Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 118, Issue 3, pp 607–621 | Cite as

Ethics and Expertise: A Social Networks Perspective

Article

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.

Keywords

Experts Novices Ethical predisposition Network centrality 

References

  1. Ahluwalia, R. (2008). How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the role of self-construal. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(June), 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Bock, T. D., & Van Kenhove, P. (2010). Consumer ethics: The role of self regulatory focus. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. The American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brady, N. F., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Browning, J., & Zabriskie, N. B. (1983). How ethical are industrial buyers. Industrial Marketing Management, 12(4), 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 345–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. (1995). Kinds of third-party effects on trust. Rationality and Society, 7(3), 255–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2001). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice network. Social Networks, 23(3), 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of self-construal. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Faust, K. (1997). Centrality in affiliation networks. Social Networks, 19(2), 157–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fong, Y.-f. (2005). When do experts cheat and whom do they target? Journal of Economics, 36(1), 113–130.Google Scholar
  29. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iacobucci, D., & Hopkins, N. (1992). Modeling dyadic interactions and networks in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson, E. J., & Russo, J. E. (1984). Product familiarity and learning new information. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 542–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Jussim, L. (1991). Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model. Psychological Review, 98(1), 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self implication for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization, and management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  49. Mitchell, A. A., & Dacin, P. A. (1996). The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Morling, B., & Fiske, S. (1999). Defining and measuring harmony control. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(4), 379–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedure: Issues and applications. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rawwas, M. Y. (1996). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of the ethical beliefs of Austrian consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 1009–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rawwas, M. Y. (2001). Culture, personality and morality: A typology of international consumers’ ethical beliefs. International Marketing Review, 18(2), 188–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reingen, P. H., & Kernan, J. B. (1986). Analysis of referral networks in marketing: Methods and illustration. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 370–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reynolds, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2009). Dysfunctional customer behavior severity: An empirical examination. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  63. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Singelis, T. M., & Sharkey, W. F. (1995). Culture, self-construal, and embarrassability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 622–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Utz, S. (2004). Self-construal and cooperation: Is the interdependent self more cooperative than the independent self? Self and Identity, 3(3), 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (2005). The Muncy-Vitell consumer ethics scale: A modification and application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of BusinessColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations