Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is Business Ethics Education Effective? An Analysis of Gender, Personal Ethical Perspectives, and Moral Judgment

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although ethics instruction has become an accepted part of the business school curriculum at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, some scholars have questioned its effectiveness, and research results have been mixed. However, studies yield interesting results regarding certain factors that influence the ethicality of business students and may impact the effectiveness of business ethics instruction. One of these factors is gender. Using personal and business ethics scenarios, we examine the main and interactive effects of gender and business ethics education on moral judgment. We then analyze the relationships between gender and business ethics education on personal ethical perspectives. Our results indicate that women are generally more inclined to act ethically than men, but paradoxically women who have had business ethics instruction are less likely to respond ethically to business situations. In addition, men may be more responsive to business ethics education than women. Finally, women’s personal ethical orientations may become more relativistic after taking a business ethics class.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • AACSB International. (2004). Ethics education in business schools. Report of the Ethics Education Task Force to the AACSB International’s Board of Directors. Tampa, Fl: AACSB International.

  • Albaum, G., & Peterson, R. (2006). Ethical attitudes of future business leaders: Do they vary by gender and religiosity? Business and Society, 45(3), 300–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borkowski, S. C., & Ugras, Y. J. (1998). Business students and ethics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1117–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A., Sautter, J. A., Littvay, L., Sautter, A. C., & Bearnes, B. (2010). Ethics and personality: Empathy and narcissism as moderators of ethical decision making in business students. Journal of Education for Business, 85(4), 203–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunn, D. N., Caudill, S. B., & Gropper, D. M. (1992, Summer). Crime in the classroom: An economic analysis of undergraduate cheating behavior. Journal of Economic Education, 23, 197–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, S., & Kohls, J. (2003). Ethical decision making in times of organizational crisis: A framework for analysis. Business and Society, 42(2), 327–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, C. (2012). Female MBA students score low on ethics test. Financial Times, August 24. Retrieved May 15, 2013, from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/37c553dc-edd9-11e1-8d72-00144feab49a.html#axzz2JpqlWjjo.

  • Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(1), 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donoho, C., Heinze, T., & Kondon, C. (2012). Gender differences in personal selling ethics evaluations: Do they exist and what does their existence mean for teaching sales ethics? Journal of Marketing Education, 34(1), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economic Letters, 99, 197–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernando, M., Dharmage, S. C., & Almeida, S. (2008). Ethical ideologies of senior Australian managers: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. H. (2004). What price the moral high ground. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A transcendent business education for the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(4), 415–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacalone, R. A., & Calvano, L. (2012). An aspirational reframing of business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 9, 377–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen, D. E., Capozzoli, E. A., & Rajamma, R. K. (2008). Learned ethical behavior: An academic perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 83, 315–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J. J. (1998). Are women really more ethical than men? Maybe it depends on the situation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(1), 60–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, P. (2006). Understanding student cheating and what educators can do about it. College Teaching, 54, 171–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffee, S., & Shibley, J. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewe, R. D. (2008). Do business ethics courses work? The effectiveness of business ethics education: an empirical study. Journal of Global Business Issues, 2(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karande, K., Rao, C. P., & Singhapakdi, A. (2002). Moral philosophies of marketing managers: A comparison of American, Australian, and Malaysian cultures. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7/8), 768–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–380). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampe, M., & Engleman-Lampe, C. (2012). Mindfulness-based business ethics education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16(3), 99–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, R. (2004). Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the ‘‘real world?’’. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litzky, B. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2011). Assessing business ethics coverage at top U.S. Business Schools. In Swanson, D.L., & Fisher, D.G. (Eds.), Toward assessing business ethics education (pp. 133–142). Charlotte, NC: IAP.

  • Malinowski, C., & Berger, K. (1996). Undergraduate student attitudes about hypothetical marketing dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5), 525–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, N., Basuray, M., Smith, W., Kopka, D., & McCulloh, D. (2008). Moral issues and gender differences in ethical judgment using Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) multidimensional ethics scale: Implications in teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. New York: The Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robin, D., & Babin, L. (1997). Making sense of the research on gender and ethics in business: A critical analysis and extension. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(4), 61–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Franke, G. R. (1999). Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences in the relationship between empathy and forgiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 146(6), 673–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, Sean. R., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2007). The ethical decision making of men and women executives in international business situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(2), 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business and Public Affairs, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, PA, 19383, USA

    Liz C. Wang & Lisa Calvano

Authors
  1. Liz C. Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Calvano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Calvano.

Appendix: Measure of Personal Ethical Perspectives

Appendix: Measure of Personal Ethical Perspectives

Idealism Question Items

  1. 1.

    A person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to a small degree.

  2. 2.

    Risks to another should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might be.

  3. 3.

    The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained.

  4. 4.

    One should never psychologically or physically harm another person.

  5. 5.

    One should not perform an action, which might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare of another individual.

  6. 6.

    The dignity and welfare of people should be the most important concern in any society.

  7. 7.

    It is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of others.

Relativism Question Items

  1. 1.

    Moral standards should be seen as being individualistic; what one person considers to be moral may be judged to be immoral by another person.

  2. 2.

    Questions of what is ethical for everyone can never be resolved, since what is moral or immoral is up to the individual.

  3. 3.

    Moral standards are simply personal rules which indicate how a person should behave and are not to be applied in making judgments of others.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, L.C., Calvano, L. Is Business Ethics Education Effective? An Analysis of Gender, Personal Ethical Perspectives, and Moral Judgment. J Bus Ethics 126, 591–602 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1973-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1973-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation