The role of mere exposure effect on ethical tolerance: A two-study approach
Journal of Business Ethics 58 (4):281 - 294 (2005)
| Abstract | This paper reports on the results from two studies that were conducted eight years apart with different respondents. The studies examined the role of the Mere Exposure Effect on ethical tolerance or acceptability of particular business decisions. The results from Study 1 show there is a significant difference in ethical judgment for 12 out of 16 vignettes between those who have been exposed to such situations compared to those who have not been exposed to them. In those 12 situations, those who have been exposed to such situations adopted a more tolerant stance toward the ethically questionable behavior. The results from Study 2 show there is a significant difference in ethical judgment for 9 out of 16 vignettes between those who have been exposed to such situations compared to those who have not been exposed to them. Again, in those nine situations, those who have been exposed to such situations adopted a more tolerant stance toward the ethically questionable behavior. Interestingly, the 9 situations in Study 2 were 9 of the 12 situations found to be significant in Study 1, and in the same direction, suggesting that we have found consistency in our findings and support for the Mere Exposure Effect. Implications are provided for both higher education and practitioners. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDaulatram B. Lund (2000). An Empirical Examination of Marketing Professionals' Ethical Behavior in Differing Situations. Journal of Business Ethics 24 (4):331 - 342.
J. G. Seamon, P. A. McKenna & N. Binder (1998). The Mere Exposure Effect is Differentially Sensitive to Different Judgment Tasks. Consciousness and Cognition 7 (1):85-102.
Tim Barnett, Ken Bass, Gene Brown & Frederic J. Hebert (1998). Ethical Ideology and the Ethical Judgments of Marketing Professionals. Journal of Business Ethics 17 (7):715-723.
Jean Baratgin & Guy Politzer (2007). The Psychology of Dynamic Probability Judgment: Order Effect, Normative Theories, and Experimental Methodology. Mind and Society 6 (1):53-66.
Harsh K. Luthar & Ranjan Karri (2005). Exposure to Ethics Education and the Perception of Linkage Between Organizational Ethical Behavior and Business Outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics 61 (4):353 - 368.
M. Lynnette Smyth & James R. Davis (2004). Perceptions of Dishonesty Among Two-Year College Students: Academic Versus Business Situations. Journal of Business Ethics 51 (1):63-73.
Robert E. Stevens, O. Jeff Harris & Stan Williamson (1993). A Comparison of Ethical Evaluations of Business School Faculty and Students: A Pilot Study. Journal of Business Ethics 12 (8):611 - 619.
Willie E. Hopkins, Shirley A. Hopkins & Bryant C. Mitchell (2008). Ethical Consistency in Managerial Decisions. Ethics and Behavior 18 (1):26 – 43.
Azize Ergeneli & Semra Arıkan (2002). Gender Differences in Ethical Perceptions of Salespeople: An Empirical Examination in Turkey. Journal of Business Ethics 40 (3):247 - 260.
William A. Weeks, Carlos W. Moore, Joseph A. McKinney & Justin G. Longenecker (1999). The Effects of Gender and Career Stage on Ethical Judgment. Journal of Business Ethics 20 (4):301 - 313.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads2 ( #232,684 of 549,754 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
