Study of

A Cross-cultural Study of Moral

Moral Philosophies, Ethical Philosophies

Perceptions and Judgements

65
A Comparison of American Received November 1993
and Thai Marketers Revised March 1994
Accepted September
Anusorn Singhapakdi 1994

College of Business and Public Administration,

Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
Scott J. Vitell
School of Business Administration,
University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA, and
Orose Leelakulthanit
National Institute of Development Administration,
Bangkok, Thailand

In her essay on moral relativism Foot (1982) observed that there are wide
variations in moral judgements between different cultures. That is, the very
same action that is judged to be morally “right” in one culture may be “wrong”
in another. Cross-cultural divergence in moral judgements can be partly
explained by differences in ethical standards from one culture to another.
Consistently, Rachels (1986) noted that many thinkers believe cultural
differences in moral codes may be the key to understanding morality.
In fact, culture is generally recognized as one of the most important factors
influencing ethical decision making in marketing ethics theories. For example,
Ferrell and Gresham (1985) and also Ferrell et al. (1989) specify cultural
environment as a background variable of ethical decision making in marketing.
Consistently, in their general theory of marketing ethics, Hunt and Vitell (1986)
depict cultural environment as one of the factors directly influencing various
components of the marketing ethics decision process. Recognizing the
importance of cultural factors for marketing ethics, Hunt and Vitell paraphrase
this conclusion by Bartels (1967, p. 23): “Contrasting cultures of different
societies produce different expectations and become expressed in the dissimilar
ethical standards of those societies”.
Variations in ethical decisions among marketers from different cultures are
evidenced in empirical studies. For example, an observational study of the
business negotiation process by Graham (1985) revealed that Brazilian International Marketing Review,
Vol. 11 No. 6, 1994, pp. 65-78.
executives tended to make fewer commitments and that their first offers tended © MCB University Press, 0265-1335
International to be more greedy than that of their Japanese and American counterparts.
Marketing Moreover, it was reported that, relative to Japanese or Brazilian executives,
Review American executives were more likely to offer a “fair” price (one that was closer
to the eventual solution). A comparative study by Becker and Fritzsche (1987) of
11,6 American, French and German managers on various types of ethical issues also
uncovered some substantial differences. For example, on an issue that may
66 benefit the firm at the expense of the environment, Becker and Fritzsche found
that French and German managers were more likely to side with their
employers and participate in what they perceived as a relatively minor
infraction of environmental law. They also found that, relative to French and
German managers, American managers were less likely to approve a
production method which would result in illegal air pollution.
In their review of marketing ethics, Murphy and Laczniak (1981, p. 258)
pointed out that, “as more firms move into multinational marketing, ethical
issues tend to increase”. While numerous studies have been conducted to
examine the ethical decisions of American marketers in general (e.g. Mayo and
Marks, 1990; Reidenbach and Robin, 1990; Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1990, 1991;
Vitell and Hunt, 1990), there has been relatively little interest among researchers
on the cross-cultural aspects of marketing ethics decisions. Furthermore, the
cross-cultural ethics studies conducted tend to focus mainly on behaviour or
intention and not on the cognitive components or the psychosocial factors
underlying ethical decision-making processes. The main purpose of this study
is to explore the cross-national nature of marketing ethics decisions. In
particular, the objective is to compare American marketers with Thai marketers
in terms of moral philosophies, ethical perceptions, and ethical judgements.
These variables were chosen for comparison because of their importance as
evidenced in various empirical and theoretical works. These two cultures were
chosen because of some fundamental differences between them. For example,
according to Hofstede’s (1980, 1984) cultural typology, the US represents a more
individualistic and a more masculine society than Thailand. The US is also
weaker in terms of uncertainty avoidance which means that its citizens tend to
be less emotional, more accepting of personal risk and more tolerant.
Nevertheless, this study is somewhat exploratory because, to date, there has
been no empirical work on cultural differences between Americans and Thais
regarding their moral philosophies or other aspects of ethical decision making.

Theoretical Foundation
Cultural Typology
According to Hofstede’s (1984) typology, individualist cultures, such as the
USA, are those where individuals are concerned primarily with their own
interests, whereas collectivist societies, such as Thailand, assume that
individuals belong to an “in-group” such as an extended family or clan from
which they cannot detach themselves. This “in-group” protects its members
and expects their loyalty in turn.
 Furthermore, according to Hofstede, masculine cultures, such as the USA are Study of
those that value material success and assertiveness more, whereas feminine Moral
cultures, such as Thailand, tend to place more value on qualities such as Philosophies
interpersonal relationships and concern for the weak. Hofstede defines
uncertainty avoidance as the extent to which those in a culture become nervous
by situations that are unstructured and unpredictable, and, therefore, attempt
to avoid these situations by adopting strict codes of behaviour. Cultures, such as 67
the USA, that are weak in uncertainty avoidance tend to be more accepting of
risk, more tolerant and less emotional. Societies, on the other hand, such as
Thailand, that are strong in uncertainty avoidance tend to be emotional,
security-seeking and intolerant.
Finally, Hofstede also defines power distance as the extent to which
individuals in a society accept inequality in power and consider it as normal.
According to Hofstede, countries with a larger power distance such as Thailand
are more likely to accept inequality in power and authority than those from a
country with a smaller power distance such as the USA.
According to a recent theoretical study by Vitell et al. (1993), Hofstede’s
typology can be applied to ethical issues. In their article, several propositions
were developed that link the influence of the various dimensions of culture, as
defined by Hofstede, with ethical decision making. Appropriately, this article
will form the basis for some of the forthcoming propositions postulated below.

Moral Philosophies
It is generally assumed that marketers, when faced with decision situations
having ethical content, will apply ethical guidelines or rules based on different
moral philosophies (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Ferrell et al., 1989; Hunt and
Vitell, 1986, 1993). The importance of moral philosophies as factors of
marketing ethics decision making processes has been highlighted by Ferrell
and Gresham (1985, p. 88) in their marketing ethics model.
Consistent with most writers (e.g. Beauchamp and Bowie, 1979; Murphy and
Laczniak, 1981), Hunt and Vitell (1986) categorize moral philosophies into two
major types, deontological and teleological theories. They explained that
“deontological theories focus on the specific actions or behaviors of an
individual, whereas teleological theories focus on the consequences of the
actions or behaviors” (p. 6). Hunt and Vitell advance that the marketing ethics
decision process involves both deontological and teleological evaluations. This
proposition has generally been empirically supported (e.g. Mayo and Marks,
1990, Vitell and Hunt, 1990).
According to Forsyth (1980, p. 175), there are many valid approaches to
“describe individual differences in moral thought”. The following approaches
were cited by him: Hogan (1970, 1973), Kelman and Lawrence (1972), Kohlberg
(1968, 1976), Rest et al. (1974). Forsyth (1980) (also, Schlenker and Forsyth,
1977), however, argued that individual differences as predictors of moral
judgement may be described most parsimoniously by taking into account the
two basic dimensions of personal moral philosophies, relativism and idealism.
International Relativism is conceptualized as the degree to which an individual rejects
Marketing universal moral rules when making ethical judgements. Forsyth (1980, p. 175)
Review asserted that relativists “reject the possibility of formulating or relying on
universal moral rules when drawing conclusions about moral question”.
11,6 Idealism is conceptualized as the degree to which the individuals “assume that
desirable consequences can, with the ‘right’ action, always be obtained”
68 (Forsyth, 1980, p. 176). According to Forsyth, idealists adhere to moral
absolutes when making moral judgements. Consistent with the marketing
ethics theories discussed earlier, Forsyth (1992) recently proposed that the two
moral philosophies, idealism and relativism, can influence business ethical
decisions.
In comparing American and Thai marketers regarding their idealism and
relativism, it is expected that since the Thai culture is stronger in uncertainty
avoidance and power distance, as well as more collectivist and thus, places
more importance on codes of behaviour, Thais will be more idealistic since
adherence to the “moral absolutes” of idealism represents a reduction in
uncertainty. Similarly, they will be likely to be less relativistic than their
American counterparts. This thinking is consistent with arguments made by
Vitell et al., 1993 (see especially, propositions 2, 8 and 9; pp. 756-7). Thus, the
following propositions are presented.
P1: Thai marketers will be more idealistic than American marketers.
P2: Thai marketers will be less relativistic than American marketers.

Ethical Perceptions and Judgements

In their general theory of marketing ethics, Hunt and Vitell (1986) depict
perception of an ethical problem situation as the catalyst of the whole ethical
decision process. According to Hunt and Vitell, ethical perception is also a
function of an individual’s value/belief system. Ferrell and Gresham (1985) and
also Ferrell et al. (1989), in their contingency model, did not explicitly include
the nature or characteristics of the ethical issue as a major factor of marketing
ethics decision making. However, they specify “ethical issue” as a construct
preceding the individual decision-making process.
Borrowing from the article by Vitell et al. (1993) and consistent with
proposition 10 (p. 757) of their article, one would expect that marketers in a
society that is high in uncertainty avoidance such as Thailand would be less
likely to perceive ethical problems than their counterparts in a country such as
the USA, which is low in uncertainty avoidance. Thus, the following
proposition is postulated.
P3: Thai marketers will be less likely to perceive ethical problems than
American marketers.
Hunt and Vitell (1986) portray ethical judgements as the heart of their model.
The following definition of ethical judgements is given by them, “the belief that
a particular alternative is the most ethical alternative” (p. 9). According to Hunt
and Vitell (also Ferrell et al., 1989), an individual’s ethical judgements are a Study of
function of his/her ethical evaluations based on different moral philosophies. Moral
Using the same logic as presented above for ethical perceptions, one would Philosophies
expect that Thai marketers will be “less ethical” in terms of their ethical
judgements since they are less likely to perceive ethical problems in the first
place. Accordingly, the following proposition is presented.
P4: Thai marketers will be “less ethical” in terms of their ethical judgements 69
than American marketers.

Methodology
Sample
A self-administered questionnaire was used as the data collection technique for
both American and Thai marketing practitioners. For the American group, a
national mailing list of professional members of the American Marketing
Association (AMA) was selected as the sampling frame. All members of the
Thai Marketing Association were selected as target respondents for the Thai
marketer group. A detailed profile of both groups of respondents is provided in
Table I.
American marketers. A total of 2,000 target respondents were sampled from
a list of 14,739 US practitioner members with primary areas of interest in
marketing management and sales management. Of the 1,997 delivered, 492
people responded for a response rate of 24.6 per cent. The response rate is
comparable with those of previous marketing ethics studies that have also used
AMA mailing lists as sampling frames (e.g. Hunt and Chonko, 1984;
Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1990, 1991).
Thai marketers. As pointed out earlier, all members of the Thai Marketing
Association (600 people) were included in the sample for Thai marketer group.
Two mailings were used to collect data. A month after the first mailing, 58
questionnaires were returned. The second wave of questionnaires was then
mailed to all 600 members of the association again. After another month, the
number of returned questionnaires was 40. Thus, the total number of responses
is 98 (16.3 per cent). The response rate is considered quite high compared with
other mail surveys conducted in Thailand by one of the authors.
Following the recommendation of the Thai Marketing Association (TMA) the
questionnaires used for the Thai group were in English. The reasons given by
the TMA for this recommendation were that members of the Thai marketing
association are mostly well educated and many obtained their degrees from
universities in the United States. Additionally, English is a common business
language in Thailand, and Thai business people frequently correspond in
English. It should also be pointed out that there are two English-language
newspapers in Thailand (i.e. The Bangkok Post and The Nation) that are widely
read by those in business. Our discussion with the TMA led us to believe that
had we sent the questionnaire in Thai it would have offended business people
and adversely affected the response rate. Because of all of these considerations
International
Americans Thais
Marketing % %
Review
11,6 Sex
Male 48.2 80.4
Female 51.8 19.6
70 Age
Under 30 28.5 20.4
30 to 39 41.1 44.9
40 to 49 21.1 27.6
50 to 59 6.0 7.1
60 and over 3.3 0.0
Education
Some college 5.4 27.1
Bachelor’s degree 29.9 15.3
Graduate study 64.7 57.6
Current job title
Sales executive, sales manager, account manager 13.0 11.5
Marketing VP or Manager 29.7 21.9
CEO, President, executive director or owner 12.5 22.9
Director or promotions manager 4.1 5.2
Director or manager of marketing research 19.9 0.0
Product or brand manager 7.1 8.3
Other marketing 5.0 12.5
Managers 8.7 17.7
Years of business experiencea
Less than 5 17.8 19.5
5 to 9 26.5 29.9
10 to 14 25.5 18.6
Over 14 30.2 32.0
aThese variables were measures at the continuous level and have been categorized here
Table I.
Profile of Respondents

it was decided to use an English-language instrument to collect data in

Thailand. Concurring with the TMA, we believe that, in this way, the original
meaning was better maintained.
Comparison of sample groups. Thai and American marketers were compared
on three separate demographic variables using t-tests to ensure the equivalency
of the groups on these variables. The demographic variables tested were age,
number of years of education and number of years of business experience.
Results indicated that there were no significant differences between the two
groups on any of these three variables. Clearly, there were differences between
the samples in terms of gender, however, as 80.4 per cent of the Thai sample was
male whereas the US sample was almost equally divided between males and
females. Because of this gender difference, separate analyses were also
performed comparing only the male sub-samples. This was not done, however,
for the female subsamples because of the small number (19) of Thai females Study of
responding to the questionnaire. Moral
Philosophies
Measures
Moral philosophies. The Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ) developed by
Forsyth (1980) was used to measure moral philosophies (see Appendix 1). The
EPQ consists of two ten-item scales – one to measure idealism and a second to 71
measure relativism. Following Forsyth’s (1980) methodology, a nine-point
Likert type agree/disagree scale was used for the measurement. For each
respondent, the idealism score was computed by adding the scores of all
idealism items together. Accordingly a high value indicates that the respondent
tends to favour “moral absolutes” when making moral judgements and vice
versa. Similarly, the relativism score for each respondent was computed by
adding the scores of all relativism items. Therefore, a high “relativism” value
indicates the likelihood that the respondent tends to rely less on universal moral
rules when making moral judgements.
Reliability assessments for both dimensions of personal moral philosophies
were carried out. The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha values for idealism and
relativism scales are 0.85 and 0.81, respectively. These reliability levels are
judged adequate for this exploratory research (Peter, 1979).
Ethical perceptions and judgements. In their general theory of marketing
ethics, Hunt and Vitell (1986) recognize the use of scenarios as suitable for
research in marketing ethics. Scenarios are commonly used in marketing ethics
studies (e.g. Chonko and Hunt, 1985; Laczniak et al., 1981; Singhapakdi and
Vitell, 1990). In this study, “perceived ethical problem” and “ethical judgement”
were operationalized by means of four marketing ethics scenarios developed by
Dornoff and Tankersley (1975) (see Appendix 2). The scenarios represent
various areas of marketing such as sales management, retailing, and
advertising.
Similar to the study by Singhapakdi and Vitell (1990), “ethical perceptions”
were measured by directly asking the respondents whether they perceive each
of the four scenarios to have any ethical content or problem. Specifically, the
following question was used: Do you think that the situation described above
involves an ethical issue or problem? Responses were measured by a seven-
point scale ranging from “not a problem” (score 1) to “a problem” (score 7).
“Ethical judgement” was measured by asking each respondent to express
his/her agreement or disagreement with the action depicted in each of the four
scenarios. A seven-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (score 1) to
“strongly agree” (score 7) was used. Based on Dornoff and Tankersley’s (1975)
study, the majority of people (71 per cent or more) “disagree” with the actions
depicted as part of the scenarios. Consistently, based on our survey results, the
majority of American and Thai marketers also disagree (i.e. either “strongly
disagree” or “disagree” or “somewhat disagree”) with these actions (both
samples combined, 91.0 per cent for scenario 1, 84.5 per cent for scenario 2, 89.3
per cent for scenario 3, and 58.3 per cent for scenario 4). Accordingly, we can
International assume that these actions were generally considered “unethical” by both
Marketing societies. That is, relative to societal norms, disagreeing with these actions
Review means that one’s ethical judgements are “more ethical,” and vice versa. This
interpretation is consistent with that of Jones (1991, p. 367) who defined ethical
11,6 decision as “a decision that is both legal and morally acceptable to the larger
community”.
72
Results
Descriptive statistics for each of the variables investigated have been
summarized in Table II. For this study, univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was used to test for any differences between American and Thai marketers. The
ANOVA results along with the group means for all marketing ethics variables
have been summarized in Table III.
As can be seen in Table III, American marketers and Thai marketers are
significantly different on all ethics variables measured. That is, both
dimensions of moral philosophies, idealism and relativism, show significant
differences between the two marketer groups. However, the difference between
American and Thai marketers, for the relativism construct, was in the opposite
direction of that which was proposed. The American and Thai groups are also
significantly different, as proposed, on all measures of perceived ethical
problem and ethical judgements (as operationalized via the four marketing
ethics scenarios).
Discriminant analysis was also performed yielding essentially the same
results. That is, all ten independent variables (idealism, relativism, all four
measures of perceived ethical problem and all four measures of ethical

Variables Mean Standard deviation

Idealisma 62.10 14.36

Relativism 48.15 14.44
Perceived problem 1b 5.39 1.98
Perceived problem 2 5.17 1.84
Perceived problem 3 5.78 1.99
Perceived problem 4 4.26 1.94
Ethical judgement 1c 1.73 1.43
Ethical judgement 2 2.31 1.39
Ethical judgement 3 1.68 1.35
Ethical judgement 4 3.29 1.76
a Possible range for idealism and relativism is from 10 to 90
b 1 = “not a problem”, 7 = “a problem”
c 1 = “strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”
Table II.
Descriptive Statistics
 Means Significance
Study of
Variables Americans Thais F-ratio level Moral
Philosophies
Idealisma 61.37 65.71 7.56 0.006
(14.73) (11.75)
Relativism 46.58 55.94 36.34 0.000
(14.04) (13.93) 73
Perceived problem 1b 5.61 4.28 37.02 0.000
(1.83) (2.31)
Perceived problem 2 5.33 4.39 22.64 0.000
(1.75) (2.07)
Perceived problem 3 6.08 4.27 77.01 0.000
(1.82) (2.12)
Perceived problem 4 4.36 3.76 7.12 0.008
(1.93) (1.91)
Ethical judgement 1c 1.61 2.31 19.49 0.000
(1.28) (1.93)
Ethical judgement 2 2.23 2.73 9.26 0.002
(1.34) (1.60)
Ethical judgement 3 1.51 2.53 47.47 0.000
(1.24) (1.56)
Ethical judgement 4 3.13 4.07 23.99 0.000
(1.69) (1.89)
a Possible range for idealism and relativism is from 9 to 90
b 1 = “not a problem”, 7 = “a problem”
c 1 = “strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”
The MANOVA F-test was significant (F = 4326.41, p < 0.01) indicating that American
Table III.
marketers and Thai marketers are different on combination of these measures of
Analysis of Variance
marketing ethics. Standard deviations are given in parentheses
between American and
Thai Marketers

judgements) were significant (0.001 level) in discriminating between American

and Thai marketers. The three strongest discriminators were perceived ethical
problem and ethical judgements both relative to scenario 3 as well as relativism.
Idealism, while statistically significant, was one of the weaker discriminators.
Separate ANOVA results comparing the Thai males with the American males
yielded the same results. That is, the Thai males were more idealistic, more
relativistic, less likely to perceive ethical problems and “less ethical” in terms of
their ethical judgements. Discriminant analysis comparing the male
subsamples yielded the same results as were mentioned above for discriminant
analysis for the entire sample.
In particular, the ANOVA results indicate that Thai marketers are
significantly more idealistic and more relativistic than American marketers.
International Relative to American marketers, Thai marketers tend to perceive all four ethical
Marketing scenarios tested to be less severe. Consistent with their ethical perceptions, the
Review ANOVA results indicate that Thai marketers tend to judge each of the four
“unethical” actions to be more acceptable than American marketers.
11,6
Discussion
74 Based on our survey results, the Thai marketers are both more idealistic and
more relativistic. That is, Thai marketers are more likely to accept the
absolutism of idealism than American marketers. Also, relative to their
American counterparts, and contrary to our expectations, the Thai marketers
are more likely to rely on the nature of the ethical issue or the circumstances and
rely less on universal moral principles when making moral judgements. This
apparent contradiction may be resolved by examining Forsyth’s (1980, 1992)
taxonomy. According to Forsyth’s taxonomy of ethical ideologies, the Thai
marketers would be labelled “situationists”. In his words, situationists are those
“who eschew universal moral principles (high relativism) but still insist that one
should produce positive consequences that benefit all involved (high idealism)”
(Forsyth, 1992, p. 462).
It may also be that Thai marketers simply tend to be more extreme in their
ethical beliefs with some being strongly idealistic and others strongly
relativistic. American marketers, on the other hand, may tend to be more
middle-of-the-road. That is, the same Thai marketer is not both relativistic and
idealistic at the same time, but rather some Thai marketers are very idealistic
and others are very relativistic. Since the American marketers appear to be
somewhat less extreme in terms of their ethical views, the implication may be
that in negotiations involving ethical considerations with Thai marketers,
Americans may find that it may be difficult to get them to compromise and/or
deviate from their initial ethical position.
The Thai marketers tended to be less likely to perceive ethical problems
within the four scenarios used than the American marketers. Clearly, within
their culture, these situations were not as likely to be considered as involving
ethical issues. This is supported by the fact that the Thai marketers also tended
to judge each of the “actions” as more acceptable than the American marketers.
To the extent that it is likely that marketers in other countries, which are
collective, feminine, strong in uncertainty avoidance and exhibit a large power
distance, are similar to Thai marketers in the above respects, this finding could
have major implications for American marketers operating abroad. Clearly,
these differences may mean that American and Thai marketers wishing to do
business with each other may have to find an acceptable common ground in
terms of their ethical beliefs. Of course, research needs to be conducted to
determine whether or not this is, in fact, the case. While this study is just one
comparison between US and Thai marketers, the larger issue is one of general
cross-cultural differences in terms of business/marketing ethics.
While this was an exploratory study, the results indicate that American
marketers operating in Thailand need to be aware of the differences between
them and the Thai counterparts in terms of ethical attitudes and beliefs. If Thai Study of
marketers are, in fact, more extreme in their ethical attitudes and beliefs, Moral
American marketers may need to be cautious in negotiating with them. Of Philosophies
course, more research needs to be done that examines the ethical attitudes and
beliefs of Thai marketers. Additionally, research that examines the ethical
attitudes and beliefs of marketers from other, similar cultures is needed.
The results of this study should be viewed cautiously due to certain 75
limitations. One limitation of this study concerns the demographic differences
across samples regarding gender, age, occupation and place of residence (urban
vs. non-urban). Although these demographic measures cannot always be
identically interpreted across cultures, one cannot rule out the possibility that
the results of this study may be attributed to these differences. Another
limitation is the fact that the number and response rate of Thai marketers are
relatively low. Although we feel that these numbers are adequate, a larger
number of respondents as well as a larger response rate for the Thai group
would have been desirable.

References
Bartels, R. (1967), “A Model for Ethics in Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, January, pp. 20-6.
Beauchamp, T.L. and Bowie, N.E. (1979), Ethical Theory and Business, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Becker, H. and Fritzsche, D.J. (1987), “A Comparison of the Ethical Behavior of American, French
and German Managers”, Columbia Journal of World Business, Winter, pp. 87-96.
Chonko, L.B. and Hunt, S.D. (1985), “Ethics and Marketing Management: An Empirical
Examination”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 13, pp. 339-59.
Dornoff, R.J. and Tankersley, C.B. (1975), “Perceptual Differences in Market Transactions: A
Source of Consumer Frustration”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 9, pp. 97-103.
Ferrell, O.C. and Gresham, L.G. (1985), “A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical
Decision Making in Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Summer, pp. 87-96.
Ferrell, O.C., Gresham, L.G. and Fraedrich, J. (1989), “A Synthesis of Ethical Decision Models for
Marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 11, Fall, pp. 55-64.
Foot, P. (1982), “Moral Relativism”, in Krausz, M. and Meiland, J.W. (Eds), Relativism: Cognitive
and Moral, The University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IND, pp. 152-66.
Forsyth, D.R. (1980), “A Taxonomy of Ethical Ideologies”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 175-84.
Forsyth, D.R. (1992), “Judging the Morality of Business Practices: The Influence of Personal Moral
Philosophies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11, May, pp. 461-70.
Graham, J.L. (1985), “The Influence of Culture on Business Negotiations”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Spring, pp. 81-96.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1984), “The Cultural Relativity of the Quality of Life Concept”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 389-98.
Hogan, R. (1970), “A Dimension of Moral Judgement”, Journal of Clinical and Counseling
Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 205-12
International Hogan, R. (1973), “Moral Conduct and Moral Character: A Psychological Perspective”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 79, pp. 217-32.
Marketing Hunt, S.D. and Chonko, L.B. (1984), “Marketing and Machiavellianism”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
Review 48, Summer, pp. 30-42.
11,6 Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S. (1986), “A General Theory of Marketing Ethics”, Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 8, Spring, pp. 5-16.
Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S. (1993), “The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Retrospective and
76 Revision”, in Smith, N.C. and Quelch, J.A. (Eds), Ethics in Marketing, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Jones, T.M. (1991), “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-
contingent Model”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, April, pp. 366-95.
Kelman, H. C. and Lawrence, L.H. (1972), “Assignment of Responsibility in the Case of Lt. Calley:
Preliminary Report on a National Survey”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 28, pp. 177-212.
Kohlberg, L. (1968), “The Child as a Moral Philosopher”, Psychology Today, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 25-30.
Kohlberg, L. (1976), “Moralization: The Cognitive-developmental Approach”, in Likona, T. (Ed.),
Morality: Theory, Research and Social Issues, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY.
Laczniak, G.R., Lusch, R.F. and Strang, W.A. (1981), “Ethical Marketing: Perceptions of Economic
Goods and Social Problems”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 1, Spring, pp. 49-57.
Mayo, M.A. and Marks, L.J. (1990), “An Empirical Investigation of a General Theory of Marketing
Ethics”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18, Spring, pp. 163-71.
Murphy, P.E. and Laczniak, G.R. (1981), “Marketing Ethics: A Review with Implications for
Managers, Educators and Researchers”, in Enis, B.M. and Roering, K.J. (Eds), Review of
Marketing 1981, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Peter, J.P. (1979), “Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 6-17.
Rachels, J. (1986), The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 1st ed., Random House, New York, NY.
Reidenbach, R.E. and Robin, D.P. (1990), “A Partial Testing of the Contingency Framework for
Ethical Decision Making: A Path Analytical Approach”, in Capella, L.M. et al. (Eds), Progress
in Marketing Thought, Southern Marketing Association, Mississippi State, MS.
Rest, J.R., Cooper, D., Coder, R., Masanz, J. and Anderson, D. (1974), “Judging the Important Issues
in Moral Dilemmas – An Objective Measure of Development”, Developmental Psychology,
Vol. 10, pp. 491-501.
Schlenker, B.R. and Forsyth, D.R. (1977), “On the Ethics of Psychological Research”, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 369-96.
Singhapakdi, A. and Vitell, S.J. (1990), “Marketing Ethics: Factors Influencing Perceptions of
Ethical Problems and Alternatives”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 12, Spring, pp. 4-18.
Singhapakdi, A. and Vitell, S.J. (1991), “Research Note: Selected Factors Influencing Marketers’
Deontological Norms”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19, Winter,
pp. 37-42.
Vitell, S.J. and Hunt, S.B. (1990), “The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Partial Test of the
Model”, in Sheth, J.N. (Ed.), Research in Marketing, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Vitell, S.J., Nwachukwu, S.L. and Barnes, J.H. (1993), “The Effects of Culture on Ethical Decision-
making: An Application of Hofstede’s Typology”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12, October,
pp. 753-60.

Appendix 1: Ethical Ideologies

Items (1)-(10) are idealism items. Items (11)-(20) are relativism items. Source: Forsyth (1980)
(1) A person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to
a small degree.
 (2) Risks to another should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might be. Study of
(3) The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be Moral
gained.
(4) One should never psychologically or physically harm another person.
Philosophies
(5) One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare
of another individual.
(6) If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not be done. 77
(7) Deciding whether or not to perform an act by balancing the positive consequences of the
act against the negative consequences of the act is immoral.
(8) The dignity and welfare of people should be the most important concern in any society.
(9) It is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of others.
(10) Moral actions are those which closely match ideals of the most “perfect” action.
(11) There are no ethical principles that are so important that they should be a part of any code
of ethics.
(12) What is ethical varies from one situation and society to another.
(13) Moral standards should be seen as being individualistic; what one person considers to be
moral may be judged to be immoral by another person.
(14) Different types of moralities cannot be compared as to”rightness”.
(15) Questions of what is ethical for everyone can never be resolved since what is moral or
immoral is up to the individual.
(16) Moral standards are simply personal rules which indicate how a person should behave,
and are not to be applied in making judgements of others.
(17) Ethical considerations in interpersonal relations are so complex that individuals should be
allowed to formulate their own individual codes.
(18) Rigidly codifying an ethical position that prevents certain types of actions could stand in
the way of better human relations and adjustment.
(19) No rule concerning lying can be formulated; whether a lie is permissible or not permissible
totally depends on the situation.
(20) Whether a lie is judged to be moral or immoral depends on the circumstances surrounding
the action.

Appendix 2: Marketing Ethics Scenarios

Scenario 1
A person bought a new car from a franchised automobile dealership in the local area. Eight
months after the car was purchased, he began having problems with the transmission. He took
the car back to the dealer, and some minor adjustments were made. During the next few months
he continually had a similar problem with the transmission slipping. Each time the dealer made
only minor adjustments on the car. Again, during the 13th month after the car had been bought,
the man returned to the dealer because the transmission still was not functioning properly. At this
time, the transmission was completely overhauled.
Action: Since the warranty was for only one year (12 months from the date of purchase), the dealer
charged the full price for parts and labour.

Scenario 2
A young man, recently hired as a salesman for a local retail store, has been working very hard to
favourably impress his boss with his selling ability. At times, this young man, anxious for an
International order, has been a little over-eager. To get the order, he exaggerates the value of the item or
withholds relevant information concerning the product he is trying to sell. No fraud or deceit is
Marketing intended by his actions, he is simply over-eager.
Review Action: His boss, the owner of the retail store, is aware of this salesman’s actions, but he has done
11,6 nothing to stop such practice.

Scenario 3
78 A retail grocery chain operates several stores throughout the local area including one in the city’s
ghetto area. Independent studies have shown that prices do tend to be higher and there is less of
a selection of products in this particular store than in the other locations.
Action: On the day welfare cheques are received in the area of the city, the retailer increases prices
on all of his merchandise.

Scenario 4
Sets of a well-known brand of “good” china dinnerware are advertised on sale at a considerable
discount by a local retailer. Several patterns of a typical 45-piece service for eight are listed. The
customer may also buy any “odd” pieces which are available in stock (for instance, a butter dish,
a gravy bowl, etc.). The advertisement does not indicate, however, that these patterns have been
discontinued by the manufacturer.
Action: The retailer offers this information only if the customer directly asks if the merchandise is
discontinued.

Source: Domoff and Tankersley (1975).