Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 150, Issue 3, pp 727–739 | Cite as

Assertiveness Bias in Gender Ethics Research: Why Women Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

Marketing and Consumer Behavior
  • Saar Bossuyt
  • Patrick Van Kenhove
Article

Abstract

Gender is one of the most researched and contentious topics in consumer ethics research. It is common for researchers of gender studies to presume that women are more ethical than men because of their reputation for having a selfless, sensitive nature. Nevertheless, we found evidence that women behaved less ethically than men in two field experiments testing a passive form of unethical behavior. Women benefited to a larger extent from a cashier miscalculating the bill in their favor than men. However, in three follow-up studies, we found that women did not necessarily intend to benefit at the expense of someone else. Women are less prone to speak up to a cashier than men are, even when the mistake is made in their disfavor. These results reveal that gender differences in assertiveness affect differences in unethical behavior.

Keywords

Assertiveness Behavioral experiments Consumer ethics Gender differences Gender ethics Social desirability bias Unethical consumer behavior 

References

  1. Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 256–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, D. F., & Ponemon, L. A. (1991). Internal auditors perceptions of whistle-blowing and the influence of moral reasoning-an experiment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 10(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  3. Atakan, M. G. S., Burnaz, S., & Topcu, Y. I. (2008). An Empirical Investigation of the Ethical Perceptions of Future Managers with a Special Emphasis on Gender—Turkish Case. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 573–586. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9577-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman, C. R., & Valentine, S. R. (2010). Investigating the effects of gender on consumers’ moral philosophies and ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 393–414. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0386-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernardi, R. A. (2006). Associations between Hofstede’s cultural constructs and social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(1), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernardi, R. A., & Guptill, S. T. (2008). Social desirability response bias, gender, and factors influencing organizational commitment: An international study. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 797–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Betz, M., O’Connell, L., & Shepard, J. M. (1989). Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (2001). An examination of differences in ethical decision-making between Canadian business students and accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(4), 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costa, P. T. J., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(1), 73–93. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0843-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108(448), 726–735. doi: 10.1111/1468-0297.00311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erat, S., & Gneezy, U. (2012). White lies. Management Science, 58(4), 723–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 205–221. doi: 10.1007/BF02074820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fullerton, R. A., & Punj, G. (2004). Repercussions of promoting an ideology of consumption: consumer misbehavior. Journal of Business Research, 57(11), 1239–1249. doi: 10.1016/s0148-2963(02)00455-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gino, F., & Margolis, J. D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (un) ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, J. L., & Repta, R. (2012). Sex and gender: Beyond the Binaries. In O. J., & G. L (Eds.), Designing and conducting gender, sex, and health research (pp. 17–37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Klein, K. J., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy: When it pays to understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(6), 720–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knaak, S. (2004). On the reconceptualizing of gender: Implications for research design. Sociological Inquiry, 74(3), 302–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin, Y.-C., & Raghubir, P. (2005). Gender differences in unrealistic optimism about marriage and divorce: Are men more optimistic and women more realistic? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindenmeier, J., Schleer, C., & Pricl, D. (2012). Consumer outrage: Emotional reactions to unethical corporate behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1364–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mason, E. S., & Mudrack, P. E. (1996). Gender and ethical orientation: A test of gender and occupational socialization theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(6), 599–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyers-Levy, J., & Loken, B. (2015). Revisiting gender differences: What we know and what lies ahead. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 129–149. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2), 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nguyen, N. T., Basuray, M. T., Smith, W. P., Kopka, D., & McCulloh, D. (2008). Moral issues and gender differences in ethical judgment using Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) multidimensional ethics scale: Implications in teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-2929-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parks-Stamm, E. J., Heilman, M. E., & Hearns, K. A. (2008). Motivated to penalize: Women’s strategic rejection of successful women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR). In J. D., Wetswood et al (Eds.,), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Measures Package (p. 41). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR). Unpublished manual, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.Google Scholar
  40. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11), 805–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 4(3), 398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reiss, M. C., & Mitra, K. (1998). The effects of individual difference factors on the acceptability of ethical and unethical workplace behaviors. [Article]. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1581–1593. doi: 10.1023/a:1005742408725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Roxas, M. L., & Stoneback, J. Y. (2004). The importance of gender across cultures in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2), 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social issues, 57(4), 743–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schoderbek, P. P., & Deshpande, S. P. (1996). Impression management, overclaiming, and perceived unethical conduct: The role of male and female managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(4), 409–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sheeran, P., & Abraham, C. (2003). Mediator of moderators: temporal stability of intention and the intention-behavior relation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 205–215. doi: 10.1177/0146167202239046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simga-Mugan, C., Daly, B. A., Onkal, D., & Kavut, L. (2005). The influence of nationality and gender on ethical sensitivity: An application of the issue-contingent model. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Singhapakdi, A. (1999). Perceived importance of ethics and ethical decisions in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 45(1), 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Small, D. A., Gelfand, M., Babcock, L., & Gettman, H. (2007). Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 600–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strutton, D., Vitell, S. J., & Pelton, L. E. (1994). How consumers may justify inappropriate behavior in market settings: An application on the techniques of neutralization. Journal of Business Research, 30(3), 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Valentine, S. R., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2007). The ethical decision making of men and women executives in international business situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(2), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vermeir, I., & Van Kenhove, P. (2007). Gender differences in double standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 281–295. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9494-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1–2), 33–47. doi: 10.1023/A:1022907014295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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(8), 585–597. doi: 10.1007/BF00872270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walker, L. J. (2006). Gender and morality (Handbook of moral development). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  61. You, D., Maeda, Y., & Bebeau, M. J. (2011). Gender differences in moral sensitivity: a meta-analysis. Ethics and Behavior, 21(4), 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations