MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W321385589

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

2006· article· en· W321385589 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen A. Berger, Carl Malinowski

Bibliographic record

VenueCompetition Forum · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalityPsychologySocial psychologyWorkforceBusiness ethicsCurriculumRace (biology)SociologyGender studiesPublic relationsPolitical sciencePedagogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCompetition ForumSame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207