MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W321385589

Undergraduate Male and Female Attitudes about Hypothetical Marketing Moral Dilemmas: Ten Years Later

2006· article· en· W321385589 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCompetition Forum · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueEthics in Business and Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNationalityPsychologySocial psychologyWorkforceBusiness ethicsCurriculumRace (biology)SociologyGender studiesPublic relationsPolitical sciencePedagogy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study investigated the attitudinal responses of 305 undergraduate students with respect to nine hypothetical marketing moral dilemmas. Participants varied by gender, class, major, race, religion, and nationality. It was found that undergraduate women responded more ethically to the dilemmas, as hypothesized. This matched findings obtained ten years earlier. Seven different dilemmas contributed significant findings. All three attitudinal components (cognitive, affective, behavioral) contributed significant gender differences. For two dilemmas, male and female means were high for all three components. Implications of these findings for the undergraduate curriculum and for organizational management were discussed. INTRODUCTION Men and women are America's two biggest markets. In addition, they are the world's two largest market segments. Therefore, both domestic and international marketers are interested in male-female attitudinal and behavioral differences. Gender is also the focus of the two most sizeable groups in the U.S. workforce. Again, this is true of all organizations, whether they do business in their own countries alone or whether they also branch out cross-culturally. Male and female undergraduates will be both consumers and employees. In fact, they are both already. How do they view the kinds of marketing moral dilemmas that could face them in their careers and in their lives in general? How do they feel about such scenarios as workers and citizens? How would they behave if it was their decision to make? PRIOR RESEARCH RELATING BUSINESS ETHICS AND GENDER Prior to 1996: Betz, O'Connell, and Shepard (1989) found that men were more willing than women to behave unethically, e.g., purchasing securities with insider information. Kidwell, Stevens, and Bethke (1987) found that female managers were more likely than males to view concealing one's errors as unethical. The female students in McCabe, Dukerich, and Dutton (1991) were more ethical than males in choices made. Beltramini, Peterson, and Kozmetsky (1984) found females to be more concerned about whether ethical standards meet the needs of society. This was replicated by Peterson, Beltramini, and Kozmetsky (1991). Arlow (1991) found that females were less interested in the ends justifying the means. 1996: Malinowski and Berger asked undergraduates to respond attitudinally (cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally) to nine hypothetical marketing moral dilemmas. Women responded more ethically to the ethical scenarios. Twenty-three of the twenty-seven ANOVAs were significant. After 1996: Mason and Mudrack (1997) studied undergraduate business students in Canada. Women were more likely than men to disagree that the organization or supervisor had the right to make employees deviate from - ethical principles held by the person (p. 101). Eynon, Hill, and Stevens (1997) studied licensed CDAs in the U.S. Women had significantly higher principled moral reasoning scores on the shortened version of Tests Defining Issues Test (DIT) then men did. Reiss and Mitra (1998) studied college students in a Southern University. Males tended to regard extra-organizational behavior of an uncertain ethical nature (e.g. staying at the most expensive hotel on a company business trip) as more acceptable then females. Stevenson and Bodkin (1998) asked U.S. university students about the ethical acceptability of different selling approaches. The female students tended to find the scenarios to be significantly less ethical and significantly less acceptable then the male students did. Haswell, Jubb, and Wearing (1999) studied first year undergraduate accounting students in Australia, South Africa, and the UK. When asked how likely they would engage in cheating, female students were significantly less likely than men to say they would cheat if there was no risk of detection and if they were offered money to do so. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,112
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,869

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,082
Tête enseignante GPT0,343
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle