John R. Sparks & Shelby D. Hunt

Marketing Researcher EthicalSensitivity: Conceptualization,Measurement, and Exploratory

InvestigationTheoretical models of marketing ethics propose that people first must perceive the presence of an ethical issuebefore the process of ethical decision making can begin. Through the concept of ethical sensitivity, the authorsexplore why some marketing researchers and not others recognize and ascribe importance to the ethical contentin their decision situations. The authors examine two rival definitions of ethical sensitivity and develop a measure-ment procedure capable of discriminating between them. The procedure then is tested on two populations (mar-keting students and marketing research practitioners), and several determinants of ethical sensitivity areinvestigated. Results indicate that the two definitions of ethical sensitivity are empirically equivalent. Furthermore,results show that the ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers is a positive function of organizational socializa-tion and perspective taking, but a negative function of relativism and formal training in ethics.

Why do people make different ethical choices in sim-ilar ethical situations? That is, what factorsaccount for the variance in ethical behavior? In

marketing, empirical research has focused on the organiza-tional factors that affect ethical decision making (Akaah1993; Ferrell and Skinner 1988; Hunt, Wood, and Chonko1989), the process ofjudging research practices (Akaah andRiordan 1989; Singhapakdi and Vitell 1993), the impact ofsupervisory actions (Belizzi and Hite 1989; Hunt andVasquez-Parraga 1993), the effect of Machiavellianism(Hunt and Chonko 1984; Sparks 1994), the influence of cog-nitive moral development (Castleberry, French, and Carlin1993; Goolsby and Hunt 1992), the role of deontologicalnorms (Mayo and Marks 1990; Singhapakdi and Vitell1991), and the role of importance and moral intensity of eth-ical issues (Robin, Reidenbach, and Forrest 1996; Singha-pakdi, Vitell, and Kraft 1996).

No empirical research in marketing has focused onrecognition, which, interestingly enough, is a factor that isshared by theories of ethical decision making in marketing(Ferrell and Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986, 1992;Wotruba 1990), management (Jones 1991; Trevino 1986),and social psychology (Rest 1986). Each of these theoriesmaintains that the extensive cognitive deliberationsinvolved in the ethical decision-making process begin

John R. Sparks is Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Dayton.Shelby D. Hunt is J.B. Hoskins and RW, Horn Professor of Marketing,Texas Tech University. For their helpful comments on drafts of this article,the authors thank the M reviewers and Larry M. Austin, James D. Wilcox,Dale F. Duhan, Don Finn, and Roy D. Howeil, all of Texas Tech University.For their input during development of the ethical sensitivity case scenario,the authors thank Ishmael Aakah, Lawrence Chonko, Alan Dubinsky, 0. C.Ferrell, Gene Laczniak, Don Robin, Scott Vitell, Alice Tybout, and oneanonymous marketing ethics scholar.

with—indeed requires—the recognition of an ethical issueor problem. As Hunt and Vitell (1992, p. 781) state, "Whenplaced in a decision-making situation having an ethicalcomponent, some people never recognize that there is anethical issue involved at all." Similarly, Rest (1986, p. 6)contends that differences among people in their tendency torecognize ethical issues can be striking: " Before it occurs tosome people that a moral issue may be involved, they haveto see the blood flowing. Other people are so supersensitivethat every act, work or grimace takes on momentous moralimplications." Because differences in ethical recognitioncontribute to explaining variance in ethical behavior, thequestion arises: Why do some people, but not others, recog-nize when an ethical issue exists in a decision situation?

Consider the following example: A marketing researcherworking on a project for a new client needs backgroundinformation on competitive trends in the client's industryand contacts an advertising executive friend who formerlyhad the account of the client's chief competitor. For somemarketing researchers, seeking infonnation about a client'scompetitive situation from someone who acquired thatinfonnation "in confidence" would represent a violation ofprofessional ethics. For others, seeking information fromsuch a source would be viewed simply as making the bestuse of all available information resources. Indeed, someresearchers might view failing to use all available sources ofinformation as a violation of their duty to do the best job fortheir current clients.

Why would some researchers, but not others, recognizethat the preceding decision situation has potential ethicalcontent? Hunt and Vitell (1992) propose that recognizingpotential ethical content is a function of a person's ethicalsensitivity. They posit ethical sensitivity as a personal char-acteristic that might explain significant variance in ethicalbehavior.

92 / Journal of Marketing, April 1998Journal of MarketingVol. 62 (ApriM 998), 92-109

Our study conceptualizes ethical sensitivity in marketingresearch and begins the process of studying it empirically.Drawing on Hunt and Vitell's (1992) theory of marketingethics, we first examine two competing views of ethical sen-sitivity. We then (I) develop a procedure for measuring eth-ical sensitivity that is capable of discriminating empiricallybetween the two views, (2) test the altemative measures intwo populations (marketing research practitioners and stu-dents), and (3) explore several determinants of ethical sensi-tivity in marketing research.

Background on Ethical SensitivityIn their revised model of ethical decision making. Hunt andVitell (1992) describe ethical sensitivity as a personal char-acteristic that enables people to recognize the presence of anethical issue. For them, recognizing an ethical issue in adecision-making situation is a necessary precursor to per-ceiving the conflict that constitutes an ethical problem,which in tum is the starting point for the cognitive process-ing involved in ethical decision making. In their model, if noproblem is perceived, the processing required for makingethical judgments does not occur. Because distinguishingethical issues from ethical problems is important in concep-tualizing ethical sensitivity, we first differentiate betweenthese constructs.

An ethical issue exists when a decision situationinvolves one or more altemative courses of action (includ-ing no action) that are differentially consistent or inconsis-tent with some formal or informal ethical rule, code, ornorm (Hunt and Vitell 1992). These ethical codes, rules, andnorms exist at many levels (e.g., society, group, individual)and contexts (e.g., industries, professions, organizations).Because of the existence of codes, norms, and rules extemalto the person, ethical issues might be unrecognized by anyparticular individual. Tbat is, the existence of extemal codesimplies that ethical issues are not simply "in the eye" of thedecision maker.

In contrast, a person's ethical problems do not existunperceived, because his or her ethical problems occur onlywhen attempting to resolve ethical conflict, that is, "when anindividual perceives that his/her duties and responsibilitiestoward one group are inconsistent with his/her duties towardsome other group (including one's self)" (Hunt, Chonko,and Wilcox 1984, p. 310). For Hunt and Vitell (1992), onlyethical issues considered important will result in an ethicalconHict intense enough to be perceived as the kind of prob-lem that will trigger the process of ethical decision makingdeveloped in their model. Similariy, Robin, Reidenbach, andForrest (1996) focus on the perceived importance of the eth-ical content of decision situations. They do so because ethi-cal content must not only "compete for attention," but also"compete for priority" (p. 18).

With the issue/problem distinction in mind, we now dis-cuss the extant empirical research on ethical sensitivity.Although the ethical sensitivity of marketers has not beeninvestigated, studies of ethical sensitivity have been con-ducted in such professions as dentistry (Bebeau, Rest, andYamoor 1985), professional counseling (Volker 1984), andpublic accounting (Shaub 1989). These works provide the

background necessary for developing two competing viewsof our procedure for measuring ethical sensitivity.

Empirical Research on Ethical Sensitivity

Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor (1985) developed the Dental Eth-ical Sensitivity Test (DEST) to measure Component 1 ofRest's (1983, 1986) Four Component Model of moralbehavior. Rest (1986, p. 5) calls the Component 1 stage"Interpreting the Situation," which is "imagining whatcourses of action are possible and tracing the consequencesof action in terms of how each action would affect the wel-fare of each party involved." At a minimum, people in thisstage realize that their actions can affect the welfare of oth-ers—an ability that "might be described as moral sensitiv-ity" (Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor 1985, p. 226). In Rest's(1983) model, "interpreting the situation" is followed bymoral judgments, intentions to act morally, and moralbehavior.

In Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor's (1985) study, denial stu-dents in various stages of their professional education lis-tened to four taped "audiodramas" of ethical situations facedby dentists. Each tape contained a single ethical issue. Afterlistening to tbe tapes, the students were interviewed to deter-mine how they interpreted the situation. Judges used a scor-ing scheme in which "subjects who were clear about thepossible lines of action open to the actor [in the tapeddramatization] got higher scores than those who were not soclear" (Rest 1986, p. 24).

In terms of Rest's (1983) model, DEST is consistentwith "interpreting the situation." However, the measure doesnot require subjects to recognize the presence of ethicalissues because subjects are aware of the study's purpose. AsRest (1986, p. 26) notes, "The ethical dilemma is the mainfocus of the tape and all subjects recognize that there issome sort of value/moral problem." Therefore, it may behighly susceptible to such demand effects as social desir-ability bias (Randall 1991). Also, rather than directly tap-ping subjects' beliefs about the importance of a given ethicalissue, it relies on judges' evaluations of subjects' remarks.Although those subjects who note greater implications ormore lines of action presumably ascribe greater importanceto the ethical issues, DEST makes no direct attempt to assesstheir beliefs about the importance of the moral issue pre-sented in the audiodrama.

Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor (1985) report two findings ofparticular interest. The first addresses the relationshipbetween ethical sensitivity and cognitive moral develop-ment. An important goal for Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor wasto establish discriminant validity between measures of thefirst two components of Rest's model. As was noted, thefirst is described as moral sensitivity, which is measuredamong dental students by the DEST. Rest calls Component2 "Interpreting the Morally Ideal Course of Action," thestage analogous to the process of rendering moral judgmentsin other ethics models. The ability needed in Component 2is cognitive moral development, which is measured byRest's (1979) Defining Issues Test (DIT). Bebeau, Rest, andYamoor (1985, p. 233) conclude that discriminant validityexisted between measures of these two constructs in thatthey "could, but need not, be correlated with each other."

Ethical Sensitivity / 93

The second noteworthy Finding is that ethical sensitivitycan be leamed through socialization processes. Bebeau,Rest, and Yamoor find that senior dental students scoredhigher than their first-year counterparts. Furthermore, thepassage of time did not account for the difference. Rather,the results suggest that students became more aware of thenorms, codes, and rules that govem behavior in dentistry—that is, as their studies progressed, dental students weresocialized into their profession.

Volker's (1984) study of professional counselors' abilityto "interpret the situation" also is based on Component 1 ofRest's model. However, unlike the DEST (in which eachaudiodrama cleariy focused on an ethical issue), Volker sub-tly embedded an ethical issue in the larger story of each ofhis audiodramas. This modification of the DEST procedurekeeps subjects blind to the nature of the experiment. Thus,the study not only incorporates the recognition of ethicalcontent, but also reduces the likelihood of demand effectsbrought on by social desirability bias.

Although Volker's (1984) calculation of ethical sensitiv-ity differs from that used by Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor(1985), he still adheres closely to Rest's conceptualizationof ethical sensitivity—the awareness that one's actions canaffect the welfare of others. Similar to the DEST, Volkerused a panel of judges to evaluate subject responses. Sub-jects were judged more ethically sensitive when they exhib-ited greater concem and willingness to act on behalf of athird party. Presumably, subjects expressing greater concemor willingness to act deem the ethical issues more importantthan do those expressing less concem. However, Volker didnot have subjects directly rate importance.

Volker's (1984) findings show ethical sensitivity to beonly modestly correlated with subjects' DIT scores, whichprovides additional evidence that ethical sensitivity is dis-tinct from cognitive moral development. However, his studyfound no evidence supporting the hypothesized relationshipbetween ethical sensitivity and socialization; experiencedprofessional counselors were no more ethically sensitivethan novices were.

Rather than audiodramas, Shaub (1989) used a writtencase to measure the ethical sensitivity of public accountants.Although Shaub used a single case containing three ethicalissues (rather than several scenarios with one issue each),his measure is similar to Volker's (1984) because subjectswere blind to the study's purpose and the ethical issues wereembedded among other issues in the case. However, unlikein Volker's (1984) study, Shaub's subjects read the case andwere asked to record the issues that were important to them.Because Shaub (1989) defines ethical sensitivity as the"ability to recognize the ethical nature of a decision" (p.147), for him, the "recognition of the ethical issues in thecase, regardless of the importance attached to these issues,served as the absolute measure of ethical sensitivity" (p.157).

Similar to Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor (1985) and Volker(1984), Shaub (1989) finds discriminant validity betweenethical sensitivity and cognitive moral development (mea-sured by the DIT). Furthermore, he reports that ethical sen-sitivity was related to the ethical orientations of relativismand idealism, as measured by the scales developed by

Forsyth (1980). Forsyth defines relativism as "the extent towhich the individual rejects universal rules" (p. 175) andidealism as the degree to which "some individuals believedesirable consequences can, with the 'right' action, alwaysbe obtained" (p. 176). Therefore, Shaub's findings indicatethat, though ethical sensitivity might not be related to cog-nitive moral development, it might well be related to otherindividual characteristics theorized to affect ethical decisionmaking. Shaub also finds positive correlations between eth-ical sensitivity and professional and organizational commit-ment, which suggests that ethical sensitivity might resultfrom socialization. Because commitment to one's organiza-tion or profession signifies adoption of the values of thatorganization or profession, adopting organizational or pro-fessional values presupposes that people have leamed thosevalues through some socialization process.

Conceptualizing Ethical SensitivityBecause it focuses on the importance of the issue (throughhow it affects others), the DBST procedure (Bebeau, Rest,and Yamoor 1985) implies that ethical sensitivity does notrequire the recognition of an ethical issue. In contrast,Shaub's (1989) measure implies that ethical sensitivity ispurely a recognition phenomenon and does not require theascription of importance to the ethical issues identified.Volker's (1984) procedure incorporates both recognitionand, at least indirectly, importance. Thus, conceptualizingand measuring ethical sensitivity becomes a question ofwhether it should be viewed as (1) the ability to recognizeethical issues, (2) the ascription of importance to ethicalissues, or (3) both recognition and ascription.

Consistent with Hunt and Vitell (1992), we argue thatethical sensitivity implies that an ethically insensitive per-son is more likely than his or her ethically sensitive coun-terpart to overlook the presence of an ethical issue.Therefore, the ability to recognize ethical issues is a reason-able starting point for defining ethical sensitivity. That is, asuitable conceptualization of ethical sensitivity should, at aminimum, encompass the recognition of ethical issues. Thequestion is, then, whether recognition alone is sufficient forconceptualizing ethical sensitivity.

By distinguishing between ethical issues and ethicalproblems. Hunt and Vitell's (1992) model provides anexplaination for why defining ethical sensitivity strictly as arecognition phenomenon might not be sufficient for under-standing how ethical decision making is triggered. Theprocess described by Hunt and Vitell's model—indeed, byall extant models of ethical decision making—is one of highinvolvement. That is, rendering the kind of ethical judg-ments thought to result ultimately in ethical behaviorsrequires significant cognitive processing. The extensive andeffortful problem solving described by Hunt and Vitell(1992) and others requires a high level of motivation on thepart of the decision maker (see Petty, Unnava, and Strath-man 1991). In tum, the motivation to process informationimplies that the decision maker considers ethical issues par-ticularly important.

Consider again the example of marketing researchersseeking information from sources who might have acquired

94 / Journal of Marketing, April 1998

the information in confidence. Some researchers might notrecognize the potential ethical content in the decision. Oth-ers might recognize the ethical content but consider theissues involved so trivial as not to warrant further thought.Still other researchers—in Volker's (1984) view, the ethi-cally sensitive ones—recognize the ethical issues andbelieve the ethical issues are of sufficient importance to war-rant ethical deliberations.

One view of ethical sensitivity holds that ethical sensi-tivity is purely the ability to recognize ethical issues.Another view maintains that ethical sensitivity requires boththe recognition of ethical issues and the ascription of impor-tance to them. The.se differing views imply two competingconceptualizations:

Conceptualization I: Ethical sensitivity is the ability to recog-nize that a decision-making situation hasethical content.

Conceptualization 2: Ethical sensitivity is the ability to recog-nize that a decision-making situation hasethical content and the a.scription ofimportance to the ethical issues compos-ing that content.

In the context of the ethical sensitivity of marketingresearchers, our research attempts to investigate empiricallywhich view is superior.

Three final comments are in order regarding ethicalsensitivity. First, ethical sensitivity does not imply ethi-caUty\ being more ethically sensitive does not mean nec-essarily that a person is more etbical. Indeed, many peoplewho behave unethically migbt be aware of the ethicalissues involved in their decisions. Second, those who areunaware that some of their decisions have ethical contentmight behave differently if that content were made knownto them. Indeed, this is the premise underiying what areoften called consciousness-raising exercises. Third, etbi-cal sensitivity is context specific. As noted by Hunt andVitell (1992), norms of ethical behavior that apply in agiven context often stem from organizations, professions,and industries. Because marketing researchers are notexpected to know as much as physicians about the normsof medical ethics, marketing researchers cannot beexpected to recognize the ethical content of a medicaldecision as readily as physicians. Indeed, in the context ofthis study, what we have been referring to as ethical sen-sitivity might best be thought of as the professional ethi-cal sensitivity of marketing researchers. We develop aprocedure for measuring marketing research professionalethical sensitivity that accommodates both conceptualiza-tions of the construct. This allows us to compare the twoempirically.

HypothesesThe preceding discussion of ethical sensitivity provides atheoretical basis for making predictions about differences inprofessional ethical sensitivity between two groups—mar-keting re.search practitioners and marketing students. Therealso are many individual-level variables that might accountfor differences in professional ethical sensitivity amongmarketing researchers. Our exploratory investigation exam-

ines five variables: organizational socialization, profes-sional socialization, empathy, relativism, and ethics training.

Group-Level Comparisons

Because a person's ethical sensitivity in a given contextrelies on knowing the applicable norms, rules, or codes ofbehavior, ethical sensitivity is a leamed, personal character-istic. Indeed, Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor (1985) find seniordental students more ethically sensitive than first-year stu-dents. Therefore, marketing students at different stages oftheir marketing education should exhibit different ethicalsensitivity. Specifically, marketing students who have com-pleted a course in marketing research should be more sensi-tive to possible violations of professional ethics inmarketing research than those who have not. However, theprofessional experiences of marketing research practitionersshould result in their having leamed the codes of profes-sional conduct more completely than marketing students,irrespective of whether such students had completed a mar-keting research course or not. Therefore, our first twohypotheses are as follows:

Hiai Marketing research practitioners will be more ethicallysensitive than marketing students.

Hu,: Students who have completed a course in marketingresearch will be more ethically .sensitive than those whohave not.

Individual-Level Variables

Organizational and professional .socialization. Brim(1966, p. 9) defines socialization as a process by which peo-ple become members of a group by leaming "through inter-action with others who hold normative beliefs about what...[a member's] role should be and reward or punish him forcorrect or incorrect action." Traditionally, social theoristshave grouped socialization in work settings under the rubricof occupational socialization (Moore 1969). Van Maanen(1976) notes that multiple socialization processes impart topeople the knowledge tbey need to function as members ofany work group. Consistent with Van Maanen (1976) andHunt and Vitell (1992), we distinguish between organiza-tional socialization and professional socialization on thegrounds that the norms of professional behavior in market-ing research can be leamed through separate (but related)social processes.

Van Maanen (1976, p. 67) defines organizational social-ization as "the process by which a person leams the values,norms and behaviors which permit him [or her] to functionas a member of the organization." Although professionalassociations are certainly organizations, we use the tertnorganizational here to refer to one's primary employer.Research on organizational socialization has tended to focuson the key outcomes of the socialization process: organiza-tional commitment (Allen and Meyer 1990) and job satis-faction (Feldman 1976). These affective outcomes arebelieved to be associated with the extent to which employ-ees have adopted or intemalized organizational values astheir own.

Although Shaub (1989) finds a positive simple correla-tion between organizational commitment and ethical sensi-tivity in public accountants, his path model shows no

Ethical Sensitivity / 95

significant relationship. Because ethical sensitivity isleamed, a relationship between organizational commitmentand ethical sensitivity is certainly plausible, becauseemployees presumably must leam the organizational valuesthey are adopting. To the extent that most firms employingmarketing research practitioners desire their employees toadhere to high standards of ethical conduct, successful orga-nizational socialization should lead to greater ethical sensi-tivity. Thus, we hypothesize that

H2: Orgatiizational socialization is related positively to the eth-ical sen.sitivity of marketing researcher.s.

Professional socialization, like organizational socializa-tion, is an outcome of a leaming process. Not only does itoccur among members of a profession across organizations,but the process often begins in college (Miller and Wager1971). Professional socialization, the degree to which mem-bers leam the norms and values of their profession, leads toprofessional commitment when people adopt their profes-sions' values. Shaub (1989) finds a positive correlationbetween ethical sensitivity and professional commitment,but that relationship does not hold in his path analysis.

Professional and organizational socialization can exertseparate influences on ethical sensitivity (Van Maanen1976). Because the promotion of ethical standards occupiesa central and highly visible role in the societal mission ofprofessional associations (Bartol 1979), members of a pro-fession can leam much more about the ethical norms of theirprofession from their professional association's programs,activities, and formal codes of conduct than from theiremploying organizations. Because the promotion of highethical standards is a high priority among professional asso-ciations, the successful leaming of professional norms andvalues leads to greater professional ethical sensitivity.Therefore,

H3: Professional socialization is related positively to the ethi-cal sen.sitivity of marketing researchers.

Empathy. Hoffman (1981, p. 128) defines empathy as a"vicarious affective response appropriate to someone else'ssituation rather than one's own." Because empathy impliesunderstanding cognitively and then responding emotionallyto the circumstances of others, it has both cognitive andaffective components (McNeel 1994; Stiff et al. 1988). Stiffand colleagues (1988) refer to the cognitive dimension ofempathy as perspective taking, that is, the ability to assumecognitively the perspective of others. Because ethical viola-tions often injure a third party, the ability and willingness toassume cognitively another person's perspective wouldseem to facilitate the recognition of acts that harm others.

The affective dimension of empathy is referred to asemotional contagion, which is emotion induced by the emo-tions of others (Stiff et al. 1988). That is, one person observ-ing another has an emotional experience parallel to theobserved person's actual or anticipated emotions. In theirstudy of dental student ethical sensitivity, Bebeau, Rest, andYamoor (1985) theorize that sensitivity to the welfare of oth-ers, a trait central to their conceptualization of ethical sensi-tivity, should correlate positively with empathy. However,they did not test this relationship empirically. Therefore,

H4: Perspective taking is related positively to the ethical sensi-tivity of marketing researchers.

H5: Emotional contagion is related positively to the ethicalsensitivity of marketing researchers.

Relativism. An individual characteristic frequently dis-cussed in ethics literature is relativism. Forsyth (1980)defines it as the rejection of absolute moral rules to guidebehavior. Shaub (1989) theorizes that persons likely to rejectthe existence of moral absolutes are less likely to leam theextant nonns and rules that guide professional behavior. Hisreasoning is not that ethical relativists deliberately shunorganizational or professional ethical guidelines. Rather,because relativists tend to believe that using moral codes topass judgments on the behavior of others is fraught withinsurmountable difficulties, they are less likely to noticebreaches of professional ethics. In support of this reasoning,Shaub (1989) finds a negative relationship between rela-tivism and ethical sensitivity in public accountants. Simi-larly, Singhapakdi and colleagues (1995) find a negativerelationship between relativism and marketers' perceivedimportance of ethics. Therefore,

Hg: Relativism is related negatively to the ethical sensitivity ofmarketing researchers.

Ethics training. Formal training programs in ethics oftenemphasize the importance of leaming the ethical normsapplicable to particular professional situations. Rest (1986)and Goolsby and Hunt (1992) find that formal educationthat includes ethics training is positively associated withcognitive moral development. Similarly, formal ethics edu-cation should lead to a heightened sensitivity to ethicalissues. Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor (1985) suggest that train-ing in ethics would be effective in raising ethical sensitivityamong dental students, as do Hunt and Vitell (1992) withrespect to marketing. Therefore,

H7: Formal training in ethics is related positively to the ethicalsensitivity of marketing researchers.

MethodEthical Sensitivity Measure

Following the procedure used by Shaub (1989), a short mar-keting researcb case scenario provided the basis for measur-ing ethical sensitivity (see the Appendix). Development ofthe case scenario was guided by seven criteria. First, ratherthan being an "ethics case," the case should raise a varietyof both ethical and nonethical marketing researcb issues.Second, tbe ethical issues should be ones commonly facedby marketing researchers during the course of their work.Third, the case should be realistic. Fourth, the case shouldbe relatively brief—easily read in less than ten minutes.Fifth, no ethical issues beyond those intended should beraised in the case. Sixth, because variance in perceivedimportance is required to distinguish empirically betweenthe two rival conceptualizations of ethical sensitivity, theethical issues should range in importance from moderate tosevere. Seventh, because ethical sensitivity is an antecedentof ethical behavior, the case scenario should only imply or

96 / Journal of Marketing, April 1998

suggest that some potential behavior is differentially consis-tent or inconsistent with a marketing research code, rule, ornorm. That is, there should be no overtly unethical acts—no"blood flowing" (Rest 1986).

Satisfying the first two criteria was straightforward. Thecase (see the Appendix) centers on an analyst named BobSmith, an employee of L&H Marketing Research, who isworking frantically to complete a report for an importantclient preparing to introduce a new line of products. Embed-ded among many technical and research management issueswere three ethical issues: research integrity, the fair treat-ment of vendors, and research confidentiality.

The first ethical issue, research integrity, arises whenBob believes his boss wants him to produce a statisticalanalysis consistent with recommendations already made tothe client. The second ethical issue, the fair treatment ofvendors, occurs when Bob's superiors discover that impor-tant questions were deleted from the final questionnaireafter most of the survey had been completed. Although thefault lay with Bob's assistant, his superiors mistakenlybelieved that it lay with the vendor that conducted the phonesurveys. Bob, however, takes no action. Referring to ourexample at the beginning of the article, the third ethicalissue, confidentiality, comes about through Bob's consulta-tion with Marjorie Glass, who works for the client's adver-tising agency. Because she recently represented the client'sbiggest competitor, Marjorie has valuable information, per-haps acquired in confidence, about bow the competitormight respond to the new product introduction.

The ethical issues selected for tbe case were based onthe study by Hunt, Chonko, and Wilcox (1984, p. 311), inwhich marketing research practitioners were asked to"describe tbe job situation that poses the most difficult ethi-cal or moral problem for you." Of the 13 issues marketingresearchers identified in that study, research integrity wasthe most frequently mentioned, confidentiality was third,and treating suppliers fairly was tenth. Because difficult eth-ical problems are unlikely to be viewed as trivial, usingthese ethical issues should result in a range of perceivedimportance from moderate to severe, as stipulated by crite-rion 6.

Pretests. To judge whether the remaining criteria weremet, we conducted four pretests of the case. The first soughtto determine if the case raised any ethical issues in additionto those intended. Undergraduate marketing research stu-dents at a large southwestern university read the case andwere asked to identify the ethical issues it raised. Their com-ments resulted in several modifications. For example, theoriginal story opened with the main character working Sun-day afternoon in his office. Because several studentsobjected to Bob violating the Sabbath, the day was changedto Saturday.

In the second pretest, six marketing faculty from thesame university also were asked to rate the seriousness ofthe three intentionally included ethical issues on a scaleranging from "Not an ethical violation at all" (0) to "A veryserious ethical violation" (9) and to search for other ethicalissues that might be (unintentionally) in the case. Althoughthe issue rankings ranged from first to tenth in Hunt,

Chonko, and Wilcox (1984), a concern was that the threeethical issues still could be regarded uniformly as "very seri-ous" ethical violations. Because highly egregious ethicalviolations are more likely to be identified (Jones 1991; Sing-hapakdi, Vitell, and Kraft 1996), including only such issuesin the case might result in all, or almost all, respondents rec-ognizing all three ethical issues. The six faculty membersidentified no new ethical issues and agreed that the threeethical issues differed substantially in their egregiousness.

The third pretest sought comments from nine marketingresearch ethieists, each of whom had published on ethics inmarketing research. Each received a cover letter, the case,and a questionnaire that specifically described the three eth-ical issues and were asked to rate each issue's egregiousnesson a ten-point scale. Results showed all three issues to be atleast moderately serious, with the research integrity andresearch confidentiality issues ranked as very serious viola-tions and the vendor fairness issue seen as relatively lessserious (means of 9.75, 9.12, and 6.50, respectively). Thepresence of two very serious and one moderately seriousethical violations suggested that there would be variance inrecognition scores.

The fourth pretest used personal interviews with 11marketing research practitioners. This pretest sought to (1)determine if sufficient variance would be obtained in theissues researchers identified, (2) ascertain if any ethicalissues were contained in the case beyond the threeintended, (3) estimate the time needed to read the case, (4)solicit general impressions and suggestions for improve-ment, and (5) evaluate the case for readability and, mostimportant, realism.

The marketing research practitioners in these interviewsfirst read the case, taking an average of nine minutes. Theythen were asked to "identify the issues that could be raisedby you or your students if you were teaching this case to acollege level marketing research class" and to rate theimportance of each issue they identified on a scale rangingfrom "Not important at all" (1) to "Very important" (7).After the issues they identified were discussed, respondentswere debriefed on the ethical nature of the research and wereasked to identify all the ethical issues raised in the case.

The unstructured nature of the interviews (and because intwo interviews two researchers participated at the same time)made exact tabulations of tbe identified ethical issues impos-sible. However, in only two interviews were all the ethicalissues identified before the ethical nature of the research wasrevealed. This suggested that significant variance in the num-ber of ethical issues recognized (without prompting) wouldbe obtained. Furthermore, respondents noted no unintendedethical issues, they reacted favorably to the realism of thecase, and all believed the length was not excessive. Onerespondent suggested that line numbers would facilitate ref-erences back to the text of the case and make the issue iden-tification task easier to complete. Tbe collective results ofthese pretests indicated that the case met the seven criteria.

Pilot study. To further explore the case's content,instructions, scale items, and response rate, we conducted apilot study using a sample of 125 marketing research practi-tioner members of the American Marketing Association

Ethical Sensitivity / 97

(AMA). Pilot study respondents received a two-part ques-tionnaire. Part 1 contained the case and an answer sheet.Respondents were asked to read the case and "brieflydescribe the issues that are raised in it." As an aid, respon-dents could pretend they were "teaching the case to a col-lege-level marketing research class." Although the answersheet provided spaces for 15 issues, respondents were toldnot to feel obliged to identify 15. They could identify fewer(or more by attaching an additional sheet). Part 2 contained43 Likert items, which were considered indicants for pre-dictor variables of ethical sensitivity.

Not unexpectedly, the task of reading the case and pro-viding open-ended responses depressed the response rate to7%—well below the typical 15% to 25% customary inethics studies using an AMA sample. Many returned ques-tionnaires had only part 2 completed, which suggests thatthe task of reading the case had limited the response rate. Wedecided, therefore, to shorten the case by substantial editingand to offer a small incentive for participating in the finalstudy.

Ethical sensitivity measures. The final version of thecase scenario is reproduced in the Appendix. After readingthe case, respondents were instructed to "briefly describe theissues that, in your opinion, are raised in the case." Note thatrespondents were not prompted to focus on particular kindsof issues (e.g., ethical, technical, managerial) or even onissues they deemed important or difficult. An answer sheetwas provided with numbered spaces in which identifiedissues could be described briefiy. After each identified issue,respondents indicated how important they considered it tobe on a seven-point scale ranging from "Unimportant" to"Very Important."

Using this procedure, two ethical sensitivity scores canbe calculated for each respondent. The first, an unweightedethical sensitivity score, is the number of ethical issues iden-tified by each respondent. Possible values range from 0 to3.The second, a weighted ethical sensitivity score, is the sumof the importance ratings respondents give to the ethicalissues each respondent identifies. Possible values rangefrom 0 to 21. For example, if a respondent identified theresearch integrity and confidentiality issues and rated theirimportance a 6 and 7, respectively, the unweighted scorewould be 2, and the weighted score 13.

Measures of Predictor VariabtesThe pilot study permitted scale items for the predictor vari-ables to be screened and, where necessary, reworded oreliminated. Except where noted, all measures used a seven-point rating scale ranging from "Strongly Disagree" (1) to"Strongly Agree" (7). In addition to the variables discussedsubsequently, respondents were asked to note the amount oftime they spent reading the case and identifying the issues.Because more time spent identifying issues should correlatepositively with the number of ethical issues identified, timewas included as a control variable. Table 1 shows the finalscale items.

Organizational and professional socialization. Empiri-cal studies on organizational socialization have used sev-eral scales that measure various dimensions of the process

(Buchanan 1974; Feldman 1976; Jones 1986). These scalestypically focus on the affective outcomes of socialization ormeasure a person's progress through hypothesized stages inthe socialization process. None measure organizationalsocialization as defined by Van Maanen (1976) and thisstudy, that is, the degree to which a person has leamedorganizational norms and values. Similarly, no scales existto measure professional socialization as conceptualizedhere, that is, the degree to which people believe they havelearned the values and norms of the marketing researchprofession. Therefore, using published organizationalsocialization and organizational commitment scales forinsights, four original scale items were developed to assessthe degree to which marketing researchers believe theyknow the norms and values of their organizations, and fouroriginal items were developed to measure professionalsocialization (see Table I).

Empathy. Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor (1985) discuss therelationship between ethical sensitivity and empathy, butcite many studies documenting the poor reliability of empa-thy measures. In marketing, McBane (1990) developed mul-tiple-item scales for eacb of the dimensions of empathyadvanced by Stiff and colleagues (1988). Although his mea-sures lacked discriminant validity, we believe that several ofMcBane's items could serve as useful starting points for ourstudy. For perspective taking (tbe cognitive dimension ofempathy), we modified three items used by McBane andadded one original to create a four-item scale. Three of thefour emotional contagion (tbe affective dimension of empa-thy) items used in this research are original; the fourth wasadapted from McBane's study.

Relativism and ethics training. Forsyth (1980) devel-oped a ten-item measure of relativism. Because Shaub's(1989) analysis of relativism found several items fromForsyth's scale to have psychometric difficulties, weselected three items that performed best in his study andadded two original items to create a five-item relativismscale. The amount of formal training in ethics respondentshad received was measured by two questions. The firstasked how much formal training in ethics respondents hadreceived during their college education, and the secondasked the amount received during their careers as marketingresearchers. Both items were answered on an eight-pointscale, ranging from "None at All" (0) to "A Great Deal" (7).Tbe items were summed to create a composite, formativemeasure of formal ethics training.

Measurement model. The performance of reflective mul-tiple-item measures was assessed using coefficient alphaand confirmatory factor analysis. As shown in Table 1, inter-nal consistency of the scales is satisfactory—the lowestcoefficient alpha figure is .74 for the organizational social-ization scale. Also shown in the table are factor loadingsfrom confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL7 (Jorskogand Sorbom 1989). All paths are significant (p < .05), and ingeneral, model fit is adequate (adjusted goodness-of-fitindex [AGFI] = .85; root mean residual [RMSR] = .06). Noitems were deleted. Items in a scale were averaged to createsingle indicators of each construct.

98 / Journal of Marketing, April 1998

TABLE 1Unidimensionality and Internal Consistency of Predictor Variables with Reflective Indicators

Scale Item Standardized LISREL Estimate

Organizational Socialization (a = .74)1. I know the rules and regulations associated with my job.2. I know "how things are done around here."3. I know what's considered (in)appropriate behavior in my company.4. I know what's considered (un)important to my company.

Professional Socialization (a = .84)1. I know the values of my profession.2. I have a good idea how to make a successful career for myself as

a marketing researcher.3. I know the things a good marketing researcher should and should

not do.4. I know the formal and informal codes and guidelines that guide the

actions of marketing researchers.

Perspective Taking (a = .80)1. When discussing a point of disagreement with someone, I try to

see his or her point of view.2. Generally, I find it easy to see things from the other person's

perspective.3. I am good at "putting myself in someone else's shoes."4. I am usually able to understand why people do and say the things

they do.

Emotional Contagion (a = .78)1. It distresses me when I see others in distress.2. Other people's moods have a big impact on my moods.3. I often get "choked up" when I see a sad TV program or movie.4. I hurt inside when I see others hurting.

Relativism (a = .87)1. Questions of what is ethical for everyone cannot be resolved,

because what is (im)moral is up to the individual.2. Different moral or ethical codes cannot be compared as to

"rightness."3. Moral standards are simply personal rules that indicate how a

person should behave—and are not to be used to make judgmentsof others.

4. Because what I believe is morally right or wrong may differ fromother people, my moral code cannot be meaningfully compared toanyone else's.

5. I should refrain from judging other people's actions because mymoral code applies only to me.

.69

.58

.60

.73

.59

.72

.86

.77

.60

.88

.92

.43

.79

.96

.42

.57

.74

.70

.79

.79

.77

Note: All paths significant (p < .05). ) = 298.05 (p = .00), Goodness-of-Fit Index = .88, AGFI = .85, RMR = .06

Sample

Marketing research practitioners were sampled from themembership of the American Marketing Association.Accounting for nondeliverables, a total of 2760 two-partquestionnaires were mailed. Even with the shortened formof the case and the offer of a small incentive, the responserate paralleled the pilot study: a total of 188 fully completedquestionnaires were returned, which yielded a response rateof 7%. A total of 51 questionnaires were returned with onlythe Likert items in part 2 completed, which, like the pilotstudy, implies that task difficulty limited response rate.Because the purpose of this study is to develop an ethicalsensitivity measure for marketing researchers and to beginthe process of its validation (and not to generalize empirical

relationships to the population of marketing researchers),the "bogeyman" (Hunt 1990) of nonresponse bias is inap-plicable and the disappointingly low response rate does notprevent using the data for the purpose of exploratory analy-sis. (Indeed, no study of ethical sensitivity in any disciplinehas ever had the luxury of a representative sample; all stud-ies have used convenience samples.)

Table 2 shows the sample characteristics. Among thesample of marketing research practitioners, we suggest thatseveral characteristics are worth noting. Unlike previousstudies of marketing research ethics (cf. Ferrell and Skinner1988; Hunt, Chonko, and Wilcox 1984), virtually equalnumbers of men and women responded. Compared withHunt, Chonko, and Wilcox (1984), this sample was some-what older, more educated, and higher in rank in their orga-

Ethical Sensitivity / 99

TABLE 2Sample Characteristics

Gender (n = 185)FemaleMale

Respondent EducationTotal Undergraduate

MarketingOther BusinessNonbusiness

Total Master'sMBAaNonbusiness

Total DoctorateMarketingOther BusinessNonbusinesst"

JobTitle(n = 187)CEO, President, OwnerVice PresidentManager, DirectorAnalyst, Sr. Analyst

Marketing Research

Number

9293

1822947

106115843127

31

23

45277639

Percentage

5050

971525566145161421

12

24144121

Practitioners (n = 188)

Firm Size (n = 188)10 or fewer11 to 100101-10001001-50005001 and greater

Type of Firm (n = 188)

Number

3841424225

Marketing Research Department 94Marketing Research FirmAdvertising AgencyOtherc

Firm Code of Ethics? (n = 186)YesNoDon't Know

(If Yes) Vigorously Enforced? (nYesNoDon't Know

749

11

788721

= 78)491712

Percentage

2022222213

5039

56

424711

632215

Average Age (n = 183) 42 years

Marketing Students (n = 320)

Introductory Students (n

GenderFemaleMale

Major Field of StudyMarketingOther Business^Nonbusinessi^

Average Age

= 142)

Number

5587

189529

Percentage

3961

136720

22 years

Senior Marketing Students (n

GenderFemaleMale

Major Field of StudyMarketingOther BusinessNonbusinesse

Average Age

= 178)

Number

70108

1301038

Percentage

3961

736

21

23 years

^Includes four MS degrees in business-related fields, and two MMR degrees.''Almost half of all nonbusiness doctorates held degrees in psychology.^Primarily consulting firms.(̂ Almost one-third of nonmarketing majors indicated intentions to minor in marketing.^Almost all nonbusiness students completing the marketing research class came from fields that required the course to graduate (e.g., adver-tising, public relations, merchandising).

nizations. Also, a lower proportion of respondents workedfor in-house marketing research departments.

Two student samples were used—both from marketingclasses at a major southwestem university. The first, a sam-ple of 142 introductory marketing students, had only mini-mal exposure to material on marketing research. Thesecond, 178 senior marketing students, all had completed acourse in marketing research. Both samples had a higherproportion of men (61%) than women (39%). As wasexpected, students who had completed the marketing

research class were slightly older and predominantly mar-keting majors. Among the nonbusiness majors in the sam-ple, virtually all were majoring in fields closely related tomarketing (e.g., advertising, merchandising), whichrequired the marketing research class.

ResultsOne of the authors and one independent judge blind to thestudy's hypotheses counted the number of ethical issues

100 / Journal of Marketing, April 1998

TABLE 3Comparison of Students and Practitioners

Issue A: Research IntegrityPercentage IdentifiedMean Importance (standard deviation)

Issue B: Vendor FairnessPercentage IdentifiedMean Importance (standard deviation)

Issue C: ConfidentialityPercentage IdentifiedMean Importance (standard deviation)

Pattern of Identified Issues (Percentage Identified)Zero Ethical Issues IdentifiedIssue A onlyIssue B onlyIssue C onlyIssues A and BIssues A and CIssues B and CIssues A, B, and C

IntroductoryStudents

304.8(1.3)

44.8 (2.0)

135.7(1.3)

6321

161601

SeniorStudents

384.8(1.4)

25.6(1.5)

125.7 (.9)

5531

161600

ResearchPractitioners

635.8(1.3)

355.9(1.3)

355.4(1.5)

2320

55

16173

10

Mean Unweighted Ethical Sensitivity Score(standard deviation)^

Mean Weighted Ethical Sensitivity Score(standard deviation)a

Mean Total Issues Identified (standard deviation)^Mean Minutes Spent on Case (standard deviation)<:Sample Size

•5 (.7) .5 (.6) 1.3 (.9)

2.4 (3.5)7.6 (2.6)

24(15.4)142

2.7 (3.4)8.6 (2.6)

27(15.6)178

7.7 (5.8)8.1 (3.0)

16(7.5)188

aMultiple group comparison using Tukey's studentized range test indicated that ethical sensitivity scores (by either measure) were significantlyhigher in practitioners than either student group (p < .01) and that the student groups were not significantly different from each other.

bTotal issues include ethical and technical research management issues. Multiple group comparison using Tukey's studentized range test indi-cated that mean issues identified by Senior Students and Practitioners did not differ significantly from each other; however, both groups iden-tified significantly more issues than Introductory Students (p < .05).

^Multiple group comparison using Tukey's studentized range test indicated that mean time spent working on the case by Senior Students andIntroductory Students did not differ significantly from each other, however, both groups spent significantly more time working on the case thanPractitioners (p< .01).

idenlitied by each respondent. The percentage of agreementbetween the two judges was 96.6%. The few discrepanciesthat arose were resolved through discussion.

Group Comparisons (H^)

Table 3 shows by group the percentage of participants thatidentified each ethical issue and the mean importance rat-ings. Among all groups, the research integrity issue wasidentified far more often than either of the other two issues.Among practitioners, the vendor fairness and the confiden-tiality issues were identified equally as often. Students,however, identified the confidentiality issue far more oftenthan the vendor fairness issue. Conversely, the practitionersgave all three ethical issues approximately equal importanceratings, which contrasted with the results in the pretests andpilot study. Students tended to rate the confidentiality issueas the most serious ethical violation. Proportionately, morethan twice as many students as practitioners failed to iden-tify any ethical issues. Similarly, whereas 10% of practi-tioners identified all three ethical issues, fewer than 1% of

students did. A much higher proportion of practitioners iden-tified each ethical issue, and overall, practitioners identifiedmore than twice as many ethical issues than either studentgroup.

Table 3 also presents the mean ethical sensitivity scoresfor all groups by both calculations. Tukey's studentizedrange test was used to detennine where significant differ-ences existed between groups. Both student groups identi-fied an equal mean number of ethical issues, .5. Althoughsenior marketing students appeared to attach slightly higherimportance to the ethical issues identified (2.7 versus 3.4),the difference was not statistically significant. Marketingresearch practitioners' ethical sensitivity scores were signif-icantly higher than either student group by both weightedand unweighted measures of ethical .sensitivity (p < .01).

Our thesis is that differences in students' and practition-ers' ethical sensitivity result from learning norms and moralcodes. The data enable us to explore three rival explana-tions. First, the differences do not appear to result from stu-dents identifying fewer issues of all kinds. Table 3 showsonly small differences in total issues identified (i.e., com-

Ethical Sensitivity/101

bining ethical with technical and research managementissues). Indeed, senior students actually identified the mostissues (mean: 8.6), though there was no statistically signifi-cant difference between them and practitioners (mean: 8.1).Both seniors and practitioners identified approximately onemore issue per participant than did introductory students(mean: 7.6). Second, differences in ethical sensitivitybetween students and practitioners do not appear to resultfrom time spent working on the case. Table 3 shows thatboth groups of students spent significantly more time on thecase than did the practitioners. Third, differences in ethicalsensitivity do not seem to result from practitioners beingolder than students. If age alone increased a person's ethicalsensitivity, then there should be a positive correlationbetween age and ethical sensitivity among the practitioners(whose ages ranged from 22 to 72 years). However, Table 4shows the correlations between age and both ethical sensi-tivity measures to be nonsignificant.'

Therefore, the higher ethical sensitivity scores achievedby marketing research practitioners strongly support Hi^and its underlying thesis that ethical sensitivity in marketingresearch is leamed. However, Hn, was not supported; stu-dents who had completed a marketing research class wereno more ethically sensitive than those who had not.

Predictors of Ethical Sensitivity (H2-H7)

Correlation analysis. The hypothesized relationshipsbetween ethical sensitivity and the predictor variables aretested first by examining their correlations. Using the mar-keting research practitioner data. Table 4 shows that all butone of the predictor variables correlated significantly withthe importance weighted ethical sensitivity measure (withall but one in the hypothesized direction). The unweightedethical sensitivity measure correlates significantly with allbut two of the predictor variables. Again, all but one are inthe hypothesized direction. In all cases, the correlationsbetween the predictor variables and the weighted ethicalsensitivity measure are somewhat higher than those with theunweighted measure. Indeed, three of the five significantcorrelations with the unweighted ethical sensitivity measureare only at the . 10 level, whereas the significant correlationswith the weighted ethical sensitivity measure are at .05 orbetter. Overall, the pattem of correlations tends to supportdefining (and measuring) ethical sensitivity as involvingboth recognizing ethical issues and ascribing importance tothem.

H2 predicts that organizational socialization is relatedpositively to ethical sensitivity; H3 makes a similar predic-tion for professional socialization. Both socialization vari-ables are correlated significantly with the importanceweighted ethical sensitivity measure (organizational: p <.01; professional: p < .05). Only organizational socializationis correlated significantly with the unweighted ethical sensi-tivity measure (p < .01). These results support H2 but onlypartially support H3. Collectively, these results suggest thatwork-related socialization infiuences marketingresearchers' ability to recognize ethical issues.

'We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this possibleexplanation to our attention.

Both the perspective taking (H4) and emotional conta-gion (H5) dimensions of empathy are hypothesized to berelated positively to ethical sensitivity. Perspective taking,the cognitive dimension of empathy, is correlated signifi-cantly with both measures of ethical sensitivity (weighted:p < .05; unweighted: p < .10), whereas the affective dimen-sion, emotional contagion, is not related significantly witheither. These results suggest that empathy's contribution toethical sensitivity is primarily cognitive in nature.

H5 predicts that relativism is related negatively to ethicalsensitivity, and H7 predicts a positive relationship betweenthe amount of fonnal ethics training received by respondentsand ethical sensitivity. In support of Hg, relativism is relatednegatively to both measures of ethical sensitivity (weighted:p < .05; unweighted: p < .10). Unexpectedly, formal ethicstraining also is related negatively to ethical sensitivity(weighted: p < .05; unweighted: p < .\0). That is, the morefonnal ethics training researchers in our sample report, theless ethically sensitive they are (by either measure). Ratherthan being supported, H7 actually is contradicted.

Regression analysis. To explore the extent to which thecorrelational relationships are potentially spurious, we esti-mate a series of regression models using the two measuresof ethical sensitivity as dependent variables, the six predic-tors as independent variables, and the time spent working onthe case as a control variable. Tables 5 and 6 report the stan-dardized coefficients from the regression analyses, withTable 5 using the unweighted ethical sensitivity scores asthe dependent variable and Table 6 using the weightedscores. Model 1 in both tables contains only the control vari-able. Models 2, 3, and 4 test separately three groups of inde-pendent variables: organizational and professional social-ization, perspective taking and emotional contagion, andrelativism and ethics education, in each case controlling fortime spent on the case. Model 5 in both tables is a fullmodel. All models are statistically significant to at least p <.05 or better.

The regression analyses alter the outcomes of two of thehypotheses tested in the correlation analysis. First, as shownin Table 5, in no instance is professional socialization a sig-nificant predictor of ethical sensitivity. The correlationbetween profession socialization and the importanceweighted ethical sensitivity measure probably was spurious.Thus, H3 is not supported. Second, the regression modelssuggest that the support initially given to H4, that is, a posi-tive relationship between perspective taking and ethical sen-sitivity, should be reconsidered. In those models in whichthe two empathy variables (and time) were the independentvariables (Model 3 in Tables 5 and 6), perspective taking issignificant to at least p < .10. However, in the presence ofother independent variables (Model 5 in Tables 5 and 6),perspective taking's predictive capability is suppressed.

Weighted versus unweighted ethical sensitivity mea-sures. The size of the correlations shown in Table 4 suggeststhat, in spite of the strong relationship between the two mea-sures of ethical sensitivity (r = .95), the importanceweighted measure of ethical sensitivity seems to relate morestrongly to the predictor variables. Similarly, the size of theregression coefficients and the amount of explained vari-ance is slightly larger in models with the importance-

102 / Journal of Marketing, April 1998

4(0

a>oo

(U

ra

o

uE(A

• >

0)CC

u

o'5)

co"re'>0)

Q•D

(0• ocre0)

111 ^

CQ (0

*~ a>

0)

2 ^0) "^

a.__ ora cc .2.2 ^at •—

£ "ao c

O.2

'c ra

I £55c 0)

CO

•a >•

pipPI

o

IVit

siti

jnsi

tiS

enIS

tic

al

;£ LU

-i)'stu §

oo

o -̂

<

QO O^T— O

C\J CO

g

:= ra

)Oci

:iali

' oCO W

zatio

r;io

nal

O) cO Q-

oq

o ^-q T-

00 CO1- O

«OO CD

• ^ C\iy— O

^ o

c

Oq

CO

q

*in

1

O)

1

«c*̂1 —

1

17*

1

- g )1— o

ctiv

ena

l Csp

eot

io

CD EQ_ LL

E(/•

•>

tEacr

oq''—

q

oq

i no

r

*CJ>

C35

•

y—

1

c

'c'tch-t/'

Oq

COq

inq

C\Jo

i'

oo

o

CC1 —

in

" at/

£c

oq

COo

r

(Oo

r«.«.,—CM

r

ooor

.1—

r

CO

.14*

o1

o1

cn

Ethi

cpe

ntid

ent

mal

cLl.pec

OCD

41.

in

CO

•D

inin

C\JCO

COoiri

iri

CT)r̂in

1^

in

COCO

""̂

ctca

CO

10.

COin

•̂

o

CO

inCO

ouq

oq

1^

CJ)

.79

in

ion

iat

rd D

evi

nda

iSC/3

l lc o0) . .

T3 0)— C3). C CU COra >^O 0C U)d) (/)

o

0000

s. >.

ra Tj>- 0)

il'o . _ •a. o •

.iS).<D .Q£ E

c

e g o

S •? •o .c

— „, 0) O

g s o .2(/) Qra ^

Ethical Sensitivity/103

TABLE 5Regression Results^: Unweighted Calculation of Ethical Sensitivity^

Independent Variable

Organizational SocializationProfessional Socialization

Perspective TakingEmotional ContagionRelativismEthics EducationTime Spent on Case

R-SquaredModel F

(1)

.16**

.035.10**

(2)

.17***

.01

.16**

.063.74***

Model

(3)

.14*-.01

.16**

.052.91**

(4)

-.14**-.13*

.18***

.074.13***

(5)

.16*

.00

.09

.01-.13*- . 1 4 "

.18*"

.113.00***

^Standardized regression coefficients (n = 188).^Ethical sensitivity is calculated as the number of ethical issues identified without regard to importance ratings*p<.10.**p < .05.***p<.01.

TABLE 6Regression Results^: Weighted Calculation of Ethical Sensitivity!)

Independent Variable

Organizational SocializationProfessional SocializationPerspective TakingEmotional ContagionRelativismEthics EducationTime Spent on Case

R-SquaredModel F

(1)

.15"

.024.37**

(2)

.18"

.08

.15"

.074.83***

Model

(3)

.17"-.02

.15"

.053.22**

(4)

- . 1 7 "- . 1 5 "

.17"

.085.12*"

(5)

.16**

.07

.11

.00-.15**-.18***

.17**

.144.24***

^Standardized regression coefficients (n = 188).''Ethical sensitivity is calculated as the sum of the importance ratings given each identified ethical issue.*p< .10."p < .05."*p<.01.

weighted ethical sensitivity measure as the dependent vari-able than in those with the unweighted measure.

LISREL7 (Jorskog and Sorbom 1989) is used to com-pare more rigorously the weighted and unweighted mea-sures to determine whether one is better predicted by the setof independent variables. A multivariate regression model isestimated using the two ethical sensitivity measures asdependent variables and the set of seven predictors as inde-pendent variables. The paths from one independent variableto two dependent variables are constrained to equal eachother. For example, the path from organizational socializa-tion to the weighted ethical sensitivity measure is con-strained to equal the path from organizational socializationto the unweighted measure. If model fit differs significantlyfrom X̂ = 0 (the perfect fit of the fully saturated model thatresults if the equality constraints are not imposed), then theset of independent variables does not predict the two ethical

sensitivity measures equally well. If model fit is not signifi-cantly different from zero, then the two ethical sensitivitymeasures are predicted equally well.

The model yields y}-i - 16.24 (p < .05), which is signif-icantly different from zero and suggests that one measure isbetter predicted than the other. However, given the high cor-relation between the two ethical sensitivity measures (r =.95), this result seemed counterintuitive and warrantedcloser examination. Modification indices indicated that thegreatest improvement in model fit would be to relax theequality constraint on the two paths leading from profes-sional socialization to the dependent variables. The modelwas estimated without this constraint and yielded x^6 = 6.39(p > .10), which is not significantly different from zero.Interestingly, neither path coefficient leading from profes-sional socialization to the ethical sensitivity variables wassignificant, leading us to suspect that the apparent difference

104 / Journal of Marketing, April 1998

in prediction found in the first model was due to an anom-aly in the data pertaining to the professional socializationvariable. In no case did the LISREL estimates deviate fromthe substantive findings produced by the correlation orregression analyses. Therefore, we conclude that the twoethical sensitivity measures do not differ in how well theywere predicted by the set of independent variables.

DiscussionThis research provides a starting point on which to build anunderstanding of ethical sensitivity—both in marketing,generally, and in marketing research, specifically. As in den-tistry (Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor 1985), counseling (Volker1984), and accounting (Shaub 1989), the results reportedhere generally support the case scenario/embedded issuesprocedure for measuring ethical sensitivity. As verified by apanel of marketing research ethicists, the case had three eth-ical issues embedded in it, and our sample of marketingnovices (students) recognized fewer ethical issues than didour sample of marketing research professionals. Nonethe-less, marketing researchers, on average, recognized lessthan half the ethical issues in the case.

Hunt and Vitell (1992, p. 781) propose that at least someof the variance in the ethical/unethical behaviors of mar-keters can be explained on the basis that "when placed in adecision-making situation having an ethical component,some people never recognize that there is an ethical issueinvolved at all." The findings that 23% of our sample ofresearchers recognized (in an unprompted format) not a sin-gle ethical issue in the case and only 10% recognized allthree ethical issues supports the view that differences in eth-ical sensitivity can explain a significant amount of the vari-ance in ethical behaviors.

Our results also support the thesis that ethical sensitivityis learned. As was expected, practitioners identified moreviolations of professional ethics than the students. More-over, these differences could not be explained by time spenton the task, the total number of issues (of all kinds) identi-fied, or age. Thus, the greater ethical sensitivity exhibited bymarketing research practitioners can be attributed to theirsocialization into the marketing research profession, that is,by their learning the ethical norms of marketing research.

The degree to which marketing research practitionersthemselves felt socialized into their organizations was asso-ciated positively with both measures of ethical sensitivity,which also supports the view that ethical sensitivity islearned. The absence of a significant relationship betweenethical sensitivity scores and professional socialization sug-gests that socialization to ethical norms in marketingresearch might occur more at the organizational than theprofessional level. As a relatively young profession, market-ing research might lack the formal and informal professionalstructures found in such professions as medicine, law, andaccounting that facilitate the socialization required for ethi-cal sensitivity. For example, traditional professional organi-zations license or certify their members, and suchcertification procedures contribute to learning ethicalnorms. In comparison, professional socialization for mar-keting researchers is far less systematic.

The regression analysis modestly supports the intu-itively plausible relationship between ethical sensitivity andthe cognitive dimension of empathy, perspective taking, andfails to support the relationship between ethical sensitivityand emotional contagion, empathy's affective dimension. If,as suggested by Rest and colleagues (Bebeau, Rest, andYamoor 1985; Rest 1986), emotional contagion serves totrigger ethical sensitivity, reading a case might not be suffi-ciently evocative to extract evidence of that relationship.However, reading is considered a somewhat involving task(Chaiken and Eagly 1976), and our research does find evi-dence linking perspective taking to ethical sensitivity.

Our research and Shaub's (1989) find a negative rela-tionship between relativism and ethical sensitivity. Two fac-tors might account for this negative finding. First, thedisbelief in moral absolutes might reduce the likelihood ofethical violations standing out among other issues. In a worldwhere all issues are relativistic shades of gray, ethical issuesmight blend in with everything else. Second, relativistsmight consider ethical issues in general to be less importantthan nonrelativists. Tentative support for this conjecture isthat the correlation between relativism and ethical sensitivityis (slightly) stronger for the importance weighted measure (r= -. 17) than for the unweighted measure (r = -.13).

Several results suggest avenues for future ethical sensi-tivity research. One particularly interesting result is the sig-nificant negative relationship between ethical sensitivity andformal training in ethics received by respondents. Indeed,the prediction that training in ethics should heighten ethicalsensitivity is so intuitive that it seems obvious. One poten-tial explanation for this unexpected relationship is that,rather than strengthening beliefs in the existence of morallyright and wrong behavior, existing ethics education pro-grams rri'ight be serving only to strengthen relativistic views.Nucci and Pasearella (1987) note that a historical goal ofU.S. colleges and universities was to develop moral respon-sibility and students' character by teaching ethical thoughtand action. However, McNeel (1994) points out that ethicstraining in higher education has become increasingly "valuefree."

The data from the marketing research practitioners tendto support the value-free explanation. As is shown in Table4, whereas the correlation between ethics education and rel-ativism is. 14 (/; < .10), the correlation between age and rel-ativism is -.21 (jj < .01). Thus, ethics training might bestrengthening relativistic views because such views aremore prevalent among those recently in college. If this find-ing is confirmed by additional research, it is cause for con-cern. Research is needed not only to determine if ourexplanation is correct, but also to explore how the content,delivery, and sources of ethics training might affect ethicalsensitivity differentially.

The role of issue importance in defining, explaining, andmeasuring ethical sensitivity remains unresolved by ourstudy: Respondents' importance ratings made little differ-ence in how well the two calculations of ethical sensitivitywere predicted by the independent variables. In some ways,our results parallel those involving consumer importanceratings in multi-attribute models of attitude formation. Intheir review, Wilkie and Pessemier (1973) note that empiri-

Ethical Sensitivity/105

cal testing of how importance ratings in multi-attribute mod-els affect prediction of attitudes produced mixed results.Most studies found that including attribute importance hadeither no impact on the models' capability to predict attitude(e.g., Cohen and Houston 1972) or a deleterious effect onpredictive capability (e.g., Sheth and Talarzyk 1972).

However, if marketing research ethicist ratings ofissue egregiousness are used as a surrogate for issueimportance, then importance has an effect on the fre-quency with which ethical issues are identified and thuson ethical sensitivity. According to our sample of ethicists,the research integrity issue was the most egregious ethicalissue, and all groups identified this issue far more fre-quently than the others. This result is consistent with the-oretical work by Jones (1991) and empirical research bySinghapakdi, Vitell, and Kraft (1996), which concludesthat the more morally intense (and presumably important)an ethical issue is, the more likely it is to be recognized.How to define issue importance and how it affects ethicalsensitivity remains an open question to be addressed byfurther research.

Given that a central thesis in our study is that ethical sen-sitivity is learned through socialization, further researchshould explore this relationship in greater depth. Our studyinvestigates socialization in terms of the process's results.That is, we compare the ethical sensitivity of persons withvarying levels of socialization and study the degree to whichethical sensitivity is related to their self-reported level ofsocialization. Most empirical studies on socialization,including the work cited previously (i.e., Buchanan 1974;Feldman 1976; Jones 1986), focus on variations or steps inthe process of socialization. Additional research might com-pare the effects of varying approaches to employee social-ization on ethical sensitivity. For example, researchersmight explore whether formal and structured employeesocialization programs produce greater ethical sensitivitythan informal, less structured programs.

Beyond those arising from our findings, ethical sensitiv-ity offers other potentially fruitful directions for research.

One involves whether mode of presentation affects ethicalsensitivity scores. Recall that Bebeau, Rest, and Yamoor(1985) and Volker (1984) present their stimuli as tapedaudiodramas, whereas Shaub (1989) and this study employwritten stimuli. Studies show that differences in communi-cation modality (audiovisual, audio, and written) can affecta person's evaluations of a speaker (Chaiken and Eagly1976) and message content (Sparks, Areni, and Cox 1998).Similarly, modality effects might influence the salience ofethical issues, thereby affecting how often they were recog-nized and the importance given to them.

Because ethical sensitivity is an input variable to theprocess of ethical decision making, further research alsomight use ethical sensitivity as an independent variable.Hunt and Vitell's (1992) model suggests several variablesthat might be predicted by ethical sensitivity, includingdeontological and teleological evaluations and ethical judg-ments. In addition, examining other predictors of ethicalsensitivity would enhance our understanding of what influ-ences this important personal characteristic. Finally, becausethe purpose of our research was exploratory—to developand test the measure of ethical sensitivity—the low responserate from practitioners was not a critical issue. Nonetheless,opportunities exist for additional studies to test our hypothe-ses and others with additional samples to determine whetherthe relationships uncovered here hold. Because ethical sen-sitivity cannot be measured by "check-the-box" items, thepossibility of a large-scale, high-response rate study isremote—several convenience-type samples will simplyhave to suffice in continuing research on ethical sensitivity.

In conclusion, our study provides a starting point forunderstanding the nature of ethical sensitivity in marketingand its role in ethical decision making. Although the totalcontribution of ethical sensitivity to explaining ethical vari-ance is unknown, one thing is certain: If marketers do notrecognize the ethical content in decision situations, they areunlikely, to say the least, to adopt the most ethical course ofaction.

APPENDIXMarketing Research Case Scenario

1 It was late Saturday afternoon in mid-December,2 and Bob Smith, a re.search analyst for L&H Marketing3 Research, was working furiously to complete the4 media plan portion of the Standard Grooming Products5 report. Standard was considering introducing a men's6 hairspray and needed demographic characteristics and7 media habits of male hairspray users, as well as attitu-8 dinal information about such product attributes as oili-9 ness, stickiness, masculinity and fragrance.

10 The findings were to be presented Monday after-11 noon, and a long series of problems and delays had12 forced Bob to come in on Saturday to finish the report.13 Complicating matters. Bob felt that his boss, Barry14 Michaels, expected the statistical analysis to be consis-15 tent with L&H's initial recommendations to Standard.16 Bob, Barry and Marjorie Glass, from Standard's adver-

17 tising agency, were to meet Monday morning to final-18 ize L&H's presentation to Standard.19 Back in September, Bob had recommended sur-20 veying 250 users of men's hairspray from each of 1521 metropolitan areas. Charles Chastain from Standard's

TABLE A1Proposed Budget

Phone Survey (including pilot study)Focus Group StudyAdvertising PretestingPackage PretestingMiscellaneous Expenses

Proposed Total Expenses

$58,0008,000

25,00014,0005,000

$110,000

106/Journal of Marketing, April 1998

22 marketing department had argued that conclusions23 about local usage in each city would not be accurate24 unless each city's sample size was proportional to its25 population. That is, the sample sizes for larger cities26 should be larger than for smaller cities. Furthermore,27 Charles feared that males in metropolitan areas dif-28 fered from rural males on usage or other important29 characteristics. Bob finally convinced Charles that30 sample sizes proportional to population would mean31 only 25 to 50 interviews in some smaller cities—too32 few to draw statistically valid conclusions. Further-33 more, expanding the survey to include rural users34 would have required committing more money to the35 project—money Standard didn't want to spend.36 In October, a Des Moines, Iowa, pretest revealed37 that the questionnaire's length was driving the cost per38 completed interview to about $18. Total expenses39 would be well over budget if that cost held for the 1540 metro areas. If the survey costs exceeded $65,00041 (counting the pilot study), precious little money would42 be left for the focus groups, advertising, and packaging43 pretesting in L&H's contract with Standard (see Table44 AI).45 Since Standard was a new account with big poten-46 tial, a long term relationship with them would be valu-47 able. (Business at L&H had been slow this past year.)48 Feeling "under the gun," Bob met with Barry and49 Charles, who agreed to reduce the sample to 200 men50 in each of only 11 metropolitan areas.51 In early November, a new problem arose. After52 surveying eight metro areas. Bob discovered that his53 assistant had accidentally deleted all questions on54 media habits from the questionnaire given to L&H's55 vendor for the phone interviews. When told of the56 missing questions problem, Barry and Charles became57 visibly angry at the vendor. After much discussion,58 they decided there was too little time to hire a new ven-59 dor and resample the eight areas. Therefore, they60 agreed to re-insert the media questions for the remain-61 ing three cities and just finish the survey.62 Bob's task now was to make the most of the data63 he had. Because responses from each of the three cities64 were reasonably similar, and each city came from a65 different region (east, west and midwest). Bob felt con-66 fident that the three-city data were representative.67 Therefore, he decided to base the media plan on the68 large differences between his results and the national

TABLE A2Comparison of Media Habits Three City Sample of

Male Hairspray Users Versus U.S. Adult Males

Magazines:At least onesubscription of...

NewsEntertainment

SportsOther

Newspaper Subscription(at least one daily

Favorite RadioFormat

Hours WatchingTelevision perWeek

)

Pop/RockCountry

EZ ListeningNewsAalk

Other

TotalDramas

ComediesNewsOther

Three-City

Sample

28%4

399

35

5126

75

11

17.56.37.81.12.3

AllU.S.Men

19%3

206

14

4837

645

23.58.47.33.93.9

69 averages for adult men—making sports magazines and70 newspapers the primary vehicles for Standard's adver-71 tising (see Table A2).72 Bob's confidence in the media plan was bolstered73 by a phone conversation with Marjorie Glass. Until a74 short time ago, her agency had handled the advertising75 for American Toiletries, so she had valuable informa-76 tion about this competitor's possible responses to77 Standard's new product. Marjorie liked Bob's recom-78 mendations, thought Charles would also approve, and79 agreed to support the media plan in Monday's meeting.80 Indeed, Bob thought, Marjorie had been a big help.81 The Standard project had put a great deal of stress on82 Bob, who hated spending weekends away from his fam-83 ily—especially near Christmas! If the presentation went84 well and more business was forthcoming. Bob suspected85 he would be spending even more weekends here. But if86 the presentation went poorly or the data collection errors87 became an issue, then Standard might look elsewhere88 for market research, thus jeopardizing Bob's future with89 L&H. Either way, he felt apprehensive.

REFERENCESAkaah, Ishmael P. (1993), "Organizational Culture and Ethical

Re.search Behavior." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-ence, 2\ (Winter), 59-63.

and Edward A. Riordan (1989), "Judgments of MarketingProfessionals About Issues in Marketing Research: A Replica-tion and Extension," Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (Feb-ruary), 112-20.

Allen, Natalie J. and John P. Meyer (1990), "Organizational Social-ization Tactics: A Longitudinal Analysis of Links to Newcom-

ers' Commitment and Role Orientation," Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 33 (December), 847-58.

Bartol, Kathryn M. (1979), "Professionalism as a Predictor ofOrganizational Commitment, Role Stress and Turnover: A Mul-tidimensional Approach," Academy of Management Journal, 22(December), 815-21.

Bebeau, Muriel J., James R. Rest, and Catherine M. Yamoor(1985), "Measuring Dental Students' Ethical Sensitivity," Jour-nal of Dental Education, 49 (March), 225-35.

Ethical Sensitivity/107

Belizzi, Joseph A. and Robert E. Hite (1989), "Supervising Uneth-ical Salesforce Behavior," Journal of Marketing, 53 (April),36-47.

Brim, Orville G. (1966), "Socialization Through the Life Cycle,"in Socialization After Childhood: Two Essays, O.G. Brim and S.Wheeler, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, \-44.

Buchanan, Bruce (1974), "Building Organizational Commitment:The Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations," Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 19 (December), 533-46.

Castleberry, Stephen B., Warren French, and Barbara A. Carlin(1993), "The Ethical Framework of Advertising and MarketingResearch Practitioners: A Moral Development Perspective,"Journal of Advertising, 22 (June), 39^6 .

Chaiken, Shelly and Alice H. Eagly (1976), "CommunicationModality as a Determinant of Message Persuasiveness andMessage Comprehensibility," Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 34 (34), 605-14.

Cohen, Joel B. and Michael J. Houston (1972), "Cognitive Conse-quences of Brand Loyalty," Journal of Marketing Research, 9(February), 97-99.

Feldman, Daniel Charles (1976), "A Contingency Model of Social-ization," Administrative Science Quarterly, 21 (September),433-52.

Ferrell, O. C. and Larry G. Gresham (1985), "A ContingencyFramework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making inMarketing," Journal of Marketing, 49 (Summer), 87-96.

and Steven J. Skinner (1988), "Ethical Behavior andBureaucratic Structure in Marketing Research Organizations,"Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (February), 103-109.

Forsyth, Donelson R. (1980), "A Taxonomy of Ethical Ideologies,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (January),175-84.

Goolsby, Jerry R. and Shelby D. Hunt (1992), "Cognitive MoralDevelopment and Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 56 (Janu-ary), 55-68.

Hoffman, Martin L. (1981), "Is Altruism Part of Human Nature?"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40 (January).121-37.

Hunt, Shelby D. (1990), "Commentary on an Empirical Investiga-tion of a General Theory of Marketing Ethics," Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 18 (Spring), 173-77.

and Lawrence B. Chonko (1984), "Marketing andMachiavellianism," Journal of Marketing, 48 (Summer),30-42.

, , and James Wilcox (1984), "Ethical Problems ofMarketing Researchers," Journal of Marketing Research, 21(August), 304-24.

• and Arturo Vasquez-Parraga (1993), "Organizational Con-sequences, Marketing Ethics, and Salesforce Supervision,"Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (February), 78-90.

and Scott J. Vitell (1986), "A General Theory of Market-ing Ethics," Journal of Macromarketing, 6 (Spring), 5-16.

and (1992), "The General Theory of MarketingEthics: A Retrospective and Revision," in Ethics in Marketing,N. Craig Smith and John A. Quelch, eds. Homewood, IL:Richard D. Irwin, 775-84.

— , Van R. Wood, and Lawrence B. Chonko (1989), "Corpo-rate Ethical Values and Organizational Commitment in Market-ing," Journal of Marketing, 48 (Summer), 30-42.

Jones, Gareth (1986), "Socialization Tactics, Self-Eftlcacy, andNewcomers' Adjustments to Organizations," Academy of Man-agement Journal, 29 (June), 262-79.

Jones, Thomas M. (1991), "Ethical Decision Making by Individu-als in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model," Academy ofManagement Review, 16 (April), 366-95.

Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom (1989), LISREL: A Guide to theProgram and Applications. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Mayo, Michael A. and Lawrence J. Marks (1990), "An EmpiricalInvestigation of a General Theory of Marketing Ethics," Jour-nal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18 (Spring),163-71.

McBane, Donald A. (1990), "Understanding Customer Needs: AReconceptualization of Empathy and Its Effects on Sales Out-comes," doctoral dissertation. Department of Marketing, TexasTech University.

McNeel, Steven P (1994), "College Teaching and Student MoralDevelopment," in Moral Development in the Professions: Psy-chology and Applied Ethics, 5. Rest and D. Narvaez, eds. Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, 27-49.

Miller, George A. and L. Wesley Wager (1971), "Adult Socializa-tion, Organization Structures and Role Orientations," Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 16(1), 151-63.

Moore, Wilbert E. (1969), "Occupational Socialization," in Hand-book of Socialization Theory and Research, D. A. Goslin, ed.Chicago: Rand McNally, 861-84.

Nucci, L. and E. Pasearella (1987), "The Influence of College onMoral Development," in Higher Education: Handbook of The-ory and Research, J. Smart, ed. New York: Agathon, 271-326.

Petty, Richard E., Rao Unnava, and Alan J. Strathman (1991),"Theories of Attitude Change," in Handbook of ConsumerBehavior, J. Robertson and H. Kassarjian, eds. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Randall, Donna (1991), "The Social Desirability Respondent Biasin Ethics Research," Journal of Business Ethics, 10 (Novem-ber), 805-17.

Rest, James R. (1979), Revised Manual for the Defining IssuesTest: An Objective Test for Moral Judgment Development. Min-neapolis: Minnesota Moral Re.searcb Projects.

(1983), "Morality," in Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol.3, P. Mussan, ed., J. Flavell and E. Markman, vol. eds. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 556-619.

(1986), "An Overview of the Psychology of Morality," inMoral Development: Advances in Research and Theory, J. Rest,ed. New York: Praeger, 1-27.

Robin, Donald P and R. Eric Reidenbach (1987), "Social Respon-sibility, Ethics and Marketing Strategy: Closing the GapBetween Concept and Application," Journal of Marketing, 51(January), 44-58.

, , and P. J. Forrest (1996), "The Perceived Impor-tance of an Ethical Issue as an Influence on the Ethical Deci-sion-Making of Ad Managers," Journal of Business Research,35 (January), 17-28.

Shaub, Michael K. (1989), "An Empirical Examination of theDeterminants of Auditors' Ethical Sensitivity," doctoral dis.ser-tation. Department of Accounting, Texas Tech University.

Sheth, Jagdish N. and W. Wayne Talarzyk (1972), "PerceivedInstruumentality and Value Importance as Determinants of Atti-tudes," Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (February) 6-9.

Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Kenneth Kraft, Scott Vitell, and Kumar C.Rallapolli (1995), "The Perceived Importance of Ethics andSocial Responsibility on Organizational Effectiveness," Jour-nal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (Winter) 49-56.

and Scott J. Vitell (1991), "Selected Factors InfluencingMarketers' Deontological Norms," Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 19 (Winter), 37^2 .

, , and Kenneth Kraft (1996). "Moral Intensity andEthical Decision Making of Marketing Professionals," Journalof Business Research, 36 (3), 248-55.

Sparks, John R. (1994), "Machiavellianism and Personal Successin Marketing: The Moderating Role of Latitude of Improvisa-tion," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (Fall),393-400 .

, Charles S. Areni, and K. Chris Cox (1998), "An Inves-tigation of the Effects of Language Style and Communication

108 / Journal of Marketing, April 1998

Modality on Persuasion," Communication Monographs,forthcoming.

Stiff, James B., James P. Dillard, Lilnabeth Somera, Hyun Kim, andCarra Sleight (1988), "Empathy, Communication and Pro.socialBehavior," Communication Monographs, 55 (June), 198-213.

Trevino, Linda Klebe (1986), "Ethical Decision Making in Orga-nizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model," Academyof Management Review, II (July), 601-17.

Van Maanen, John (1976) "Breaking In: Socialization to Work," inHandbook of Work, Organization and Society, R. Dubin, ed.Chicago: Rand McNally, 67-130.

Volker, J.M. (1984), "Coun.seling Experience, Moral Judgment,Awareness of Consequences and Moral Sensitivity in Coun.sel-ing Practice," unpublished manu.script. Department of P.sychol-ogy. University of Minnesota.

Wilkie, William L. and Edgar A. Pes.semier (1973), "Issues inMarketing's Use of Multi-Attribute Attitude Models," Journalof Marketing Research, 10 (November), 428-41.

Wotruba, Thomas R. (1990), "A Comprehensive Framework forthe Analysis of Ethical Behavior, with a Focus on Sales Orga-nizations," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,10 (Spring), 29-42.

Ethical Sensitivity/109