Examining the Individualism/collectivism Question in an International Academic Environment
Hume, Evelyn C., Smith, Aileen, Davis, Alan B., Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues
This research examines cross-cultural differences in the responses of university students (n = 792) from the United States (US), the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and Viet Nam (VN). The survey instrument uses ethical dilemmas familiar to the academic environment of the students.
General linear model (GLM) analysis of the students' responses was by CULTure, GENder, and a CULT*GEN interaction term. The results indicated significant differences (p < .05) by the CULTure variable on all 26 surveyed dilemmas. Some support for the individualism/collectivitism cultural dimension was indicated in the responses. However, in spite of the significant differences indicated in the analysis by culture, correlational analysis of the cultural means indicates a significant correlation between the responses of the two cultures. Significant GENder differences were indicated on 22 of the 26 items. On all 22 dilemmas, the female students supplied the more ethically sensitive responses. This result supports earlier studies where gender differences have been reported. Three of the survey items indicated significance on the CULT*GEN interaction term.
Ethical studies have increased in number over the past few decades. As universities prepare students to enter the workforce, an understanding of the ethical orientation of our students takes on an added interest. Today's students will graduate into an international and multi-cultural work environment. These cultural differences can have an effect on the ethical beliefs and attitudes of the students coming from diverse cultural backgrounds.
The seminal work of Hofstede (1984) lays the foundation for the study of cultural elements in societies. It is Hofstede's individualism dimension that is of interest to this research. Individuals who "live in societies in which the interests of the individual prevail over the interests of the groups (p. 50)" are called individualistic. Those who "live in societies in which the interest of the group prevails over the interest of the individual (p. 50)" are called collectivistic (or low individualistic). From the research reported by Hofstede, the US ranks the highest on the individualism dimension of all of the 53 countries surveyed; and most of the Asian countries rank in the lower one-third of the countries surveyed.
The purpose of this research is to examine differences in the ethical orientation of university students from an individualistic culture and from a collectivistic culture. An appreciation for cultural characteristics and a better understanding of how cultural attitudes and beliefs act as a "cognitive filter" for societal perceptions and attitudes is a part of the overall understanding of how culture is linked to ethical orientation. Since the cultural tie is the focus of this study, it is the attitudes of the students toward the ethical dilemmas, not the actual behaviors, that will be examined. Because gender differences and their relationship to ethical responses are also studied in ethical research, it will be a secondary focus of this research.
A number of studies have used student subjects to investigate cultural differences based on the individualism dimension between the two global areas of interest. The results of these studies have offered additional validation of the differences between the subjects from the US and the Asian-Pacific area. Singh et al. (1962) found, as predicted by the individualism variable, societyversus self-orientation differences between American and Chinese students. Triandis et al. (1986) reported support for Hofstede's individualism cultural dimension, using students from nine countries. Bond et al. (1982) and Kim et al. (1990) reported support for the individualism dimension when their studies examined reward allocation intentions of students from the US and Asian countries (i.e., Japan, Korea, Hong Kong). Lee and Green (1991) found support for individualism differences when they reported that social pressures played a more important role in the purchase intention responses of Korean students than those of the US students. Chow et al. (2001) reported similar support for the individualism cultural dimension when surveying students from US and Taiwanese universities on their reaction to and satisfaction with high stretch performance standards.
Numerous studies over the last three decades have examined the ethical orientation of university students in the US (Arlow, 1991; Borkowski & Ugas, 1992; Grant & Broom, 1988; Hawkins & Coconougher, 1972; Jeffrey, 1993; Kahalas et al., 1977; Lysonski & Gaidis, 1991; McNichols & Zimmerer, 1985; Pratt & McLaughlin, 1989a; Pratt &McLaughlin, 1989b; Rogers & Smith, 2001; Smith et al., 1998/99). During the last decade, ethical studies have been extended to examine ethical issues in the international academic area (Armstrong, 1996; Brody et al., 1998; Eynon et al., 1997; Goodwin & Goodwin, 1999; Grunbaum 1997; Lyonski & Gaidis, 1991; Mason & Mudrack, 1996; Nyaw & Ng, 1994; Okleshen & Hoyt, 1996; Salter et al., 2001; Stevenson & Bodkin, 1998; Whipple & Swords, 1992; White & Rhodeback, 1992). A national variable has been used in these studies, and diverse methodologies and results have been reported.
Several cross-national or cross-cultural studies using university students as subjects have examined ethical beliefs and attitudes. Generally, research comparing US, Canadian, or Australian students to those from Western European countries has not found significant differences. Based on the predominance of the common Anglo-Saxon heritage in these countries, the research results are not unexpected.
Eynon et al. (1996) compared the ethical reasoning ability of accounting students in the US to those in Ireland. The study reported no significant difference in the moral reasoning scores (using Rest's Defining Issues Test) of the accounting students from the two countries. Whipple and Swords (1992) investigated differences in ethical judgments of business students in the US and United Kingdom (UK). The students examined 11 items related to confidentiality, research integrity, conflict of interest, marketing mix issues, and social issues. There were significant differences on only four of the 11 scenarios examined.
Using a scenario-based survey, Stevenson and Bodkin (1998) compared the ethical sensitivity of students in the US and Australia. Students evaluated 20 sales-type scenarios for acceptability and ethical practice. In general, the results indicated very limited differences in the responses of the two groups. Lyonski and Gaidis (1991) compared ethical responses of business students in the US, Denmark, and New Zealand. The students responded to ethical dilemmas related to coercion and control, conflict of interest, physical environment, paternalism, and personal integrity. The overall results indicated no significant differences among the responses of the students from the three countries. Grunbaum (1997) surveyed business students in the U.S. and Finland and found little evidence of differences between them on issues of business ethics in the international business arena. However, a study comparing ethical perspectives of US and New Zealand business students found that U.S. students judged issues of fraud, coercion and self-interest more harshly than did New Zealand students (Okleshen & Hoyt, 1996). Salter at al. (2001) reported a study in which business students in the U.S. and the U.K. were surveyed regarding their attitudes related to academic dishonesty. The researchers found that US students were more likely to cheat than were UK students. However, the overall differences between the two groups were small, supporting Hofstede's earlier work that identifying the cultures as similar on the "uncertainty avoidance" dimension.
A growing number of cross-cultural studies have began to look at differences in ethical beliefs and attitudes of US groups and various Asian groups. The differences reported in these studies are generally highly significant. Armstrong (1996) examined business graduate students in Australia, Malaysia, and Singapore to determine whether there was a link between ethical perceptions and culture. The significant results support the hypothesis that cultural differences correlate with ethical differences. Nyaw and Ng (1994) surveyed business students in Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, and Canada. The research focus was on the respondents' concern for employees' health and safety, tolerance for gender discrimination, attitudes toward questionable practices by their superiors, and reported likelihood of using unethical practices in competitive business situations. Significant differences between the cultures were indicated on all four issues.
Brody et al. (1998) examined cross-cultural differences between US and Japanese students' attitudes related to whistle-blowing on the job. The study found significant differences between the two groups of students regarding their ethical perceptions, especially with respect to the Individualism/Collectivitism cultural dimension. White and Rodeback (1992) surveyed graduate business students in the US and Taiwan concerning questionable behaviors in a hypothetical business situation. The results indicated significant differences in the ethical perceptions of US and Taiwanese students.
These studies investigating differences and similarities between students in the US (or other predominately Anglo countries) and other countries with differing languages and cultures have provided valuable insight into the relationship between culture and ethical attitudes and beliefs. For a more complete picture, it is important to continue to examine this relationship and extend it to other populations and ethical topics.
An additional focus of many ethical studies using university students is the potential for gender differences in the data. Over the last two decades, diverse results have been reported based on the gender variable. Some of these studies have indicated significant differences by the gender of the students studied (Betz & O'Connell, 1987; Arlow, 1991; Kohut & Corriher, 1994; Harris & Sutton, 1995; Khazanchi, 1995; Lane, 1995; Smith et al., 1995; Mason & Mudrack, 1996; Malinowski & Berger, 1996). These gender-significant studies report that the female students gave the more ethical responses. However, many other ethics studies have indicated no significant difference by the gender variable (Friedman et al., 1987; Betz et al., 1989; Stanga & Turpen, 1991; Mudrack, 1993; White & Dooley, 1993; Sikula & Costa, 1994; Jones & Kavanaugh, 1996; McCuddy & Peery, 1996). Other studies have indicated limited differences on the gender variable (Stevens, 1984; McNichols & Zimmerer, 1985; Miesing & Preble, 1985; Konovsky & Jaster, 1989; Borkowski & Ugas, 1992; Giacomino, 1992; Ruegger & King, 1992; Vorherr et al., 1995).
Accounting students, specifically, have been the populations surveyed by several ethics studies examining the gender variable. Significant differences by gender were reported by Stanga and Turpen (1991) and Ameen et al. (1996). In both studies, the female accounting students supplied the more ethical responses. By contrast, Kwak and Ortman (1996) reported limited differences on ethical considerations for the gender variable, and Rogers and Smith (2001) reported no significant differences on the gender analysis.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objective of this study is developed using Hofstede's individualism cultural dimension to examine whether there are cultural differences in the responses to academic ethical dilemmas. The individualism/collectivism cultural dimension refers to the way in which individuals of a cultural group have a relatively similar way of considering the importance of values and beliefs, as they apply to the individuals who compose the cultural group. The core meaning of individualism/collectivism is tied to the concept of whether group goals are subordinated for individual personal goals (Triandis et al, 1986).
Individualist cultures ... emphasize values that serve the self by making the self feel good, be distinguished, and be independent.... Collectivistic cultures ... emphasize values that serve the ingroup by subordinating personal goals for the sake of preserving ingroup integrity, interdependence of members, and harmonious relationships (Schwartz, 1990, p. 140).
Hui and Triandis found in their examination of international researchers' concept of individualism/collectivitism that the concept can be defined in terms of concern. "The more concern one has toward others, the more bonds with others are felt and acted upon, the more collectivistic is the person." (1986, p. 240).
Students from two state universities in the US are used to represent the Individualist culture, and students from two Asian area universities comprise the Collectivistic culture. A secondary focus of the study is to examine whether gender differences, as well as whether there is a culture*gender interaction, are present in the students' responses.
Data for the examination were collected with a self-report survey filled out by business students in two US universities and universities in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Viet Nam (VN). Each survey guaranteed individual anonymity and stated that the respondent had the choice of participating or not participating in the survey without course penalty. Since the data were collected in an intact classroom setting, there was a 100% participation rate. Seven hundred ninety-six surveys were obtained; however, four surveys were too incomplete to use in the analysis, producing 792 surveys for the analysis.
Often ethical surveys request students to respond to scenarios or statements that are outside their knowledge or experience level. Since the target population of the study was students, the study employs a survey instrument designed specifically for students. The survey instrument contains ethical dilemmas appropriate to an academic situation and the students' level of experience.
The questionnaire has two parts. The first part asked the students to respond, on a five-point Likert scale (i.e., 1 = very unethical to 5 = not at all unethical), to questionable ethical dilemmas associated with the academic environment (See the Appendix for the short form of the dilemmas). Students were asked to indicate how unethical they personally believed the 26 academic dilemmas were. The items used in this part of the survey are from a longer questionnaire developed by Cornelius Pratt, who gave permission for their use. The second part of the questionnaire requested demographic information from the students. Table 1 gives the demographic information for the students from the two cultures.
The enrollment of the two US universities is reported to be approximately 82% Caucasian and less than one percent Asian (USNews, 2002). The students from the universities in the PRC and VN were surveyed from classes that had 100% domestic enrollment. This high degree of ethnic polarization of the students in the study provides a compelling opportunity to compare the ethical beliefs of the two groups. With so few Asians in the US group and no Caucasians in the PRC/NV group, the statistical significance is enhanced.
The English version of the questionnaire was translated into Chinese for the PRC students and into Vietnamese for the Vietnamese students. The translated versions were pilot-tested before their use, and some changes in terminology resulted from the pilot-testing. Examples of changes in terminology include changing the word "exam" to "test," "term paper" to "major writing assignment/term paper," and "college student" to "university student" to present the appropriate phraseology for the survey item consideration.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The SAS statistical program general linear model (GLM) analysis was used to analyze the 26 specific ethical dilemmas. The mean responses of the students to the questionable behaviors were the predictor variables in the analysis, with CULTure (i.e., individualistic [IDV] or collectivistic [COLL]), GENder, and an interaction term (i.e., CULT*GEN) as indicator variables.
Table 2 gives the F-values of the general models for the 26 dilemmas and the F-values for the significant variables for each survey item. The CULT variable was significant (p < .05) on all 26 survey items. The GENder variable was significant on 22 of the 26 items. Three of the interaction terms indicated significance.
The results of the general linear model indicate that the respondents in the IDV group rated the questionable actions as more unethical than did those in the COLL group on 23 of the 26 items. The three items rated more unethical by the COLL group were items No. 9 (Studying from someone else's notes), No. 10 (Visiting a professor after an exam, attempting to bias grading), and No. 12 (Obtaining an old exam from a previous semester or quarter). It is interesting to note that these three items are actions a student might typically take alone to the benefit of only himself or herself. That is, these behaviors are highly inconsistent with the collective society and would likely be viewed as unethical, in part, because the student is serving his or her own interest rather than the interest of the group. The concept that the action does not benefit the group would be less likely to enter into the ethical judgment process of the IDV participants.
The three items ranked most unethical were the same for both cultural groups, but not in the same order, as shown in Table 3. At the top of the list of unethical actions for both groups are No. 22 (Changing a test paper from the original handed in), No. 24 (Having someone take a test or you), and No. 26 (Interfering with another student's work). For the IDV group, the items were ordered 24, 26, 22; for the COLL group they were ordered 22, 26, 24.
Two of the three items ranked least unethical also were the same for both cultural groups (See Table 4). At the bottom of the list of unethical behaviors for the IDV group are No. 9 (Studying from someone else's notes), No. 12 (Obtaining an old exam from a previous semester/quarter), and No. 14 (Discussing exam questions with students from earlier sections). The COLL group also ranked Nos. 9 and 14 as least ethical. However, item No. 12 was not among the three least unethical actions, but rather No. 25 (Working in groups when instructed to work independently) was among the three least unethical for the COLL group. Working in groups is highly consistent with the collectivist society but not with the individualistic society. Therefore, it is expected that this action would be considered less unethical in the COLL group than by the IDV group.
The results of the general linear model indicate that female respondents rated the questionable actions as more unethical than did the males on 22 of the 26 items. This result is consistent with previous studies that have found a stronger ethical orientation among females than among males. Significant differences between females and males were found on all items except No. 7 (Obtaining answers from someone during an exam), No. 11 (Taking a test for someone else), No. 14 (Discussing exam questions with students from earlier sections), or No. 21 (Arranging with another student to give or receive answers). Item Nos. 7, 11, and 21 were all rated very unethical by both genders (i.e., means of 1.88, 1.50, and 1.79, respectively), and No. 14 was rated relatively neutral by both genders, with a mean of 3.19.
CULT*GEN Interaction term
There were 3 items for which a significant interaction effect for culture by gender was indicated. The results of the Duncan's pair-wise comparisons are shown in Table 5. The three significant interaction items are No. 10 (Visiting a professor after an exam, attempting to bias grading), No. 14 (Discussing exam questions with students from earlier sections), and No. 25 (Working in groups when instructed to work independently). On item No. 10, COLL females rate the action as most unethical and IDV males rated it as the least unethical. A significant difference was found between IDV males and COLL males, and a significant difference was found between COLL males and COLL females. The results indicate that the response significance is driven primarily by the gender variable.
On item No. 14, a significant difference was found between COLL males and COLL females and a significent difference between IDV males and IDV females. IDV females rated the action the most unethical, and COLL females rated it as least unethical. The significant difference was driven by the cultural variable, with the IDV culture providing the more ethical response. On item No. 25, the responses of COLL males and females were not significantly different. However, the responses of the COLL males and females were significantly different from those of the IDV males and IDV females. A significant difference also is indicated for IDV males and IDV females. IDV females rate the action as most unethical and COLL females rate it as least unethical. The interaction effect on the No. 25 responses is driven primarily by the cultural variable.
This study compares the responses of business students from two cultures on a questionnaire that asks students to indicate how unethical they believe the academic actions to be on a list of 26 questionable behaviors. The results of the analysis indicate there are only subtle differences captured by the data on the cultural variable. Although the IDV group rated most of the items as more unethical than did the COLL group, no striking difference was noted in the rank order of the items. That is, the items that were rated as more unethical were more or less the same for both groups. The same can be said for the items rated as less unethical. On the gender variable, the results are consistent with prior studies which have shown a greater ethical sensitivity for females. The results of this study indicate this to be true in both individualistic and collectivist societies.
Two limitations of this study should be noted, both of which may partially explain the more ethical ratings by the IDV group. One limitation relates to the measurement criteria of the research instrument and the other to the measurement scale. The instrument was developed in the US and presumably validated with US students. It is possible that the measurement criteria is not effective to the same degree in the Asian culture. Further research should be conducted to develop a set of measurement criteria that is reliable across cultures.
The second limitation relates to the use of the five-point Likert scale. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Asian subjects are less willing than US subjects to use the end points of the Likert scale used by the questionnaire. Moreover, the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation, as shown in Table 6, indicates confirmation of the relationship between the response scores by both cultural groups with a correlation of .755 (p-value <.0001). A Spearman Correlation test run on the ranks of the response means indicated similar statistics (rho = .792, p-value <.0001). To the degree that is a correct observation, the results of the General Linear Model would be biased. Additional research is needed to determine whether the Likert scale is reliable across cultures.
Research support was provided by Stephen F. Austin State University.
Ameen, C.E., Guffey, D.M. & McMillian, J.J. (1996). Gender differences in determining the ethical sensitivity of future accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 591-597.
Arlow, P. (1991). Personal characteristics in college students' evaluations of business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 63-69.
Armstrong, R.W. (1996). The relationship between culture and perception of ethical problems in international marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1199-1208.
Betz, M. & O'Connell, L. (1987). Gender and work: A look at sex differences among pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 51, 39-43.
Betz, M., O'Connell, L. & Shepard, J.M. (1989). Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 321-324.
Bond, M.H., Leung, K. & Won, K.C. (1982). How does cultural collectivism operate? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13(2), 186-200.
Borkowski, S.C. & Ugas, U.J. (1992). The ethical attitudes of students as a function of age, sex, and experience. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 961-979.
Chow, C.W., Lindquist, T.M. & Wu, A. (2001). National culture and the implementation of high-stretch performance standards: An exploratory study. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13, 85-109.
Eynon, G., Hill, N.T., Stevens, K.T. & Clarke, P. (1996). An international comparison of ethical reasoning abilities: Accounting students from Ireland and the United States. Journal of Accounting Education, 14(4), 477-492.
Fiacomino, D.E. (1992). Ethical perceptions of accounting majors and other business majors: An empirical study. Accounting Educators' Journal, 4(2), 1-26.
Friedman, W.J., Robinson, A.B. & Friedman, B.L. (1987). Sex differences in moral judgments? A test of Gilligan's theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 37-46.
Goodwin, J. & Goodwin, D. (1999). Ethical judgments across cultures: A comparison between business students from Malaysia and New Zealand. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(3), 267-281.
Grant, E.W., Jr. & Broom, L.S. (1988). Attitudes toward ethics: A view of the college student. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 917-919.
Grunbaum, L. (1997) Attitudes of future managers towards business ethics: A comparison of Finnish and American business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 451-463.
Harris, J.R. & Sutton, C.D. (1995). Unraveling the ethical decision-making process: Clues from an empirical study comparing Fortune 1000 executives and MBA students. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 805-817.
Hawkins, D.I. & Coconougher, A.B. (1972). Student evaluations of the ethics of market practices: The role of marketing education. Journal of Marketing (April), 61-64.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations--Software of the Mind. London, UK: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hui, C.H. & Triandis, H.C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2), 225-248.
Jeffrey, C. (1993). Ethical development of accounting students, non-accounting business students, and liberal arts students. Issues in Accounting Education, 8 (Spring), 86-96.
Jones, G.E. & Kavanaugh, M.J. (1996). An experimental examination of the effect of individual and situational factors on unethical behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 511-523.
Kahalas, H., Groves, D.L. & Bonham, T.W. (1977). Importance of honesty as a value factor for business students. College Student Journal, 11(2), 112-117.
Khazanchi, D. (1995). Unethical behavior in information systems: The gender factor. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(9), 741-749.
Kohut, G.F. & Corriher, S.E. (1994). The relationship of age, gender, experience and awareness of written ethics policies to business decision making. Sam Advanced Managed Journal, 59, 32-39.
Konovsky, M.A. & Jaster, F. (1989). 'Blaming the victim' and other ways business men and women account for questionable behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 391-398.
Kwak, W. & Ortman, R.F. (1996). The values used in making ethical decisions. New Accountant, 11(5), 24-29.
Lane, J.C. (1995). Ethics of business students: Some marketing perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 571-580.
Lee, C. & Green, R.T. (1991). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein Behavioral Intentions model. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 289-305.
Lysonski, S. & Gaidis, W. (1991). A cross-cultural comparison of the ethics of business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 141-150.
Malinowski, C. & Berger, K.A. (1996). Undergraduste student attitudes about hypothetical marketing dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 525-535.
Mason & Mudrack, (1996). Gender and ethical orientation: A test of gender and occupational socialization theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 599-604.
McCuddy, M.K. & Peery, B.L. (1996). Selected individual differences and collegians' ethical beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 261-272.
McNichols, C.W. & Zimmerer, T.W. (1985). Situational ethics: An empirical study of the differentiators of student attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 175-180.
Miesing, P. & Preble, J.F. (1985). A comparison of five business philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 465-476.
Mudrack, P.E. (1993). An investigation into the acceptability of workplace behaviors of a dubious ethical nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 517-524.
Nyaw, M. & Ng, I. (1994). A comparative analysis of ethical beliefs: A four country study. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(7), 543-555.
Okleshen, M. & Hoyt, R. (1996). A cross cultural comparison of ethical perspectives and decision approaches of business students: United States of America versus New Zealand. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 537-549.
Pratt, C.B. & McLaughlin, G.W. (1989a). An analysis of predictors of college students' ethical inclinations. Research in Higher Education, 30, 195-219.
Pratt, C.B. & McLaughlin, G.W. (1989b). Perceptual ranks of college students' ethical beliefs and behaviors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 1027-1036.
Rogers, V. & Smith, A. (2001). Ethics, moral development, and accountants-in-training. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(1), 1-20.
Ruegger, D. & King, E.W. (1992). A study of the effect of age and gender upon student business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 179-186.
Salter, S., Guffey, D. & McMillan, J. (2001) Truth, consequences and culture: A comparative examination of cheating and attitudes about cheating among U.S. and U.K. students. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 37-50.
Schwartz, S.H. (1990). Individualism-collectivism critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157.
Sikula, A. & Costa, A.D. (1994). Are women more ethical than men? Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 859-871.
Singh, P.N., Huang, S.C. & Thompson, G.G. (1962). A comparative study of selected attitudes, values, and personality characteristics of American, Chinese, and Indian students. Journal of Social Psychology, 107, 123-132.
Smith, A., Coates, J.D. & Deis, D.R. (1998/99). Are ethical responses linked to locus of control? Teaching Business Ethics, 2(3), 249-260.
Smith, A., Coates, J.D. & Deis, D.R. (1995). An examination of ethics and gender in the academic environment. Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 55-63.
Stanga, K.G. & Turpen, R.A. (1991). Ethical judgments on selected accounting issues: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 739-747.
Stevens, G.E. (1984). Business ethics and social responsibility: The responses of present and future managers. Akron Business and Economic Review, Fall, 6-11.
Stevenson, T.H. & Bodkin, C.D. (1998). A cross-national comparison of university students' perceptions regarding the ethics and acceptability of sales practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(1), 45-55.
Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Betancort, H., Bond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C.H., Barin, G., Stiadi, B., Sinha, J.B.P., Verma, J., Spangenberg, J., Touzard, H. & De Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of the ethic aspects of individualism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 257-267.
USNews website. Retrieved August 2, 2002, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/university/ directory/drstudent_3624.htm
Vorherr, P.H., Petrick, J.A., Quinn, J.F. & Brady, T.J. (1995). The impact of gender and major on ethical perceptions of business students: Management implications for the accounting profession. Journal of Academy of Business Administration, 1(1), 46-66.
Whipple, T.W. & Swords, D.F. (1992). Business ethics judgments: A cross cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 671-678.
White, C.S. & Dooley, R.S. (1993). Ethical or practical: An empirical study of students' choices in simulated business scenarios. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 643-651.
White, L.P. & Rhodeback, M.J. (1992). Ethical dilemmas in organizational development: A cross-culture analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 663-670.
Evelyn C. Hume, University of Texas--Pan American
Aileen Smith, Stephen F. Austin State University
Alan B. Davis, City University of Hong Kong
APPENDIX--Short Form of Dilemmas Surveyed No. Dilemma 1 Citing someone else's work as your own 2 Failure to report unfavorable grading errors 3 Copying homework and turning it in as your own 4 Using cheat sheets during an exam 5 Not contributing your fair share of a group project 6 Falsifying or fabricating a bibliography 7 Obtaining answers from someone during an exam 8 Giving answers to someone during an exam 9 Studying from someone else's notes 10 Visiting a professor after an exam, attempting to bias grading 11 Taking a test for someone else 12 Obtaining an old exam from a previous semester or quarter 13 Writing a term paper for someone else 14 Discussing exam questions with students from earlier sections 15 Giving answers to someone else during an exam 16 Having someone else write a term paper 17 Giving exam questions to students in later sections of a class 18 Using an exam stolen by someone else 19 Buying a term paper 20 Copying answers off another's exam 21 Arranging with other students to give/receive answers 22 Changing a test paper from the original handed in 23 Making improper use of another's computer file/program 24 Having someone else take a test for you 25 Working in groups when instructed to work independently 26 Interfering with another student's work to the detriment of that student's grade Table 1 - Respondent Demographics Demographic Number * Percent Universities: US (a) 203 25.7 US (b) 221 27.9 IDV Culture 424 53.6 PRC 176 22.3 Viet Nam 191 24.1 COLL Culture 367 46.4 Total 791 100.0 Age: <19 years 131 16.9 20 years 180 23.2 21 years 244 31.5 22 years 105 13.6 >23 years 115 14.8 Total 775 100.0 Gender: Male 333 42.1 Female 459 57.9 Total 792 100.0 * Not all demographics equal 792; some respondents did not answer all of the items. Table 2 - GLM Analysis Results ([rho] D < .05) Model Model No. F-value p-value 1 6.80 .0002 2 7.02 .0001 3 19.57 <.0001 4 26.42 <.0001 5 82.97 <.0001 6 14.91 <.0001 7 99.95 <.0001 8 141.41 <.0001 9 (b) 17.66 <.0001 10 (b) 26.27 <.0001 11 13.67 <.0001 12 (b) 33.40 <.0001 13 5.79 .0006 14 13.36 <.0001 15 99.10 <.0001 16 33.18 <.0001 17 14.40 <.0001 18 19.33 <.0001 19 5.98 .0005 20 34.51 <.0001 21 72.02 <.0001 22 6.07 .0004 23 16.56 <.0001 24 18.53 <.0001 25 34.05 <.0001 26 15.25 <.0001 Significant Variables No. F-value/p-value Results (a) 1 CULT 9.06 .003 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 11.34 .001 Female more ethical response 2 CULT 3.74 .053 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 14.82 .001 Female more ethical response 3 CULT 51.51 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 5.90 .015 Female more ethical response 4 CULT 69.78 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 9.11 .003 Female more ethical response 5 CULT 242.02 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 6.82 .009 Female more ethical response 6 CULT 35.14 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 6.86 .009 Female more ethical response 7 CULT 299.19 .001 IDV culture more ethical response 8 CULT 408.37 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 15.33 .001 Female more ethical response 9 (b) CULT 45.17 .001 COLL culture more ethical response GEN 5.46 .020 Female more ethical response 10 (b) CULT 24.23 .001 COLL culture more ethical response GEN 44.58 .001 Female more ethical response CULT * GEN COLL female most ethical; 10.00 .002 IDV male least ethical; primarily driven by gender 11 CULT 37.49 .001 IDV culture more ethical response 12 (b) CULT 75.42 .001 COLL culture more ethical response GEN 21.93 .001 Female more ethical response 13 CULT 12.86 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 4.13 .043 Female more ethical response 14 CULT 25.39 .001 IDV culture more ethical response CULT * GEN IDV female most ethical 13.28 .001 COLL female least ethical; primarily driven by culture 15 CULT 285.54 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 11.10 .001 Female more ethical response 16 CULT 95.11 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 4.39 .036 Female more ethical response 17 CULT 33.71 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 8.08 .005 Female more ethical response 18 CULT 44.94 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 12.28 .001 Female more ethical response 19 CULT 8.50 .004 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 9.42 .002 Female more ethical response 20 CULT 94.76 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 8.11 .005 Female more ethical response 21 CULT 214.16 .001 IDV culture more ethical response 22 CULT 13.03 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 4.75 .030 Female more ethical response 23 CULT 35.74 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 13.89 .001 Female more ethical response 24 CULT 51.09 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 4.48 .035 Female more ethical response 25 CULT 84.95 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 6.84 .009 Female more ethical response CULT * GEN IDV female most ethical; 10.36 .001 COLL female least ethical; primarily driven by culture 26 CULT 32.58 .001 IDV culture more ethical response GEN 12.49 .001 Female more ethical response (a) IDV--Individualistic; COLL--collectivistic (b) Only items 9, 10, and 12 indicated more ethical response by COLL culture Table 3 - Dilemmas Rated Most Unethical * by Culture IDV COLL Rank Rank No. Dilemma Mean Mean 24 Having someone take a test for you 1 3 1.224 1.591 26 Interfering with another student's work 2 2 1.225 1.534 22 Changing a test from the original handed in 3 1 1.295 1.474 * The lower the mean response, the greater the dilemma is judged to be unethical. Table 4 - Dilemmas Rated Least Unethical * by Culture IDV COLL Rank Rank No. Dilemma Mean Mean 9 Studying from someone else's notes 26 26 3.916 4.411 12 Obtaining an old exam from a previous 25 semester/quarter 3.404 14 Discussing exam questions with students 24 25 from earlier sections 2.696 3.439 25 Working in groups when instructed to 24 work independently 3.202 * The higher the mean response, the greater the dilemma is judged to be less unethical. Table 5 - Significant Culture * Gender Items ([rho] < .05) No. Culture/Gender [bar.x] n Duncan Grouping * 10 IDV Male 3.248 198 A COLL Male 2.515 130 B IDV Female 2.355 220 B C COLL Female 2.219 237 C 14 COLL Female 3.536 237 A COLL Male 3.262 130 B IDV Male 3.189 201 B IDV Female 2.767 219 C 25 COLL Female 3.228 237 A COLL Male 3.154 130 A IDV Male 2.720 200 B IDV Female 2.291 213 C * Those groups denoted by different letters indicate significant difference. All groups denoted by the same letter are not significantly different from one another. Table 6 - Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient COLL Culture [bar.x] = 2.39188 S.D. = .64254 IDV Culture [bar.x] = 1.94908 .7545 S.D = .78259 <.0001…
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: Examining the Individualism/collectivism Question in an International Academic Environment. Contributors: Hume, Evelyn C. - Author, Smith, Aileen - Author, Davis, Alan B. - Author. Journal title: Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues. Volume: 6. Issue: 1 Publication date: January 2003. Page number: 91+. © The DreamCatchers Group, LLC 2008. COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group.