Effects of justice andutilitarianism on ethicaldecision making: a cross-cultural examination of gendersimilarities and differences

Rafik I.Beekun1,Yvonne Stedham1,JamesW.Westerman2 and JeanneH.Yamamura3

1. Department of Managerial Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA2. Walker College of Business, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA3. Department of Accounting and Information Systems, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA

This study investigates the relationship between intention to behave ethically and gender within the context of

national culture. Using Reidenbach and Robin’s measures of the ethical dimensions of justice and

utilitarianism in a sample of business students from three different countries, we found that gender is

significantly related to the respondents’ intention to behave ethically. Women relied on both justice as well as

utilitarianism when making moral decisions. By contrast, men relied only on justice, and did not rely on

utilitarianism when faced with the same ethical issues. Further, women’s intention to behave was contextual,

significantly affected by two national culture dimensions (uncertainty avoidance and individualism), whereas

men’s decisions were more universal, and not related to national culture dimensions.

Introduction

As is evident from the current worldwide economic

crisis, economies and businesses around the world

are intertwined and interdependent. A global

economy requires that countries, governments,

businesses and people acknowledge such interde-

pendence and increase their understanding of each

other’s cultures and practices (Friedman 2000,

2006). Management practices have been found to

clearly differ according to country culture, repre-

senting diversity in a wide range of processes

including decision making, leadership and reward

systems (e.g. Hofstede 1980, 2001, Trompenaars &

Hampden-Turner 1998). Although judgments of,

and reactions to, ethical dilemmas have been found

to differ significantly across respondents from

different cultures (e.g. Beekun et al. 2003, Wester-

man et al. 2007), the rationale underlying such

differences has yet to be fully explored.

One area of cross-cultural research that is

particularly underdeveloped and in need of urgent

attention is gender differences in ethical decision

making. As economies develop, women are entering

the workforce at an accelerated rate. In highly

developed economies, women now represent ap-

proximately 50% of the work force (Blau et al.

2002), and in the United States women hold 30–40%

of managerial positions. Research on women in

management indicates that there exist clear differ-

r 2010 The Authors doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2010.01600.xBusiness Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA 309

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

ences in how women and men practice management

(Rosener 1990, Konrad et al. 2000, Loo 2003, Luxen

2005). However, studies investigating differences in

ethical decision making by gender have had mixed

results. While some studies indicate that the two

genders differ with respect to ethical beliefs, values

and behavior (e.g. Akaah 1989, White 1992, Ameen

et al. 1996, Cohen et al. 1996, Schminke et al. 2003,

Lund 2008) others find no gender difference with

respect to these variables (e.g. Rest 1986, Tyson

1992, Jones & Kavanagh 1996, Robin & Babin

1997). Recent research that examines the ethical

decision-making process in greater detail suggests

that women are more interactive, relationship-

oriented, and context-based or ‘particularistic’ in

their approach to management practices; they

emphasize different ethical criteria than men, and

may come to different conclusions (e.g. Stedham

et al. 2007). This research suggests that women’s

ethical judgment may be more sensitive to the

specific cultural context than men’s.

Accordingly, our study examines the influence of

culture on gender differences in ethical decision

making. Specifically, we investigate gender differ-

ences in the contextualization of ethical judgments

by exploring whether the ethical judgment of men

and women in a cross-cultural setting differs when

they base their judgment on a justice and/or

utilitarianism perspective of ethics.

Background

Gender and management

Previous research on gender-based differences in

management has focused on identifying and under-

standing such differences with respect to leadership

styles, communication and time management (e.g.

Rosener 1990, Wilkins & Andersen 1991, Burke &

Collins 2001, Spurgeon & Cross 2005). Some clear

differences between female and male managers have

been uncovered. Female managers are more likely to

apply an interactive approach to management and a

transformational leadership style, whereas men tend

to apply a command-control approach to manage-

ment and a transactional leadership style (Rosener

1990). Men view leadership as a series of transactions

with subordinates and use their position and control

of resources to motivate their followers. Women use

an interactive style of leadership that is characterized

by encouraging participation and sharing of power

and information, and tend to be transformational

leaders where the focus is on transforming subordi-

nates’ self-interest into concern for the whole group

or organization. In motivating employees, Konrad et

al. (2000) found that males emphasized earnings and

leisure whereas females value task enjoyment, using

one’s education, making friends, working with

people, and helping others. According to Loo

(2003), 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.

Similarly, Luxen (2005) found that men were more

concerned with dominance and women with affilia-

tion. The literature suggests gender differences in

many areas of management, including leadership,

interpersonal relations, reward preferences, and

motivation. It is to be noted that much of this

research has been conducted in the United States and

has not taken into account cultural factors.

Ethical decision making in business: doesgender matter?

As management’s decisions today are being scruti-

nized more closely than ever before, it is important

to explore and understand what differences, if any,

may exist in how male and female managers make

ethical decisions. Previous research on gender and

ethical decision making is somewhat inconsistent in

its findings (e.g. Kidwell et al. 1987, Akaah 1989,

Sikula & Costa 1994, Schoderbek & Deshpande

1996, Singhapakdi et al. 1999, Izraeli & Jaffe 2000),

although several studies on business ethics have

found that women are more ethical than men (e.g.

Beltramini et al. 1984, Ferrell & Skinner 1988, Jones

& Gautschi 1988, Akaah 1989, Betz et al. 1989,

Whipple & Swords 1992, Lane 1995, Glover et al.

2002, Fleischman & Valentine 2003).

The theory of moral reasoning may be useful in

considering why gender differences might appear in

the analysis of ethical dilemmas. As individuals

mature, they progress through six ‘invariant and

universal’ stages of moral reasoning (Kohlberg 1969,

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

310r 2010 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

1976, 1984). As they move through higher stages,

their ability to understand and integrate divergent

points of view steadily increases. Modal reasoning

stages for men and women differ – for women it is

Stage 3, while for men it is Stage 4 (Jaffe & Hyde

2000). The two stages differ in terms of the bases of

the reasoning process. In Stage 3, reasoning is based

on maintenance of relationships and meeting others’

expectations. In Stage 4, reasoning is based on

compliance with laws in order to maintain the social

order.

This finding relates to the research by Gilligan

(1982) and Gilligan et al. (1988) which extensively

studied moral development in adolescent boys and

girls. These studies found that being of the same or

opposite sex as one’s mother creates differences in

attachment and development that, in turn, result in

the feminine emphasis on relationships and the

masculine emphasis on justice. These emphases are

argued to be differentially utilized in solving moral

conflicts. Women, because of their concern with

relationships, utilize a ‘care’ approach; men, given

their focus on rights, utilize a ‘justice’ approach.

Related literature on moral development and ethics

thus differentiates between an ethic of justice and an

ethic of care, also known as justice and care

reasoning (White 1992). White (1992) further noted

that in care reasoning, the specific circumstances and

responsibilities of the parties involved would be

considered (White 1992).

These differing approaches are supported by

Social Role Theory (Eagley 1987), which suggests

that expected social roles affect behavior. By virtue

of these stereotyped roles, women are considered to

be more ‘communal’ and men more ‘agentic.’ In

evaluating the ethical content of a decision, the

theory suggests that women emphasize interdepen-

dence and concern with others. Their decision takes

into account the interpersonal aspects of the

situation as well as the acceptability of the decision.

In contrast, men operate with a greater degree of

independence; they approach an ethical dilemma

more impersonally, abstracting the moral content

from the situation. This analysis, whereby men focus

on individualism, competitive success, and rely on

the fair playing field of systems-oriented justice

norms, and women place emphasis on interpersonal

relations and relativistic norms, is consistent with

the gender-based differences in other managerial

behaviors summarized above and seems to be fairly

ingrained in the ethical gender differences literature.

Empirical research, however, does not provide

definitive results regarding gender differences in

moral reasoning. Jaffe & Hyde (2000) conducted an

extensive meta-analysis on this topic, and only

found small differences in the care orientation

favoring women and small differences in the justice

orientation favoring men. Further, research by

Daniels et al. (1995), Forte (2004), Rest (1986), Rest

& Narvaez (1994), and Skoe & Diessner (1994)

found no significant evidence supporting gender

differences in ethical development.

Ethical decision making in business: doesculture matter?

A country’s national culture is the set of beliefs,

values and style shared by citizens within a nation

(Gannon 2001). Culture influences how people make

decisions and treat others, and it determines what is

right and wrong (Truskie 2002). Interest in under-

standing ‘how business people in different countries

handle ethical dilemmas’ has increased substantially

during the past 15 years. This development is

reflected in the number of articles published in

academic journals addressing cultural differences in

ethical decision making. Husted & Allen (2008),

Bernardi et al. (2009), Donleavy et al. (2008) and

Vitell & Patwardhan (2008) provide comprehensive

reviews of the literature on the relationship between

cultural characteristics and various aspects of

business ethics. The results of this research consis-

tently show that business people from different

countries differ with respect to their approach to

ethical dilemmas. Husted & Allen (2008) point out

that ethical decision making begins with the

recognition that a particular problem falls within

the ‘moral domain’ – the area or sphere of problems

that is subject to judgments of right and wrong

rather than judgments of personal liking. This

‘moral domain’ has been shown to depend on

culture, and the issues that are considered as ethical

differ from culture to culture (Haidt et al. 1993).

Specifically, it has been found that the criteria and

processes that are applied to solving an ethical

dilemma depend on a country’s culture. Whether the

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

r 2010 The AuthorsBusiness Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 311

culture is particularistic or universalistic, individua-

listic or collectivistic, determines what criteria and

processes a business person may use in ethical

decision making (e.g. Vitell et al. 1993, Cohen et al.

1996, Carroll & Gannon 1997, Stajkovic & Luthans

1997, Robertson & Fadil 1999, Beekun et al. 2002,

Westerman et al. 2007, Stedham et al. 2008).

Hypotheses

Gender differences in ethical perspectives

In studying the manner in which individuals analyze

an ethical dilemma, differing perspectives must be

considered. Our study focuses on using a multi-

national sample to examine gender-based differences

in the use of two ethical perspectives: justice and

utilitarianism. The ethics literature suggests poten-

tial gender differences for these two perspectives.

Justice, ethical decision making and gender

The justice perspective is oriented to ensure fairness

– fair treatment according to ethical or legal

standards. It suggests that society imposes rules to

protect all individuals from the basic selfish desires

of others resulting in tension between the needs of

society as a whole and the freedom of the individual.

Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner (1998) state that

there are two views of justice: particularistic and

universalistic. Particularism suggests that there may

not be objective, universal ethical standards but that

moral standards may be subjective and may differ

among groups within a single culture, among

cultures, and over time. According to this perspec-

tive, judgment of the ethical content of an action is

not based solely on rules, but is also derived

subjectively from the experiences of individuals

and groups. The concept of an in-group and its

influence on decision making takes on a special

importance in particularism. As indicated by Ting-

Tomey (1998), the in-group can refer both to the

actual kinship network to which one belongs (e.g.

one’s family group) and to the reference groups (e.g.

work group, political group) with which one

associates oneself. Identifying ‘right’ from ‘wrong’

is based on group interactions. Universalism is the

opposite of particularism: it emphasizes the equal

treatment of others, and contends that rules and

regulations govern this interaction. Trompenaars &

Hampden-Turner (1998) suggest that universalistic

behavior tends to be abstract and to resist excep-

tions that may weaken rules.

Men’s emphasis on objectivity and the abstract

appears to be consistent with a universalistic focus

on justice, rights, following the rules, and an

impersonal assessment of the situation. By contrast,

women’s focus on relationships, care, and response

is context-specific (Stedham et al. 2007) and, we

argue, centered on a particularistic perspective of

justice. Our first hypotheses suggest that men and

women base their ethical judgments on a justice

perspective, but will differ as follows:

H1: There is a relationship between intention to

behave ethically and justice as a guiding moral

philosophy for both men and women.

H1a. In forming an intention to behave ethically,

women will use a particularistic approach to justice as

a guiding moral philosophy.

H1b. In forming an intention to behave ethically, men

will use a universalistic approach to justice as a

guiding moral philosophy.

Utilitarianism, ethical decision making and gender

As suggested by Schminke et al. (2003) and

Velasquez (1992), utilitarian ethics are concerned

with outcomes: actions are ethical if the net benefit

resulting from such actions exceed the net benefits of

possible alternatives, thus creating the maximum net

social good.

Given women’s emphasis on caring and inter-

personal relations, they may be more likely to

emphasize utilitarianism than men. In contrast to

men’s emphasis on rule-based justice, Beauchamp &

Bowie (2004) suggest that human warmth and

friendly and trusting interpersonal relations cannot

be bound by formal rules of behavior. Accordingly,

utilitarianism’s care orientation may represent a

sensitivity to the context of ethical decision making,

which includes developing and maintaining harmo-

nious relationships and cooperation, and long-term

success for as many people as possible. As indicated

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

312r 2010 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

by Schminke et al. (2003) and previous researchers

(Powell & Graves 2003, Rosener 1990), female

managers tend to pay more attention to building

positive interactions with subordinates, encouraging

participation and inclusion, and attaining consensus

than male managers. We suggest that women are

more likely than men to be ‘utilitarian’ in consider-

ing ethical dilemmas. Hence, we propose the

following hypothesis:

H2: There is a relationship between intention to

behave ethically and utilitarianism as a guiding moral

philosophy for women but not for men.

National culture, gender and ethical decisionmaking

To this point we have focused on potential gender

differences in the use of ethical philosophies in

decision making that are cross-cultural. In this

section we specifically investigate the role and

significance of cultural differences in individualism/

collectivism and uncertainty avoidance on the

relationship between gender and intention to behave

ethically. We first examine the role of culture and

ethical perspectives.

Culture and ethical perspectives

Many definitions of, and frameworks for, national

culture have been suggested (e.g. Kluckhohn &

Strodtbeck 1961, Hofstede 1980, Ronen & Shenkar

1985, Trompenaars 1994). In general, culture repre-

sents the values and norms that people in a country

adhere to and, as such, culture guides people’s

thinking, decision making and behavior. We use

Hofstede’s cultural framework because it allows for

measurement of national culture in a business

setting. Hofstede’s dimensions are based on work-

related behaviors, identify values related to economic

activity (Husted 2000), and have been validated in

numerous research settings (Lonner & Berry 1998,

Sondergaard 1994). Although controversy exists as

to the derivation and application of the Hofstede

measures (e.g. Triandis 1982, Sama & Papamarcos

2000), the existence and conceptual validity of the

dimensions have generally been confirmed by related

cross-cultural research (e.g. Barkema & Vermeulen

1997, Hoppe 1993). Hofstede identified four dimen-

sions of culture: individualism/collectivism, uncer-

tainty avoidance, power distance, and masculinity/

femininity. Some limited research has been con-

ducted investigating the relationship between ethical

perspectives (such as justice and utilitarianism) and

the Hofstede dimensions. The findings of that

research support the existence of a relationship

between the cultural dimensions and ethical perspec-

tives. For example, business people from countries

that are collectivistic are likely to base ethical

judgments on utilitarian criteria whereas business

people from individualistic countries are more likely

associated with the use of justice criteria (Beekun et

al. 2002, 2003). In the following section, we briefly

describe the two Hofstede dimensions (individual-

ism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance) of specific

relevance to our study.

Individualism/collectivism addresses the degree to

which members in a country define themselves in

terms of group membership. In highly individualist

countries, the individual views the self as indepen-

dent, separate and self-contained. Members look

after themselves and their immediate families only.

In comparison, in highly collectivist countries, the

individual views the self as fundamentally connected

to others, i.e., as part of a group. In this

interdependent construal, the self is defined in terms

of its relationships with others (Markus & Kitayama

1991). Members of collectivist countries become

members of cohesive in-groups from birth onward

that protect and support them throughout their

lifetimes. Uncertainty avoidance addresses how

members of a society deal with ambiguity and

uncertainty. In high uncertainty avoidance societies,

uncertainty is viewed as a threat that must be

controlled via conservatism, law and order. Risk-

taking is avoided and change is resisted. People in

countries with low uncertainty avoidance are more

open to change, more willing to take risks, and more

tolerant of diversity. Fewer rules are needed and

tolerance for ambiguity and novelty is higher. Power

distance refers to the extent to which a society

accepts the unequal distribution of power in

institutions and organizations. In high power

distance societies, people with low power expect

and accept inequalities in power distribution. At the

same time, high power distance results in greater

dependence on those higher in the hierarchy, and on

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

r 2010 The AuthorsBusiness Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 313

rules and policies (Tsui & Windsor 2001, Hofstede &

Hofstede 2005). Masculinity/femininity describes the

tendency toward ‘masculine’ values of assertiveness,

competitiveness, and economic success, or toward

‘feminine’ values of nurturing, modesty, and the

quality of relationships. In masculine societies,

people would be assertive and would stress materi-

alism. In feminine societies, people would be

modest, caring and value quality relationships

(Hofstede 1998).

Gender, culture and business ethics

The relationship between culture and gender is

implicit in that they both (at least partially)

represent socially constructed phenomenon. Many

psychologists and sociologists believe that gender is

constructed by individuals through their actions

(e.g. Lorber 2007, West & Zimmerman 2008).

Hence, ‘gender’ refers to the variable and negotiable,

culturally and socially constructed ways of being

‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ in a particular historical or

cultural circumstance (Measor & Sykes 1992). This

indicates the dynamic nature of culture as well as

gender. Therefore, men and women may differ with

respect to their perception of cultural characteristics

– not only with respect to culturally or socially

expected roles that men and women are supposed to

perform but also with respect to their view of ‘what

their culture is like.’ These differing views will be

reflected in men and women’s decision making and

behavior.

Some evidence exists in support of gender

differences in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Sted-

ham & Yamamura (2004) found that women and

men differed significantly on the individualism/

collectivism dimension with women being slightly,

yet significantly, more collective than men. As

described above (Beekun et al. 2002), collectivism

is associated with utilitarianism. Hence, we propose

the following hypothesis:

H3: There is a relationship between intention to

behave ethically and the individualism/collectivism

dimension for women but not for men.

Although Hofstede (2001) reports that gender

and uncertainty avoidance are unrelated, we

believe that in the case of ethical decision making

gender and uncertainty avoidance together may

play a role. Cultures with higher uncertainty

avoidance are characterized by more formal rules,

regulations, procedures, and laws. Hence, when

applying a justice perspective, we may detect a

gender difference in ethical decision making for

countries with higher levels of uncertainty avoid-

ance because, as suggested above, men are more

likely than women to use a black-and-white, justice

approach. Women, associated with a care perspec-

tive and more sensitive to their cultural context,

would be likely to differ in their ethical judgment

from men when asked to use a justice perspective,

especially in a country that emphasizes adherence

to rules and regulations in order to avoid un-

certainty. The male approach to ethical judgment,

an emphasis on justice, is consistent with uncer-

tainty avoidance. Hence, we propose the following

hypothesis:

H4: There is a relationship between intention to

behave ethically and uncertainty avoidance for women

but not for men.

Greater power distance, too, may be affected by

gender since, as indicated by Hofstede & Hofstede

(2005) and Tsui & Windsor (2001), it may result in

greater reliance on one’s superiors, rules and

policies. Given that men tend to value objectivity

and are more likely to rely on rules and policies, we

expect that the male approach to ethical judgment

would be consistent with power distance. Again,

women, being more focused on care and their

cultural context, are likely to diverge in their ethical

judgment from men when asked to use a justice

perspective, especially in a country where power

distance may have led to reliance on hierarchy, rules

and regulations. Hence, we propose the following

hypothesis:

H5: There is a relationship between intention to

behave ethically and power distance for women but

not for men.

The last Hofstede dimension we are focusing on is

masculinity/femininity. Masculinity describes a cul-

ture where men would be assertive and stress

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

314r 2010 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

materialism whereas women would value modesty

and quality relationships. Femininity typifies a

society where modesty and quality relationships

are valued by all. As indicated by Hofstede (1998:

11), gender studies seem to indicate that ‘men stress

ego goals more whereas women tend to stress social

goals more.’ As a result, we would expect masculi-

nity/femininity to affect intention to behave for both

men and women; men may be influenced by the lure

of materialism and things whereas women may be

swayed by their care orientation. Hence we propose

a nondirectional hypothesis.

H6: There is a relationship between intention to

behave ethically and masculinity/femininity.

To summarize how gender and culture together

may be related to ethical decision making:

� Women are more sensitive to their cultural

context.

� Women tend to be more collective; collectivism is

related to ethical decision making through

utilitarianism; therefore, ethical decision making

is related to collectivism for women but not for

men.

� Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance tend to

have extensive sets of rules and regulations

designed to reduce uncertainty; individuals are

expected to adhere to these rules and regulations;

men tend to prefer a justice approach to ethical

decision making that relies on rules and proce-

dures to guide them.

� In high power distance cultures with their reliance

on hierarchy and rules, women (because of their

care orientation) are more likely to bend the

rules and diverge in their intention to behave

ethically as compared to men.

� Masculinity/femininity suggests that both gen-

ders have a certain bias (Hofstede 1980, 1998):

men toward money and things, and women

toward quality relationships and the weak. This

culture dimension is likely to affect intention to

behave in general, but offering a directional

hypothesis may not be possible here.

Methodology

Sample

To examine the external validity of our hypotheses,

cross-cultural data were collected from 161 respon-

dents in three countries: 43 Germans, 45 Italians,

and 73 Japanese. There were 22 German men and 21

German women, 28 Italian men and 17 Italian

women, 46 Japanese men and 17 Japanese women.

The sample for all countries consisted of graduate

business students with work experience. Graduate

business students are a commonly used proxy for

business people based on research indicating a high

degree of similarity between students and business

professionals (Dubinsky & Rudelius 1980, Harris &

Sutton 1995). According to Lysonski & Gaidis

(1991), students were able to think and make similar

decisions to managers in corporations, and they

were also sensitive to ethical issues. Several re-

searchers who have used students to study business

ethics (e.g. Cheng et al. 1997, Stevenson & Bodkin

1998) have indicated graduate business students

with work experience serve as effective proxies for

executives. Other researchers (e.g. Dupont & Craig

1996) imply, however, that students may be less

ethical than business professionals. Accordingly,

interpreting the results of this study will be done

with due care.

The survey for the Japanese and Italian samples

was administered in Japanese and Italian, respec-

tively, after translation and back-translation to

check for inconsistencies. The survey for the Ger-

man students was administered in English as the

students’ command of English was outstanding and

all course requirements were being performed in

English. All data were collected between 2003 and

2005. The sample characteristics are presented in

Table 1.

Measures

Using an approach similar to Stedham et al. (2007),

the instrument we used was Reidenbach & Robin’s

(1988) pre-validated, multi-criteria instrument in-

corporating the core dimensions that underlie

several ethical perspectives. We selected this survey

instrument because it is a multi-perspective and

multi-item questionnaire. This instrument incorpo-

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

r 2010 The AuthorsBusiness Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 315

rates multiple items for the ethical perspectives

discussed previously, and therefore is relatively more

reliable than single item instruments (Kerlinger

1986).

Reidenbach and Robin’s instrument was devel-

oped 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. Because we used three different

measures for each of three scenarios, we calculated

three inter-item coefficient a’s. The Cronbach a was

.7306 for the first scenario, .7629 for the second

scenario and .6708 for the third scenario. All three

coefficients indicate that the scale items are intern-

ally consistent and relate to the same domain

(Nunnally 1967). Hence, the reliability of the

instrument is considered adequate for this study.

Using a seven-point Likert scale (15 ethical,

75unethical), respondents were asked to rate the

action in three scenarios using the criteria (items)

described in Table 2. When using utilitarianism

criteria, respondents judge whether each scenario

produces the greatest utility or produces the least

utility, maximizes benefits while minimizing harm or

minimizes benefits while maximizing harm, and

leads to the greatest good for the greatest number

or leads to the least good for the greatest number.

According to this scale, a scenario is seen as ethical if

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 1: Sample

Total Men Women

Age

20–24 65 33 32

25–29 45 33 12

30–34 22 16 6

35–39 7 4 3

40–49 9 7 2

50–59 1 1 0

Experience

No paid job (including full-time students) 25 17 8

Unskilled or semi-skilled manual worker 7 4 3

Generally trained office worker or secretary 34 13 21

Vocationally trained craftsperson, technician, informatician, nurse, artist or equivalent 8 7 1

Academically trained professional 44 32 12

Manager of one or more subordinates 6 6 0

Manager of one or more managers 3 0 0

Totals differ as complete information was not always provided.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 2: Ethics instrument scales

Ethical perspective Items (seven-point Likert

scale)n

Utilitarianism Produces the greatest utility/

produces the least utility.

Maximizes benefits while

minimizing harm/minimizes

benefits while maximizing harm.

Leads to the greatest good for the

greatest number/leads to the least

good for the greatest number.

Justice Just/unjust.

Fair/unfair.

Peers The probability that my peers or

colleagues would undertake the

same action is (high 5 1/low 5 7).

Ethical judgment –

Intention to behave

The probability that I would

undertake the same action

(high 5 1/low 5 7).

nGenerally speaking, in the above bipolar scales, 1 5 acceptable(ethical) whereas 7 5 unacceptable (unethical).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

316r 2010 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

the described action is seen as producing the greatest

utility, maximizes benefits while minimizing harm,

and leading to the greatest good for the greatest

number. This measure captures ethical utilitarianism

as we described above. In particular, the ‘maximiza-

tion of benefits’ component addresses the emphasis

on context and others consistent with one’s care

orientation and collectivism. Based on justice

criteria, an action is judged as just vs. unjust and

fair vs. unfair. The action described in a scenario is

seen as ethical if it is seen as just and fair, implying

the adherence to clear, explicit moral standards.

In addition to the measures for the ethical

perspectives, a measure of ethical judgment was

included. The respondents indicated on a seven-

scale (15high, 75 low) the probability that they

would undertake the same action as the one

describes in the scenario (INTENTION TO BE-

HAVE). Behavioral intention is defined as ‘a

measure of the likelihood that a person will engage

in a given behavior’ (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980: 42).

Knowing what drives intentions results in a better

understanding of behavior, and recent studies in

business ethics have utilized intention to behave as a

means of capturing an individual’s ethical judgment

(Singhapakdi et al. 1999, Izraeli & Jaffe 2000,

Westerman et al. 2007). Note that O’Fallon &

Butterfield (2005) reviewed the empirical decision-

making literature from 1996 through 2003 and

found that only four empirical studies that included

gender used moral intent as a dependent variable.

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 Reiden-

bach & Robin (1988, 1990). Table 3 presents the

three scenarios used in this study.

Model

The model in our study is comprised of the

following:

(1) A dependent variable representing the intention

to behave.

(2) Seven independent variables representing

a. Two ethical dimensions (Justice and Utilitarian-

ism),

b. Gender (male vs. female)

c. Four national culture dimensions from Hofstede.

In this instance, we used a difference measure of

culture expressed as the difference of each

respondent from his/her country’s mean (Hof-

stede 1980) on each of the four culture dimen-

sions. Following a variant of Beekun & Glick’s

methodology (2001), this difference score indi-

cates the respondent’s conformity to, or depar-

ture from, his/her country norm on each culture

dimension.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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: since

the warranty was for only 1 year (12 months from the date

of the purchase), the dealer charged the full price for parts

and labor.

Scenario 2: Neighborhood 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 favorably impress his boss with his selling ability.

At times, this young man, anxious for an order, has been

a little over-eager. 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.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

r 2010 The AuthorsBusiness Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 317

(3) Two control variables: The first represents

scenario type because each of the three scenarios

used in our analysis described a different

situation. Prior research (Reidenbach & Robin

1988) shows that judgments may depend on the

setting in which they occur. The second control

variable is the expected behavior of peers

(PEER). Research by Westerman et al. (2007)

indicates that peers may affect an individual’s

intention to behave. 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 (15high, 75 low) the probability that

their peers or colleagues would undertake the

same action as in the scenario (PEERS).

Statistical methods

Pearson correlations among the continuous vari-

ables provide an initial assessment of the relation-

ships 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 judgment overall and by ethical

perspective are evaluated through t-tests and ANOVAs

for each of the ethical perspectives.

Results

Table 4 (a–c) summarizes the descriptive statistics

(means and standard deviations) for the seven

independent variables by gender, and the correla-

tions of these variables with our dependent variable

(intention to behave) across all three scenarios for

the whole sample as well as by gender.

In Table 4 (a), it is important to note that the

correlation between the two ethical dimensions was

.50 (po.001) for the whole sample, and was slightly

higher for men (.55, po.001) than for women (.43,

po.001). The correlation between intention to

behave and justice was .51 (po.001) for the whole

sample, .47 (po.001) for men and .58 (po.001) for

women. The correlation between intention to behave

and utilitarianism was .39 (po.001) for the whole

sample, .42 (po.001) for men and .37 (po.001) for

women. Finally, the correlation between a respon-

dent’s intention to behave and the expected behavior

of peers was .65 (po.001) for the whole sample, .72

(po.001) for men and .53 (po.001) for women.

Table 4 (b and c) summarize the correlations among

the independent variables and intention to behave

for men and for women.

A repeated measures ANOVA analysis of the

model was conducted because the respondents were

asked the same question three times (once for each

scenario). The model’s F-test results (see Table 5)

indicate that the overall findings are significant and

stable (F10, 380 5 44.84, po.0001) with respect to our

ability to understand what drives intention to

behave. The R-Square for the overall model is .559

and the multivariate results (Wilks’ l) for justice,

utilitarianism, gender and two national culture

variables, i.e. masculinity and uncertainty avoid-

ance, as well as one control variable (expected peer

behavior) were significant at the .05 or better level.

Intention to behave was not influenced by differ-

ences in the three scenarios.

Table 6 (a and b) report the repeated measures

ANOVA results for men and for women separately.

Hypothesis 1 was supported. Clearly, intention to

behave is very strongly affected by the justice

dimension for both men (F1, 249510.02, po.01) and

women (F1, 1305 10.35, po.01). Hypothesis 1(a) and

1(b) were also confirmed through the fact that men

were motivated by justice but not by differences in

national culture: masculinity, uncertainty avoidance,

power distance and individualism did not significantly

affect intention to behave for men. By contrast,

women were motivated both by justice and two of the

national culture dimensions. Hypothesis 2 was also

supported. Intention to behave is very strongly

affected by utilitarianism for women (F1, 1305 6.75,

po.01), but not for men (F1, 2495 1.7, NS). Hence,

women may use more of a particularistic approach to

justice because of the fact that their intention to

behave is significantly affected by utilitarianism (ethics

of care) as well as two national culture dimensions.

Men are likely to be using a more universalistic

approach to justice because neither utilitarianism nor

any national culture dimensions seem to significantly

affect their intention to behave.

Hypotheses 3 and 4 are supported. As expected,

for women but nor for men individualism/collecti-

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

318r 2010 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 4: Correlations by gender

N X SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(a) Correlations for whole sample (men and women together)

1. Justice 427 5.45 1.50 .50nnn .51nnn .39nnn � .05 .02 .003 .05

2. Utilitarianism 410 5.04 1.23 .39nnn .28nnn � .01 .00 .08 .05

3. Intention to behave 428 5.33 1.65 .65nnn � .07 .07 .01 .05

4. Expected peer behavior 426 4.61 1.67 .02 � .08 � .06 .05

5. Masculinity 453 �49.03 81.33 � .04 .06 .17nnn

6. Uncertainty avoidance 435 �19.70 61.82 .20nnn � .14nn

7. Power distance 438 �19.71 47.61 � .09n

8. Individualism 450 30.55 48.48

(b) Correlations – men

1. Justice 277 5.44 1.41 .55nnn .47nnn .35nnn � .06 � .05 � .00 .06

2. Utilitarianism 267 5.09 1.23 .42nnn .36nnn � .00 � .05 .03 .13n

3. Intention to behave 276 5.19 1.69 .72nnn � .07 � .00 .02 .02

4. Expected peer behavior 277 4.62 1.63 � .02 � .00 � .05 .08

5. Masculinity 288 �50.54 84.48 .04 .01 .28nnn

6. Uncertainty avoidance 276 �34.33 55.30 .14n � .12n

7. Power distance 279 �26.18 46.41 � .03

8. Individualism 288 34.29 46.16

(c) Correlations – women

1. Justice 150 5.46 1.66 .43nnn .58nnn .45nnn � .05 .09 .01 .04

2. Utilitarianism 143 4.95 1.23 .37nnn .14 � .03 .12 .18n � .08

3. Intention to behave 152 5.59 1.56 .53nnn � .09 .09 � .08 .14

4. Expected peer behavior 149 4.60 1.74 .09 � .19n � .06 .01

5. Masculinity 165 �46.38 75.69 � .21nn .16n � .02

6. Uncertainty Avoidance 159 5.68 64.46 .19n � .10

7. Power distance 159 �8.36 47.72 � .28nn

8. Individualism 162 23.91 51.84

nnnpo.001;nnpo.01;np � .05.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 5: Repeated measures ANOVA for ethical judgment

Source df Sum of squares Mean square F value p value

Overall model 10 603.06 60.31 46.84 o.0001

Error 370 476.39 1.29

Corrected total 380 1079.45

Justice 1 24.73 24.73 19.21 o.0001

Utilitarianism 1 10.72 10.72 8.32 o.004

Gender 1 7.67 7.67 5.96 o.015

Expected peer behavior 1 268.52 268.52 208.55 o.0001

Masculinity 1 5.42 5.42 4.21 o.04

Uncertainty Avoidance 1 5.75 5.75 4.47 o.03

Power distance 1 .09 .09 .07 NS

Individualism 1 1.48 1.48 1.15 NS

Scenario type 2 6.46 3.23 2.51 NS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

r 2010 The AuthorsBusiness Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 319

vism and uncertainty avoidance are significantly

related to intention to behave – individualism/

collectivism (F1, 130 5 4.44, po.04) and uncertainty

avoidance (F1, 130 5 4.31, po.04).

As can be seen in Table 6 (a and b), hypothesis 5

was not supported. Looking at Table 6 (a), none of

the cultural dimensions was significantly related to

men’s intention to behave, confirming the overall

thesis that men are universalistic with respect to

intention to behave, and are less likely to be swayed

by contextual variables.

Hypothesis 6 was supported (F1, 380 5 4.21,

po.05) (see Table 5), suggesting that in general

masculinity/femininity is significantly related to

intention to behave in general. Although no

hypothesis was proposed with respect to each

gender, it is interesting to note in Table 6 (a and

b) that neither men nor women were likely to be

influenced by the masculinity/femininity cultural

dimension when their intention to behave is looked

at separately.

Of the two control variables, expected peer

behavior significantly affected men’s intention to

behave (F1, 249 5 217.93, po.0001) and women’s

intention to behave (F1, 130 5 29.22, po.001). How-

ever, scenario type did not significantly moderate the

intention to behave either when both genders were

looked at together or separately.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated whether men and

women differ in their ethical decision making. We

suggested that women, because of their communal

and care-oriented approach, would rely on a

particularistic perspective of justice whereas men

would stress a universalistic perspective because of a

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 6: Repeated measures ANOVA by gender

Source df Sum of squares Mean square F value p value

(a) Repeated measures ANOVA for men

Overall model 9 445.15 49.46 42.64 o.0001

Error 240 278.39 1.16

Corrected total 249 723.54

Justice 1 11.62 11.62 10.02 o.0017

Utilitarianism 1 1.98 1.98 1.7 NS

Expected peer behavior 1 252.78 252.78 217.93 o.0001

Masculinity 1 .91 .91 .78 NS

Uncertainty avoidance 1 .11 .11 .09 NS

Power distance 1 2.73 2.73 2.35 NS

Individualism 1 1.25 1.25 1.08 NS

Scenario type 2 5.97 2.99 2.57 NS

(b) Repeated measures ANOVA for women

Overall model 9 179.05 19.89 14.56 o.0001

Error 121 165.37 1.37

Corrected total 130 344.43

Justice 1 14.15 14.15 10.35 o.0017

Utilitarianism 1 9.23 9.23 6.75 o.01

Expected peer behavior 1 39.94 39.94 29.22 o.001

Masculinity 1 .75 .75 .55 NS

Uncertainty avoidance 1 5.89 5.89 4.31 o.04

Power distance 1 1.82 1.82 1.33 NS

Individualism 1 6.06 6.06 4.44 o.04

Scenario type 2 2.15 1.08 .79 NS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

320r 2010 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

focus on rules abstracted from situational differ-

ences and their preference for clear-cut criteria over

‘relative’ considerations. Our study indicated that in

their judgments of ethical dilemmas, men’s emphasis

on justice was not affected by cultural dimensions;

the opposite was true for women. We also proposed

that utilitarianism would influence the manner in

which women would behave with respect to ethical

decisions to a greater extent than men. The results of

the study suggest that women are significantly

impacted by utilitarianism whereas men are not.

Our findings also indicate that both genders

emphasize justice, but in different ways. The

literature on gender differences in management as

well as the literature on moral development and

social roles suggests that women focus their analysis

on personal, relationship-oriented aspects of an

action. Our findings indicate that women use this

particularistic approach to justice together with an

emphasis on utilitarianism, which stresses the

consideration of contextual factors in an assessment

of right and wrong. By contrast, for a man, justice is

justice no matter what the situation is and who is

involved. However, for a woman, contextual factors

must be taken into consideration when assessing the

ethical nature of a decision. The consideration of

such factors implicit in culture, such as tradition and

family, were critical in women’s assessment of the

unethical action presented. With women taking into

account national culture dimensions, the emphasis

on utilitarianism by women may reflect the social

expectations for them to be the caregivers (Gilligan

1982). According to a utilitarianism perspective of

ethics, the primary obligation on an individual is to

do that which benefits the majority of other people –

there is a moral responsibility to help others.

The results of this study are consistent with the

results of research on gender differences in manage-

ment. Female managers are likely to apply an

interactive approach to management and are con-

cerned with relationships and helping others. Men

are more likely to adopt a command-control

approach to management, and a transactional

leadership style. As supported by the results of this

study, women are willing to look at the ‘particulars’

of a situation such as who is involved and why.

Women take into account the contextual aspects of

the specific situation whereas men prefer a uni-

versalistic approach; this heuristic requires deter-

mining which rule applies to a given situation and

the enforcement of that rule.

Given the cross-cultural nature of our study, we

were able to investigate which specific cultural

aspects may be related to women’s ethical decision

making. We found that individualism/collectivism

and uncertainty avoidance were important to

women in forming an intention to behave ethically.

Consistent with the results from previous research,

we believe that collectivism plays a role because it is

related to utilitarian decision making. Similar to

utilitarian philosophy, collectivistic cultures empha-

size the well-being of the group which is consistent

with women’s care perspective of ethics. Uncertainty

avoidance is related to women’s ethical decision

making because it implies the extent to which a

culture is characterized by the need to follow rules

and regulations. Women in high uncertainty cultures

are acutely aware of the existence of such rules and

regulations and the societal expectation that they are

followed. Yet, this requirement is contrary to their

care and utilitarian perspective of ethics and their

desire to consider situational and contextual factors.

Hence, women’s intention to behave ethically is

more likely to be affected by uncertainty avoidance

than men. Men simply follow the rules and

regulations, without further consideration.

The results of this study have implications for the

study of business ethics. Our research supports the

contention that gender differences exist, the ethical

perspective used by either gender plays a role in their

ethical assessments, and that gender differences are

reflected in culture. Future research needs to further

explore the gender, culture, ethical decision making

relationships. It appears that, because utilitarianism

and collectivism are related, women in collectivistic

cultures may differ more from men in their ethical

decision making than women and men in individua-

listic cultures. Similarly, women in high uncertainty

avoidance cultures may differ more from men in

their ethical decision making than women and men

in low uncertainty avoidance cultures.

Beyond gender differences, the multidimension-

ality of the judgment process underlying ethical

decision making was also confirmed. Previous

studies as well as the results of this study have

shown that ethical perspectives may not be inde-

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

r 2010 The AuthorsBusiness Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 321

pendent from each other. Individuals may be using

several ethical perspectives simultaneously, although

they may not weigh them identically. In addition,

further research exploring the ‘how, when, and why’

of the effect of peers or comparison others on ethical

judgment would have critical theoretical as well as

practical implications. Much work remains to be

done in developing a consistent, integrated frame-

work that reflects the multidimensionality of ethical

decision making.

From a practical perspective, the results of this

study are useful to managers, in providing insights

into their different approaches to dealing with ethical

dilemmas. Understanding that women are more

likely to focus on context and men on ‘the rules’

may provide a foundation for more effective com-

munication. Female managers may need to provide

their male counterparts with full disclosure of all the

factors they are considering in their ethical assess-

ment. Correspondingly, male managers may need to

suggest to female peers their ethical perspective of

consistency and reliability – and that rules may not be

bent for every situation. This may allow for more

accurate mutual expectations to be formed as to how

ethical decision processes should occur. Alternatively,

it is possible that the situational approach to ethical

decision making may provide female expatriate and

cross-cultural managers with enhanced adaptability

when faced with different or ambiguous norms,

values, and cultures. Their enhanced ability to

contextualize ethical issues may provide an advantage

when engaging in countries or locales with diverse

populations, such as India. In an increasingly multi-

cultural and international business environment, such

flexibility may be valuable in contrast to a strict

adherence to perceptions of ‘universal’ moral codes

that may be erroneous or counterproductive. Ulti-

mately, the ethical decision that male and female

managers will arrive at may represent a compromise,

but also may represent a superior decision.

Limitations

In interpreting the results of this study, certain

limitations need to be considered. The general-

izability of the results is limited. The sample is

drawn from three countries only and is based on

graduate business students who may not be repre-

sentative of the population overall. Furthermore,

the ethics measure used may be culture-bound

because it was developed in the United States. The

questionnaire administered to the German subjects

was in English, and although the subjects were fluent

in English, it did not represent the respondents’

native language. These limitations notwithstanding,

the results of this study contribute to the ethics

literature by pointing to the complexity and multi-

dimensionality of ethical decision making and by

enhancing our understanding of gender differences

in ethical analysis.

References

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1980.Understanding Attitudes

and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Akaah, I. 1989. ‘Differences in research ethics judg-

ments between male and female marketing profes-

sionals’. Journal of Business Ethics, 8:5, 375–381.

Alexander, C. and Becker, M. 1978. ‘The use of

vignettes in survey research’. Public Opinion Quar-

terly, 42:1, 93–104.

Ameen, E.C., Guffey, D.M. and McMillan, J.J. 1996.

‘Gender differences in determining the ethical

sensitivity of future accounting professionals’. Jour-

nal of Business Ethics, 15:5, 591–597.

Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. 1997. ‘What

differences in the cultural backgrounds of partners

are detrimental for international joint ventures?’

Journal of International Business, 28: 845–864.

Beauchamp, T.L. and Bowie, N.E. 2004. Ethical Theory

and Business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Beekun, R. and Glick, W. 2001. ‘Development and test of

a contingency framework of loose coupling: assessing

the covariation between structure and culture’.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37:4, 385–407.

Beekun, R., Stedham, Y. and Yamamura, J. 2002.

‘Business ethics in Brazil and the US: egoism

and utilitarianism’. Journal of Business Ethics, 42:3,

267–279.

Beekun, R., Stedham, Y., Yamamura, J. and Bar-

ghouti, J. 2003. ‘Comparing business ethics in

Russia and the US’. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 14:8, 1333–1349.

Beltramini, R., Peterson, R. and Kozmetsky, G. 1984.

‘Concerns of college students regarding business

ethics’. Journal of Business Ethics, 3:3, 195–200.

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

322r 2010 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Bernardi, R.A., Witek, M.B. and Melton, M.R. 2009.

‘A four-country study of associations between

bribery and unethical actions’. Journal of Business

Ethics, 84:3, 389–403.

Betz, M., O’Connell, L. and Shepard, J. 1989. ‘Gender

differences in proclivity for unethical behavior’.

Journal of Business Ethics, 8:5, 321–324.

Blau, F., Ferber, M. and Winkler, A. 2002. The

Economics of Women, Men, and Work. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Burke, S. and Collins, K. 2001. ‘Gender differences in

leadership styles and management skills’. Women in

Management Review, 16:5, 244–257.

Carroll, S.J. and Gannon, M.J. 1997. Ethical Dimen-

sions of International Management. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Cheng, H., Sims, R. and Teegen, H. 1997. ‘To

purchase or to pirate software: an empirical study’.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 13:4,

49–60.

Cohen, J., Pant, L. and Sharp, D. 1996. ‘A methodo-

logical note on cross-cultural accounting ethics

research’. International Journal of Accounting, 31:1,

55–66.

Daniels, J., D’Andrea, M. and Heck, R. 1995. ‘Moral

development and Hawaiian youths: does gender

make a difference?’. Journal of Counseling and

Development, 74:1, 90–93.

Donleavy, G.B., Kit-Chuan, J.L. and Ho, S.S.M. 2008.

‘Does East meet West in business ethics? An

introduction to the special issue’. Journal of Business

Ethics, 79:1-2, 1–8.

Dubinsky, A. and Rudelius, W. 1980. ‘Ethical beliefs:

how students compare with industrial salespeople.’

Proceedings of the American Marketing Association

Educators’ Conference, Chicago, IL, 73–76.

DuPont, A.M. and Craig, J.S. 1996. ‘Does management

experience change the ethical perceptions of retail

professionals? A comparison of the ethical perceptions

of current students with those of recent graduates?’.

Journal of Business Ethics, 15:8, 815–826.

Eagley, A. 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A

Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ferrell, O. and Skinner, S. 1988. ‘Ethical behavior and

bureaucratic structure in marketing research orga-

nizations’. Journal of Marketing Research, 25:1,

103–109.

Fleischman, G. and Valentine, S. 2003. ‘Professionals’

tax liability assessments and ethical evaluations in

an equitable relief innocent spouse case’. Journal of

Business Ethics, 42:1, 27–44.

Forte, A. 2004. ‘Antecedents of managers’ moral

reasoning’. Journal of Business Ethics, 51:4, 315–347.

Friedman, T. 2000. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New

York, NY: Anchor Publishing.

Friedman, T. 2006. The World is Flat. New York, NY:

Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Gannon, M.J. 2001. Working Across Cultures. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gilligan, C. 1982. 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.

1988. Mapping the Moral Domain. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Glover, S., Bumpus, M., Sharp, G. and Munchus, G.

2002. ‘Gender differences in ethical decision

making’. Women in Management Review, 17:5,

217–227.

Haidt, J., Koller, S.H. and Dias, M.G. 1993. ‘Affect,

culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your

dog?’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

65:4, 613–628.

Harris, J.R. and Sutton, C.D. 1995. ‘Unraveling the

ethical decision making process: clues from an

empirical study comparing Fortune 1000 executives

and MBA students’. Journal of Business Ethics,

14:10, 805–817.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (Ed.). 1998. Masculinity and Femininity:

The Taboo Dimension of National Cultures. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing

Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations

Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. 2005. Cultures and

Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd edition.

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hoppe, M.H. 1993. ‘The effects of national culture on

the theory and practice of managing R&D profes-

sionals abroad’. R&D Management, 23:4, 313–325.

Husted, B.W. 2000. ‘The impact of national culture on

software piracy’. Journal of Business Ethics, 26:3,

197–211.

Husted, B.W. and Allen, D.B. 2008. ‘Toward a model

of cross-cultural business ethics: the impact of

individualism and collectivism on the ethical deci-

sion making process’. Journal of Business Ethics,

82:2, 293–305.

Izraeli, D. and Jaffe, E. 2000. ‘Are there gender

differences in ethics judgments of marketing man-

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

r 2010 The AuthorsBusiness Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 323

agers?’. International Journal of Value-Based Man-

agement, 13:2, 159–172.

Jaffee, S. and Hyde, J. 2000. ‘Gender differences in

moral orientation: a meta-analysis’. Psychological

Bulletin, 126:5, 703–726.

Jones, G.E. and Kavanagh, M.J. 1996. ‘An experi-

mental examination of the effects of individual and

situational factors on unethical behavioral inten-

tions in the workplace’. Journal of Business Ethics,

15:5, 511–523.

Jones, T. and Gautschi III, F.H. 1988. ‘Will the ethics

of business change? A survey of future executives’.

Journal of Business Ethics, 7:4, 231–248.

Kerlinger, F. 1986. Foundations of Behavioral Re-

search, 3rd edition. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston.

Kidwell, J., Stevens, R. and Bethke, A. 1987.

‘Differences in ethical perceptions between male

and female managers: myth or reality?’. Journal of

Business Ethics, 6:6, 487–493.

Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck, F. 1961. Variations in

Value Orientation. New York, NY: Harper and

Row.

Kohlberg, L. 1969. ‘Stage and sequence: the cogniti-

ve-developmental approach to socialization’. In

Goslin, D. (Ed.), Handbook Of Socialization

Theory and Research: 348–480. Chicago, IL: Rand

McNally.

Kohlberg, L. 1976. ‘Moral stages and moralization: the

cognitive-developmental approach’. In Lickona, T.

(Ed.), Moral Development and Behavior: Theory,

Research, and Social Issues: 31–53. New York, NY:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kohlberg, L. 1984. ‘Moral stages and moralization: the

cognitive-developmental approach’. In Kohlberg, L.

Essays On Moral Development: Vol. 2. The Psychol-

ogy Of Moral Development: the Nature and Validity

of Moral Stages: 170–205. San Francisco, CA:

Harper and Row.

Konrad, A., Corrigall, E., Lieb, P. and Ritchie, J.E.

2000. ‘Sex differences in job attribute preferences

among managers and business students’. Group and

Organization Management, 25:2, 108–131.

Lane, J. 1995. ‘Ethics of business students: some

marketing perspectives’. Journal of Business Ethics,

14:7, 571–580.

Lonner, W. and Berry, J. 1998. ‘Series editors’

introduction’. In Hofstede, G. (Ed.), Masculinity

and Femininity: The Taboo Dimension of National

Cultures: xi–xiii. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Loo, R. 2003. ‘Are women more ethical than men?

Findings from three independent studies’. Women in

Management Review, 18:4, 169–181.

Lorber, J. 2007. ‘‘‘Night to his day’’: the social

construction of gender’. In Taylor, V., Whittier, N.

and Rupp, L.J. (Eds.), Feminist Frontiers: 41–56.

Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Lund, D.B. 2008. ‘Gender differences in ethics judgment

of marketing professionals in the United States’.

Journal of Business Ethics, 77:4, 501–515.

Luxen, M.F. 2005. ‘Gender differences in dominance

and affiliation during a demanding interaction’.

Journal of Psychology, 139:4, 331–347.

Lysonski, S. and Gaidis, W. 1991. ‘A cross-cultural

comparison of the ethics of business students’.

Journal of Business Ethics, 10:2, 141–150.

Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. 1991. ‘Culture and the

self: implications for cognition, emotion, and

motivation’. Psychological Review, 98: 224–253.

Measor, L. and Sykes, P. 1992. Gender and Schools.

New York, NY: Cassell.

Nunnally, J. 1967. Psychometric Theory. New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

O’Fallon, M. and Butterfield, K.D. 2005. ‘A review of

the empirical decision-making literature: 1996-2003’.

Journal of Business Ethics, 59:4, 375–413.

Powell, G.N. and Graves, L. 2003. Women and Men in

Management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Reidenbach, R. and Robin, D. 1988. ‘Some initial

steps towards improving the measurement of ethical

evaluations of marketing activities’. Journal of

Business Ethics, 7:11, 871–879.

Reidenbach, R. and Robin, D. 1990. ‘Toward the

development of a multidimensional scale for im-

proving evaluations of business ethics’. Journal of

Business Ethics, 9:8, 639–653.

Rest, J. 1986. Moral Development: Advances in

Research and Theory. New York, NY: Praeger.

Rest, J. and Narvaez, D. 1994. Moral Development in

the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Robertson, C. and Fadil, P.A. 1999. ‘Ethical decision

making in multinational organizations: a culture-

based model’. Journal of Business Ethic, 19:4,

385–392.

Robin, D. and 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.

Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. 1985. ‘Clustering

countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review of

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

324r 2010 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

synthesis’. Academy of Management Review, 10:3,

435–454.

Rosener, J. 1990. ‘Ways women lead’. Harvard

Business Review, 68:6, 119–125.

Sama, L.M. and Papamarcos, S.D. 2000. ‘Culture’s

consequences for working women in Corporate

America and Japan, Inc.’. Cross-Cultural Manage-

ment: An International Journal, 7:2, 18–29.

Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. and Miles, J.A. 2003.

‘The impact of gender and setting on perceptions of

others’ ethics’. Sex Roles, 48:7/8, 361–375.

Schoderbek, P. and Deshpande, S. 1996. ‘Impression

management, over calming, and perceived unethical

conduct: the role of male and female managers’.

Journal of Business Ethics, 15:4, 409–414.

Sikula Sr, A. and Costa, A. 1994. ‘Are women more

ethical than men?’. Journal of Business Ethics, 13:11,

859–871.

Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. and Franke, G. 1999.

‘Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects

of perceived moral intensity and personal moral

philosophies’. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 27:1, 19–36.

Skoe, E. and Diessner, R. 1994. ‘Ethic of care, justice,

identity, and gender: an extension and replication’.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40:2, 272–289.

Sondergaard, M. 1994. ‘Hofstede’s consequences: a

study of reviews, citations and replications’. Orga-

nization Studies, 15:3, 447–456.

Spurgeon, P. and Cross, V. 2005. ‘Gender differences

in management behaviors and leadership styles:

implications for organizational performance.’ Vir-

tual presentation at the Diversity Symposium,

Women, Diversity and Human Rights, RMIT,

University of Melbourne, Australia.

Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. 1997. ‘Business ethics

across cultures: a social cognitive model’. Journal of

World Business, 31:1, 17–34.

Stedham, Y. and Yamamura, J. 2004. ‘Measuring

national culture: does gender matter?’ Women in

Management Review, 19:5, 233–243.

Stedham, Y., Yamamura, J. and Beekun, R.I. 2007.

‘Gender differences in business ethics: justice and

relativism’. Business Ethics: A European Review,

16:2, 163–174.

Stedham, Y., Yamamura, J. and Lai Chin-Chien, S.

2008. ‘Business ethics in Japan and Taiwan:

relativist and utilitarian perspectives’. Asia Pacific

Business Review, 14:4, 535–551.

Stevenson, T. and Bodkin, C. 1998. ‘A cross-national

comparison of university students’ perceptions

regarding the ethics and acceptability of sales

practices’. Journal of Business Ethics, 17:1, 45–55.

Ting-Tomey, S. 1998. Communicating Across Cultures.

New York, NY: Guilford.

Triandis, H.C. 1982. ‘Dimensions of cultural variation

as parameters of organizational theories’. Interna-

tional Studies of Management & Organization, 12:4,

139–169.

Trompenaars, F. 1994. Riding the Waves of Culture.

New York, NY: Irwin.

Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. 1998. Riding

The Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in

Global Business. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Truskie, S. 2002. Leadership in High-Performance

Organizational Cultures. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Tsui, J.S.L. and Windsor, C. 2001. ‘Some cross-

cultural evidence on ethical reasoning’. Journal of

Business Ethics, 31:2, 143–150.

Tyson, T. 1992. ‘Does believing that everyone else is

less ethical have an impact on work behavior?’.

Journal of Business Ethics, 11:9, 707–717.

Velasquez, M.G. 1992. Business Ethics: Concepts and

Cases, 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Vitell, S.J. and Patwardhan, A. 2008. ‘The role of

moral intensity in ethical decision-making: a cross-

cultural comparison of China and the EU’. Business

Ethics: A European Review, 17:2, 196–209.

Vitell, S.J., Nwachukwu, S.L. and Barnes, J.H. 1993.

‘The effects of culture on ethical decision making: an

application of Hofstede’s typology’. Journal of

Business Ethics, 12:10, 753–760.

West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. 2008. ‘Doing gender’.

In Kimmel, M.S. and Aronson, A. (Eds.), The

Gendered Society Reader: 147–164. New York, NY:

Oxford.

Westerman, J., Beekun, R., Stedham, Y. and Yama-

mura, J. 2007. ‘Peers versus national culture: an

empirical analysis of antecedents to ethical decision

making’. Journal of Business Ethics, 75:3, 239–252.

Whipple, T. and Swords, D. 1992. ‘Business ethics

judgments: a cross-cultural comparison’. Journal of

Business Ethics, 11:9, 56–63.

White, T. 1992. ‘Business, ethics, and Carol Gilligan’s

‘‘Two voices’’’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2:1, 51–61.

Wilkins, B. and Andersen, P. 1991. ‘Gender differences

and similarities in management’. Communication

Quarterly, 5:1, 6–35.

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 19 Number 4 October 2010

r 2010 The AuthorsBusiness Ethics: A European Review r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 325