Ethical Judgments
RUNNING HEAD: Effects of Religiosity on Ethical Judgments
The Effects of Religiosity on Ethical Judgments
Alan G. Walker
Department of Management
Center for Ethical Organizational Cultures
Auburn University, AL. 36849
334.844.6551 (phone)
334.844.5159 (fax)
[email protected]
James W. Smither
Department of Management
La Salle University
1900 W. Olney Ave
Philadelphia, PA. 19141
215.951.1797
[email protected] 215.951.1271 (fax)
Jason DeBode
Department of Management
Center for Ethical Organizational Cultures
Auburn University, AL. 36849
334.844.4071 (phone)
334.84.5159 (fax)
[email protected]
IN REVIEW AT THE JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS
1
Ethical Judgments
2
Abstract
The relationship between religiosity and ethical behavior at work has remained elusive.
In fact, inconsistent results in observed magnitudes and direction led Hood et al. (1996)
to describe the relationship between religiosity and ethics as ―something of a roller
coaster ride.‖ Weaver and Agle (2002), utilizing social structural versions of symbolic
interactionism theory reasoned that we should not expect religion to affect ethical
outcomes for all religious individuals; rather, such a relationship likely depends on
specific religious attitudes including religious motivation orientation (intrinsic RMO vs.
extrinsic RMO), perceived sacred qualities of work (job sanctification), and views of God
(loving vs. punishing). We examined the effects of these three religious attitudes on
participants‘ judgments of 29 ethically-questionable vignettes. Consistent with symbolic
interactionism theory, intrinsic RMO and having a loving view of God were both
negatively related to endorsing ethically-questionable vignettes whereas extrinsic RMO
was positively related to endorsing the vignettes. Unexpectedly, job sanctification was
positively related to endorsing the vignettes. However, both intrinsic and extrinsic RMO
moderated this relationship such that sanctifying one‘s job was related to ethical
judgments only for those who were: (a) low in intrinsic RMO or (b) high in extrinsic
RMO. We reasoned based on symbolic interactionism theory that intrinsically motivated
participants, in contrast to extrinsically motivated participants, may have utilized their
religious beliefs as a guiding framework in making ethical judgments.
Ethical Judgments
3
THE EFFECTS OF RELIGIOSITY ON ETHICAL JUDGMENTS
Kish-Gephart et al. (2010) recently noted that for over 30 years researchers have
been interested in better understanding the factors that influence ethical judgments and
behaviors in work settings. They noted that empirical investigations have grown
dramatically - with over 170 studies published between 1996 and 2005. No doubt, the
recent ethical breaches associated with Wall Street and the subsequent collapse of the
housing market along with those of organizations such as Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur
Anderson have served to further intensify this query.
One avenue increasingly being pursued by researchers in their quest for a better
understanding of ethical judgments and behavior at work is that of religion (Corner,
2009; Kolodinskey et al., 2008). This avenue has much intuitive appeal given ethics, in
its barest sense, is a choice between right and wrong, and world religions, through the
values and principles they espouse, seek to offer their adherents principles, values, norms,
and beliefs (often documented in religious codes such as the Bible or Qur‘an) for making
these choices (Parboteeah et al., 2008). As Cunningham (2003) put it, religion ―provides
us with a prophetic grammar for those times when it may well be imperative to resist a
course of action with an explicit no and, at the same time also supplies the vocabulary to
assert the reasons for that no‖ (p. 180).
The Roller Coaster Relationship between Religiosity and Ethics
In spite of its intuitive appeal, empirical research confirming a relationship
between religiosity and ethical outcomes remains elusive (Weaver & Agle, 2002;
Longenecker et al., 2004; Parboteeah et al., 2008). Previous research studies have
yielded inconsistent results, with some studies finding negative relationships between
Ethical Judgments
4
religiosity and ethics, while others have found no relationships, and still others have
found positive associations. These inconsistent findings led Hood et al., (1996) to
describe the relationship between religiosity and ethical outcomes as ‗something of a
roller coaster ride.‘
In regards to negative relationships between religiosity and ethical outcomes,
Clark and Dawson (1996) found that religious individuals judged two ethically
questionable scenarios to be less unethical than those who self-identified themselves as
non-religious. In regards to weak relationships between religiosity and ethical outcomes,
Parboteeah et al. (2008) found a relationship between religiosity and the mean score
across four ethically suspect behaviors in a study of 63,087 participants in 44 countries.
However, while this relationship was statistically significant due to the very large sample
size, the overall effect size was very small (r = -.09). Other weak relationships were
identified by Conroy and Emerson (2004) who found that those participants who attended
church more often were less likely to endorse seven of 25 ethically-questionable business
scenarios; however, no such relationships were found for the other 18 scenarios. Using
the same business scenarios as Conroy and Emerson (2004) with a sample of 300
Malaysian managers, Wong (2008) found that participants who described themselves as
less religious indicated the ethically questionable scenarios were more acceptable in only
six of the 25 scenarios.
Other studies have reported stronger support for the positive effects of religiosity
on ethical outcomes. Longenecker et al. (2004) found more moderate support for a
relationship between religiosity and ethical outcomes in a sample of 1,234 managers and
business professionals. Specifically, those individuals who indicated that their religious
Ethical Judgments
5
interests were of ‗high importance‘ or ‗moderate importance‘ were significantly less
accepting of eight of 16 ethically questionable scenarios than were those who indicated
that their religious interests were of ‗low importance‘ or ‗no importance.‘ Giacalone and
Jurkiewicz (2003) found relationships between scores on the Human Spirituality Scale
and four of six ethical dimensions based on a factor analysis of 25 ethically-questionable
vignettes developed by Daniel et al., (1997). The two dimensions that were not
significantly related to participant‘s spirituality were either blatant illegal activities or
involved an ethics-legal interface. Giacalone and Jurkiewicz reasoned that in more ‗grey‘
areas where there is not a clear legal guidepost, one‘s degree of spirituality provided the
moral framework from which to base a decision.
Weaknesses in the Extant Literature
Recently, Parboteeah et al. (2008) identified five weaknesses with previous
research that they believe have resulted in these inconsistent findings. First, they
criticized previous researchers for operationalizing religiosity with overly simplistic
conceptualizations, such as simplistic measures of church attendance or narrow religious
affiliations. These authors contend that religiosity is too complex of a human
phenomenon to rely on overly simplistic measures, and instead requires the inclusion of
numerous types of variables. Second, Parboteeah et al. criticized previous researchers for
not basing their hypotheses on clear conceptual and theoretical models or for otherwise
not giving much thought to their choice of variables. Third, they contend that many
previous researchers have only considered one religion or a single denomination. Fourth,
in citing Weaver and Agle (2002), they identify an over-use of attitudinal measures that
directly ask respondents whether they have engaged in unethical behaviors. Parboteeah
Ethical Judgments
6
et al. caution that such questions have likely elicited socially desirable responses.
Finally, Parboteeah et al. (2008) criticized previous researchers for over-relying on
narrow samples of convenience, and in particular, undergraduate and MBA student
samples, stating that the role of religion may be related to age and developmental stages
through which many of these participants may still be maneuvering.
Our study addresses each of the concerns raised by Parboteeah et al. (2008).
First, we operationalized religiosity using several related, albeit distinct, constructs
including intrinsic and extrinsic religious motivation orientation (RMO), views of God
(loving vs. punishing), and job sanctification. Further, we selected well-established
scales with sound psychometric properties to measure these constructs (see also King &
Crowther, 2004; Weaver & Agle, 2002). Second, our research constructs and model are
grounded in a conceptually clear theoretical framework (i.e., symbolic interactionism
theory - to be discussed in the next section). Third, our participants included a
demographically diverse sample representing many religious denominations. Fourth, we
avoided directly asking respondents whether they have engaged in unethical behaviors;
instead we gathered their judgments about the acceptability of 29 vignettes (see
Appendix) that described work-related ethical dilemmas. Fifth, we did not use a sample
of convenience (or a student sample) but instead gathered data on two occasions from
220 working adults from throughout the United States.
Theoretical Framework
In addition to the weaknesses identified by Parboteeah et al. (2008), Giacalone
and Jurkiewicz (2003) noted that an elemental weakness in the developmental work
underlying the religiosity and ethics domain is the lack of a sound theoretical base.
Ethical Judgments
7
Similarly, Dehler and Welsh (2003) pointed out that despite the expanding literature on
the effects of religiosity on ethical outcomes, there has been little accompanying
theoretical development. One compelling exception to this lack of theoretical
understanding of the religiosity—ethical outcomes link is the work of Weaver and Agle
(2002).
Weaver and Agle (2002) argued that a better understanding of the relationship
between religiosity and ethical outcomes can be achieved by means of social structural
versions of symbolic interactionism theory as it relates to self-identity (Burke, 1980,
Hoelter, 1985; Stryker, 1980, Stryker & Serpe, 1982; Wimberley, 1989). According to
symbolic interactionism, individuals develop a sense of self-identity in large part by the
various roles they play. For example, a person may identify herself as a parent, a wife, a
sister, and a pharmacist. Similarly, individuals may also identify themselves in part by
being a believer in one of any number of religions. Symbolic interactionism suggests that
these various roles can be arranged in a hierarchy, with some roles being more important
than others, and therefore more closely aligned with self identity. The higher in the
hierarchy any particular role is, the higher the salience it will have in the individual‘s
sense of self-identity.
Another critical aspect of symbolic interactionism is that each of the various roles
carries with it specific role expectations. For example, the role of a father carries with it
certain societal and familial expectations that the father will love the child, protect the
child, provide for his or her needs, spend quality time with the child, etc. Further, these
role expectations and behavioral tendencies will increase in strength as an individual has
Ethical Judgments
more frequent contact with other individuals associated with a specific role. Thus,
through repeated social interactions role expectations become strengthened.
Weaver and Agle (2002) proposed that we should not expect religion to affect
ethical behavior for all religious individuals. Instead, the extent of the relationship
between religiosity and ethical outcomes will depend on several specific religious
attitudes. One religious attitude that Weaver and Agle (2002) identified is religious
motivation orientation (RMO).
Religious motivation orientation represents the dominant influence on the
measurement of religion (King & Crowther, 2004) and lies at the heart of the
motivational influences that attract individuals to religion. Meadow and Kahoe (1984)
concluded that no other single construct has had a greater impact on the empirical study
of religion and that all serious organizational scholars interested in measuring religiosity
in an organizational setting should become familiar with RMO.
King and Crowther (2004) described intrinsically motivated religious persons as
those who view their practice of religion as a goal in itself, true believers in religious
practice for its own sake, and as having a pure, direct motivation towards religion and
practice. Weaver and Agle (2002) described an intrinsically oriented person as treating
religious beliefs and practices as ends in themselves. In contrast, King and Crowther
(2004) described extrinsically religious persons as those who view their practice of
religion instrumentally, as an avenue to social or personal ends such as comfort,
acceptance, or security and as being motivated by other ends for which religion is a
means. Weaver and Agle (2002) state that an extrinsically oriented person treats religion
in terms of its usefulness or otherwise as a means for procuring other benefits. Citing
8
Ethical Judgments
9
Allport and Ross (1967), Weaver and Agle (2002) maintain that the extrinsically
motivated person uses his or her religion, while an intrinsically motivated person lives his
or her religion.
Weaver and Agle (2002) arguing again from a symbolic interactionist perspective,
emphasized that we should expect religion to have a positive or favorable influence on
ethical behavior only for those individuals who are intrinsic in their RMO. That is, an
intrinsically motivated individual is much more likely to attend to the role expectations
proscribing unethical behavior as espoused by their given religion. This is because for
them religion (along with associated beliefs and practices) is an end in itself. Thus,
intrinsically motivated individuals are more likely to utilize their religious beliefs and
practices as a cognitive framework, template, or guide in day-to-day decisions and
behavior. That is, they are much more likely to live their religion.
In relation to intrinsic RMO we therefore expect the following:
Hypothesis 1: There will be a negative relationship between intrinsic religious
motivation orientation and endorsement of ethically questionable vignettes.
In contrast, Weaver and Agle (2002) argued that we should not expect religion to
affect ethical outcomes for those with an extrinsic RMO. This is because those with an
extrinsic orientation are unlikely to attend to and carry out the role expectations
proscribing unethical behavior that may be associated with their given religion. That is,
since they are primarily engaged in religion as a means to an end (peace, comfort,
friendship, etc.) they are less likely to look to their religious role expectations as a
cognitive framework or template to guide them in their day-to-day decisions and behavior
(i.e., to live their religion). Previous research appears to support this notion. For
Ethical Judgments
10
example, in his meta-analysis of the correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic RMO, Donahue
(1985) concluded that extrinsic RMO apparently captures specific elements that often
give religion a bad name. More specifically, while intrinsic RMO was found to be
positively related to favorably-evaluated characteristics such as internal locus of control,
purpose in life, and lack of anxiety, this ―darker‖ side of religion has been found to be
positively related to negatively-evaluated characteristics such as prejudice,
powerlessness, dogmatism and trait anxiety. Further, Chau et al. (1990) found that
intrinsic RMO was positively related to, but extrinsic RMO negatively related to guilt and
altruism. In relation to our study, it would seem to reason that that those who might be
less prone to feel guilt and to be less altruistic might also be more accepting of our
ethically questionable vignettes. Therefore, given the theoretical underpinnings provided
by symbolic interactionism combined with previous research that has generally found
intrinsic RMO to be positively related to desirable outcomes and characteristics, while
extrinsic RMO has been positively related to undesirable outcomes and characteristics,
we expect:
Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive relationship between extrinsic religious
motivation orientation and endorsement of ethically questionable vignettes.
A second key religious attitude identified by Weaver and Agle (2002) is the
experience or perception of work as sacred or spiritual (i.e., what others have referred to
as sanctifying one‘s work). Sanctification involves perceiving objects or events
theistically by viewing them as having religious significance. Practically any object or
event can be sanctified, including one‘s job. Previous research has found positive
outcomes associated with sanctification. For example, sanctifying one‘s marriage has
Ethical Judgments
11
been found to be associated with increased satisfaction with marriage (Mahoney et al.,
1999) and sanctifying one‘s body with improved body image (Mahoney et al., 2005a).
More recently, Walker et al., (2008) extended research exploring the positive benefits of
sanctifying objects and events into the world of work. Specifically, they found that those
individuals who sanctified their jobs were more satisfied, more committed, and had less
intent to leave. Taking a symbolic interactionist theory perspective, Weaver and Agle
(2002) argued that roles related to work and their related expectations can come to be
sanctified for some individuals. Further, to the extent that these work roles become
sanctified, we would expect them to have a greater impact on ethical behavior. This is
because the role expectations associated with a given religion should be more salient for
those who sanctify their work. In other words…
An experience or perception of work as sacred or spiritual, or
having some other religious significance, could lead to increased attention
to potential ethical issues. If work is sacred – that is, an explicit part of
one‘s religious role identity – other elements of one‘s religious identity
become more relevant to the conduct of work. Work is perceived not as
‗just a job‘ but as a vocation or calling (Davidson and Caddell, 1994;
Ozmet, 1992). Failure to accurately anticipate and address ethical issues
in vocational life would risk profaning that sacred calling and would
generate cognitive and emotional dissonance. Thus, ethical issue
recognition, judgment, and intention formation all should be affected if
work is experienced religiously (2002: 84-85).
Ethical Judgments
12
We therefore expect that individuals who sanctify their jobs will be less accepting of
ethically questionable scenarios.
Hypothesis 3: There will be a negative relationship between the degree to which
individuals sanctify their work and the endorsement of ethically questionable
vignettes.
Weaver and Agle (2002) further argued that religious role expectations can be
related to various dimensions of religiosity. For example, Glock and Stark (1965) have
argued that one such critical dimension is that of religious beliefs (e.g., God created the
world; Jesus is the Son of God). One very basic belief about God is the extent to which
an individual believes that God is a loving versus punishing entity (Shariff and
Norenzayan, 2009). That is, some might view God as basically loving, kind, and
forgiving, while others may view God as being basically punishing, vengeful, and
terrifying. Arguing from a symbolic interactionist perspective, we believe that this basic
belief about God can affect both the religious identity and associated role expectations for
religious individuals. For example, those who perceive of God as a forgiving, loving, and
compassionate entity might seek to reciprocate, in a sense, by treating others the same
way. That is, to the extent that one believes God loves them, seeks the best for them, and
perceives to experience this love in their day-to-day activities, they might in return seek
to love and seek the best for others. From a Christian perspective this might be
interpreted as ―sharing the love of God with others.‖ Thus, from a symbolic interactionist
perspective, we expect that those with a more loving view of God will possess a religious
identity (I am a religious person) and that this identity will combine with a basic belief (I
believe God loves me) and associated role expectations (I want to share that love with
Ethical Judgments
13
others) that will result in more benevolent behavior toward others that will be manifested
by being less accepting of ethically questionable activities that could result in harm to
others.
Therefore, we posit:
Hypothesis 4: There will be a negative relationship between a loving view of God
and the endorsement of ethically questionable vignettes.
On the other hand, we expect those who view God as punishing, vengeful,
terrifying, and angry (e.g., towards them or others) would not possess such religious role
identities, beliefs, and associated benevolent role expectations. Conversely, Bandura‘s
social learning theory provides support for the notion that those with a punishing,
vengeful, and angry view of God might be more accepting of our ethically questionable
vignettes. That is, social learning theory posits that people learn from others via
observation, imitation, and modeling, especially if the model is admired; 1977, 1986).
Therefore, if one views God (perhaps even literally) as behaving in a vengeful, punishing,
angry, and terrifying manner, it might therefore influence them to behave or act in a
similar manner. Therefore, based on a both symbolic interactioism and social learning
theory, we expect:
Hypothesis 5: There will be a positive relationship between a punishing view of
God and the endorsement of ethically questionable vignettes.
In sum, utilizing a social structural symbolic interactionist theory, Weaver and
Agle (2002) argued that world religions can, and probably do, offer their adherents
values, principles, norms, and beliefs (often documented in religious codes such as the
Bible or Qur‘an) for making ethical decisions by means of the role expectations they
Ethical Judgments
14
provide. However, these values, norms, principles, and beliefs are more likely to affect
ethical behavior to the extent that: (a) the individual in question possesses intrinsic (rather
than extrinsic) motivation toward their religion, and (b) the individual in question
sanctifies their job. Extending the symbolic interactionist perspective and combining it
with social learning theory, we further expect that religious individuals would be more
likely to make ethical judgments when: (c) possessing a loving rather than punishing
view of God.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 220 individuals recruited from the StudyResponse pool of
participants hosted by the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University. This
pool of candidates serves as an on-line, social science research resource. The
StudyResponse database consists of over 50,000 registered, volunteer panelists, making
many different types of research projects feasible. Utilizing the StudyResponse data set,
we were able to configure a customized sample for our study that included only
individuals who were 19 years of age or older, employed for at least a year, and working
in the USA. StudyResponse sent anonymous and confidential recruiting messages to 330
individuals in their data base. Of these 330, 275 finished both waves of our data
collection efforts for a response rate of 83%. We then deleted 41 participants who
indicated that they were atheists. This was because we were not interested in how theists
versus atheists might respond to the vignettes, but rather in how participants‘ responses to
religious attitude constructs might correlate with responses to ethically-questionable
vignettes. Consequently, religious attitude constructs would not be applicable or
Ethical Judgments
15
otherwise of interest to atheists. We also deleted another 14 cases due to excessive
missing data. This resulted in a final sample size of 220.
StudyResponse provided us with a database of demographic information for all
330 panelists who were initially invited so that we could compare responders to nonresponders on these demographic variables. Results indicated that responders were
different from non-responders based on gender (i.e., respondents were more likely to be
male; χ2 = 4.91, df = 1, p < .05) and level of education (i.e., respondents were more likely
to have a higher level of education; χ2 = 19.07, df = 4, p < .01), but were not different
based on either race or age.
Of the 220 participants who responded to both waves of data collection, 104 or
47.3% were male, 164 or 74.5% indicated that they were Caucasian, 24 or 10.9% were
Asian or Pacific Islander, 9 or 4.1% were African American, 10 or 4.5% were Latin
American, and 5 or 2.3% were Native American. Eight participants or 3.6% did not
indicate their race. With regard to religious denominations, 73 participants or 33.2%
indicated that they were Catholic, 37 or 16.8% indicated that they did not belong to any
religious denomination, 40 or 18.2% were Protestant, 34 or 15.5% were nondenominational Christians, 13 or 5.9% were Jewish, and 4 or 1.8% were Muslim.
Nineteen participants, or 8.6%, did not respond to the denomination demographic
variable. Participants had been with their current employer, on average, between 5 and
nine years (87 or 39.5% of our participants indicated that they had been with their current
employer for ‗5-9 years‘). Forty-five percent (99) of participants indicated that they had
earned a bachelor‘s degree. A wide range of occupations was represented from bar
tenders to medical doctors. The average age of participants was 39. Participants were
Ethical Judgments
16
offered a five-dollar coupon for Amazon.com for participating in each wave. Our study
was approved in advance by a university Institutional Review Board and therefore was
performed in accordance with the ethical standards as presented in the 1964 Declaration
of Helsinki. All participants provided their informed consent prior to their inclusion in
our study.
Design and Procedure
In order to minimize response set and common method variance issues, the data
were collected in two waves separated by six weeks. We believed that six weeks was
sufficient time to ensure that responses from the first wave would have little or no impact
on responses from the second wave, but not so long that we might run the risk of losing
participant interest. In addition to collecting data at two points in time, we also varied the
order of presentation of the scales in order to avoid the possibility that participants, in an
effort to maintain cognitive consistency, might alter their responses on the ethically
questionable vignettes to be more consistent or commensurate with their responses on our
religious measures (or vice versa). In order to standardize our order of presentation of
study measures, we therefore took the following steps. First, we made the two waves of
data collection roughly equivalent (balanced) in terms of the number of survey items and
time required to complete our measures. Second, we collected our data in two separate
waves separated by six weeks (in order to minimize any potential effect of having
responses to the religious scales affect responses to the ethical vignettes). Third, we
counterbalanced our data collection. That is, half of the participants (chosen at random)
completed the religious and demographic scales in wave 1 and the ethical vignettes in
Ethical Judgments
17
wave 2, whereas the other half of respondents completed the ethical vignettes in wave 1
and the religious and demographic scales in wave 2.
Measures
Intrinsic/extrinsic revised (I/E-R) scale. Employees‘ RMO was assessed using
the 12 –item Intrinsic/Extrinsic Revised Scale (I/E-R) adapted by Gorsuch and
McPherson (1989) from Allport and Ross‘ (1967) Religious Orientation Scale. Items
were scored using a five-point rating scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree. Previous research has found the I/E-R to have acceptable reliability, with an α of
.83 for the intrinsic-revised scale (Brimhall and Butler, 2007; Byrd et al., 2007; Gorsuch
and McPherson, 1989) and .65 for the extrinsic-revised scale (Gorsuch and McPherson,
1989). In the present study, coefficient alpha of the intrinsic-revised scale was .69, while
alpha of the extrinsic-revised scale was .88. Example items for the Intrinsic-revised and
Extrinsic-revised scales are ‗I try hard to live all my life according to my religious
beliefs,‘ and ‗I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends,‘ respectively (see
Appendix for full scale).
Views of God (VOG) scale. The views of God Scale (VOG) is comprised of
seven loving (forgiving, loving, compassionate, gentle, kind, comforting, peaceful) and
seven punishing (vengeful, harsh, fearsome, angry, punishing, jealous, terrifying) traits.
Respondents were asked to assess the extent to which each trait applied to their
conception of God using a 7-point rating scale. Previous research has found acceptable
reliability for both subscales of the VOG, with the loving subscale having an α of .96 and
the punishing subscale having an α of .86 (Shariff and Norenzayan, 2009). In the present
Ethical Judgments
18
study the reliability of the loving scale was .96 and the reliability of the punishing scale
was .95.
Job sanctification scale. Recall that sanctification involves perceiving objects or
events theistically by viewing them as having religious significance. Practically any
object or event can be sanctified, including one‘s job if one experiences or perceives of
their work as sacred or spiritual. Job sanctification was measured using Pargament and
Mahoney‘s (1999) 12 –item Manifestation of God Scale (MOG) which assesses the
extent to which individual‘s believe God to be present in particular facets of their lives
(in this case their jobs). Note that in research examining the effects of sanctification, the
wording of the items can be easily modified to reflect the object of the evaluation. For
example, in examining the effects of sanctification on marriage satisfaction one item
would be ―God is present in my marriage.” In an organizational context this item can be
easily modified to ―God is present in my work.” Items are scored using a 1 = Strongly
Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree rating scale. Previous research has found acceptable
internal consistency for the MOG (α =.98; Mahoney et al., 2005b; Pargament and
Mahoney, 2005). Example items include ‗God is present in my work,‘ and ‗My job
reflects my image of what God wants for me.‘ For the present study, the MOG alpha was
.98 (see Appendix for full scale).
Dependent Variable
Given the criticisms of using self-report accounts of actual unethical behavior
mentioned previously, we used a set of 29 ethically questionable vignettes (see
Appendix) that have been used by other ethics‘ researchers (e.g., Conroy and Emerson,
2004; Longenecker et al., 2004; Wong, 2008). Participants responded to each of the 29
Ethical Judgments
19
vignettes using a scale that ranged from 1 = ‗Never Acceptable‘ to 7 = ‗Always
Acceptable‘. As noted above, previous research (Conroy and Emerson, 2004;
Longenecker et al., 2004; Parboteeah et al., 2008; Wong, 2008) has often conducted
separate statistical tests on each ethical scenario (e.g., examining the relationship between
each independent variable or predictor and responses to each scenario). Conducting
separate statistical tests for each scenario raises both conceptual and statistical concerns.
Conceptually, researchers have not offered a priori predictions based on theoretical
considerations that the independent variables or predictors should be related to some but
not other scenarios. Statistically, responses to such ethical scenarios are often highly
correlated (and hence not statistically independent). Also, with the use of multiple
statistical tests, family-wise error rates should be of concern (and Type I alpha levels
should be adjusted accordingly). Hence, we adopted an analytic approach that is more
conceptually and statistically defensible than the approach used in much of the research
described above. We conducted a factor analysis (discussed more fully in the Measures
section) of responses to the 29 vignettes and found they could be adequately summarized
by one common factor. Participants‘ scores on this factor served as our dependent
variable.
Control Variables
General religiosity. Given previous research has sometimes found an overall
belief in God or general religiosity to be unrelated to important outcomes, we were
interested in identifying more precise and theoretically derived religious constructs.
Further, even though general religiosity might explain variance in our dependent
variables, we were more interested in the ability of more nuanced and theoretically driven
Ethical Judgments
20
and precise measures to explain additional, unique variance beyond that captured by
more simplistic measures of religiosity. General religiosity was therefore assessed and
utilized as a covariate using a three-item measure that asked respondents about frequency
of church attendance, prayer, and how religious they felt they were. To obtain the total
General Religiosity score, all items are summed. Previous research has found this
measure to have adequate reliability (alpha = .79; Mahoney et al., 2005b). In the present
study, coefficient alpha of the general religiosity scale was .80.
Gender and age. Given previous research has documented moderate to strong
relationships between age and ethical outcomes (e.g., Serwinek, 1992; Peterson et al.,
2001) and age and religiousness (e.g., Chatters & Taylor, 1989; Koenig, 1994) as well as
gender and ethical outcomes (e.g., Akaah, 1989; Cronan et al., 2005) and gender and
religiousness (e.g., Collett and Lizardo, 2009) we also included both age and gender as
control variables in our analyses.
RESULTS
Tests of Hypotheses
As mentioned, we factor-analyzed the set of 29 ethically questionable vignettes
using principal axis factoring with a varimax rotation. Although two factors emerged
with eigenvalues greater than one, the first factor involved 22 of the vignettes and
accounted for 65.8% of the variance while the second factor only accounted for 6.8% of
the variance. Further, a total score calculated by summing across the entire set of 29
vignettes correlated .99 with the total score calculated from the first factor and .85 with a
total score from the second factor. Therefore, we used a total score created by summing
responses across all 29 vignettes. Coefficient alpha for this total score was .98. Higher
Ethical Judgments
21
scores on this measure reflected greater endorsement of the ethically questionable
vignettes. Table 1 presents the intercorrelations among the key variables.
---------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
---------------------------We tested our hypotheses utilizing hierarchical regression analyses. Prior to
analysis, all variables were standardized in order to address any concerns about
colinearity among the variables. Ethical judgment (which was calculated by summing
across all responses to the 29 vignettes) served as the dependent variable (hereafter
referred to as ‗ethical judgment‘). On the first step of the analyses we entered our
demographic control variables (age and sex). We also included participant‘s general
religiosity in this first step because we were interested in whether the more precise and
theoretically driven religiosity measures would explain additional, unique variance above
this broad measure. On the second step we entered the main predictor variables of job
sanctification, extrinsic RMO, intrinsic RMO, loving view of God, and punishing view of
God. On the third step we entered all 10 corresponding 2-way interactions. Note that we
did not present any a-priori hypotheses for these interactions. As such they were
examined in a purely exploratory manner.
Table 2 presents the results from the hierarchical regression analysis. As can be
seen in the first step, sex and age were both related to ethical judgment (β = .37, t = 6.00,
p < .001; β = -.27, t = -4.42, p < .001, respectively). Gender was coded female = 1 and
male = 2, indicating that females were less accepting of the ethically questionable
scenarios than were males. The negative coefficient for age indicated that older
Ethical Judgments
22
participants were less accepting of the ethically questionable scenarios than were younger
participants. Participant‘s general religiosity was positively related to their acceptance of
the ethically questionable scenarios (β = .23, t = 3.73, p < .001).
---------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
---------------------------Recall that hypothesis 1 stated that there would be a negative relationship between
intrinsic RMO and ethical judgment. As can be seen in Table 2 in the second step,
Hypothesis 1 was supported as those who tended to have an intrinsically motivated
religious motivation were less accepting of ethically questionable scenarios (β = -.16, t =
-2.00, p < .05). Hypothesis 2 stated that there would be a positive relationship between
extrinsic RMO and ethical judgment. Hypothesis 2 was also supported. Those with a
more extrinsic RMO were more accepting of the ethically questionable scenarios (β =
.29, t = 2.88, p < .01). Hypothesis 3 stated that there would be a negative relationship
between the degree to which individuals sanctify their work and ethical judgment.
Contrary to Hypothesis 3, those who sanctified their jobs were more accepting of
ethically questionable scenarios (β = .21, t = 1.92, p = .06). Hypothesis 4 stated that there
would be a negative relationship between a loving view of God and ethical judgment.
Hypothesis 4 was supported as those with a loving view of God were significantly less
accepting of the ethically-questionable scenarios (β = -.23, t = -3.57, p < .001). Finally,
Hypothesis 5 stated that there would be a positive relationship between a punishing view
of God and ethical judgment. Hypothesis 5 was not supported, as possessing a punishing
view of God was unrelated to acceptance of the ethically questionable scenarios (β = -.07,
Ethical Judgments
23
t = -1.11, p > .05). Taken together, the results of the hierarchical regression analyses
provided strong support for three of our five hypotheses.
Post-Hoc Analyses
Although we did not propose a priori hypotheses regarding any of the 10 possible
2-way interactions, step 3 of the hierarchical regression analyses found that the two-way
interactions as a set explained a significant additional amount of variance in ethical
judgment over and above that explained by the demographic variables, general
religiosity, and the main effects of the five measures of religiosity (F = 3.66, df = 10, 173,
p < .001). In all, three of the 10 interaction terms were statistically significant: job
sanctification X intrinsic RMO (β = -.22, t = -2.52, p < .05), job sanctification X extrinsic
RMO (β = .31, t = 3.50, p < .01), and extrinsic RMO X loving view of God (β = -.41, t =
-2.32, p < .05). In order to better understand and interpret these interactions we followed
the procedure presented by Dawson and Richter (2006) for probing and interpreting
interactions by testing for significant differences between slopes. As Figure 1 illustrates
for the job sanctification X intrinsic RMO interaction, for those high in intrinsic RMO,
job sanctification was unrelated to ethical judgment. However, for those low in intrinsic
RMO, job sanctification was positively related to ethical judgment.
----------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
----------------------------Figure 2 illustrates the job sanctification X extrinsic RMO interaction. As can be
seen, for those low in extrinsic RMO, job sanctification was unrelated to ethical
judgment. However, for those high in extrinsic RMO, job sanctification was positively
Ethical Judgments
24
related to ethical judgment. These two interactions provide valuable insights into the
results for hypothesis 3, which predicted that job sanctification would be negatively
related to ethical judgment. As mentioned above, the results for this hypothesis were
actually in the opposite direction than what was anticipated. That is, job sanctification
was positively related to ethical judgment. Note however, that the interactions reported
here indicated that job sanctification was positively (rather than negatively) related to
endorsing the ethically questionable vignettes only for those either low in intrinsic RMO
or high in extrinsic RMO. For others, the relationship was non-significant, although still
not negative as Hypothesis 3 predicted.
----------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here
----------------------------Finally, Figure 3 illustrates the interaction between extrinsic RMO and loving view of
God. As can be seen, among participants with low extrinsic RMO, loving view of God
was unrelated to ethical judgment. However, among participant with high extrinsic
RMO, those with a loving view of God were less accepting of the ethically questionable
scenarios.
----------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here
----------------------------DISCUSSION
Our main finding is that four of the five religious attitude measures were related
to ethical judgment (i.e., intrinsic religious motivation, extrinsic religious motivation,
Ethical Judgments
25
loving view of God, and job sanctification). Furthermore, three of these four
relationships are in accordance with structural symbolic interationist theory as proposed
by Weaver and Agle (2002). For example, participants who were more intrinsically
motivated in their religiosity were less accepting of the ethically-questionable scenarios.
Also, participants who indicated they were extrinsic in terms of their RMO were more
accepting of the ethically-questionable vignettes.
Recall that Weaver and Agle (2002) arguing from a symbolic interactionist
perspective, suggested that an intrinsically motivated individual is much more likely to
attend to the role expectations proscribing unethical behavior as espoused by their given
religion. This is because for them religion (along with associated beliefs and practices) is
an end in itself. Thus, our results support the notion stemming from symbolic
interactionist theory that intrinsically motivated individuals are more likely to utilize their
religious beliefs and practices as a cognitive framework, template or guide in day-to-day
decisions and behavior. That is, they are much more likely to live their religion.
Our results also revealed a negative relationship between possessing a loving
view of God and acceptance of the ethically-questionable vignettes. Thus, our results
support our hypothesis that this basic belief about God may affect both the religious
identity and (via social learning theory) associated role expectations for religious
individuals.
Interestingly, general religiosity was positively correlated with acceptance of the
ethically-questionable vignettes. Recall that general religiosity measures the frequency
of church attendance and prayer and an indication that one considers himself or herself to
be religious. This is an important finding and supports Parboteeah et al.‘s (2008)
Ethical Judgments
criticism that researchers have over-relied on overly simplistic conceptualizations and
measurements of religiosity. Weaver and Agle (2002) agree, stating:
If religiosity is conceptualized and measured just in terms of easily
observed behaviors such as church attendance, we risk missing potentially
important motivational and cognitive differences, and vice versa…the
complexity indicated by our review of prior research on religiosity and
ethical behavior suggests the empirical futility of theoretical attempts to
incorporate ‗generic‘ religiosity as an influence on ethical behavior in
organizations (2002: 80).
The important point is that had we only included our measure of general religiosity in
our study our results would have appeared to indicate that religiosity had a negative
impact on ethical outcomes. It was only when combined with our richer, theoreticallyderived religiosity constructs that the picture became clearer. Thus, our results clearly
support the arguments of Parboteeah et al. (2008) and Weaver and Agle (2002) that
inadequate measurements that are not based on clear theoretical foundations are likely
contributors in the ―roller coaster‖ ride concerning the relationships between religiosity
and ethical outcomes.
Our most surprising finding was that job sanctification was positively related to
endorsement of the ethically-questionable vignettes. That is, those who indicated that
they perceived their jobs as sacred were more, not less, accepting of these scenarios.
However, this main effect must be interpreted in light of the significant interactions
between job sanctification and both intrinsic and extrinsic RMO. These interactions
indicated that the relationship between job sanctification and endorsement of the
26
Ethical Judgments
27
vignettes was only positive for those who were either: (a) low in intrinsic RMO or (b)
high in extrinsic RMO. For those high in intrinsic RMO and low in extrinsic RMO the
relationship between job sanctification and endorsement of the vignettes was not
significant. Thus, at best, sanctifying one‘s job appeared to have no relationship with
ethical judgment (i.e., when either intrinsic RMO is high or when extrinsic RMO is low),
and, at worst, was negatively related to ethical judgment when combined with either high
extrinsic RMO or low intrinsic RMO.
In interpreting these findings, Tsang et al., (2005) have suggested that some
individuals may utilize their religious beliefs to rationalize their behavior to fit personal
motives or desires within given situations. More specifically, Tsang et al. (2005) argued
that while the concept of forgiveness is nearly universal amongst religious beliefs, there
is considerable evidence that religious persons do not always forgive in actual behavior.
This situation has been commonly referred to as the ‗religion-forgiveness discrepancy.‘
The rationalization explanation presented by Tsang et al. (2005) states that meaning
systems contained within religious beliefs are abstract enough to provide ample
justification for vengeful as well as forgiving behaviors. Thus, to the extent that an
individual is motivated to forgive, there is ample justification within one‘s religious
belief system to facilitate this forgiveness. Likewise, to the extent that an individual is
highly motivated not to forgive (but instead to be vengeful) one can also find ample
justification to not forgive within the meaning system of one‘s religion.
Thus, given many of the ethically-questionable vignettes contained situations
involving either financial gain or loss, it could be that those participants who were either
low in intrinsic RMO or high in extrinsic RMO utilized the abstract meaning systems
Ethical Judgments
28
contained in their religion as a rationalization mechanism to either obtain financial
reward or avoid financial losses. Such an interpretation offers an interesting explanation
to the interactions found in the current study. That is, a positive relationship between job
sanctification and endorsement of the vignettes was only found for those who were either
low in intrinsic RMO or high in extrinsic RMO.
Practical Applications
We agree with Weaver & Agle (2002) that tolerance of religiosity at work is key.
This is especially important given the expression of religiosity at work is often
discouraged or deliberately suppressed. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
1991 not only forbids discrimination based on religion but further requires employers to
accommodate individuals‘ religious beliefs and practices (Noe et al., 2008). Two recent
cases of religious discrimination support the importance of employers gaining a better
understanding of and being more tolerant and accommodating of employees‘ religious
beliefs and practices. For example Walmart agreed to pay unspecified damages to a
former employee who maintained that he was forced to quit his job for refusing to work
on Sunday (Noe et al., 2008; Jacobs, 1995). In a second case Electrolux agreed to work
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to accommodate Islamic workers‘
religious practice of praying five times a day (Noe et al., 2008). Given the events of
9/11, combined with survey evidence that 84% of the world‘s population is part of a
religion while 80% of individuals in the United States consider their religion to be
important, it is not surprising that the EEOC has witnessed an increase in cases involving
religious discrimination and accommodation (King, 2008).
Ethical Judgments
29
In addition to legal requirements, to the extent that expression of religiosity at
work is tolerated, the potential positive effects of religiosity on ethical behavior can be
realized. This is especially likely to occur when this tolerance is combined with welldeveloped organizational guidelines and positive manager role-modeling for such
expression. As Weaver & Agle have commented, ―Tolerance of religious expression is
likely to make it easier for individuals to identify coreligionists at work, thus enhancing
the salience of religion and making behavior more likely to conform to the religion‘s
ethical standards.‖ (p.93).
In describing the dilemma that managers often face in tolerating religiosity at
work, Kennedy (2003) commented that many organizations seem to have adhered to the
rationalization that ―in pluralistic societies one hardly knows how to create space for
[religion] in organizations without opening the door for conflict between employees. It
seems better to sanitize the workplace and avoid the problem altogether.‖ (2003: 83).
The same rationalization could have played out in the 1970‘s in regard to race or in the
1980‘s (and still today) with regards to sexual orientation. But religiosity at work can be
seen as just another way that diversity is expressed in an increasingly pluralistic society.
At the same time, much work is needed to develop organizational policies and practices
which can facilitate this leveraging of religious diversity.
Limitations
Our data were collected from a single source using a common method. This
might raise concerns about common method variance. However, Conway and Lance
(2010) recently identified three common misconceptions regarding common method bias.
The first misconception is that relationships between self-reported variables are routinely
Ethical Judgments
30
upwardly biased. Conway and Lance (2010) described a study in which they re-analyzed
data from 18 published multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrices based on a variety of
constructs and methods (Lance et al., in press). This re-analysis led them to conclude that
(a) inflationary and attenuating effects on relationships among variables due to utilizing
same-source, same-method designs offset each other, (b) same-method observed scores
were accurate representations of their true-score counterparts, and (c) ―the widespread
belief that common method bias serves to inflate common method correlations as
compared to their true-score counterparts is substantially a myth‖ (p.327).
The second misconception that Conway and Lance (2010) address is that otherreports (or other methods) are superior to self-reports. Instead, their review of the
literature concludes that many commonly suspected biasing factors associated with using
self reports (such as social desirability, negative affect, and acquiescence) appear to have
only weak and inconsistent effects. Further, they argue that using another method does
not necessarily provide any benefit given other methods may also be subject to method
effects. Referring again to their recent re-analysis of 18 published MTMM studies, they
concluded that using different methods is likely to result in less accurate, attenuated
relationships than in using same-method correlations.
In addition to dispelling these misconceptions, Conway and Lance (2010) also
offer suggestions for researchers to address concerns about common method bias. For
example, they suggest that researchers should clearly articulate why they believe selfreports are appropriate. In the current study, we believe that our participants were
certainly in the best position to indicate their religious attitudes and to provide their
judgments of the acceptability of the 29 ethically-questionable vignettes. It is difficult to
Ethical Judgments
31
imagine how another source could more accurately assess a participant‘s religious
motivation, views of God, whether or not they sanctify their jobs, or ethical judgments.
Another recommendation by Conway and Lance (2010) is that there should not be
overlap in items contained in independent and dependent variables as this can clearly lead
to bias relationships. An examination of our measures of religious attitudes and the 29
vignettes (see Appendix) reveals no overlap in item content.
A final recommendation from Conway and Lance (2010) is that researchers
should clearly demonstrate they proactively considered potential issues with common
method bias in the design of their study. Citing Podsakoff et al., (2003), Conway and
Lance (2010) offer numerous procedures for researchers to demonstrate their a-priori
consideration of common method bias. These procedures include the ―temporal,
proximal, psychological, or methodological separation of measurement,‖ ―protecting
respondent anonymity and reducing evaluation apprehension,‖ and ―counterbalancing
question order‖ (pp. 887-888). We incorporated these recommendations by separating
our data collection by six weeks (with the vignettes and religious attitude scales always
being collected in separate waves) and by counterbalancing the order of presentation of
scales to our participants.
In reference to our internet sample, Gosling et al., (2004) recently compared the
results of research conducted with a very large self-selected web-based sample of
361,703 (outofservice.com) to the results obtained from traditional samples drawn from a
full year of studies published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Their
results revealed that the samples drawn from the large self-selected web-based sample
were more diverse and representative than traditional samples with respect to gender,
Ethical Judgments
32
socioeconomic status, geographical location, and age and about as representative as
traditional samples with respect to race.
In summary, our results offer compelling evidence that religiosity was indeed
related to ethical judgments. As expected, we found evidence that extrinsic RMO was
positively related to the endorsement of ethically-questionable vignettes while intrinsic
religious motivation and having a loving view of God were negatively related the
endorsement of ethically-questionable vignettes. Further, although we found an
unexpected positive relationship between job sanctification and ethical judgment, this
unexpected relationship was moderated by RMO. Further examination of this interaction
revealed the relationship only held for those who were either high in extrinsic RMO or
low in intrinsic RMO. The results of our study also indicated that the symbolic
interactionist theory proposed by Weaver and Agle (2002) is a viable theoretical
framework in explaining when and under what conditions religious attitudes should be
related to ethical outcomes. We believe that the model is therefore useful in the design of
future studies. In particular, we found strong support for including the religious
constructs of RMO (intrinsic vs. extrinsic), job sanctification, and views of God (loving
vs. punishing).
We agree with Corner (2009) that religiosity is poised to make a valuable
contribution to the emerging interest in ethical judgments and behavior at work. We also
agree with King and Crowther (2004) and Weaver and Agle (2002) that religion can be
measured and studied in scientifically rigorous ways and that this should be encouraging
to organizational researchers interested in ethical judgments and behavior at work.
Ethical Judgments
APPENDIX
SCALES USED IN STUDY
33
Ethical Judgments
34
Manifestation of God Scale
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Moderately Slightly
Neutral
Slightly Moderately
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Agree
1. God played a role in the development of my job
2. God is present in my work
3. My job is a reflection of God‘s will
4. My job is an expression of my spirituality or religiousness
5. My job is consistent with my spiritual or religious identity
6. I experience God through my job
7. My job reflects my image of what God wants for me
8. My job is influenced by God‘s actions in my life
9. My job represents the holy work of God
10. My job represents God‘s presence in my life
11. My actions surrounding my job follow the Bible and what it teaches
12. My actions surrounding my job follow the teachings of my church
Ethical Judgments
35
Religious Motivation Orientation Scale
Please rate your level of agreement with each of the following statements. There are no
right or wrong answers.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Nor Disagree
Agree
1. I enjoy reading about my religion (I)
2. I go to church because it helps me to make friends (E)
3. It doesn‘t much matter what I believe in so long as I am good (I – reversed)
4. It is important to me to spend time in private thought and prayer (I)
5. I have often had a strong sense of God‘s presence (I)
6. I pray mainly to gain relief and protection (E)
7. I try hard to live all my life according to my religious beliefs (I)
8. What religion offers me most is comfort in times of trouble and sorrow (E)
9. Prayer is for peace and happiness (E)
10. Although I am religious, I don‘t let it affect my daily life (I - reversed)
11. I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends (E)
12. My whole approach to life is based on my religion (I)
13. I go to church mainly because I enjoy seeing people I know there (E)
14. Although I believe in my religion, many other things are more important in life
(I – reversed)
I = Intrinsic Religious Motivation Orientation
E = Extrinsic Religious Motivation Orientation
Ethical Judgments
36
Ethical Vignettes
Please evaluate, on the basis of your own personal values, the ethical quality of the
decision described in each vignette below from 1 “never acceptable” to 7 “always
acceptable.”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Never
Sometimes
Always
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
1. An executive earning $100,000 a year padded his expense account by about $3,000 a
year.
2. In order to increase profits, a general manager used a production process which
exceeded legal limits for environmental pollution.
3. Because of pressure from his brokerage firm, a stockbroker recommended a type of
bond which he did not consider a good investment.
4. A small business received one-fourth of its gross revenue in the form of cash. The
owner reported only one-half of the cash receipts for income tax purposes.
5. A company paid a $350,000 ―consulting‖ fee to an official of a foreign country. In
return, the official promised assistance in obtaining a contract which should produce
$10 million profit for the contracting company.
6. A company president found that a competitor had made an important scientific
discovery, which would sharply reduce profits for his own company. He then hired a
key employee of the competitor in an attempt to learn the details of the discovery.
7. A highway building contractor deplored the chaotic bidding situation and cutthroat
competition. He, therefore, reached an understanding with other major contractors to
permit bidding which would provide a reasonable profit.
8. A company president recognized that sending expensive Christmas gifts to purchasing
agents might compromise their positions. However, he continued the policy since it
was common practice an changing it might result in a loss of business.
9. A corporate director learned that his company intended to announce a stock split and
increase its dividend. On the basis of this information, he bought additional shares and
sold them at a gain following the announcement.
10. A corporate executive promoted a loyal friend and competent manager to the position
of divisional vice president in preference to a better qualified manager with whom he
has no close ties.
11. An engineer discovered what he perceived to be a product design flaw which
constituted a safety hazard. His company declined to correct he flaw. The engineer
decided to keep quiet, rather than taking his complaint outside the company.
12. A comptroller selected a legal method of financial reporting which concealed some
embarrassing financial facts, which would otherwise become public knowledge.
13. An employer received applications for a supervisor‘s position from two equally
qualified applicants but hired the male applicant because he thought that some
employees might resent being supervised by a female.
14. As part of the marketing strategy for a product, he producer changed its color and
marketed it as ―new and improved,‖ even though its other characteristics were
unchanged.
Ethical Judgments
37
Ethical Vignettes (continued)
15. A cigarette manufacturer launched a publicity campaign challenging new evidence
from the Surgeon General‘s office that cigarette smoking is harmful to the smoker‘s
health.
16. An owner of a small firm obtained a free copy of a copyrighted
computer software program from a business friend rather than spending $500 to obtain
his own program from the software dealer.
16. An owner of a small firm obtained a free copy of a copyrighted computer software
program from a business friend rather than spending $500 to obtain his own program
from the software dealer.
17. In order to win a tax engagement, a CPA proposed that the fee be based on savings
achieved by the CPA‘s tax work for the client firm.
18. Rather than charging an hourly fee, a CPA offered personal financial planning
services on a ―commission‖ basis. Therefore, the CPA‘s income could be enhanced by
the amount of the type of new investments recommended to the client.
19. A corporation increased the annual compensation of its CEO from $5 million to $9
million over a four-year period in which profits declined and the dividend was cut.
20. Facing large clean-up costs, a mining company that produces arsenic as a by-product
of its regular operations hired research consultants to show that the safe level of
arsenic in drinking water is higher than previously believed.
21. Jack is a used car salesman who was under pressure from his boss to increase sales in
order for the company to survive. In response, he began rolling back odometers and
using high-pressure sales tactics.
22. Lester is editor of the Daily Paper, which was running an expose article about
defective products being sold by local businesses. One of the owners of these
businesses, Shoes, Inc., called Lester and threatened to pull out his advertising in the
Daily Paper if the expose mentioned his store by name. Lester agreed to remove the
―Shoes, Inc,‖ name from the article.
23. Pears, Inc., a large computer manufacturer recently introduced a new line of
computers that made their existing line functionally obsolete. Pears, Inc. decided to
donate the obsolete computer inventory to a local school district and in so doing,
Pears, Inc. received a tax break and improved its image on social responsibility.
24. Dean is a purchasing agent who has the final say on which suppliers his firm will buy
from. Dean let it be known that when price and other things were equal, his purchasing
decisions could always be swayed by receipts of an ―appropriate‖ gift.
25. Martha is a new sales representative who is taking over a sales territory in which her
firm has been unsuccessful in landing a very large client, Giant, Inc. Determined to
make the sale, Martha decided to violate company policy and pay for a gift to Gina,
Inc.‘s manager.
26. The board of directors of TTT, Inc., recently approved a policy earmarking 7.5
percent of its profits for corporate giving. The funds will come directly out of retained
earnings and thereby reduce the payout of dividends to the stockholders of the firm.
27. The design department of XYZ Child Corporation recently developed a new, lighter
weight baby carrier. The new design is less expensive to manufacture, but has a
Ethical Judgments
Ethical Vignettes (continued)
slightly higher risk of handle collapse which could cause injury to children. XYZ
decided to produce and market the carrier anyway.
28. An electricity producer decided not to upgrade a smokestack scrubber since its
releases are still within the legal limits and the upgrade would reduce profits by 10
percent.
29. A factory that makes very loud noise during production located next to a residential
neighborhood, because land costs were lower there.
38
Ethical Judgments
39
REFERENCES
Akaah, I.P.: 1989, ‗Differences in Research Ethics Judgments between Male and Female
Marketing Professionals‘, Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 375-381.
Allport, G.W. and J.M. Ross: 1967, ‗Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice‘, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 423-443.
Bandura, A.: 1977, Social Learning Theory, (General Learning Press, New York).
Bandura, A.: 1986, Social Foundations of Thought and Action, (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ).
Brimhall, A.S. and M.H. Butler: 2007, ‗Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Religious Motivation and the
Marital Relationship‘, The American Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 235-249.
Burke, P.J. 1980.: ‗The Self: Measurement Requirements from an Interactionist Perspective‘,
Social Psychological Quarterly, 43, 18-29.
Byrd, K.R., A. Hageman and D.B. Isle: 2007, ‗Intrinsic Motivation and Subjective Well-Being:
The Unique Contribution of Intrinsic Religious Motivation‘, The International Journal
for the Psychology of Religion, 17, 141-156.
Chatters, L.M., and R.J. Taylor: 1989:, ‗Age Differences in Religious Participation among Black
Adults‘, Journal of Gerontology, 44, S183-S184.
Chau, L.L, R.C. Johnson, J.K. Bowers, T.J. Darvill and G.P. Danko: 1990, ‗Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Religiosity as Related to Conscience, Adjustment, and Altruism‘, Personality
and Individual Differences, 11 (4), 397-400.
Clark, J.W. and L.E. Dawson: 1996, ‗Personal Religiousness and Ethical Judgments: An
Empirical Analysis‘, Journal of Business Ethics, 15 (3), 359-372.
Ethical Judgments
40
Collett, J.L., and O. Lizardo: 2009, ‗A Power-Control Theory of Gender and Religiosity‘,
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 213-231.
Conroy S.J., and T.L.N. Emerson: 2004, ‗Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a
Predictor of Ethical Awareness among Students‘, Journal of Business Ethics, 50 (4), 383396.
Conway, J.M., and C.E. Lance: 2010, ‗What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding
Common Method Bias in Organizational Research‘, Journal of Business Psychology, 25,
325-334.
Corner, P.D.: 2009, ‗Workplace Spirituality and Business Ethics: Insights from an Eastern
Spiritual Tradition‘, Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 377-389.
Cronan, T.P.,L.N.K. Leonard and J. Kreie: 2005, ‗An Empirical Validation of Perceived
Importance and Behavior Intention in IT Ethics‘, Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 231238.
Cunningham, L.S. 2003.: ‗Spirituality and Religion: Some Perspectives‘, In O. F. Williams,
(ed.), Business Religion and Spirituality: A New Synthesis (Notre Dame Press, University
of Notre Dame Press, IN.)
Daniel, L.G., H. Elliott, E. Florence and D.D. DuFrene: 1997, ‗The Ethical Issues Rating Scale:
An Instrument for Measuring Ethical Orientation of College Students toward Various
Business Practices‘, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 515-526.
Davidson, J. C. and D.P. Caddell: 1994, ‗Religion and the Meaning of Work‘, Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 3, 135-147.
Ethical Judgments
41
Dawson, J.F. and A.W. Richter: 2006, ‗Probing Three-Way Interactions in Moderated Multiple
Regression: Development and Application of a Slope Difference Test, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 917-926.
Dehler, G.E. & M.A. Welsh: 2003, ‗The Experience of Work: Spirituality and the New
Workplace‘, In R. Giacalone and C. Jurkiewicz (eds), Handbook of Workplace
Spirituality and Organizational Performance (M.E. Sharpe, Inc., Armonk, New York).
Donahue, M.J.: 1985, ‗Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religiousness: Review and Meta-Analysis‘,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (2), 400-419.
Feldman-Barrett, L. and J.A. Russell: 1998, ‗Independence and Bipolarity in the Structure of
Current Affect‘, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (4), 967-984.
Franzblau, A.N.: 1934, ‗Religious Belief and Character Among Jewish Adolescents, Teachers
College Contributions to Education, No. 634.
Giacalone, R.A., and C.L. Jurkiewicz: 2003, ‗Right from Wrong: The Influence of Spirituality on
Perceptions of Unethical Business Activities‘, Journal of Business Ethics, 46 (1), 85-97.
Glock, C.Y. and R. Stark: 1965, Religion and Society in Tension, (Rand McNally, Chicago).
Gorsuch, R.L. and S.E. McPherson: 1989, ‗Intrinsic/Extrinsic Measurement: I/E-Revised and
Single-Item Scales‘, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348-354.
Gosling, S.D., S Vazire, S. Srivastava and O.P. John: 2004, ‗Should We Trust Web-Based
Studies? A Comparative Analysis of Six Preconceptions about Internet Questionnaires‘,
American Psychologist, 59 (2), 93-104.
Hoelter, J.W.: 1985, ‗The Structure of Self-Conception: Conceptualization and Measurement‘,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1392-1407.
Ethical Judgments
42
Hood, R.W., Jr., B. Spilka, B. Hunsberger, and R Gorsuch: 1996, ‗The Psychology of Religion:
An Empirical Approach, (Guilford Press, New York).
Jacobs, M.: 1995, ‗Workers Religious Beliefs May Get New Attention, The Wall Street Journal,
August 22.
Kennedy, R. G.: 2003, ‗Spirituality and the Christian Manager‘, In O.F. Williams (ed.) Business
Religion, and Spirituality: A New Synthesis, (Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN).
King, J.E.: 2008, ‗(Dis)Missing the Obvious: Will Mainstream Management Research Ever Take
Religion Seriously?‘ Journal of Management Inquiry 17, 214-224.
King, J.E., and M.R. Crowther: 2004, ‗The Measurement of Religiosity and Spirituality:
Examples and Issues from Psychology‘, Journal of Organizational Change Management
17 (1), 83-101.
Kish-Gephart, J.J., D.A. Harrison and L.K. Trevino: 2010, ‗Bad Apples, Bad Cases, and Bad
Barrels: Meta-Analytic Evidence about Sources of Unethical Decisions at Work‘,
Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (1), 1-31.
Koenig, H.G.: 1994, Aging and God, (The Haworth Pastoral Press, Binghamton , New York).
Kolodinsky, R.W., R.A. Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz: 2008, ‗Workplace Values and
Outcomes: Exploring Personal, Organizational, and Interactive Workplace Spirituality‘,
Journal of Business Ethics 81, 465-480.
Lance, C.E., B. Dawson, D. Birklebach and B.J. Hoffman: in press, ‗Method Effects,
Measurement Error, and Substantive Conclusions, Organizational Research Methods.
Longenecker, J.G., J.A. McKinney and C.W. Moore: 2004, ‗Religious Intensity, Evangelical
Christianity, and Business Ethics: An Empirical Study‘, Journal of Business Ethics, 55,
373-386.
Ethical Judgments
43
Mahoney, A., K.I. Pargament, T. Jewell, A.B. Swank, E. Scott, E. Emery and M. Rye: 1999,
‗Marriage and the Spiritual Realm: The Role of Proximal and Distal Religious Constructs
in Marital Functioning‘, Journal of Family Psychology, 13 (3), 321-338.
Mahoney, A., R.A. Carels, K.I. Pargament, A. Wachholtz, L.E. Leeper, M. Kaplar and R.
Frutchey: 2005a, ‗The Sanctification of the Body and Behavioral Health Patterns of
College Students‘, The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15 (3), 221238.
Mahoney, A., K.I. Pargament, B. Cole, T. Jewell, G. Magyar and N. Tarakeshwar: 2005b, ‗A
Higher Purpose: The Sanctification of Strivings in a Community Sample‘, The
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 239-262.
Meadow, M.J. and R.D. Kahoe: 1984, Psychology of Religion: Religion and Individual Lives,
(Harper & Row, New York).
Noe, R.A., J.R. Hollenbeck, B. Gerhart, and P.M. Wright: 2008, Human Resource Management:
Gaining a Competitive Advantage (sixth edition), (McGraw—Hill/Irwin, New York).
Ozmet, S.: 1992, Protestants: The Birth of a Revolution, (Doubleday, New York).
Parboteeah, K.P., M. Hoegl and J.B. Cullen: 2008, ‗Ethics and Religion: An Empirical Test of a
Multidimensional Model‘, Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 387-398.
Pargament, K.I. and A. Mahoney: 1999, ‗Spirituality: Discovering and Conserving the
Sacred‘, in C.R. Snyder (ed.), Handbook of Positive Psychology, (Oxford University
Press, New York).
Pargament, K.I. and A. Mahoney: 2005, ‗Sacred Matters: Sanctification as a Vital Topic
for the Psychology of Religion‘, The International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 15, 179-198.
Ethical Judgments
44
Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. Mackenzie, J. Lee and N.P. Podsakoff: 2003, ‗Common Method Biases in
Behavior Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies‘,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879-903.
Serwinek, P.J.:1992, ‗Demographic and Related Differences in Ethical Views among Small
Businesses‘, Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 555-566.
Shariff, A.F. and A. Norenzayan: 2009, ‗Mean Gods Make Good People: Different Views of
God Predict Cheating Behavior‘, Paper presented at the annual convention of the
Association of Psychological Science, San Francisco.
Stryker, S.: 1980, Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version, (Benjamin/Cummings,
Menlo Park, CA.).
Stryker, S. R.,T. Serpe: 1982, ‗Commitment, Identity Salience, and Role Behavior: Theory
and Research Examples‘, in W. Ickes and E.S. Knowles (eds.), Personality, Roles and
Social Behavior, (Springer-Verlag).
Tsang J., M.E. McCullough and W.T. Hoyt: 2005, ‗Psychometric and Rationalization Accounts
of the Religion-Forgiveness Discrepancy‘, Journal of Social Issues, 61(4): 785-805.
Walker, A.G., M.N. Jones, K.L. Wuensch, S. Aziz, and J.G. Cope: 2008, ‗Sanctifying Work:
Effects on Satisfaction, Commitment, and Intent to Leave‘, The International Journal for
the Psychology of Religion, 18, 132-145.
Weaver, G.R. and B.R. Agle: 2002, ‗Religiosity and Ethical Behavior in Organizations: A
Symbolic Interactionist Perspective‘, Academy of Management Review, 27 (1), 77-97.
Wimberley, D.W.: 1984, ‗Socioeconomic Deprivation and Religious Salience: A Cognitive
Behavioral Approach‘, Sociological Quarterly, 25, 223-238.
Ethical Judgments
Wong, H.M.: 2008, ‗Religiousness, Love of Money, and Ethical Attitudes of Malaysian
Evangelical Christians in Business‘, Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 169-191.
45
Ethical Judgments
TABLE 1
Intercorrelations Among Key Study Variables
1
1. Job Sanctification (.98)
2
3
4
2. Intrinsic RMO
.68**
3. Extrinsic RMO
.77** .45** (.88)
4. Loving VOG
.27** .33** .20** (.96)
5. Punishing VOG
.13
5
6
(.69)
.04
.17*
-.28** (.95)
6. Ethical Judgment .37** .08
.50** -.20** .21** (.98)
RMO = Religious Motivation Orientation
VOG = View of God
*
p < .05 (2-tailed).
**
p < .01 (2-tailed).
Values in parentheses along the diagonal are coefficient alphas.
46
Ethical Judgments
TABLE 2
Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Predicting Ethical Judgment
Variable
B
SE B
Step 1
General Religiosity
Sex
Age
.23***
.37***
-.27***
Job Sanctification
Intrinsic RMO
Extrinsic RMO
Loving VOG
Punishing VOG
.21
-.16*
.29**
-.23***
-.07
.11
.08
.10
.06
.06
Sanct X Int RMO
Sanct X Ext RMO
Sanct X Lov VOG
Sanct X Pun VOG
Int RMO X Ext RMO
Int RMO X Lov VOG
Int RMO X Pun VOG
Ext RMO X Lov VOG
Ext RMO X Pun VOG
Pos VOG X Pun VOG
-.22*
.31**
.08
.18
.10
.06
-.08
-.41*
-.16
-.06
.09
.09
.16
.15
.11
.09
.09
.14
.12
.07
Step 3
+ p = .06; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
∆R2
.35***
.46
.11***
.55
.09***
.06
.06
.06
Step 2
+
R2
.35
47
Ethical Judgments
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Plot of Job Sanctification X Intrinsic RMO Interaction
Figure 2. Plot of Significant Job Sanctification X Extrinsic RMO Interaction
Figure 3. Plot of Significant Extrinsic RMO X Loving View of God Interaction
48
Ethical Judgments
1
Standardized Ethical Judgment
0.8
0.6
0.4
Low Intrinsic
RMO
High Intrinsic
RMO
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Low Sanctification
High Sanctification
49
Ethical Judgments
50
1
Standardized Ethical Judgment
0.8
0.6
0.4
Low Extrinsic
RMO
High Extrinsic
RMO
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Low Sanctification
High Sanctification
Ethical Judgments
51
Standardized Ethical Judgment
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Low Extrinsic
RMO
High Extrinsic
RMO
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Low Loving God
High Loving God