Gender differences in businessethics: justice and relativistperspectives

Yvonne Stedham,JeanneH.YamamuraandRafik I.Beekunn

Introduction

In the aftermath of the Enron, Arthur Andersen,

and other similar debacles, the pressure for ethical

or moral transparency has increased. Typically,

business ethics dilemmas result from the need to

balance economic performance and social perfor-

mance (Hosmer 1996). Determining and main-

taining the ‘right’ balance are becoming more

difficult as today’s business organizations operate

in an environment that is characterized by an

unprecedented level of complexity, intense com-

petition, and social obligations.

Managers use three types of analysis in

determining the ‘right’ balance between economic

and social performance: economic analysis, legal

analysis, and philosophic analysis (Hosmer 1996:

85–86). Together, economic and legal analyses

provide insights into financial revenues and costs,

and the legality of the situation. Philosophic

analysis is based on rational thought processes.

It suggests that a manager should have a single

principle of behaviour or a single statement of

belief that is ‘right’ and ‘proper’ and ‘just’ in and

of itself. Such a principle will guide the decision

maker to a decision on the duties he/she owes to

others. Solving ethical dilemmas requires that

managers be able to perform the three types of

analysis effectively.

In general, managers have been trained to

conduct economic and legal analyses but are not

as well versed in philosophic analysis. In part, this

lack is owing to the fact that more knowledge

about economic and legal analyses exists than

about philosophic analysis. More importantly,

education and training on economic and legal

issues are easily accessible, whereas learning and

adopting principles of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ cannot be

‘taught’. According to results of the 2005 National

Business Ethics Survey (Ethics Resource Center

2005), formal ethics and compliance programmes,

as well as training on ethics, have increased in US

businesses, but the positive outcomes expected

from such programmes have remained unchanged

or have declined. These results reinforce the need

for a deeper understanding of philosophic analysis

as it relates to ethical dilemmas in business.

This study aims to provide additional insights

into ethical decision making by comparing the

ethical judgements made by men and women.

Women constitute about 50% of the workforce in

today’s economically advanced countries (Blau

et al. 2002), and an increasing number of women

are represented in management. For instance, in

the United States 30–40% of managerial positions

are held by women (Blau et al. 2002). Working

side by side, do male and female managers

approach ethical dilemmas in the same or a

different manner? If there are differences, not

understanding the reasons for the differences may

result in conflicts when deciding on the appro-

priate solutions for such dilemmas.

nRespectively: Professor of Management; Associate Professor of

Accounting; and Professor of Management and Strategy – all at the

University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA.

r 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA 163

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 16 Number 2 April 2007

Research that considers the role of gender in

ethical decision making in business is somewhat

inconsistent (e.g. Kidwell et al. 1987, Akaah 1989,

Sikula & Costa 1994, Schoderbek & Deshpande

1996, Singhapakdi et al. 1999, Izraeli & Jaffe

2000). Some studies show that women tend to be

more ethical than men (e.g. Beltramini et al. 1984,

Ferrel & Skinner 1988, Jones & Gautschi 1988,

Akaah 1989, Betz et al. 1989, Whipple & Swords

1992, Lane 1995, Glover et al. 2002) but do not

offer much insight into the theoretical under-

pinnings for the findings (e.g. Tsalikis & Fritzsche

1989, Serwinek 1992, White 1992, Ford &

Richardson 1994).

This study aims to contribute to our under-

standing of gender differences in business ethics

by investigating whether the ethical judgement of

men and women differs when they base their judge-

ment on a relativist and a justice perspective of

ethics.

Background

Gender, socialization, and moral development

Why would men and women differ with respect to

their analysis of ethical dilemmas? Why would

men and women emphasize different factors in

such analyses? Central to answering these ques-

tions is the theory of moral reasoning. Kohlberg

(1969, 1976, 1984) proposed that individuals pro-

gress through a sequence of six invariant and

universal stages of moral reasoning. The six stages

are grouped into three levels with the higher levels

representing an advanced ability to understand

and integrate diverse points of view. According to

Kohlberg’s model, Stage 3 was the modal stage

for females, and Stage 4 the modal stage for males

(Jaffe & Hyde 2000). Stage 3 represents reasoning

that is based on the desire to maintain relation-

ships and meet others’ expectations, whereas

Stage 4 reasoning is based on compliance with

laws so as to maintain the social order.

Gilligan (1982) and Gilligan et al. (1988), one of

the foremost authorities on differences in moral

development between adolescent boys and girls,

suggest that being of the same or opposite sex as

one’s mother leads to different types of attach-

ment and patterns of development for girls and

boys. This results in the feminine emphasis on

relationships and the masculine emphasis on

justice. Gilligan et al. (1988: iii) conclude that

‘by the age of 11, most children can solve moral

problems both in terms of rights (a justice

approach) and in terms of response (a care

approach)’. Later, in experiencing moral conflict,

females are primarily concerned with relation-

ships and tend to focus on considerations of care,

whereas males focus on considerations of justice.

Accordingly, the literature on moral development

and ethics differentiates between an ethic of

justice and an ethic of care, also referred to as

justice and care reasoning (White 1992). White

(1992: 52) explains that the care perspective adds

feeling to reason and ‘speaks about right and

wrong in terms of what is appropriate to par-

ticular circumstances and focuses on our respon-

sibilities to others’.

Hence, in assessing the ethical content of a de-

cision, women focus on the interpersonal aspects

of the situation, as well as the acceptability of the

decision, whereas men take more of an impersonal

approach and abstract the moral content from the

interpersonal situation. Further support for men’s

focus on independence and objective and absolute

aspects, and for women’s focus on interdepen-

dence and concern with others is provided by

Social Role Theory (Eagly 1987). This theory

suggests that men and women behave according

to the stereotypically expected social roles that

they occupy. As a result, women are more ‘com-

munal’ and men are more ‘agentic’. Women place

greater emphasis on harmonious interpersonal

relations, are more caring, and are focused on

doing well, whereas men are more concerned with

competitive success and extrinsic rewards includ-

ing financial and status rewards (Loo 2003). Loo

(2003) concludes that men’s focus on competitive

success implies a willingness to engage in un-

ethical behaviours to achieve those outcomes.

The results of empirical research, however, are

unclear concerning gender differences in moral

reasoning. Jaffe & Hyde (2000) conducted an

extensive meta-analysis on this topic and found

small differences in the care orientation favouring

females and small differences in the justice

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 16 Number 2 April 2007

164r 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

orientation favouring males. Overall, their results

offered some support for the claim that women

use primarily a care orientation and men primar-

ily a justice orientation.

Ethical perspectives

Hosmer (1996) refers to ethics as ‘normative

philosophy’, the study of proper thought and

conduct. Ethics constitutes the system of beliefs

that support a particular view of morality.

Morality refers to the standards of behaviour by

which individuals are judged, especially in their

relationships with others. Morality and ethics are

related, and in the literature the terms are used in

various combinations. Ferrell et al. (2002) discuss

‘moral philosophies’, Hosmer (1996) presents the

‘normative philosophy of morality and ethics’,

and Shaw (1999) introduces ‘ethical philosophies’.

Regardless of the specific terms chosen, the

central question is ‘how do individuals conduct

an ethical analysis of a dilemma?’ What guidelines

are used in such a process? These moral, ethical

guidelines or perspectives assist the decision

maker in determining ‘right’ from ‘wrong’.

The ethics literature differentiates several ethi-

cal perspectives: the teleological, deontological,

relativist, and justice perspectives (Ferrell et al.

2002). Teleology stipulates that acts are morally

right if they produce a desired result, and includes

the egoism and utilitarianism perspectives. The

egoism principle focuses on desired results for

the self, whereas the utilitarianism perspective

focuses on the consequences for the majority – the

greatest good for the greatest number of people.

In contrast, deontology focuses on the preserva-

tion of individual rights and the intention of a

particular action rather than on the consequences.

The relativist view acknowledges that there may

not be objective, universal ethical standards but

that moral standards may be subjective and may

differ between groups within a single culture,

between cultures, and over time. From the

relativist perspective, judgement of the ethical

content of an action is derived subjectively from

the experiences of individuals and groups. ‘The

relativist observes the actions of members of some

relevant group and attempts to determine the

group consensus on a given behaviour. A positive

consensus signifies that the action is considered

right or ethical’ (Ferrell et al. 2002: 63). Con-

sidering group interactions is central to determin-

ing what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. The last ethical

perspective to consider is ‘justice’. Justice evalua-

tions focus on evaluation of fairness – fair

treatment according to ethical or legal standards.

In business, decision rules to determine justice

could be based on individuals’ perceived rights.

It has been suggested that ‘justice’ is the first

virtue of social institutions, as truth is the first

virtue of systems of thought (Hosmer 1996).

Considering the differences in moral develop-

ment between men and women and the five ethical

perspectives, it is now apparent that the male

emphasis on objectivity and the abstract is clearly

consistent with a focus on justice, rights, following

the rules, and an impersonal assessment of the

situation. By contrast, women’s focus on relation-

ships, care, and response seems to be aligned with

a relativist perspective.

Ethical perceptions and behavioural intentions

Ajzen & Fishbein (1980: 42) describe behavioural

intention as ‘a measure of the likelihood that a

person will engage in a given behavior’, and

contend that knowledge of what drives intentions

can lead us to understand behaviour. Although an

individual’s intention may change over time,

aggregate intentions are made less malleable

by unexpected events. Several recent studies of

business ethics have focused on intention to

behave as a means of capturing an individual’s

ethical judgement (Singhapakdi et al. 1999, Izraeli

& Jaffe 2000, Westerman et al. 2005).

Ajzen & Fishbein (1980) proposed a model of

reasoned action to predict behavioural intention.

They suggest that a behavioural intention mea-

sure can predict the performance of any single,

voluntary act, but not alternatives to that act.

Intention to behave depends on beliefs that the

behaviour will produce a positive outcome and

the strength of perceived social pressure, e.g., peer

approval or disapproval (Izraeli & Jaffe 2000).

An individual’s ethical responses depend on the

social identity referent used by the individual

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 16 Number 2 April 2007

r 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 165

(Westerman et al. 2005). Results of studies

investigating the relative effect of peers on ethical

decision making have consistently indicated that

peers exert a more substantial effect than man-

agers on employees (Zey-Ferrell et al. 1979, Zey-

Ferrell & Ferrell 1982, Jones & Kavanagh 1996,

Keith et al. 2003). Schein (1984) has asserted that

organizational peers provide the normative struc-

ture and serve as the guides for employee decision

making, and that they set the standards and serve

as the referents for behaviour within organiza-

tions (Jones & Kavanagh 1996).

Several studies on business ethics found that the

nature of the action or practice in question plays a

role in an individual’s evaluation of the ethical

content of the practice (Reidenbach & Robin

1988, Jones 1991, Cohen et al. 1996, Franke et al.

1997, Singhapakdi et al. 1999, Beekun et al. 2003).

Specifically, depending on the issue under con-

sideration, the relative importance of personal

and situational factors may vary greatly.

Hypotheses

The existing research on ethical decision making

suggests that

� there is some support for gender differences in

ethical judgement;

� although not consistently supported, there may

be a relationship between gender and moral

orientation. Specifically women may have a

slight tendency towards care reasoning and

men towards justice reasoning;

� the moral orientation of care seems to be

consistent with a relativist ethical perspective

and the moral orientation of justice with a

justice ethical perspective;

� understanding the determinants of behavioural

intentions is useful to understanding what

drives a certain behaviour;

� behavioural intentions are affected by social

pressures (peers) as well as characteristics of

the situation.

Hence, we propose the following model:

Behavioural Intention 5 f (Ethical Perspective,

Gender, Peer Pressure, Situation).

In order to test the relationships presented in

the model, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Intention to behave is a function

of gender.

This study aims to provide some insights into the

underlying rationale for the proposed gender

differences in intention to behave. We suggest

that the specific ethical perspective taken may in-

fluence the final evaluation of the ethical content

of the action. Men feel more comfortable with

justice criteria, whereas women feel more comfor-

table with relativist criteria. Women’s ethical

judgement seems to be based on morality of care,

a relativist perspective. They not only consider

whether an action violated a rule or whether an

actor is within his/her right to perform a certain

action, but also take a broader viewpoint that

includes the relationships involved. We propose

three hypotheses relating to women’s and men’s

preference for different ethical perspectives.

Hypothesis 2: Intention to behave is a function

of the ethical perspective used.

When using a relativist perspective, individuals

examine whether a certain action was acceptable

to one’s family, as well as being culturally, indi-

vidually, and traditionally acceptable. Hence, if

using only relativist criteria for judging a situa-

tion, women will come to different conclusions

than men because a relativist view is primary to

women’s ethical judgement but not to men’s. We

propose that

Hypothesis 2a: When they use a relativist

perspective, women and men are likely to

behave differently.

When using a justice perspective, individuals

judge a situation as just or unjust and fair or

unfair. Hence, if using only justice criteria for

judging a situation, women will come to different

conclusions than men because a justice view is

primary to men’s ethical judgement but not to

women’s. We propose that

Hypothesis 2b: When they use a justice perspec-

tive, women and men are likely to behave

differently.

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 16 Number 2 April 2007

166r 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Method

Sample

Data were collected from 44 respondents. A

survey, in English, was distributed by one of the

authors to German students studying in a Master

of Business programme. The data were collected

in summer 2003 at a German university. The

students were taking an advanced management

course taught in English. The students’ command

of English was outstanding. They performed all

course requirements in English.

Graduate students in business are a commonly

used proxy for business people (Dubinsky &

Rudelius 1980). Dubinsky & Rudelius’ (1980)

comparison of student vs. professional evalua-

tions found a high degree of congruence between

the two groups.

The sample characteristics are presented in

Table 1.

Measures

The instrument we used was Reidenbach &

Robin’s (1988) pre-validated, multi-criteria in-

strument incorporating the core dimensions that

underlie several ethical perspectives. We selected

this survey instrument because it is a multi-

philosophy and multi-item questionnaire. This

instrument incorporates multiple items for the five

ethical perspectives previously discussed 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 (Cronbach 1951). As we used

three different measures for each of the three

scenarios, we calculated three inter-item coeffi-

cient as. The Cronbach’s a was 0.7306 for the first

scenario, 0.7629 for the second scenario, and

0.6708 for the third scenario. All three coefficients

indicate that the scale items are internally con-

sistent and relate to the same domain (Nunnally

1967). Additionally, the reliability of the two

ethical measures was calculated separately. The

Cronbach’s a results appeared as follows: Justice

perspective – men 0.80, women 0.67; Relativist

perspective – men 0.86; women 0.84. Three of the

four a measures clearly exceed Nunnally’s sug-

gested cutoff of 0.70 (Nunnally 1967) while the

fourth approaches 0.70. These reliability measures

indicate that the respondents were able to

differentiate between the two ethical perspectives

and that the measures used for the ethical

perspectives are reliable. Hence, the reliability of

the instrument is considered adequate for this

study.

Using a seven-point Likert scale (15 ethical,

75unethical), respondents were asked to rate the

action in three scenarios using the criteria (items)

described in Table 2. In addition to the measures

for the ethical perspectives, a measure of ethical

judgement was included. The respondents indi-

cated on a seven-point scale (15 high, 75 low)

the probability that they would undertake the

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

Table 1: Sample

Total Men Women

Age

20–24 36 17 19

25–29 8 5 3

Total 44 22 22

Experience

No paid job (including

full-time students)

10 5 5

Unskilled or semi-skilled

manual worker

3 2 1

Generally trained office

worker or secretary

12 4 8

Vocationally trained

craftsperson, technician,

informatician, nurse, artist,

or equivalent

1 1 0

Academically trained

professional

12 6 6

Manager of one or more

subordinates

1 1 0

Total 39 19 20

Totals differ as complete information was not always provided.

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

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 16 Number 2 April 2007

r 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 167

same action (intention to behave). Table 2

provides the items and scales for the ethics

measures.

In accordance with previous ethics research,

scenarios were used in this study to provide the

contextual stimulus and to motivate the evalua-

tion process (Alexander & Becker 1978). We

adopted the three scenarios developed and vali-

dated by Reidenbach & Robin (1988, 1990). Table

3 presents the three scenarios used in this study.

Given that the content of the scenario or

situation affects intention to behave, we con-

trolled for this variable by including the scenario

type in our model. Similarly, we controlled the

impact of peers on intention to behave by

including a variable measuring expected peer

behaviour. The extent to which peers were

expected to behave the same way as the protago-

nist in the scenario was measured by asking

respondents to indicate on a seven-point scale

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

Table 2: Ethics instrument scales

Ethical perspective Items (seven-point Likert scale � 1–7)a

Relativist perspective Culturally acceptable/culturally unacceptable

Individually acceptable/individually unacceptable

Traditionally acceptable/traditionally unacceptable

Acceptable to my family/unacceptable to my family

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)

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

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

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

Table 3: Scenarios

Scenario 1: Retail–Automobile. A person bought a new car from a franchised automobile dealership in the local area. Eight

months after the car was purchased, he began having problems with the transmission. He took the car back to the dealer,

and some minor adjustments were made. During the next few months, he continually had a similar problem with the

transmission slipping. Each time the dealer made only minor adjustments on the car. Again during the 13th month after the

car had been bought the man returned to the dealer because the transmission still was not functioning properly. At this

time, the transmission was completely overhauled.

Action: As the warranty was for only one year (12 months from the date of the purchase), the dealer charged the full price

for parts and labour.

Scenario 2: Neighbourhood Store. A retail grocery chain operates several stores throughout the local area including one in

the city’s ghetto area. Independent studies have shown that the prices do tend to be higher and there is less of a selection

of products in this particular store than in the other locations.

Action: On the day welfare checks are received in the area of the city, the retailer increases prices on all of his

merchandise.

Scenario 3: Salesman. A young man, recently hired as a salesman for a local retail store, has been working very hard to

favourably impress his boss with his selling ability. At times, this young man, anxious for an order, has been a little 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 16 Number 2 April 2007

168r 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

(15high, 75 low) the probability that their peers

or colleagues would undertake the same action as

in the scenario (PEERS).

Statistical methods

Pearson’s correlations among the variables pro-

vide an initial assessment of the relationships

among the variables. The correlations between the

ethical perspectives provide some insight into the

interdependence of the ethical perspectives for the

sample as a whole and for each gender. Gender

differences in ethical judgement overall and by

ethical perspective are evaluated through t-tests

and ANOVAs for each of the two ethical

perspectives.

Results

Table 4(a) and (b) present the descriptive statistics

for the study variables sorted by gender. The

mean scores for intention to behave in the same

unethical manner as the antagonist are above 5

for both men and women. Men and women see

the actions as unethical. However, the mean for

women is 5.97, whereas the mean for men is 5.06.

Similarly, the means for each of the ethical

perspectives are higher for women than for men.

In general, women seemed to perceive the

scenarios to be relatively more unethical than

the men whether they used the justice or the

relativism perspectives.

Table 5(a)–(c) present Pearson’s correlations

between intention to behave, expected peer

behaviour, justice, and relativism by gender. The

perspectives are significantly and positively corre-

lated (0.681, po0.001). The correlation between

the perspectives is also significant for both women

and men (women: 0.830, po0.001; men: 0.5429,

po0.001).

Table 6 summarizes the results of the factorial

ANOVAs for ethical judgement. Our model is sig-

nificant (F6, 101 5 27.10, po0.0001) and accounts

for 63% of the variance in ethical judgement.

Thus, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed as intention to

behave is a function of gender (F1, 1015 4.99,

po0.05). Hypothesis 2(a) was confirmed as the

relativist ethical perspective was significantly

related to intention to behave (F1, 1015 11.26,

po0.01), but given that use of the justice

perspective was nonsignificant (F1, 1015 2.72,

p40.05), Hypothesis 2 was only partly confirmed.

The expected behaviour of peers (F1, 1015 55.26,

po0.0001) is significantly related to intention to

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

Table 4: Descriptive statistics for (a) men and (b)

women

Variable N Mean Standard

deviation

(a)

Justice 65 5.47 1.05

Relativism 56 5.22 1.33

Intention to behave 66 5.06 1.60

Expected peer behaviour 66 4.53 1.56

(b)

Justice 62 6.06 1.13

Relativism 47 5.62 1.26

Intention to behave 63 5.97 1.31

Expected peer behaviour 63 4.99 1.58

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

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

Table 5: Correlations for (a) whole sample (men and

women together), (b) women and (c) men

2 3 4

(a)

1. Intention to behave 0.689nnn 0.473nnn 0.585nnn

2. Expected peer

behaviour

0.358nnn 0.429nnn

3. Justice 0.681nnn

4. Relativism

(b)

1. Intention to behave 0.5441nnn 0.3916nn 0.5854nnn

2. Expected peer

behaviour

0.3653nn 0.3720n

3. Justice 0.8304nnn

4. Relativism

(c)

1. Intention to behave 0.8027nnn 0.4678nnn 0.5647nnn

2. Expected peer

behaviour

0.3088n 0.4712nnn

3. Justice 0.5429nnn

4. Relativism

nnn 5 po0.001; nn 5 po0.01; np 5o0.05.

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

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 16 Number 2 April 2007

r 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 169

behave and the type of scenario was not sig-

nificant (F1, 101 5 2.72, p40.05).

Table 7(a) and (b) present the results of the

repeated measures ANOVAs for intention to

behave by gender. The models are significant for

men and women, but for both groups only the

relativism perspective is significantly related to

intention to behave. Justice is not significantly

related to intention to behave.

Table 8 summarizes the results of the t-tests

based on gender. Significant gender differences

were found for intention to behave, supporting

Hypothesis 1 (t5 � 3.51, po0.001), with women

judging the scenarios as more unethical

than men. Significant gender differences occurred

for the justice perspective (t5 � 2.99, po0.01)

but not for the relativism perspective (t5 � 1.55,

p40.1).

Discussion

In this study, we investigated whether men and

women differ in their ethical judgement. We

suggested that intention to behave in an ethical

or unethical manner differs by gender and that the

ethical perspective employed may affect the

ethical judgement made. In particular, we sug-

gested that a relativist perspective is reflective of

women’s communal orientation. Hence, if women

are employing that ethical perspective, they come

to different conclusions about the ethical content

of a situation than men. We expected the same

result, women and men coming to different

conclusions about the ethical content of a situa-

tion, for the justice perspective that is more re-

flective of men’s focus on the objective and their

preference for clear-cut criteria over ‘relative’

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

Table 6: Repeated measures ANOVA for ethical judgement

Source df Sum of squares Mean square F value p value

Overall model 6 153.565 25.594 27.10 o0.0001

Error 95 89.294 0.94

Corrected total 101 243.2941

Justice 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 NS

Relativism 1 10.631 10.631 11.26 o0.01

Gender 1 4.72 4.72 4.99 o0.05

Peers 1 52.19 52.19 55.26 o0.0001

Scenario 2 5.14 2.57 2.72 NS

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

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

Table 7: Repeated measures ANOVA for (a) men and (b) women

Source df Sum of squares Mean square F value p value

(a)

Overall model 2 52.14 26.07 14.77 o0.0001

Error 53 93.573 1.76

Corrected total 55 145.714

Justice 1 5.66 5.66 3.21 NS

Relativism 1 19.66 19.66 11.14 o0.01

(b)

Overall model 2 33.92 16.96 13.55 o0.0001

Error 43 53.81 1.25

Corrected total 45 87.74

Justice 1 3.83 3.83 3.06 NS

Relativism 1 21.92 21.92 17.51 0.0001

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

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 16 Number 2 April 2007

170r 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

considerations. The results of the study provide

limited support for our hypotheses.

Consistent with the results of the majority of

previous studies on gender differences in ethical

decision making, we found that women judge

actions as more unethical than men. They are less

likely than men to act in the same (unethical) way

presented in the scenarios as indicated by the

significant difference between men and women in

the mean for intention to behave. It is important

to notice that both men and women see the

actions as unethical and rate the probability that

they would take the same action as low. However,

women indicate that they are even more unlikely

than men to act in such an unethical way.

A primary purpose of this study was to shed

some light on gender differences in ethical

judgement. Why are women more extreme in

their assessment of an action being ‘wrong’? The

literature on moral development and social roles

suggested that women focus their analysis on

personal, relationship-oriented aspects of an

action. Scholars of ethics and morality defined a

variety of ethical perspectives. Of these perspec-

tives, the relativist perspective captures the con-

sideration of contextual factors in an assessment

of right and wrong. The results of the repeated

measures ANOVA assure that intention to behave

is related to respondents’ scores on the relativism

perspective but not on the justice perspective.

These results hold true for both men and women

and support our expectation that ethical judge-

ment is affected by the ethical perspective taken.

The fact that justice is not significantly related to

intention to behave suggests that this perspective

is not the primary driving force behind an

individual’s ethical judgement whether male or

female, and that both genders take into account

contextual factors when assessing the ethical

nature of a decision. This result is also supported

by the fact that the correlations between intention

to behave and relativism are higher than those for

justice. It is also important to note that the two

perspectives are highly correlated with each other,

especially for women (r5 0.83, po0.001). This

result is consistent with results of previous studies

that showed that individuals may be employing

several ethical perspectives simultaneously

although they may not weigh them identically.

When independent t-tests were conducted, a

different picture emerged. We had suggested that

when asked to evaluate an action based on a

justice perspective, men’s judgement would differ

from women’s judgement. The measure for justice

simply asks respondents to indicate to what extent

an action was just or unjust, fair or unfair.

Context is not considered. Even when employing

a justice perspective, women judge the presented

action as more unethical than men. One can

speculate that, although not made explicit in the

measure for justice, women tend to include

‘relativist factors’ in their ethical assessment

independent of the specific criteria they are asked

to use. This is supported by the correlations

between perspectives discussed above. The t-test

results show that men and women do significantly

differ with respect to justice but not with respect

to relativism. The mean for women for the justice

perspective is significantly higher than that for

men. Based solely on a justice perspective then,

women see the scenarios as significantly more

unethical than men, which actually provides some

support for Hypothesis 2(b).

Overall, our results show that women’s judge-

ment of the ethicality of an action differs from

that of men in that women judge a situation to be

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

Table 8: Summary of t-test results

Women Men t-score p value

N Mean SD N Mean SD

Justice 62 6.06 1.13 65 5.47 1.05 � 2.99 o0.01

Relativism 47 5.62 1.26 56 5.22 1.30 � 1.55 NS

Expected peer behaviour 63 4.99 1.58 66 4.53 1.56 � 1.58 NS

Intention to behave 63 5.97 1.31 66 5.06 1.6 � 3.51 o0.001

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

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 16 Number 2 April 2007

r 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 171

more unethical than men. The consideration of

contextual aspects affects both men and women’s

conclusion concerning the ethical content of an

action. The consideration of such factors as

culture, tradition, and family (as in the measure

for the relativist view, see Table 2) is critical in

their assessment of the unethical action presented.

Interesting to note is that ‘peers’ is significantly

related to intention to behave. Expectations about

peers’ behaviours are important to one’s own

ethical judgement, thus confirming Westerman

et al.’s (2005) findings. This is particularly true for

men as the correlation between expected peer

behaviour and intention to behave is 0.8

(po0.001) for men and only 0.54 (po0.001) for

women. It appears that men may be more

influenced by peers than women.

In the past, and perhaps to some degree still

today, women were seen as soft and inconsistent in

their judgement and decision-making. That percep-

tion may, in part, be owing to women’s tendency to

be relativistic and caring in their view. However, as

shown by the results of this study, that view leads

women to harder and stricter judgements than men

in an ethical analysis of a problem.

The results of this study have implications for

the study of business ethics. Further research

exploring how men and women differ in their

ethical judgement seems to be worthwhile. What

ethical perspective is being used plays a role in the

final ethical assessment. Research that focuses on

identifying the relationships between ethical per-

spectives and factors related to each perspective

would be useful. Previous studies, as well as the

results of this study, have shown that the

perspectives are not independent of each other.

Instead, individuals apply several perspectives

simultaneously. The mechanisms underlying these

findings need to be explored. Finally, results of

studies on the ‘how, when, and why’ of the effect

of peers on ethical judgement would have critical

theoretical, as well as practical implications. In

conclusion, it seems obvious that much work

remains to be done in developing a consistent,

integrated framework that is useful in the study of

business ethics.

Practical implications of the study relate to

providing a basis for discussions between women

and men who are working together and are faced

with finding solutions to managerial dilemmas

together. Knowing that men and women consider

a variety of criteria in their analysis is useful to

creating more effective communication between

male and female managers about issues in

business ethics.

Limitations

In interpreting the results of this study, certain

limitations need to be considered. First, the

sample is rather small, and more conservative

Type III analysis was used. However, significance

is achieved, which is more difficult with smaller

sample sizes. Second, the results are not easily

generalized. The sample is drawn from one

country only. Furthermore, the sample, graduate

business students, may not be representative of

the population overall. Third, the ethics measure

employed was developed in the United States and

may be somewhat culture-bound. Fourth, the

questionnaire was in English, which was not the

respondents’ first language. These limitations

notwithstanding, the results of this study con-

tribute to the ethics literature 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.S. and Becker, H.J. 1978. ‘The use of

vignettes in survey research’. The Public Opinion

Quarterly, 42:1, 93–104.

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

ghouti, J. 2003. ‘Comparing business ethics in

Russia and the U.S.’. 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 16 Number 2 April 2007

172r 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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.

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.

Cronbach, L.J. 1951. ‘Coefficient alpha and the inter-

nal structure of tests’. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

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

how students compare with industrial salespeople’.

Proceedings of the American Marketing Association

Educators Conference: 73–76. Chicago, IL: AMA.

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

Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ethics Resource Center 2005. National Business Ethics

Survey – Executive Summary. www.ethics.org.

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

bureaucratic structure in marketing research orga-

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

103–109.

Ferrell, O., Freadrich, J. and Ferrell, L. 2002. Business

Ethics. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Ford, R. and Richardson, W.D. 1994. ‘Ethical

decision-making: a review of the empirical litera-

ture’. Journal of Business Ethics, 13:3, 205–221.

Franke, G., Crown, D. and Spake, D. 1997. ‘Gender

differences in ethical perceptions of business prac-

tices: a social role theory perspective’. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 82:6, 920–934.

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 mak-

ing’. Women in Management Review, 17:5, 217–227.

Hosmer, L. 1996. The Ethics of Management. Chicago,

IL: Irwin.

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

differences in ethics judgments of marketing man-

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

agement, 13, 159–172.

Jaffe, 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. 1991. ‘Ethical decision making by individuals

in organizations: an issue-contingent model’. Acad-

emy of Management Review, 16:2, 366–395.

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

of business change? A survey of future executives’.

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

Keith, N.K., Pettijohn, C.E. and Burnett, M.S. 2003.

‘An empirical evaluation of the effect of peer and

managerial ethical behaviors and the ethical predis-

positions of prospective advertising employees’.

Journal of Business Ethics, 48:3, 251–265.

Kerlinger, F. 1986. Foundations of Behavioral Re-

search, 3rd edition. New York: 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.

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

tive-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: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

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

cognitive-developmental approach’. In Kohlberg, L.

(Ed.), Essays on Moral Development: Vol. 2. The

Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and

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

CA: Harper and Row.

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

marketing perspectives’. Journal of Business Ethics,

14:7, 571–580.

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

Findings from three independent studies’. Women

in Management Review, 18:4, 169–181.

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

McGraw-Hill.

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.

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 16 Number 2 April 2007

r 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 173

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.

Schein, E.H. 1984. ‘Coming to a new awareness of

organizational culture’. Sloan Management Review,

25:2, 3–16.

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

management, overcalming, and perceived unethical

conduct: the role of male and female managers’.

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

Serwinek, P. 1992. ‘Demographic and related differ-

ences in ethical views among small business’. Journal

of Business Ethics, 11:7, 555–566.

Shaw, W. 1999. Business Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wads-

worth.

Sikula, A. Sr. 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.

Tsalikis, J. and Fritzsche, D. 1989. ‘Business ethics: a

literature review with a focus on marketing ethics’.

Journal of Business Ethics, 8:9, 695–743.

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

mura, J. 2005. ‘Peers versus national culture: an

empirical analysis of antecedents to ethical decision

making’. Paper presented at the National Meeting of

the Decision Sciences Institute, San Francisco, CA.

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

judgments: a cross-cultural comparison’. Journal of

Business Ethics, 11:9, 671–678.

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

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

Zey-Ferrell, M. and Ferrell, O.C. 1982. ‘Role set con-

figuration and opportunity as predictors of unethical

behavior in organizations’. Human Relations, 35:7,

587–604.

Zey-Ferrell, M., Weaver, K.M. and Ferrell, O.C. 1979.

‘Predicting unethical behavior among marketing

practitioners’. Human Relations, 32:7, 557–569.

Business Ethics: A European ReviewVolume 16 Number 2 April 2007

174r 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.