Gender differences in business ethics: justice and relativist perspectives

Transcription

1 Gender differences in business ethics: justice and relativist perspectives Yvonne Stedham, Jeanne H.Yamamura and Rafik I.Beekun n Introduction In the aftermath of the Enron, Arthur Andersen, and other similar debacles, the pressure for ethical or moral transparency has increased. Typically, business ethics dilemmas result from the need to balance economic performance and social performance (Hosmer 1996). Determining and maintaining the right balance are becoming more difficult as today s business organizations operate in an environment that is characterized by an unprecedented level of complexity, intense competition, and social obligations. Managers use three types of analysis in determining the right balance between economic and social performance: economic analysis, legal analysis, and philosophic analysis (Hosmer 1996: 85 86). Together, economic and legal analyses provide insights into financial revenues and costs, and the legality of the situation. Philosophic analysis is based on rational thought processes. It suggests that a manager should have a single principle of behaviour or a single statement of belief that is right and proper and just in and of itself. Such a principle will guide the decision maker to a decision on the duties he/she owes to others. Solving ethical dilemmas requires that managers be able to perform the three types of analysis effectively. n Respectively: Professor of Management; Associate Professor of Accounting; and Professor of Management and Strategy all at the University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA. In general, managers have been trained to conduct economic and legal analyses but are not as well versed in philosophic analysis. In part, this lack is owing to the fact that more knowledge about economic and legal analyses exists than about philosophic analysis. More importantly, education and training on economic and legal issues are easily accessible, whereas learning and adopting principles of right and wrong cannot be taught. According to results of the 2005 National Business Ethics Survey (Ethics Resource Center 2005), formal ethics and compliance programmes, as well as training on ethics, have increased in US businesses, but the positive outcomes expected from such programmes have remained unchanged or have declined. These results reinforce the need for a deeper understanding of philosophic analysis as it relates to ethical dilemmas in business. This study aims to provide additional insights into ethical decision making by comparing the ethical judgements made by men and women. Women constitute about 50% of the workforce in today s economically advanced countries (Blau et al. 2002), and an increasing number of women are represented in management. For instance, in the United States 30 40% of managerial positions are held by women (Blau et al. 2002). Working side by side, do male and female managers approach ethical dilemmas in the same or a different manner? If there are differences, not understanding the reasons for the differences may result in conflicts when deciding on the appropriate solutions for such dilemmas. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA 163

2 Research that considers the role of gender in ethical decision making in business is somewhat inconsistent (e.g. Kidwell et al. 1987, Akaah 1989, Sikula & Costa 1994, Schoderbek & Deshpande 1996, Singhapakdi et al. 1999, Izraeli & Jaffe 2000). Some studies show that women tend to be more ethical than men (e.g. Beltramini et al. 1984, Ferrel & Skinner 1988, Jones & Gautschi 1988, Akaah 1989, Betz et al. 1989, Whipple & Swords 1992, Lane 1995, Glover et al. 2002) but do not offer much insight into the theoretical underpinnings for the findings (e.g. Tsalikis & Fritzsche 1989, Serwinek 1992, White 1992, Ford & Richardson 1994). This study aims to contribute to our understanding of gender differences in business ethics by investigating whether the ethical judgement of men and women differs when they base their judgement on a relativist and a justice perspective of ethics. Background Gender, socialization, and moral development Why would men and women differ with respect to their analysis of ethical dilemmas? Why would men and women emphasize different factors in such analyses? Central to answering these questions is the theory of moral reasoning. Kohlberg (1969, 1976, 1984) proposed that individuals progress through a sequence of six invariant and universal stages of moral reasoning. The six stages are grouped into three levels with the higher levels representing an advanced ability to understand and integrate diverse points of view. According to Kohlberg s model, Stage 3 was the modal stage for females, and Stage 4 the modal stage for males (Jaffe & Hyde 2000). Stage 3 represents reasoning that is based on the desire to maintain relationships and meet others expectations, whereas Stage 4 reasoning is based on compliance with laws so as to maintain the social order. Gilligan (1982) and Gilligan et al. (1988), one of the foremost authorities on differences in moral development between adolescent boys and girls, suggest that being of the same or opposite sex as one s mother leads to different types of attachment and patterns of development for girls and boys. This results in the feminine emphasis on relationships and the masculine emphasis on justice. Gilligan et al. (1988: iii) conclude that by the age of 11, most children can solve moral problems both in terms of rights (a justice approach) and in terms of response (a care approach). Later, in experiencing moral conflict, females are primarily concerned with relationships and tend to focus on considerations of care, whereas males focus on considerations of justice. Accordingly, the literature on moral development and ethics differentiates between an ethic of justice and an ethic of care, also referred to as justice and care reasoning (White 1992). White (1992: 52) explains that the care perspective adds feeling to reason and speaks about right and wrong in terms of what is appropriate to particular circumstances and focuses on our responsibilities to others. Hence, in assessing the ethical content of a decision, women focus on the interpersonal aspects of the situation, as well as the acceptability of the decision, whereas men take more of an impersonal approach and abstract the moral content from the interpersonal situation. Further support for men s focus on independence and objective and absolute aspects, and for women s focus on interdependence and concern with others is provided by Social Role Theory (Eagly 1987). This theory suggests that men and women behave according to the stereotypically expected social roles that they occupy. As a result, women are more communal and men are more agentic. Women place greater emphasis on harmonious interpersonal relations, are more caring, and are focused on doing well, whereas men are more concerned with competitive success and extrinsic rewards including financial and status rewards (Loo 2003). Loo (2003) concludes that men s focus on competitive success implies a willingness to engage in unethical behaviours to achieve those outcomes. The results of empirical research, however, are unclear concerning gender differences in moral reasoning. Jaffe & Hyde (2000) conducted an extensive meta-analysis on this topic and found small differences in the care orientation favouring females and small differences in the justice 164 Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

3 orientation favouring males. Overall, their results offered some support for the claim that women use primarily a care orientation and men primarily a justice orientation. Ethical perspectives Hosmer (1996) refers to ethics as normative philosophy, the study of proper thought and conduct. Ethics constitutes the system of beliefs that support a particular view of morality. Morality refers to the standards of behaviour by which individuals are judged, especially in their relationships with others. Morality and ethics are related, and in the literature the terms are used in various combinations. Ferrell et al. (2002) discuss moral philosophies, Hosmer (1996) presents the normative philosophy of morality and ethics, and Shaw (1999) introduces ethical philosophies. Regardless of the specific terms chosen, the central question is how do individuals conduct an ethical analysis of a dilemma? What guidelines are used in such a process? These moral, ethical guidelines or perspectives assist the decision maker in determining right from wrong. The ethics literature differentiates several ethical perspectives: the teleological, deontological, relativist, and justice perspectives (Ferrell et al. 2002). Teleology stipulates that acts are morally right if they produce a desired result, and includes the egoism and utilitarianism perspectives. The egoism principle focuses on desired results for the self, whereas the utilitarianism perspective focuses on the consequences for the majority the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In contrast, deontology focuses on the preservation of individual rights and the intention of a particular action rather than on the consequences. The relativist view acknowledges that there may not be objective, universal ethical standards but that moral standards may be subjective and may differ between groups within a single culture, between cultures, and over time. From the relativist perspective, judgement of the ethical content of an action is derived subjectively from the experiences of individuals and groups. The relativist observes the actions of members of some relevant group and attempts to determine the group consensus on a given behaviour. A positive consensus signifies that the action is considered right or ethical (Ferrell et al. 2002: 63). Considering group interactions is central to determining what is right and wrong. The last ethical perspective to consider is justice. Justice evaluations focus on evaluation of fairness fair treatment according to ethical or legal standards. In business, decision rules to determine justice could be based on individuals perceived rights. It has been suggested that justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is the first virtue of systems of thought (Hosmer 1996). Considering the differences in moral development between men and women and the five ethical perspectives, it is now apparent that the male emphasis on objectivity and the abstract is clearly consistent with a focus on justice, rights, following the rules, and an impersonal assessment of the situation. By contrast, women s focus on relationships, care, and response seems to be aligned with a relativist perspective. Ethical perceptions and behavioural intentions Ajzen & Fishbein (1980: 42) describe behavioural intention as a measure of the likelihood that a person will engage in a given behavior, and contend that knowledge of what drives intentions can lead us to understand behaviour. Although an individual s intention may change over time, aggregate intentions are made less malleable by unexpected events. Several recent studies of business ethics have focused on intention to behave as a means of capturing an individual s ethical judgement (Singhapakdi et al. 1999, Izraeli & Jaffe 2000, Westerman et al. 2005). Ajzen & Fishbein (1980) proposed a model of reasoned action to predict behavioural intention. They suggest that a behavioural intention measure can predict the performance of any single, voluntary act, but not alternatives to that act. Intention to behave depends on beliefs that the behaviour will produce a positive outcome and the strength of perceived social pressure, e.g., peer approval or disapproval (Izraeli & Jaffe 2000). An individual s ethical responses depend on the social identity referent used by the individual Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 165

4 (Westerman et al. 2005). Results of studies investigating the relative effect of peers on ethical decision making have consistently indicated that peers exert a more substantial effect than managers on employees (Zey-Ferrell et al. 1979, Zey- Ferrell & Ferrell 1982, Jones & Kavanagh 1996, Keith et al. 2003). Schein (1984) has asserted that organizational peers provide the normative structure and serve as the guides for employee decision making, and that they set the standards and serve as the referents for behaviour within organizations (Jones & Kavanagh 1996). Several studies on business ethics found that the nature of the action or practice in question plays a role in an individual s evaluation of the ethical content of the practice (Reidenbach & Robin 1988, Jones 1991, Cohen et al. 1996, Franke et al. 1997, Singhapakdi et al. 1999, Beekun et al. 2003). Specifically, depending on the issue under consideration, the relative importance of personal and situational factors may vary greatly. Hypotheses The existing research on ethical decision making suggests that there is some support for gender differences in ethical judgement; although not consistently supported, there may be a relationship between gender and moral orientation. Specifically women may have a slight tendency towards care reasoning and men towards justice reasoning; the moral orientation of care seems to be consistent with a relativist ethical perspective and the moral orientation of justice with a justice ethical perspective; understanding the determinants of behavioural intentions is useful to understanding what drives a certain behaviour; behavioural intentions are affected by social pressures (peers) as well as characteristics of the situation. Hence, we propose the following model: Behavioural Intention 5 f (Ethical Perspective, Gender, Peer Pressure, Situation). In order to test the relationships presented in the model, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 1: Intention to behave is a function of gender. This study aims to provide some insights into the underlying rationale for the proposed gender differences in intention to behave. We suggest that the specific ethical perspective taken may influence the final evaluation of the ethical content of the action. Men feel more comfortable with justice criteria, whereas women feel more comfortable with relativist criteria. Women s ethical judgement seems to be based on morality of care, a relativist perspective. They not only consider whether an action violated a rule or whether an actor is within his/her right to perform a certain action, but also take a broader viewpoint that includes the relationships involved. We propose three hypotheses relating to women s and men s preference for different ethical perspectives. Hypothesis 2: Intention to behave is a function of the ethical perspective used. When using a relativist perspective, individuals examine whether a certain action was acceptable to one s family, as well as being culturally, individually, and traditionally acceptable. Hence, if using only relativist criteria for judging a situation, women will come to different conclusions than men because a relativist view is primary to women s ethical judgement but not to men s. We propose that Hypothesis 2a: When they use a relativist perspective, women and men are likely to behave differently. When using a justice perspective, individuals judge a situation as just or unjust and fair or unfair. Hence, if using only justice criteria for judging a situation, women will come to different conclusions than men because a justice view is primary to men s ethical judgement but not to women s. We propose that Hypothesis 2b: When they use a justice perspective, women and men are likely to behave differently. 166 Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

5 Method Sample Data were collected from 44 respondents. A survey, in English, was distributed by one of the authors to German students studying in a Master of Business programme. The data were collected in summer 2003 at a German university. The students were taking an advanced management course taught in English. The students command of English was outstanding. They performed all course requirements in English. Graduate students in business are a commonly used proxy for business people (Dubinsky & Rudelius 1980). Dubinsky & Rudelius (1980) comparison of student vs. professional evaluations found a high degree of congruence between the two groups. The sample characteristics are presented in Table Table 1: Sample Total Men Women Age Total Experience No paid job (including full-time students) Unskilled or semi-skilled manual worker Generally trained office worker or secretary Vocationally trained craftsperson, technician, informatician, nurse, artist, or equivalent Academically trained professional Manager of one or more subordinates Total Totals differ as complete information was not always provided.... Measures The instrument we used was Reidenbach & Robin s (1988) pre-validated, multi-criteria instrument incorporating the core dimensions that underlie several ethical perspectives. We selected this survey instrument because it is a multiphilosophy and multi-item questionnaire. This instrument incorporates multiple items for the five ethical perspectives previously discussed and therefore is relatively more reliable than singleitem instruments (Kerlinger 1986). Reidenbach and Robin s instrument was developed in the United States and includes an initial set of scales that has shown evidence of high reliability and modest convergent validity. The scales correlate highly with a univariate measure of the ethical content of situations. Hence, the instrument can be said to have high construct validity. We examined the reliability of the instrument by assessing its internal consistency through the use of Cronbach s a (Cronbach 1951). As we used three different measures for each of the three scenarios, we calculated three inter-item coefficient as. The Cronbach s a was for the first scenario, for the second scenario, and for the third scenario. All three coefficients indicate that the scale items are internally consistent and relate to the same domain (Nunnally 1967). Additionally, the reliability of the two ethical measures was calculated separately. The Cronbach s a results appeared as follows: Justice perspective men 0.80, women 0.67; Relativist perspective men 0.86; women Three of the four a measures clearly exceed Nunnally s suggested cutoff of 0.70 (Nunnally 1967) while the fourth approaches These reliability measures indicate that the respondents were able to differentiate between the two ethical perspectives and that the measures used for the ethical perspectives are reliable. Hence, the reliability of the instrument is considered adequate for this study. Using a seven-point Likert scale (1 5 ethical, 7 5 unethical), respondents were asked to rate the action in three scenarios using the criteria (items) described in Table 2. In addition to the measures for the ethical perspectives, a measure of ethical judgement was included. The respondents indicated on a seven-point scale (1 5 high, 7 5 low) the probability that they would undertake the Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 167

6 Ethical perspective Relativist perspective Justice Peers Ethical judgment Intention to behave Table 2: Ethics instrument scales Items (seven-point Likert scale 1 7) a Culturally acceptable/culturally unacceptable Individually acceptable/individually unacceptable Traditionally acceptable/traditionally unacceptable Acceptable to my family/unacceptable to my family Just/unjust Fair/unfair The probability that my peers or colleagues would undertake the same action is (high 5 1/low 5 7) The probability that I would undertake the same action (high 5 1/low 5 7) a Generally speaking, in the above bipolar scales, 1 5 acceptable (ethical) whereas 7 5 unacceptable (unethical). Table 3: Scenarios Scenario 1: Retail Automobile. A person bought a new car from a franchised automobile dealership in the local area. Eight months after the car was purchased, he began having problems with the transmission. He took the car back to the dealer, and some minor adjustments were made. During the next few months, he continually had a similar problem with the transmission slipping. Each time the dealer made only minor adjustments on the car. Again during the 13th month after the car had been bought the man returned to the dealer because the transmission still was not functioning properly. At this time, the transmission was completely overhauled. Action: As the warranty was for only one year (12 months from the date of the purchase), the dealer charged the full price for parts and labour. Scenario 2: Neighbourhood Store. A retail grocery chain operates several stores throughout the local area including one in the city s ghetto area. Independent studies have shown that the prices do tend to be higher and there is less of a selection of products in this particular store than in the other locations. Action: On the day welfare checks are received in the area of the city, the retailer increases prices on all of his merchandise. Scenario 3: Salesman. A young man, recently hired as a salesman for a local retail store, has been working very hard to favourably impress his boss with his selling ability. At times, this young man, anxious for an order, has been a little overeager. To get the order, he exaggerates the value of the item or withholds relevant information concerning the product he is trying to sell. No fraud or deceit is intended by his actions, he is simply over-eager. Action: His boss, the owner of the retail store, is aware of the salesman s actions but has done nothing to stop such practice. same action (intention to behave). Table 2 provides the items and scales for the ethics measures. In accordance with previous ethics research, scenarios were used in this study to provide the contextual stimulus and to motivate the evaluation process (Alexander & Becker 1978). We adopted the three scenarios developed and validated by Reidenbach & Robin (1988, 1990). Table 3 presents the three scenarios used in this study. Given that the content of the scenario or situation affects intention to behave, we controlled for this variable by including the scenario type in our model. Similarly, we controlled the impact of peers on intention to behave by including a variable measuring expected peer behaviour. The extent to which peers were expected to behave the same way as the protagonist in the scenario was measured by asking respondents to indicate on a seven-point scale 168 Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

7 (1 5 high, 7 5 low) the probability that their peers or colleagues would undertake the same action as in the scenario (PEERS). Statistical methods Pearson s correlations among the variables provide an initial assessment of the relationships among the variables. The correlations between the ethical perspectives provide some insight into the interdependence of the ethical perspectives for the sample as a whole and for each gender. Gender differences in ethical judgement overall and by ethical perspective are evaluated through t-tests and ANOVAs for each of the two ethical perspectives. Results Table 4(a) and (b) present the descriptive statistics for the study variables sorted by gender. The mean scores for intention to behave in the same unethical manner as the antagonist are above 5 for both men and women. Men and women see the actions as unethical. However, the mean for women is 5.97, whereas the mean for men is Similarly, the means for each of the ethical perspectives are higher for women than for men. In general, women seemed to perceive the scenarios to be relatively more unethical than... Table 4: Descriptive statistics for (a) men and (b) women Variable N Mean Standard deviation (a) Justice Relativism Intention to behave Expected peer behaviour (b) Justice Relativism Intention to behave Expected peer behaviour Table 5: Correlations for (a) whole sample (men and women together), (b) women and (c) men (a) 1. Intention to behave nnn nnn nnn 2. Expected peer nnn nnn behaviour 3. Justice nnn 4. Relativism (b) 1. Intention to behave nnn nn nnn 2. Expected peer nn n behaviour 3. Justice nnn 4. Relativism (c) 1. Intention to behave nnn nnn nnn 2. Expected peer n nnn behaviour 3. Justice nnn 4. Relativism nnn 5 po0.001; nn 5 po0.01; n p 5 o the men whether they used the justice or the relativism perspectives. Table 5(a) (c) present Pearson s correlations between intention to behave, expected peer behaviour, justice, and relativism by gender. The perspectives are significantly and positively correlated (0.681, po0.001). The correlation between the perspectives is also significant for both women and men (women: 0.830, po0.001; men: , po0.001). Table 6 summarizes the results of the factorial ANOVAs for ethical judgement. Our model is significant (F 6, , po0.0001) and accounts for 63% of the variance in ethical judgement. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed as intention to behave is a function of gender (F 1, , po0.05). Hypothesis 2(a) was confirmed as the relativist ethical perspective was significantly related to intention to behave (F 1, , po0.01), but given that use of the justice perspective was nonsignificant (F 1, , p40.05), Hypothesis 2 was only partly confirmed. The expected behaviour of peers (F 1, , po0.0001) is significantly related to intention to Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 169

8 Table 6: Repeated measures ANOVA for ethical judgement Source df Sum of squares Mean square F value p value Overall model o Error Corrected total Justice NS Relativism o0.01 Gender o0.05 Peers o Scenario NS Table 7: Repeated measures ANOVA for (a) men and (b) women Source df Sum of squares Mean square F value p value (a) Overall model o Error Corrected total Justice NS Relativism o0.01 (b) Overall model o Error Corrected total Justice NS Relativism behave and the type of scenario was not significant (F 1, , p40.05). Table 7(a) and (b) present the results of the repeated measures ANOVAs for intention to behave by gender. The models are significant for men and women, but for both groups only the relativism perspective is significantly related to intention to behave. Justice is not significantly related to intention to behave. Table 8 summarizes the results of the t-tests based on gender. Significant gender differences were found for intention to behave, supporting Hypothesis 1 (t , po0.001), with women judging the scenarios as more unethical than men. Significant gender differences occurred for the justice perspective (t , po0.01) but not for the relativism perspective (t , p40.1). Discussion In this study, we investigated whether men and women differ in their ethical judgement. We suggested that intention to behave in an ethical or unethical manner differs by gender and that the ethical perspective employed may affect the ethical judgement made. In particular, we suggested that a relativist perspective is reflective of women s communal orientation. Hence, if women are employing that ethical perspective, they come to different conclusions about the ethical content of a situation than men. We expected the same result, women and men coming to different conclusions about the ethical content of a situation, for the justice perspective that is more reflective of men s focus on the objective and their preference for clear-cut criteria over relative 170 Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

9 Table 8: Summary of t-test results Women Men t-score p value N Mean SD N Mean SD Justice o0.01 Relativism NS Expected peer behaviour NS Intention to behave o0.001 considerations. The results of the study provide limited support for our hypotheses. Consistent with the results of the majority of previous studies on gender differences in ethical decision making, we found that women judge actions as more unethical than men. They are less likely than men to act in the same (unethical) way presented in the scenarios as indicated by the significant difference between men and women in the mean for intention to behave. It is important to notice that both men and women see the actions as unethical and rate the probability that they would take the same action as low. However, women indicate that they are even more unlikely than men to act in such an unethical way. A primary purpose of this study was to shed some light on gender differences in ethical judgement. Why are women more extreme in their assessment of an action being wrong? The literature on moral development and social roles suggested that women focus their analysis on personal, relationship-oriented aspects of an action. Scholars of ethics and morality defined a variety of ethical perspectives. Of these perspectives, the relativist perspective captures the consideration of contextual factors in an assessment of right and wrong. The results of the repeated measures ANOVA assure that intention to behave is related to respondents scores on the relativism perspective but not on the justice perspective. These results hold true for both men and women and support our expectation that ethical judgement is affected by the ethical perspective taken. The fact that justice is not significantly related to intention to behave suggests that this perspective is not the primary driving force behind an individual s ethical judgement whether male or female, and that both genders take into account contextual factors when assessing the ethical nature of a decision. This result is also supported by the fact that the correlations between intention to behave and relativism are higher than those for justice. It is also important to note that the two perspectives are highly correlated with each other, especially for women (r , po0.001). This result is consistent with results of previous studies that showed that individuals may be employing several ethical perspectives simultaneously although they may not weigh them identically. When independent t-tests were conducted, a different picture emerged. We had suggested that when asked to evaluate an action based on a justice perspective, men s judgement would differ from women s judgement. The measure for justice simply asks respondents to indicate to what extent an action was just or unjust, fair or unfair. Context is not considered. Even when employing a justice perspective, women judge the presented action as more unethical than men. One can speculate that, although not made explicit in the measure for justice, women tend to include relativist factors in their ethical assessment independent of the specific criteria they are asked to use. This is supported by the correlations between perspectives discussed above. The t-test results show that men and women do significantly differ with respect to justice but not with respect to relativism. The mean for women for the justice perspective is significantly higher than that for men. Based solely on a justice perspective then, women see the scenarios as significantly more unethical than men, which actually provides some support for Hypothesis 2(b). Overall, our results show that women s judgement of the ethicality of an action differs from that of men in that women judge a situation to be Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 171

10 more unethical than men. The consideration of contextual aspects affects both men and women s conclusion concerning the ethical content of an action. The consideration of such factors as culture, tradition, and family (as in the measure for the relativist view, see Table 2) is critical in their assessment of the unethical action presented. Interesting to note is that peers is significantly related to intention to behave. Expectations about peers behaviours are important to one s own ethical judgement, thus confirming Westerman et al. s (2005) findings. This is particularly true for men as the correlation between expected peer behaviour and intention to behave is 0.8 (po0.001) for men and only 0.54 (po0.001) for women. It appears that men may be more influenced by peers than women. In the past, and perhaps to some degree still today, women were seen as soft and inconsistent in their judgement and decision-making. That perception may, in part, be owing to women s tendency to be relativistic and caring in their view. However, as shown by the results of this study, that view leads women to harder and stricter judgements than men in an ethical analysis of a problem. The results of this study have implications for the study of business ethics. Further research exploring how men and women differ in their ethical judgement seems to be worthwhile. What ethical perspective is being used plays a role in the final ethical assessment. Research that focuses on identifying the relationships between ethical perspectives and factors related to each perspective would be useful. Previous studies, as well as the results of this study, have shown that the perspectives are not independent of each other. Instead, individuals apply several perspectives simultaneously. The mechanisms underlying these findings need to be explored. Finally, results of studies on the how, when, and why of the effect of peers on ethical judgement would have critical theoretical, as well as practical implications. In conclusion, it seems obvious that much work remains to be done in developing a consistent, integrated framework that is useful in the study of business ethics. Practical implications of the study relate to providing a basis for discussions between women and men who are working together and are faced with finding solutions to managerial dilemmas together. Knowing that men and women consider a variety of criteria in their analysis is useful to creating more effective communication between male and female managers about issues in business ethics. Limitations In interpreting the results of this study, certain limitations need to be considered. First, the sample is rather small, and more conservative Type III analysis was used. However, significance is achieved, which is more difficult with smaller sample sizes. Second, the results are not easily generalized. The sample is drawn from one country only. Furthermore, the sample, graduate business students, may not be representative of the population overall. Third, the ethics measure employed was developed in the United States and may be somewhat culture-bound. Fourth, the questionnaire was in English, which was not the respondents first language. These limitations notwithstanding, the results of this study contribute to the ethics literature by enhancing our understanding of gender differences in ethical analysis. References Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Akaah, I Differences in research ethics judgments between male and female marketing professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 8:5, Alexander, C.S. and Becker, H.J The use of vignettes in survey research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 42:1, Beekun, R., Stedham, Y., Yamamura, J. and Barghouti, J Comparing business ethics in Russia and the U.S.. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14:8, Beltramini, R., Peterson, R. and Kozmetsky, G Concerns of college students regarding business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 3:3, Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

11 Betz, M., O Connell, L. and Shepard, J Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8:5, Blau, F., Ferber, M. and Winkler, A The Economics of Women, Men, and Work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cohen, J., Pant, L. and Sharp, D A methodological note on cross-cultural accounting ethics research. International Journal of Accounting, 31:1, Cronbach, L.J Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, Dubinsky, A. and Rudelius, W Ethical beliefs: how students compare with industrial salespeople. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Educators Conference: Chicago, IL: AMA. Eagly, A Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ethics Resource Center National Business Ethics Survey Executive Summary. Ferrel, O. and Skinner, S Ethical behavior and bureaucratic structure in marketing research organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 25:1, Ferrell, O., Freadrich, J. and Ferrell, L Business Ethics. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Ford, R. and Richardson, W.D Ethical decision-making: a review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13:3, Franke, G., Crown, D. and Spake, D Gender differences in ethical perceptions of business practices: a social role theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82:6, Gilligan, C In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, C., Ward, J.V., Taylor, J. and Bardige, B Mapping the Moral Domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Glover, S., Bumpus, M., Sharp, G. and Munchus, G Gender differences in ethical decision making. Women in Management Review, 17:5, Hosmer, L The Ethics of Management. Chicago, IL: Irwin. Izraeli, D. and Jaffe, E Are there gender differences in ethics judgments of marketing managers?. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 13, Jaffe, S. and Hyde, J Gender differences in moral orientation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126:5, Jones, G.E. and Kavanagh, M.J An experimental examination of the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 15:5, Jones, T Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16:2, Jones, T. and Gautschi, F.H. III Will the ethics of business change? A survey of future executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 7:4, Keith, N.K., Pettijohn, C.E. and Burnett, M.S An empirical evaluation of the effect of peer and managerial ethical behaviors and the ethical predispositions of prospective advertising employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 48:3, Kerlinger, F Foundations of Behavioral Research, 3rd edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kidwell, J., Stevens, R. and Bethke, A Differences in ethical perceptions between male and female managers: myth or reality?. Journal of Business Ethics, 6:6, Kohlberg, L Stage and sequence: the cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In Goslin, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research: Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Kohlberg, L Moral stages and moralization: the cognitive-developmental approach. In Lickona, T. (Ed.), Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research, and Social Issues: New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kohlberg, L Moral stages and moralization: the cognitive-developmental approach. In Kohlberg, L. (Ed.), Essays on Moral Development: Vol. 2. The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages: San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row. Lane, J Ethics of business students: some marketing perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 14:7, Loo, R Are women more ethical than men? Findings from three independent studies. Women in Management Review, 18:4, Nunnally, J Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Reidenbach, R. and Robin, D Some initial steps towards improving the measurement of ethical evaluations of marketing activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 7:11, Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 173

12 Reidenbach, R. and Robin, D Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9:8, Schein, E.H Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25:2, Schoderbek, P. and Deshpande, S Impression management, overcalming, and perceived unethical conduct: the role of male and female managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 15:4, Serwinek, P Demographic and related differences in ethical views among small business. Journal of Business Ethics, 11:7, Shaw, W Business Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Sikula, A. Sr. and Costa, A Are women more ethical than men?. Journal of Business Ethics, 13:11, Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. and Franke, G Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27:1, Tsalikis, J. and Fritzsche, D Business ethics: a literature review with a focus on marketing ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 8:9, Westerman, J., Beekun, R., Stedham, Y. and Yamamura, J Peers versus national culture: an empirical analysis of antecedents to ethical decision making. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute, San Francisco, CA. Whipple, T. and Swords, D Business ethics judgments: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 11:9, White, T Business, ethics, and Carol Gilligan s Two voices. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2:1, Zey-Ferrell, M. and Ferrell, O.C Role set configuration and opportunity as predictors of unethical behavior in organizations. Human Relations, 35:7, Zey-Ferrell, M., Weaver, K.M. and Ferrell, O.C Predicting unethical behavior among marketing practitioners. Human Relations, 32:7, Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.