousness of ethical issues. The scenarios were divided
into several categories. The two or three scenarios within each category were
ranked by the authors according to "the seriousness or the amount of potential
risk associated with their consequences" (p. 295). The authors felt the need to
defend their method, implying that within each category, the differences in
seriousness were fairly obvious, so the ranking should not be controversial.
Respondents did find differences in the seriousness of the activities
described in the scenarios. Their responses were consistent with the rankings
done by the authors. Fritzsche and Becker (1983) perhaps overlooked a
potentially fruitful avenue of research by viewing their rank ordering as a
weakness to be defended rather than hypotheses to be tested. By evaluating
the scenarios according to more specific and theoretically richer dimensions of
seriousness, predictions about why respondents rate them in a particular way
49
could have contributed more to our understanding of how marketers view the
seriousness of ethical problems.
One apparent criterion used by marketers is the outcome of the ethical
problem. Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga (1993) found that sales managers
prescribed less severe sanctions against characters in scenarios when the
outcome of ethically questionable action was favorable. It appears that the
outcome of ethical transgressions mediate the seriousness with which they are
regarded.
Conclusion
While the approaches, methods and results reported in the marketing
ethics literature are diverse, several consistent themes emerge. Theoretical
models show the concurrence among scholars that ethical decision making
begins with the recognition of a problem or dilemma. Thus, It follows logically
that before moral reasoning may be applied to considered behaviors, the
moral content of the situation must be perceived. To be ethically sensitive,
however, does not imply that one will be ethical.
A second theme in the literature is that organizations can, particularly
through the actions of top management, have an effect on the ethical
evaluations and behaviors of individuals. Since this effect is essentially a
learning process, namely socialization, it seems reasonable to assert that such
50
learning would also impact an individual's ability to recognize ethical issues.
That is, people learn to be ethically sensitive.
A third, but less consistent, theme emerging from the marketing ethics
literature is that certain personal characteristics vary systematically with
certain ethical qualities. Among these characteristics are age, education and
gender. With respect to gender, no discernible pattern could be identified to
explain the variations. In light of these findings. It is also reasonable to
postulate that certain individual qualities will vary with ethical sensitivity.
CHAPTER III
HYPOTHESES
The central hypothesis guiding this research is that, in a professional
context, the sensitivity to ethical issues exhibited by marketing researchers is
a function of certain personal and organizational characteristics. Hunt and
Vitell (1986, 1992) contend that ethical sensitivity is one of many personal
characteristics that influence the ability to perceive an ethical problem. A
person's value system, belief system, level of cognitive moral development
and other characteristics all contribute to this ability. Some of the hypotheses
that follow reflect the reasoning that certain specific personal characteristics,
related to those in the Hunt-Vitell Model, are significant predictors of ethical
sensitivity.
Likewise, Hunt and Vitell (1992) posit that characteristics of the
organizational and professional environment also influence an individual's
ability to recognize an ethical problem. These authors Identify these
characteristics as informal norms, formal codes and code enforcement.
Several of the hypotheses to follow predict that the degree to which a
marketing researcher learns these norms and codes will also predict his or her
ethical sensitivity.
In this chapter, the focal variable, ethical sensitivity, is defined and
hypotheses expressing its probable relationship to personal and
51
52
organizational variables are developed. Based on the theoretical and
empirical research in marketing ethics reviewed In the previous chapter and
additional literature introduced in this chapter, ethical sensitivity is predicted to
be a positive function of (1) organizational socialization, (2) professional
socialization, (3) rank within the firm, (4) empathy, (5) Machiavellianism , (6)
level of education, and (7) formal training in ethics.
Ethical Sensitivity
Definition of Ethical Sensitivity
All of the theoretical models reviewed in Chapter II propose that the
ethical decision making process begins with the recognition that an ethical
issue or problem exists. An individual's ethical sensitivity determines whether
that recognition occurs, and, thus, whether the individual engages In ethical
decision making at all. Ethical sensitivity is defined as the ability to recognize
decision making situations that have ethical content.
Decision making situations with ethical content are those in which one
or more of the alternative courses of action (including "no action") are
differentially consistent or inconsistent with some formal or informal moral
codes. Hunt and Vitell (1992, p. 781) note that "when placed in a decision
making situation having an ethical component, some people never recognize
that there Is an ethical Issue Involved at all." Variations in individuals' ethical
53
sensitivity should be attributable to his or her knowledge of and ability to
apply the moral code or codes relevant to a given decision making situation.
Knowledge and application of moral codes require that these codes are
learned. Learning the various moral codes applicable In different situations is
the mechanism by which, as mentioned In Chapter I, ethical sensitivity itself is
learned. Moreover, because different moral codes apply in different situations,
ethical sensitivity is context specific. Thus, an individual who is highly ethically
sensitive in one situation may be quite ethically insensitive in another.
The role ethical sensitivity plays in ethical decision making may be best
explained in terms of the Hunt-Vitell model (Hunt and Vitell 1992). As noted in
Chapter II (see Figure 2.4), the model postulates that formal and informal
moral codes originate in the cultural, professional, industry, and organizational
environments. These codes, along with several personal characteristics,
influence the perception of an ethical problem.
Given ethical sensitivity determines whether an individual recognizes
an ethical problem, and that ethical sensitivity depends on the degree to which
one is conversant In relevant moral codes, ethical sensitivity's role In ethical
decision making may be understated in the Hunt-Vitell model. While ethical
sensitivity is indeed a personal characteristic, its function makes it qualitatively
different from other personal characteristics. As shown In Figure 3.1, a
suggested refinement to the Hunt-Vitell model, ethical sensitivity is the key
54
c o .2 is V o < O
L .
o > ra .c 9> CD
8
logi
o C
8 Q
c
atlo
3 ra > UJ
(A
— c
thic
a gm
e
m "o ->
CO _« ^r UJ
>« ** >
it!
tf) c 0) (0
t
c a> — E E
iron
tem
ys
te
^ ^ § ,^ UJ g (A g (0 OD (0 ^
^ Q: * Q.
o • • •
I o
i ^ S ® 5 «» E c E <A «
o n — UJ
II I 0 .£ u. O 01 • • •
t
c 0) b c o
Env
ir
dust
ry
_c
M E M
aIN
o
ICo
d
Info
rm
Form
a
• •
c 9) F 8
Enf
or
Cod
e
•
c o E c .2 c •> «
.2 ± 0 c ra ^ « ^ Kl P ^ _ •^ C P « ra «: o o g> = ul O O • • •
SOI
(0
•s
ra
arso
nal
Ch
Q.
^ 0)
o C ra O To o fO
E E 5 § S£^-S
elig
ion
al
ue S
ys
elie
f S
ys
tren
gth
c
ogni
tive
oc> tn u) o • • • • •
ent
E
Dev
elop
8 LU
CD
O
o 0
3 I
3
0)
c 0 E 0 C
«4—
0 Q:
V) 0 O) O)
CO
CO 0
55
personal characteristic that precedes recognition of an ethical problem. Thus,
in a given situation, whether one engages in ethical decision making at all is a
function of his or her ethical sensitivity.
The empirical evidence reviewed in Chapter II points to the tendency of
marketing managers to incorporate both deontological and teleological factors
when rendering ethical judgments (Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga 1993; Vitell and
Hunt 1990; Mayo and Marks 1990). Likewise, ethical sensitivity includes
dimensions from both deontology and teleology.
The view that ethical sensitivity is based almost exclusively on
teleological factors Is championed by Rest (1983, 1986). According to Rest,
recognizing that a given decision making situation has moral content requires
only that the Individual is aware that the consequences of his or her actions
may affect the welfare of others. That is, consequences to others are what
lend a moral dimension to a decision making situation, rather than the inherent
"rightness" or "wrongness" of the act. Rest (1986, p. 5) does add that an
action may be immoral when it violates "some moral norm or principle," but
only because doing so "is one of the ways that a person's action can affect
others" and that "society in general has a stake or interest in the action
because a general law, norm or moral principle Is involved." Rest only
concedes that consequences need not be Immediate or even obvious. To the
extent that moral codes direct the individual to consider the outcomes of his or
56
her actions (e.g., Hippocrates' charge that physicians "do no harm"), the codes
are teleological in nature. Knowledge of these codes and the ability to apply
them lends ethical sensitivity its teleological dimension.
Although not Incorrect, Rest's views are incomplete. Ethical sensitivity
is also a function of deontological factors, particularly if the consequences of
an action are not yet known or cannot be inferred. Moreover, many important
moral codes define actions as right or wrong by virtue of the action and with no
regard to outcome (e.g., the Biblical charge, "Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you."). Indeed, even the law tends to look with greater
disfavor to unethical acts committed with intent than by negligence. These are
clearly deontological considerations. The degree of deontological wrongness
an ethical Issue is deemed to have may influence how noticeable it is when it
is presented as one of several issues, ethical and non-ethical In nature.
Empirical Research on Ethical Sensitivity
Shaub (1989, p. 60) notes the general dearth of empirical research on
ethical sensitivity, "largely because ethical judgments are much easier to study
and validated instruments are available for analyzing ethical judgments." Few
empirical studies, and none In marketing, have focused on ethical sensitivity.
However, three studies from outside marketing, all of which utilize somewhat
similar procedures for measuring ethical sensitivity (discussed In Chapter IV),
have informed the present research.
57
One is a study of dental students by Bebeau et al. (1985). This study
produced two results of interest here. First, these authors found senior dental
students to be more ethically sensitive than their freshman counterparts.
Second, the study established discriminant validity between ethical sensitivity,
representing the first component of Rest's four component model, and moral
judgments, the second component of Rest's model, as measured by the
Defining Issues Test (D.I.T.) (Rest 1983).
Volker (1984) studied the ethical sensitivity of professional counselors.
Although Volker was unable to establish the existence of systematic
differences in ethical sensitivity between experienced and novice counselors,
he too found sufficient discriminant validity between ethical sensitivity and
moral judgments to contend that they are separate concepts (Rest 1986).
Shaub (1989) and Shaub, Finn and Munter (1993) studied the ethical
sensitivity of public accountants. Shaub et al. (1993) hypothesized that ethical
sensitivity among C.P.A.'s was caused by the respondent's "ethical
orientations" of idealism and relativism, and by professional and organizational
commitment. The distinction between Idealism and relativism was proposed
by Forsyth (1980). Forsyth defines relativism as "the extent to which the
individual rejects universal moral rules. .." (1980, p. 175). Idealism is the
degree to which "some individuals idealistically assume that desirable
consequences can, with the 'right* action, always be obtained" (p. 176). Only
the two ethical orientations had significant effects on ethical sensitivity in the
58
structural equation model used to test the hypotheses. Shaub (1989) also
tested various personal characteristics such as education, experience, age,
gender and marital status against ethical sensitivity but was only able to find
significant results for age. Consistent with past studies, Shaub did not find a
significant relationship between ethical sensitivity and cognitive moral
development (e.g., moral reasoning).
Taken together, these studies offer support for the validity of ethical
sensitivity as a theoretical construct. Moreover, there Is some support for the
contention that ethical sensitivity is learned. The positive relationship between
age and ethical sensitivity found by Shaub (1989) and the differences in
ethical sensitivity noted between freshman and senior dental students by
Bebeau et al. (1985) are specific examples. The inability of Volker (1984) to
find support for a similar hypothesis, however, suggests that further
investigation of the question is warranted. It is unlikely that age per se
Increases ethical sensitivity. Instead, processes that occur over time, such as
socialization, are more apt to produce increased sensitivity to ethical issues.
This reasoning is reflected in several of the hypotheses that are developed in
the remainder of this chapter.
As mentioned, ethical sensitivity is context specific. The context of this
study is the marketing research profession. Thus, the following hypotheses
refer to the professional ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers.
59
Organizational Socialization
The role or roles a person assumes in a group setting is largely
determined by the process of socialization. According to Van Maanen (1976,
p. 67), organizational socialization "refers to the process by which a person
learns the values, norms and required behaviors which permit him to
participate as a member of the organization." Van Maanen's definition fits
within the more general definition of socialization that Includes learning
"through Interaction with others who hold normative beliefs about what... [a
member's] role should be and reward or punish him for correct or incorrect
action" (Brim 1966, p. 9).
Research on the outcomes of organizational socialization has tended to
focus on affective dimensions, which usually imply some degree of
Internalization or adoption of organizational values. These affective outcomes
Include commitment (Allen and Meyer 1990; Buchanan 1974), satisfaction
(Feldman 1976), and identification (Lee 1971). For these outcomes to occur,
the individual must learn and willingly adopt the basic values of the
organization as his or her own.
This research focuses on the degree to which an individual learns the
values and norms of an organization. Learning these values does not imply
that a person actually adopts or internalizes them. Instead, a person is simply
expected to behave in accordance with the organization's values and norms.
The implication Is that organizational values and individual values need not be
60
congruent, though large discrepancies between them often lead to negative
outcomes (Balazs 1990; Ponemon 1992).
In cases where differences between organizational and individual
values do exist. Van Maanen (1976, p. 75) notes that people make "situational
adjustments." Van Maanen implies that it is possible for an individual's
behavior to be Inconsistent with his or her values, but probably within limits.
There is likely a threshold at which the discrepancy between values and
required behaviors leads to undesirable or dysfunctional consequences for the
Individual or organization, such as lack of commitment, dissatisfaction and
possibly removal or resignation from the organization. For example, Ponemon
(1992) describes a process in accounting firms by which C.P.A.'s with
substantially different levels of ethical reasoning than upper management are
more likely to leave the firm.
In the context of this research, it is important to emphasize that ethical
sensitivity does not imply ethicality. Indeed, ethical sensitivity does not imply
rendering an ethical judgment. Ethical sensitivity is the degree to which a
person is capable of recognizing a potential conflict with formal or informal
sets of norms, which is determined by how well those norms are learned.
Clearly, one factor that determines how well certain organizational norms and
values are learned is the importance placed upon them by top management.
The Importance of top management in setting and enforcing ethical standards
has been established In several studies (cf.. Hunt et al. 1989).
^v
61
To the extent that top management rewards ethical behavior and does
not tolerate unethical behavior, successful learning of organizational values
should lead to greater ethical sensitivity among marketing researchers.
H1: Successful organizational socialization is positively related to the professional ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers.
Professional Socialization
Professional socialization is analogous to organizational socialization,
except that it occurs among members of a profession across organizations and
even industries. Like organizational socialization, professional socialization Is
an outcome of a learning process, one that often begins in college (Miller and
Wager 1971). Professional socialization is the degree to which a member
learns the norms and values of his or her profession. However, the analogy
between socialization at the organizational and professional levels is not
exact. Indeed, much research has been devoted to exploring differences
between organizational and professional socialization processes as well as
conflicts between outcomes of these processes (Aranya and Jacobson 1975;
Bartol 1979; Miller and Wager 1971; Sorenson and Sorenson 1974). This
stream of research has noted important differences between organizational
and professional socialization, generally related to the unique characteristics
of professions.
62
Several authors have developed lists of qualities that are intended to
describe what it is to be a member of a profession. Sorenson and Sorenson
(1974, p. 99) identify "four common criteria" emerging from their review of the
literature: "(1) theoretical body of knowledge, (2) set of professional standards,
(3) a career supported by an association of colleagues, and (4) community
recognition." In another study, Bartol (1979) focused on what she calls
"professionalism," which is deschbed as a "multidimensional" construct.
According to Bartol, the dimensions of professionalism are (1) autonomy, (2)
collegial maintenance of standards, (3) ethics, (4) professional commitment
and (5) professional identification. Blau and Scott (1962, p. 64) define
professional orientation as occurring when people "retain their identification
with their professional group, are highly committed to their professional skills
and look for social support to professional colleagues outside the organization
as well as within." Implicit in these views, is the adoption and internalization of
the values of the profession. As with organizational socialization, this
research focuses, not on the internalization. I.e., adoption, of professional
values, but the degree to which such values are learned.
There is reason to believe that professional and organizational
socialization may exert separate influences on ethical sensitivity. For
example, the goals of a profession, as embodied in the goals of a professional
association, may be quite different from the goals of a business. As noted by
Bartol (1979), the promotion of ethical standards often occupies a central and
63
visible role in the mission of a professional association. Thus, the emphasis
on the promotion of ethical standards in a professional association, such as
the American Marketing Association, may be much greater than in the
businesses that employ its practitioner members. In addition, a firm typically
possesses a greater ability to enforce the learning of values than a profession
or its association. Beyond revocation of membership, most professional
associations have no powers of enforcement.
In that the promotion of high ethical standards is commonly a very high
priority among professional associations, it is reasonable to assume that
successful learning of professional norms and values will lead to greater
sensitivity to ethical Issues in a professional context.
H2: Successful professional socialization Is positively related to the professional ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers.
Oraanizational Rank
One could argue that rank or authority within the firm Is largely a
function of successful socialization and a role orientation that conforms to the
firm's wishes. That is, a marketer's rise through the organizational ranks is
facilitated by engaging in behaviors consistent with organizational values.
Thus, one would expect a positive correlation between successful
organizational socialization and rank within the firm. This relationship
64
notwithstanding, there are good reasons for hypothesizing that rank has an
independent effect on ethical sensitivity.
The process of socialization within an organization occurs not only
during the overall tenure a person has within the firm, but "sub-processes" of
socialization may exist within this larger context as an individual moves up the
organizational hierarchy. Whether entering an organization, or moving within
an organization, Van Maanen (1976, p. 78) likens each change in employment
position to a "boundary passage," and suggests that organizational
socialization effects are most intense as an individual passes through a
boundary.
As the individual is granted greater authority, he or she may be
expected to learn new values and attitudes. While these new values and
attitudes are probably not inconsistent with the values already learned by the
Individual in his or her old role, they may be different. In turn, these
differences may be sufficient to require some degree of resoclalizatlon, which
may or may not be successful. Moreover, some people are hired into positions
of authority, which places the burden of socialization on the selection process
at least while the individual has been on the job only a short time. Moreover,
promotion decisions may be made, in part, on candidates exhibiting values
similar to those of top management. Among C.P.A.'s, Ponemon (1992) found
this effect with regard to ethical reasoning.
65
Laczniak (1983) contends that pressure for results are greater below
top management. A mid-manager's area of responsibility is often viewed as a
profit center when being evaluated by top management. "Consequently,
anything that takes away from profit — including ethical behavior — is
perceived by lower management as an impediment to organizational
advancement and recognition" (Laczniak 1983, p. 27). If these posited
relationships are correct, then one might expect that ethical issues would take
a subordinate role to issues of performance among lower levels of
management. Moreover, to the extent that firms reward ethical behavior and
punish unethical behavior, top managers may have learned proper codes of
conduct, and as such, gained a better ability to recognize the ethical content in
a given situation.
H3: Organizational rank is positively related to the professional ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers.
Empathy
Hoffman (1981) defines empathy as "a vicarious affective response
appropriate to someone else's situation rather than one's own" (p. 128). That
is, empathy is one's ability to understand and respond emotionally to the
feelings of others. Rest (1983, p. 557) states that empathy is "an Important
motivator of moral action." Although this assessment does not imply that
empathy motivates ethical sensitivity, to the extent that ethical sensitivity
66
precedes moral action, empathy may assist the individual in recognizing the
ethical content of a given situation.
Rest's (1983, 1986) four component model stresses the Interaction
between the affective and cognitive processes associated with moral
reasoning. Empathy, according Zajonc (1980), Is a response that may be
activated without the presence of complex cognitive processes. Hence,
empathy may help explain why such wide and as yet unexplained differences
exist in individual sensitivity to ethical issues. In discussing the research
possibilities of their measure of ethical sensitivity, Bebeau et al. (1985)
suggest that the construct may be related to empathy. They do, however, note
that problems have been encountered in the use of scales to measure
empathy. Such potential difficulties, of course, should not deter the attempt.
The definition of ethical sensitivity adopted in this paper suggests two
components to the construct. First, ethical sensitivity implies an ability to be
aware of the formal and informal norms that define when an ethical situation
exists. Second, ethical sensitivity implies that one can apply these sets of
norms to recognize a given ethical situation. On the surface, these two
dimensions infer a cognitive and analytical view of ethical sensitivity.
However, there is no reason why the definition of ethical sensitivity cannot
accommodate affective responses like empathy. Rest (1983, p. 560) explains
why this might be so.
67
Affective arousal does not seem to wait for an unambiguous interpretation of events and even misperceptions of situations can trigger strong emotional arousal. . . Even when we do not fully understand social situations, we experience alarm, empathy, anger, envy, exhilaration and so on. Zajonc (1980) for instance, contends that affective reactions precede complex cognitive operations and can be elicited independently of extensive cognitive encoding. Our own affective arousal, then, Is part of what needs to be interpreted when faced with a problem situation.
Rest makes the Important point that, according to Zajonc, affect may
precede cognition. While this point Is somewhat controversial. Rest
moderates it by stating that affect can precede complex cognitive processing.
By either view, the arousal of empathy may be automatic or uncontrollable,
and may represent a warning flag that helps people identify when an ethical
situation exists.
Like most complex human responses, empathy is considered by many
researchers to be multi-dimensional (cf.. Stiff et al. 1988; Davis 1983). Stiff et
al. (1988) have posited three dimensions to empathy. The first is perspective
taking or adopting the viewpoint of another. The second is empathic concern
where one individual senses the feelings of another. The third, emotional
contagion, is an emotion-induced emotion, where one person observing
another has an emotional experience parallel to that person's actual or
anticipated emotions; that is, feels the feelings of another. The parallel
affective response is what separates emotional contagion from empathic
concern.
68
Empirical research has raised some doubt as to whether emotional
contagion and empathic concern are In fact separate concepts. McBane
(1990) measured all three dimensions of empathy proposed by Stiff et al.
(1988), and encountered difficulty distinguishing between them. In particular,
factor analysis revealed high cross-loadings between the emotional contagion
and empathic concern dimensions. Based on these findings, it is proposed
here that empathy has two dimensions, a cognitive dimension (perspective
taking) and an affective dimension (emotional contagion). Both dimensions of
empathy are posited to Improve the ability of marketing researchers to
recognize ethical situations.
H4: Perspective taking is positively associated with the professional ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers.
H5: Emotional contagion is positively associated with the professional ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers.
Machiavellianism
Consistent with Hunt and Chonko (1984), the personality trait of
Machiavellianism might reasonably be associated with ethical sensitivity. If
the two are related, the question of the direction or nature of their association
Is less intuitive. Some apparent dispute about the nature of Machiavellianism
has appeared in the marketing literature; however, this dispute may be less
real than imagined. The positions argued by Hunt and Chonko (1984) versus
those of Fraedrich, Ferrell and Pride (1989) is an example.
69
Hunt and Chonko (1984, p. 30) note that "Interpretations of [the works
of Machiavelll] have resulted in the label Machiavellianism becoming a
negative epithet. Indicating at least an amoral (If not immoral) way of
manipulating others to accomplish one's intentions." Hunt and Chonko cite a
description of business managers by Calhoon as "typical."
A definition of the twentieth century Machiavellian administrator is one who employs aggressive, manipulative, manipulative, exploiting, and devious moves in order to achieve personal and organizational objectives. These moves are undertaken according to perceived feasibility with secondary consideration (what is necessary under the circumstances) to the feelings, needs, and/or "rights" of others. Not that Machiavellianism is "right" or even particularty "bright," but it exists in today's leadership and needs to be recognized as such. (Calhoon 1969, p. 211)
Describing someone in terms like "devious," "exploitive," and
"manipulative" would likely lead to the conclusion that individual being
described was prone to unethical behavior. But just as ethical sensitivity does
not imply ethicality, neither does Machiavellianism imply unethicality. This
question, however, has been the source of some debate.
For example, Fraedrich et al. (1989) state that Hunt and Chonko (1984)
and others believe "that Machiavellianism is not ethical, but rather unethical"
(p. 689). They go on to analyze Calhoon's (1969) definition in light of
motivation theory in order to make the point that "Machiavellianism can also be
seen as ethical... due in part to the argument that, barring intent,
Machiavellian-type behavior can be viewed amoral."
70
Closer analysis of both articles, however, reveals that many of the
alleged points of disagreement do not actually exist. The position of Hunt and
Chonko (1984) does not Imply that Machiavellianism is unethical perse. They
do, however, suggest that the term has come to be associated with unethical
behavior. This is not contrary to the position of Fraedrich et al. (1989).
Moreover, that Machiavellianism may be amoral is also a belief shared by
Hunt and Chonko (1984) and Fraedrich et al. (1989). Fraedrich et al. argue
that Calhoon's (1969) characterizations of Machiavellian managers are
"correct" (1989, p. 689) and imply that Hunt and Chonko (1984) believe
Calhoon was incorrect. This, however, is not the position taken by Hunt and
Chonko (1984).
Thus, in spite of apparent differences, these and other writers do not
necessarily equate Machiavellianism with unethical behavior (cf., Singhapakdi
1993), and agree that managers high in Machiavellianism may tend to be
aggressive, manipulative, exploiting, and devious, to use Calhoon's (1969)
description. Though these characteristics do not necessarily imply a lack of
ethicality, they may lead one to the conclusion that marketers high in
Machiavellianism would be low in ethical sensitivity.
Indeed, Singhapakdi (1993) found that marketers high in
Machiavellianism "tended to be less sensitive to the ethical problem depicted
in the scenario than the low Machiavellian marketers" (pp. 411-412). He
bases this conclusion on his measure of "perceived ethical problem" (p. 411),
71
which may be problematic. After reading a scenario, respondents indicated
their degree of agreement with the statement, "Generally speaking, the
situation above involved an ethical issue or problem" (p. 411). The question
sensitizes the respondents to the nature of the measure and may represent a
source of bias. A more valid measure of ethical sensitivity as the construct Is
defined here, would be similar to measurement procedures employed by
Bebeau et al. (1985), Volker (1984), and Shaub (1989), described in the
following chapter.
Contrary to SInghapakdi's (1993) findings, there may be good reason to
suspect that marketers high in Machiavellianism would be more ethically
sensitive than those low in the trait. Machiavellians adopt a pragmatic view
about the ethics of manipulating others to achieve their objectives. Christie
and Gels (1970) note that Machiavellians will behave honestly If the rational
incentives for cheating are low or the costs are high. This tendency toward
pragmatism implies a propensity to be aware of the ethical boundaries in a
given situation. Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that Machiavellians
not only attempt to manipulate others more often than those low In the trait, but
are also more successful at it (Christie and Gels 1970; VIeeming 1979). The
implication of these findings is that not only do Machiavellians seek to learn
the ethical boundaries of their circumstances, but tend to learn them correctly.
^
72
Thus, among Machiavellian marketing researchers, one could expect greater
ethical sensitivity.
H6: Machiavellianism is positively associated with the professional ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers.
Education and Ethics Education
One way education might be linked to ethical sensitivity is through
professional socialization. As mentioned, the process of socializing new
members of traditional professions usually begins during their professional
education (Miller and Wager 1971). Marketing researchers, however, do not
usually receive this kind of training, evidenced by the fact that undergraduate
or master's degrees in business are the norm for marketing researchers (Hunt
et al. 1984). Thus, in the case of marketing researchers, the link between
education and ethical sensitivity is probably not through graduate school
professional socialization.
A reasonable hypothesis is that education increases cognitive moral
development (CMD), which in turn leads to heightened ethical sensitivity.
Some studies have found a positive association between CMD and education
(Goolsby and Hunt 1992; Thoma and Davison 1983). The link between CMD
and ethical sensitivity, however, is not well established. Shaub (1989) was
unable to empirically link ethical sensitivity and CMD. Interestingly, he
hypothesized that ethical sensitivity causally influences CMD. Perhaps a more
73
Intuitively plausible hypothesis would be the reverse — that higher levels of
CMD lead to greater levels of ethical sensitivity.
In any case, it is reasonable to assert that one goal of college education
Is to impart to students the ability to reason and apply sound judgment in
decision making situations. This may entail recognition of the different facets
and implications of a pending decision, Including any ethical dimensions. To
the extent that education is successful In accomplishing this goal, one could
expect that education would be positively related to the ability to recognize
circumstances as having ethical content.
Rest (1986) and Goolsby and Hunt (1992) found that formal education
that Included ethics training was positively associated with CMD. A plausible
extension of these findings would be that ethics education would lead to a
heightened sensitivity to ethical issues. Among dental students, Bebeau et al.
(1985) suggest that training in ethics would be effective In raising ethical
sensitivity. If their recommendation is correct, then one could speculate that
marketing researchers who have received formal training in ethics, whether in
college or as a part of company sponsored training, should exhibit greater
ethical sensitivity.
H7: Education Is positively associated with the professional ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers.
H8: Education in ethics is positively associated with the professional ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers.
v
CHAPTER IV
METHOD AND MEASUREMENT
Having defined ethical sensitivity and hypothesized Its relationship to
certain organizational, professional, and personal characteristics of marketing
researchers, attention now turns to issues of method and measurement.
Specifically, this chapter will (1) discuss the research design, sample and
study response rate, (2) detail the procedure used to measure ethical
sensitivity, including a comparison with other procedures used in previous
research, and (3) describe the measures used for the independent variables
and purification of these measures.
Research Design. Response Rate and Sample Characteristics
A mail survey was used to collect data for this study. The sample frame
consisted of research practitioner members of the American Marketing
Association. A mailing list of 2,000 names and addresses, randomly selected
from the membership, was purchased from the association. Two mailings
were conducted. The first was a small mailing of 200 intended primarily to
determine if prenotification improved response rate. The second mailing was
for the main study.
74
^
75
First Mailing
Two hundred names were randomly selected from the list of 2,000.
Every other name was assigned to Group A, the remaining names to Group B.
Those in Group A received a letter notifying them that the survey would be
arriving in seven to ten days (see Appendix A). The marketing researchers In
Group B received no advance notification. Apart from determining the
effectiveness of prenotification on response rate, this mailing was also useful
for estimating the proportion of names that was undellverable. The surveys
were posted with first class stamps, as the Post Office will return undellverable
first class mail to the sender. Additionally, this small mailing provided an
opportunity to determine if sufficient variance in the ethical sensitivity measure
would be obtained. These results are discussed later.
As shown in Table 4.1, prenotification did not Improve response rate.
To the contrary, prenotification may have actually lowered the response rate,
perhaps by "warning" respondents that the questionnaire was coming. This
may have reduced the number of respondents who actually opened the
envelope containing the questionnaire.
Table 4.1 First Mailing Response Rates Group Number Non-
Sent Deliverable Prenotification 100 2 No Prenotification 100 4
Net Number Mailed
98 96
Number Retumed
14 16
Response Rate 14% 17%
76
Response rates were adequate, though somewhat disappointing. The
length of the questionnaire and the open-ended nature of the case analysis
used to measure ethical sensitivity may have been thought too difficult a task
by respondents. Thus, the low response rate was not entirely unexpected.
The slightly higher response rate from the group not receiving prenotification
suggested that prenotification should not be used in the main study.
Second Mailing
In the main study, 1,766 questionnaires were sent to the sample of
marketing research professionals. The cover letter (see Appendix A) was
printed on the first page of the questionnaire. Response rate calculations for
the second mailing are presented in Table 4.2. The non-deliverable rate of
3% is based on the number returned in the first mailing. The response rate for
the second mailing is less than half that obtained in the first, a very
disappointing result. Additionally, Table 4.2 contains the overall response
rate, combining results from the two mailings.
Sample Characteristics
The sample's membership in the American Marketing Association may
produce a degree of sample homogeneity along one or more dimensions.
11
Table 4.2 Second Mailing and Total Response Rate Second Mailing Number Sent Less 3% Non-Deliverable Estimated Net Number Mailed Number Returned Less Unusable Responses Useable Responses Response Rate
1,766 53
1713 117 21 95
5.5%
Both Mailings Combined Estimated Net Number Mailed Usable Responses Response Rate
1907 125
6.6%
However, the presence of In-house marketing research departments In firms
across many industries may mitigate this effect. In either case, given that a
primary purpose of this research is to refine the measurement of ethical
sensitivity, broad generalizabillty of results is not an especially important issue
in this study. Sample characteristics are given in Table 4.3.
The characteristics of this sample are generally quite similar to the
sample of marketing researchers drawn by Hunt et al. (1984). The proportion
of women in this sample is only slightly higher. Both samples are highly
educated, though a higher proportion in this sample hold graduate degrees.
Like the Hunt et al. (1984) study, respondents span a wide range of ages and
job titles, although respondents in this study are somewhat older and hold
higher organizational ranks. Also, the great majority of respondents in both
studies work for in-house research departments.
78
Table 4.3 Sample Characteristics Sex (N = 124) Female Male
Age (N = 124) 20-29 30-39 40 -49 50-59 60-69 Average Age: 41.1 years
Education (N = 125) Some College Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctorate Average Number of Years of Education: 17.8
Years in Marketing Research 0 - 5 6 - 1 0 11-15 16-20 20-25 26 or more
(N=124)
Average Number of Years in Marketing Research: 11.7
Years with Present Firm (N = 0 - 5 6 - 1 0 11-15 16-20 20 -25 26 or more
= 124)
Average Number of Years with Present Firm: 7.6
Frequency 54 70
Frequency 17 41 44 17 5
Frequency 5
14 86 19
Frequency 30 41 19 15 9
11
Frequency 56 37 17 8 4 3
Percent 43.5 56.5
Percent 13.7 33.1 35.5 13.7 4.0
Percent 4.0
11.2 68.8 15.2
Percent 24.0 32.8 15.2 12.0 7.2 8.8
Percent 44.8 29.6 13.6 6.4 3.2 2.4
79
Table 4.3 continued Years in Current Position (N = 125) 0 - 5 6 - 1 0 11-15 16-20 20-25 26 or more Average Number of Years in Current Position: 4.3
Rank (N = 123) President/CEO/Owner Vice President Manager or Director Senior Analyst or Senior Associate Analyst or Associate Junior Analyst or Junior Consultant
Type ofFirm(N = 122) Marketing Research Firm In-House Marketing Research Department Consultant Advertising Agency
Frequency 90 23
9 1 1 0
Frequency 20 19 53 13 16 2
Frequency 31 75 13 5
Percent 72.0 18.4 7.2 0.8 0.8 0.0
Percent 16.3 15.4 43.1 10.6 13.0
1.6
Percent 25.0 60.4 10.5 4.0
Test for Nonresponse Bias
Armstrong and Overton (1977) suggest that late respondents to a mail
survey may be more like nonrespondents than early respondents. Based on
this assumption, nonresponse bias may be assessed by comparing responses
from early respondents to the same responses given by late respondents. The
low response rate to this survey gives reason to suspect the presence of
nonresponse bias. Thus, earty and late responses for each mailing were
80
compared on two variables: ethical sensitivity, and number of years employed
in the marketing research field.
Responses were classified as earty or late for each of the two mailings.
In both ceases, responses were sorted according to the date the questionnaire
was received by the author. Responses from each mailing were divided as
nearly In half as possible, so that the same date could not fall into both groups.
Early responses and late responses for both mailings were combined, and
differences were tested using multivariate analysis of variance. Results offer
evidence that nonresponse bias Is not present; no significant differences
between early and late responses were detected (Wilks' A = 0.9968, F =
0.1913, p = .8262).
Measurement of the Dependent Variable: Ethical Sensitivitv
Background
Three studies from outside marketing have investigated ethical
sensitivity, utilizing a procedure first developed by Bebeau et al. (1985) in their
study of dental students. The basic procedure exposes subjects to a scenario
that contains one or more ethical Issues. Subjects then provide open-ended
responses to the Issues raised in the scenario. Their responses are
categorized and scored by a panel of judges.
81
The study of dental students by Bebeau et al. (1985) Introduced the
measurement procedure as the Dental Ethical Sensitivity Test (D.E.S.T.).
Subjects listened to four taped dramatizations of ethical situations faced by
dentists, each centering on a single ethical issue. After listening to the tapes,
subjects were interviewed to determine how he or she interpreted the situation.
A sconng scheme was developed In which "subjects who were clear about the
possible lines of action open to the actor [in the taped dramatization] got
higher scores than subjects who were not so clear" (Rest 1986, p. 24).
Two points should be made about the D.E.S.T. First, subjects are not
blind to the purpose of the study. As noted by Rest (1986, p. 26), "the ethical
dilemma is the main focus of the tape and all subjects recognize that there Is
some sort of value/moral problem." Second, recognition of the ethical Issue Is
not the basis for evaluating subjects' ethical sensitivity. Instead, subjects who
have a better grasp of the situation's stakeholders and the implications of the
situation holds for these stakeholders are scored as more ethically sensitive.
Volker (1984) used a similar but modified procedure to measure the
ethical sensitivity of professional counselors. Rest (1986) points to important
differences between Volker's approach and the D.E.S.T. First, In Volker's
scenarios (also taped dramatizations each containing a single ethical
dilemma), "the ethical issues are subtle, inconspicuous and embedded within
the larger business of the tape" (p. 26). Each of Volker's scenarios is a
dramatization of a patient's session with his or her counselor in which the
82
patient discloses to the counselor a potential danger to a third party. Ethical
sensitivity, by Volker's measure, "depends on noticing the ethical Issue and In
breaking the usual orientation to stay focused on the counseling dyad and to
go outside of the counseling relationship to intervene in the outside wortd"
(Rest1986, p. 26).
Second, Volker's procedure requires that subjects are blind to the
purpose of the study. Third, calculating ethical sensitivity scores differs
between the two methods. Both the D.E.S.T. and Volker's system produce a
global rating of ethical sensitivity, which is the aggregation of several scores
on how subjects responded to different dimensions of each ethical issue.
Volker's test uses fewer dimensions than the D.E.S.T. and, as mentioned,
requires subjects to first recognize the presence of the ethical issue.
Shaub (1989) developed another variation of these procedures for his
study on the ethical sensitivity of auditors. Subjects read a scenario that
contained several personal and professional issues. Also contained in his
scenario were three ethical Issues. Subjects were asked to identify the
important Issues contained in the scenano. Ethical sensitivity was simply
calculated as the number of ethical issues each auditor Identified.
Shaub's procedure differs from the others In that he uses a written rather
than taped scenario, which contains several, not just one, ethical issue. Also,
unlike the other studies, scoring ethical sensitivity does not require that
subjects' responses are categorized (beyond whether an ethical issue was
83
identified). According to Shaub (1989, p. 97), recognition of the ethical issues
is "the absolute measure of ethical sensitivity." Thus, the more ethical issues
auditors identified, the more ethically sensitive they were. Like Volker's
procedure, subjects remained blind to the purpose of the study, and the ethical
Issues were embedded within the scenario, rather than being Its main focus.
Two comments regarding these procedures are in order. First, Shaub's
procedure relies strictly on identifying ethical issues to measure ethical
sensitivity. On the other hand, in Bebeau's procedure, ethical sensitivity Is
evaluated by the ability to infer the ramifications of an ethical situation on
certain stakeholders. Volker's measure incorporates both these dimensions.
However, the ability to identify stakeholders and the consequences an action
has on them seems more akin to cognitive moral development. The ability to
Identify ethical issues as in the Shaub and Volker procedures is more consistent
with the definition of ethical sensitivity adopted here.
Second, none of the previous studies explicitly incorporates the concept
of egregiousness into the ethical sensitivity measures. Egregiousness is
important in the recognition of ethical issues in that highly egregious unethical
behavior is presumably easier to recognize than unethical behavior of a less
serious nature (Jones 1991). The Bebeau and Volker measures implicitly
incorporate egregiousness, but only to the extent that It applies to the
consequences of particular behavior. That an act can be egregious
Independent of its potential outcome is not explicitly addressed by either
84
measure. Incorporation of an objective standard of issue egregiousness into
the ethical sensitivity measure would represent a substantial refinement.
Developing a Marketing Research Scenario
The starting point for measuring the ethical sensitivity of marketing
researchers was the creation of a scenario containing ethical issues that might
be encountered by practicing marketing researchers. A source for such Issues
is the study by Hunt et al. (1984), in which marketing researchers identified the
major ethical problems they face. This list of ethical problems guided
development of the ethical problems included in the scenario. After careful
consideration of the story line and the technical and research management
issues the scenano would also raise, the three top ethical problems from the
list in Hunt et al. (1984) served as the basis of the ethical issues raised in the
case. These Issues were (1) research integrity, (2) treating outside clients
fairly, and (3) research confidentiality. A fourth ethical issue also Identified in
the Hunt et al. study, misuse of company property, was included. However,
this Issue was written to be of a minimal nature in the scenano.
The scenario centers on a marketing researcher named Bob Smith, who
is working frantically to complete a report for a potentially big new client. The
issue of research Integrity is raised because Bob's boss has already made
recommendations to the client, and Bob feels pressure to make certain his
analysis conforms to those recommendations. Fair treatment of clients
/
85
becomes an issue when Bob makes a serious data collection error, which he
does not disclose to the client, but "glosses over" Instead. Bob's consultation
with an advertising executive whose agency once worked for a competitor of
Bob's client raises issues of research confidentiality. The fourth issue is Bob's
personal use of a company copier to copy his resume, which he feels he may
need after the trials of this particular project. Although minor in nature, this
issue relates to the misuse or theft of company property or funds, another
issue identified by the researchers In the study by Hunt et al. (1984).
First Informal Pretest
The scenario was informally pretested using students and faculty. In
one part of the this pretest, students in undergraduate and graduate marketing
research classes were asked to read the scenano and Identify the ethical
issues it raised. The purpose of this pretest was to determine if any ethical
issues were raised in the scenario beyond those that were intended. Several
adjustments were made to the scenario based on this pretest. For example,
the original story opens with Bob working Sunday afternoon in his office.
Several students noted that this violated the Sabbath, and to those with strong
Christian convictions could be considered an ethical Issue. The day was
changed to Saturday.
In the other part of this pretest, several marketing faculty members were
asked to rate the seriousness of each of the four ethical issues on a scale
86
ranging from "Not a Senous Ethical Violation" (1) to "A Very Serious Ethical
Violation" (9). A response option, "Not an Ethical Violation at AH" (0) was also
included. As expected, the first three ethical issues were uniformly rated as
very senous violations, eight or nine on the scale, while the last issue was not
considered a serious ethical violation, with ratings between one and three.
Upon reflection, having three such serious ethical issues and one
almost trivial ethical Issue seemed excessively dichotomous. Thus, the
scenario was rewritten, removing the client treatment issue and replacing it
with an issue of treating suppliers falrty. In the scenario, Bob's boss and the
client are both told of the data collection error, but incorrectly believe it is the
fault of the vendor who actually did the survey. Bob does not bother to correct
their mistaken impression. Additional informal discussion with faculty led to
the conclusion that this issue was, as intended, a moderately serious ethical
violation.
Second Informal Pretest
The scenario was pretested again using a group of practicing marketing
research professionals. The author arranged personal appointments with
eight marketing researchers In the Dallas area, and interviewed two others on
the telephone. The purpose of this pretest was to (1) determine if sufficient
variance in what issues researchers Identified could be obtained, (2) ascertain
if any additional ethical issues were contained In the case beyond the four
« K - l ^
87
Intended, (3) evaluate the case for readability and realism, (4) estimate how
much time was needed to read the case, and (5) collect general impressions
and suggestions for Improvement.
The telephone and in-person interviews followed the same general
procedure, except that the two practitioners interviewed by phone were mailed
a copy of the scenano to read at their leisure. The remaining eight research
practitioners read the scenario at the beginning of the interview. These
respondents took an average of nine minutes to read the scenario.
All respondents were instructed to "identify the issues that could be
raised by you or your students if you were teaching this case (scenario) to a
college level marketing research class." Also, respondents were asked to rate
the importance of each issue they Identified on a scale ranging from "not
important at all" (1) to "very important" (7). After the issues they identified
were discussed, the ethical nature of the research was disclosed to them, and
respondents were then asked to identify all the ethical issues raised In the
scenario.
The give and take associated with these Informal interviews, and the
fact that two of the interviews were conducted with two researchers
participating made an exact tabulation of the identified ethical issues
Impossible. However, in only two cases were all four ethical Issues identified
before the ethical nature of the research was revealed. Personal use of the
copier was the most frequently overlooked issue, the Issue of confidentiality
88
next. All respondents identified all four ethical Issues after the nature of the
study was disclosed. The author was satisfied that sufficient variance in the
ethical Issues identified could be obtained. Moreover, no additional ethical
Issues were noted by these respondents.
The respondents also reacted favorably to the realism of the case, and
did not feel the length was excessive. Several suggested that the scenario
should provide more background into the exact nature of the character Bob's
task. Additionally, one respondent suggested using line numbers to facilitate
references back to the text of the scenario. Based on these interviews, the
basic content and the four ethical Issues it contained was settled. The
scenario is shown in Appendix B.
Weighting of Ethical Issues by Marketing Research Ethicists
One important way in which the procedure for measuring ethical
sensitivity used by Shaub (1989) might be improved is to account for the
egregiousness of each ethical Issue raised in the case. One could reasonably
assume that ethical issues of differing egregiousness would require differing
levels of ethical sensitivity to recognize. It seems counterintuitive to assume
that a marketing researcher who identifies the personal use of the copier but
not the research integrity Issue is equally ethically sensitive as a researcher
who Identifies the research integrity issue, but overlooks the copier issue.
(iJimv
89
Thus, applying an objective standard of egregiousness to account for such
differences would represent a refinement in the measurement of ethical
sensitivity.
To create such a standard, help was enlisted from a panel of marketing
research ethicists. The panel consisted of scholars who have published
extensively in the area of marketing research ethics. Each panel member
received a questionnaire (see Appendix C) and a copy of the scenario. The
questionnaire briefly descnbed the four ethical issues raised In the case.
Panelists were asked to rank each issue in order of seriousness, and to rate
each issue on a scale ranging from "Not a Serious Ethical Violation" (1) to "A
Very Serious Ethical Violation" (10). A response option, "Not An Ethical
Violation At All" (0), was also included. Finally, panelists were asked for their
thoughts on the case and the Issues it raised.
Eight of the twelve panelists returned the questionnaire. As hoped,
their evaluations of the ethical Issues in the case were quite consistent. Six of
the eight panelists ranked the research Integrity issue as most serious, the
confidentiality Issue next, followed by the vendor fairness and copier issues,
respectively. One of the remaining two panelists differed only in that he
ranked the integrity and confidentiality issues as tied for most serious. The
other panelist reversed the ranking of these two issues.
The panelists' ratings of each issues' egregiousness were also very
consistent. The ratings for each issue were averaged to provide the objective
90
standard needed to weight ethical sensitivity scores in the main study. These
averages are shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Ethicist Mean Ratings of Issue Egregiousness Issue Rating
A Research Integrity: A researcher compromises the 9.75 integnty of his analysis by ensuring the research results cx)nform to recommendations already made to the client (scenario lines 14-17).
B Fairness to Supplier: A marketing researcher allows 6.50 another researcher (a vendor) to be blamed for his own mistake (scenario lines 75-79).
C An advertising account executive provides information 9.12 about a former client to that client's chief competitor, which her agency now represents (scenario lines 95-100).
D A marketing researcher uses his company's copier to run 2.75 off several copies of his resume, against company policy (scenario lines 113-116).
Measurement Of Independent Variables
Organizational Socialization
The large numbers of empirical studies on the subject of organizational
socialization have produced several scales that measure vanous dimensions
of the process. While useful as a starting point, these scales typically focus
on one or more affective outcomes of socialization, or measure an individual's
progress through hypothesized stages In the socialization process. However,
some of these existing measures proved helpful In developing a measure of
91
organizational socialization consistent with the definition offered eartler — the
degree to which an individual learns the norms, values and behaviors
necessary to function as an organization member (Van Maanen 1976).
For example, Ostroff and Koslowski (1992) defined one facet of
socialization called adjustment, which measured the degree to which members
have adapted to their work situation, and thus, Implies a process of learning
organizational norms and values. Feldman (1976) defined another concept
related to organizational socialization, role definition, as the extent to which
employees have fully clarified their roles. Jones (1986) employs a similar
concept, role orientation, which is the manner In which people perform their
roles and adjust to task requirements.
Each of these concepts implies that socialization into an organization
requires learning about the organization, but does not require that Its values
be adopted as one's own. However, their associated measures do not directly
address the fundamental process of learning itself, and do not ask how well a
respondent believes that he or she has accomplished that learning task.
Thus, using the measures and conceptual definitions from these empirical
studies as a guide, eight scale items were developed to assess the degree to
which marketing researchers believe they know the values of their
organization (see Figure 4.1). Respondents answered these on a seven-point
scale ranging from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (7).
92
Org1 I know the rules and regulations of my organization
Org2* I am not very familiar with my firm's long term goals and objectives.
Org3 I know the "standard operating procedure" associated with my job.
Org4 I know what is important and unimportant to my company.
Org5 I know how to get ahead in my company.
Org6 I know "how things are done around here."
Org7 I know how to keep my supervisor(s) pleased with my performance.
Org8 I know what's considered appropriate and inappropriate behavior in my company.
Figure 4.1 Organizational Socialization Scale Items (* reverse coded)
Professional Socialization
As noted in the previous chapter, the concept of professional
socialization in large part parallels that of organizational socialization.
Professional socialization is the degree to which an Individual has learned the
values and norms of his or her profession. Thus, measurement of this
construct was similar to measurement of organizational socialization.
Learning the values and norms of a profession encompasses an
additional dimension not present at the organizational level; one must also
believe that he or she is actually a member of a profession. Ambiguity about
whether an occupation has achieved even self-proclaimed professional status
Is not an issue in the traditional professions of law, medicine or the clergy; nor
93
does this ambiguity plague contemporary professions such as engineering or
accounting. Marketing research is only now beginning to attain a self-identity
as a profession. The debate over this status has been long and continues
even today as marketing researchers consider establishing a program of
professional certification (RIttenburg and Murdock 1994). This controversy
could not be overtooked in creating a measure of professional socialization.
Six Likert items were developed to measure professional socialization
(Figure 4.2). Three frequency measures were also included, on the
assumption that more interaction with members of one's profession, leads to
better professional socialization. Thus, Items measuring the frequency with
which respondents attended marketing research related functions were added
to the questionnaire. They were answered on an eight point scale ranging
from "never" (1) to "very frequently" (7), with an option, "never" (0), also
provided.
Organizational Rank
Following procedures detailed in Hunt and Chonko (1984),
organizational rank was quantified according to respondent job title. Titles
such as "Junior Consultant", "Junior Analyst" or "Research Assistant" were
given a rank of 1. A rank of 2 was given to titles such as "Research Analyst,"
94
Profi * Marketing research lacks formal guidelines and codes of conduct to guide one's actions.
Prof2 As a marketing researcher, I feel I am part of a genuine profession.
Prof3 I have a good idea how to make a successful career for myself as a marketing researcher.
Prof4 I know the things a good marketing researcher should and should not do.
Prof5 I view marketing research as a career — not just a job.
Prof6 There are falrty well defined standards that help guide the behavior of marketing researchers.
Marketing and/or marketing research associations sponsor a variety of special programs or functions. We are interested in how often you attend these programs or functions.
Please indicate how often you attend... . . . social functions
. . . training programs
. . . professional programs
Figure 4.2 Professional Socialization Items (* reversed coded)
"Research Associate" or "Market Research Specialist." Titles such as "Senior
Analyst," or "Senior Account Executive" were given ranks of 3. Titles
indicating managenal responsibilities, such as "Marketing Research Manager,"
or "Marketing Research Director," were assigned ranks of 4. Titles with "Vice
President" were ranked 5. Ranks of 6 were given to "Presidents," "Chief
Executive Officers," or "Owners."
95
Empathy
The multidimensional nature of empathy (Stiff et al. 1988) suggests the
need to develop separate scales for each dimension. Based on McBane's
(1990) results, two of the three proposed dimensions to empathy —
perspective taking and emotional contagion — were measured. The third
proposed dimension, empathic concern, was not addressed in the belief that
little discnminant validity exists between it and emotional contagion.
The difficulties measunng empathy encountered by McBane (1990) and
discussed by Bebeau et al. (1985) necessitated the development of several
new items. As before, Likert items were developed, and were answered on a
seven-point sc ale. These items are shown in Figure 4.3.
Education
The amount of education respondents received was measured by
asking them to provide any undergraduate and graduate degrees they
received, as well as their major fields of study. The highest degree they had
received was quantified by assigning a value of 0 (zero) to respondents with
no college degree, a 1 to those who had completed a bachelor's degree, 2 to
those who had completed a master's degree, and a 3 to those with a
doctorate.
96
Perspective Taking
Empersi When discussing a point of disagreement with people, I try to see their point of view.
Empers2* I am usually surprised when I find out what other people think.
EmpersS Understanding the perspectives of other people is essential to successful relationships with them.
Empers4 Generally, I find it easy to see things from the other person's point of view.
Empers5 I am good at "putting myself in someone else's shoes."
Empers6 I am usually able to understand why people do and say the things they do.
Emotional Contagion
Empconi It distresses me when I see others in distress.
Empcon2 Other people's moods have a great influence on my moods.
Empcon3 I hurt inside when I see other people hurting.
Empcon4 I often get "choked up" when I see a sad TV program or movie.
Figure 4.3 Empathy Items (* reverse coded)
Respondents also reported on a single Item the amount of ethics
training they had received. Respondents were asked to indicate "the amount
of formal training on the subject of ethics you received during your education."
Respondents answered on an eight-point scale ranging from "very little" (1) to
"a great deal" (7), with a "none" (0) option also provided.
MSUMBLv
97
Machiavellianism
Respondents' level of Machiavellianism was measured using the "Mach
IV" scale developed by Chnstie and Gels (1979), shown in Appendix C.
Other Measures
Other Information was gathered from respondents to use as control
variables or as additional indicants of variables of interest. First, respondents
were asked the number of years they had worked for their current employer.
This measure would serve as an additional indicant of organizational
socialization on the assumption that marketing researchers would become
better socialized Into their organizations over time. Second, following similar
reasoning, respondents were asked to indicate how long they had worked as
marketing researchers — an additional indicant of professional socialization.
Respondent age, gender and time spent identifying case issues were
collected as control vanables. Age could be influential on professional ethical
sensitivity in that as people become older, they live through more socializing
expenences. To the extent that gender differences exist with respect to other
ethics related vanables (cf., Goolsby and Hunt 1992; Hunt and Chonko 1984;
Fntzsche 1988), the possibility of such differences should be accounted for In
this analysis. Additionally, one might expect that more time spent working on
the case would lead to identification of more issues. Including ethical issues.
/
98
Scale Purification
Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to purify
the organizational socialization, professional socialization, and empathy
(perspective taking and emotional contagion) measures, which were all
original to this study. Other independent vanables used to test hypotheses
were either well established in the literature (i.e., Machiavellianism), or were
measured with single Items, making purification unnecessary (I.e.,
organizational rank, education level, ethics education).
Exploratory Factor Analysis
The Likert-type organizational socialization, professional socialization,
perspective taking, and emotional contagion scale items were included in an
exploratory factor analysis. The purpose of this step was to evaluate the
pattern of loadings and ascertain whether Items loaded on their intended
factors. The analysis also provided an initial opportunity to delete items that
did not perform to expectations, and to explore post hoc possible theoretical
reasons why. Consistent with treatments of reflective measures, the principal
factor method of estimation was used. This method replaces unity on the
diagonal of the Input correlation matrix with the squared multiple correlations
of each the vanables, creating a "reduced" correlation matnx (Johnson and
Wichern 1988). The rotated factor pattern is shown In Table 4.5.
"•j'vj
/
99
Table 4.5 Rotated Factor Pattern of Exploratory Factor Analysis Vanable Org1 Org2 Org3 Org4 Org5 Org6 Org7 Orgs Profi Prof2 Prof3 Prof4 Prof5 Prof6 Empersi Empers2 Empers3 Empers4 Empers5 Empers6 Empconi Empcx)n2 Empcon3 EmpcxDn4
F1 3.593
LL
0.6713 0.4155 0.6071 0.5857 0.6362 0.7044 0.6828 0.7268
-0.0274 0.0805 0.3894 0.2567 0.1063 0.1127 0.0769 0.1230 0.0136 0.1790 0.1322 0.1503
-0.0553 0.0136 0.0713 0.1088
F2 2.129
F2 0.0092 0.0839 0.0771 0.1979 0.1686 0.0241 0.1618 0.0206
-0.0173 0.0583 0.0976 0.0609
-0.1182 0.0297 0.5496
-0.0258 0.1892 0.6412 0.8234 0.7159 0.1290
-0.0047 0.1817
-0.0125
F3 0.1409
-0.0202 0.0783 0.1133 0.3342 0.1507 0.2511 0.0014 0.1001 0.6028 0.4781 0.6409 0.7134 0.2763 0.0612
-0.0234 0.2528
-0.0834 0.0067 0.1019 0.1144 0.0058 0.0648 0.0054
F4 0.2119 0.2197 0.1459
-0.0323 -0.0581 0.0291
-0.0734 -0.0492 -0.0319 0.1002
-0.0255 0.0724 0.0912
-0.0188 0.3416
-0.1714 0.3267 0.2122 0.1364 0.0812 0.6446 0.0826 0.6724 0.4785
F5 0.2258 0.0519 0.2481 0.0433
-0.0477 -0.1520 -0.1586 0.0984 0.7693 0.1726 0.1886 0.0829 0.0877 0.7128
-0.1279 0.0764
-0.1001 0.0159 0.0298 0.0392
-0.0011 -0.1146 -0.1322 0.1094
Vanance Explained by Each Factor F3
1.938 F4 F5
1.579 1.435
F6 0.4430 0.2898 0.1095 0.2439
-0.2227 0.0306
-0.2763 0.0421 0.0519 0.0543
-0.2831 -0.0772 0.0482 0.0521 0.1298 0.4874 0.2149
-0.0536 -0.1999 0.1879 0.0800
-0.0398 -0.1115 -0.2255
F6 1.027
F7 0.0801 0.0056
-0.2146 0.1473
-0.1023 -0.0247 0.0160 0.0766
-0.1197 0.0864
-0.0435 -0.2780 0.0723
-0.0110 -0.3009 -0.0711 -0.2393 -0.0714 -0.0229 0.1864
-0.0855 0.6365 0.1852 0.0731
F7 0.843
All eight organizational socialization variables load well onto the first
factor; however, the Org1 item cross loads to the sixth factor. This factor
accounts for only 8% of the total variance, providing a strong Indication that
this result is spunous. All eight of the items were retained for further analysis.
100
Four of the six professional socialization items, Prof2 through Prof5,
load on the third factor; the two remaining items load on the fifth. A possible
explanation for this feature is that Profi and Prof6 both address the question
of whether marketing research has codes of conduct or established standards
to guide the behavior of practitioners; but the items make no reference to the
respondent's own role in the profession. The remaining four items do make
such reference; each asks respondents about their own careers as marketing
researchers. However, the content of Profi and Prof6 is more consistent with
the definition of professional socialization in Chapter III. Thus, these items
were retained and the others dropped from the reflective measure of
professional socialization. It should be noted that, upon reflection, none of the
items really capture the intended meaning of professional socialization. This
limitation is discussed in Chapter VI.
Four of the six perspective taking empathy measures load well on the
second factor. The exceptions, Empers2 and Empers3, do not load to other
factors in any interpretable way. Indeed, Empers3 does not load to any factor
at all. The four items that do load together all address an individuars ability
and willingness to understand the perspectives of others. These four items
were retained for further analysis.
One of the four emotional contagion empathy items did not load with the
others. This item, Empcon2, addressed the extent to which the moods of
others affected the moods of the respondents. The remaining items, however.
101
contain references to some negative affective state, such as feeling distress,
hurting inside or getting "choked up." Thus, these three items were analyzed
further, while Empcon2 were deleted from the scale.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Using the maximum likelihood method of estimation, a second more
restnctive factor analysis was conducted on the remaining variables to assess
construct unidimensionality and model fit. The LISREL8 software (Jorskog
and Sorbom 1993) was used to estimate this measurement model, which is
shown in Figure 4.4.
Fit for this model was poor, (x^ns) = 174.59, p = 0.00, GFI = 0.85,
AGFI = 0.80, RMR = 0.11). Although most authorities on structural modeling
hesitate to give rules of thumb regarding sample size, generally, large Is
better. Loehlin (1987, p. 57) suggests that "one would probably do well to be
modest in one's statistical claims even with simple models if N is less than
100." Given that the number of observations in this analysis Is only slightly
larger, the fit statistics are not altogether surpnsing.
The modification indices provided by LISREL suggest improvements In
fit If certain restncted paths are permitted to estimate. Because the purpose of
this analysis is to assess unidimensionality in new measures, freeing paths for
the sake of model fit would not be productive. However, patterns of large
102
Figure 4.4 Proposed Measurement Model
/
103
modification indices for particular Items may suggest that these items would
be candidates for deletion.
No especially large modification indices were given for any of the factor
loadings, suggesting factor unidimensionality. However, several large
modification indices were noted for the error vanances of the organizational
socialization scale. This feature indicates that strong correlations exist
between error terms, which, by definition, should be random. The presence of
within factor correlated error terms Is evidence that some indicants share
variance with each other not captured by the factor in question. Two items in
particular, Org1 and Org7, produced several large error term modification
indices. Evaluation of the content of these items did not reveal any obvious
reasons why they performed poorty. Given that they significantly detract from
measure unidimensionality, however, they were deleted. Six items remained
in the organizational socialization scale.
With these items deleted, the model (Figure 4.5) was estimated a
second time and fit improved considerably (x es) = 90.52, p = 0.32, GFI = 0.91,
AGFI = 0.88, RMR = 0.17). It should be noted that the factor loadings for the
two professional socialization items were constrained to equality. Because the
professional socialization factor is composed of only two items, without this
constraint the model would have been undendentified resulting In an
inadmissible solution. As shown in Table 4.5, the factor loadings for Profi and
104
Figure 4.5 Final Measurement Model
/
105
Prof6 are nearty equal, so the equality constraint in the confirmatory factor
analysis does not appear unreasonable. The model in Figure 4.5 was
accepted as the final measurement model.
The standardized factor loadings for the final measurement model are
given in Table 4.6. In general, the loadings for all four constructs are strong,
and all are significantly different from zero (p < .01).
Table 4.6 Standardized Factor Loadings from Final Measurement Model Vanable
Org2 Org3 Org4 Org5 Org6 Orgs Profi Prof6 Empersi Empers4 Empers5 Empers6 Empconi EmpconS Empcon4
Organizational Socialization
0.41 0.53 0.61 0.70 0.68 0.60
Professional Socialization
0.69 0.95
Empathy: Perspective
Taking
0.55 0.75 0.88 0.67
Empathy: Emotional Contagion
0.55 0.89 0.42
The final items for the organizational socialization, professional
socialization, perspective taking, and emotional contagion items are given in
Figure 4.6.
106
Organizational Socialization Org2* I am riot very familiar with my firm's long term goals and objectives. Org3 I know the rules and regulations associated with my job. Org4 I know what Is Important and unimportant to my company. Org5 I know how to get ahead in my company. Org6 I know "how things are done around here." Orgs I know what's considered appropriate and Inappropnate behavior in
my company.
Professional Socialization Profi Marketing research lacks formal guidelines or codes of conduct to
guide one's actions. Prof6 There are falrty well defined standards that help guide the behavior
of marketing researchers.
Perspective Taking (Empathy) Empersi When discussing a point of disagreement with people, I try to see
their point of view. Empers4 Generally, I find it easy to see things from the other person's point
of view. Empers5 I am good at "putting myself in someone else's shoes." Empers6 I am usually able to understand why people do and say the things
they do.
Emotional Contagion (Empathy) Empcx)n1 It distresses me when I see others in distress. Empcx)n3 I hurt inside when I see other people hurting. Empcon4 I often get "choked up" when I see a sad TV program or movie.
Figure 4.6 Final Multi-Item Scale Items for Independent Vanables
Assessment of Internal Consistency
As a final check of measure adequacy, coefficient alpha was calculated
for all multi-item constructs. The results are given In Table 4.7. The use of
coefficient alpha assumes that measures are reflective, rather than formative,
in nature. The scales for organizational socialization, professional
/
107
socialization, perspective taking, and emotional contagion were all created
under the assumption that they reflect their undertying constructs, and hence,
are reflective. The true nature of the Machiavellianism and corporate ethical
values scales, however. Is less clear. Evaluation of these items (see Appendix
D) suggests that they do not necessanly reflect an undertying trait, but instead
are formed by the definition of their constructs, making them more formative in
nature. Debate over this issue, however, is beyond the scope of this study.
Calculation of coefficient alpha for these scales Is consistent with their
treatment in the literature (Hunt et al. 1989; Hunt and Chonko 1984; Sparics
1994).
Table 4.7 Coefficient Alpha for Multi-Item Constructs Construct Alpha Organizational Socialization .80 Professional Socialization .71 Empathy: Perspective Taking .80 Empathy: Emotional Contagion .70 Machiavellianism .78
CHAPTER V
RESULTS
In this chapter, the hypotheses presented In Chapter III are tested.
Additionally, the ethical sensitivity measure developed for this study is
compared with the method used by Shaub (1989). Specifically, this chapter
will (1) present the methods of calculating dependent and independent
vanables, (2) determine if the data meet the assumptions of regression, (3)
test the hypotheses developed in Chapter III, and (4) compare this study's
measure of ethical sensitivity with the Shaub method.
Calculation of Vanables for Use in Regression
Dependent Vanable: Ethical Sensitivity
As mentioned in the previous chapter, ethical sensitivity is calculated as
the sum of the weights of the ethical issues Identified by each respondent.
Because respondents were asked to Identify (In open-ended fashion) issues
raised in the scenano, whether a given respondent actually identified a
particular ethical issue may be open to some Interpretation. Hence, the author
was assisted by an independent coder in the classification of identified issues
as ethical or not. A response was classified as ethical if it made specific
reference to one of the four ethical issues In the case, either directly or by
108
109
reference to the corresponding line numbers. Responses that only mentioned
"ethics" or "integnty" without specific reference to case issues were excluded
from analysis (and are not included in the response rate calculations).
Interrater reliability was calculated as the percentage of agreement
between the two coders. The entire sample Identified a total of 1,069 Issues.
Of these, the author classified 246 as ethical issues; the other coder classified
239 issues as ethical. The percentage of agreement ((1069-7) ^ 1069) was
99.3%. For all but the seven discrepant issues, there was no disagreement as
to which specific ethical issue was Identified. Agreement on the seven issues
was reached by discussion between the coders. Statistics and frequencies on
the dependent vanable are given in Table 5.1.
Two points about the pattern of responses are worth noting. First,
seventeen respondents did not Identify any of the ethical issues, compared
with 11 who identified all four. However, 106 respondents identified at least
one ethical issue. In general, this sample of marketing researchers appears to
have a moderate to high degree of ethical sensitivity. Second, the vendor
Issue (B) was identified more often than either the research integnty issue (A)
or the confidentiality issue (C). These results seem counterintuitive to the
extent that one believes highly egregious issues should be identified more
frequently (which Is supported by the fact that no one identified only the copier
issue). Either marketing research practitioners perceive that, contrary to the
110
beliefs of the ethicists, the issue of treating the vendor falrty is more egregious
than the other issues, or this Issue was in some other way more noticeable
than the others. The latter possibility will be discussed at length in the next
chapter.
Table 5.1 Ethical Sensitivity Statistics and Frequencies Simple Statistics for Ethical Sensitivity Mean Standard Deviation
Frequency of Identification by Issue Issue
15.31 8.72
Frequency Percent A (Research Integnty) B (Treatment of Vendor) C (Confidentiality) D (Personal Use of Company Copier) No Ethical Issues
Frequency Distribution of Ethical Sensitivity Scores
72 90 55 29 17
27.3 34.2 20.9 11.0 6.5
Score Issue Combination 28.12 25.37 19.00 18.87 18.37 16.25 15.62 11.87 9.75 9.25 9.12 6.50 0.00
ABCD ABC ABD AC BCD AB BC CD A BD C B
Frequency Percent 11 21 6 3 7
21 10
1 10 4 2
10 17
8.9 17.1 4.9 2.4 5.7
17.1 8.1 0.8 8.1 3.3 1.6 8.1
13.8
/
I l l
Calculation of Independent Vanables
The means of multi-item independent variables were used In the
regression analysis. The single exception to this rule is Machiavellianism.
According to Chnstie and Gies (1970), Machiavellianism, as calculated from
the Mach IV scale. Is the sum of all twenty items (accounting for reverse coded
Items) plus a constant of 20 added to each score. Means and standard
deviations for each vanable are given In Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables ^^ Variable N Mean Standard
Deviation Organizational Socialization Years with Current Firm Professional Socialization ^ Years in Marketing Research Attendance at Professional Programs" Attendance at Social Functions Attendance at Training Programs ** Empathy: Perspective Taking * Empathy: Emotional Contagion ^ Machiavellianism Organizational Rank"" Education Level * Ethics Education *
120 124 121 124 121 121 121 119 121 118 121 125 125
5.83 7.64 5.73 11.74 3.76 2.17 2.99 5.29 5.25 87.38 4.09 1.87 2.53
0.82 6.58 0.99 8.47 1.78 1.78 1.76 0.86 0.98 11.95 1.24 0.68 1.97
^ Measured on 7-polnt scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree).
" Measured on 8 point scale (0= Never, 1 = Very Rarely, 7 = Very Frequently).
"" Values of 1 assigned to lowest job titles, 6 to highest job titles.
'^ Based on highest college degree earned (0 = No degree, 1 = Bachelor's, 2 = Master's, 3 = Doctorate.
^ Measured on 8-point scale (0 = None, 1= Very Little, 7 = A Great Deal).
/
112
In general, the researchers in this sample believe they have been well
socialized into their organizations and profession, a fact that is not surpnsing
given the high proportion of respondents whose rank was manager or higher.
Additionally, the belief by the sample that they possess empathic qualities on
both cognitive and affective dimensions Is consistent with expectations.
Standard deviations in the range of one scale point, however, indicates
adequate statistical variance among responses. The average score for
Machiavellianism compares well with the average Machiavellian score of 85.7
for marketers in the study by Hunt and Chonko (1984).
Regression Analysis
The theoretical model being tested In this section proposes that ethical
sensitivity is predicted by the independent vanables, organizational
socialization, professional socialization, organizational rank, empathy
(perspective taking and emotional contagion), Machiavellianism, level of
education, and amount of training In ethics. Estimation of this model also
Includes the control vanables respondent age, gender, and time spent
identifying the ethical issues. The assumptions undertying regression
analysis, and the degree to which the data meets them, will be discussed first,
followed by testing of the hypotheses presented in Chapter III.
/
113
Assumptions of Regression
According to Neter, Wasserman and Kutner (1989), linear regression
analysis relies on four basic assumptions: (1) con-ect functional model
specification, (2) constant residual vanance, (3) normally distributed residuals,
and (4) uncorrelated residuals. In this section, each of these assumptions, as
well as multlcolllnearity among the Independent vanables, will be assessed.
Correct Functional Model Specification
The regression function being fitted to the data assumes a linear
functional relationship between the dependent vanable, ethical sensitivity, and
the vanous independent vanables. This assumption is assessed Individually
for each regression through the use of partial regression plots. A partial
regression plot is created by plotting the standardized residuals of a full model
against standardized residuals from a reduced model. The full model
regresses the dependent vanable against all independent vanables. The
reduced model regresses one independent vanable against all others. By
plotting the residuals from the two models, the relationship between the
dependent vanable and the independent vanable in question can be examined
in isolation by holding constant the effects of all other independent vanables.
A non-linear relationship between ethical sensitivity and a given
Independent variable Is shown by a marked curved shape to the scatter of
points In the partial regression plot. Examination of the partial regression
• •« '«HHI»<.
114
plots, shown in Appendix F, do not suggest a non-linear relationship between
ethical sensitivity and any of the independent vanables. It should be noted
that although gender Is included as a control vanable In the models used to
generate the plots, a separate partial regression plot of gender against ethical
sensitivity was not created because gender is a class vanable.
Examination of Outlying Observations. Examination of the partial
regression plots In Appendix F reveal several outlying observations that may
exert substantial Influence on the fitted regression function. Following
procedures outlined in Neter et al. (1989), these observations were
investigated to determine the extent of their influence on the fitted regression
function, and ultimately to decide which, if any, of these observations should
be excluded from further analysis.
As noted, each partial regression plot shows the relationship between
the dependent vanable, ethical sensitivity, and one independent vanable. In
most cases, the outlying observations were unique to the relationship in their
particular plot, and did not occur In others. Hence, these observations should
not be considered very influential on the full model. However, two
observations appeared as outliers in several of the partial regression plots.
These two suspect observations were investigated further.
Three statistical diagnostic tools were used to determine the extent the
two observations' influence on the regression function. The first diagnostic
tool is examination of the observations' studentlzed residuals from estimation
115
of the full model. The absolute value of the first suspect observations'
studentlzed residual is 2.94, putting the observation almost three standard
deviations from the fitted regression function. By itself, this large value does
not necessanly imply that the observation is influential; the value should be
considered relative to other residual values. The next largest studentlzed
residual is 2.19; thus, the first suspect observation Is .75 standard deviations
further away from the regression function. On this basis, there is reason to
suspect it is Influential. The studentlzed residual of the second suspect
observation is 1.46, which is not large enough to be of concern.
A second measure of the influence a single observation has on a
regression function is DFFITS. According to Neter et al. (1989, p. 401),
DFFITS indicates "the difference between the fitted value Y. for the /th case
when all n cases are used In fitting the regression function and the predicted
value y;(,) when the /th case Is omitted in fitting the regression function."
Because DFFITS is standardized, "the value (DFFITS), for the /th data point
represents roughly the number of estimated standard deviations the fitted
value Y, changes when the /th case is removed from the data set" (p. 401).
A large DFFITS value (an absolute value of greater than 1.0 for small
samples) suggests that the observation Is influential. The DFFITS values
for the suspect observations were -1.18 and -1.19, respectively. On this
basis, both observations would be considered influential.
116
Finally, the observations' "hat diagonal," values were examined.
According to Neter et al. (1989), the "hat matrix," H, is calculated as
X(X'X)"^ X', where X is matnx of observed values of Independent variables.
Values on the diagonal of the hat matnx always fall between 0 and 1, and
are indicators of whether an observation Is distant from the center of all X
observations. Hat diagonal values of .20 are considered moderately large.
Those in excess of .50 are considered very large. The hat diagonal value
of the first suspect observation Is .14, not a large value. The hat diagonal
value for the second suspect observation was 40, which is considered
large.
The questionnaires for these responses were also examined to
ascertain If outstanding qualitative differences existed between these two
respondents and the rest of the sample. Though no obvious differences
were noted for the first respondent, the job descnption of the second did not
include duties normally associated with marketing research. This
respondent's job was to sell services for a credit union, giving reason to
believe that he may not be aware of ethical norms In marketing research.
Indeed, this respondent did not Identify any of the ethical issues in his case
analysis.
Based on the statistical indications for both suspect observations (both
were Influential by two of three measures), and the job information provided by
the second, both observations were excluded from further analysis.
/
117
Constancy of Residual Variance
Constancy of residual vanance may be evaluated through the use of a
single plot of the residuals from the full regression model against the predicted
value of the dependent vanable. This plot is given in Figure 5.1.
2 --
^ 1 "en <D
"S 0 M
a-1 CO
•2 - -
0
— ' ^ ^
# •
1 1 1 i 1
10 15 20 Predicted Value (Ethical Sensitivity)
25 30
Figure 5.1 Residual Plot: Constancy of Vanance Assessment
/
118
The dominant feature of the residual plot In Figure 5.1 Is the collection
of data points in clearty discernible lines. This is due to the discreet nature of
the dependent vanable, ethical sensitivity. Nonconstancy of vanance would
be indicated by a marked spreading or fanning out of data points from the
vertical axis, a feature not visible In Figure 5.1. Thus, there is no reason to
suspect that nonconstancy of residual variance Is problematic with these data.
Normally Distributed Residuals
Regression analysis also assumes that residuals are normally
distributed. Departures from normality affect estimation of standard errors and
regression parameters. According to Neter et al. (1989), however, regression
is not sensitive to small to moderate departures from normality. The
Komlogorov statistic was calculated to formally test the normality of the
residuals. Given the sensitivity of this test to even slight deviations from
normality, particularty in small samples, it is not surprising that the hypothesis
of normally distributed residuals was rejected (p = 0.009).
The distribution of the residuals was then evaluated visually by
examining a normal probability plot, shown In Figure 5.2. The expected values
of normally distributed residuals are produced by randomly generating
observations from a normal distribution. These expected values are ordered
and plotted against the ordered values of the residuals. If the residuals come
from a normal distribution, rough equivalence should exist between the
119
residual values and their expected values. Thus, a normal probability plot of
normally distributed residuals would show a reasonably straight line of data
points extending away from the origin with a slope of approximately 1.0.
-3 -2 -1 0 1 Expected Value (Normal Quantlles)
Figure 5.2 Normal Probability Plot
As the figure shows, there is some departure from the expected shape
of a plot from a normal distribution; however, it does not appear serious. The
body of residuals follow the expected shape, deviating only at the tails. This
Indicates that the distribution is symmetrical, but somewhat heavy tailed.
(
120
Given regression's robustness to small and moderate departures from
normality, this assumption Is considered satisfied.
Correlation of Residuals
Because error variance is by definition random, one would expect
residuals to be uncorrelated. As a rule, correlation of residuals is only a
problem with longitudinal data. Indeed, the primary means of assessing this
assumption is by examining a time plot of residuals. Given that the data in this
study are cross sectional, there is no reason to suspect that this assumption
of regression has been violated.
Multlcolllnearity
Multlcolllnearity is Intercorrelation among independent variables.
According to Neter et al. (1989), multlcolllnearity is a common feature of many
regression models in business and the social sciences. Low to moderate
correlations between independent variables is typically not problematic,
however, strong correlations can lead to inflated standard errors and difficulty
interpreting parameter estimates. Table 5.3 contains the simple correlations
between all variables. While many of the correlations are significant, a pattern
of highly correlated independent variables is not present. As an additional
121
CO c g
0
o O _g) CLI
E CO
CO t o
(0
E
II 0)
<
i = T3 LU LU
0)
UJ .
o (0
o E o UJ U
0) (0 Q. I -
c (0
2 Ol
(0 o o
H-: O: O O
Q. Q.
2 0)
28 Q. CO
o o '"
o o O T-
o o '"
to
o
^
o o '"
CM
o o
CM
o o
CO
o o ^
O CO O T-r- o
o 0 0 ) 0 O CM O t- o o
1
^ 0> CM
o o o 9 0 0
0 a s o ) i n 00 CM ^ T-0 0 0
a "^ r>- TT 0 ^ 0 0 0 0
1 1
u CN ^ (O 0 CM 0
T- o o o o o o I I
u a m o i o c M c o T - i n c M i n O C M ^ O T - C M O T -
0 0 ' -
0 0 '^
'a-0 0
1
^r-
m
0
0
0
0 0
(O
0
0 1
^
0
-
0 1
0 1
T—
0
0 0
0
s 0
1
0 0
0
u CO
0
C3> 0
9
0
0 I
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
O U J r ^ T - T T ' ^ O C O C D C D T -O T T t - ' i - O ^ T - O O O O i - c 3 o d o o o d o d o
o u .a
O l O h - O T - O O O T-^ddddddocici
o T- in CO 0 0 0 0
d d
O (0
(0 U M
UJ (O
o u .0 C M T - c o c M i n ^ r ^ o o < o c o c o
0 ^ T - ^ 0 0 0 0 ^ < D C N T -T ^ d d d d d d d d d d d d
o o
I I I
0 " ^ ^ ' « - 0 ) C M C M C M C O C M C M C M r ^ T -O C M O O O O O O T - O T - C M O T -
T ^ d d d d d d d d d d d d d I I
o o o u O C M O O T - i n c O O ) O O C » ' ^ C O C O O ( 3 > T -O T - C 0 O ' » - O C M O O O O O i n C M T -i r ^ d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
I I I I I
a ^ u u o (• O O O O i n C M O C M O O ^ C O 0 ' « - C M C M O O ^ ' ^ C M T -
.0 h* i n (O O CM O O O CM •«- o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I
.0 .a OJ ^ o> T- i n o f - O O CM O O
o ^ o o in o ^ O C M O O O ^ O r - ^ d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
CM O) T- o o O T-
(A
c (0 "<5 u
o o
CO
u o
CO
at o C3)
c
LU
*-• - E - _ - .1 2 o 2 O ii- Q- U. CL CO I -
(0 o H O
2 ^ c H. 2 E>E o c J2 _ o RJ 0) E
Q: a. UJ
u
« - d ^ UJ - I o 0)
5) ® . i ? 0) ^
UJ UJ < O I -
o in f-t- o o V Q.
V V Q.
^ N
/
122
check for the influence these correlations have on the parameter estimates,
the variance inflation factor (VIF) was calculated in all regression models. In
no instances were any of the VIF measures larger than 3.0. Neter et al. (1989)
suggest that VIF figures in excess of ten are indicative of Influential
multicollinearity.
Hypothesis Tests
Several regression models were estimated to test the hypotheses.
First, measures of each independent variable were regressed against ethical
sensitivity, while controlling for age and gender of the respondent and time
spent Identifying issues in the case analysis. Next, two full models with all
Independent variables were estimated. One model also Included the control
variables of age, gender and time; the other did not. Finally, a model with only
the control variables was estimated.
Standardized regression coefficients, R figures, and model F statistics
are given in Table 5.4, a summary of regression results. Generally speaking,
the full models explained a respectable amount of variance: 24 percent with
control variables, 22 percent without. Model F statistics for both full models
were statistically significant (p < .05).
^
123
Table 5.4 Summary of Regression Results Independent Vanable Org. Soc. Firm Prof. Soc. Field Prof. Prog. Social Training Rank Pers. Take. Emo. Cont. Mach. Ed. Level Ethic Ed. Age Gender Time
Model F R
"p<.10
" p < .05
"p<.01
(1) .23 ' .00
-.10 .02 .10
1.46 .07
(2)
.07
.19 -.04 -.12 .26"
-.16 .01 .06
0.95 .07
(3)
.11
-.10 .01 .10
0.65 .03
(4)
-.16 .28'
-.04 -.04 .12
2.12" .09
(5)
-.04
-.06 .01 .11
0.43 .02
(6)
.08 - .20' -.08 .02 .12
1.31 .06
< ^ ) u .27" .06 .04 .01
-.01 -.11 .24"
-.03 - .21" .26"
-.02 .11
-.23" -.10 .01 .12
1.80" .24
W. .27" .01 .05
-.01 -.00 -.12 .25"
-.04 -.21 " .26" .05 .05
-.23"
2.07" .22
(9)
-.06 .00 .11
0.54 .02
124
Hypothesis One
The first hypothesis predicts a positive relationship between
organizational socialization and ethical sensitivity. The six-item scale, a direct
reflective measure of organizational socialization (Org. Soc), exhibited a
positive and significant relationship with ethical sensitivity in all three
regression models in which It was included (columns 1, 7 and 8 of Table 5.4).
The indirect measure of organizational socialization, number of years with
current employer (Firm), was not related to ethical sensitivity in any of the
regression models. Nonetheless, the strong and positive relationship between
ethical sensitivity and the direct measure of organizational socialization
supports the first hypothesis.
Hypothesis Two
The second hypothesis predicts a positive relationship between
professional socialization and ethical sensitivity. Several measures of
professional socialization were Included In the regression analysis (columns 2,
7 and 8 of Table 5.4). The two-Item professional socialization scale (Prof.
Soc.) Is not significantly related to ethical sensitivity in any of the regression
models in which it is included. However, the two items of this scale measure
the extent to which respondents believe codes or norms exist to guide
marketing researchers' actions, not the extent to which respondents believe
they know those norms and codes. Thus, the scale does not truly capture the
Mii^MH^i^AMIM.
125
Intended meaning of professional socialization, and should, at best, be
considered a weak test of the hypothesis.
An Indirect measure of professional socialization is the number of years
respondents have worked as marketing researchers (Field). In the model with
only the professional socialization measures (column 2 of Table 5.4), the
standardized regression coefficient for Field is fairly large (.19), though not
statistically significant. In the full models (columns 7 and 8), the coefficients
for Field are both close to zero. Although not indicated by the variance
inflation factors, multicollinearity may be the cause of such large differences in
the Field coefficients across models.
One possible source of multicollinearity with Field Is respondent age
(Age). As shown in Table 5.3, the simple correlation between these two
variables is .60, which is large enough to be problematic. Moreover, the
magnitude of the standardized regression coefficient for Age is moderately
larger in the model with only the professional socialization variables (column 2
of Table 5.4) than In the other models.
To test the possibility that multicollinearity with Age Is the source of the
variation In the regression coefficients for Field, two additional models were
estimated regressing Field against ethical sensitivity, with and without Age. In
the first model, which included Field, Age, respondent gender (Gen.) and time
spent on the case analysis (Time), the standardized regression coefficient for
Field was .20, and for Age, -.21. Both were statistically significant (p < .10).
126
When Age was removed from the model, the standardized regression
coefficient for Field dropped to .07. The wide variation In the magnitude of the
regression coefficients and the moderately large simple correlation between
Field and Age noted eariier gives reason to believe that multicollinearity Is
present and that, contrary to expectations. Field is probably not related to
ethical sensitivity.
Among the frequency measures that assess how often respondents
attend professional programs (Prof. Prog.), social functions (Social), and
training programs (Training) sponsored by marketing research associations.
Training was significant (p < .10) in all three models In which it was included
(columns 2, 7 and 8 of Table 5.4). None of the other frequency measures
were significantly related to ethical sensitivity.
To the extent that marketing research training programs improve the
degree to which marketing researchers are socialized into the profession,
support is given for the second hypothesis. Inasmuch as these professionally
sponsored training programs address ethical problems faced by marketing
researchers, the significant relationship with ethical sensitivity is intuitive.
However, in light of the lack of significant relationships among other measures
of professional socialization, support for the second hypothesis should be
considered modest.
(
127
Hypothesis Three
Ethical sensitivity was predicted to be positively related to
organizational rank (Rank) In hypothesis three. As shown In columns 3, 7 and
8 of Table 5.4, no significant relationship between the variables was found. It
should be noted that the sign and magnitude of the standardized regression
coefficients for Rank differ between the model with only Rank and controls
(column 3) and the full models (columns 7 and 8). Again, this provides some
evidence of multicollinearity.
Hypotheses Four and Five
Hypothesis four predicts that empathy is positively related to ethical
sensitivity. The two dimensions of empathy are considered in light of their
Independent effects on ethical sensitivity.
Perspective Taking. Contrary to expectations, the degree to which
Individuals believe they are able to take the perspectives of others (Pers.
Take) is negatively related to ethical sensitivity. In the model containing only
the empathy variables (column 4 of Table 5.4), the standardized regression
coefficient for perspective taking Is negative, and approaching statistical
significance (-.16). In both full models (columns 7 and 8), the regression
coefficients are -.21, and statistically significant (p < .10). Thus, no support is
given for hypothesis four.
128
Emotional Contagion. Consistent with expectations, the emotional
contagion dimension of empathy (Emo. Cont.) Is significantly and positively
related to ethical sensitivity (columns 4, 7 and 8 of Table 5.4) in all three
regression models In which it appears. Hypothesis 5 is supported.
Hypothesis Six
Machiavellianism was expected to be positively related to ethical
sensitivity. Of all Independent variables tested, Machiavellianism (Mach)
showed the weakest relationship with the dependent variable, accounting for a
minute portion of the total variance (columns 5, 7 and 8 of Table 5.4). Thus,
H6 is rejected.
Hypotheses Seven and Eight
In H7, a positive relationship was predicted between ethical sensitivity
and the amount of formal education received by a marketing researcher. In
HS, a similar relationship was predicted for the amount of formal ethics training
respondents believed they had received during their education. The education
level (Ed. Level) of marketing researchers exhibited no relationship to ethical
sensitivity (columns 6, 7 and 8 of Table 5.4), offering no support for hypothesis
seven.
Results for H8 are quite surprising. While the amount of formal training
in ethics received by respondents (Ethic Ed.) was significantly related to
129
ethical sensitivity (p < .05), the direction of the relationship was negative,
contrary to expectations (column 6, 7 and 8 of Table 5.4). Thus, HS was not
supported.
Stepwise Regression Results
Stepwise regression was used as an additional check of the
relationships noted In the hypothesis tests. Stepwise regression allows
Independent variables to be entered into the model one at a time and retained
or removed depending on the strength of the statistical relationship with the
dependent variable. Given the indications of potential multicollinearity noted
eartler, stepwise regression is preferred over forward or backward selection
methods because stepwise regression allows removal of an Independent
variable after it has been entered in the model.
Table 5.5 shows the results of the stepwise regression. These results
are largely consistent with the regression analyses used to test the
hypotheses. One notable difference is the selection of perspective taking
(Pers. Take) for Inclusion in the model. The standardized regression
coefficient of -.22 is larger In magnitude than the coefficients for this variable
shown In Table 5.4. The direction of the relationship remains negative, so the
results of the hypothesis test for H4 are unchanged.
f
130
Table 5.5 Stepwise Regression Results Step Variable Entered"
1 Emo. Cont. 2 Ethic Ed. 3 Org. Soc. 4 Pers. Take 5 Training
" No variables were removed
" p < .05
"p<.01
Standardized Regression Coefficient
.25" -.22" .24"
-.22" .19"
once entered.
Model R
.06
.11
.14
.17
.20
Comparison of Ethical Sensitivity Measure with Shaub Procedure
In Chapter IV, It was argued that weighting respondents' ethical
sensitivity scores by the egregiousness of the ethical Issues raised in the case
would refine the measurement of ethical sensitivity. The reader will recall that
Shaub (1989) used the gross number of ethical Issues identified as the
absolute indicator of ethical sensitivity. In this section, the two methods of
calculating ethical sensitivity are compared.
Table 5.6 contains a summary of results when the Independent
variables are regressed against ethical sensitivity calculated as simply the
gross number of ethical Issues identified, without regard to their
egregiousness. In general, the results of this analysis are not substantially
different from the results using the weighted ethical sensitivity score.
131
Table 5.6 Summary of Regression Results: Shaub Measurement Procedure Independent Variable Org. Soc. Firm Prof. Soc. Field Prof. Prog. Social Training Rank Pers. Take. Emo. Cont. Mach. Ed. Level Ethic Ed. Age Gender Time
Model F R
(1) .29" .02
-.08 .00 .09
2.05" .09
(2)
.09
.19 -.04 -.03 .18
-.14 -.01 .05
0.67 .05
(3)
.14
-.08 -.01 .09
0.60 .03
(4)
-.15 .31 "
-.01 -.07 .11
2.24" .10
(5)
-.03
-.03 -.01 .09
0.28 .01
(6)
.07 -.19" -.05 -.00 .10
0.99 .05
(7) .32" .08 .05
-.00 .00
-.02 .15
-.04 -.19" .29"
-.03 .13
-.22" -.10 -.01 .11
1.88" .25
(8) .32" .03 .06
-.02 .00
-..03 .17
-.05 -.20" .28" .04 .08
-.22"
2.20" .24
(9)
.11
.01
.11
0.33 .01
"p<.10
" p < .05
" p < .01
i!BWIBl*.s
132
The pattern of significant relationships between this measure of ethical
sensitivity and the independent variables is almost identical to those produced
by the weighted measure, although the levels of significance change
somewhat. The one exception Is the frequency with which respondents attend
training programs sponsored by marketing research association. Although the
relationship between this variable and the weighted ethical sensitivity measure
reached statistical significance (p < .10), it approached, but did not reach,
significance using the Shaub ethical sensitivity measure.
Generally, the independent variables explained slightly more variance
In the Shaub measure of ethical sensitivity than the weighted measure, but the
differences are falrty minimal. Thus, while the incorporation of egregiousness
into the measurement of ethical sensitivity may be superior on theoretical
grounds, among this sample of marketing researchers, the two measures do
not differ much statistically.
Summarv
The results of the regression analysis give support for the hypothesis
that the professional ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers Is positively
related to organizational socialization (HI) and emotional contagion (H5).
Modest support is given to the hypothesis that ethical sensitivity Is positively
related to professional socialization (H2). No relationship was found between
professional ethical sensitivity and organizational rank (H3), Machiavellianism
JMJJPJl
133
(H6), and education level (H7). Significant relationships, but in a direction
opposite to expectations, were found between professional ethical sensitivity
and perspective taking (H4) and ethics education (H8). These results are
reasonably consistent irrespective of whether the weighted ethical sensitivity
measure or the gross ethical sensitivity measure proposed by Shaub (1989) is
used as the dependent variable.
!;»si^N
CHAPTER VI
DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The purpose of this study has been to explore the key input variable of
the ethical decision making process, ethical sensitivity. To this end, a
measure of ethical sensitivity was developed and its relationship to several
possible antecedents was tested using a sample of marketing researchers. In
this chapter, the results of the empirical tests are discussed and tentative
conclusions are drawn in light of the study's objective and limitations.
Specifically, this chapter will (1) discuss the findings of the empirical study and
what they suggest about the nature of ethical sensitivity, (2) consider the
limitations of the study, in particular measurement of the dependent variable,
and (3) suggest opportunities for future research.
Discussion
A positive relationship was hypothesized between ethical sensitivity and
the antecedent variables. While some of these hypotheses were supported
empirically, among those that were not, some surprising results emerged from
the analysis. In this section, ethical sensitivity's relationship to each of the
antecedents is discussed in light of the empirical findings.
134
135
Organizational Socialization
The empirical evidence suggests that socialization Into the norms and
codes of an organization enhances ethical sensitivity. Thus, as posited by the
theoretical models of Hunt and Vitell (1986, 1992) and Ferrell and Gresham
(1985), recognition of ethical problems comes through learning. In this case,
the values of one's organization. The implication for marketing managers Is
that successful transmission of a firm's ethical values Is effective in sensitizing
employees to the presence of ethical issues.
Implicit in the positive relationship hypothesized between ethical
sensitivity and organizational socialization is the assumption that the firms
sampled encourage high ethical standards among the marketing researchers
they employ. Certainly, one could presume that successful socialization into
organizations that place little or no value on ethical conduct might encourage
ethical Insensitivity. However, evidence from past research supports the
assumption that reasonably high ethical standards prevail among firms
employing marketing research practitioner members of the American
Marketing Association. For example, Hunt et al. (1984) found a high level of
awareness and concern about ethical issues among marketing researchers.
Likewise, Hunt et al. (1989) found that mart<eting researchers generally
believe that their employers possess falrty high corporate ethical values.
Interestingly, the association between organizational socialization and
ethical sensitivity was established only through the direct measure, and not by
"•ex
/
136
the length of time respondents worked for their current employer. Several
factors may contribute to this result. First, people may simply learn the values
of an organization at different rates. Second is the possibility of a skewed
relationship between tenure with one's employer and the degree to which
respondents feel well-socialized into their organizations. For example,
respondents who had been with one firm for four or five years might feel better
socialized than those with the firm for one or two years. However, employees
with four or five years' tenure might feel equally well-socialized as those who
had been with the firm for fifteen or twenty years.
Professional Socialization
Like socialization at the organizational level, socialization into the
marketing research profession is the learning of professional norms and
values, including the profession's formal and informal moral codes. The
empirical analysis indirectly supported a positive association between
professional socialization and ethical sensitivity, through attendance at
training programs sponsored by marketing research associations.
The frequency with which respondents attend professionally sponsored
training programs — one of three frequency measures used to assess
professional socialization — was positively related to ethical sensitivity. A
positive relationship between these two constructs is Intuitive; such training is
a means by which professional standards are directly transmitted to members.
137
Moreover, given the mission of professional associations, such as the
American Marketing Association, professionally sponsored training programs
may specifically Include ethics.
The frequency with which respondents attended "professional
programs" and "social functions" sponsored by marketing research
associations were not related to ethical sensitivity. The very weak relationship
between ethical sensitivity and attendance at professional programs may have
been due to a lack of clarity about what was meant by professional programs.
Interestingly, attendance at social functions exhibited a moderate negative
relationship with ethical sensitivity. Indeed, this relationship may have been
statistically significant had the sample been larger.
The lack of significance in the relationship between ethical sensitivity
and the direct measure of professional socialization may be attributed to the
measure itself and Is discussed as a research limitation later In this chapter.
Conclusions about professional socialization when measured by years in the
marketing research field are difficult to draw because of the possibility of
multlcolllnearity, discussed in Chapter IV. To the extent that years in the
marketing research field is not related to ethical sensitivity, reasoning similar
to years with the same firm may also apply here.
138
Organizational Rank
Organizational rank was not related to ethical sensitivity. Achieving a
particular rank in an organization Is a function of a variety of factors including
organizational and professional socialization. Rank also reflects one's
performance in the organization and industry, capabilities, and a host of
situational variables that may mask rank's direct relationship with ethical
sensitivity. Moreover, the scheme used to assign ranks to respondents based
on job title may have been a source of error. Additionally, the sample seemed
to overrepresent upper levels of management, perhaps reducing the variance
available for detecting a systematic relationship to ethical sensitivity.
Empathy
Perspective Taking
Perspective taking's relationship to ethical sensitivity was one of two
particularty surprising results that emerged from the data analysis. Directly
contrary to expectations, perspective taking, the cognitive dimension of
empathy, exhibited a significant negative relationship to ethical sensitivity.
The reasoning behind the hypothesized positive relationship was based on the
assumption that the ability to cognitively assume the perspective of others
makes an individual more aware of possible violations of moral codes, and,
thus, more ethically sensifive. Other writers (e.g., Rest 1986; McNeel 1994)
have expressed similar beliefs.
' «M,"J)"I««IWU, \
139
The negative relationship between perspective taking and ethical
sensitivity may be explained in terms of another outcome of perspective
taking: relativism. The ability and willingness to cognitively assume the
perspective of others may in some people lead to a tendency to believe that
the perspectives of others always have at least some merit. In turn, this
tendency may lead to a decrease in the Importance one ascribes to the moral
codes he or she has learned, and, therefore, the willingness to apply them in
decision making situations. This reasoning Is supported empirically by Shaub
et al. (1993), who found a negative relationship between ethical sensitivity and
relativism.
Emotional Contagion
Unlike perspective taking, emotional contagion — the affective
dimension of empathy — was found to be positively related to ethical
sensitivity. "Feeling the feelings" of others may serve as a trigger or warning
flag that alerts people to the possible violation of a relevant moral code. For
example. If a marketing researcher senses feelings of Injustice or indignation
from a client who believes that he or she has been treated unfairty, the
marketing researcher may bring to bear his or her knowledge of relevant moral
codes to ascertain whether an ethical situation is present.
The measure of emotional contagion used in this study focuses on
negative rather than positive affect. It Is entirely possible that positively
• ^
140
valenced emotional contagion Is similariy related to ethical sensitivity.
However, Hoffman (1981) proposes that, at Its most rudimentary, empathy Is
distress felt by the self that Is triggered by the perception of distress in others.
To the extent that the study of ethics typically addresses ethical conflict, a
focus on negative affect seems entirely appropriate.
Machiavellianism
Respondents' Machiavellianism was not related to their ethical
sensitivity. It may be that Machiavellians' desire to be aware of moral codes is
not related to their ability to apply those codes in decision making situations.
Indeed, while the evidence suggests that emotional contagion enhances
ethical sensitivity, Machiavellianism is characterized by a "cool detachment"
from others and an unwillingness to develop emotional relationships
(Singhapakdi 1993). In some Machiavellians, this emotional detachment may
mitigate their ability to apply moral codes; that is, to have personal qualities
like emotional contagion signal them that an ethical situation Is present. The
data are modestly suggestive of this possible explanation in that the
correlation between Machiavellianism and emotional contagion was negative
— albeit statistically Insigniflcant (Table 5.3).
^
141
Education Level
Level of education was not related to respondents' ethical sensitivity.
Education, in particular higher education, was hypothesized to enhance ethical
sensitivity on the grounds that it developed reasoning skills, and such skills
assisted marketing researchers in understanding when certain moral codes
were applicable. Moreover, education exposes people to new thoughts and
ideas, and, thus, would enhance one's knowledge of various norms and moral
codes.
The lack of a significant relationship between respondents' education
and ethical sensitivity may be because of the often general nature of higher
education. That Is, the education received by respondents may not have
contributed to their recognition of the particular ethical issues raised in the
case. Additionally, given that 85% of the sample had earned graduate
degrees, sufficient variance in education level (measured by highest degree
earned) may not have been present to detect a relationship with ethical
sensitivity if it does exist.
Ethics Education
The second particularty surprising result from the data analysis was the
significant negative relationship between ethical sensitivity and formal training
in ethics. Indeed, the hypothesis that training in ethics should heighten ethical
^
142
sensitivity is so Intuitive as to seem obvious. However, as with perspective
taking, relativism may offer a plausible explanation for this unexpected result.
NuccI and Pascarella (1987) note that, historically, a central goal of
U.S. colleges and universities was to develop sensitivity to moral
responsibility, to teach ethical thought and action, and to develop students'
character. As McNeel (1994) points out, however, ethics in higher education
has recently tended to be "value-free." To the extent that the training in ethics
received by respondents encouraged them to find merit in all moral codes or to
find morality in all behavior, then the resulting relativism would in turn
encourage ethical insensitivity. If true, this somewhat ironic result raises
serious questions about the nature and contribution of ethics training in higher
education.
Summary
Ethical sensitivity encompasses both knowledge of relevant moral
codes and the ability to apply them In decision-making situations. Acquiring
knowledge of various moral codes applicable to differing contexts is a learning
process — a process of socialization. In this respect, the data support the
position that ethical sensitivity Is learned, and, thus, can be taught. The
learning of various moral codes may be characterized as a cognitive
dimension of ethical sensitivity.
• ^
143
The ability to apply one's knowledge of moral codes to recognize the
presence of an ethical situation, however, seems more complex, perhaps
incorporating both cognitive and affective components. For example,
emotional contagion, a dimension of empathy, supports the contention that
ethical sensitivity possesses an affective component, which enhances the trait.
Hoffman (1981) notes that empathy, as an emotional response, occurs
naturally, appearing even in Infants. The degree to which practice and training
can amplify traits such as emotional contagion is unclear.
The effect of cognition on the application of moral codes Is also unclear.
The data suggest that perspective taking, the cognitive dimension of empathy,
negatively influences ethical sensitivity; although the reasons for this
relationship are uncertain. One possibility is that perspective taking may
encourage relativism, which exerts a negative influence on ethical sensitivity.
A similar mechanism may explain the negative relationship between formal
training in ethics and ethical sensitivity.
Limitations
Measurement of Ethical Sensitivity
As shown in Table 5.1, respondents most frequently identified Issue B
from the scenario — fair treatment of vendors. The panel of ethicists,
however, rated this issue as the third most egregious of the four ethical issues.
One Important objective of this research Is to refine Shaub's (1989) procedure
^ K
144
for measuring of ethical sensitivity by Incorporating Issue egregiousness into
the measure. The rationale for this refinement is that, other things equal,
highly egregious ethical Issues should be noticed more easily than less
egregious issues.
Unless the panel of ethicists view the egregiousness of the scenario's
ethical issues very differently than the practicing marketing researchers In the
sample, other things were not equal; another factor is influencing the ease with
which the ethical Issues are recognized. If so, this may provide insight into
why the weighted ethical sensitivity measure Introduced here performed no
differently than Shaub's (1989) procedure.
A strong possibility exists that the factor Increasing the frequency with
which Issue B was identified is its "embeddedness" in the text of the scenario.
Embeddedness refers to the degree to which the wording and presentation of
the Issue cause It to stand out from the text — the overtness or subtlety with
which it was written.
The consumer literature offers some insights Into this phenomenon.
McGinnis, Moorman and Jaworski (1991) note that certain "executional cues"
In advertisements increase their attention-getting capacity. In general, they
suggest that the more prominent, novel, and complex these cues are, the more
likely they are to be noticed. Applying this relationship to the scenario used in
this study, the wording and presentation of Issue B may have been in some
way more prominent than the others.
145
Of the four ethical issues, only Issue B directly attributes an unethical
act (or in this case, an inaction) to Bob or any of the other characters in the
scenario. The other issues all imply that an ethical act may have been
committed, but do not make an overt attribution. Issue B occurs when Bob's
boss and the client are allowed to believe that the fault for a serious data
collection error lay with a vendor, rather than with Bob where it belonged. The
scenario directly states, "Bob did not bother to correct their faulty
impressions."
In contrast. Issue A, research integrity, appears In the scenario as,
"Complicafing matters. Bob knew his statistical analysis had to be consistent
with certain recommendations already made to Standard by his boss, Barry
Michaels." This wording implies that Bob felt pressure to falsify or
misrepresent research results; however, it does not directly state that Bob
yielded to this pressure.
The issue of research confidentiality, Issue C, is raised In the scenario
in the following passage: "Marjorie had been a big help. Until a short time ago
her agency had handled the advertising for American Toiletries, so she had
valuable insight Into this competitor's possible responses to Standard's new
product." Although the passage Implies that Marjorie revealed confidential
information, it does not directly state that Marjorie gave Information at all, or
that it was confldential.
^ \
146
Issue D, the misuse of company property, was intended to be a
minimally egregious ethical Issue, and was considered so by the ethicists.
Moreover, It was the least identified of the four ethical issues, consistent with
expectations. In the scenario. Bob, feeling the pressure of responsibility to his
job, and a desire to be with his family, decides to photocopy his resume in
case he looks for another job. The scenario does not state that Bob was in
violation of any company policy, and leaves to the reader the assumption that
Bob would not pay for the personal copies he made.
The direct attribution of wrongdoing to Bob makes the manner in which
Issue B is presented qualitatively different, and more overt, than the other
three ethical Issues. This may account for the greater frequency with which It
was identified, and raises some questions about construct validity in the
measurement of ethical sensitivity. In the future, attempts to measure ethical
sensitivity should account for the embeddedness of ethical issues raised in the
scenario used for measurement.
Other Limitations
Beyond the measurement of ethical sensitivity, several other
characteristics of this study should be regarded as limitations. First, the direct
measure of professional socialization was Inadequate, and, therefore,
weakened the test of the second hypothesis. As mentioned in Chapter IV, the
two Items retained In the direct reflective professional socialization scale were
^ s
147
not consistent with the definition of the construct given in Chapter III.
Unfortunately, this inconsistency was not noted until after the data had been
gathered.
Second, the low response rate may have influenced the results through
the presence of non-response bias. Although there were no empirical
Indications of non-response bias, the two variables included in the test were a
small subset of the total variables about which respondents gave information.
Moreover, the sample's characteristics Indicate that some subgroups of
marketing researchers may be overrepresented. It should be noted that non-
response bias Is not of great concern to studies of this nature. Morgan and
Hunt (1994) point out that non-response bias is not an Issue unless the
objective of the study Is to test existing theory for purposes of generalizing the
results to a larger population, which is not a goal of this research. However, a
response rate that permitted greater generalizabillty of results in this study
would have been preferred.
Third, apart from response rate, the low sample size limited the
statistical power of the analyses. As shown In Table 5.3, many relationships
between variables are characterized by simple correlations of .10 to .15,
which, with a larger sample, might have been statistically signiflcant
(assuming, of course, that the correlation did not change with more
responses). The richness of the data would have been substantially enhanced
had some of these correlations been statistically significant.
148
Fourth, the method of administration used in this study may have been
a source of bias. Optimally, respondents should not know the purpose of the
research until after Identifying the issues in the scenario. Because many of
the Likert items in the second part of the questionnaire referred to the issue of
ethics, the possibility exists that some respondents ascertained the purpose of
the study before they read the scenario, or revised their responses to the
scenario after they read the Likert items. The self-administered questionnaire
provided no means of guarding against this possibility. However, examination
of the patterns of responses gave no indication that this limitation should be of
concern.
Opportunities for Future Research
The limitations just discussed suggest some avenues for future
research. First, the question of Issue embeddedness and its effect on
construct validity must be addressed. Second, a direct measure of
professional socialization should be developed and its relationship to ethical
sensitivity tested. Given that the context of ethical sensitivity In this study Is
professional, the relationship between ethical sensitivity and professional
socialization is particularty Important, and should be tested more directly.
Beyond research opportunities taken in response to the study's
limitations, the ethical sensitivity variable lends Itself well to extensions. A
variety of other antecedent relationships are yet to be tested. Additionally, the
149
interrelationships among antecedents to ethical sensitivity should be tested
using statistical techniques such as structural equations modeling, which are
more complex than the regression analysis used in this study. Additionally,
measures raising other ethical issues may produce different results.
Measures of ethical sensitivity can also be developed for other groups
of marketing professionals. Including marketing managers, salespeople, and
advertising professionals. Moreover, the measures could be applied
internationally to examine ethical sensitivity across cultures. Although the
context specific nature of the measurement procedure limits direct comparison
of ethical sensitivity across certain groups, differences in factors that influence
ethical sensitivity can be tested. A better understanding of these relationships
might be especially useful to managers seeking to improve their employees'
sensitivity to ethical issues.
REFERENCES
Akaah, Ishmael P. and Edward A. Riordan (1989), "Judgments of Mari<eting Professionals About Issues In Marketing Research: A Replication and Extension." Journal of Marketing Research. 26 (February), 112-120.
Akaah, Ishmael P. and Edward A. Riordan (1990), 'The Incidence of Unethical Practices in Marketing Research: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 18 (Spring), 143-152.
Allen, Natalie J. and John P. Meyer (1990), "Organizational Socialization Tactics: A Longitudinal Analysis of Links to Newcomers' Commitment and Role Orientation," Academy of Management Journal. 33 (December), 847-858.
Aranya, N. and D. Jacobson (1975), "An Empirical Study of Theories of Organizational and Occupational Commitment," Journal of Social Psychology. 97(1). 15-22.
Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton (1977), "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys," Journal of Marketing Research. 14 (August), 396-402.
Balazs, Anne L. (1990), "Value Congruency: The Case of the 'Socially Responsible' Firm," Journal of Business Research. 20 (September), 171-181.
Bartels, Robert (1967), "A Model for Ethics in Mari etlng," Journal of Marketing. 31 (January), 20-26.
Bartol, Kathryn M. (1979), "Professionalism as a Predictor of Organizational Commitment, Role Stress and Turnover: A Multidimensional Approach," Academy of Management Journal. 22 (December), 815-821.
Bebeau, Muriel J., James R. Rest and Catherine M. Yamoor (1985), "Measuring Dental Students' Ethical Sensitivity," Journal of Dental Education. 49 (March), 225-235.
Belizzi, Joseph A. and Robert E. Hite (1989), "Supervising Unethical Salesforce Behavior," Journal of Mart<etlng. 53 (April), 36-47.
150
151
Betz, Michael, Lenaham O'Connell and Jon M. Sheppard (1989), "Gender Differences In the Proclivity for Unethical Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, 8 (May), 321-324.
Blau, Peter M. and W. Richard Scott (1962), Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler.
Brim, Orvllle G. (1966), "Socialization Through the Life Cycle," in Socialization After Childhood: Two Essays, eds., O.G. Brim and S. Wheeler. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Buchanan, Bruce (1974), "Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations," Administrative Science Quartertv. 19 (December), 533-546.
Calhoon, Richard P. (1969), "NIccolo Machiavelll and the Twentieth Century Administrator," Academy of Management Journal. 12 (June), 205-212.
Castleberry, Stephen B., Warren French and Barbara A. Cartin (1993), "The Ethical Framework of Advertising and Marketing Research Practitioners: A Moral Development Perspective," Journal of Advertising. 22 (June), 39-46.
Chonko, Lawrence B. and John J. Burnett (1983), "Measuring the Importance of Ethical Situations as a Source of Role Conflict: A Survey of Salespeople, Sales Managers and Sales Support Personnel," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. 3 (May), 41-47.
Chonko, Lawrence B. and Shelby D. Hunt (1985), "Ethics and Mart<etlng Management: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Business Research. 13 (August), 339-359.
Christie, Richard and Florence L. Gels (1970), Studies In Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Crawford, C. Merte (1970), "Attitudes of Marketing Executives Toward Ethics in Marketing Research," Journal of Marketing. 34 (April), 46-52.
Davis, Mark H. (1983), "Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multi-Dimensional Approach," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44 (January), 113-126.
152
Dubinsky, Alan J. and Barbara Loken (1989), "Analyzing Ethical Decision Making In Marketing," Journal of Business Research. 19 (September) 83-107.
Feldman, Daniel Chartes (1976), "A Contingency Model of Socialization," Administrative Science Quartertv. 21 (September), 433-452.
Ferrell, O. C. and Larry G. Gresham (1985), "A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing," Journal of Marketing. 49 (Summer), 87-96.
Ferrell, O.C., Larry G. Gresham and John Fraedrich (1989), "A Synthesis of Ethical Decision Models for Marinating," Journal of Marcromartneting. 9 (Fall), 55-64.
Ferrell, O. C. and Steven J. Skinner (1988), "Ethical Behavior and Bureaucratic Structure in Marketing Research Organizations," Journal of Marketing Research. 25 (February), 103-109.
Ferrell, O. C. and K. Mark Weaver (1978), "Ethical Beliefs of Marketing Managers," Journal of Marketing. 42 (July), 69-73.
Fishbein, Martin and leek Ajzen (1975), Belief Attitude. Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addlson-Wesley.
Forsyth, Donelson R. (1980), "A Taxonomy of Ethical Ideologies," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 39 (January), 175-184.
Fraedrich, John, O.C. Ferrell and William Pride (1989), "An Empirical Examination of Three Machiavellian Concepts: Advertisers vs. The General Public," Journal of Business Ethics. 8 (September), 687-694.
Frankena, William (1963), Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fritzsche, David J. (1988), "An Examination of Marketing Ethics: Role of the Decision Maker, Consequences of the Decision, Management Position, and Sex of the Respondent," Journal of Macromarketing. 8 (Fall), 29-39.
Fritzsche, David J. and Helmut Becker (1983), "Ethical Behavior of Marineting Managers." Journal of Business Ethics. 3 (November), 291-299.
/
153
Goolsby, Jerry R. and Shelby D. Hunt (1992), "Cognitive Moral Development and Marketing," Journal of Marketing. 56 (January), 55-68.
Hegarty, W. Harvey and Henry P. Sims, Jr. (1978), "Some Determinants of Unethical Decision Behavior: An Experiment," Journal of Applied Psychology. 63 (August), 451-457.
Hegarty, W. Harvey and Henry P. Sims, Jr. (1979), "Organization Philosophy, Policies and Objectives Related to Unethical Decision Behavior: A Laboratory Experiment." Journal of Applied Psychology. 64 (June), 331-338.
Hoffman, Martin L. (1981), "Is Altruism Part of Human Nature?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 40 (January), 121-137.
Hunt, Shelby D. and Lawrence B. Chonko (1984), "Martnefing and Machiavellianism." Journal of Marketing. 48 (Summer), 30-42.
Hunt, Shelby D. and Lawrence B. Chonko (1987), "Ethical Problems of Advertising Agency Executives," Journal of Advertising. 16 (December), 16-24.
Hunt, Shelby D., Lawrence B. Chonko and James Wilcox (1984), "Ethical Problems of Marketing Researchers," Journal of Marketing Research. 21 (August), 304-324.
Hunt, Shelby D., Pamela L. Kiecker and Lawrence B. Chonko (1990), "Social Responsibility and Personal Success: A Research Note," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 18 (Summer), 239-244.
Hunt, Shelby D. and Arturo Vasquez-Parraga (1993), "Organizational Consequences, Marketing Ethics and Salesforce Supervision," Journal of Marketing Research. 30 (February), 78-90.
Hunt, Shelby D. and Scott J. Vitell (1986), "A General Theory of Marketing Ethics," Journal of Macromarketing. 6 (Spring), 5-16.
Hunt, Shelby D. and Scott J. Vitell (1992), "The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Retrospective and Revision," In Ethics in Marketing. N. Craig Smith and John A. Quelch, eds. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 775-784.
/
154
Hunt, Shelby D., Van R. Wood and Lawrence B. Chonko (1989), "Corporate Ethical Values and Organizational Commitment in Marketing," Journal of Marketing. 48 (Summer), 30-42.
Johnson, Richard A. and Dean Wichern (1988), Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jones, Gareth (1986), "Socialization Tactics, Self-Efficacy, and Newcomers' Adjustments to Organizations," Academy of Management Journal. 29 (June), 262-279.
Jones, Thomas M. (1991), "Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model," Academy of Management Review. 16 (April), 366-395.
Joreskog, Kart G. and Dag Sorbom (1993), LISREL: A Guide to the Program and Applicafions. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Kohlberg, Lawrence (1969), "Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive Developmental Approach to Socialization," In Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. D. Goslin, ed. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 347-480.
Kohlberg, Lawrence (1976), "Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive Developmental," in Moral Development and Behavior: Theory. Research and Social Issues. T. Lickoma, ed. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 31-53.
Kohlberg, Lawrence (1984), Essays on Moral Development: Vol. II. The Psychology of Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row.
Krugman, Dean M. and O. C. Ferrell (1981), "The Organizational Ethics of Advertising: Corporate and Agency Views," Journal of Advertising. 10 (January), 21-30, 48.
Laczniak, Gene R. (1983), "Business Ethics: A Manager's." Business. 33 (January - March), 23-29.
Lee, Sang M. (1971), "An Empirical Analysis of Organizational Identiflcation," Academy of Management Journal. 14 (June), 213-226.
Loehlin, John C. (1987), Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor. Path and Structural Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum and Associates.
/
155
Maclnnis, Deborah, Christine Moorman and Bernard J. Jaworski (1991), "Enhancing and Measuring Consumers' Motivation, Opportunity and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads," Journal of Marketing. 55 (October), 32-53.
Mayo, Michael A. and Lawrence J. Marks (1990), "An Empirical Investigation of a General Theory of Marketing Ethics," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 18 (Spring), 163-171.
McBane, Donald A. (1990), "Understanding Customer Needs: A Reconceptualizatlon of Empathy and Its Effects on Sales Outcomes," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University.
McNeel, Steven P. (1994), "College Teaching and Student Moral Development," In Moral Development In the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. J. Rest and D Narvaez, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum and Associates, 27-49.
Miller, George A. and L. Wesley Wager (1971), "Adult Socialization, Organization Structures and Role Orientations," Administrative Science Quarterly. 16(1), 151-163.
Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), "The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing," Journal of Marketing. 58 (July), 20-38.
Murphy, Patrick and Gene Laczniak (1981), "Marketing Ethics: A Review with Implications for Managers, Educators and Researchers," Review of Marketing 1981. B. Enis and K. Roaring, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 251-266.
Neter, John, William Wasserman and Michael H. Kutner (1989), Applied Linear Regression Models. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Nucci, L. and E. Pascarella (1987), "The Influence of College on Moral Development," In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. J. Smart, ed. New York: Agathon, 271-326.
Ostroff, Chert and Steve W. J. Kozlowski (1992), "Organizational Socialization as a Learning Process: The Role of Information Acquisition," Personnel Psychology. 45 (Winter), 849-874.
156
Ponemon, Lawrence A. (1992), "Ethical Reasoning and Selection-Socialization in Accounting," Accounting Organizations and Society. 17 (Aoril/Mav^ 239-258.
Rest, James R. (1983), "Morality," In Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 3. P. Mussan, ed., J. Flavell and E. Markman, vol. eds. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 556-619.
Rest, James R. (1986), "An Overview of the Psychology of Morality," in Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. J. Rest, ed. New York: Praeger.
RIttenburg, Terri L. and Gene W. Murdock (1994), "The Pros & Cons of Certifying Marketing Researchers," Marineting Research: A Magazine of Management & Applications. 6 (Spring), 4-10.
Robin, Donald P. and R. Eric Reidenbach (1987), "Social Responsibility, Ethics and Marketing Strategy: Closing the Gap Between Concept and Application," Journal of Marketing. 51 (January), 44-58.
Shaub, Michael K. (1989), "An Empirical Examination of The Determinants of Auditors' Ethical Sensitivity," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University.
Shaub, Michael K., Don W. Finn and Paul Munter (1993), "The Effects of Auditors' Ethical Orientation on Commitment and Ethical Sensitivity," Behavioral Research in Accounting. 5 (April), 145-169.
Singhapakdi, Anusorn (1993), "Ethical Perceptions of Marketers: The Interaction Effects of Machiavellianism and Organizational Ethical Culture." Journal of Business Ethics. 12 (May), 407-418.
Singhapakdi, Anusorn and Scott J. Vitell (1993), "Selected Factors Influencing Marketers' Deontological Norms," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 19 (Winter), 37-42.
Sorenson, James E. and Thomas L. Sorenson (1974), "The Conflict of Professionals in Bureaucratic Organizations," Administrative Science Quartertv. 19 (January), 98-106.
Sparks, John R. (1994), "Machiavellianism and Personal Success in Marketing: The Moderating Role of Latitude of Improvisation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 22 (Fall), 393-400.
I
157
Staub, Ervin (1978), Positive Social Behavior and Morality: Social and Personal Influences. New York: Academic Press.
Stiff, James B., James P. Dillard, Lilnabeth Somera, Hyun Kim and Carra Sleight (1988), "Empathy, Communication and Prosocial Behavior," Communication Monographs. 55 (June), 198-213.
Thoma, S. J. and Mark Davison (1983), "Moral Reasoning Development and Graduate Education," Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 4 (April), 227-238.
Trevino, Linda Klebe (1986), "Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model," Academy of Management Review. 11 (July), 601-617.
Van Maanen, John (1976) "Breaking In: Socialization to Work," in Handbook of Work. Organization and Society. R. Dubin, ed. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 67-130.
Vitell, Scott J. and Shelby D. Hunt (1990), "The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Partial Test of the Model," in Research in Marketing. Vol. 10, J. Sheth, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 237-265.
VIeeming, R.G. (1979), "Machiavellianism: A Preliminary Review," Psychological Reports. 44 (February), 295-310.
Volker, J.M. (1984), "Counseling Experience, Moral Judgment, awareness of Consequences and Moral Sensitivity in Counseling Practice," Unpublished manuscript. University of Minnesota.
Wood, Van R., Lawrence B. Chonko and Shelby D. Hunt (1986), "Social Responsibility and Personal Success: Are They Incompatible?" Journal of Business Research. 14 (June), 193-212.
Wotruba, Thomas R. (1990), "A Comprehensive Framework for the Analysis of Ethical Behavior, With a Focus on Sales Organizations," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. 10 (Spring), 29-42.
Zajonc, Robert (1980), "Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences." American Psychologist. 35 (January), 151-175.
^\
/
APPENDIX A
PRENOTIFICATION AND COVER LETTERS
158
t
159
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY College of Business Administration Area of Marketing
LubtKxk. Texas 79409 2101 (806) 742 3162/FAX (806) 742 2099
May 17.1994
Dear
Would you consider helping us with a research project focxising on the prac:tic» of marketing researc^h? This two-part project seeks the opinions of marketing researchers on several topics important to the profession.
Part One is a brief case analysis that has been examined by several groups of students, but we feel It needs Input from marketing research professionals - like you. Part Two seeks your views on certain aspec ts of the marketing research profession and your job in it. Both parts of the survey can be completed In about thirty minutes.
You should receive the questionnaire and its return envelope in about a week. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Randy Sparks at (806) 742-3165.
Thank you for considering our request.
Sincerely,
Shelby D. Hunt Randy Spari s Paul Whitfield Horn Professor Project Director of Marketing
160
\ IJ / TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY ("4)llej«e of Business Administration Are-j of Marketing
UibbtKk, Texas 79409 2101 (H06) '42 3164/FAX (806)742 2199
Dear Marketing Research Professional,
This is the questionnaire on marketing research we wrote you about. We seek the opinions of marketing researc±iers on several topics important to the profession.
Part One is a brief case analysis In which you Identify issues involved in a two-page marketing research research case. (If you wish, imagine you are teaching the case to a college-level marketing research class.)
Part Two seeks your views on the marketing research profession and your job in it. Both parts of the survey can be completed in about thirty minutes.
We assure you that your responses are completely anonymous and confidential. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Randy Sparks, at (806) 742-3165.
Thank you for considering our request.
Sincerely,
Shelby D. Hunt Randy Spari<s Paul Whitfield Hom Professor Project Director
of Marketing
161
• I , »
I \m f TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY College of IkLSiness Administration Arc-J of Marketing
UiN>Kk, Texxs 79409 2101 (806) 742 3164/FAX (806) 742 2199
Dear Marketing Research Professional.
Would you consider helping us with a research project focusing on the practice of marketing research? This two-part project seeks the opinions of marketing researchers on several topics important to the profession.
Part One is a brief (two page) case analysis that has been examined by several groups of students, but we feel It needs input from marketing research professionals — like you. Part Two seeks your views on certain aspects of the marketing research profession and your job in it. Both parts of this survey can be completed In approximately thirty minutes.
We assure you that your responses are completely anonymous and confidential. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Randy Sparks, at (806) 742-3165.
Thank you for considering our request.
Sincerely,
Shelby D. Hunt Randy Sparks Paul Whitfield Hom Professor Project Director
of Marketing
•^iTN
162
mm HB
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY Institute For Marketing Studies P.O. Box 4320 Lubbock, Texas 79409-4320
Dear Marketing Research Professional.
Would you consider helping us with a research projec t focusing on the practice of marketing research? This two-part project seeks the opinions of marketing researchers on several topics important to the profession.
Part One is a brief (two page) case analysis that has been examined by several groups of students, but we feel it needs input from marketing research professionals — like you. Part Two seeks your views on certain aspects of the marketing research profession and your job in it. Both parts of the survey can be completed in approximately thirty minutes.
We assure you that your responses are completely anonymous and confidential. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Randy Sparks at (806) 742-3165.
Thank you for considering our request.
Sinc^erely,
Shelby D. Hunt Randy Sparks Paul Whitfield Hom Professor Project Director
of Marketing
I ^.v
APPENDIX B
MARKETING RESEARCH SCENARIO AND INSTRUCTIONS
163
164
L&H Marketing Research
1 It was late Saturday afternoon In mid-
2 December and Bob Smi th was in his ofTice at
3 L & H Market ing Research work ing fur iously to
4 complete the media plan portion of the report for
5 Standard Grooming Products . Standard was
a consider ing int roducing a men's hairspray and
7 needed the demograph ic character ist ics and
8 media habi ts o f ma le hairspray users, as wel l as
0 att i tudinal in format ion about such product
10 attr ibutes as oi l iness, st ickiness, mascul in i ty and
11 f ragrance.
12 The f ind ings were to be presented
13 Monday af ternoon, and a ser ies of problems and
14 delays had forced Bob to come in on Saturday
15 to finish the report. Complicating matters. Bob
16 knew his stat ist ical analys is had to be consistent
17 wi th certain recommendat ions already made to
IS Standard by his boss, Barry Michaels. Bob.
19 Barry and Marjor ie Glass, f r om Standard 's
20 advert is ing agency, were to meet Monday
21 moming to finalize L&H's presentation to
22 Standard .
23 In September, Bob had recommended
24 survey ing 250 users of men 's hairspray f rom
2s each of 15 metropol i tan areas. Char ies
20 Chasta in f r o m Standard 's market ing depar tment
27 had argued that conclus ions about local usage
28 in each city wou ld not be accurate unless each
20 city's sample size was proportional to its
30 population. That is, the sample sizes for larger
31 cities should be larger than for smaller cities.
32 Furthermore. Chastain feared that males in
33 metropolitan areas differed from rural males on
34 usage or other impor tant character ist ics.
35 Bob finally convinced Chastain that
36 samp le s izes propor t ional to populat ion would
37 mean only 25 to 50 interviews in some smaller
38 cit ies - too few to draw statist ical ly val id
30 conclusions. Fur themiore , expanding the survey
40 to include rural users wou ld require commit t ing
41 more money to the project - money Standard
42 dkJn l want to spend.
43 In October, a Des Moines, Iowa pretest
44 of the quest ionnaire had est imated the
45 proport ion of men who used hairspray. Phone
46 interviews conducted evenings and weekends
47 found 7 0 % of respondents home and wil l ing to
48 cooperate, of w h o m about one third were
40 hairspray users. Th is pretest of 68 users was
so useful , but its unexpected length showed the
51 cost per completed interv iew to be about $18.
52 Tota l expenses would be wel l over budget if that
53 cost held for the 15 metro areas. If the survey
54 costs exceeded $65,000 (counting the pilot
56 study), precious litt le money woukJ be left for
56 the focus groups, advert is ing, and packaging
57 pretesting in L&H's contract wi th Standard (see
58 Table One) .
50 Since Standard was a new account wi th
60 big potent ial , a long te rm relat ionship wi th them
81 would be very va luable . (Business at L&H had
62 been slow this past year.) Feel ing "under the
63 gun , " Bob met wi th his boss and Chasta in, who
64 agreed to reduce the sample to 200 men in
65 each of only 11 metropol i tan areas.
1 Phone Survey ( including pilot study)
i Focus Group Study Advert is ing Pretest ing Package Pretest ing Miscel laneous Expenses
1 Proposed Total Expenses
58.000
8.000 25,000 14,000
5,000 110,000
Table One • Proposed Budget
^
165
86 In earty November , a new problem
67 arose. Af ter surveying eight of the metro areas,
68 Bob d iscovered that all quest ions on media
60 habits had been accidental ly de le ted . W h e n
70 told, Barry and C h a s t a i n (both visibly angry)
71 dec ided there w a s too little t ime to resample the
72 eight areas . Instead, the m e d i a questions were
73 re- inserted for the remain ing three cities, and
74 the survey w a s comple ted . Al though Bob had
75 prepared the final quest ionnaire, both Barry and
76 Chasta in mistakenly be l ieved that the fault lay
77 v\nth the v e n d o r w h o h a d conducted the phone
78 interviews for L & H . Bob did not bother to
70 correct their faulty impressions.
80 Bob's task now w a s to m a k e the most
81 of the data he had . Because the responses
82 f rom each of the three cities w e r e reasonably
83 similar, and e a c h city c a m e f rom a different
84 region (east, west and midwest ) . Bob felt
85 confident in the representat iveness of the three-
86 city data. Therefore, he decided to base the
87 med ia plan on the large di f ferences between his
88 results and the national a v e r a g e med ia trends
ss a m o n g adult m e n - mak ing sports magaz ines
BO and newspapers the primary vehicles for
81 Standard's advert ising, (see Tab le Two) .
92 In addit ion. Bob had consulted with
83 Marjorie G lass about these recommendat ions .
84 Marjorie had b e e n a big help. Until a short t ime
OS ago, her agency, had handled the advert ising for
86 A m e r i c a n Toi letr ies, so she had va luable
87 infonmation about this compet i tor 's possible
88 responses to S tandard 's n e w product.
88 T h e Standard project had been quite
100 stressful on Bob , w h o hated spending w e e k e n d s
101 a w a y f rom his fami ly - especial ly near Chr istmas!
102 If the presentat ion went wel l a n d more business
103 w a s for thcoming. B o b suspected he would be
104 spending e v e n more w e e k e n d s here. But if the
105 presentat ion w e n t poorty or the da ta collection
106 errors b e c a m e an issue, then Standard might look
107 e lsewhere for market research, thus jeopardiz ing
106 Bob's future with L & H . Ei ther w a y , he felt
100 apprehensive. Bob got up f rom his desk to m a k e
110 copies of Tab le T w o for the presentation. Wh i le
111 he w a s at the copier, he would slip in s o m e copies
112 of his r e s u m e - just in case he soon might n e e d
113 s o m e extras.
Magazines: At least 1 subscription of... News Entertainment
Sports Other
Newspaper Subscription (at least one daily) Favorite Radio Format
Hours Watching TV per week
1
Pop/Rock Country
EZ Listening News/Talk
Other Total
Dramas Comedies
News Other
Three-City Sample
28% 4 39 9
35 51 26 7 5 11
17.5 6.3 7.8 1.1 23
All U.S. Men 19%
3 20 6 14 48 37 6 4 5
23.5 8.4 7.3 3.9 3.9
Table Two - Comparison of Media HabKs Three CKy Sample of Male Hairspray Users vs. U.S. Adult Males
166 Part One: Case Issues
.» .n^ ' ! f r ' ^.^ l ® . ".®I "^^^ °" '-*^ Mart eting Research. What issues, in your opinion, are raised in the It^l [iT" ^®'P^"'' P'®*®"* ^ * y°" '® ^®^^'"9 * 's case to a college-level mariceting research dass and Identify the issues that you or your students could raise during class discussion
Bnsffy describe the issues you identify in the spaces below. If you wish use the line numbers in the case •S I f u ^^^^^ '^"®^- ^P^^® ' provided for fifteen issues, however, you shouW not feel obligated to Identify that many. If you klentify more, feel free to use a separate sheet.
At the bottom of the page, please note the (approximate) amount of time it took to read the case and Identify the issues.
Issue No, 1.
3.
6.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Approximately how many minutes did you spend identifying the above issues?
APPENDIX C
MARKETING RESEARCH ETHICIST QUESTIONNAIRE
167
^v
(
168
Views of Marketing Ethicists
^MH^ ^'t*'"®^ descriptions of four possible ethical violations embedded in or implied by the actions of the partiapants in the attached case. Please read the issues (refer to the case as necessary).
I. Suppose a marketing researcher compromises the Integrity of his analysis by ensuring that me research results conform to recommendations already made to the client (as Implied in lines 14-17).
II. Suppose an advertising account executive provides infomiatlon about a fomier client to that Client's chief competitor, which her agency now represents (as Implied In lines 20 - 26).
III. Suppose a marketing researcher allows another researcher to be blamed for his own mistake (as Implied In lines 80 - 84).
IV. Suppose a marketing professional uses his company's copier to run off several copies of his resume, against company policy (as Implied in lines 108 -112).
1. Please rank order the four possible ethical violations according to their seriousness.
The most serious ethical violation:
The least serious ethical violation:
2. Referring to the possible ethical violations, please circle the number that best reflects your beliefs.
Not an Ethical Not a Serious A Very Serious
Violation At All Ethical Violation Ethical Violation
L 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IL 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
III. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IV. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3. Any thoughts about the case? (For example, are there ethical issues in the case other than the four identified?)
APPENDIX D
MACHIAVELLIANISM SCALE
169
/
170
1. Most people who get ahead In the world lead clean, moral lives.
2. Generally speaking, people won't work hard unless they're forced to do so.
3. The biggest difference between criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught.
4. Most people are brave.
5. People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.
6. It is possible to be good In all respects.
7. Most people are basically good and kind.
8. There is no excuse for lying to someone else.
9. Most people forget more easily the death of a parent than the loss of their property.
10. Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless It Is useful to do so.
11. One should take action only when sure It Is morally right.
12. It Is wise to flatter Important people.
13. All In all, it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest.
14. Barnum was wrong when he said there's a sucker born every minute.
15. The best way to handle people Is to tell them what they want to hear.
16. When you ask someone to do something for you. It is best to give the real reasons for wanting it, rather than giving reasons that carry more weight.
17. Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble.
18. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.
171
19. It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak, and It will come out when they are given a chance.
20. Honesty is the best policy in all cases.
• ' ' • ^ s
APPENDIX E
PARTIAL REGRESSION PLOTS
172
^
^ /
173
2 -
^ 1 .> '•*-A
w c CO 0 "(5 o !c ijj -1
* • *^ \ ... •
- - - - • i • m .....^.^ •%• • _._._._._
-. H » • y »• ,
- - - - . - - • - • • - * " • • " ]
-2
-1 0 Organizational Socialization
Figure E.1 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Org. Soc.
^ v
/
174
2 -
Z^ 1 -
C
0) 0
S UJ - 1 -
-2
-2 •1 0 1 Years with Current Firm
Figure E.2 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Firm
/
•"WSHTX
175
-3 •1 0 1 Professional Socialization
Figure E.3 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Prof. Soc.
(
•wBmrx
176
2 -
^ 1
c S 0 s Hi -1
-2 -
-4 -3 -1 0 Years in Field
H h
Figure E.4 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Field
/
177
Z' 1
C
^ 0 CO
s UJ - 1 -
-2
- 2 - 1 0 1 Attendance at Professional Programs
Figure E.5 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Prof. Prog.
^ [
178
-1 0 1 Attendance at Social Functions
Figure E.6 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Social
(
^ate^
179
- 1 0 1 2 Attendance at Training Programs
Figure E.7 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Training
t
180
2 -
>» 1 -
c S 0 s iij -1
-2 -
^ ^ ^
-3 -1 0 1 Organizational Rank
Figure E.8 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Rank
nmir^mwt
1 8 1
>:> 1 -
tn
c ^ 0 S ijj -1
-2 -
-1 0 1 Perspective Taking (Empathy)
Figure E.9 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Pers. Take
• i w \
E r ^ - j j J j j - n " I I I '
182
2 -
^* 1
c
S 0 S SJ -1
-3 -1 0 1 Emotional Contagion (Empathy)
Figure E.10 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Emo. Cont.
,ja
183
0 1 2 Machiavellianism
Figure E.11 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Mach
184
2 --
>? 1 -
c CO 0
s ijj -1
-2
-4 -3 -1 0 1 Educational Level
Figure E.12 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Ed. Level
.^...Id
185
2 -
-^ 1 .> ' • * ^
w c
5 0
LLJ . 1
-2
• • • • «
" •"•"•" " " " " • " 'm
• • • .
i \ ^ \ \
• • •
- • . - • » • - * - ^ . r. • * • %
1 \ \ 1 1
•1 0 1 Ethic s Education
Figure E.13 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Ethic Ed.
• • • w n C T ^
186
Respondent Age
Figure E.14 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Age
t " 1 W W W i|) nuMUiiUjaR
187
0 1 2 3 Time on Case Analysis
Figure E.15 Partial Regression Plot: Ethical Sensitivity by Time
"ifcv