J Bus Ethics (2012) 109:463–481
DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-1140-2
Managerial and Public Attitudes Toward Ethics in Marketing
Research
Praveen Aggarwal • Rajiv Vaidyanathan •
Stephen Castleberry
Received: 21 April 2011 / Accepted: 4 December 2011 / Published online: 15 December 2011
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract This research updates and significantly extends
Akaah and Riordon’s (J Market Res 26:112–120, 1989)
evaluation of ethical perceptions of marketing research
misconduct among marketing research professionals. In
addition to examining changes in perceptions toward key
marketing research practices over time, we assess profes-
sionals’ judgments on the ethicality, importance, and
occurrence of a variety of new marketing research ethics
situations in both online and offline contexts. In a second
study, we assess ethical judgments of the public at large
using a representative sample of US consumers—key
stakeholders ignored in prior research on unethical market-
ing research practices. Generally speaking, disapproval of
unethical research conduct has grown across the board in the
last 20 years for both managers and marketing researchers.
The same misconduct elicits a stronger disapproval in the
online environment compared to the offline environment.
Compared to marketing researchers, managers tend to think
that unethical research conduct occurs more frequently.
P. Aggarwal
Labovitz School of Business and Economics,
University of Minnesota Duluth, 385A LSBE,
1318 Kirby Drive, Duluth, MN 55812-3002, USA
e-mail: paggarwa@d.umn.edu
R. Vaidyanathan (&)
Labovitz School of Business and Economics,
University of Minnesota Duluth, 385B LSBE,
1318 Kirby Drive, Duluth, MN 55812-3002, USA
e-mail: rvaidyan@d.umn.edu
S. Castleberry
Labovitz School of Business and Economics,
University of Minnesota Duluth, 385L LSBE,
1318 Kirby Drive, Duluth, MN 55812-3002, USA
e-mail: scastleb@d.umn.edu
Those who conduct marketing research or use its findings
(i.e., marketing researchers and managers) are less tolerant
of unethical research conduct than the general public.
Keywords Marketing research
Ethics
Managers

Researchers
Professionals
Misconduct

Ethical judgments
By its very nature, the practice of marketing often presents
ethical dilemmas. In addition, marketing professionals are
often near the bottom in terms of ethical conduct and
honesty ratings (Nussbaum 2002). Within the broader
discipline of marketing, marketing research has been cited
as one of the most troubling in this regard (Lund 2001).
Discussions about the ethicality of various marketing
research tactics and the misuse of research data are often in
the news (Phillips 2010).
A seminal study examining attitudes toward marketing
research practices was published over 40 years ago (Craw-
ford 1970). Twenty years later, Akaah and Riordan (1989)
conducted a follow-up study to track changes in attitudes
towards marketing research practices. They emphasized the
need to replicate results of previous studies to not only
uncover any shifts in the ethical judgments of decision-
makers over time, but also to capture changes in people’s
sensitivity to ethical conduct over time. It is interesting that
Crawford (1970, p. 46) stated in his paper that ‘‘American
society today is in a period of deep soul searching, with
activity on many fronts designed to spotlight unethical or
dishonest practices.’’ With the numerous widely publicized
scandals of the twenty-first century, we have returned to a
period of soul searching regarding ethics in marketing
(McKinney et al. 2010). The time has come to revisit the
issue of ethical perceptions in marketing research, and to
123
464
update and extend the findings of Crawford (1970) and
Akaah and Riordan (1989), hereafter referred to as A&R.
Since the publication of A&R’s re-examination of
marketing research ethics, there have been changes in the
attitude of both marketing professionals and the broader
public towards ethical standards and the social responsi-
bility of managers (Ibrahim et al. 2009). The marketing
research process has also been dramatically affected by
changes in the technology used by marketing researchers
for data collection. Our broad goal is to update the findings
of the A&R study on judgments pertaining to the unethical
conduct of marketing research. Additionally, we intend to
assess and compare reactions to unethical practices in both
online and offline contexts. Prior research has failed to
systematically consider how the general public views eth-
ical lapses by marketing researchers and professionals
(Vitell 2003). Therefore, we extend the research domain by
evaluating the perceptions of the public at large towards
unethical marketing research practices.
Theoretical Background
Researchers in marketing have been ahead of several other
disciplines in focusing on ethics research (Bernardi et al.
2008). Marketing academics have investigated marketing
research ethics issues in a number of ways (Hunt and Vitell
1986) including developing models of marketing research
ethics to help understand various decision-making approa-
ches used by professionals (cf. Murphy and Laczniak 1992),
and creating empirically and conceptually derived lists of
ethical issues (cf. Hair and Clark 2007; Malhotra and Miller
1998; Skinner et al. 1988; Tybout and Zaltman 1974).
Crawford (1970) surveyed a national sample of two
groups (marketing research directors and marketing man-
agers) to assess the extent to which they approved of var-
ious actions taken by marketing researchers in fourteen
separate scenarios. Comparing the two groups, he found
a number of differences in terms of whether the actions
were deemed acceptable or not. For example, marketing
researchers were more accepting of the use of hidden tape
recorders to collect sensitive data and the misuse of mar-
keting research information in advertising. On the other
hand, compared to researchers, marketing managers were
more accepting of practices such as the use of ultraviolet
ink to pre-code surveys and the exchange of price data with
competitors at trade association meetings.
In their replication and extension of the Crawford (1970)
study, hereafter referred to as the Crawford study, A&R
(1989) found that in the 20 years since the Crawford study,
disapproval of actions such as the use of ultraviolet ink to
pre-code surveys had gone down. However, they also
found that disapproval of actions such as the use of hidden
123
P. Aggarwal et al.
tape recorders to record sensitive information, or the use of
one-way mirrors to record how women put on their bras-
sieres, had gone up. Akaah (1990) also administered the
same survey in Australia, Canada, and Great Britain, and
found no substantive differences across countries.
Research Objectives
The first objective of the current study is to examine whether
researchers’ and managers’ opinions regarding the ethicality
of certain marketing research actions have changed over the
last 20 years, and if so, in what ways. We intend to provide a
third snapshot in the longitudinal assessment of ethical
judgments (the first two being Crawford and A&R).
Our second objective is to evaluate managers’ and
researchers’ evaluations of previously unexplored ethical
issues. To address issues which have recently emerged in
marketing research, we first reviewed the Federal Trade
Commission’s (FTC 2007) guidelines regarding the col-
lection and use of personal information. We then developed
scenarios that related to the violation of three of the core
‘‘fair information practice’’ principles most directly linked
to ethical situations in the conduct of marketing research.
Second, we developed scenarios pertaining to respondent
misconduct in research contexts. Respondents are as
capable of engaging in research misconduct as research
professionals, yet there has been no research on unethical
behavior on the part of respondents. Examples of respon-
dent misconduct could include behaviors such as providing
false information or responding rudely to researchers.
Vitell (2003) identified the lack of studies on ethics in
consumer situations as a major weakness in the literature.
The present study fills this gap by examining the ethicality
of respondent misconduct in marketing research contexts.
Both the Crawford and A&R studies measured disap-
proval of unethical conduct. The third objective of this study
is to extend our understanding of unethical research conduct
by adding two additional dimensions of managerial response
to ethical issues: the perceived importance of a given issue,
and the perceived frequency of occurrence of the behavior. It
is possible that a person may disapprove of an action but may
think that the issue itself is not important or salient. Simi-
larly, an action may be considered highly objectionable, but
people may feel that such behaviors do not occur frequently
in real life. The addition of these two new dependent vari-
ables gives us a more comprehensive picture of the ethicality
of the marketing research enterprise.
The fourth objective of our study is to assess ethical
judgments in the emerging area of online marketing
research. Online marketing research was practically non-
existent at the time of the Crawford or A&R studies. How-
ever, in the last 20 years, the Internet has emerged as a major
platform for conducting marketing research. We compare
Attitudes Toward Marketing Research Ethics
respondents’ view of certain actions in both the traditional
offline environment and the new online environment.
Our fifth objective is to examine the impact of a written
code of ethics on the ethical judgments of marketing pro-
fessionals. Codes of ethics are a primary instrument for
managing unethical behavior in work environments (Kap-
tein and Schwartz 2008). Recent research has suggested that
the mere existence of a written code can make managers less
accepting of certain ethical lapses (McKinney et al. 2010).
Other research, however, has shown that managers may not
believe that a code of ethics has significant impact on
behavior, although there might be some gender-based dif-
ferences in perceptions (Ibrahim et al. 2009). In addition to
specifically assessing the impact of a code of ethics, we also
examine the broader role of gender on ethical judgments.
Finally, we intend to expand our understanding of
judgments on the ethicality of research practices by
examining how the public at large reacts to specific
unethical research practices. Ethics researchers accept the
importance of taking a stakeholder view of organizational
practices (Agle et al. 2008), and for marketing research, the
public at large is a primary stakeholder. If there is a dis-
connect between marketing professionals and the general
public, it may suggest the need for a reappraisal of the
acceptability of certain practices or a campaign to alter
misperceptions. Members of the broader public serve as the
subjects of marketing research, and it is surprising that few
studies have examined public perceptions of marketing
practices, despite repeated calls for including the consumer
perspective in research on ethics (cf., Vitell 2003).
We used two studies to achieve these six objectives. In
Study 1, we replicated and extended A&R’s work on the
perceptions of marketing managers and researchers toward
several scenarios involving unethical conduct (a selection
of scenarios used by A&R as well as new scenarios relating
to online/offline research, FTC fair information practice
principles, and respondent misbehavior). In Study 2, we
administered the survey to a representative sample of the
‘‘public,’’ where the respondents were neither marketing
managers nor researchers. We compare the perceptions of
the public for these scenarios with those of the marketing
managers and researchers from Study 1.
Study 1: Managers’ and Researchers’ Judgments
of Ethical Scenarios
Method
Development of Scenarios
Because one of the objectives of our study was to replicate
and extend the Crawford and A&R studies, we adapted six
465
of the 11 scenarios used in the A&R study, excluding only
those scenarios that were no longer relevant or current.
Two A&R scenarios were excluded because the issues
presented therein related to currently illegal practices of
price fixing and insider trading. Also, three scenarios
regarding social issues were excluded, given the focus of
this study on marketing research practices.
The six original scenarios that were retained in this
study were:
1. Use of ultraviolet ink to pre-code questionnaires while
promising confidentiality.
2. Use of a hidden tape recorder to record interviews.
3. Use of one-way mirrors to collect sensitive data.
4. Use of a fictitious marketing research company name
as the sponsor of a study.
5. Distortions of research findings by marketing vice
president being ignored by the marketing research
director.
6. Findings regarding product misuse being ignored by
the marketing research director.
To examine new and emerging issues that were not directly
addressed in the original studies, we followed the Fair
Information Principles guidelines issued by the US Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) regarding collection and use of
personal information. These guidelines have been developed
by government agencies, not only in the United States but also
in Canada and Europe. We developed specific scenarios
addressing three of the principles most directly related to
ethical situations in the conduct of marketing research:
1. Notice/Awareness: Researcher tracks shopping behav-
ior without explicitly informing the subjects that their
behavior is being tracked.
2. Choice/Consent: The information collected for research
purposes is used to send promotional offers without
notifying respondents about the secondary use of
information.
3. Integrity/Security: Research firm promises data secu-
rity but turns over the data to the client without making
sure sensitive information will remain secure.
While most studies on marketing research ethics have
examined practitioner conduct, it is very possible for
respondents to engage in conduct that raises ethical con-
cerns. We developed two scenarios specifically pertaining
to respondent misconduct:
1. False Information: Instead of just refusing to partici-
pate in a survey, the respondent decides to give false
information to the researcher.
2. Rude Behavior: Respondent not only declines to
participate in a survey, but rudely admonishes the
researcher for making the contact.
123
466
Finally, as previously mentioned, a major change that
has taken place in the last 20 years (since the A&R study)
is that the Internet has come to play a major role in the
conduct of marketing research. Research has shown that
people’s expectations and behaviors are different in the
online environment (cf. Shankar et al. 2003). It is possible
that people may use different yardsticks when it comes to
measuring the ethicality of actions in the online environ-
ment versus the offline environment. In order to test for
this, we developed two versions (offline and online) of each
of the five new scenarios noted above.
In summary, our study included sixteen distinct sce-
narios. Six of these scenarios were from the A&R study
and were included for replication purposes. Another six
scenarios (three for offline and three for online) were cre-
ated to study the three Fair Information Principles of
notice/awareness, choice/consent, and integrity/security.
The remaining four scenarios (two for offline and two for
online) were designed to study two aspects of respondent
misconduct: providing false information and rude behavior.
The full scenarios are presented in the Appendix.
Survey Versions
Because of the large number of scenarios, we split the survey
into two versions, so that each respondent had to respond to
only eight scenarios. The two versions were created in such a
way that each had three of the six A&R scenarios. The ten
online/offline scenarios were also split between the two
versions. We ensured that no respondent saw both the online
and offline versions of the same scenario.
Measures
Consistent with the Crawford and A&R approach,
respondents were asked to indicate their approval/disap-
proval of the key players’ conduct in each scenario on a
7-point scale (with 1 = Strongly Disapprove and
7 = Strongly Approve). Respondents were also given an
opportunity to indicate the reason behind their approval or
disapproval in an open-ended question—‘‘why do you
approve or disapprove of [the conduct]?’’
Two additional questions captured the perceived
importance of the issue and the frequency of occurrence of
the conduct in each of the scenarios, using a 7-point scale.
These questions were ‘‘From an ethical standpoint, how
important or unimportant is the issue highlighted by this
scenario to you’’ (1 = Not at all important; 7 = Extremely
important), and ‘‘How frequently do you think marketing
firms engage in behavior like the one described in this
scenario’’ (1 = Never; 7 = Very often).
Demographic information was collected using the scales
provided by A&R: industry category, size of organization,
123
P. Aggarwal et al.
role in company, job title, gender, age, education level, and
household income. The household income categories were
adjusted upwards to reflect the general increase in incomes
since 1989. Respondents were also asked if the organiza-
tion they worked for had a written code of ethics. Finally,
screening questions were asked to exclude respondents
who were either full-time students or worked in a full-time
academic (university) job.
Pretests
We conducted two pretests to refine the survey. In phase I,
we made changes to the structure, flow, wording, and
readability of the survey based on comments from a group
of 15 individuals who reviewed the survey. In phase II, the
changed survey was posted online and presented to another
group of 15 individuals, consisting of both marketing
managers and marketing researchers. After taking the
survey, pretest participants were asked to indicate problems
they encountered or suggestions they had for making
changes to the survey. Based on their feedback, additional
minor changes were made.
Sample Selection
The sample for Study 1 included two distinct populations.
The first population consisted of individuals who work in
some capacity in marketing research in the United States
(‘‘researchers’’). These individuals could work for mar-
keting research firms or in a full-time marketing research
job for any other firm. The second population consisted of
individuals who were full-time marketing executives in the
United States (‘‘managers’’). Full-time academics and full-
time college students were excluded from our sampling
frame.
Following the procedure used by A&R, we used the
AMA’s most recent M Guide (2007), and followed a sys-
tematic random selection process. For every individual
selected, we examined the title and company, excluding
anyone who was an educator (those indicated by a uni-
versity address) and anyone not located in the U.S. We
used the two-letter abbreviations found in the M Guide
(like BM, BR, CM, CRM, etc.) next to names and job titles
to indicate whether participants were marketing researchers
or marketing managers. We verified actual job title by
asking for a participant’s job description in the survey
itself.
A total of 759 individuals were contacted by phone and
asked if they would be willing to participate in an academic
survey. If they agreed to participate, they were asked if
they wanted to respond to the online version of the survey
or if they preferred to receive a hard copy of the survey.
Respondents were randomly assigned to one of two
Attitudes Toward Marketing Research Ethics 467

Table 1 Sample characteristics: organizational Results and Discussion

Organizational characteristic Percentage
Trends in Ethical Judgments
Industry category
Research agency 24.4 Our study replicated six scenarios from Crawford (1970)
Manufacturing 9.3 and A&R (1989) that were administered to both managers
For-profit services (banking, insurance, real estate, 10.9 and researchers, for a total of 12 comparisons across the
etc.) studies. Interestingly, the disapproval ratings went up (or
Healthcare 5.3 stayed at the original high level) for all but one of the
Telecommunication 2.6 scenarios. In the Crawford study, only 4 of the 12 judg-
Distributive trade (retailing, wholesaling) 2.4 ments earned disapproval of 75% or higher. In the A&R
Advertising agency 6.9 study, 6 of the 12 received that high a disapproval rating. In
Marketing consulting 14.5 our study, 8 of the 12 judgments had 75% or higher dis-
Not-for-profit service (education, government, etc.) 8.7 approval rating. Both managers and researchers seem to
Others 13.7 have become more disapproving of conduct that raises
Size of organization (number of employees) ethical concerns. As is true of previous studies, it is
Less than 10 23.1 impossible to tell if this stated disapproval also translates
10–49 18.0 into more ethical research conduct. Full results are pre-
50–99 9.5 sented in Table 2.
100–249 10.1 Compared to A&R (1989), the percentage disapproving
250–499 6.1 of a practice was significantly different for five of the 12
500–999 7.5 comparisons. First, the disapproval for the use of ultravi-
1,000–4,999 9.9 olet ink that violated confidentiality of responses has gone
5,000 or more 15.8 up significantly since the A&R study for both managers
Organizational role and researchers (69% vs. 88%; and 57% vs. 83%). Inter-
Marketing managers 48.3 estingly, disapproval for this practice had actually gone
Marketing researchers 51.7 down from the Crawford study to the A&R study. How-
Organizational title/rank ever, we found that not only has this decline been reversed,
1. CEO/president/owner/partner/principal 27.4 but now the disapproval is higher when compared to the
2. Senior vice-president/vice-president 14.4 original Crawford levels (77% vs. 88%; and 70% vs. 83%).
3. Director/project director 18.3 As one of the respondents noted, promises that cannot be
4. Manager 19.9 kept should not be made to participants:
5. Analyst/consultant 8.7 I disapprove because the researcher is lying to the
6. Account executive/sales representative 4.0 targeted respondents. If the researcher needs the
7. Others 7.3 information for proper cross tabulations there are two
Existence of code of ethics ways to achieve this: 1) tell the respondent or 2) not
Yes 40.4 tell the respondent while not making the false
No 59.6 promise that the information is confidential.
Second, disapproval ratings for the practice of using a
fictitious company name to camouflage a real company’s
versions of the survey. A reminder call was made after
identity have also gone up among both managers and
2 weeks to ask if the respondents had participated in the
researchers (30% vs. 52%; and 30% vs. 46%). While only
survey. To provide an incentive, respondents were given
one in three respondents disapproved of this conduct in
the option to participate in a random drawing for an iPod.
1970, almost half the respondents disapprove of it cur-
A total of 530 responses were received, for a response rate
rently. Many respondents found the action of using a false
of 69.8%. This response rate is significantly higher than the
name somewhat deceptive despite recognizing the need to
response rate of 30.7% reported by A&R. Twelve
minimize bias because of a readily identifiable sponsor.
responses were discarded because the respondents self-
identified as full-time academics. Key sample organiza- I believe it depends on the reason for the false
tional characteristics are reported in Table 1. The sample (anonymous) name. Clearly, knowledge of the
was almost evenly split between marketing managers and sponsor can bias the response. Most often this is the
researchers, and both genders were equally represented. case. However, people should be told the sponsor is

123
468 P. Aggarwal et al.

Table 2 Disapproval rates: comparison across the three studies

Scenarios % Disapprovinga
Managers Researchers
Crawford A&R Present Crawford A&R Present
(N = 142) (N = 215) (N = 117/133b) (N = 259) (N = 205) (N = 127/141c)

1. Ultraviolet ink violates confidentiality 77 69 88* 70 57 83*

2. Use of hidden tape recorders 71 81 88 67 84 84
3. One-way mirrors in dressing rooms 82 97 100 78 94 94
4. Fictitious company camouflages 16 30 52* 13 30 46*
identity of real company
5. MR director deliberately distorts research findings 86 89 94 87 88 89
6. Product misuse findings ignored 66 55 46 58 39 53*
a
Consistent with A&R, a response of 3 or lower on the 7-point scale was considered a disapproval
b
N = 117 for the first three scenarios and N = 133 for the last three scenarios
c
N = 127 for the first three scenarios and N = 141 for the last three scenarios
* Difference between the present study and A&R’s is significant at 0.05 level

anonymous. Trying to gain respect from a fictitious Strength of Disapproval

name is not ethical.
Of the six original A&R scenarios, the one that received the
Finally, the disapproval ratings for ignoring information
strongest disapproval (M = 6.83) was the one depicting the
on product misuse presented an interesting trend. Market-
use of one-way mirrors in women’s dressing rooms. Many
ing researchers became more disapproving (39% vs. 53%)
respondents expressed outrage at the practice, calling it
of the practice while managers’ views remain unchanged.
creepy, voyeuristic, perverse, and intrusive. Some respon-
Managers justified the practice by shifting the responsi-
dents recommended taking legal action against the offender.
bility for the action onto advertising executives and
Respondents also strongly disapproved of the use of
consumers.
hidden tape recorders (M = 6.25). Deliberate distortion of
‘‘The MR director does not establish the company’s
research findings and use of ultraviolet ink were ranked in
policy in regard to customer treatment. She might have
the middle (M = 6.18 and 6.07, respectively). The use of a
made a bigger issue out of it, but I don’t blame her for not
fictitious company name and ignoring findings of product
doing so. If she strongly disagrees with the policy in
misuse received the weakest disapproval ratings (M = 4.47
effect, she can resign.’’ Or, ‘‘While consumers are ‘vic-
and M = 4.25, respectively).
tims’ in this scenario, the consumer has the opportunity to
learn how to use the product correctly. From my view-
Importance and Frequency of Occurrence
point, most consumer products companies won’t go out
of their way to help consumers and money / profit is the
The importance of individual scenarios from an ethical
key motive, so it’s ‘consumer beware,’ and be a more
standpoint mirrored respondents’ sense of disapproval of
informed consumer.’’
scenarios. The scenarios that were disapproved of most
While many marketing researchers shared sentiments
strongly were also rated as extremely important from an
similar to those expressed by managers, others highlighted
ethical standpoint, and those that received mild disapproval
the political and cultural climate within research organi-
were rated low on importance. The correlation between the
zations and noted whether companies encourage their
disapproval ratings and importance, for the composite of all
employees to be more vociferous whistle-blowers.
scenarios, was 0.42 (p \ 0.05).
Again, unfortunately due to the nature of corporate We observed an inverse relationship between disap-
politics and bureaucracies, we often can only ‘do our proval ratings and the scenarios’ perceived frequency of
job’ and assume that those responsible for other occurrence—scenarios that were disapproved of most
marketing decisions will do theirs based on the input strongly were also considered to be occurring the least
they receive. Whether or not the researcher can take frequently. The correlation between disapproval ratings
the issue higher up depends on the culture of the and perceived frequency of occurrence, for the composite
company. of all scenarios, was -0.19 (p \ 0.05).

123
Attitudes Toward Marketing Research Ethics 469

New Scenarios importance (M = 6.22), but also in the degree of disapproval

Five new scenarios were created for this study, with three
pertaining to FTC fair information practice principles, and
two pertaining to respondent misconduct. Before delving
into differences in these scenarios between online and
offline environments, we first report pooled findings for the
five scenarios (see Table 4). Mean values for the five
scenarios for disapproval, importance, and occurrence rat-
ings are provided in Table 3.
FTC Principles
Of the three principles examined, data integrity and security
seemed to be the most critical, not only in terms of its stated
(M = 6.33) this conduct elicits. Consistent with our earlier
findings, this scenario was also deemed least likely to occur
in practice (M = 4.08). Many respondents brought up the
issue of keeping promises made to a study’s participants.
As a practitioner, I can see why this happens. ‘We’
promised we’d take care of your data and ‘we’ did—
it’s not ‘our’ responsibility to follow it out the door
and ensure its ongoing secure handling. As an indi-
vidual, this bothers me tremendously, because it’s
obviously adhering to the letter rather than the spirit
of a privacy statement.
For the scenario pertaining to notice/awareness, the
disapproval ratings were low, implying that respondents

Table 3 Means for disapproval, importance, and occurrence for the scenarios
Source of scenario Scenarios Disapprovala,b,c Importanced Occurrencee

A&R 1. Ultraviolet ink violates confidentiality 6.07 5.81 3.76

2. Use of hidden tape recorders 6.25 5.88 3.22
3. One-way mirrors in dressing rooms 6.83 6.47 2.36
4. Fictitious company camouflages identity of real company 4.47 4.24 4.71
5. MR director deliberately distorts research findings 6.18 5.96 4.44
6. Product misuse findings ignored 4.25 4.54 4.95
Notice/awareness 7. Undisclosed shopping behavior tracking 4.10 4.21 5.21
Choice/consent 8. Addresses used for sending promotional offers 5.57 5.45 4.76
Integrity/security 9. Data security is promised but not insured 6.33 6.22 4.08
False information 10. Respondent knowingly fills out incorrect information 6.65 5.49 3.28
Rude behavior 11. Respondent rudely declines and admonishes 4.78 3.59 5.33
a
Reverse-coded from the original scale so that 7 = Strongly Disapprove
b
Pooled for online and offline versions for items 7–11
c
Differences among means significant at p \ 0.01 for all ten (7–11) paired-comparisons
d
Differences among means significant at p \ 0.01 for all ten (7–11) paired-comparisons except for the pair 8,10
e
Differences among means significant at p \ 0.01 for all ten (7–11) paired-comparisons except for the pair 7,11

Table 4 Differences in disapproval, importance, and occurrence for the five new scenarios between online and offline environments
Version Disapprovala Importance Occurrence
Mean F Sig. Mean F Sig. Mean F Sig.

Notice/awareness Offline 3.63 34.9 0.00 3.74 35.5 0.00 4.86 28.95 0.00
Online 4.61 4.71 5.56
Choice/consent Offline 4.93 67.4 0.00 4.85 64.9 0.00 5.05 16.97 0.00
Online 6.14 5.99 4.50
Integrity/security Offline 6.37 0.65 0.42 6.27 0.97 0.33 3.96 3.75 0.05
Online 6.28 6.16 4.22
False information Offline 6.71 2.34 0.13 5.49 0.01 0.91 3.20 1.52 0.22
Online 6.60 5.48 3.35
Rude behavior Offline 4.88 1.8 0.18 3.58 0.01 0.91 5.72 43.05 0.00
Online 4.68 3.60 4.92
a
Reverse-coded from the original scale so that 7 = Strongly Disapprove

123
470
were relatively more comfortable with this scenario
(M = 4.10). Respondents believed that this kind of
behavior happened more frequently (both online and off-
line) and was also more acceptable.
Cookies have become a fact of internet life. People
have the option of deleting cookies or setting their
personal security settings to block them. It’s up to the
individual to some extent to set up their own security.
Respondent Misconduct
Professionals were very critical of respondents who
intentionally give false information on surveys (Disap-
proval = 6.65; Importance = 5.49). They called such
behavior mean, irresponsible, childish, and malicious.
They worried about the harmful impact of such data on the
quality of corporate decisions.
Not only is it a waste of time and energy for the
individual filling in the false information, it undercuts
the good intentions of the information gatherer to
better serve their customers.
On the other hand, both managers and researchers
believed that respondents often engaged in rude behavior
(M = 5.33) and their disapproval for this behavior was also
relatively low (M = 4.78).
Both sides can easily delete the email. The respon-
dent just needed to vent and the survey company can
ignore.
Research participation is strictly on a voluntary basis.
The respondent is justified in responding however
they choose.
Comparing Ethical Conduct Offline vs. Online
For each of the five new scenarios, two versions were cre-
ated (online setting vs. offline setting) to examine the extent
to which this context influenced ethicality judgments. We
discovered some interesting differences between the two
environments (see Table 4 for full results).
Given the poor response rates reported in the literature
for online surveys, we expected that respondents would be
more sensitive to ethically questionable behavior in the
online environment. In a review of ethical issues sur-
rounding research, Malhotra and Peterson (2001) predicted
that ethical issues surrounding privacy in an online envi-
ronment will become more salient to respondents. We
found that this was true for two of the three issues outlined
in the FTC guidelines. The disapproval ratings were sig-
nificantly higher for breach of notice/awareness and choice/
consent guidelines in the online environment, compared to
123
P. Aggarwal et al.
the offline environment (M = 4.61 vs. 3.63 and M = 6.14
vs. 4.93, respectively). These two issues were also rated
higher in importance for the online environment (M = 4.71
vs. 3.74, and M = 5.99 vs. 4.85, respectively). There were
no significant differences between the two environments for
the third FTC issue (integrity/security), or for the two
respondent misconduct scenarios.
Perceived frequency of occurrence varied between the
two environments for four of the five scenarios. Respon-
dents believed that the breach of choice/consent guideline
is more likely to occur in the offline environment
(M = 5.05 vs. 4.50). Similarly, respondents believed that
the other two FTC guidelines (regarding notice/awareness
and integrity/security) were violated more frequently in the
online environment than in the offline environment
(M = 5.56 vs. 4.86, and M = 4.22 vs. 3.96, respectively).
In contrast, there was a general perception that respondents
engaged in rude behavior more frequently in the offline
environment compared to the online environment
(M = 5.72 vs. 4.92).
Comparing Marketing Managers and Marketing
Researchers
We compared the two groups on their disapproval ratings,
perceived importance, and perceived occurrence for all the
scenarios. Of the 16 distinct scenarios (6 A&R, 5 new
offline, 5 new online), there were significant differences for
eight of them (see Table 5 for full results). Although
managers were slightly more disapproving of the use of
one-way mirrors in women’s dressing rooms (M = 6.94 vs.
6.73), and saw the issue as more important (M = 6.63 vs.
6.31), disapproval of this practice was uniformly high
among both researchers and managers. Compared to
managers, researchers were significantly more disapprov-
ing of the breach of the choice/consent principle (M = 5.37
vs. 4.45).
Perhaps the most interesting differences between man-
agers and researchers emerged in their perception of the
frequency of occurrence of behaviors described in the
scenarios. Of the five differences that were statistically
significant, three were for behaviors described in the newly
created scenarios. In all three instances, the managers
believed those behaviors to be occurring more frequently
than did the researchers. Compared to researchers, man-
agers tend to believe that unethical research conduct hap-
pens more frequently for scenarios involving breach of
notice/awareness and choice/consent guidelines (M = 5.85
vs. 5.29, and M = 5.40 vs. 4.73, respectively). Managers
also tend to believe that respondents more frequently
engage in rude behavior for online surveys (M = 5.28 vs.
4.58).
Attitudes Toward Marketing Research Ethics 471

Table 5 Role and differences

Disapprovala Importance Occurrence
in disapproval, importance, and
occurrence Role Manager Researcher Manager Researcher Manager Researcher

Original scenarios: A&R

Ultraviolet ink 6.18 5.98 5.76 5.86 3.90 3.65
Hidden tape recorder 6.33 6.17 5.99 5.77 3.42 3.04*
One-way mirror 6.94 6.73* 6.63 6.31* 2.53 2.20
Fictitious company name 4.55 4.39 4.17 4.31 4.50 4.91*
Distortion of findings 6.23 6.13 6.05 5.88 4.34 4.54
Product misuse ignored 4.02 4.46 4.55 4.52 4.88 5.02
New scenarios: FTC guidelines
Notice/awareness: offline 3.56 3.69 3.76 3.72 4.81 4.91
Notice/awareness: online 4.49 4.72 4.43 4.98* 5.85 5.29*
Choice/consent: offline 4.45 5.37* 4.56 5.12* 5.40 4.73*
Choice/consent: online 6.27 6.02 6.17 5.82* 4.43 4.57
Integrity/security: offline 6.48 6.26 6.36 6.18* 3.90 4.01
Integrity/security: online 6.38 6.18 6.11 6.21 4.39 4.06
a New scenarios: respondent behavior
Reverse-coded from the
original scale so that False information: offline 6.68 6.74 5.36 5.62 3.30 3.11
7 = Strongly Disapprove False information: online 6.60 6.60 5.56 5.40 3.26 3.43
* The mean is statistically Rude behavior: offline 4.98 4.79 3.43 3.71 5.57 5.86
different from that for managers Rude behavior: online 4.84 4.54 3.55 3.65 5.28 4.58*
at p \ 0.05

The Role of a Corporate Code of Ethics
Approximately 40% of our respondents reported working
for companies that had a written code of ethics. We found
significant differences in perception among the two groups
(code of ethics: present/absent) for nine of the sixteen
scenarios. One common theme that emerged from this
analysis was that the presence of a code of ethics seems to
increase the individual’s disapproval of unethical behavior
and also its importance to the respondent. Another consis-
tent finding is that respondents working in firms with a
written code of ethics tend to believe that unethical behavior
happens less frequently (see Table 6 for full details).
Organizational Determinants of Ethical Judgments
In their study, A&R used regression analysis to examine
the effect of six organizational variables on ethical judg-
ments (disapproval ratings). We ran sets of regressions
using disapproval ratings, perceived importance and per-
ceived frequency of occurrence as dependent variables.
Independent variables included respondents’ age, income,
gender, education, job rank, and organizational role
(manager or researcher) as well as three organizational
factors (industry category, size, code of ethics). An indi-
vidual’s rank was defined in terms of ‘‘high’’ for categories
1, 2, and 3, and ‘‘low’’ for the remaining categories
(Table 1). Code of ethics was a binary variable depending
on whether the respondent’s organization had a written
code of ethics. As suggested by A&R, an organization’s
industry was classified into two categories, ‘‘consulting
firms’’ if the respondents worked for a research agency or a
marketing consulting firm, and ‘‘corporations’’ for other
categories.
We first performed regression analysis at the individual
respondent level (combining responses to all eight sce-
narios in each version of the survey). The analysis rein-
forced the finding that the presence of a written code of
ethics in an organization has a significant impact on
judgments. Respondents working in firms that had a written
code of conduct were more disapproving of and more
sensitive to (higher importance rating) unethical conduct.
We also find that respondents’ age has a similar effect.
Older respondents were more disapproving of and more
sensitive to unethical conduct.
The results for perceived frequency of occurrence of
unethical conduct showed that two personal factors, age
and income, had a significant impact on how respondents
assessed the occurrence of unethical conduct in real life. As
respondents’ age and income increased, their assessment
regarding the frequency of occurrence declined. Similarly,
two organizational factors were influential. An organiza-
tion’s size was inversely related to perceived frequency of
occurrence. Those working for larger organizations
believed that unethical conduct happened less frequently.
Finally, industry category had a statistically significant

123
472 P. Aggarwal et al.

Table 6 Code of ethics and

Disapprovala Importance Occurrence
differences in disapproval,
importance, and occurrence Code of ethics No Yes No Yes No Yes

Original scenarios: A&R

Ultraviolet ink 5.78 6.26* 5.50 6.00* 3.96 3.61
Hidden tape recorder 6.04 6.36 5.68 5.96 3.40 3.12
One-way mirror 6.88 6.79 6.44 6.47 2.24 2.43
Fictitious company name 4.18 4.59 4.06 4.28 4.81 4.73
Distortion of findings 6.01 6.34* 5.74 6.16* 4.71 4.29*
Product misuse ignored 4.07 4.42 4.25 4.72* 4.97 4.92
New scenarios: FTC guidelines
Notice/awareness: offline 3.32 3.80* 3.50 3.88 4.93 4.82
Notice/awareness: online 4.55 4.62 4.68 4.74 5.66 5.53
Choice/consent: offline 4.91 4.96 4.71 4.96 5.30 4.89*
Choice/consent: online 5.97 6.25 5.84 6.09 4.51 4.49
Integrity/security: offline 6.16 6.55* 6.11 6.40* 3.99 3.97
a
Integrity/security: online 6.20 6.34 6.11 6.21 4.48 4.03*
Reverse-coded from the
New scenarios: respondent behavior
original scale so that
7 = Strongly Disapprove False information: offline 6.77 6.70 5.26 5.68* 2.97 3.32*
* The mean is statistically False information: online 6.58 6.67 5.43 5.52 3.31 3.43
different from that for Rude behavior: offline 4.52 5.11* 3.39 3.72 5.82 5.65
companies with no code of Rude behavior: online 4.66 4.74 3.54 3.65 5.07 4.79
ethics at p \ 0.05

impact on frequency assessment. Those working for con-
sulting firms believed that unethical conduct happened less
frequently. Full results for individual scenarios are pre-
sented in Tables 7, 8, and 9.
Role of Gender in Ethical Judgments
Prior research on gender differences in ethical perceptions
has found that women are generally more likely to see
business practices as unethical compared to men (see
Franke et al. 1997 for a meta-analysis). We found statis-
tically significant differences in the responses of men and
women for eight of the 16 scenarios in our study (see
Table 10 for full results).
On the use of hidden tape recorders, female respondents
were more disapproving than males, although both indi-
cated very high levels of disapproval (M = 6.43 vs. 6.05).
Female respondents were also more disapproving of hidden
cameras in stores (M = 4.17 vs. 3.09), while male
respondents were more disapproving of the firm’s unde-
clared use of mailing addresses for sending promotional
materials (M = 5.25 vs. 4.64).
In terms of the perceived importance of the ethical
issues highlighted in the scenarios, male respondents
placed more importance than females on scenarios per-
taining to the breach of choice/consent guidelines, both in
the offline and online environments (M = 5.08 vs. 4.63,
and 6.16 vs. 5.79, respectively).
There were consistent gender differences observed in
respondents’ perceptions of the frequency of occurrence of
unethical behaviors. For all four scenarios pertaining to
respondent behavior (providing false information and being
rude to the researcher, in both online and offline environ-
ments), female respondents believed that such behaviors
occurred with greater frequency than did their male coun-
terparts. The means for the perceived occurrence of the
four respondent behavior scenarios were 4.52 for females
and 4.07 for males. Finally, female respondents believed
that the use of hidden cameras in stores happened less
frequently than did male respondents. The link between
these differing perceptions and actual objective occurrence
of these practices would be an interesting topic for future
research.
Study 1: Implications
As we compare our findings to those from the Crawford and
A&R studies, one trend that is quite clear is that disapproval
for unethical research conduct has grown across the board in
the last 20 years among professionals (both managers and
researchers). While we did not investigate the reasons
behind these shifts, they might have happened because of
social and corporate changes over recent decades. There
have been several high profile scandals which have raised
awareness of ethical issues and which might have sensitized
people to unethical conduct (Spake et al. 2007).

123
Attitudes Toward Marketing Research Ethics 473

Table 7 Multiple regression results: disapproval

Org. Code of Gender Age Education Income Industry Org. Org. R2 F
size ethics category role rank

All scenarios combined -0.089 -0.137 -0.085 20.112 0.087 -0.041 -0.026 0.011 -0.055 0.052 2.451
Original scenarios
Ultraviolet ink -0.054 -0.116 -0.064 0.070 0.158 -0.129 0.019 0.055 -0.048 0.063 1.482
Hidden tape recorder -0.007 -0.089 20.147 -0.049 0.048 -0.054 0.015 0.044 -0.004 0.037 0.853
One-way mirror 0.175 -0.060 -0.029 0.029 0.179 -0.038 0.026 0.088 0.013 0.075 1.790
Fictitious company name -0.053 -0.063 -0.041 -0.007 0.062 0.001 0.030 0.057 -0.002 0.023 0.528
Distortion of findings 0.031 -0.196 -0.017 -0.106 -0.087 0.014 0.034 0.050 0.013 0.055 1.314
Product misuse ignored -0.108 -0.054 -0.004 20.168 0.102 0.048 0.051 20.182 -0.072 0.074 1.189
New scenarios: FTC
Notice/awareness: offline -0.052 20.149 20.301 -0.090 0.061 -0.060 20.193 -0.014 0.126 0.148 3.880
Notice/awareness: online 0.100 -0.069 -0.026 20.164 0.154 20.213 0.045 -0.081 0.014 0.094 2.275
Choice/consent: offline 20.232 0.046 0.049 -0.106 -0.008 -0.013 20.150 20.196 -0.141 0.154 4.022
Choice/consent: online -0.124 -0.123 0.016 20.158 -0.038 20.215 -0.138 0.013 0.025 0.151 4.021
Integrity/security: offline -0.029 -0.106 0.030 -0.123 0.131 0.051 0.095 0.047 20.167 0.063 1.522
Integrity/security: online -0.014 -0.039 -0.091 -0.143 -0.081 0.055 0.016 0.069 -0.029 0.036 0.826
New scenarios: respondent behavior
False information: offline 0.021 0.046 0.026 -0.105 0.039 0.017 0.039 -0.021 20.185 0.059 1.399
False information: online 0.135 20.205 -0.025 0.019 0.021 -0.038 0.038 0.021 -0.078 0.034 0.912
Rude behavior: offline -0.054 20.239 -0.009 0.089 -0.023 0.085 -0.136 0.083 -0.150 0.088 2.197
Rude behavior: online -0.090 0.079 -0.059 -0.118 0.016 0.098 0.024 0.053 0.038 0.032 0.726
Standardized beta values
Values in bold are significant at p \ 0.05
Dependent variable is ‘‘approval of the action proposed in the scenario’’

Two interesting observations can be made based on
results pertaining to the five new scenarios in this study.
First, rude behavior on the part of the respondent appears to
be perceived as a common occurrence (more so in the
offline environment than in the online environment).
However, such conduct is not given a lot of weight
(importance) by marketing professionals, and is tolerated
well (lower disapproval). Second, knowingly providing
false information is considered extremely unacceptable
(high disapproval rating). The ethical issue raised by this
conduct is very important to professionals, but they believe
that such conduct is relatively uncommon. It is also
important to point out that females, more than males,
believe that unethical/rude behavior on the part of the
respondent is more common. Whether this observation is
driven by actual experiences of the two groups is an issue
worthy of investigation in a future study.
Marketing professionals more strongly disapprove of
unethical behavior when such conduct happens in an online
environment. This finding is somewhat counterintuitive
because one would expect that such behavior is more likely
to happen in the online environment. Given our finding of
an inverse relationship between disapproval and frequency
of occurrence, unethical conduct in offline settings should
have received greater disapproval. However, breach of two
of the three FTC guidelines resulted in stronger disapproval
in the online condition.
Managers and researchers differ from each other in their
perception of how frequently ethical misconduct actually
occurs. Those who are closer to the actual conduct of
marketing research (i.e., researchers) tend to believe that
ethical misconduct happens less frequently. Marketing
managers, who generally tend to be the users rather than
producers of marketing research, believe that ethical mis-
conduct is more frequent.
While researchers have typically focused on how mar-
keting professionals feel about the ethics of certain mar-
keting research practices, an issue that has received far less
attention is how the general public feels about these issues.
Despite a call for academics to be sensitive to all the dif-
ferent stakeholders in the marketing research process
(Malhotra et al. 1999), there has been very limited research
into how consumers view ethical behaviors related to
marketing (Vitell and Muncy 1992). To our knowledge,
there have been no systematic examinations of how the
public at large feels about the ethicality of various research

123
474 P. Aggarwal et al.

Table 8 Multiple regression results: importance

Org. Code of Gender Age Education Income Industry Org. role Org. R2 F
size ethics category rank

All scenarios combined 0.102 0.145 0.034 0.154 -0.020 -0.075 0.062 0.009 0.105 0.06 2.858
Original scenarios
Ultraviolet ink 0.070 0.175 0.028 -0.034 -0.026 0.082 -0.014 0.054 0.067 0.059 1.388
Hidden tape recorder 0.103 0.040 0.108 0.111 0.091 20.170 0.022 -0.069 0.146 0.054 1.260
One-way mirror -0.119 0.066 0.092 -0.029 -0.125 0.012 -0.074 -0.059 0.045 0.055 1.286
Fictitious company name 0.055 0.064 0.035 0.061 0.011 -0.079 -0.038 0.023 -0.013 0.023 0.535
Distortion of findings -0.021 0.196 0.051 0.126 0.019 -0.034 -0.074 -0.061 0.008 0.055 1.324
Product misuse ignored 0.176 0.037 -0.059 0.301 -0.102 -0.077 -0.035 0.058 0.094 0.110 2.793
New scenarios: FTC
Notice/awareness: offline 0.043 0.067 0.214 0.225 0.031 -0.005 0.158 0.009 -0.089 0.101 2.514
Notice/awareness: online -0.103 0.094 0.028 0.031 -0.077 0.082 0.027 0.166 0.076 0.062 1.461
Choice/consent: offline 0.162 0.049 -0.073 0.068 -0.014 -0.108 0.156 0.118 0.096 0.073 1.741
Choice/consent: online 0.192 0.113 -0.042 0.225 0.111 0.155 0.151 -0.033 0.016 0.219 6.365
Integrity/security: offline 0.072 0.070 -0.081 0.126 -0.043 0.027 -0.086 -0.066 0.078 0.058 1.397
Integrity/security: online -0.007 0.080 -0.017 0.088 0.034 -0.031 -0.013 0.066 0.097 0.032 0.721
New scenarios: respondent behavior
False information: offline 0.064 0.174 -0.034 0.164 0.043 -0.157 0.244 0.036 0.006 0.109 2.692
False information: online 0.131 0.090 0.078 0.036 -0.008 0.013 0.077 -0.069 0.185 0.062 1.500
Rude behavior: offline 0.096 0.043 -0.029 0.077 -0.115 -0.058 0.040 0.036 0.029 0.026 0.608
Rude behavior: online -0.132 0.135 -0.007 0.020 0.020 -0.078 0.075 0.047 -0.026 0.032 0.722
Standardized beta values
Values in bold are significant at p \ 0.05
Dependent variable is ‘‘Importance of the issue raised in the scenario’’

practices. Does the public share with marketing profes-
sionals the disapproval of research practices discussed in
this study? Is there a huge chasm or a significant overlap
between the perceptions of importance and frequency of
occurrence between these two groups when it comes to
unethical marketing research practices? To address this gap
in the literature, we conducted a second study to see how
the public viewed the ethicality of the behaviors described
in our scenarios.
Study 2: Public Perceptions
Method
Sample and Data Collection
Using the services of a reputable marketing research firm
with access to a reliable panel, we obtained a nationally
representative sample of subjects to participate in our study.
A total of 419 participants completed our survey. Of these,
47% were males. Approximately 60% of the respondents
were 50 years of age or less. Roughly 35% of respondents
had earned a college degree. Full demographic details are
presented in Table 11. Respondents were randomly
assigned to one of two versions of the same survey that was
administered to marketing professionals in Study 1.
Results and Discussion
A major point of difference between marketing profes-
sionals and the general public is in the area of the expressed
disapproval of unethical marketing research practices.
Surprisingly, and with a couple of important exceptions,
the general public is more tolerant of such conduct (as
indicated by lower disapproval ratings) compared to the
marketing professionals. For example, the general public
expressed less disapproval of practices such as the use of
hidden tape recorders (M = 5.91 vs. 6.25), the use of one-
way mirrors (M = 6.29 vs. 6.83), and distortion of research
findings (M = 5.91 vs. 6.18), although, as the means show,
disapproval of these actions was generally high. The gen-
eral public was also less disapproving of providing false
information to researchers, though the difference was sta-
tistically significant only for the offline environment.
Important exceptions were situations that had a clear and
direct bearing on consumers. While marketing profes-
sionals were almost ambivalent about ignoring information

123
Attitudes Toward Marketing Research Ethics 475

Table 9 Multiple regression results: perceived frequency of occurrence

Org. Code of Gender Age Education Income Industry Org. Org. R2 F
size ethics category role rank

All scenarios combined 20.214 0.003 0.014 20.153 -0.070 20.129 20.163 -0.059 0.018 0.131 6.620
Original scenarios
Ultraviolet ink -0.097 -0.095 0.077 0.058 0.041 20.196 -0.105 -0.076 -0.035 0.089 2.147
Hidden tape recorder -0.109 -0.058 -0.096 -0.071 -0.075 -0.104 20.157 -0.113 -0.019 0.103 2.540
One-way mirror -0.062 0.045 -0.014 -0.057 0.128 -0.144 20.159 -0.111 0.006 0.074 1.758
Fictitious company name -0.027 -0.069 -0.005 0.092 -0.088 -0.071 0.018 0.107 -0.058 0.034 0.789
Distortion of findings -0.138 -0.114 -0.054 -0.061 -0.021 -0.124 -0.070 0.024 0.016 0.065 1.564
Product misuse ignored -0.144 -0.015 -0.003 20.183 -0.100 0.032 -0.014 -0.005 -0.056 0.070 1.664
New scenarios: FTC
Notice/awareness: offline -0.075 -0.068 20.152 -0.011 0.077 -0.095 20.244 0.057 0.094 0.079 1.874
Notice/awareness: online -0.135 0.009 -0.005 20.202 0.039 20.161 20.163 20.152 0.121 0.145 3.750
Choice/consent: offline 20.219 -0.009 0.041 0.009 -0.060 20.162 20.189 20.169 0.057 0.165 4.394
Choice/consent: online 20.177 0.042 0.049 -0.052 -0.121 20.147 20.241 -0.016 0.040 0.123 3.125
Integrity/security: offline -0.023 0.005 -0.032 20.285 0.070 0.053 0.076 0.004 -0.054 0.068 1.635
Integrity/security: online 20.238 -0.031 -0.057 20.163 -0.024 -0.086 -0.130 -0.076 0.040 0.117 2.915
New scenarios: respondent behavior
False information: offline -0.005 0.131 0.069 20.221 0.105 20.178 -0.083 -0.057 0.070 0.141 3.638
False information: online -0.044 0.040 0.111 -0.094 -0.101 -0.086 -0.008 0.030 -0.033 0.078 1.909
Rude behavior: offline -0.152 -0.071 0.055 20.297 -0.055 0.241 -0.059 0.103 -0.069 0.154 4.117
Rude behavior: online 20.190 0.004 0.176 -0.130 -0.031 20.164 -0.049 20.165 0.068 0.204 5.610
Standardized beta values
Values in bold are significant at p \ 0.05
Dependent variable is ‘‘perceived frequency of occurrence of the issue raised in the scenario’’

Table 10 Gender and

Disapprovala Importance Occurrence
differences in disapproval,
importance, and occurrence Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female

Original scenarios: A&R

Ultraviolet ink 5.96 6.19 5.83 5.80 3.59 3.95
Hidden tape recorder 6.05 6.43* 5.78 5.94 3.24 3.21
One-way mirror 6.79 6.87 6.33 6.59 2.30 2.40
Fictitious company name 4.29 4.59 4.06 4.31 4.79 4.71
Distortion of findings 6.23 6.18 5.91 6.05 4.49 4.36
Product misuse ignored 4.32 4.24 4.56 4.44 4.89 5.00
New scenarios: FTC guidelines
Notice/awareness: offline 3.09 4.17* 3.44 4.06* 5.08 4.62*
Notice/awareness: online 4.62 4.59 4.72 4.69 5.41 5.71
Choice/consent: offline 5.25 4.64* 5.08 4.63* 4.90 5.20
Choice/consent: online 6.22 6.02 6.16 5.79* 4.37 4.57
Integrity/security: offline 6.43 6.35 6.38 6.18 3.94 4.02
Integrity/security: online 6.22 6.35 6.26 6.08 4.24 4.23
a New scenarios: respondent behavior
Reverse-coded from the
original scale so that False information: offline 6.76 6.67 5.60 5.38 2.97 3.39*
7 = Strongly Disapprove False information: online 6.65 6.65 5.47 5.48 3.17 3.56*
* The mean is statistically Rude behavior: offline 4.82 4.95 3.66 3.50 5.55 5.88*
different from that for males at Rude behavior: online 4.57 4.81 3.55 3.61 4.56 5.24*
p \ 0.05

123
476 P. Aggarwal et al.

Table 11 Demographic characteristics: public sample Demographic Differences

Demographic characteristic Percentage
We also ran regression analyses using four demographic
Sex variables (gender, age, education, and income) to examine
Male 46.8 their impact on disapproval, importance, and perceived
Female 53.2 frequency of occurrence of unethical conduct in marketing
Age research. We first ran a regression analysis using a com-
20–29 21.8 posite of scores for all 16 scenarios. We then supplemented
30–39 18.4 this with separate analyses for each individual scenario. For
40–49 19.6 the composite analysis, we found gender and age to be
50–59 17.5 significant predictors of disapproval ratings. Consistent
60 or more 22.7 with our prior findings, females were less approving of
Highest education level unethical conduct than males (b = -0.181 for composite
High school or less 21.2 for the effect of gender on approval; p \ 0.05). Also, age
Some college 44.7 was inversely related to approval; older respondents
Bachelor’s degree 16.6 expressed greater disapproval than did the younger ones
Some post-bachelor’s work 7.2 (b = -0.279 for composite for the effect of age on dis-
Master’s degree 5.8 approval; p \ 0.05). Interestingly, older respondents, and
Some post-master’s work 2.4 respondents with lower household income, also placed
Doctorate degree 2.2 more importance on the significance of the conduct in
Household income (before taxes) question (b = 0.318 for composite for the effect of age on
Less than $30,000 33.6 importance; p \ 0.05 and b = -0.125 for composite for
$30,000–$49,999 25.8 the effect of income on importance; p \ 0.05). The
$50,000–$69,999 14.1
respondents’ demographics did not have any impact on
$70,000–$89,999 11.2
their perceptions of the occurrence of unethical marketing
research conduct. Full results are presented in Tables 13,
$90,000–$109,999 6.6
14, and 15.
$110,000–$129,999 1.9
$130,000–$149,999 2.4
$150,000 or more 4.4
General Discussion

This study extends our understanding of how managers,

about product misuse, the general public was significantly
more disapproving of the practice (M = 5.48 vs. 4.25).
This is broadly consistent with the general finding that
consumers view acts that cause direct harm to be less
acceptable than those that cause indirect harm (Vitell and
Muncy 1992). For the professionals, ignoring information
about product misuse caused their companies no direct
harm while it directly harmed the consumers using the
product.
Similarly, the general public was also more disapproving
of the practice of data collection without notice, whereas the
professionals were almost neutral about it (M = 4.87 vs.
3.63 for offline, and M = 5.67 vs. 4.61 for online).
Another interesting finding emerged from comparisons
with the public for the perceived occurrence of unethical
conduct in marketing research. Public perceptions were
statistically different from those of professionals for eight
of the 16 scenarios. In all eight instances, the general public
believed that the unethical conduct occurred more fre-
quently than did the marketing professionals (see Table 12
for complete details).
researchers, and the general public feel about various
ethical issues that commonly arise in the process of
conducting marketing research. In the 20? years since the
Akaah and Riordan (1989) study was published, there
have been changes not only in the ethical environment
within which marketing researchers and professionals
operate, but also in the technology used widely by mar-
keting research professionals. Besides serving as an
additional benchmark against which future analyses of
marketing research ethics can be evaluated, the results of
this study expand our understanding of how various
organizational and demographic factors influence ethical
perceptions.
We find the presence of a written code of ethics in a firm
to have an influence on its employees’ ethical responses. It
enhances disapproval of unethical conduct, and also has the
secondary effect of making employees working in such
firms believe that unethical conduct occurs less frequently.
This finding is important in light of other research findings
reported in the literature. Wahn (1993) found that indi-
viduals who are more dependent on their employing

123
Attitudes Toward Marketing Research Ethics 477

Table 12 Public versus

Disapprovala Importance Occurrence
professionals: differences in
disapproval, importance, and Role Public Professionals Public Professionals Public Professionals
occurrence
Original scenarios: A&R
Ultraviolet ink 5.91 6.07 5.62 5.81 4.03 3.76
Hidden tape recorder 5.91 6.25* 5.81 5.88 4.09 3.22*
One-way mirror 6.29 6.83* 6.28 6.47 3.55 2.36*
Fictitious company name 4.55 4.47 4.43 4.24 5.09 4.71*
Distortion of findings 5.91 6.18* 5.67 5.96* 4.68 4.44
Product misuse ignored 5.48 4.25* 5.37 4.54* 4.86 4.95
New scenarios: FTC guidelines
Notice/awareness: offline 4.87 3.63* 4.84 3.74* 4.70 4.86
Notice/awareness: online 5.67 4.61* 5.63 4.71* 5.29 5.56
Choice/consent: offline 4.86 4.93 4.93 4.85 5.06 5.05
Choice/consent: online 5.26 6.14* 5.27 5.99* 4.77 4.50*
Integrity/security: offline 6.14 6.37 6.01 6.27* 4.51 3.96*
Integrity/security: online 5.79 6.28* 5.84 6.16* 4.57 4.22*
a New scenarios: respondent behavior
Reverse-coded from the
original scale so that False information: offline 6.44 6.71* 5.22 5.49 4.22 3.20*
7 = Strongly Disapprove False information: online 6.45 6.60 5.48 5.48 4.33 3.35*
* The mean is statistically Rude behavior: offline 4.91 4.88 4.41 3.58* 5.58 5.72
different from that for the Rude behavior: online 5.19 4.68* 4.20 3.60* 4.66 4.92
general public at p \ 0.05

Table 13 Public: multiple

Gender Age Education Income R2 F
regression results—disapproval
All scenarios combined 20.181 20.279 0.078 0.061 0.118 13.08
Original scenarios
Ultraviolet ink 20.184 20.258 0.121 0.056 0.131 7.63
Hidden tape recorder 20.233 20.220 -0.013 0.141 0.121 6.97
One-way mirror 20.257 20.196 0.070 0.101 0.125 7.24
Fictitious company name -0.047 20.210 0.125 0.000 0.052 2.66
Distortion of findings -0.056 20.162 0.003 0.046 0.029 1.47
Product misuse ignored 20.192 20.144 0.081 0.013 0.057 2.90
New scenarios: FTC
Notice/awareness: offline -0.115 -0.041 0.113 0.027 0.030 1.47
Notice/awareness: online -0.070 20.202 0.115 0.083 0.077 4.20
Choice/consent: offline -0.005 20.209 -0.098 0.077 0.056 3.02
Choice/consent: online 0.025 -0.039 -0.007 -0.108 0.014 0.70
Integrity/security: offline -0.057 20.317 0.073 -0.008 0.098 5.23
Integrity/security: online -0.078 20.212 0.032 -0.029 0.052 2.77
Standardized beta values New scenarios: respondent behavior
Values in bold are significant at False information: offline 20.217 20.260 0.199 0.039 0.175 10.75
p \ 0.05 False information: online -0.031 20.265 0.018 -0.013 0.068 3.51
Dependent variable is ‘‘approval Rude behavior: offline 20.163 -0.079 -0.028 0.090 0.036 1.82
of the action proposed in the Rude behavior: online -0.045 -0.104 0.126 0.060 0.039 2.03
scenario’’

organizations are more likely to comply with organiza- some research suggests that professionals believe a code
tional pressures to behave unethically. Such unethical may have limited impact in situations of intense competition
pressures might occur less frequently in firms with a strong (Ibrahim et al. 2009), our results suggest it may still have an
code of ethics of which all employees are aware. While overall positive effect on employees. It is possible, however,

123
478 P. Aggarwal et al.

Table 14 Public: multiple

Gender Age Education Income R2 F
regression results—importance
All scenarios combined 0.045 0.318 -0.037 20.125 0.125 13.94
Original scenarios
Ultraviolet ink 0.094 0.192 -0.023 -0.104 0.062 3.32
Hidden tape recorder 0.077 0.227 0.043 20.178 0.091 5.06
One-way mirror 0.149 0.094 -0.056 -0.003 0.036 1.86
Fictitious company name 0.033 0.181 20.166 20.163 0.101 5.43
Distortion of findings -0.017 0.310 -0.022 -0.012 0.097 5.15
Product misuse ignored 0.189 0.341 -0.065 -0.060 0.142 7.98
New scenarios: FTC
Notice/awareness: offline 0.064 0.154 20.210 -0.053 0.073 3.83
Notice/awareness: online 0.008 0.210 -0.032 20.176 0.088 4.81
Choice/consent: offline -0.033 0.100 0.049 -0.094 0.022 1.15
Choice/consent: online -0.048 0.113 -0.059 0.017 0.017 0.85
Integrity/security: offline 0.081 0.227 -0.039 -0.094 0.065 3.37
Integrity/security: online 0.045 0.264 -0.047 0.105 0.078 4.29
Standardized Beta values New scenarios: respondent behavior
Values in bold are significant at False information: offline 0.012 0.191 0.064 -0.066 0.050 2.68
p \ 0.05 False information: online 0.042 0.269 -0.016 -0.100 0.083 4.38
Dependent variable is Rude behavior: offline 0.109 0.358 -0.034 -0.127 0.150 8.50
‘‘Importance of the issue raised Rude behavior: online 20.197 0.215 -0.065 0.012 0.087 4.78
in the scenario’’

Table 15 Public: multiple

Gender Age Education Income R2 F
regression results—perceived
frequency of occurrence All scenarios combined 0.030 0.051 0.015 -0.060 0.007 0.654
Original scenarios
Ultraviolet ink 0.093 0.077 0.074 0.022 0.019 0.98
Hidden tape recorder -0.095 0.025 0.064 -0.023 0.015 0.79
One-way mirror 20.148 -0.057 0.048 0.001 0.029 1.50
Fictitious company name 0.054 -0.014 0.083 -0.076 0.010 0.50
Distortion of findings 0.107 0.138 0.010 -0.064 0.031 1.54
Product misuse ignored 0.008 0.068 0.080 -0.108 0.018 0.89
New scenarios: FTC
Notice/awareness: offline -0.069 0.101 -0.031 -0.043 0.020 0.98
Notice/awareness: online 0.157 -0.014 0.022 0.036 0.028 1.43
Choice/consent: offline 0.069 -0.039 -0.002 0.034 0.010 0.42
Choice/consent: online 0.083 0.129 0.047 20.159 0.045 2.25
Integrity/security: offline 0.054 0.140 0.040 -0.106 0.032 1.61
Standardized Beta values Integrity/security: online -0.046 20.161 -0.076 0.080 0.037 1.93
Values in bold are significant at New scenarios: respondent behavior
p \ 0.05 False information: offline -0.070 0.030 0.010 -0.120 0.022 1.14
Dependent variable is False information: online 0.077 0.027 -0.146 -0.106 0.050 2.55
‘‘perceived frequency of Rude behavior: offline 0.122 0.048 -0.021 0.016 0.016 0.79
occurrence of the issue raised in
Rude behavior: online 0.032 -0.037 0.042 -0.081 0.010 0.38
the scenario’’

that this impact is confounded by unmeasured variables such
as the content of the code, the quantity and quality of
organizational communications regarding the code, and the
extent to which the code is embedded in the organization’s
culture (Kaptein 2011).
Female respondents indicated stronger disapproval of
the use of hidden tape recorders (M = 6.43 vs. 6.05) and
the use of hidden cameras in stores (M = 4.17 vs. 3.09).
Male respondents were more disapproving of the firm’s
undeclared use of mailing addresses for sending

123
Attitudes Toward Marketing Research Ethics
promotional materials (M = 5.25 vs. 4.64). Researchers
have reported similar gender differences where females
displayed more ethical judgments (Kelley et al. 1990).
Research has suggested that this may be because women
are socialized to a greater extent into an ethic of caring
from a younger age (Gilligan and Attanucci 1994). This
finding would suggest that both males and females should
be very actively involved in writing codes of ethics, serve
as mentors on ethics issues, and perhaps lead values
assertiveness training (Samuelson 2002) that helps people
learn to be assertive and say ‘‘no’’ to unethical behaviors.
There seems to be a general consensus among respon-
dents that the more egregious a given behavior is (both in
terms of its importance and disapproval), the less fre-
quently it occurs in real life. In other words, people tend to
believe that the more serious breaches of ethical conduct
occur rather infrequently. Conversely, the more frequently
a behavior occurs, the weaker the disapproval of that
behavior. But, these findings beg the question: Are activi-
ties that are engaged in more frequently really less uneth-
ical? Just because most marketing researchers engage in
some act, does that make it ethical? Firms should evaluate
the ethicality of an act, not on the basis of ‘‘does everyone
do it?’’ but rather within the context of some sort of
framework of moral analysis and evaluation. More research
is needed to understand the reasoning behind respondents’
judgments.
A major point of difference between marketing profes-
sionals and the general public is in the area of the expressed
disapproval of unethical marketing research practices.
Surprisingly, and with a couple of important exceptions,
the general public is more tolerant of such conduct (as
indicated by the disapproval ratings) compared to the
marketing professionals. Why are researchers and manag-
ers concerned about actions that respondents themselves
aren’t as concerned about? This study’s findings suggest
that some actions are generally not considered to be egre-
giously unethical, at least in consumers’ minds. Certainly
the findings are not conclusive, and further research can
add to our understanding of this issue.
While some scenarios elicit stronger disapproval from
managers, other scenarios do the same from researchers.
Similarly, managers and researchers place different
importance on different scenarios. The finding that man-
agers and researchers significantly disagree on the occur-
rence of research misconduct raises some real implications
for both groups. There are clearly misperceptions on one
side or the other. How does a researcher respond when a
manager asks her to do something she perceives as
unethical? Similarly, how should a manager respond when
a researcher suggests using a technique that the manager
feels is unethical? There are certainly issues of power that
enter into the decision process. To ensure that power-play
479
does not undermine the ethicality of the decision-making
process, such issues should be resolved using clearly
defined and non-negotiable guidelines that are widely dis-
seminated throughout an organization. An effective whis-
tle-blower protection mechanism can also empower those
who want to question unethical conduct.
While it is encouraging that the overall disapproval of
unethical research practices has consistently increased
since the times of Crawford (1970), and Akaah and Rior-
dan (1989), our results point to several avenues for addi-
tional research on the perceptions and misperceptions of
key marketing research stakeholders.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to gratefully acknowl-
edge the financial support provided by the Office of the Vice Presi-
dent for Research and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic
Administration at UMD. The authors would also like to thank
Dr. Jean Jacobsen for her assistance in editing this manuscript.
Appendix: Scenarios Used in Studies
Akaah and Riordan (1989) Scenarios
A project manager went to the Marketing Research
Director’s office and requested permission to use an
ultraviolet ink to precode a questionnaire for a mail survey.
The ultraviolet ink is invisible to the naked eye but can be
read by the manager using a special machine. The project
manager pointed out that although the cover letter prom-
ised confidentiality, respondent identification was needed
to permit adequate cross tabulations of the data. The pre-
coding with ultraviolet ink allowed for respondent identi-
fication without their knowledge. The Marketing Research
Director gave his/her approval.
In a study intended to probe into the buying motives of a
group of wholesale customers, a Marketing Research Direc-
tor authorized the use of the department’s special briefcases
equipped with hidden tape recorders to record the interviews.
One of the products of X Company is bras. Recently, the
company has been having difficulty making decisions on a
new product line. Information was critically needed
regarding how women put on their bras. The Marketing
Research Director therefore designed a study in which two
local stores agreed to put one-way mirrors in their dressing
rooms. Observers behind these mirrors successfully gath-
ered the necessary information.
In a study concerning consumers’ magazine reading
habits, a Marketing Research Director decided to use a
fictitious company name, Research Insights, Ltd. This
successfully camouflaged the identity of X Company as the
sponsor of the study.
The Vice-President of a company is scheduled to give a
major presentation to the Board of Directors. In a trial run
123
480
of the presentation, s/he deliberately distorted some recent
research findings. The Marketing Research Director, who
watched the trial presentation, noticed these distortions but
after some thought, decided to ignore the matter, assuming
that the Vice-President obviously knew what s/he was
doing.
A recent study showed that several customers of X
Company were misusing Product B. Although this posed
no danger, customers were wasting their money by using
too much of the product at a time. But yesterday, the
Marketing Research Director saw final sketches of Product
B’s new ad campaign which not only ignored the problem
of misuse, but actually seemed to encourage it. S/he quietly
referred the advertising manager to the research results,
well known to all of the people involved with product B’s
advertising, but did nothing beyond that.
FTC Fair Information Practice Principles
Notice/Awareness Online Version
A marketing research firm wants to conduct a study of
people’s online shopping behavior. It is determined that
shoppers should be observed as they surf the site. The
marketing researchers working on the project feel that
informing online shoppers about the study could sensitize
them to the fact that they are being observed and thus the
affect the quality of data. The research team decides to use
website cookies to record online behavior without making
the shoppers aware of the fact that their behavior is being
monitored.
Notice/Awareness Offline Version
A marketing research firm wants to conduct a study of
people’s in-store shopping behavior. It is determined that
shoppers should be observed as they shop in the store.
The marketing researchers working on the project feel
that informing shoppers about the study could sensitize
them to the fact that they are being observed and thus
affect the quality of data. The research team decides to
use cameras to record in-store behavior without making
the shoppers aware of the fact that their behavior is being
monitored.
Choice/Consent Online Version
A marketing firm conducts an online survey. In the survey,
it was noted that the objective of the study was to assess
brand awareness. The survey also asked participants for
their email addresses without explicitly stating how the
123
P. Aggarwal et al.
addresses will be used. Once the study was completed, the
marketing company identified surveyed households that
were loyal to its competitor’s brand and emailed them
promotional offers.
Choice/Consent Offline Version
A marketing firm conducts a mail survey. In the survey, it
was noted that the objective of the study was to assess
brand awareness. The survey also asked participants for
their mailing addresses without explicitly stating how the
addresses will be used. Once the study was completed, the
marketing company identified surveyed households that
were loyal to its competitor’s brand and mailed them
promotional offers.
Integrity/Security Online Version
A marketing research firm is hired to collect data on behalf
of a client. The research firm creates an online survey in
which they ask respondents for sensitive information. The
research firm promises that the data will be kept secure.
The security of the research firm’s data storage procedures
is confirmed by a reliable third-party. At the end of the data
collection, the research firm turns over all the collected
data to the client without fully verifying their procedures
for securing the data.
Integrity/Security Offline Version
A marketing research firm is hired to collect data on behalf
of a client. The research firm creates a mail survey in which
they ask respondents for sensitive information. The
research firm promises that the data will be kept secure.
The security of the research firm’s data storage procedures
is confirmed by a reliable third-party. At the end of the data
collection, the research firm turns over all the collected
data to the client without fully verifying their procedures
for securing the data.
Respondent Misconduct
False Representation Online Version
A person gets an email survey with a request for partici-
pation. He is not interested in filling out the survey.
However, instead of just tossing it out, he purposely fills
out the survey with false and incorrect information and
e-mails it back to the company.
Attitudes Toward Marketing Research Ethics
False Representation Offline Version
A person gets a mail survey with a request for participa-
tion. He is not interested in filling out the survey. However,
instead of just tossing it out, he purposely fills out the
survey with false and incorrect information and mails it
back to the company.
Inappropriate or Rude Behavior Online Version
A person receives an email from a marketing research firm.
The email has an invitation for the person for participation
in a short survey. Instead of simply declining to participate,
the person admonishes the sender by replying to the email
using rude words and comments.
Inappropriate or Rude Behavior Offline Version
A person receives a phone call from a marketing research
firm. The caller asks the person if he would be willing to
respond to a short survey. Instead of simply declining to
participate, the person admonishes the caller using rude
words and comments.
References
Agle, B. R., Donaldson, T., Freeman, R. E., Jensen, M. C., Mitchell,
R. K., & Wood, D. J. (2008). Dialogue: Toward superior
stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18, 153–190.
Akaah, I. P. (1990). Attitudes of marketing professionals toward
ethics in marketing research: A cross-national comparison.
Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 45–53.
Akaah, I. P., & Riordan, E. A. (1989). Judgments of marketing
professionals about ethical issues in marketing research: A
replication and extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 26,
112–120.
Bernardi, R. A., Melton, M. R., Roberts, S. D., & Bean, D. F. (2008).
Fostering ethics research: An analysis of the accounting, finance
and marketing disciplines. Journal of Business Ethics, 82,
157–170.
Crawford, M. C. (1970). Attitudes of marketing executives toward
ethics in marketing research. Journal of Marketing, 34, 46–52.
Franke, G. R., Crown, D. F., & Spake, D. F. (1997). Gender
differences in ethical perceptions of business practices: A social
role theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
920–934.
FTC. (2007). Fair Information Practice Principles. Accessed January
11, 2011, from http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/fairinfo.
shtm.
Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1994). Two moral orientations: Gender
differences and similarities. In B. Puka (Ed.), Caring voices and
women’s moral frames: Gilligan’s view (pp. 123–137). New
York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Hair, N., & Clark, M. (2007). The ethical dilemmas and challenges of
ethnographic research in electronic communities. International
Journal of Market Research, 49, 781–800.
481
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics.
Journal of Macromarketing, 6, 5–16.
Ibrahim, N., Angelidis, J., & Tomic, I. M. (2009). Managers attitudes
toward codes of ethics: Are there gender differences? Journal of
Business Ethics, 90, 343–353.
Kaptein, M. (2011). Toward effective codes: Testing the relationship
with unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 99,
233–251.
Kaptein, M., & Schwartz, M. (2008). The effectiveness of business
codes: A critical examination of existing studies and the
development of an integrated research model. Journal of
Business Ethics, 77, 111–127.
Kelley, S. W., Ferrell, O. C., & Skinner, S. J. (1990). Ethical behavior
among marketing researchers: An assessment of selected demo-
graphic characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 681–688.
Lund, D. B. (2001). Deontological and teleological influences on
marketing research ethics. Journal of Applied Research, 17(2),
65–82.
M Guide. (2007). M Guide: AMA’s essential marketing directory.
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Malhotra, N. K., & Miller, G. L. (1998). An integrated model for
ethical decisions in marketing research. Journal of Business
Ethics, 17, 263–280.
Malhotra, N. K., & Peterson, M. (2001). Marketing research in the
new millennium: Emerging issues and trends. Marketing Intel-
ligence & Planning, 19(4), 216–235.
Malhotra, N. K., Peterson, M., & Kleiser, S. B. (1999). Marketing
research: A state-of-the-art review and directions for the twenty-
first century. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27,
160–183.
McKinney, J. A., Emerson, T. L., & Neubert, M. J. (2010). The
effects of ethical codes on ethical perceptions of actions toward
stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 505–516.
Murphy, P. E., & Laczniak, G. R. (1992). Traditional ethical issues
facing marketing researchers. Marketing Research: A Magazine
of Management and Applications, 4(2), 6–11.
Nussbaum, B. (2002). Can trust be rebuilt? Business Week, 32–34.
Phillips, A. (2010). Researchers, snoopers and spies—The legal and
ethical challenges facing observational research. International
Journal of Market Research, 52(2), 275–278.
Samuelson, J. (2002, Sept/Oct). Back to the business of ethics. BizEd,
58–59.
Shankar, V., Smith, A. K., & Rangaswamy, A. (2003). Customer
satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20, 153–175.
Skinner, S. J., Ferrell, O. C., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1988). Organizational
dimensions of marketing-research ethics. Journal of Business
Research, 16, 209–233.
Spake, D. F., Megehee, C. M., & Franke, G. R. (2007). Students’
views of ethical behavior and the impact of association.
Marketing Education Review, 17, 33–47.
Tybout, A. M., & Zaltman, G. (1974). Ethics in marketing research:
Their practical relevance. Journal of Marketing Research, 11,
357–368.
Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and
suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 3–47.
Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An empirical
investigation of factors influencing ethical judgments of the final
consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 585–597.
Wahn, J. (1993). Organizational dependence and the likelihood of
complying with organizational pressures to behave unethically.
Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 245–251.
123
Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.