Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assertiveness Bias in Gender Ethics Research: Why Women Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

Marketing and Consumer Behavior

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gender is one of the most researched and contentious topics in consumer ethics research. It is common for researchers of gender studies to presume that women are more ethical than men because of their reputation for having a selfless, sensitive nature. Nevertheless, we found evidence that women behaved less ethically than men in two field experiments testing a passive form of unethical behavior. Women benefited to a larger extent from a cashier miscalculating the bill in their favor than men. However, in three follow-up studies, we found that women did not necessarily intend to benefit at the expense of someone else. Women are less prone to speak up to a cashier than men are, even when the mistake is made in their disfavor. These results reveal that gender differences in assertiveness affect differences in unethical behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In both experiments, the main effect of the environmental manipulation and the gender effect were significant. However, because there were no significant interaction effects, these manipulations are not discussed here in detail.

  2. Mauchy’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was violated (Χ² (5) = 143.55, p < .001). Therefore, we look at the adjusted F values (Greenhouse-Geisser correction).

References

  • Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 256–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. F., & Ponemon, L. A. (1991). Internal auditors perceptions of whistle-blowing and the influence of moral reasoning-an experiment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 10(2), 1–15.

  • Atakan, M. G. S., Burnaz, S., & Topcu, Y. I. (2008). An Empirical Investigation of the Ethical Perceptions of Future Managers with a Special Emphasis on Gender—Turkish Case. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 573–586. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9577-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, C. R., & Valentine, S. R. (2010). Investigating the effects of gender on consumers’ moral philosophies and ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 393–414. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0386-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, R. A. (2006). Associations between Hofstede’s cultural constructs and social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(1), 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, R. A., & Guptill, S. T. (2008). Social desirability response bias, gender, and factors influencing organizational commitment: An international study. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 797–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betz, M., O’Connell, L., & Shepard, J. M. (1989). Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 321–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 50–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (2001). An examination of differences in ethical decision-making between Canadian business students and accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(4), 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T. J., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(1), 73–93. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0843-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108(448), 726–735. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erat, S., & Gneezy, U. (2012). White lies. Management Science, 58(4), 723–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 205–221. doi:10.1007/BF02074820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullerton, R. A., & Punj, G. (2004). Repercussions of promoting an ideology of consumption: consumer misbehavior. Journal of Business Research, 57(11), 1239–1249. doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(02)00455-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., & Margolis, J. D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (un) ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., & Repta, R. (2012). Sex and gender: Beyond the Binaries. In O. J., & G. L (Eds.), Designing and conducting gender, sex, and health research (pp. 17–37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Klein, K. J., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy: When it pays to understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(6), 720–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knaak, S. (2004). On the reconceptualizing of gender: Implications for research design. Sociological Inquiry, 74(3), 302–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y.-C., & Raghubir, P. (2005). Gender differences in unrealistic optimism about marriage and divorce: Are men more optimistic and women more realistic? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 198–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmeier, J., Schleer, C., & Pricl, D. (2012). Consumer outrage: Emotional reactions to unethical corporate behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1364–1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, E. S., & Mudrack, P. E. (1996). Gender and ethical orientation: A test of gender and occupational socialization theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(6), 599–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, J., & Loken, B. (2015). Revisiting gender differences: What we know and what lies ahead. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 129–149. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2), 140–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, N. T., Basuray, M. T., Smith, W. P., Kopka, D., & McCulloh, D. (2008). Moral issues and gender differences in ethical judgment using Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) multidimensional ethics scale: Implications in teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-2929-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks-Stamm, E. J., Heilman, M. E., & Hearns, K. A. (2008). Motivated to penalize: Women’s strategic rejection of successful women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR). In J. D., Wetswood et al (Eds.,), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Measures Package (p. 41). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR). Unpublished manual, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11), 805–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 4(3), 398–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, M. C., & Mitra, K. (1998). The effects of individual difference factors on the acceptability of ethical and unethical workplace behaviors. [Article]. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1581–1593. doi:10.1023/a:1005742408725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxas, M. L., & Stoneback, J. Y. (2004). The importance of gender across cultures in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2), 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social issues, 57(4), 743–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoderbek, P. P., & Deshpande, S. P. (1996). Impression management, overclaiming, and perceived unethical conduct: The role of male and female managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(4), 409–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheeran, P., & Abraham, C. (2003). Mediator of moderators: temporal stability of intention and the intention-behavior relation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 205–215. doi:10.1177/0146167202239046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simga-Mugan, C., Daly, B. A., Onkal, D., & Kavut, L. (2005). The influence of nationality and gender on ethical sensitivity: An application of the issue-contingent model. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A. (1999). Perceived importance of ethics and ethical decisions in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 45(1), 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, D. A., Gelfand, M., Babcock, L., & Gettman, H. (2007). Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 600–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strutton, D., Vitell, S. J., & Pelton, L. E. (1994). How consumers may justify inappropriate behavior in market settings: An application on the techniques of neutralization. Journal of Business Research, 30(3), 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S. R., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2007). The ethical decision making of men and women executives in international business situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(2), 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, I., & Van Kenhove, P. (2007). Gender differences in double standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 281–295. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9494-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1–2), 33–47. doi:10.1023/A:1022907014295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of factors influencing ethical judgments of the final consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(8), 585–597. doi:10.1007/BF00872270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L. J. (2006). Gender and morality (Handbook of moral development). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • You, D., Maeda, Y., & Bebeau, M. J. (2011). Gender differences in moral sensitivity: a meta-analysis. Ethics and Behavior, 21(4), 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Saar Bossuyt & Patrick Van Kenhove

Authors
  1. Saar Bossuyt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Van Kenhove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saar Bossuyt.

Appendix: Study 1b

Appendix: Study 1b

Based on participants’ answers to the open-ended question in Study 1a, we created a list of potential reactions of a consumer faced with a cashier miscalculating the bill in his or her favor.

Opportunistic

The customer thinks “Saved € 1” and does not respond.

The customer thinks “That’s a windfall” and does not respond

The customer thinks “I’m lucky” and does not respond

The customer thinks “Yes! A mistake made in my favor” and does not respond

Neutralizing

The customer thinks “It’s only € 1, that’s not a huge loss for the store” and does not respond

The customer thinks “The cashier should pay attention” and does not respond

The customer thinks “It’s the store’s responsibility that such mistakes do not happen” and does not respond

The customer thinks “The reverse, paying too much, happens as well” and does not respond

Honest

The customer responds “U made a mistake, it’s € 4.99”

The customer responds “I believe it was € 4.99, could it be that you made a mistake?”

The customer feels guilty and tells the cashier (s)he made a mistake.

The customers thinks “It is my duty to be honest” and tells the cashier (s)he made a mistake.

Doubting

The customer feels uncomfortable with the situation and does not dare to respond.

The customer is quite sure the price was € 4.99 but does not dare to react.

The customer is surprised and does not know how to handle the situation. (S)He does not dare to respond.

Assertiveness Scale

Below, we present Rathus (1973) Assertiveness scale (the items with an asterisk are reverse coded). Items 1, 2, 8, 15, and 29 were not used in this study because they were less applicable to the situation under investigation. The items used in this study are printed in bold.

  1. 1.

    Most people seem to be more aggressive and assertive than I am.*

  2. 2.

    I have hesitated to make or accept dates because of “shyness.”*

  3. 3.

    When the food served at a restaurant is not done to my satisfaction, I complain.

  4. 4.

    I am careful to avoid hurting other people’s feelings, even when I feel that I have been injured.*

  5. 5.

    If a salesman has gone to considerable trouble to show me merchandise which is not quite suitable, I have a difficult time in saying “No.”*

  6. 6.

    When I am asked to do something, I insist upon knowing why.

  7. 7.

    There are times when I look for a good, vigorous argument.

  8. 8.

    I strive to get ahead as well as most people in my position.

  9. 9.

    To be honest, people often take advantage of me*.

  10. 10.

    I enjoy starting conversations with new acquaintances and strangers.

  11. 11.

    I often do not know what to say to attractive persons of the opposite sex*.

  12. 12.

    I will hesitate to make phone calls to business establishments and institutions*.

  13. 13.

    I would rather apply for a job or for admission to a college by writing letters than by going through with personal interviews.*

  14. 14.

    I find it embarrassing to return merchandise.*

  15. 15.

    If a close and respected relative were annoying to me, I would smother my feelings rather than express my annoyance.*

  16. 16.

    I have avoided asking questions for fear of sounding stupid.*

  17. 17.

    During an argument, I am sometimes afraid that I will get so upset that I will shake all over.*

  18. 18.

    If a famed and respected lecturer makes a statement which I think is incorrect, I will have the audience hear my point of view as well.

  19. 19.

    I avoid arguing over prices with clerks and salesmen.*

  20. 20.

    When I have done something important or worthwhile, I manage to let others know about it.

  21. 21.

    I am open and frank about my feelings.

  22. 22.

    If someone has been spreading false and bad stories about me, I see him (her) as soon as possible to “have a talk” about it.

  23. 23.

    I often have a hard time saying “No.”*

  24. 24.

    I tend to bottle up my emotions rather than make a scene.*

  25. 25.

    I complain about poor service in a restaurant and elsewhere.

  26. 26.

    When I am given a compliment, I sometimes just don’t know what to say.*

  27. 27.

    If a couple near me in a theater or at a lecture were conversing rather loudly, I would ask them to be quiet or to take their conversation elsewhere.

  28. 28.

    Anyone attempting to push ahead of me in a line is in for a good battle.

  29. 29.

    I am quick to express an opinion.

  30. 30.

    There are times when I just cannot say anything.*

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bossuyt, S., Van Kenhove, P. Assertiveness Bias in Gender Ethics Research: Why Women Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt. J Bus Ethics 150, 727–739 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3026-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3026-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation