professional ethical sensitivity: the case a …

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 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 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


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


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


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)


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


0.41 0.53 0.61 0.70 0.68 0.60


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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

professional ethical sensitivity: the case a …

Documents