J Bus Ethics DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1973-y
Is Business Ethics Education Effective? An Analysis of Gender, Personal Ethical Perspectives, and Moral Judgment Liz C. Wang • Lisa Calvano
Received: 18 May 2013 / Accepted: 12 November 2013 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Although ethics instruction has become an accepted part of the business school curriculum at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, some scholars have questioned its effectiveness, and research results have been mixed. However, studies yield interesting results regarding certain factors that influence the ethicality of business students and may impact the effectiveness of business ethics instruction. One of these factors is gender. Using personal and business ethics scenarios, we examine the main and interactive effects of gender and business ethics education on moral judgment. We then analyze the relationships between gender and business ethics education on personal ethical perspectives. Our results indicate that women are generally more inclined to act ethically than men, but paradoxically women who have had business ethics instruction are less likely to respond ethically to business situations. In addition, men may be more responsive to business ethics education than women. Finally, women’s personal ethical orientations may become more relativistic after taking a business ethics class. Keywords Business ethics education Gender Moral judgment Idealism and relativism Business and personal scenarios
Over the past decade, ethics instruction has become an accepted part of the business school curriculum at both the L. C. Wang L. Calvano (&) College of Business and Public Affairs, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, PA 19383, USA e-mail:
[email protected] L. C. Wang e-mail:
[email protected]
undergraduate and graduate levels (Waples et al. 2009). In addition, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB International 2004) supports and encourages business schools in this direction. Recent research by Litzky and MacLean (2011) shows that approximately 70 % of the top business schools have some form of an ethics requirement either as a stand-alone class or a component of other classes. Despite these efforts, some scholars and educators have questioned the effectiveness of business ethics instruction. For example, Jewe (2008) found that completion of a business ethics course has no significant effect on a student’s ethical attitudes. Similarly, Lampe and Engleman-Lampe (2012) demonstrated that despite their ethical training, business students still have the highest rate of cheating among college students. Moreover, results of a meta-analysis indicate that, ‘‘business ethics instructional programs have a minimal impact on increasing outcomes related to ethical perceptions, behavior or awareness’’ (Waples et al. 2009, p. 1). Although the effectiveness of business ethics classes is contested, some interesting findings have emerged that suggest certain factors may affect the relationship between ethics instruction and ethical perception and behavior. One such factor is the personal characteristics of an individual, including age and gender. With regard to age, Kohlberg (1969) theorized that ethical outcomes should improve over time due to the development of a moral compass. However, a meta-analysis demonstrated mixed results regarding the relationship between age and ethicality among business students (Borkowski and Ugras 1998). Similarly, the results for gender are not clear-cut and reflect the debate among theorists—namely Kohlberg (1969) and Gilligan (1982)—regarding the affect of gender on ethical awareness and behavior. While the same meta-analysis concluded that female business students are more ethical
123
L. C. Wang, L. Calvano
than men (Borkowski and Ugras 1998, p. 1124), other studies yield mixed results. For example, Robin and Babin (1997) surveyed the literature on gender and ethicality and found little difference between male and female business students. However, their own study revealed large differences between males and females in terms of behavioral intention, but comparatively smaller differences in ethical judgment. More recently, Roger Steare of Case Business School found that female MBA students score lower on his moral DNA personality test than women who are not business students (Clarke 2012). We are interested in extending research on the relationship between gender and ethicality among business students by considering the effect of gender on moral judgment, while factoring in the impact of business ethics instruction. Thus, we situate our study at the intersection of three literature streams. The first stream is the cross-disciplinary literature on the relationship between gender and ethicality in general. Although this stream seems to demonstrate that women are more ethical than men (e.g., DePaulo et al. 1996; Dreber and Johannesson 2008), the business ethics literature paints a different picture with regard to business students (e.g., Clarke 2012; Robin and Babin 1997). As discussed above, the other two streams focus on the relationships between personal characteristics and ethicality among undergraduate business students (e.g., Borkowski and Ugras 1998) and the efficacy of business ethics instruction in terms of promoting ethical awareness and behavior (e.g., Waples et al. 2009). In our study, we hypothesize and test two models shown in Fig. 1. First, we examine the main and interactive effects of gender and business ethics education on moral judgment. We then analyze the relationships between gender and business ethics education on personal ethical perspectives. Our models are consistent with the scope of Fig. 1 Models tested
previous research examining the issues of whether gender and business ethics affect ethicality among business students separately. However, our research moves in a new direction by considering how gender interacts with business ethics instruction. It is important to note that we limit our study to undergraduate business students because they are at the formative stage of developing an awareness of ethical issues in business.
Literature Review and Hypotheses Gender and Moral Judgments Moral judgment is an outcome of the ethical decisionmaking process and is influenced by a variety of individual factors. Ethics researchers have identified gender as an individual factor that impacts moral judgments. According to Gilligan (1982), women behave differently than men and consequently approach ethics from a different moral orientation, based on care. Whereas men are more likely to make ethical decisions based on notions of justice, women are more likely to consider situational contexts. Alternatively, social role theory explains gender differences in ethical judgments based on women being positively valued for their relationship orientation and social sensitivity (Eagly 1987). Although empirical research provides little support for Gilligan’s moral orientation theory (Jaffee and Shibley 2000), subsequent research has found women to be more empathetic than men (Toussaint and Webb 2005). With regard to business ethics, cross-cultural studies of business students and business professionals demonstrate that women tend to be more ethical than men (e.g., Albaum and Peterson 2006; Roxas and Stoneback 2004). Surveying 3,000 undergraduate business students from 58 universities
Gender H1
Business Ethics Education
H2
Gender X Business Ethics Education
H3
Gender
H4 & H5
Moral Judgment Business Related Ethical Decision Non Business Ethical Decision
Personal Ethical Perspectives Idealism Relativism
Business Ethics Education H6 & H7
123
Gender and Personal Ethical Orientation
in 32 countries, Albaum and Peterson (2006) demonstrated that female undergraduate business students are slightly, but significantly, more ethically inclined than males. Hoffman (1998) reached a similar conclusion when comparing female and male managers. Using a marketing dilemma, Malinowski and Berger (1996) conclude that female undergraduates respond to situations more ethically than men. Similarly, Roxas and Stoneback (2004) found that overall male business students tended to be less ethical than females and Nguyen et al. (2008) found that female students exhibited a higher level of ethical judgment than did men. While Valentine and Rittenburg (2007) found no significant differences in ethical judgments among male and female business executives, females demonstrated a greater intent to act ethically. Given these research results, we found sufficient evidence for the argument that female business students and managers may act more ethically than males. Rooted in both the moral orientation and social role theories, we suggest that women are more likely to make ethical decisions than men because they are more caring, empathic, relationship-oriented, and socially sensitive. Thus,
2004). The desired outcome of continuous innovation and improvement in business ethics education is that it will exert a positive effect on student’s ethical judgments. This idea is supported by Kohlberg’s (1969) cognitive moral development theory, which contends that individuals’ cognitive, emotion, and judgment may change as they move through stages of moral developments. Based on Kohlberg’s (1969) theory, we argue that the ability to make ethical decisions can be learned through ethics education. As students progress through levels of cognitive moral development, they gain more exposure to ethical perspectives through higher education and their ability to deal with ethical dilemmas should improve (Christensen and Kohls 2003; Gundersen et al. 2008). Thus, we suggest a positive effect of business ethics education on ethical judgment for undergraduate business students:
H1 Female undergraduate business students tend to make more moral judgments on ethical dilemmas than male undergraduate business students.
Interactive Effects of Gender and Business Education Ethics
Business Ethics Education and Moral Judgments Prior studies of cheating behavior among college students indicate that individuals who cheat in schools are more likely to act unethically in the workplace (Hutton 2006; Lawson 2004) and business students are more likely to cheat than students in other disciplines (Lampe and Engleman-Lampe 2012). Business ethics educators argue that business ethics instruction is a key to decoupling these results. However, there is a debate about whether teaching ethics makes a difference in business students and empirical support is mixed. For example, Jewe (2008) studied the effects of business ethics education on the ethical attitudes of students enrolled in undergraduate business schools and found that the completion of a business ethics course had no significant effect on the respondent’s ethical attitudes. Similarly, Waples et al. (2009) found that the overall effectiveness of business ethics education was minimal. Although the effectiveness of business ethics education on undergraduate business students seems to be minimal or insignificant in some studies, business ethics education is an important goal on the agenda of business schools. Business ethics education is a vital part of curriculum based on AASCB standards and the AACSB encourages business schools to demonstrate continual improvement of student learning in business ethics (AACSB International
H2 Undergraduate business students who have business ethics training tend to make more moral judgments on business ethical dilemmas than those without business ethics training.
Prior research suggests that females are relationship-oriented and socially sensitive (Eagly 1987) and, as a result, tend to be more empathetic and more sensitive to ethical issues than men (Toussaint and Webb 2005). Thus, when both genders have not received business ethics instruction, male undergraduate business students may be more inclined to act less ethically than their female counterparts. Since business ethics education is believed to improve one’s ethical judgment, male undergraduate business students without business ethics instruction may also have a lower level of moral judgment. However, business ethics education may enable male business students to account for the perspectives of multiple stakeholders and importance of ethical judgment on society. Based on cognitive moral development theory, men should become more sensitive to moral issues from their learning process in ethics education. Such training may exert more significant positive influences on males than on females because males may have a lower level of ethical judgment before the training. However, females may be more responsive to business ethics education than males due to their being more socially sensitive. Thus, business ethics education may improve female ability to make ethical decisions more significantly than males. Following this line of logic, we suggest that there is an interactive effect of gender and business ethics education on moral judgments. That is, female students who receive business ethics
123
L. C. Wang, L. Calvano
instruction may display the highest level of ethical judgment: H3 Gender will interact with business ethics education as follows: H3 a Female students who have business ethics training tend to make more moral judgments on business ethical dilemmas than male students who have business ethics training. H3 b Female students without business ethics training tend to make more moral judgments on business ethical dilemmas than male students with no business ethics training. H3 c Male students with business ethics training tend to make more moral judgments on business ethical dilemmas than male students with no business ethics training. H3 d Female students with business ethics training tend to make more moral judgments on business ethical dilemmas than female students with no business ethics training. Gender and Personal Ethical Perspectives Ethics position theory (EPT) suggests that individual ethical perspectives influence moral judgments, actions, and emotions in ethical dilemmas. According to EPT, idealism and relativism are the key dimensions of ethical behavior and explain individual variations in approaches to moral judgment (Forsyth 1980). Idealism is defined as concern for minimizing negative consequences and maximizing gain, particularly for others. The focal point of idealism is the impact of an ethical action on people’s welfare. Highly idealistic individuals ‘‘assume that desirable consequences can, with the ‘right’ action, always be obtained’’ (Forsyth 1980, p. 176). On the other hand, those with a less idealistic orientation may think that harm is unavoidable in some cases, and that undesirable consequences will often be mixed in the desired ones. Highly idealistic individuals are more likely to take ethical actions because they are concerned about maximizing gain for others. Thus, idealism represents a consequentialist or outcome-oriented approach to ethical decision-making. On the other hand, relativism pertains to an individual’s emphasis on moral rules and principles when making decisions about right and wrong (Forsyth 1980). Highly relativistic people tend to configure their moral judgments based on the context of the particular situation and action they are evaluating. These individuals are likely to remain pragmatically open to exceptions to these rules. On the other hand, people who are less relativistic have more faith in moral principles, norms, or laws. They use those
123
universal principles to define for them what is right and what is wrong. In other words, individuals with a less relative orientation tend to make ethical decisions consistently due to their universal moral rules. Highly relativistic individuals tend to less consistent with ethical judgments because they may be pragmatically open to exceptions. However, all relativistic individuals are concerned with the process of making an ethical decision rather than the outcome. Karande et al. (2002) suggest gender difference related to these two ethical positions, and Singhapakdi et al. (1999) indicate that females tend to be more realistic, but less relativistic, than males. Similarly, Fernando et al. (2008) proposed that females may exhibit higher idealism because they are more likely to believe that taking actions that are detrimental to others is avoidable because their approach to ethical decision-making was based on care (Gilligan 1982). In addition, males may be high on relativism because they are assumed to be more competitive than women (Donoho et al. 2012; Fernando et al. 2008). Thus, we hypothesize that H4 A female undergraduate business student may have a higher level of idealism than a male undergraduate business student. H5 A female undergraduate business student may have a lower level of relativism than a male undergraduate business student. Business Ethics Education and Personal Ethical Perspectives Based on Kohlberg’s (1969) cognitive moral development theory, we would argue that ethical behaviors can be learned through ethics education or training. Moreover, as an individual progress through different levels of cognitive moral development, their ability to deal with ethical dilemmas improves (Christensen and Kohls 2003). For example, a study by Gundersen et al. (2008) found that individuals’ perceptions of ethical behavior varied at different academic levels, ranging from undergraduate students to full professors. The results suggest that business ethics education may help students in their cognitive moral development and ethical judgments. Highly idealistic individuals think that desirable consequences can always be obtained and feel that harming others is avoidable and would rather not to choose between the lesser of the two evils that will lead to negative consequences for other people (Forsyth 1992). In general, they are more likely to consider the welfare of others and society in their decisions. Because business ethics education addresses the societal responsibilities of business, students may develop a better understanding about the impact of ethical/unethical decisions on society. As they
Gender and Personal Ethical Orientation
progress through the stages of cognitive moral development in ethics classes, the idealism levels of student may increase as they consider the impact of ethical decision making on stakeholders and society. In other words, those who have received ethics instructions will exhibit higher levels of idealism than those who have not. Thus, H6 Undergraduate business students who have received ethics education may have a higher level of idealism than those who have never had business ethics education. In contrast, individuals with high moral relativism reject the possibility of formulating or relying on universal moral rules for ethical judgments. They think that moral actions depend upon the nature of the situation and weigh the circumstances more. As cognitive moral theory suggests, business students may look to business leaders in real world for guidance in ethical dilemma stations. However, business ethics education may expose students to the perspectives of different stakeholders and highlight the importance of situational or contextual factors in decision-making. Hence, students who have received business ethics instructions might be more relativistic than those who have not. Thus, H7 Undergraduate business student who have received ethics education may have a higher level of relativism than those who have never had business ethics education. Methodology Research Design The sample for our study consisted of undergraduate business students enrolled in the introduction to marketing
course at a mid-sized, AACSB-accredited public university on the East Coast of the United States. We selected this course because all business students at the university, regardless of major, are required to take it. In addition, ethics is one of the AACSB assurance of learning goals that are measured in the class. The sample contained a mix of all business majors, including accounting, economics/finance, management and marketing, and some pre-business majors. Most of the students were either in their second or third year of study at the university. As shown in Table 1, our research design included treatment and control groups in order to compare business students with no business ethics training to those who were in the process of receiving business ethics training. The two groups were determined by their enrollment status for a business and society course that is required for all business students at the university regardless of major. Business ethics instruction is a major component of the business and society course. Thus, the two groups in this study were: (1) a treatment group of students who were enrolled in the business and society course during the research semester, and (2) a control group of students who had not yet taken the business and society course. We did not include any students who already had taken the business and society course before the research semester to eliminate the issue of how long the effects of business ethics training may last or diminish over time. The students did not know that the interest (or treatment) of our study was the effect of business ethics training because we did not ask them about the business and society course. Instead, we asked for permission to view their academic record so that we could determine their enrollment status. The data from academic records, including
Table 1 Research design: treatment and control groups, with two post-measures Time
T1: first week
T2: eighth week
T3: 11th week
T4: 15th week
Treatment group
X = student was enrolled in business and society course during the research semester
O1: administered paper-and pencil survey to measure moral judgment using ethical dilemma questions (DV1 and DV2)
O3: administered online survey to measure EPQ (idealism and relativism)
With each respondent’s permission (collected at T2), accessed student academic records to collect data on business and society enrollment status and major
Student started business ethics training
Acquired permission to access academic records
Collected demographic data (gender, major, and age)
‘‘Enrolled’’ during the research semester
O1: administered paper-and pencil survey on ethical dilemma questions (DV1 and DV2)
O3: administered online survey to measure EPQ (idealism and relativism)
With each respondent’s permission (collected at T2), accessed student academic records to collect data on business and society enrollment status and major
Collected demographic data (gender, major, and age)
‘‘Not yet enrolled’’ during the research semester
(business ethics training during the research semester)
Control group (no business ethics training during or prior to the research semester)
Acquired permission to access academic records
123
L. C. Wang, L. Calvano
withdraw information, provided objective and accurate information. Moreover, the students were less likely to figure out that the business and society course was a treatment in our study. Our study used a ‘‘posttest-only’’ design and did not include any premeasures because we were concerned that premeasures might affect respondents’ answers on the posttest. For example, a premeasure may serve as warm-up so that respondents might guess the objective of the study (Pedhazur and Schmelkin 1991). This is also the reason why we chose to sample students in the introduction to marketing class, rather than administering pre- and posttests to students enrolled in the business and society class. Another concern is the effect of social desirability on ethical decisions, especially when the research focuses on gender differences (Dalton and Ortegren 2011). In addition, subjects may guess the objectives of this study and provide ‘‘positive responses’’ for researchers (Pedhazur and Schmelkin 1991). Our research was designed to minimize these effects by using both the treatment and control groups with two post-measures (i.e., two surveys administered 3 weeks apart). As shown in Table 1, we measured the dependent variables—moral judgment on ethical dilemmas and personal ethical perspectives—by administering two surveys separated by 3 weeks. Thus, respondents were less likely to figure out the objectives of the research. The first survey was administered after the eighth week of a 14-week semester and tested students’ responses to two ethical dilemmas (DV1 and DV2). The second survey was administered 3 weeks later to measure personal ethical perspectives including idealism and relativism. For the first survey, the same researcher visited each class and distributed the survey instrument to students. Using the same instructions, the researcher stated that all the responses would be kept confidential. If a student agreed to participate, he or she signed a consent form and gave permission to the researchers to access his or her academic record in the university’s student database. A total of 171 respondents participated in the first wave of data collection. We administered the second survey online. Each marketing instructor in the sections that the researcher visited for the first survey forwarded the online survey link to their students. Students received extra credits for their participation if they completed both surveys. We received a total of 150 responses to the second survey. Student identification numbers were used to match responses from the first and second waves of data collection. With permission from the students, we collected demographic data from the university’s student database, including major, GPA and whether they had already taken the business and society course. After eliminating surveys with missing answers, participants who did not complete surveys in both waves, and
123
participants who had already completed the business and society course, the final sample consisted of 93 respondents. The majors represented included accounting (17 %), economics/finance (19 %), marketing (34 %), management (23 %), and pre-business (6 %) majors. Female students accounted for 54 % of the sample and male students accounted for 46 %. Approximately 47 % of the students were taking the business and society course concurrently with the introduction to marketing course, while the other 53 % had not yet taken the business and society course. Almost 95 % of the sample was between 19 and 23 years old. The average GPA of the sample was 3.17. A final note on our research design regards common method biases. As Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggest, method biases are likely to be particularly powerful in studies in which the data for both the independent and dependent variables are obtained from the same person in the same measurement context using the same item context and similar item characteristics. Thus, we collected data at different times and used three different types of instruments—a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, an online survey, and student academic records—to reduce common method biases. Measures We measured moral judgment by using two scenarios that were adapted from hypothetical ethical dilemmas developed by Frank (2004) and applied to undergraduate business students by Brown et al. (2010). One scenario focused on a business situation and the other focused on a personal dilemma. The business-related dilemma was whether a business owner should inform his or her supplier (a mailorder company) of an error on the bill and ask for the correct amount, which would be higher than the incorrect bill. The non-business dilemma was whether the respondent thinks it is ethical to return to a stranger $100 in cash found in an envelope. Each scenario asked the respondent to indicate a percentage of how likely they would be to respond in a particular way with answers ranging from 0 to 100 % of likelihood. Higher percentages indicate a greater propensity to be ethical in decision-making. To measure personal ethical orientation, we used Forsyth’s (1980) ethics position questionnaire (EPQ). To check the validity of the idealism and relativism constructs of EPQ, reliability tests and an exploratory factor analysis were conducted. Idealism factors included seven items with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.866. Relativism had three items with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.743 (see Appendix). Each item was loaded to its own factor with a loading greater than 0.60. Further, a confirmatory factory analysis was conducted to assess the measures of idealism and relativism (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The CFA results indicated a satisfactory
Gender and Personal Ethical Orientation
model fit (v233 = 41.402; p = 0.150; TLI = 0.966; GFI = 0.918; CFI = 0.975; RMSEA = 0.0529). Each item was significantly loaded to its postulated construct at the level of 0.01. Convergent validity was considered appropriate. None of the confidence intervals around the correlation estimate between two factors included 1.00. Evidence suggests appropriate discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). We also collected demographic data from student academic records, including major, GPA, and gender and enrollment status in the business and society course. Since prior studies suggest that age and GPA are associated with ethical decision behavior (Brown et al. 2010; Karande et al. 2002), we include GPA and age as control variables.
Analysis and Results Moral Judgment: Business-Related Ethical Dilemma The first dependent variable (DV1) was measured using a moral judgment scenario that entailed a business ethics dilemma. Two-way ANOVA analysis was used to test the main effects of gender and business ethics education and the interaction effect on the business ethical dilemma. Shown in Table 2, the ANOVA results indicated a significant model (F(3,89) = 2.714, p \ 0.050) at the alpha of 0.05. Interestingly, the main effects of gender (F(1,89) = .993, p \ 0.322) and business ethics education (F(1,89) = 1.871, p \ 0.175) were not significant, but the interaction of the two was found significant (F(1,89) = 5.405, p \ 0.022). With regard to the business ethics dilemma, the main effects of gender and business ethics education were not supported (H1 and H2), but the interactive effect of gender and business ethics education was significant. In short, H3 was supported. Further, we ran a series of z tests for H3a– H3d. Shown in Table 3, these analyses indicated that H3b and H3d were supported with a p value at a significance level of 0.05. The results suggest that females without
Table 2 Two-way ANOVA analysis results
Independent variables
Model Intercept
business ethics education tend to be more ethical than males without business ethics education. Also, males with business ethics education are more ethical decision-makers than males who do not have ethics education. However, females with business ethics education did not exhibit a significant higher ethical level than other females without business ethics education. In addition, for those who had business ethics education, there was no significant gender difference between males and females. Moral Judgment: Non-Business Ethical Dilemma The second dependent variable (DV2) was measured using a non-business-related ethical dilemma. Similar to DV1, two-way ANOVA analysis was used to test the main effects of gender and business ethics education and the interaction effect on the non-business ethical dilemma. Shown in Table 2, the ANOVA results indicated a nonsignificant model (F(3,89) = 2.285, p \ 0.084) at the alpha of 0.05. To further test the main effect of gender, a t test was conducted. The results indicated significant gender differences on the non-business ethical dilemma with a t value = -2.509 (two-tailed p \ 0.014). On the average, females had a higher propensity to make an ethical decision in this context than did males (F = 92.26 vs. M = 80.09). However, by using the same t test, the main effect of business ethics instruction was not significant (t value = -0.025, two-tailed p \ 0.980). Table 4 shows descriptive statistics of gender and business education effects on both moral judgments. Personal Ethical Perspectives: Idealism and Relativism H4 and H6 were tested using ANCOVA with idealism as the dependent variable. Gender and business ethics education were two independent factors with age and GPA as covariates. As shown in Table 5, the statistical results indicated a significant model with F value of 3.270, p \ 0.10. Gender difference on idealism was significant
DV1
DV2
Business-related ethical dilemma
Non-business ethical dilemma
F value
F value
2.714
Significance .050*
Significance
2.285
.084
315.197
.000
1,241.291
.000
Main effects Gender Business ethics course
.993
.322
5.964
.017*
1.871
.175
0.000
.999
5.405
.022*
.649
.423
Interaction * Significant at the level of 0.05
Gender 9 business ethics course
123
L. C. Wang, L. Calvano Table 3 Interactive effects on business ethical dilemma, DV1:Z tests results on H3 Hypothesis
Gender
Education
Mean
SD
N
Difference on means
H3 a
Female
Business ethics course
66.08
34.62
24
-9.867
0.942
Male
Business ethics course
75.95
34.59
20
Female
No business ethics course
73.19
33.98
23
24.671
-2.336
0.020*
Male
No business ethics course
48.52
39.30
23
Female
Business ethics course
66.08
34.62
24
-7.109
-0.732
0.464
Female
No business ethics course
73.19
33.98
26
Male
Business ethics course
75.95
34.59
20
27.428
2.434
Male
No business ethics course
48.52
39.30
23
H3 b H3 c H3 d
z value
p value (two-tail) 0.346
0.015*
* Significant at the level of 0.05
Table 4 Descriptive statistics for ethical dilemmas Gender
Statistics
DV1: business-related ethical dilemma
DV2: non-business ethical dilemma
Business ethics education
Business ethics education
Both Male
Female
Total
Yes
No
Both
Yes
No
Mean
61.28
75.95
48.52
80.09
82.2
78.26
SD
39.27
34.59
39.3
28.36
31.32
26.09
n
43
20
23
43
20
23
Mean
69.78
66.08
73.19
92.26
90.21
94.15
SD
34.13
34.62
33.98
17.89
22.48
12.43
n
50
24
26
50
24
26
Mean
65.85
86.63
SD
36.37
23.98
N
93
93
Note 100-point scale
(F = 8.823, p \ 0.004), but not business ethics education. Females had a higher average on idealism than males (F = 6.70, SD = 0.91 vs. M = 5.87, SD = 1.51). H4 was supported, but not H6. Age was a significant covariate for idealism, but not GPA. A similar ANCOVA was used to test H5 and H7, using relativism as the dependent variable and the same independent variables and covariates. The ANCOVA results indicated a significant model with F value of 3.826, p \ 0.004. Both the age and GPA were significant covariates for relativism. But, the main effects of gender and business ethics education on relativism were not significant. Therefore, H5 and H7 were not supported. Table 6 shows descriptive statistics of gender and business education effects on idealism and relativism. Further, a Pearson correlation analysis was run to examine the correlations between age, GPA, idealism, and relativism. The results indicate that relativism had negative
123
correlations with age (r = - 0.212, p \ 0.04) and GPA (r = - 0.335, p \ 0.001). The findings suggest that older students have lower relativism, and younger students tend to have higher relativism. The negative correlation between GPA and relativism suggest that students with higher GPAs have lower degrees of relativism. People with higher relativism tend to be less ethical. These findings are similar to previous studies, which suggest that younger people and students with lower GPAs tend to be less ethical (Bunn et al. 1992; Karande et al. 2002).
Discussion and Implications The objectives of this study were two-fold. First, we examined the main and interactive effects of gender and business ethics education on moral judgment. Second, we analyzed the relationships between gender and business ethics education on personal ethical perspectives. One of the most interesting findings is that the results vary with the type of ethical dilemma. For the non-business ethical dilemma (DV2), the findings indicate no impact of business ethics instruction on this type of decision. However, regardless of whether or not respondents have had business ethics education, females exhibited a greater likelihood of making an ethical decision than did males (F = 92.26 vs. M = 80.09, range 0–100 % chance or likelihood). Such findings on a non-business ethical decision (DV2) are consistent with social role and moral orientation theories that suggest females tend to be more caring or empathetic and thus, more likely to make an ethical decision (e.g., Gilligan 1982; Eagly 1987). On the other hand, results for the business-related ethical dilemma (DV1) reveal an interactive effect of business ethics instruction and gender, but no main effect of each factor. When both genders have not received business ethics education, females are more likely to act ethically than males, consistent with the existing research on gender-
Gender and Personal Ethical Orientation
Table 5 ANCOVA results on idealism and relativism Independent variables
Idealism
Relativism
F value
Significance
F value
Model
3.270
.010**
Intercept
5.191
.025
Age
5.236
.025**
4.779
.032**
GPA
1.276
.262
8.812
.004**
8.823 0.249
.004** .619
0.169 1.173
.682 .282
0.009
.923
3.170
.079*
3.826 61.054
Significance .004** .000
Main effects Gender Business ethics course Interaction Gender 9 business ethics course R-squared
0.170
0.193
Note Age and GPA are covariates ** Significant at the level of 0.05; * significant at the level of 0.10
Table 6 Descriptive statistics for idealism and relativism Gender
Statistics
Idealism
Relativism
Business ethics education
Business ethics education
Both Male
Female
Total
Yes
No
Both
Yes
No
Mean
5.95
5.92
5.98
5.58
5.72
5.46
SD
1.77
1.99
1.6
1.89
2.04
1.8
n
43
20
23
43
20
23
Mean
7.13
7.09
7.16
5.47
6.13
4.87
SD
0.92
0.94
0.93
1.69
1.31
1.8
n
50
24
26
50
24
26
Mean
6.59
5.52
SD
1.49
1.78
N
93
93
Note nine-point scale
based ethics differences (e.g., DePaulo et al. 1996; Dreber and Johannesson 2008). However, male students are more likely to act ethically in a business ethical dilemma when they are in the process of taking a business ethics course than when they have not had the training. It seems that males are more responsive to business ethics education with regard to a business-related ethical dilemma. Surprisingly, females did not exhibit such responsiveness. Thus, an important direction for future research is to investigate why females seem to be less responsive to business ethics education than males. Overall, all respondents were more likely to act ethically in a non-business ethical dilemma than in business ethical dilemma. As shown in Table 4, the average possibility to
return $100 cash in a lost envelope was 86 %, which is significantly higher than their average possibility (66 %) to correct the wrong bill (z value = 4.58, p \ 0.000). The different responses between business and non-business ethical decisions point out that perhaps a different moral compass exists in business decision-making, which is consistent with critiques of business education in general (Ghoshal 2005). Future researchers need to pay closer attention to this phenomenon to determine whether the business milieu and its associative values (Giacalone 2004) inhibit or undermine the effectiveness business ethics education. With regard to personal moral orientation, EPT highlights how the dimensions of idealism and relativism affect ethical decision-making (e.g., Forsyth 1992; Karande et al. 2002). Consistent with the findings of previous research that examines gender differences on idealism and relativism (Karande et al. 2002), we found that females are more idealistic than males, and males are more relativistic than females. However, we also found that having had business ethics instruction impacts females’ relativism levels. The interactive effect of gender and business ethics instruction was significant at the level of 0.10 (F = .3.170, p \ 0.079). Females with business ethics education have a significant higher level of relativism than female without business ethics education (Mean(yes) = 6.13 vs. Mean(no) = 4.87 on Table 6; z value = 2.84, two-tailed p value \ 0.002). It seems that business ethics education makes females more relativistic in their ethical position. More research is needed to explore why this is the case. The results of our study have both research and practical implications. Past research on the effectiveness of business ethics education has focused primarily on the content of instruction (Borkowski and Ugras 1998; Waples et al.
123
L. C. Wang, L. Calvano
Fig. 3 Interactive effects on relativism Fig. 2 Interactive effect on business-related ethical dilemma (DV1)
2009). Given both the hope among business ethics educators that ethics instruction is ‘‘the answer to creating better business students and better managers’’ (Giacalone and Calvano 2012) and the ambiguous results of the effectiveness of business ethics education, future research should explore how individuals respond to ethics education. First, business students might respond to businessrelated dilemmas differently than non-business ethical dilemmas. If this is the case, as shown in Fig. 2, why are the decision-making processes different? Second, it is important to investigate whether business students, especially females, become more relativistic due to the influence of business education as shown in Fig. 3. Because female and male students differ in their idealism levels and females may evaluate or process business-related ethical dilemmas differently than non-business ethical situations, it is important to explore why they make these judgments. For example, do they learn what behavior is acceptable from business leaders or from business ethics instructors who may teach from a more relativistic perspective? Or, do they learn from the competitive or self-centered behavior of their peers? Conversely, male business students seem to respond more ethically when they are in the process of taking a business ethics class. Why is the case? The results of this study raise interesting questions, but should be considered in light of several limitations. Although the sample size was sufficient to test our hypotheses, it is still small and relatively homogenous (i.e., undergraduate business students at one state university in one geographic location). Thus, caution should be exercised in trying to
123
generalize the results. Another limitation is that while we are able to discern whether or not students took the required business ethics class, we are not certain that the syllabi were consistent across sections of the class. We are reasonably sure that full-time instructors cover key topics in social responsibility and ethical decision-making similarly, but cannot guarantee the same for part-time instructors. Thus, some variations in the results may be due the content of the business ethics class. Finally, we would like to reiterate a concern of other researchers that the way in which students respond to ethical dilemmas in the classroom may not be indicative of how they will react to ethical challenges in the real world. Nevertheless, this lack of certainty should not deter business schools from teaching ethics because ‘‘the earlier students learn that ethical behavior is valued by the business community, and the more fully it is integrated into applicable courses across the business curriculum, the sooner students may demonstrate more ethical behavior and attitudes, eventually appreciating such behavior for its intrinsic values’’ (Borkowski and Ugras 1998, p. 1125).
Appendix: Measure of Personal Ethical Perspectives Idealism Question Items 1. 2. 3.
A person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to a small degree. Risks to another should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might be. The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained.
Gender and Personal Ethical Orientation
4. 5.
6. 7.
One should never psychologically or physically harm another person. One should not perform an action, which might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare of another individual. The dignity and welfare of people should be the most important concern in any society. It is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of others.
Relativism Question Items 1.
2.
3.
Moral standards should be seen as being individualistic; what one person considers to be moral may be judged to be immoral by another person. Questions of what is ethical for everyone can never be resolved, since what is moral or immoral is up to the individual. Moral standards are simply personal rules which indicate how a person should behave and are not to be applied in making judgments of others.
References AACSB International. (2004). Ethics education in business schools. Report of the Ethics Education Task Force to the AACSB International’s Board of Directors. Tampa, Fl: AACSB International. Albaum, G., & Peterson, R. (2006). Ethical attitudes of future business leaders: Do they vary by gender and religiosity? Business and Society, 45(3), 300–321. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. Borkowski, S. C., & Ugras, Y. J. (1998). Business students and ethics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1117–1127. Brown, T. A., Sautter, J. A., Littvay, L., Sautter, A. C., & Bearnes, B. (2010). Ethics and personality: Empathy and narcissism as moderators of ethical decision making in business students. Journal of Education for Business, 85(4), 203–208. Bunn, D. N., Caudill, S. B., & Gropper, D. M. (1992, Summer). Crime in the classroom: An economic analysis of undergraduate cheating behavior. Journal of Economic Education, 23, 197–207. Christensen, S., & Kohls, J. (2003). Ethical decision making in times of organizational crisis: A framework for analysis. Business and Society, 42(2), 327–355. Clarke, C. (2012). Female MBA students score low on ethics test. Financial Times, August 24. Retrieved May 15, 2013, from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/37c553dc-edd9-11e1-8d72-00144 feab49a.html#axzz2JpqlWjjo. Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(1), 73–93. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995. Donoho, C., Heinze, T., & Kondon, C. (2012). Gender differences in personal selling ethics evaluations: Do they exist and what does
their existence mean for teaching sales ethics? Journal of Marketing Education, 34(1), 55–66. Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economic Letters, 99, 197–199. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fernando, M., Dharmage, S. C., & Almeida, S. (2008). Ethical ideologies of senior Australian managers: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 145–155. Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 175–184. Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 461–470. Frank, R. H. (2004). What price the moral high ground. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75–91. Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A transcendent business education for the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(4), 415–420. Giacalone, R. A., & Calvano, L. (2012). An aspirational reframing of business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 9, 377–394. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gundersen, D. E., Capozzoli, E. A., & Rajamma, R. K. (2008). Learned ethical behavior: An academic perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 83, 315–324. Hoffman, J. J. (1998). Are women really more ethical than men? Maybe it depends on the situation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(1), 60–73. Hutton, P. (2006). Understanding student cheating and what educators can do about it. College Teaching, 54, 171–176. Jaffee, S., & Shibley, J. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726. Jewe, R. D. (2008). Do business ethics courses work? The effectiveness of business ethics education: an empirical study. Journal of Global Business Issues, 2(1), 1–6. Karande, K., Rao, C. P., & Singhapakdi, A. (2002). Moral philosophies of marketing managers: A comparison of American, Australian, and Malaysian cultures. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7/8), 768–791. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–380). Chicago: Rand McNally. Lampe, M., & Engleman-Lampe, C. (2012). Mindfulness-based business ethics education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16(3), 99–111. Lawson, R. (2004). Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the ‘‘real world?’’. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 189–199. Litzky, B. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2011). Assessing business ethics coverage at top U.S. Business Schools. In Swanson, D.L., & Fisher, D.G. (Eds.), Toward assessing business ethics education (pp. 133–142). Charlotte, NC: IAP. Malinowski, C., & Berger, K. (1996). Undergraduate student attitudes about hypothetical marketing dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5), 525–535. Nguyen, N., Basuray, M., Smith, W., Kopka, D., & McCulloh, D. (2008). Moral issues and gender differences in ethical judgment using Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) multidimensional ethics
123
L. C. Wang, L. Calvano scale: Implications in teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 417–430. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. New York: The Psychology Press. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Robin, D., & Babin, L. (1997). Making sense of the research on gender and ethics in business: A critical analysis and extension. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(4), 61–90. Roxas, M., & Stoneback, J. (2004). The importance of gender across cultures in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2), 149–165.
123
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Franke, G. R. (1999). Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 19–35. Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences in the relationship between empathy and forgiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 146(6), 673–685. Valentine, Sean. R., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2007). The ethical decision making of men and women executives in international business situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(2), 125–134. Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 133–151.
