Effects of Nationality, Gender, and Religiosity on Business-Related Ethicality
- First Online:
- 481 Downloads
Cross-national studies of business-related ethicality frequently have concluded that Americans possess higher ethical standards than non-Americans. These conclusions have generally been based on survey responses of relatively small convenience samples of individuals in a very limited number of countries. This article reports a study of the relationship between nationality and business-related ethicality based on survey responses from more than 6300 business students attending 120 colleges and universities in 36 countries. Two well-documented determinants of business ethics (gender and religiosity) were investigated as moderators of the nationality–business ethicality relationship. The major research finding is that, while statistically significant differences were found between the business-related ethicality of American survey participants and the business-related ethicality of the non-American survey participants, the magnitudes of the differences were not substantial. The results of the study suggest that (i) more empirical cross-cultural/national research is required on business-related ethicality and (ii) previous explanations for cross-cultural/national differences in ethics need to be reconsidered before further generalizations are warranted.
Key wordsbusiness ethics ethics attitudes future business leaders nationality differences gender differences religiosity differences
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Becker, H. and Fritzsche, D.J.: 1987, ‘A Comparison of the Ethical Behavior of American, French and German Managers’, Columbia Journal of World Business 10, 87-95.Google Scholar
- Cattell, R.B. and Baggaley, A.R.: 1960, ‘The Salient Variable Similarity Index for Factor Matching’, British Journal of Statistical Psychology 13 (May), 33-46.Google Scholar
- Cortina, J. M.: 1993, ‘What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications’, Journal of Applied Psychology 78, 98–104.Google Scholar
- Gilligan, C.: 1982, In a Different Voice. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.).Google Scholar
- Hofstede, G.: 2001, Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed. (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.).Google Scholar
- Kohlberg, L.: 1984, Essays on Moral Development: The Psychology of Moral Development (Harper and Row, New York, NY).Google Scholar
- Levine, M.S.: 1977, Canonical Analysis and Factor Comparison (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA).Google Scholar
- Mohr, L.B.: 1990, Understanding Significance Testing (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA).Google Scholar
- Preble, J.F. and Reichel, A.: 1988, ‘Attitudes Toward Business Ethics of Future Managers in the U.S. and Israel’, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 941-949.Google Scholar
- Priem, R., Worrell, D., Walters, B., and Coalter, T.: 1998, ‘Moral Judgment and Values in a Developed and Developing Nation: A Comparative Analysis’, Journal of Business Ethics 17, 491-501.Google Scholar
- Smith, P. and Oakley, E.: 1997, ‘Gender-Related Differences in Ethical and Social Values of Business Students: Implications for Management’, Journal of Business Ethics 30, 274-283.Google Scholar
- Srnka, K. J.: 2004, ‘Culture’s Role in Marketers’ Ethical Decision Making: An Integrated Theoretical Framework’, Academy of Marketing Science Review 1, (www.amsreview.org/articles/srnka01-2004.pdf).
- Tull, D.S. and Albaum, G.S.: 1973, Survey Research: A Decisional Approach (Intext Educational Publishers, New York, NY).Google Scholar
- Wolkomer, M., Futreal, M., Woodrum, F., and Hobau, T.: 1997, ‘Substantive Religious Belief and Environmentalism’, Social Science Quarterly 78, 96-108.Google Scholar