The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

Does teaching ethics Teaching

ethics
do any good?
Elizabeth Prior Jonson and Linda McGuire
Department of Management, Monash University, Clayton, Australia, and 439
Brian Cooper
Department of Management, Monash University, Caulfield, Australia Received 26 November 2015
Revised 1 February 2016
Accepted 2 February 2016
Abstract
Purpose – This matched-pairs study of undergraduates at an Australian University investigates
whether business ethics education has a positive effect on student ethical behaviour. The paper aims to
discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses a matched-pairs design to look at responses
before and after students have taken a semester-long unit in business ethics. The authors used ethical
scenarios and analysed both the starting position and changes in responses for the total student group,
and by gender and citizenship.
Findings – The results from this matched-pairs study show ethics education has a limited impact on
students’ responses to ethical dilemmas.
Practical implications – Ethics subjects are now ubiquitous in business schools, but it may be time
to consider alternatives to the philosophical normative teaching approach.
Originality/value – This paper is significant in that it uses 142 matched pairs to look at responses
before and after students have taken a semester-long unit in business ethics. This study provides
qualified support for the proposition that business ethics education has an impact on students’ ethical
decision making.
Keywords Undergraduate students, Scenarios, Matched pairs, Teaching business ethics
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The proliferation of business ethics courses assumes that ethics can be taught. A recent
symposium at Stanford University’s Centre for Ethics in Society asked (Dudani, 2014):
“Can classes in ethics make students more virtuous individuals? Or is that the wrong
question to focus on?” Questions about efficacy of teaching ethics in the curriculum of
business schools have also been raised in the business press ((The) Economist, 2007;
(The) Financial Times, 2009; Anteby, 2013; Dudani, 2014; Tugend, 2014). Increasingly,
ethics is becoming a compulsory component in business and commerce degrees.
However, the empirical research conducted in this area is by no means universally
supportive of the idea that with the correct instruction, universities and colleges
will inevitably produce business executives with high business ethical standards
(Waples et al., 2008).
Support for the view that ethics can be taught has its foundation in the Kohlberg’s
theory of cognitive moral development (Kohlberg and Turiel, 1973; Kohlberg et al.,
1983). Kohlberg’s theory suggests moral development can be positively influenced by
education. Kohlberg (1976) identified three distinct levels of moral development:
pre-conventional, conventional and principled. The levels are not rigidly correlated Education + Training
with the phases of human physiological development. However, generally speaking Vol. 58 No. 4, 2016
pp. 439-454
pre-schoolers are in the pre-conventional level, where choices between right and wrong © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912
are made on the basis of expected rewards and punishments. Kolhberg argues that the DOI 10.1108/ET-11-2015-0110
ET majority of adults never move beyond the second or conventional level. Ethics
58,4 education in universities aims to move students to Kohlberg’s third and highest level
of ethical awareness – the principled level (idealist end of the continuum in our
study) – where the rights of others are recognised and principles are upheld
independently of the organisation’s or any other rules and views.
The effectiveness of teaching business ethics has been debated in the literature for
440 over 50 years, reflecting mixed findings from research into the effectiveness of ethics
education. Two major reviews of the literature on the effectiveness of teaching courses
in business ethics are Weber (1990) and Waples et al. (2008). Weber (1990) found only
four empirical studies of studies that assessed the impact of business ethics courses on
students: Martin (1981), Boyd (1981), Arlow and Ulrich (1983) and Stead and Miller
(1988). With the exception of Martin (1981), these studies found there was a short-term
effect of business ethics courses upon students. The only study that surveyed the
students’ four years later found that “there is no long term effect of teaching business
ethics to undergraduate business students in a business and society course” (Arlow
and Ulrich, 1985, p. 16). Weber (1990) concluded that business ethics courses result in
only a short-term improvement in students’ ethical awareness and reasoning skills.
Waples et al.’s (2008) conclusion from a meta analysis of 25 studies of business
ethics instructional programs was that the overall effect of business ethics instruction
is minimal. More specifically, they found that instructional programs that are short and
include both professionals and students were more effective than semester-length
programs delivered to purely student populations. They argued that the focus of
business ethics education should be cognitive and include general ethical rules together
with a case-based approach.
Gautschi and Jones (1998) found that completion of business ethics courses did
improve a student’s ability to recognise an ethical issue but not necessarily their response
to that issue. Allen et al.’s (2005) survey of undergraduates found that business ethics
education had no significant impact on student values. Jewe (2008) found that business
ethics education in undergraduate business schools produced no significant effect on the
student’s ethical judgements. Rest (1988) argued that improved recognition of ethical
issues does not necessarily lead to an improvement in ethical behaviour. McDonald and
Donleavy (1995) reasoned that since ethical values are generally developed over time
and have cultural, family and religious foundations, it is not surprising that a semester
unit in business ethics would have no significant impact on attitudes and behaviour.
Interestingly, Dean and Beggs’ (2006) study found that business school faculty were not
convinced that teaching ethics lead to better ethical behaviour in the workplace.
Even though its effectiveness has been questioned, classes on business ethics
continue to be widely taught in business schools. A study by Litzky and MacLean
(2011) found that 70 per cent of top business schools have some ethics requirement.
Whilst there has been considerable theoretical speculation on the most effective
approach to teaching business ethics (Weber, 1990; Koehn, 2005), empirical studies are
limited, and before and after matched-pairs studies are rare. Our literature search found
only three matched pair studies of teaching ethics. Abdolmohammadi and
Reeves (2000) looked at the ethical reasoning of business students at the beginning
and end of an ethics subject, and again at the end of their degree. They found
some statistically significant effects overall. Broken down by gender, the results were
statistically non-significant for females, but significant for males.
Dellaportas (2006) investigated the effect of using discussion of dilemmas by
comparing students at the beginning and end of an accounting and ethics subject.
This was a small sample of 26 matched pairs. However, they did find a positive effect Teaching
on students’ moral reasoning and development. Seshadri et al.’s (1998) larger sample of ethics
61 matched pairs used vignettes to examine the effect of formal training in business
ethics on ethical decisions. Although, most respondents in this study did not change
their position after taking a business ethics course, there were different effects between
males and females for different scenarios. Although limited in size, these studies do
provide some support for the proposition that a formal subject in business ethics does 441
have at least a short-term impact:
RQ1. Do students move to a more idealist position after their participation in the
business ethics subject?

Gender
Gender is used in most empirical studies in this area as a control variable and is one of the
most “tangentially researched” areas (Loe et al., 2000). However, the findings remain
inconclusive. Franke et al.’s (1997) meta analysis of research on gender differences in
respect of ethical perceptions in the business arena found that women are more likely
than men to perceive business practices as unethical. This meta analysis also revealed
that, as suggested by social role theory, gender differences observed in student samples
declined with work experience and professional advancement. Wang and Calvano’s
(2015) surveyed undergraduate business students to examine the interactive effects of
business ethics education on the moral judgement of men and women. They found that
when students receive no business ethics education, women are more inclined to behave
ethically than men. However, for those students who have had business ethics education
this is reversed and women are less inclined to behave ethically in a business situation:
RQ2. Do male and female students have different positions prior to their
participation in the business ethics subject?
RQ3. Do male students move to a more idealist position after their participation in
the business ethics subject?
RQ4. Do female students move to a less idealist position after their participation in
the business ethics subject?

Citizenship
A significant body of research links ethical values and attitudes to business behaviour
and identifies differences across national cultures (Cohen et al., 1996; Armstrong, 1996;
Loe et al., 2000; Sanyal, 2005; Alas, 2006). Hofstede’s (1983) index, the basis for most
studies of national culture, maps cultural differences using parameters of power
distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity
and long-term orientation. Hofstede (1983) claims the individualism/collectivism
dimension has “strong moral overtones” and leads to significant differences in terms of
moral judgements. Countries including Australia, which rank highly on individualism,
view individualism as a source of national strength. Countries such as China and
Malaysia, with high collectivist rankings, on the other hand see individualism as
self-centred and undermining of the general good of society. Studies have found a
significant positive relationship between Hofstede’s dimensions of uncertainty
avoidance and individualism/collectivism and perceptions of the importance of
ethical problems (Armstrong, 1996; Marta et al., 2003; Beekun et al., 2003; Reidenbach
ET and Robin, 1990). Of particular relevance to this study is Sanyal’s (2005) investigation
58,4 of the relationship between national culture and the tolerance of accepting bribes or
facilitation payments. While acknowledging that economic and cultural factors are
important in explaining variations in the propensity to accept bribes/facilitation
payments, Sanyal found that bribe-taking was more likely to occur in countries with
high power distance and high masculinity scores on Hofstede’s index. Baughn et al.’s
442 (2010) study supported the connection between high power distance scores and
tolerance of bribes. Mazar and Aggarwal’s (2011) found that collectivism promotes
bribery. Based on this literature, we would expect international students to start with a
more relativist stance and shift to a more idealist position, and Australian residents to
begin from a more idealist position:
RQ5. Do international and Australian students have different positions prior to their
participation in the business ethics subject?
RQ6. Do international students move to a more idealist position after their
participation in the business ethics subject?
RQ7. Do Australian students move to a more idealist position after their
participation in the business ethics subject?

Method
Sample and procedure
This study used a matched-pairs design to compare responses before and after
students have taken the business ethics unit. Data were collected in 2014 from
undergraduate students enroled in a third year ethics subject in a business degree at an
Australian university. The survey of 511 students was conducted over two semesters.
A total of 142 matched pairs were obtained, representing a response rate of 28 per cent.
The demographic composition, shown in Table I, reveals there were 255 male and 256
female students, 153 local students and 358 international students. In total, 96 per cent
of the students enroled in this unit were under the age of 25. The international students
came from mainland China (49 per cent), Indonesia (17 per cent), Malaysia (13 per cent),
Singapore (6 per cent), Hong Kong (6 per cent) and Vietnam (5 per cent). The remaining
4 per cent came from a diversity of Southeast-Asian and Middle-Eastern countries.

Subject content
Weber (1990) has categorised courses in business ethics as belonging to three general
types: philosophical – normative, topical issue-descriptive, and managerial-analytical. The
subject in this study fits within the philosophical normative category. There are lectures on

Total enrolments Survey respondents

Number % Number %

Total enrolments 511 100 142 100

Male 255 50 68 48.6a
Female 256 50 72 51.4
Table I. Australian citizens 153 30 56 39.4
Profile of survey International citizens 358 70 86 60.6
respondents Note: aTwo responses did not provide gender data
ethical theory concentrating on ethical relativism, deontological ethics and utilitarianism; Teaching
shareholder and stakeholder theory; and, regulation and governance. These theoretical ethics
tools are used to look at specific ethical issues in the areas of marketing, environmental
protection, human resource management and the like. Key theoretic frameworks used to
conceptualise problems include Adam Smith’s (1776) invisible hand argument and the
game theoretic assurance problem (Sen, 1967; Hardin, 1971; Runge, 1984).
Using business ethics cases in tutorials is justified from a pedagogical standpoint as 443
these provide a half-way house between abstract concepts and real-life experience
(Falkenberg and Woiceshyn (2008). Particular attention is given to concerns theorised
by the prisoner’s dilemma and/or the assurance problem. The fact that businesses are
competitors, and a successful market economy requires that they be so, is the critical
factor that makes corporate ethical decision making complex and difficult. Recognition
that taking the ‘morally correct’ course of action may impose a competitive
disadvantage on a business is one of the pivotal concerns faced by real businesses
when making real decisions. Appreciation of this fact is essential in preparing students
for decision making in the real business world as opposed to arguing what might be an
ideal outcome in an idealised world.

Ethics instrument
Scenarios are the most commonly used instrument for assessing business ethics responses
in empirical studies (Craft, 2013). Alexander and Becker (1978, p. 103) argue, the use of
scenarios “helps to standardise the social stimulus across respondents and at the same
time makes the decision making situation more real”. Scenarios allow the researcher to
investigate responses to complex multi-dimensional issues and allow for replication
studies and cross-study comparisons (Cavanagh and Fritzsche, 1985). Using scenarios
from previous studies facilitates the possibility of making comparisons across studies and
overcomes the difficulty of developing and validating new scenarios (Weber, 1992).
Although widely used, scenario-based research does have some limitations. Scenario-
based research presupposes that the situation described in a particular scenario is
recognised as an ethical dilemma by the respondent, and that the context of the dilemma
is interpreted in the same way by all respondents (Marshall and Dewe (1997). Whether
what people say they would do is the same as what they would actually do, is another
limitation (Rest, 1988; Trevino, 1992; Rossouw, 2002). The existence of a social
desirability bias means that people generally want the approval of others and therefore
will sometimes dishonestly claim that they will do the (ethically) correct thing even
though if faced with the actual situation they would not (Trevino, 1992). Mudrack and
Mason (2013) have voiced concerns about the lack of theoretic justification for using
ethical scenarios or vignettes in business ethics research. According to Mudrack and
Mason the most frequent justification for using particular vignettes is that these have
been “used in another study” or “used in past research” (p. 591).
Notwithstanding these criticisms, it is difficult to see what would be preferable to
scenario-based research in quantitative studies involving significant numbers of
participants. This is tacitly acknowledged by the wide spread use of scenarios as an
instrument to assess the impact of ethics education.

Scenarios in this study

We use four vignettes involving hypothetical business ethics scenarios featured in the
Harvard Business Review 90th Anniversary: why management matters (Ovans, 2012).
ET These scenarios were used by Brenner and Molander (1977) to compare changes in the
58,4 responses of Harvard Business Review readers between 1961 and 1977, and have also
been used in subsequent studies by Fulmer, 1968; Glenn and Van Loo, 1993; Emerson
and Conroy, 2004; Prior Jonson et al., 2015). The Scenarios are shown in Box 1.
The scenarios were chosen for conceptual and practical reasons. The strong
theoretic reason for choosing this instrument is that it asks specifically what
444 the respondent would choose to do. Our interest in this study was in gauging the
inclination toward behaviour or the likely behavioural outcome of the respondents.
We specifically did not want to compare any knowledge of ethical theory the students
may have acquired. However we acknowledge that what people say they will do and
what they may actually do is not always the same.
Practically, four cases is a short situational ethics test that students could
realistically be asked to complete in class as it would take no more than five to ten

Box 1. Ethics instrument

Case 1: an executive earning $30,000 a year has been padding his expense account by about
$1,500 (or 5%) a year. Is that:
(1) Acceptable if other executives in the same company do it
(2) Unacceptable regardless of circumstances
(3) Acceptable if the executive’s superior knows about it and says nothing
Case 2: imagine you’re president of a company in a highly competitive industry. You learn that a
competitor has made an important scientific breakthrough that will substantially reduce, if not
eliminate, your company’s profit for about a year. If one of the competitor’s employees who knew
the details were available to hire, would you?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Case 3: the minister of a foreign nation where bribes are common asks for a $200,000 consulting
fee in return for special assistance in obtaining a $100 million contract that would generate at
least $5 million in profits. Would you:
(1) Pay the fee, feeling it was ethical, given the moral climate of the nation
(2) Pay the fee, feeling it was unethical but necessary to ensure the sale
(3) Refuse to pay, even if you lose the sale
Case 4: on becoming a new member of the board of High Fly Insurance Co. (HFI) you learn that it’s
the officially approved insurer of the Private Pilots Benevolent Association, whose 20,000
members are automatically enroled in a HFI accident policy when they pay dues. HFI pays a fee
to PPBA for this privilege and gets access to the PPBA mailing list, which it uses to sell aircraft
liability policies (its major source of revenue). PPBA’s president sits on the HFI board, and the
two companies are located in the same building. Would you:
(1) Do nothing
(2) Raise the issue in a private meeting with HFI’s chairman
(3) Express opposition to this at a director’s meeting but accept whatever position the board
takes in response
(4) Express vigorous opposition and resign if corrective action were not taken
Source: Brenner and Molander (1977)
minutes. We anticipated asking students to do this in class would result in a better Teaching
response rate and a larger sample than could be expected if students were requested to ethics
complete the same survey online. The sample of 142 matched pairs is, to our
knowledge, the largest matched-pairs study of business ethics education.
In this study we use Perri et al.’s (2009) categorisation of responses to business
ethical scenarios in terms of an idealist/relativist dichotomy. The idealist response to a
business ethics scenario is one where a decision is made in accord with a moral 445
principle and not modified because of the expected outcomes or consequences which
may occur in that particular situation. In contrast, the relativist response takes into
account the particulars of the circumstance and most importantly the outcomes or
consequences of the possible courses of action.
Case 1 involves padding an expense account. The participant is asked what he or
she would do in a situation where there exists an opportunity to pad out his or her
expense account. The possible responses range from the idealist’s categorical refusal to
do such a thing (option 2) to relativist responses of doing so if everyone else does it
(option 1), or doing so with one’s manager’s approval (option 3), that is padding one’s
expenses is part of the firm’s accepted practice.
Case 2 involves hiring a competitor’s employee because that person possesses
highly advantageous information. The participant is asked what he or she would do in
this situation. The idealist answer is “no” (option 2). Option 1 is the relativist response
in this case. Those who answer “yes” do so on the grounds that it is not illegal and
therefore acceptable in business practice.
Case 3 involves making a “facilitation payment” or bribe in order to obtain an off-
shore contract in a country where this is an accepted business practice. The idealist
response (option 3) refuses to make such a payment regardless of its size or the
circumstances. The relativist is influenced by the fact that within the jurisdiction in
question the practice is accepted or tolerated. The relativist may feel it is unethical but
necessary to ensure the sale (option 2). Alternatively, the relativist may justify the
decision on the basis that the practice, while unethical in his or her home country, is
ethical in this foreign location given the mores that exist there (option 1).
Case 4 involves board level corruption. The participant is asked what he or she is
prepared to do as a board member, with knowledge that the board is allowing a
financially advantageous but corrupt practice to flourish. The idealist response (option 4)
will tolerate no corruption. The idealist will openly express vigorous opposition at a
board meeting and resign if corrective action is not taken. Other responses fall short of
such definitive action and so are all within the relativist category. These responses range
from openly expressing opposition at a board meeting but then going with the majority
board decision (option 3), through raising the matter privately with the chairman
(option 2), to doing nothing ( option 1).
We acknowledge that the response selected by a participant faced with a set of
alternatives to a particular ethics scenario does not necessarily show us the reasoning
behind that response. We cannot say with certainty that the idealist response is in fact
driven by ideals, and that the relativist response is not. However, idealist responses are
more congruent with an idealist stance than with a relativist stance.

Results
The matched-pairs design recorded participants’ responses to four case scenarios in the
first teaching week and compared each individual’s response in the last week of the
semester. This enabled analysis of students’ starting position and changes in students’
ET responses after a semester subject in business ethics. Our primary interest is on
58,4 whether ethics education has a positive impact on students’ responses to ethical
scenarios. A positive impact is interpreted as a change to a more idealist position.
The analysis of the starting position used the dichotomous relativist or idealist
categorisation for each case. The responses to Cases 1, 3 and 4 were recoded as a
dichotomous measure. In respect of Case 1, options 1 and 3 are both relativist and were
446 therefore combined. Similarly in Case 3, options 1 and 2 are relativist and combined.
In Case 4 options 1, 2 and 3 are relativist and were combined. This reduced each case to
a variable of two options, an idealist and a relativist position. The starting positing for
the total student group is shown in Table II. In Case 1 (Padding) a slight majority of
students (56.7 per cent) started from an idealist position. In all other cases the majority
of students started from a relativist position.
To assess the significance of the change in students’ responses, cross-tabulations and a
Bowker χ2 test of association for paired categorical data was used. A summary of the
results is provided in Table III. Statistically significant changes were observed in Case 1
(Padding) and Case 3 (Bribing). No significant changes were observed in Case 2 (Hiring)
and Case 4 (Conflict). As the variables in Cases 1, 3 and 4 are categorical, and there were a
large number of small cell counts, a second analysis was done using a dichotomous
variable. The responses were recoded as a dichotomous variable, an idealist and a relativist
position, as previously described. This analysis did not produce any change in the
statistical significance and confirmed the results from the first analysis.

Relativist positions (%) Idealist position (%)

Case 1 Padding
Total student group 43.3 56.7
Male 43.3 56.7
Female 43.1 56.9
Australian citizensa 29.1 70.9
International citizensa 52.3 47.7
Case 2 Hiring
Total student group 71.4 28.6
Male 74.6 25.4
Female 67.6 32.3
Australian citizens 72.7 27.3
International citizens 70.6 29.4
Case 3 Bribing
Total student group 62.3 37.7
Male 52.2 47.8
Female 65.7 34.3
Australian citizens 52.7 47.3
International citizens 67.9 32.1
Case 4 Conflict
Total student group 84.2 15.8
Male 89.5 10.5
Female 78.6 21.4
a
Table II. Australian citizens 92.7 7.3
Summary results: International citizensa 78.6 21.4
starting positions Note: aThe difference between international and Australian students is statistically significant
 Within the
Teaching
change group ethics
Within the change moving to a less
group moving to a more idealist position
No change (%) Change (%) p o0.05 idealist position (%) (%)

Case 1 Padding
Total student 63 37 | 72 29 447
group
Male 69 31 | 81 19
Female 58 42 66 34
Australian 80 20 82 18
International 52 48 | 68 32
Case 2 Hiring
Total student 72 28 54 46
group
Males 79 21 50 50
Females 65 35 44 56
Australian 78 22 50 50
International 68 32 55 45
Case 3 Bribing
Total student 53 47 | 43 57
group
Male 58 42 29 71
Female 50 50 | 57 43
Australian 69 31 46 54
International 43 57 35 65
Case 4 Conflict
Total student 44 56 52 48
group
Males 43 57 60 40 Table III.
Females 44 56 44 56 Summary results:
Australian 44 56 52 48 direction of changes
International 45 55 52 48 in position in
Note: |, statistically significant, the column heading indicated p-value responses by case

Total student group

Table III shows the percentage of students who changed position and the direction of
change for each case. In Case 1 a statistically significant change was observed (Bowker
χ2 test ¼ 0.004 p o 0.01). The direction was as expected, to a more idealist stance.
In this case 63.2 per cent of students did not change their position and this is explained
by the fact that 56.7 per cent started in the idealist position (Table II). Of the 36.8 per cent
that did change, 71.2 per cent moved to a more idealist position and 28.8 per cent moved
in to a more relativist position.
In Case 3 a statistically significant change was observed for the total student group
(Bowker χ2 test ¼ 0.042 p o 0.05). However, the direction was not as expected to a more
idealist stance. In contrast to Case 1, the overall direction of change was to a less
idealist position. Of the students (47 per cent) who did change their position,
the majority (57 per cent) moved to a less idealist position. As shown in Table III,
53 per cent did not change and of the 47 per cent who did change, 43 per cent moved
towards the idealist position but 57 per cent moved in the opposite direction to a more
ET relativist position. A plausible explanation for the difference in the responses to Case 1
58,4 (Padding) and Case 3 (Bribing) could be different perceptions of the ethical content of
these situations. Whilst they appear to accept that padding expenses is at least
ethically questionable, the modern university student is highly attuned to the fact that
different cultural mores pertain to business practice. Making facilitation payments, that
is making gifts or paying bribes, is probably the most highly discussed business ethics
448 issue and students’ generally recognise that different standards apply in different
cultural settings.
This pattern of responses may be explained by the fact that the assurance problem
was one of the theoretic frameworks extensively explored in the lectures. The
assurance problem is a version of a game theoretic prisoner’s dilemma (Sen, 1967;
Runge, 1984; Hardin, 1971). As presented to students, in essence the problem is that in a
competitive situation, such as in business, no single player will put themselves at a
disadvantage by contributing to a public good without the assurance that their
competitors will contribute to an equal extent.
The inconsistency in our results in respect of the efficacy of business ethics education
mirrors the contradictions in the results reported in the wider literature. The results for
Case 1 (Padding) and Case 3 (Bribing) are consistent with research showing a short-term
effect of ethics education on students’ responses (Boyd, 1981; Arlow and Ulrich, 1983;
Stead and Miller, 1988; Abdolmohammadi and Reeves, 2000; Dellaportas, 2006). The
results for Case 2 (Hiring) and Case 4 (Conflict) are consistent with the research showing
no effect of ethics education on students’ responses (Seshadri et al., 1998; Wynd and
Mager, 1989; McDonald and Donleavy, 1995; Jewe, 2008; Wang and Calvano, 2015).
An explanation for the result in Case 2 (Hiring) may be that students do not see this
as ethically dubious because it is not illegal, and head hunting across businesses is
accepted practice in the modern business world (Gardner et al., 2010). The result in Case
4 (Conflict) may be explained by the relative complexity of this scenario and a lack of
familiarity of undergraduate students with this situation. It may be difficult for
undergraduate students to recognise the conflict inherent in this scenario and to
identify any particular victim of harm caused by this particular action. This may
nullify the salience of this scenario (Mudrack and Mason, 2013).
Although the change was not statistically significant in all four cases, this study
does provide some support for the proposition that a formal subject in business ethics
does have an impact on students’ ethical decision making.

Gender
To answer RQ2 we compared the starting position of male and female students (Table II).
The difference in the starting position was not statistically significant in any of the four
cases. As previously noted, the recent literature suggests that male students start from a
less idealist position and female students from a more idealist one. In contrast, this study
did not find any significant difference in the starting position of male and female students.
To answer RQ3 and RQ4, we compared the responses of male and female students
before and after their participation in the business ethics subject. The results are shown
in Table III. The direction and pattern of movement was different between males and
females. However, the change was statistically significant in only two of the four cases.
In Case 1 (Padding) there was a statistically significant change in the way the male
students responded to this scenario Bowker χ2 test ¼ 0.001 po0.01. The direction of
change was as expected to a more idealist stance. This is consistent with the literature as
previously discussed. In Case 3 (Bribing) there was a statistically significant change in
the way female students responded to this scenario Bowker χ2 test ¼ 0.039 po0.05. Teaching
However, the direction was not as expected. Of the female students who did change their ethics
position, 57 per cent moved to a more idealist positon and 43 per cent moved to a more
relativist position. This contrasts with studies that have found female students are less
idealist after exposure to business ethics education business (Wang and Calvano, 2015).
The recent literature (Wang and Calvano, 2015) suggests that after exposure to
ethics education males can be expected to change to a more idealist position. The 449
change in Case 3 was not statistically significant for males. Collapsing the responses to
a dichotomous variable did not change this result. Interestingly, of the male students
who did change their position (42 per cent), the vast majority (71 per cent) moved to a
less idealist position. As Loe et al.’s 2000’s review demonstrates, the findings on gender
differences in the wider literature are inconclusive.
The interesting finding from this study is for female students in Case 3 (Bribing). In
this case the change was statistically significant for female students and the direction
of change was toward the idealist position. As this is a matched-pairs study, and the
largest to our knowledge, we believe this finding to be significant.

Citizenship
As shown in Table I, there is a slightly higher proportion of Australian students
(40 per cent) in the survey respondents compared to the population (30 per cent), and
the proportion of international students (60 per cent) is correspondingly lower than the
population (70 per cent). Under-representation of international students may provide
some explanation of the results.
To answer RQ5 we compared the starting position of Australian and international
students (Table II). There was a statistically significant difference in the responses of
Australian and international students at the beginning of the semester for Case 1
(Padding) Pearson χ2 test ¼ 0.007 p o 0.01 and Case 4 (Conflict) Pearson χ2 test ¼ 0.025
p o 0.05. However, the results, are somewhat inconsistent between these cases.
Australian students (70.9 per cent) generally started from an idealist position in Case 1
(Padding). In contrast, the vast majority of Australian students (92.7 per cent) started
from a relativist position in Case 4 (Conflict).
International students in this study are overwhelmingly from China and South-East
Asia. We used the Hofstede Centre calculator to compare Australia to these countries in
terms of the three dimensions recognised in the literature as relevant to ethical decision
making: power distance, individualism/collectivism and long-term orientation. Australia is
different from these traditional South-East Asian cultures on each dimension (Hofstede,
1983). While these countries differ from each other in their Hofstede scores, the variation
with this group is less than the difference from Australia on each of these dimensions.
Given the prevalence of facilitation payments in the countries from which the
international students come, we expected that they would be more accepting of the
practice of paying bribes to secure contracts and therefore adopt the relativist position.
Contrary to our expectations there was no difference in the starting positions for Case 3
(Bribing). An explanation for this unanticipated result may be that the opprobrium
with which Australians view the giving of bribes (Sanyal and Guvenli, 2009) has
influenced the judgement of international students resident in Australia. Another
explanation could be that they are simply responding to the survey in a manner they
believe is acceptable in the Australian context.
Contrary to our expectation, more Australian students (92.7 per cent) started with a
relativist position than international students (78.6 per cent) in Case 4 (Conflict).
ET Hofstede (1983) suggests that countries with high power distance scores, from which
58,4 the international students come, are more accepting of opaqueness and lack of
transparency in respect of inter-organisational dealings Carl et al. (2004 cited in Alas,
2006) found that higher power distance values predict greater corruption. As expected,
the majority of international students started from a relativist position. However, even
more Australian students started from a relativist position, which is contrary to
450 Hofstede’s argument concerning the effect of a low power-distance score.
An explanation for this result may be that this is a complex case and, as students
are not familiar with the business context for such a scenario, they are not fully able to
recognise the fundamental issue that the case poses (Mudrack and Mason, 2013).
To answer RQ6 and RQ7, we compared student responses of Australian and
international students before and after their participation in the business ethics subject.
A summary of these changes is shown in Table III. There were some differences in the
direction and pattern of movement between Australian and international students.
However, the change was only statistically significant in Case 1 (Padding) for international
students (Bowker χ2 test ¼ 0.004 po0.01). The direction of change was as expected to a
more idealist stance. The change was not statistically significant for Australian students.
This is probably explained by the fact that 70.9 per cent of Australia started with an
idealist position (Table II). In summary, these results provides some, albeit limited, support
for the proposition that ethics education can override cultural background.

Implications and conclusions

The primary findings from this research are:
(1) The change in the responses of the total student group to the ethical scenario in
Case 1 (Padding) and Case 3 (Bribing) was statistically significant. The change
in the responses of the total student group to the ethical scenario in Case 2
(Hiring) and Case 4 (Padding) was not statistically significant.
(2) The majority of students who changed their position in response to Case 1
(71 per cent) moved to a more idealist position. However, the majority of
students who changed their position in response to Case 3 (57 per cent) moved
to a less idealist position.
(3) There was not a statistically significant difference in the responses of male and
female students at the beginning of the semester for each of the four cases.
(4) There was a statistically significant change to a more idealist position in the
responses of male students to the ethical scenario in Case 1 (Padding).
(5) There was a statistically significant change in the position of female students in
response to the ethical scenario in Case 3 (Bribing). However, females changed
to a more idealist position.
(6) There was a statistically significant difference in the responses of Australian
and international students at the beginning of the semester for Case 1(Padding)
and Case 4 (Conflict).
(7) There was a statistically significant change to a more idealist position in the
responses of international students to the ethical scenario in Case 1 (Padding).
(8) There was not a statistically significant change to a more idealist position in the
responses of Australian students to any of the four ethical scenarios.
Our interest was in gauging the inclination toward behaviour, or the likely behavioural Teaching
outcome, of the respondents. We used responses to business ethics scenarios ethics
categorised in terms of an idealist/relativist distinction. We specifically did not set out
to compare any knowledge of ethical theory the students may have acquired.
Although the change was not statistically significant in every case for each sub-
group, this study provides qualified support for the proposition that business ethics
education has an impact on students’ ethical decision making. The fact that the results 451
are not entirely consistent reflects the contradictory findings of the wider literature
discussed in the review section.
The failure to achieve a more conclusive result may be attributable to a number of
factors. The matched pairs make it possible to directly measure the effect of ethics
education on students. However, small cell counts for gender and citizenship subgroups
may explain the absence of statistically significant differences within these subgroups.
The under-representation of international students may also have affected the results.
The salience of the scenarios may be a limitation. A larger study with different
scenarios may yield more conclusive results.
More importantly, as ethical values are generally developed over time and have
cultural, family and religious foundations, it is not surprising that a semester unit in
business ethics and corporate social responsibility may have limited impact on
attitudes and behaviour (Wynd and Mager, 1989; McDonald and Donleavy, 1995).
The expectations for teaching business ethics may be unrealistic. As Perri et al. (2009)
argue, the only achievable objective of business ethics education may be to assist
individuals “to become more aware of the complexities surrounding ethical decision
making and more conscious of their own ethical orientation” (p. 77). Business ethics
subjects are now ubiquitous in business schools, but it may be time to consider
alternatives to the philosophical normative approach. As noted by Dean and Beggs’
(2006, p. 19): “Even academics who believe that ethics education is important are critical
of current pedagogy in the area.” Kai Peters ((The) Financial Times, 2009) argues that
discussion is the most appropriate method to help students engage with business ethics
issues. As Dean and Beggs (2006) and Peters contend, discussion and debate
encourages students to be conscious of the consequences of unethical behaviour and
this will lead to more thoughtful decision making. Dean and Beggs (2006) also suggest
the mixed evidence on the efficacy of teaching ethics may be explained by the variety of
research methods employed. A meta analysis of the impact of alternatives pedagogical
approaches would be a significant contribution to the research literature. This could be
done, for example, using Weber’s (1990) categorisation of business ethics courses:
philosophical – normative, topical issue-descriptive, and managerial-analytical. There
is also a need for more systematic comparative research to evaluate the impact of
different methods of delivery on reasoning and behaviour.

References
Abdolmohammadi, M.J. and Reeves, M.F. (2000), “Effects of education and intervention on
business students’ ethical cognition: a cross sectional and longitudinal study”, Teaching
Business Ethics, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 269-284.
Alas, R. (2006), “Ethics in countries with different cultural dimensions”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 237-247.
Alexander, C.S. and Becker, H.J. (1978), “The use of vignettes in survey research”, Public Opinion
Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 93-104.
ET Allen, W.R., Bacdayan, P., Berube Kowalski, K. and Roy, M.H. (2005), “Examining the impact of
ethics training on business student values”, Education+Training, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 170-182.
58,4
Anteby, M. (2013), “Why business schools need business ethics”, available at: www.theguardian.
com/commentisfree/2013/oct/22/business-schools-need-ethics (accessed 1 February 2016).
Arlow, P. and Ulrich, T.A. (1983), “Can ethics be taught to business students”, The Collegiate
Forum, Vol. 14, p. 17.
452 Arlow, P. and Ulrich, T.A. (1985), “Business ethics and business school graduates – a longitudinal
study”, Akron Business and Economic Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 13-17.
Armstrong, R.W. (1996), “The relationship between culture and perception of ethical problems in
international marketing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 11, pp. 1199-1208.
Baughn, C., Bodie, N.L., Buchanan, M.A. and Bixby, M.B. (2010), “Bribery in international
business transactions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 15-32.
Beekun, R.I., Stedham, Y. and Yamamura, J.H. (2003), “Business ethics in Brazil and the US:
a comparative investigation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 267-279.
Boyd, D.P. (1981), “Improving ethical awareness through the business and society course”,
Business & Society, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 27-31.
Brenner, S.N. and Molander, E.A. (1977), “Is the ethics of business changing?”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 57-71.
Cavanagh, G.F. and Fritzsche, D.J. (1985), “Using vignettes in business ethics research”, Research
in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 279-293.
Cohen, J.R., Pant, L.W. and Sharp, D.J. (1996), “A methodological note on cross-cultural accounting
ethics research”, The International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Craft, J.L. (2013), “A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004-2011”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 221-259.
Dean, K.L. and Beggs, J.M. (2006), “University professors and teaching ethics: conceptualizations
and expectations”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 15-44.
Dellaportas, S. (2006), “Making a difference with a discrete course on accounting ethics”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 391-404.
Dudani, S. (2014), “Stanford panel debates: does teaching ethics do any good?”, Stanford report,
13 May, available at: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/may/ethics-in-society-051314.
html (accessed 30 July 2015).
(The) Economist (2007), “New graduation skills”, (The) Economist, 10 May, available at: www.
economist.com/node/9149115 (accessed 1 February 2016).
Emerson, T.L. and Conroy, S.J. (2004), “Have ethical attitudes changed? An intertemporal
comparison of the ethical perceptions of college students in 1985 and 2001”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 167-176.
Falkenberg, L. and Woiceshyn, J. (2008), “Enhancing business ethics: using cases to teach moral
reasoning”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 213-217.
(The) Financial Times (2009), “Is it possible to teach ethics to business school students?”,
(The) Financial Times, 28 October, available at: www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f8039982-c362-
11de-8eca-00144feab49a.html#axzz3ysER1vOx (accessed 1 February 2016).
Franke, G.R., Crown, D.F. and Spake, D.F. (1997), “Gender differences in ethical perceptions of
business practices: a social role theory perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82
No. 6, p. 920.
Fulmer, R.M. (1968), “Business ethics – view from campus”, Personnel, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 31-39.
Gardner, T.M., Stansbury, J. and Hart, D. (2010), “The ethics of lateral hiring”, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 341-369.
Gautschi, F.H. and Jones, T.M. (1998), “Enhancing the ability of business students to recognize Teaching
ethical issues: an empirical assessment of the effectiveness of a course in business ethics”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 205-216.
ethics
Glenn, J.R. Jr and Van Loo, M.F. (1993), “Business students’ and practitioners’ ethical decisions
over time”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12 No. 11, pp. 835-847.
Hardin, R. (1971), “Collective action as an agreeable n-prisoners’ dilemma”, Behavioral Science,
Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 472-481. 453
Hofstede, G. (1983), “The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 75-89.
Jewe, R.D. (2008), “Do business ethics courses work? The effectiveness of business ethics
education: an empirical study”, Journal of Global Business Issues, Vol. 1, pp. 1-6.
Koehn, D. (2005), “Transforming our students: teaching business ethics post-Enron”, Business
Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 137-151.
Kohlberg, L. (1976), “Moral stages and moralization: the cognitive-developmental approach”,
Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research, and Social Issues, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York, NY, pp. 31-53.
Kohlberg, L. and Turiel, E. (1973), Moralization, The Cognitive Development Approach, Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY.
Kohlberg, L., Levine, C. and Hewer, A. (1983), “Moral stages: a current formulation and a response
to critics”, Contributions to Human Development, Vol. 10, p. 174.
Litzky, B.E. and MacLean, T.L. (2011), “Assessing business ethics coverage at top US business
schools”, in Swanson, D.L. and Fisher, D.G. (Eds), Toward Assessing Business Ethics
Education, Information Age Pub., Charlotte, NC.
Loe, T.W., Ferrell, L. and Mansfield, P. (2000), “A review of empirical studies assessing ethical
decision making in business”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 185-204.
McDonald, G.M. and Donleavy, G.D. (1995), “Objections to the teaching of business ethics”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 14 No. 10, pp. 839-853.
Marshall, B. and Dewe, P. (1997), “An investigation of the components of moral intensity”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 521-529.
Marta, J.K.M., Attia, A., Singhapakdi, A. and Atteya, N. (2003), “A comparison of ethical
perceptions and moral philosophies of American and Egyptian business students”,
Teaching Business Ethics, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Martin, T.R. (1981), “Do courses in ethics improve the ethical judgment of students?”, Business &
Society, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 17-26.
Mazar, N. and Aggarwal, P. (2011), “Greasing the palm: can collectivism promote bribery?”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 843-848.
Mudrack, P.E. and Mason, E.S. (2013), “Dilemmas, conspiracies, and sophie’s choice: vignette
themes and ethical judgments”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 118 No. 3, pp. 639-653.
Ovans, A. (2012), “How ethical are you”, Harvard Business Review 90th Anniversary: Why
Management Matters, 12 November, available at: https://hbr.org/2012/11/how-ethical-are-
you/ (accessed 30 July 2015).
Perri, D.F., Callan, G.A., Rotenberry, P.F. and Oehlers, P.F. (2009), “Education and training in
ethical decison making: comparing context and orientation”, Education + Training, Vol. 51
No. 1, pp. 70-83.
Prior Jonson, E., McGuire, L. and O’Neill, D. (2015), “Teaching ethics to undergraduate business
students in Australia: comparison of integrated and stand-alone approaches”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 132 No. 2, pp. 477-491.
ET Reidenbach, R.E. and Robin, D.P. (1990), “Toward the development of a multidimensional scale
for improving evaluations of business ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9 No. 8,
58,4 pp. 639-653.
Rest, J.R. (1988), “Why does college promote development in moral judgement?”, Journal of Moral
Education, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 183-194.
Rossouw, G.J. (2002), “Three approaches to teaching business ethics”, Teaching Business Ethics,
454 Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 411-433.
Runge, C.F. (1984), “Institutions and the free rider: the assurance problem in collective action”,
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 154-181.
Sanyal, R. (2005), “Determinants of bribery in international business: the cultural and economic
factors”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 59 Nos 1-2, pp. 139-145.
Sanyal, R. and Guvenli, T. (2009), “The propensity to bribe in international business: the
relevance of cultural variables”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 287-300.
Sen, A.K. (1967), “Isolation, assurance and the social rate of discount”, The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 112-124.
Seshadri, S., Broekemier, G. and Nelson, J. (1998), “Business ethics to teach or not to teach?”,
Teaching Business Ethics, Vol. 1, pp. 303-313.
Smith, A. (1776), The Wealth of Nations, The Modern Library, New York, NY.
Stead, B.A. and Miller, J.J. (1988), “Can social awareness be increased through business school
curricula?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 553-560.
Trevino, L.K. (1992), “Moral reasoning and business ethics: implications for research, education,
and management”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 Nos 5-6, pp. 445-459.
Tugend, A. (2014), “In life and business, learning to be ethical”, New York Times, 10 January,
available at: www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/your-money/in-life-and-business-learning-to-
be-ethical.html (accessed 1 February 2016).
Wang, L. and Calvano, L. (2015), “Is business ethics education effective? An analysis of gender,
personal ethical perspectives and moral judgement”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 126
No. 4, pp. 591-602.
Waples, E.P., Antes, A.L., Murphy, S.T., Connelly, S. and Mumford, M.D. (2008), “A meta-analytic
investigation of business ethics instruction”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 1,
pp. 133-151.
Weber, J. (1990), “Measuring the impact of teaching ethics to future managers: a review,
assessment, and recommendations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 183-190.
Weber, J. (1992), “Scenarios in business ethics research: review, critical assessment, and
recommendations”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 137-160.
Wynd, W.R. and Mager, J. (1989), “The business and society course: does it change student
attitudes?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 487-491.

Corresponding author
Linda McGuire can be contacted at: linda.mcguire@monash.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com