Power Distance and Individualism as Cultural Determinants of Ethical Judgments

By Sauers, Daniel A.; Kennedy, Jeffrey C. et al. | Journal of International Business Research, January 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Power Distance and Individualism as Cultural Determinants of Ethical Judgments

Sauers, Daniel A., Kennedy, Jeffrey C., Loo, Jack, Journal of International Business Research


The effects of power distance and individualism on perceptions of ethical intention were examined using data from New Zealand European and Malaysian Chinese commerce students. The aim was to assess the attitudes of these commerce students towards ethical problems presented in a set of business scenarios. Ethical judgments of both samples were not found to differ significantly across four of the five ethical dilemmas tested. However, New Zealand students considered environmental protection a significantly more important issue than their Chinese counterparts did. Results of the study raise concerns with regard to the interpretation of past findings involving different nationalities and ethnic groups, and argue for the inclusion of other independent measures to assess the cultural characteristics of these samples. Possible problems with the use of Hofstede's (1980) cultural typology are also identified and discussed.


Today's university students will be tomorrow's business managers. As such, they will have a profound impact on both the everyday practice of and the principles governing business. Recognition of this truth by scholars may explain, in part, the proliferation of research regarding the ethical development of university students in general, and business students in particular, over the past 15-20 years. For example, Borkowski and Ugras (1998) uncovered 56 empirical studies concerning the ethical behavior of U.S. business students to include in their meta-analysis--and their review of the literature was restricted to the ten-year period of 1985-1994.

More recently, the increasing globalization of business has inspired a number of cross-cultural studies that have examined the ethical beliefs and decision making of business students in different cultures (e.g., Davis, Johnson, & Ohmer, 1998; Grunbaum, 1997; Nyaw & Ng, 1994; Priem, Worrell, Walters, & Coalter, 1998). Some studies have found meaningful cultural effects. Swinyard, DeLong, and Cheng (1989), for example, found noteworthy differences between the moral decision-making of U.S. and Singaporean business students. More recently, Brody, Coulter, and Mihalek (1998) found significant differences between the ethical perceptions of U.S. and Japanese accounting students to whistle-blowing. Since the subjects had yet to receive any formal workplace training, the authors concluded that the observed differences in ethical perceptions were due to cultural differences.

Other studies, however, do not support the view that culture influences ethical beliefs and decision making. For example, Preble and Reichel (1988), in their study of Israeli and U.S. management students' attitudes towards business ethics, found both groups held relatively high moral standards. More recently, Allmon, Chen, Pritchett, and Forest (1997) found significant agreement with the way Australian, Taiwanese and U.S. students perceive ethical/unethical behavior, suggesting a universality of business ethical perceptions.

Attention has also been given to cross-cultural aspects of ethical standards. Theorists have long suggested that countries with different cultures and values have different perceptions as to what constitutes ethical or unethical behavior (Ferrell & Gresham, 1985; Hunt & Vitell, 1986; Bartels, 1967; McClelland, 1961; England, 1975). However, cross-cultural studies that have examined the ethical standards of business students in different cultures have yielded conflicting results. While some researchers do find ethical standards to vary significantly across different cultures (Tsalikis & LaTour, 1995; Tsalikis & Nwachukwu, 1991; White & Rhodeback, 1992), others have found little disparity (Lysonski & Gaidis, 1991; Whipple & Swords, 1992).

Typically, researchers have relied on nationality as a surrogate for culture, rather than explore more detailed cultural characteristics of respondents in trying to account for differences/similarities in ethical beliefs (McDonald, 2000).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Power Distance and Individualism as Cultural Determinants of Ethical Judgments


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?