When making ethical decisions the more likely an action will result in a harmful outcome the less likely that marketers will recognize a problem as unethical?

  • Borkowski, S.C., and Y.F. Ugras. 1998. Business students and ethics: a meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1117–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, B.K., and W.H. Hegarty. 1999. Some determinants of student corporate social responsibility orientation. Business and Society 38(2): 188–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, Victoria, Sharon Harris, and Alan Bush. 1997. Establishing ethical boundaries for service providers: a narrative approach. The Journal of Services Marketing 11(4): 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, L. 1995. Women and men, morality and ethics. Business Horizons 38(4): 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De George, Richard T. 1987. The status of business ethics: past and future. Journal of Business Ethics 6(3): 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornoff, R.J. and Tankersley, C.B. 1975. Perceptual differences in market transactions: a source of consumer frustration. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, pp.97–103.

  • Dubinsky, A.J., and B. Loken. 1989. Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Business Research 19(2): 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J. and Ferrell, L. 2002. Business ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases Houghton Mifflin Company Boston.

  • Fletcher, C. 1990. The relationships between candidate personality, self-presentation strategies, and interviewer assessments in selection interviews: an empirical study. Human Relations 43(8): 739–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, R.C., and W.D. Richardson. 1994. Ethical decision making: a review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics 13(3): 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D.R. 1980. A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social psychology 39(1): 175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D.R. 1992. Judging the morality of business practices: the influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics 11(5–6): 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaedeke, R.M., C.A. Kelley, and D.H. Tootelian. 1992. Business students’ perceptions of ethics in marketing. Journal of Education for Business 67(5): 294–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, M.Z., and B.T. O’Connell. 1999. Accounting student (sic) ethical perceptions: an analysis of training and gender effects. Teaching Business Ethics 2: 371–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geis, F. and Christie, R. 1970. Overview of experimental research. Studies in Machiavellianism, pp.285–313.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, W.A. and Hartnagel, T. 1976. The impact of Machiavellianism and the trustfulness of the victim on laboratory theft. Sociometry, pp.157–165.

  • Hay, D., P.M. Larres, P. Oyelere, and A. Fisher. 2001. The ethical perception of undergraduate students in computer related situations: an analysis of the effects of culture, gender and prior education. Teaching Business Ethics 5: 331–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, W.H., and H.P. Sims. 1978. Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: an experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 63(4): 451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, W.H., and H.P. Sims. 1979. Organizational philosophy, policies, and objectives related to unethical decision behavior: a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 64(3): 331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henle, C.A., R.A. Giacalone, and C.L. Jurkiewicz. 2005. The role of ethical ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics 56: 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S.D., and S. Vitell. 1986. A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing 6(1): 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. 1984. The psychology of moral development. In: Essays on Moral Development, Vol. 2, Harper and Row, San Francisco.

  • Lane, J.C. 1995. Ethics of business students: some marketing perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics 14(7): 571–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loe, T.W., and L. Ferrell. 2001. Teaching marketing ethics in the 21st century. Marketing Education Review 11(2): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loe, T.W., and W.A. Weeks. 2000. An experimental investigation of efforts to improve sales students’ moral reasoning. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 20(4): 243–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machiavelli, N. 1965. Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livius. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, H.D. 1992. Norms and self-interest in ultimatum bargaining: the prince’s prudence. Journal of Economic Psychology 13: 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudrack, P.E., J.M. Bloodgood, and W.H. Turnley. 2012. Some ethical implications of individual competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics 108: 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullin Marta, J.K., A. Singhapakdi, A. Attia, and S.J. Vitell. 2004. Some important factors underlying ethical decisions of Middle-Eastern marketers. International Marketing Review 21(1): 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nill, Alexander, and John A. Schibrowsky. 2007. Research on marketing ethics: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Macromarketing 27(3): 256–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paal, T., and T. Bereczkei. 2007. Adult theory of mind, cooperation, Machiavellianism: the effect of mindreading on social relations. Personality and Individual Differences 43: 541–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidenbach, R.E., D.P. Robin, and L. Dawson. 1991. An application and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale to selected marketing practices and marketing groups. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19(2): 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Ruegger, D., and E.W. King. 1992. A study of the effect of age and gender upon student business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 11(3): 179–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlegelmilch, Bodo B., and Magdalena Oberseder. 2010. Half a century of marketing ethics: shifting perspectives and emerging trends. Journal of Business Ethics 93(1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B.R., and D.R. Forsyth. 1977. On the ethics of psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13(4): 369–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, W.E., and R.S. Simmons. 2008. Social responsibility Machiavellianism and tax avoidance. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 21: 695–720. H.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A. 2004. Important factors underlying ethical intentions of students: implications for marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education 26(3): 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., and S.J. Vitell. 1990. Marketing ethics: factors influencing perceptions of ethical problems and alternatives. Journal of Macromarketing 10(1): 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., and S.J. Vitell. 1994. Ethical ideologies of future marketers: the relative influences of Machiavelliamsm and gender. Journal of Marketing Education 16(1): 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., K.L. Kraft, S.J. Vitell, and K.C. Rallapalli. 1995. The perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility on organizational effectiveness: a survey of marketers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23(1): 49–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., S.J. Vitell, D.J. Lee, A.M. Nisius, and B.Y. Grace. 2013. The influence of love of money and religiosity on ethical decision-making in marketing. Journal of Business Ethics 114(1): 183–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, J.R. and Hunt, S.D. 1998. Marketing researcher ethical sensitivity: Conceptualization, measurement, and exploratory investigation. The Journal of Marketing, pp.92–109.

  • Stylianou, A.C., S. Winter, Y. Niu, R.A. Giacalone, and M. Campbell. 2013. Understanding the behavioral intention to report unethical information technology practices: the role of Machiavellianism, gender, and computer expertise. Journal of Business Ethics 117(2): 333–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsalikis, John, and David J. Fritzsche. 1989. Business ethics: a literature review with a focus on marketing ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 8(9): 695–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S.J., S.L. Nwachukwu, and J.H. Barnes. 1993. The effects of culture on ethical decision-making: an application of Hofstede’s typology. Journal of Business Ethics 12(10): 753–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L.C., and L. Calvano. 2015. Is business ethics education effective? An analysis of gender, personal ethical perspectives, and moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics 126(4): 591–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whipple, T.W., and D.D. Wolf. 1991. Judgments of marketing students about ethical issues in marketing research: a comparison to marketing practitioners. Journal of Marketing Education 13: 56–63. Spring.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, B., and N. Donthu. 2002. The effects of marketing education and individual cultural values on marketing ethics of students. Journal of Marketing Education 24(2): 92–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 


Page 2

From: The ethical intention of marketing students: the role of ethical ideologies, Machiavellianism and gender

Variables Beta t P
Model for scenario 1: overeager salesperson a
 Idealism 0.250 2.400 0.018
 Relativism −0.208 −2.128 0.036
 Machiavellianism −0.276 −2.896 0.005
 Perception of ethical problem 0.187 1.988 0.049
 Gender 0.066 0.732 0.466
Model for scenario 2: failure to honor warranty b
 Idealism 0.165 1.580 0.117
 Relativism −0.231 −2.472 0.015
 Machiavellianism −0.325 −3.599 0.000
 Perception of ethical problem 0.290 3.048 0.003
 Gender −0.022 −0.246 0.806

  1. a Adjusted R 2 = 0.112, F = 3.346, Significant F less than 0.05
  2. b Adjusted R 2 = 0.190, F = 5.369, Significant F less than 0.05