Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A scientific articles series related to B2B Marketing.
Citation preview
Gender Differences in Ethics Judgment
of Marketing Professionals in the
United States Daulatram B. Lund
ABSTRACT. This empirical investigation reexamines
the impact of gender on ethics judgment of marketing
professionals in a cross-section of firms in the United
States. In the study, gender differences in ethics judgment
focus on decisions in the context of marketing-mix ele-
ments (product, promotion, pricing, and distribution).
The results of statistical analyses indicate that men and
women marketing professionals differ significantly in their
ethics judgment. Overall, female marketing professionals
evinced significantly higher ethics judgment than their
male counterparts. Given the changing demographics of
corporate America, it is conceivable that ethical decision-
making in organizations stands to improve as the ratio of
women in executive positions increases. The finding also
bodes well with the recent emphasis of moving away
from transaction-based in favor of relationship-focused
conceptualization of marketing.
KEY WORDS: ethics judgment, gender differences,
marketing-mix elements, mail survey, multivariate analysis
Introduction
Women in the U. S. corporate world women in the
U. S. corporate world
The post-World War II era has witnessed a trend of
increased female labor force participation. In the
United States, this trend is well documented in
publications of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Recent
published statistics show that 18.93 million females
aged 16 and over were in the labor force in 1950
while in 2003 the number had risen to 64.41 million
in 2003 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004). The
remarkable rise in female labor force participation
has been across all employment occupations in the
U. S. In the year 2003, management, professional,
and related occupations category accounted for 23.98
million females ages 20 and over (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2004). Women have also made great strides
in the top echelons of the corporate world and are
now changing the leadership landscape in corpora-
tions. According to a 2002 study by Catalyst, a New
York research group, women have begun cracking
the glass ceiling and now hold about 7.9% of posi-
tions at the level of executive vice president or higher
in Fortune 500 companies (Hymowitz, 2004).
With the rising trend of women participation in
the corporate work force, it is not surprising that
literature documents increased research interest in
issues pertaining to the role of women in business
organizations. The issue of whether there are dif-
ferences in ethical decision-making between male
and female business professionals has received par-
ticular research attention. This interest in the topic
derives in part from increasing societal concerns
about declining ethical standards among business
executives widely reported in the 1980s (Fortune,
1986; Ricklets, 1983; Time, 1987), and, which
appear unabated in light of more recent wide-
spread media coverage of Tyco, Enron, WorldCom,
and other high profile scandals (Kapstein, 2001;
Byrne et al., 2002; Frank et al., 2003; Leeds, 2003;
Peterson, 2002). Given this heightened awareness of
ethical issues and the consequences of unethical
behavior, and research literature that generally
suggests female executives evince higher ethical
behavior than their male counterparts, the question
of whether ethics of the business community will
improve now that women are involved in greater
numbers in the work force remains to be settled
(Robin and Babin, 1997).
Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 77:501–515 � Springer 2007DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9362-z
Rationales for gender differences/theoretical background
Literature provides several viewpoints on whether
gender is a significant factor in ethical development
and behavior. Kohlberg’s (1969, 1984) six-stage
hierarchical cognitive moral development (CMD)
model has often been cited as a framework for dis-
cussing an individual’s moral development, irrespec-
tive of gender. As an individual advances through each
of the six sequential stages of moral development, it is
believed that one attains increased cognitive capacity
to reason at levels of greater abstraction and formal-
ization. However, one of the criticisms of CMD has
been that the critical data to empirically validate the
model was derived from an all-male sample.
Citing Kohlberg’s theory with gender bias,
Gilligan (1982) in her seminal publication In a
Different Voice contends that the socialization process
of infants and children results in two differing moral
orientations, namely, morality of justice for men and
morality of care for women. Gilligan’s research
asserts that men are likely to consider ethical
dilemmas in terms of justice, rules, and rights,
whereas women are likely to consider them in terms
of relationships, caring, and compassion.
Ruegger and King (1992) suggest a modified
version of Gilligan’s ‘‘gender socialization view’’ in
explaining difference between men and women in
ethical proclivities. They contend that gender dif-
ferences in ethical reasoning may be traced back to
family environment which at an early age condones
aggressive male behavior but expects females to be
nurturing and supportive of other people. In later
years, these internalized expectations get manifested
in work place attitudes and behaviors that differen-
tially shape their work-related decisions (Dawson,
1997). Proponents of this approach view males as
more interested in money and advancement than in
relationships leading them to be less ethical, while
women place less emphasis on competitive successes
and more on relationships which promotes more
ethical behavior (Betz et al., 1989). However, Feld-
berg and Glenn (1979) argue that gender differences
due to early socialization will be overridden because
men and women undergo similar training regimes or
occupational socialization. Therefore, in a given
occupation men and women will tend to make similar
work-related decisions. Similarly, Robin and Babin
(1997) suggest that the nature of work and reward
structures, not gender, will shape behavior resulting
in neither sex being more ethical than the other.
Recognizing the increasing number of women in
the corporate hierarchies, this empirical investigation
examines potential gender differences in ethics
judgment of marketing professionals. While unethi-
cal behavior in a variety of fields including politics,
medicine, management, finance, and marketing are
frequent concerns in the popular press (Kelley, Fer-
rell and Skinner 1990), this study focuses on mar-
keting activities because marketing has been
identified as one most charged with unethical prac-
tices (Murphy and Laczniak 1981; Chonko and Hunt
2000). Perhaps, this is not entirely surprising given
the nature and scope of marketing-mix activities that
engage the general population in everyday transac-
tions. Some of the many activities encompassing the
marketing-mix elements that question the ethicality
of marketing professionals are, for example, in
product (deceptive packaging, product safety, plan-
ned obsolescence), in pricing (deceptive pricing,
price fixing, price gouging, price discrimination), in
distribution (channel discrimination, slotting fees in
retailing, supply shortages), and in more visible pro-
motion (deceptive/misleading advertising, advertis-
ing to children, bait-and switch, and the legendary
questionable practices of salespeople).
Past gender-based ethics research
In the literature of business ethics an abundance
of studies have been published that discuss a wide
range of issues ranging from theoretical models of
ethical decision-making to empirical investigations of
individual, organizational, and situation specific
correlates of un/ethical behavior. A review of ethics
research to assess which variables are postulated as
influencing ethical beliefs and decision making
reveals that gender differences have received most
attention (Ruegger and King, 1992; Serwinek, 1992).
Readers are referred to extensive literature reviews
on gender and business ethics research studies by Ford
and Richardson (1994), Roxas and Stoneback (2004),
Weeks et al. (1999), Collins (2000), among others,
that have appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics. For
the sake of parsimony, what follows is only a sampling
of more recent empirical research studies that have
reported testing gender differences.
502 D. B. Lund
A large number of studies have reported that
females tend to be more ethical. For example, in a
study investigating ethical judgment of salespeople,
Boyle (2000) utilized real estate agents in an
experimental setting with hypothetical sales sce-
narios. He reported significant gender differences
and found women to be more ethically sensitive
than men. Results of studies undertaken across
cultures also favor female professionals over their
male counterparts. In a study involving a sample of
managers from various industries around Istanbul,
Turkey, Ekin and Tezolmez (1999) reported that
ethical judgment scores of female managers were
significantly higher than male managers. Likewise,
Deshpande et al. (2000) reported Russian female
managers working in scientific institutions in the
Sakha Republic of Russia, to be more ethical than
their male counterparts. In addition to the above
citations, several studies using student samples have
also reported males to be less ethical in their judg-
ments and likely behavior than females (Beu et al.,
2003; Lane, 1995; Luthar et al., 1997; Roxas and
Stoneback, 2004).
There are very few, if any, reported studies where
males manifest a higher level of ethical behavior.
David et al. (1994) surveyed public accountants on
their beliefs concerning AICPA’s ‘‘Code of Profes-
sional Ethics’’. Among other findings David et al.
(1994, p. 935) concluded that: ‘‘Males, non-auditors
and upper management all expressed stronger beliefs
in the importance of the overall Code and its com-
ponents.’’ More recently, McDaniel et al. (2001) used
the Ethics Environment Questionnaire developed by
McDaniel (1997) in a mail survey to determine
employees’ perception of the ethical environment of
their firm. They reported statistically significant dif-
ferences in mean scores of male and female employees
with males expressing stronger agreement of an ethical
environment than female employees.
Apart from the individual studies reported above,
results of meta-analysis have also been reported.
Franke et al. (1997) undertook a meta-analysis of re-
search on gender differences in perception of ethical
business practices. Their results, based on data from
more than 20,000 respondents in 66 research studies,
indicated that women are more likely than men to
perceive business practices as unethical. However,
Franke et al. (1997, p. 929), emphasized that: ‘‘Cer-
tainly, it would be misguided generalization from this
meta-analysis to assert that ‘‘women are more ethical
than men.’’ It is important to recognize that the
gender similarities in ethical perceptions are greater
than the gender differences.’’ More recently, Jaffee
and Hyde (2000) undertook a meta-analysis to
determine whether there were gender differences in
moral orientation. The results of this meta-analysis,
based on 113 usable empirical studies, failed to indi-
cate gender-based differences in moral orientation.
Research hypothesis
As briefly discussed in the previous sections, re-
viewed literature does not provide a consensus on
any single theoretic basis for gender differences nor
do the many empirical research investigations pro-
vide unequivocal direction on the affect of gender
on ethics judgment.
The abundance of past research notwithstanding,
the purpose of the present study is to revisit the
question: Does gender affect marketing professionals’
ethics judgment? In re-examining the issue, a couple
of distinctions from past studies are: (1) the study
sample comprises of a cross-section of marketing
professionals rather than business students, salespeople,
sales managers, or others utilized in many past studies;
and (2) respondents’ ethics judgment is assessed for all
four marketing-mix elements that encompass most
marketing activities which respondents can relate to
on a regular basis rather than limited to a few sales or
other marketing scenarios. Since, literature provides
inconclusive findings regarding gender differences
and ethics judgment, and given not many empirical
studies have used the present study context and nature
of subjects, it is hypothesized that:
H1: Men and women marketing professionals do
not differ in their ethics judgment of activities
related to marketing-mix elements.
Method
Sample
Data were obtained in a self-administered ques-
tionnaire mailed to a sample of 1800 marketing
Gender Differences in Ethics Judgment of Marketing Professionals in the United States 503
professionals. The American Marketing Association,
considered as the largest organization for marketing
professionals (Singhapakdi, 1999), comprised the
sampling frame. The sample was chosen on a sys-
tematic sampling basis from the membership direc-
tory. To limit the study to marketing practitioners,
educators and students listed in the directory were
excluded from the sampling frame. Also, to confine
the study to domestic marketing practitioners, indi-
viduals listed in the directory with foreign addresses
were excluded from the sampling frame.
The mailing consisted of the questionnaire itself, a
cover letter, and a stamped pre-addressed return
envelope. As response inducement, each respondent
was promised a copy of the study results on request.
Of the 1800 questionnaires mailed, 87 were returned
by the post office as undeliverable and 360 usable
questionnaires were received, representing a 21.0%
response rate. The response rate was deemed
encouraging in comparison with that of past studies
involving the use of the American Marketing
Association directory as the sampling frame (Akaah
and Riordan, 1989; Hunt et al., 1984).
Early-half and late-half returns were compared
across the four marketing-mix constructs. No sig-
nificant (at p £ .05) differences were noted across
product (t = 1.85, df = 357, p = 0.07), price
(t = 0.12, df = 356, p = 0.91), promotion
(t = 0.94, df = 356, p = 0.35), and distribution
(t = 0.48, df = 357, p = 0.63) constructs. Based on
the common assumption and precedent that
late respondents may resemble non-respondents
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977), an absence on
non-response bias is thereby concluded.
Table I is a summary of the characteristics of the
sample. As shown in the table, the sample comprised
individuals of varied demographic and organizational
backgrounds. Also, the sample compares favorably in
characteristics with that of past studies involving the
use of the American Marketing Association directory
as a sampling frame (Akaah and Riordan, 1989; Hunt
et al., 1984). The respondents spanned a wide range of
industries. A majority of respondents were employed
in firms with 100 or more employees (68%), were
executives (78%), of rank of manager or higher (77%),
had at least a college degree (93%), majoring in busi-
ness (66%), female (52%), married (72%), 30 years of
age or older (83%), and earning $50,000 or more per
annum in household income (82%).
TABLE I
Profile of study sample
Characteristic Percenta
Organizational charactertistics
Industry category
Manufacturing 22.9
For-profit services 24.3
Research agency 14.5
Health care 12.3
Telecommunication 5.0
Advertising agencies 4.2
Not-for-profit services 2.3
Distributive trade 6.7
Marketing consulting 6.1
Transportation 1.7
Size (number of employees)
Less than 10 6.5
10 to 49 15.6
50 to 99 9.1
100 to 249 15.0
250 to 499 9.9
500 to 999 8.5
1,000 to 4,999 18.4
5,000 or more 17.0
Organizational rank
CEO/president/owner 7.6
Sr. vice president/vp 18.7
Director 24.2
Manager/project director 26.9
Analyst/consultant 7.4
Account exec/sales rep 8.5
Other 7.6
Demographic characteristics
Age
20–29 16.7
30–39 35.9
40–49 29.5
50–59 14.8
60 or more 3.1
Gender
Male 47.5
Female 52.5
Marital Status
Single 18.9
Married 72.2
Divorced/separated 8.9
Education
Some college 6.1
Bachelor’s degree 22.5
Some post-bachelor’s work 18.3
504 D. B. Lund
Measures
A self-administered structured questionnaire elicited
responses from marketing professionals on several
topics, including on ethical issues stemming from
managerial activities related to decisions concerned
with marketing-mix elements of products, promo-
tion, prices, and distribution. In operationalizing the
marketing-mix elements, several of the following
past peer-reviewed published studies were helpful.
Rudelius and Buchholz (1979) identified channel
purchasing decisions which questioned the ethicality
of purchasing managers accepting gifts from suppli-
ers, exaggerating the seriousness of a problem to gain
concessions from vendors, or making vendor selec-
tion decisions based on personality, among other
decisions. Murphy and Laczniak (1981) provided a
number of product/service related decisions that
have ethical ramifications, such as copying a com-
petitor’s successful product or attempting to subvert
competitor’s test market of a new product, while
Hise and McGinnis (1975) reported ethical concerns
with product elimination decisions being based on
profit considerations or using planned product
obsolescence to enhance sales. In the realm of
advertising, Hunt and Chonko (1987) reported
pervasive ethical problems faced by advertising
agency executives that ranged from unfair billing
practices, puffery and exaggerated claims, promoting
unhealthy or harmful products, to pirating of ideas,
information, and employees from competitors.
Murphy and Laczniak (1981) and Chonko and Hunt
(1985) identified many pricing related decisions that
raise ethical concerns which include unfair pricing
by altering quality or quantity of merchandise
without changing the price, price discrimination
against smaller accounts, price fixing at all channels
levels, multiple-item pricing giving an appearance of
sale price, among other pricing practices.
Overall, 27 items, each tapping a marketing
activity with ethical connotations were chosen for
the present investigation from the studies discussed
in the preceding paragraph. As presented in the
Appendix, five items related to purchasing activities,
six items dealt with product/service decisions, eight
items were concerned with advertising activities, and
eight items involved pricing decisions. Response to
each item was elicited on a seven-point rating scale
ranging from 1 (very unethical) to 7 (very ethical).
Reliability assessment of items operationalizing
the marketing-mix elements were carried out. The
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for all 27 items was
0.87. Alphas values for the four constructs are 0.61
for channel purchasing (five items), 0.71 for prod-
uct/service (six items), 0.67 for advertising (eight
items), and 0.81 for pricing (eight items). Although
the reliability coefficients were generally adequate, a
higher level of reliability for the purchasing construct
would be desirable.
While the reliability of the entire scale (all 27
items) suggests robustness, concern for the relatively
lower Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of 0.61 for
purchasing and 0.67 for advertising constructs
warranted further investigation. Examination of
inter-item correlations for purchasing and advertis-
ing suggested only marginal improvements of 0.62
TABLE I (continued)
Characteristic Percenta
Master’s degree 41.7
Some post-master’s work 7.8
Doctorate degree 3.6
Major
General business 7.9
Business-marketing 45.4
Business-accounting 2.5
Business-management 7.7
Business-statistics 0.8
Business-finance 1.7
Engineering 2.0
Other technical 2.5
Humanities 9.4
Other-liberal arts 20.1
Household income (before taxes)
Less than $29,999 2.9
$30,000–$49,999 15.1
$50,000–$69,999 17.1
$70,000–$79,999 10.7
$80,000–$99,999 14.5
$100,000–$119,999 14.8
$120,000–$139,999 8.7
$140,000–$159,999 4.3
$160,000–$179,999 2.6
$180,000–$199,999 2.1
$200,000 or more 7.2
an = 360.
Gender Differences in Ethics Judgment of Marketing Professionals in the United States 505
and 0.68, respectively. Therefore confirmatory
factor analysis was undertaken using LISREL.
Table II presents a summary of the measurement
model results. The overall model-data fit was
mixed. On the one hand, the goodness-of-fit index
(GFI = 0.81), comparative fit index (CFI = 0.78),
and the root mean square residual (RMSR = 0.07)
represent reasonable fit. On the other hand, the
statistically significant nature of the v2 value
(v2 =1013.23; p < 0.00) indicates the model-data fit
to be inadequate. Of course, as causal modeling
researchers advise, the v2 value need not be viewed
as a strict measure of model-data fit but rather as an
indicator of the existence of room for improvement
in model specification (Bollen, 1989; Joreskog and
Sorbom, 1993).
TABLE II
Confirmatory factor analysis of the marketing-mix measures LISREL maximum likelihood estimates
Item Place Prod Promo Price
Prchg1 0.36
Prchg2 0.46
Purhg3 0.58
Prchg4 0.66
Prchg5 0.56
Prod1 0.46
Prod2 0.37
Prod3 0.58
Prod4 0.66
Prod5 0.62
Prod6 0.67
Advtg1 0.38
Advtg2 0.51
Advtg3 0.49
Advtg4 0.52
Advtg5 0.61
Advtg6 0.59
Advtg7 0.58
Advtg8 0.61
Price1 0.77
Price2 0.72
Price3 0.33
Price4 0.60
Price5 0.48
Price6 0.61
Price7 0.78
Price8 0.71
Correlations
Place 1.0
Prod 0.62 1.0
Promo 0.63 0.73 1.0
Price 0.52 0.82 0.75 1.0
Goodness of Fit Statistics
v2 with 318 degrees of freedom = 1013.23 (p = 0.0)
Root mean square residual (RMSR) = 0.072
Goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.81
Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.78
506 D. B. Lund
Results
To test the research hypothesis, a multivariate anal-
ysis of variance (MANOVA) was deemed appro-
priate since it allows for a simultaneous test of
differences among multiple dependent variables. In
the present analysis, MANOVA tests the hypothesis
that the vector of means for the four marketing-mix
elements of each gender group is equal. The overall
MANOVA results produced a highly significant
(p < 0.0001) Wilks’ Lambda of 0.924 leading to
rejecting the research hypothesis. Overall, men and
women marketing professionals do differ signifi-
cantly in ethical judgment across the marketing-mix
elements. Analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were
undertaken with each marketing construct as crite-
rion variable and gender as predictor variable. Men
and women marketing professionals differed signif-
icantly (p < 0.01) in their ethics judgment in prod-
uct, advertising, and pricing decisions, but were not
significantly (p £ 0.05) different in their channel
purchasing decisions. The results are summarized in
Table III.
For each of the 27 decisions involving marketing-
mix elements, the difference in ethics judgment
between men and women marketing professionals
was tested further. The results of t tests are presented
in Table IV. While men and women differed in their
ethics judgment across the spectrum of decisions,
they differed significantly (p £ 0.05) on 14 of 27
decisions or 52% of all decisions investigated. Given
the descriptive anchors of the response scale range
from very unethical to very ethical and the fact that
the decision in each item is questionable or unethical,
the results suggest female marketing professionals
with lower overall means evinced significantly higher
ethics judgment than their male counterparts.
Effect of individual factors
The primary intent of this study to examine the
effect of gender on ethics judgment notwithstand-
ing, respondents’ organizational rank, age, educa-
tion, and income could conceivably mediate the
effect of gender on ethics judgment. The sample
profile data (Table I) collected in categorical scales
rather than metric, however, constrained inclusion
of these measures as covariates in the study
MANOVA. Therefore, in an alternative analysis, the
sample was split into male and female respondents
and ANOVAs were performed across respondents’
individual characteristics and their overall ethics
judgment score (all 27 item ratings summated). For
male respondents in the sample, ANOVA results
indicated that their ethics judgment were not sig-
nificantly different (at p £ .05) across all five indi-
vidual factors examined, namely, organizational
rank, age, education level, education major, and
income categories. For female respondents in the
sample, however, ANOVA results were mixed. On
the one hand, female respondents did not differ
significantly (at p £ .05) in their ethics judgment
across organizational rank, education major, and
income categories. On the other hand, their ethics
judgment differed significantly (at p < 0.01) across
TABLE III
Summary of MANOVA and ANOVAs: ethical judgment of marketing-mix elements across gender
Wilks’Lambda F p
MANOVA 0.924 0.000
(Purchasing, product,advertising, pricing)
Mean (SD)
Male Female
ANOVAs
Purchasing 3.65 0.057 18.78(4.3) 17.89(4.4)
Product/service 16.25 0.000 21.22(5.4) 18.89(5.5)
Advertising 7.95 0.005 23.06(6.1) 21.22(6.3)
Pricing 17.07 0.000 29.34(7.0) 25.25(7.7)
n 169 189
Gender Differences in Ethics Judgment of Marketing Professionals in the United States 507
TA
BLE
IV
Com
par
ison
of
each
mar
ket
ing
dec
isio
net
hic
sju
dgm
ent
acro
ssgen
der
Item
Mal
eFem
ale
Mea
nSD
nM
ean
SD
nt
pM
ean
Diffe
rence
I.Purc
has
ing
1.
Apurc
has
ing
man
ager
acce
pting
gifts
like
free
mea
ls,en
tert
ainm
ent,
sale
spro
motion
pri
zes,
and
purc
has
evolu
me
ince
ntive
bonuse
sfr
om
asu
pplier
3.1
81.5
6170
3.2
51.5
7189
)0.4
70.6
4)
0.0
8
2.
Apurc
has
ing
man
ager
offer
ing
pre
fere
ntial
trea
tmen
tto
aven
dor
who
isa
good
supplier
4.9
51.4
8170
4.5
11.5
3189
2.7
60.0
10.4
4a
3.
Apurc
has
ing
man
ager
exag
ger
atin
gth
ese
riousn
ess
ofa
pro
ble
mto
aven
dor
inord
erto
get
abet
ter
dea
lor
conce
ssio
nfr
om
that
ven
dor
3.0
11.1
9169
2.8
11.3
1189
1.4
80.1
40.2
0
4.
Apurc
has
ing
man
ager
giv
ing
aven
dor
spec
ial
trea
tmen
tbec
ause
he
isre
com
men
ded
by
hig
her
man
agem
ent
3.8
51.2
2170
3.6
01.2
4189
1.9
10.0
60.2
5
5.
Apurc
has
ing
man
ager
allo
win
ghis
like
or
dislike
of
asa
les
repre
senta
tive’
sper
sonal
ity
to
influen
cehis
ven
dor
sele
ctio
ndec
isio
ns
3.8
31.3
2169
3.7
11.5
0189
0.7
60.4
50.1
1
II.
Pro
duct
6.
Aco
mpan
yco
pyin
ga
com
pet
itor’
ssu
cces
sful
pro
duct
/se
rvic
e4.7
01.6
1169
4.3
81.6
5188
1.8
90.0
60.3
3
7.
Aco
mpan
ysu
bver
ting
the
test
mar
ket
ing
of
aco
mpet
itor’
snew
bra
nd
of
pro
duct
/ser
vic
e2.2
81.5
6170
2.0
51.2
5186
2.1
60.0
30.3
2a
8.
Aco
mpan
yfa
ilin
gto
mak
eav
aila
ble
toco
nsu
mer
sre
pla
cem
ent
par
tsfo
ra
disco
ntinued
pro
duct
/ser
vic
e
2.7
61.3
2170
2.4
91.3
2188
1.8
90.0
60.2
6
9.
Aco
mpan
yusing
pla
nned
obso
lesc
ence
toen
han
cepro
duct
/ser
vic
epurc
has
es3.0
71.5
0169
2.7
41.4
8189
2.0
50.0
40.3
2a
10.
Aco
mpan
yfa
ilin
gto
use
envir
onm
enta
lly-f
rien
dly
pac
kag
ing
mat
eria
lsev
enth
ough
itis
tech
nolo
gic
ally
feas
ible
todo
so
3.2
11.4
2168
2.7
11.2
9189
3.5
40.0
00.5
1a
11.
Aco
mpan
yab
andonin
gor
elim
inat
ing
ause
ful
pro
duct
/se
rvic
ebas
edso
lely
on
pro
fit
consider
atio
ns
5.1
81.4
1169
4.5
91.4
9189
3.8
40.0
00.5
9a
III.
Adver
tising
12.
An
adver
tising
agen
cyex
ecutive
billing
acl
ientfo
rm
ore
money
than
itco
ststo
under
take
a
pro
ject
2.7
72.0
3167
2.3
91.6
3187
1.9
60.0
50.3
8a
13.
An
adver
tising
agen
cyex
ecutive
del
iber
atel
yunder
stat
ing
the
cost
of
apro
ject
inord
erto
get
appro
val
togo
ahea
dbutbilling
the
clie
ntfo
ra
subst
antial
lyhig
her
amountonce
the
job
isco
mple
ted
1.5
90.8
9169
1.4
80.9
0189
1.1
60.2
50.1
1
14.
An
adver
tising
agen
cyex
ecutive
pir
atin
gid
eas,
info
rmat
ion,
and
emplo
yee
sfr
om
com
-
pet
ing
firm
s
2.8
11.4
6167
2.4
11.4
3187
2.6
60.0
10.4
1a
15.
An
adver
tising
agen
cyex
ecutive
acce
pting
gifts
,fa
vors
,lu
nch
es,
and
ente
rtai
nm
ent
from
med
iare
pre
senta
tives
3.6
81.4
2168
3.5
91.3
9188
0.6
30.5
30.0
9
508 D. B. Lund
TABLE
Iv(continued)
Item
Mal
eFem
ale
Mea
nSD
nM
ean
SD
nt
pM
ean
Diffe
rence
16.
Aco
mpan
yad
ver
tising
its
pro
duct
inth
em
ost
favora
ble
light
when
itis
real
lyin
feri
or
to
com
pet
itio
n
4.4
51.4
1168
4.1
21.6
5189
2.0
30.0
40.3
3a
17.
Aco
mpan
ypro
moting
pro
duct
sth
atar
eunhea
lthy
and
har
mfu
lto
soci
ety
2.1
41.3
2167
2.1
01.4
0189
0.3
40.7
40.0
5
18.
Aco
mpan
ym
akin
gm
isle
adin
gan
dex
agger
ated
clai
ms
about
its
pro
duct
s1.9
31.0
4169
1.9
71.1
4189
)0.3
40.7
3)
0.0
4
19.
Aco
mpan
yusing
pro
voca
tivel
ycl
adm
odel
sto
pro
mote
its
pro
duct
s3.8
21.5
9169
3.2
61.6
3188
3.2
80.0
00.5
6a
IV.
Pri
cing
20.
Aco
mpan
ylo
wer
ing
the
qual
ity
of
its
pro
duct
/ser
vic
ew
ithout
low
erin
gth
epri
ce4.1
21.5
2169
3.3
11.4
2189
5.2
70.0
00.8
2a
21.
Aco
mpan
yoffer
ing
its
smal
ler
acco
unts
less
favora
ble
pri
cing
term
s4.8
61.3
2169
4.0
11.7
6189
5.4
90.0
00.8
6a
22.
Agro
up
of
reta
iler
s/se
rvic
esu
pplier
sco
ntr
ollin
gth
epri
ceof
apro
duct
/ser
vic
eth
rough
pri
cefixin
g
1.6
40.9
6169
1.7
61.0
8188
)1.0
20.3
1)
0.1
1
23.
Are
tailer
/ser
vic
esu
pplier
using
low
erqual
ity
pro
duct
/se
rvic
efo
r‘‘en
d-o
f-th
e-m
onth
’’
sale
s
3.0
21.4
6169
2.8
91.6
0188
0.7
60.4
50.1
2
24.
Are
tailer
/ser
vic
esu
pplier
using
multip
lepri
cing
dea
lsto
mak
eit
appea
rth
ata
giv
en
pro
duct
/ser
vic
eis
on
sale
,w
hen
itis
not
real
lyth
eca
se
2.3
61.2
3168
2.3
21.3
7188
0.2
80.7
80.0
4
25.
Aco
mpan
yse
llin
gth
esa
me
type
and
qual
ity
of
pro
duct
/se
rvic
eat
diffe
rent
pri
ces
tokey
acco
unts
and
oth
ercu
stom
ers
4.0
61.6
7168
3.3
31.6
0188
4.2
00.0
00.7
3a
26.
Aco
mpan
yra
isin
gpri
ces
tosa
tisf
yco
rpora
tenee
dfo
rhig
her
pro
fits
while
ignori
ng
cus-
tom
erco
nce
rns
4.5
11.4
3169
3.6
61.5
1187
5.4
50.0
00.8
5a
27.
Aco
mpan
ych
argin
ghig
her
pri
ces
than
com
pet
ing
firm
sw
ith
sim
ilar
pro
duct
s/se
rvic
es
while
clai
min
gsu
per
iori
ty
4.8
21.4
2168
4.1
21.4
7187
4.5
80.0
00.7
0a
a signifi
cant
diffe
rence
atp
<0.
05
Gender Differences in Ethics Judgment of Marketing Professionals in the United States 509
age and education level categories. Table V presents
a summary of these ANOVA results.
Conclusions
Despite over two decades of empirical studies that
have attempted to demonstrate gender differences in
ethics judgment, few studies have focused on mar-
keting activity decisions or elicited responses
exclusively from marketing professionals. The pur-
pose of this investigation was to reexamine the issue
of gender differences in ethics judgment of mar-
keting professionals within the confines of marketing
decisions across marketing-mix elements. While the
study results lend support to the many past investi-
gations that have claimed significant gender-based
differences in ethics judgment in favor of women,
additional research is needed for more definitive
conclusion. The effects of respondents’ individual
characteristics bear on this cautiousness. Although
organizational rank, age, education level, education
major, and income had no significant effect on male
respondents’ ethics judgment, mixed signals on the
effect of these characteristics on female ethics judg-
ment warrant further investigation.
Concern about gender issues is not a passing
fancy. Even the most conservative demographics
must acknowledge the increasing power and influ-
ence of women in corporate America. These chan-
ges will place greater demands on addressing issues of
gender as a significant part of what constitutes
‘‘business ethics.’’ However, despite notable
advances in top management positions, it is con-
ceivable that the persistent stereotype that associates
management with being male, can foster bias against
TABLE V
Comparisons of ethics judgment across organizational rank, age, education level and major,and income categories
within each gender
Male respondents only
ANOVA Results
df F p
Dependent variable: Ethics judgmenta
Factor: Organizational Rank 6, 162 1.89 0.09ns
Age 4, 165 1.99 0.10ns
Education Level 5, 164 0.41 0.84ns
Education Major 9, 154 1.43 0.18ns
Income 10, 152 1.13 0.35ns
Female respondents only
ANOVA Results
df F p
Dependent variable: Ethics judgmenta
Factor: Organizational Rank 6, 176 0.35 0.91ns
Age 3, 184 5.74 0.01b
Education Level 5, 183 3.65 0.01c
Education Major 8, 179 1.76 0.09ns
Income 10, 152 0.63 0.80ns
aAll 27 item scores summatedbSignificant effect – female respondents in ’50–59 years’ category were more ethical than in all other age categories.cSignificant effect – female respondents in ‘some college’ education category were generally more ethical with no clear
pattern among other education categories.nsNo significant effect
510 D. B. Lund
women advancement in managerial positions and
thereby limit supply. Thus, although women mar-
keting professionals in this study proved to exercise
significantly higher ethics judgment than their male
counterparts, can one expect ethical decision-mak-
ing in organizations to improve? Conversely, will
female marketing professionals unwittingly distance
themselves from being perceived as more ethical in
an attempt not to be excluded or marginalized from
being considered similar to the majority male pro-
fessionals? Perhaps, future researchers in this field
will shed more light.
The study finding also bodes well on another
front. In light of recent studies that stress a growing
move away from transaction-based in favor of rela-
tionship-focused conceptualization of marketing
(Piercy et al. 2003), it would appear that women
have a distinct advantage in the workplace, given
their concern for relationships, caring, and compas-
sion. The resulting ethical choices women make is
best summarized by Dawson (1997, p. 1151) who
concluded: ‘‘That women appear to have higher
ethical standards than men in relational situations
could bode well for sales organizations in light of the
emphasis currently placed on ‘‘relationship selling’’.
It may well be found that women’s greater sensitivity
to the ethics of relationships makes them more
effective of the sexes at such tasks as empathizing
with customers, building trust, and nurturing long
term relationships.’’
In conclusion, while the study results are
encouraging, doubtless, more empirical research is
needed to validate and clarify interpretation of
gender-based differences in ethics judgment. It is
hoped that future researchers will refine and redefine
ethics judgment items with more current measures
that emphasize marketing processes rather than items
within the context of marketing-mix elements uti-
lized in the present study. This would be in keeping
with the American Marketing Association’s official
definition of marketing unveiled in 2004. Addi-
tionally, it would also be prudent to include items
reflective of the increasing role of the Internet in
current marketing environments. Similarly, metric
measures of respondents’ individual characteristics
will need to be generated. Obviously, metric mea-
surement of individual characteristics will lend to
robust multivariate analyses of covariance for more
definitive conclusion on the effect of gender on
marketing professionals’ ethics judgment. As sug-
gested by an anonymous reviewer, broader con-
ceptualization of gender-related issues impacting
ethics need to be investigated. For example, does
gender impact ‘‘on the distinction between having
ethical standards and alternatively wishing to be seen
as having high ethical standards?’’ Equally important
for future researchers is the need to develop con-
ceptual frameworks that shed light on the reasons
why these factors might influence marketing pro-
fessionals’ ethical judgments.
Finally, as in the case of any study involving ethics,
the sensitive nature of the investigation topic poten-
tially raises the question of whether respondents’
evaluations were a true reflection of their ethics
judgment. Conceivably, some respondents could
have given socially desirable or ‘‘holier than thou’’
responses in order to appear more ethical than they
really are (Fry and Hock, 1976; Staw and Szwaj-
kowski, 1975). However, as an anonymous reviewer
pointed out, a ‘‘holier than thou’’ caveat may not
necessarily be the case when the respondents are
presented with decision-making situations wherein
the ethical decisions are really at arm’s length. Future
researchers will need to place more emphasis in pre-
senting realistic and authentic decision-making situ-
ations in assessing respondents’ ethics judgment.
Another approach for future investigators to reduce
concerns about social desirability bias would be to use
Reynold’s (1982) 13-item short form version of the
Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne
and Marlowe, 1960) as an external measure to
examine the degree to which responses to ethical
questions correlate with this scale. Alternatively, the
impression management and self-deception scales by
Paulhus (1991) could be used to address the social
desirability bias (Mick, 1996).
Gender Differences in Ethics Judgment of Marketing Professionals in the United States 511
APPEN
DIX
Eac
hof
the
follow
ing
isan
activity
or
beh
avio
rth
atpose
san
ethic
alor
mora
lpro
ble
m.
For
each
,ple
ase
indic
ate
the
exte
nt
tow
hic
hyou
consi
der
itto
be
eth
ical/
uneth
ical
by
circ
ling
the
num
ber
on
the
scal
e.
Ver
yV
ery
Unet
hic
alE
thic
al
I.Purc
has
ing
Dec
isio
ns
1.
Apurc
has
ing
man
ager
acce
pting
gifts
like
free
mea
ls,
ente
rtai
nm
ent,
sale
spro
motion
pri
zes,
and
purc
has
e
volu
me
ince
ntive
bonuse
sfr
om
asu
pplier
12
34
56
7
2.
Apurc
has
ing
man
ager
offer
ing
pre
fere
ntial
trea
tmen
tto
aven
dor
who
isa
good
supplier
12
34
56
7
3.A
purc
has
ing
man
ager
exag
ger
atin
gth
ese
riousn
essofa
pro
ble
mto
aven
dor
inord
erto
get
abet
ter
dea
lor
conce
ssio
nfr
om
that
ven
dor
12
34
56
7
4.
Apurc
has
ing
man
ager
giv
ing
aven
dor
spec
ial
trea
tmen
tbec
ause
he
isre
com
men
ded
by
hig
her
man
-
agem
ent
12
34
56
7
5.
Apurc
has
ing
man
ager
allo
win
ghis
like
or
dislike
of
asa
les
repre
senta
tive’
sper
sonal
ity
toin
fluen
cehis
ven
dor
sele
ctio
ndec
isio
ns
12
34
56
7
II.
Pro
duct
/Ser
vic
eD
ecisio
ns
1.
Aco
mpan
yco
pyin
ga
com
pet
itor’
ssu
cces
sful
pro
duct
/se
rvic
e1
23
45
67
2.
Aco
mpan
ysu
bver
ting
the
test
mar
ket
ing
of
aco
mpet
itor’
snew
bra
nd
of
pro
duct
/ser
vic
e1
23
45
67
3.
Aco
mpan
yfa
ilin
gto
mak
eav
aila
ble
toco
nsu
mer
sre
pla
cem
ent
par
tsfo
ra
disco
ntinued
pro
duct
/ser
vic
e1
23
45
67
4.
Aco
mpan
yusing
pla
nned
obso
lesc
ence
toen
han
cepro
duct
/ser
vic
epurc
has
es1
23
45
67
5.
Aco
mpan
yfa
ilin
gto
use
envir
onm
enta
lly-f
rien
dly
pac
kag
ing
mat
eria
lsev
enth
ough
itis
tech
nolo
gic
ally
feas
ible
todo
so
12
34
56
7
6.
Aco
mpan
yab
andonin
gor
elim
inat
ing
ause
ful
pro
duct
/se
rvic
ebas
edso
lely
on
pro
fit
consider
atio
ns
12
34
56
7
III.
Pro
motion
Dec
isio
ns
1.
An
adver
tising
agen
cyex
ecutive
billing
acl
ient
for
more
money
than
itco
sts
tounder
take
apro
ject
12
34
56
7
2.A
nad
ver
tising
agen
cyex
ecutive
del
iber
atel
yunder
stat
ing
the
cost
ofa
pro
ject
inord
erto
get
appro
val
togo
ahea
dbut
billing
the
clie
nt
for
asu
bst
antial
lyhig
her
amount
once
the
job
isco
mple
ted
12
34
56
7
3.
An
adver
tising
agen
cyex
ecutive
pir
atin
gid
eas,
info
rmat
ion,
and
emplo
yee
sfr
om
com
pet
ing
firm
s1
23
45
67
4.
An
adver
tising
agen
cyex
ecutive
acce
pting
gifts
,fa
vors
,lu
nch
es,
and
ente
rtai
nm
ent
from
med
iare
pre
-
senta
tives
12
34
56
7
5.
Aco
mpan
yad
ver
tising
its
pro
duct
inth
em
ost
favora
ble
light
when
itis
real
lyin
feri
or
toco
mpet
itio
n1
23
45
67
6.
Aco
mpan
ypro
moting
pro
duct
sth
atar
eunhea
lthy
and
har
mfu
lto
soci
ety
12
34
56
7
7.
Aco
mpan
ym
akin
gm
isle
adin
gan
dex
agger
ated
clai
ms
about
its
pro
duct
s1
23
45
67
8.
Aco
mpan
yusing
pro
voca
tivel
ycl
adm
odel
sto
pro
mote
its
pro
duct
s1
23
45
67
512 D. B. Lund
References
Akaah, I. P. and E. A. Riordan: 1989, �Judgments of
Marketing Professionals about Ethical Issues in Mar-
keting Research: A Replication and Extension�, Journal
of Marketing Research 26, 112–120.
Armstrong, J. S. and T. S. Overton: 1977, �Estimating
Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys�, Journal of Marketing
Research 14, 396–402.
Betz, M., L. O’Connell and J. M. Shepard: 1989, �Gender
Differences in Proclivity for Unethical Behavior�,Journal of Business Ethics 8, 21–324.
Beu, D. S., M. R. Buckley and M. G. Harvey: 2003,
�Ethical Decision-Making: A Multidimensional Con-
struct�, Business Ethics: A European Review 12(1), 88–107.
Bollen, A. K.: 1989, Structural Equations with Latent Vari-
ables (John Wiley and Sons, New York).
Boyle, B. A.: 2000, �The Impact of Customer Charac-
teristics and Moral Philosophies on Ethical Judgments
of Salespeople�, Journal of Business Ethics 23, 249–267.
Bureau of Labor Statistics: 2004, http://www.bls.gov/
cps/home.htm, November 20.
Byrne, J. A., M. Arndt, W. Zellner and M. McNamee:
2002, �Restoring Trust in Corporate America�, Business
Week 3788, 30–35.
Chonko, L. B. and S. D. Hunt: 1985, �Ethics in
Marketing Management: An Empirical Examination�,Journal of Business Research 13, 339–359.
Chonko, L. B. and S. D. Hunt: 2000, �Ethics and Mar-
keting Management: A Retrospective and Prospective
Commentary�, Journal of Business Research 50, 235–244.
Collins, D.: 2000, �The Quest to Improve the Human
Condition: The First 1,500 Articles Published in Journal
of Business Ethics�, Journal of Business Ethics 26, 1–73.
Crowne, D. P. and D. Marlowe: 1960, �A New Scale
of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathol-
ogy�, Journal of Consulting Psychology 24(4), 349–354.
David, J. M., J. Kantor and I. Greenberg: 1994, �Possible
Ethical Issues and Their Impact on the Firm: Percep-
tions Held by Public Accountants�, Journal of Business
Ethics 13, 919–937.
Dawson, L. M.: 1997, �Ethical Differences between Men
and Women in the Sales Profession�, Journal of Business
Ethics 16(11), 1143–1152.
Deshpande, S. P., J. Joseph and V. V. Maximov: 2000,
�Perceptions of Proper Ethical Conduct of Male and
Female Russian Managers�, Journal of Business Ethics
24(2), 179–184.
Ekin, M. S. and S. H. Tezolmez: 1999, �Business Ethics in
Turkey: An Empirical Investigation with Special
Emphasis on Gender�, Journal of Business Ethics 18(1),
17–35.
APPEN
DIX
(Con
tinued)
Ver
yV
ery
Unet
hic
alE
thic
al
IV.
Pri
cing
Dec
isio
ns
1.
Aco
mpan
ylo
wer
ing
the
qual
ity
of
its
pro
duct
/ser
vic
ew
ithout
low
erin
gth
epri
ce1
23
45
67
2.
Aco
mpan
yoffer
ing
its
smal
ler
acco
unts
less
favora
ble
pri
cing
term
s1
23
45
67
3.
Agro
up
of
reta
iler
s/se
rvic
esu
pplier
sco
ntr
ollin
gth
epri
ceof
apro
duct
/ser
vic
eth
rough
pri
cefixin
g1
23
45
67
4.
Are
tailer
/ser
vic
esu
pplier
using
low
erqual
ity
pro
duct
/se
rvic
efo
r"e
nd-o
f-th
e-m
onth
"sa
les
12
34
56
7
5.A
reta
iler
/ser
vic
esu
pplier
using
multip
lepri
cing
dea
lsto
mak
eit
appea
rth
ata
giv
enpro
duct
/ser
vic
eis
on
sale
,w
hen
itis
not
real
lyth
eca
se
12
34
56
7
6.
Aco
mpan
yse
llin
gth
esa
me
type
and
qual
ity
of
pro
duct
/se
rvic
eat
diffe
rent
pri
ces
tokey
acco
unts
and
oth
ercu
stom
ers
12
34
56
7
7.
Aco
mpan
yra
isin
gpri
ces
tosa
tisf
yco
rpora
tenee
dfo
rhig
her
pro
fits
while
ignori
ng
cust
om
erco
nce
rns
12
34
56
7
8.
Aco
mpan
ych
argin
ghig
her
pri
ces
than
com
pet
ing
firm
sw
ith
sim
ilar
pro
duct
s/se
rvic
esw
hile
clai
min
g
super
iori
ty
12
34
56
7
Gender Differences in Ethics Judgment of Marketing Professionals in the United States 513
Feldberg, R. and E. Glenn: 1979, �Male and Female:
Job Versus Gender Roles�, Social Problems 26, 524–
539.
Ford, R. C. and W. C. Richardson: 1994, �Ethical
Decision Making: A Review of the Empirical Litera-
ture�, Journal of Business Ethics 13, 205–221.
Fortune: (1986) ‘The Decline and Fall of Business Ethics
(Profit-at-Any-Price Malaise is Spreading through
Investment Banking and Reaching into Industries as
Well)’, Fortune, December, pp. 65–66.
Franke, G. R., D. F. Crown and D. F. Spake: 1997,
�Gender Differences in Ethical Perceptions of Business
Practices: A Social Role Theory Perspective�, Journal
of Applied Psychology 82(6), 920–934.
Frank, R., M. Pacelle, R. Smith, D. Berman, C. Mol-
lenkamp, G. Anand, A. Davis, M. Maremont, S. Young,
J. Bandler and R. Smith: 2003, �Scandal Scorecard�, Wall
Street Journal Eastern Edition 242(67), B1–B4.
Fry, F. L. and R. J. Hock: 1976, �Who Claims Corporate
Responsibility? The Biggest and the Worst�, Business
and Society Review 18, 62–65.
Gilligan, C.: 1982, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory
and Women’s Development (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge MA).
Hise, R. T. and M. A. McGinnis: 1975, �Product
Elimination: Practices, Policies, and Ethics�, Business
Horizons 18((3), 25–32.
Hunt, S. D. and L. B. Chonko: 1987, �Ethical Problems
of Advertising Agency Executives�, Journal of Advertis-
ing 16(4), 16–24.
Hunt, S. D., L. B. Chonko and J. B. Wilcox: 1984,
�Ethical Problems of Marketing Researchers�, Journal
of Marketing Research 21, 309–324.
Hymowitz, C.: (2004) Through the Glass Ceiling. The
Wall Street Journal, November 8, R1.
Jaffee, S. and J. S. Hyde: 2000, �Gender Differences in
Moral Orientation: A Meta-Analysis�, Psychological
Bulletin 126((5), 703–726.
Joreskog, K. and D Sorbom: 1993, LISREL 8: Structural
Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language
(Scientific Software International, Chicago).
Kapstein, E. B.: 2001, �Business and Social Duty�, Current
435, 7–14.
Kelley, S. W., O. C. Ferrell and S. J. Skinner: 1990,
‘Ethical Behavior Among Marketing Researchers: An
Assessment of Selected Demographic Characteristics’,
Journal of Business Ethics 9, 681–688.
Kohlberg, L.: 1969, �Stage and Sequence: The Cogni-
tive-Development Approach to Socialization�, in
D. A. Boslin (ed.Handbook of Socialization Theory and
Research (Rand McNally, Chicago IL), pp. 247–480.
Kohlberg, L.: 1984, The Psychology of Moral Development
(Harper and Row, San Francisco CA).
Lane, J. C.: 1995, �Ethics of Business Students: Some
Marketing Perspectives�, Journal of Business Ethics 14,
571–580.
Leeds, R.: 2003, �Breach of Trust�, Harvard International
Review 251((3), 76–82.
Luthar, H. K., R. A. DiBattista and T. Gautschi: 1997,
�Perception of What the Ethical Climate is what it
should be: The Role of Gender, Academic Status, and
Ethical Education�, Journal of Business Ethics 16,
205–217.
McDaniel, C.: 1997, �Development and Psychometric
Properties of the Ethics Environment Questionnaire�,Medical Care 36(9), 401–414.
McDaniel, C., N. Schoeps and J. Lincourt: 2001,
�Organizational Ethics: Perceptions of Employees by
Gender�, Journal of Business Ethics 33, 245–256.
Mick, D. G.: 1996, �Are Studies of Dark Side Variables
Confounded by Socially Desirable Responding? The
Case of Materialism�, Journal of Consumer Research 23,
2–10619.
Murphy, P. E. and G. R. Laczniak: 1981, �Mar-
keting Ethics: A Review with Implications for
Managers, Educators and Researchers�, in B. M
Enis and K. J. Roering (eds.Review of Marketing
1981 (American Marketing Association, Chicago,
IL), pp. 251–266.
Paulhus, D. L.: 1991, �Measurement and Control of
Response Bias�, in J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver and
L. S. Wrightsman (eds.Measures of Personality and Social
Psychological Attitudes, Vol. 1: Measures of Social
Psychological Attitudes (Academic Press, Toronto), pp.
17–59.
Peterson, P. G.: 2005, �A New Vision for Business
Leaders�, Newsweek 145(24), 61–62.
Piercy, N. E., D. W. Cravens and N. Lane: 2003, �Sales
Manager Behavior Control Strategy and Its Conse-
quences: The Impact of Manger Gender Differences�,Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 23(3),
221–237.
Reynolds, W. M.: 1982, �Development of Reliable and
Valid Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale�, Journal of Clinical Psychology 38(1),
119–125.
Ricklets, R.: (1983) Executives and General Public Say
Ethical Behavior is Declining in U.S. Wall Street
Journal October 31, 33.
Robin, D. and L. Babin: 1997, �Making Sense of the
Research on Gender and Ethics in Business: A Critical
Analysis and Extension�, Business Ethics Quarterly 7,
61–90.
Roxas, M. L. and J. Y. Stoneback: 2004, �The importance
of gender across cultures in ethical decision-making�,Journal of Business Ethics 50, 149–165.
514 D. B. Lund
Rudelius, W. and R. A. Buchholz: 1979, �Ethical Prob-
lems of Purchasing Managers�, Harvard Business Review
57(2), 8–13.
Ruegger, D. and E. W. King: 1992, �A Study of the
Effect of Age and Gender upon Student Business
Ethics�, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 179–186.
Serwinek, P.J.: 1992, �Demographic and Related Differ-
ences in Ethical Views Among Small Businesses�,Journal of Business Ethics 11, 555–566.
Singhapakdi, A.: 1999, �Perceived Importance of Ethics
and Ethical Decisions in Marketing�, Journal of Business
Research 45(1), 89–100.
Staw, B. M. and E. Szwajkowski: 1975, �The Scarcity-
Munificence Component of Organizational Environ-
ments and the Commission of Illegal Acts�, Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly 20, 345–354.
Time: 1987, ‘Cover Story: What Ever Happened to
Ethics’, Time, May 25, 14–29.
Weeks, W. A., C. W. Moore, J. A. McKinney and J. G.
Longenecker: 1999, �The Effects of Gender and Career
Stage on Ethical Judgment�, Journal of Business Ethics
20, 301–313.
Daulatram B. Lund
Managerial Sciences Department,
University of Nevada-Reno,
College of Business Administration, 1664 N. Virginia
Street, Reno, NV, 89557, U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]
Gender Differences in Ethics Judgment of Marketing Professionals in the United States 515
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
