Skip to main content
Log in

Ethics and Expertise: A Social Networks Perspective

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

Abstract

Results from three field network studies show that depending on individuals’ network positions (central or peripheral), experts and novices have varying ethical predispositions (EP). In particular, central experts (vs. peripheral experts) have higher EP, while novices in the same positions (vs. peripheral novices) have lower EP. Results demonstrate individuals’ relational-interdependent self-construal mediates these relationships. Importantly, this research suggests that the interaction between network and individual difference variables uniquely affect individuals’ ethical predisposition. Given the lack of research focus on the impact of structural positions on EP, this article demonstrates the importance of combining network and individual variables to investigate individuals’ EP.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahluwalia, R. (2008). How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the role of self-construal. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(June), 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 234–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, T. D., & Van Kenhove, P. (2010). Consumer ethics: The role of self regulatory focus. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. The American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, N. F., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 23(1), 14–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, J., & Zabriskie, N. B. (1983). How ethical are industrial buyers. Industrial Marketing Management, 12(4), 219–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 345–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. (1995). Kinds of third-party effects on trust. Rationality and Society, 7(3), 255–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 7–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2001). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice network. Social Networks, 23(3), 215–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of self-construal. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S. E., & Morris, M. L. (2003). Getting to know you: The relational self-construal, relational cognition, and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 512–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S. E., Morris, M. L., & Gore, J. S. (2002). Thinking about oneself and others: The relational-interdependent self-construal and social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 399–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faust, K. (1997). Centrality in affiliation networks. Social Networks, 19(2), 157–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, Y.-f. (2005). When do experts cheat and whom do they target? Journal of Economics, 36(1), 113–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullerton, S., Kerch, K. B., & Dodge, H. R. (1996). Consumer ethics: An assessment of individual behavior in the market place. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(7), 805–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gore, J. S., & Cross, S. E. (2006). Pursuing goals for us: Relationally autonomous reasons in long-term goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 848–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Iacobucci, D., & Hopkins, N. (1992). Modeling dyadic interactions and networks in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janicik, G. A., & Larrick, R. P. (2005). Social network schemas and the learning of incomplete networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 348–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. J., & Russo, J. E. (1984). Product familiarity and learning new information. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 542–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jussim, L. (1991). Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model. Psychological Review, 98(1), 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, J. M., Stevens, R. E., & Bethke, A. L. (1987). Differences in ethical perceptions between male and female managers: Myth or reality? Journal of Business Ethics, 6(6), 489–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M.-S., Sharkey, W. F., & Singelis, T. (1994). The relationship between individuals’ self-construals and perceived importance of interactive constraints. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(1), 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. H. M., Cotte, J., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2010). The role of network centrality in the flow of consumer influence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 66–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, N. (2003). Shifting selves and decision making: The effects of self-construal priming on consumer risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 30–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self implication for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization, and management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, A. A., & Dacin, P. A. (1996). The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 219–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morling, B., & Fiske, S. (1999). Defining and measuring harmony control. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(4), 379–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muncy, J., & Vitell, S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of the final consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(4), 297–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedure: Issues and applications. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of though: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rallapalli, K. C., Vitell, S. J., Wiebe, F. A., & Barnes, J. H. (1994). Consumer ethical belief and personality traits: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(7), 487–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawwas, M. Y. (1996). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of the ethical beliefs of Austrian consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 1009–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawwas, M. Y. (2001). Culture, personality and morality: A typology of international consumers’ ethical beliefs. International Marketing Review, 18(2), 188–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reingen, P. H., & Kernan, J. B. (1986). Analysis of referral networks in marketing: Methods and illustration. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 370–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2009). Dysfunctional customer behavior severity: An empirical examination. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 321–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M., & Sharkey, W. F. (1995). Culture, self-construal, and embarrassability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 622–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Franke, G. R. (1999). Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirsi, A. K., Ward, J. C., & Reingen, P. H. (1996). Microcultural analysis of variation in sharing of causal reasoning about behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenhaut, S., & Van Kenhove, P. (2006). An empirical investigation of the relationships among a consumer’s personal values, ethical ideology and ethical beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(2), 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaidan, Z., Vitell, S. J., Rose, G. M., & Gilbert, F. W. (2006). Consumer ethics: The role of acculturation in U.S. immigrant population. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utz, S. (2004). Self-construal and cooperation: Is the interdependent self more cooperative than the independent self? Self and Identity, 3(3), 177–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., Lumpkin, J. R., & Rawwas, M. Y. (1991). Consumer ethics: An investigation of ethical beliefs of elderly consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(5), 365–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (2005). The Muncy-Vitell consumer ethics scale: A modification and application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • West, S. G., Aiken, L. S., & Krull, J. L. (1996). Experimental personality designs: Analyzing categorical by continuous variable interactions. Journal of Personality, 64(1), 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ybarra, O., & Trafimow, D. (1998). How priming the private self or collective self affects the relative weights of attitudes and subjective norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 362–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seung Hwan Mark Lee.

Additional information

The author thanks Fern Lin for her feedback and support on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Regression analyses for all studies

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, S.H.M. Ethics and Expertise: A Social Networks Perspective. J Bus Ethics 118, 607–621 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1609-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1609-7

Keywords

Navigation