Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ABSTRACT
28
LITERATURE REVIEW
Cultural Values
29
30
31
32
that different constituents (e.g., marketers, consumers, different ethnic groups) may have different perceptions of marketing ethics (Christie et al. 2003; Cui and Choudhury 2003;
Keenan 2002; Pires and Stanton 2002).
Although there are several definitions of marketing ethics,
Hunt and Vitells (1986, p. 7) definition stands out as the
most robust definition: an inquiry into the nature and
grounds of moral judgments, standards, and rules of conduct
relating to marketing decisions and marketing situations.
On the basis of an investigation of the code of ethics of the
American Marketing Association, Vitell, Rallapalli, and
Singhapakdi (1993) identify four specific marketing-related
normsprice and distribution, information and contracts,
product and promotion, and obligation and disclosureand
a general honesty and integrity norm. The specific items for
each norm explain the conceptualization of these norms.
These norms adequately operationalize the concept of marketing ethics and are used widely in this stream of research.
Given the close connection between peoples cultural values
and ethical decision making, scholars have attempted to
investigate this relationship (Hunt and Vitell 1986; Whipple
and Swords 1992). Hunt and Vittells (1986) theory of ethics
proposes that peoples ethical judgments differ because of
differences in both deontological moral reasoning theory,
which is based on the premise that acts are ethical/unethical
because of their nature, not because of their consequences,
and teleological moral reasoning theory, which stipulates
that acts are ethical/unethical because of their consequences,
not because of their nature. Recently, there has been a flurry
of research focusing on the importance of cultural values in
learning ethical behavior and assessing moral issues. An
example of this is the work of Blodgett and colleagues (2001),
who find an effect of culture on a persons ethical sensitivity
toward his or her company, customers, competitors, and colleagues. In another study, Singhapakdi and colleagues (1999)
compare and find some significant differences between consumers from Malaysia and those from the United States in
terms of their perceptions of marketing ethics situations.
However, few researchers have empirically studied how
these cultural values are related to marketing ethics directly
(Lu, Rose, and Blodgett 1999; Vitell, Nwachukwu, and
Barnes 1993). An objective of the current study is to examine
the effects of various national cultural values on marketing
ethics. On the basis of Hofstedes research (and recent studies; see, e.g., Kracher, Chatterjee, and Lindquist 2002; Lu,
Rose, and Blodgett 1999), we find that the national cultures
of India and the United States are different on most of the
dimensions. Moreover, there is both direct and indirect evidence of differing levels of ethical values. For example,
33
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
34
35
36
37
tarity of roles, support interrelatedness through social contracts, stress the keeping of commitments, and have concerns
about the demands of virtue. Schwartz and Bilsky (1987)
show that such people are more likely to obey the rules and
conform to social expectations and norms to avoid a sense of
shame or guilt. Therefore, they are more likely to adhere to
marketing ethical norms because they are eager to save face
and not damage their reputation. Therefore, we expect that
people from India, which has a long-term orientation index,
or LTO, score of 56 (ranked 7 among 22 countries studied by
Hofstede [1991]), will comply with marketing ethical norms
more so than people from the United States, which has an
LTO score of 29 (ranked 17). Thus:
H5a: As a cultural dimension, long-term orientation
positively influences the levels of marketing ethical
norms in each country.
H5b: In our study, India will have higher LTO scores
than the United States, and this will correspondingly indicate higher levels of marketing ethical
norms in India.
Table 1 illustrates our hypotheses.
38
Hypotheses
H1
Cultural
Dimension
Variable
Individualism
(IDV)
Overall
Effect on
Marketing
Ethical
Norms
(MEN)
+
Polar opposite:
collectivism (COL)
Table 1.
Summary of Hypotheses:
Relationship Between the
Cultural Dimensions and
Marketing Ethics
H2
Uncertainty
avoidance (UAV)
H3
Masculinity (MAS)
H4
Power distance
(PDI)
H5
Long-term
orientation (LTO)
39
40
4. Power distance
5. Long-term orientation
.26**
.28**
.37**
.25**
.19**
.39**
.36**
.05*
.07*
.06*
.05*
.01*
.01*
.14*
.52*
.84/.76
.14*
.04*
.02**
.01**
.04**
.12**
.01**
.11**
.01**
.78/.76
.32**
.13**
.07**
.27**
.27**
.21**
.25**
.30**
.09**
.61/.71
.20**
.10**
.27**
.13**
.75**
.39**
.51**
.40**
.43**
.73/.68
.13**
.17**
.12**
.03**
.19**
.78**
.69**
.46**
.59**
.74/.75
.26**
.28**
.22**
.17**
.14**
.28**
.74**
.56**
.43**
.84/.75
.60**
.30**
.31**
.29**
.24**
.08**
.27**
.56**
.79**
.81**
.69/.65
.70/.69
.57**
.60**
.49**
.30**
.14**
.22**
.17**
.12**
.40**
10
.51**
.47**
.37**
.18**
.26**
.24**
.03**
.26**
.07**
.39**
11
.84/.80
.79**
.78**
.78**
.73**
.63**
.25**
.32**
.25**
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
Notes: The correlation coefficients below the bold diagonal are for U.S. participants, and those above the bold diagonal are for Indian participants. The figures on the bold diagonal are Cronbachs alphas
(United States/India) for the respective constructs.
.41**
.27**
.40**
.23**
.38**
.20**
.31**
.23**
.86/.81
.34**
.28**
.11**
2. Uncertainty avoidance
3. Masculinity
.84/.85
1. Collectivism
Cultural Values
Table 2.
Correlation Coefficients for
Cultural Values and Ethical
Norms for Managers in Both
Countries
41
of H1a. The uncertainly avoidance measures correlated positively with the ethical norms for the U.S. respondents (p <
.01) but not for their Indian counterparts, providing partial
support for H2a. Conversely, masculinity measures were
negatively correlated with the ethical norms for U.S. respondents but not for the Indian respondents, in partial support
of H3a. Similarly, power distance scores were negatively correlated with the ethical norms for Indian respondents but not
for U.S. respondents, in partial support of H4a. Finally, as H5a
predicted, participants from both countries indicated a significant and positive correlation between long-term orientation and ethical norms (except for price and distribution).
Table 3 provides a comparison of the cultural values and ethical norms in India and the United States. Our results are
mixed compared with Hofstedes (1991) findings. For example, we found that Indian professionals scored higher than
their U.S. counterparts in power distance (2.11 versus 1.72,
p < .01) but lower in uncertainty avoidance (3.43 versus 3.61,
p < .05), as Hofstede (and H2b and H4b, respectively) predicted. Furthermore, the U.S. professionals in our study
indicated lower masculinity scores than the Indians (2.18
versus 2.69, p < .01), contrary to Hofstedes results (and H3b).
However, we did not find any difference between our samples along the dimensions of collectivism and long-term orientation (contrary to H1b and H5b, respectively).
There may be various reasons that our results did not exactly
reflect Hofstedes (1991) findings on cultural values. Our
sample size was small and much younger than that of Hof-
Table 3.
Comparison on Cultural Values
and Ethical Norms
United States
India
t-Values
3.19 0(.73)
3.34 0(.82)
1.51**
Cultural Values
Collectivism
Uncertainty avoidance
3.61 0(.79)
3.43 0(.80)
1.88**
Masculinity
2.18 (1.06)
2.69 (1.09)
3.85**
Power distance
1.72 0(.85)
2.11 0(.81)
3.88**
Long-term orientation
3.97 0(.47)
3.95 0(.64)
0.38**
3.95 0(.74)
3.73 0(.80)
2.37**
4.44 0(.45)
4.35 0(.53)
1.50**
4.54 0(.52)
4.37 0(.58)
2.52**
4.19 0(.65)
4.18 0(.67)
0.09**
4.29 0(.59)
4.09 0(.69)
2.51**
4.28 0(.46)
4.13 0(.49)
2.56**
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
Notes: All measurements use a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, and 5 = strongly agree;
for details, see Appendixes A and B). The table presents means (standard deviations).
42
43
44
.25 (4.25)
.20 (3.50)
.21 (3.76)
.08 (1.21)
.06 (1.09)
.15 (2.59)
.06 (.99)
.07 (1.21)
.14 (2.44)
.12 (1.99)
.14 (2.35)
.17 (2.81)
.09 (1.51)
.37 (6.60)
.17 (2.88)
Overall
Model
.11 (1.87)
.19 (3.42)
.12 (1.99)
.16 (2.96)
.15 (2.59)
.10 (1.87)
.23 (4.34)
.23 (4.05)
.25 (4.45)
.39 (7.33)
.18 (2.96)
Restricted
Model
.07 (.61)
.11 (1.13)
.13 (1.32)
.15 (1.89)
.32 (3.57)
.35 (3.75)
.23 (2.52)
.18 (1.92)
.27 (3.17)
.37 (4.34)
.13 (1.41)
United States
.17 (2.45)
.24 (3.47)
.12 (1.71)
.18 (2.65)
.04 (.51)
.10 (1.35)
.23 (3.49)
.25 (3.60)
.24 (3.32)
.40 (5.96)
.22 (2.91)
India
Table 4.
Results of Path Analyses
48.43 (35)
.04
2 (d.f.)
p value
Notes: Items with a p value of 1.86 or greater are significant and appear in bold.
.20 (3.68)
.07 (1.19)
.06 (1.07)
.15 (2.53)
.07 (1.17)
.08 (1.37)
.02 (.36)
Overall
Model
.10
352.94 (57)
.13 (2.52)
.16 (2.84)
.26 (4.77)
.20 (3.62)
.14 (2.34)
.10 (1.87)
Restricted
Model
.24 (2.80)
.20 (2.14)
.23 (2.52)
.21 (2.54)
.09 (.80)
.03 (.29)
United States
.51
284.21(36)
.10 (1.97)
.12 (1.79)
.22 (3.29)
.19 (2.68)
.17 (2.44)
.13 (1.90)
India
Table 4.
Continued
45
Figure 1.
Summary of Findings: The
Relationships Between
Cultural Values and Marketing
Ethics
46
CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS,
AND FURTHER RESEARCH
This study focused on an important classification of the cultural issues and ethical practices that differentiate countries.
We investigated the United States and India and assessed
their differences along Hofstedes (1991) dimensions. In general, we found that these countries exhibit different cultural
values that lead to different interpretations of marketing ethical norms. The U.S. respondents interpreted these norms
much more strictly than the Indian respondents.
Given the increasing globalization of firms and the growing
interdependencies among countries, the need for a clearer
comprehension of cultural influences on ethical and organizational practices has never been greater. The specific implications of these findings are as follows: Some of the marketing ethical norms can be construed and interpreted
differently in India; therefore, U.S. managers must explain
their expectations and underlying assumptions at the outset
when conducting business internationally. The paradigm of
cultural relativism (i.e., ethics varies from one culture to
another on the basis of the business practices of the host culture) holds true, and thus firms are advised that when in
Rome, do as the Romans do. It may be beneficial to organize
training programs for managers from participating countries
to develop and reinforce a formal or an informal common
47
48
APPENDIX A: MEASURES
CULTURAL VALUES1
OF
49
50
APPENDIX B: MEASURES
MARKETING ETHICAL
NORMS2
OF
51
NOTES
REFERENCES
Adler, Nancy and Susan Bartholomew (1992), Academic and Professional Communities of Discourse: Generating Knowledge on
Transnational Human Resource Management, Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (3), 55169.
Bartels, Robert (1967), A Model for Ethics in Marketing, Journal
of Marketing, 31 (January), 2026.
Blodgett, Jeffrey G., Long-Chuan Lu, Gregory M. Rose, and Scott
Vitell (2001), Ethical Sensitivity to Stakeholder Interests: A
Cross-Cultural Comparison, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (2), 190202.
52
THE AUTHORS
Pallab Paul is Associate
Professor of Marketing (e-mail:
ppaul@du.edu), and Kausiki
Mukhopadhyay is Adjunct
Professor of Management (e-mail:
kmukhopa@du.edu), Daniels
College of Business, University of
Denver.
Craig, C. Samuel and Susan P. Douglas (2005), International Marketing Research, 3d ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
53
54
Kroeber, Alfred L. and Clyde Kluckhohn (1952), Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts & Definitions, Papers of the Peabody
Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 47. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Lenartowicz, Tomasz and Kendall Roth (2001), Does Subculture
Within a Country Matter? A Cross-Cultural Study of Motivational Domains and Business Performance in Brazil, Journal of
International Business Studies, 32 (2), 305325.
and (2004), The Selection of Key Informants in IB
Cross-Cultural Studies, Management International Review, 44
(1), 2351.
Li, Haiyarang and Kwaku Atuahene-Gima (1999), Marketings
Influence and New Product Performance in Chinese Firms,
Journal of International Marketing, 7 (1), 3558.
Lu, Long-Chuan, Gregory M. Rose, and Jeffrey G. Blodgett (1999),
The Effects of Cultural Dimensions on Ethical Decision Making
in Marketing: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Business Ethics,
18 (1), 91105.
Malhotra, Naresh, James Agarwal, and Mark Peterson (1996),
Cross-Cultural Marketing Research: Methodological Issues and
Guidelines, International Marketing Review, 13 (5), 743.
Martin, Joanne (2001), Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mead, Richard (1994), International Management: Cross-Cultural
Dimensions. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Miller, Joan J., David M. Bersoff, and Robin L. Harwood (1990),
Perceptions of Social Responsibilities in India and the United
States: Moral Imperatives or Personal Decisions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (1), 3348.
Moon, Y.S. and G.R. Franke (2000), Cultural Influences on Agency
Practitioners Ethical Perceptions: A Comparison of Korea and
the U.S., Journal of Advertising, 29 (1), 5165.
Moorman, Christine and Ronald T. Rust (1999), The Role of Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue), 18097.
Nakata, Cheryl and K. Sivakumar (1996), National Culture and
New Product Development: An Integrative Review, Journal of
Marketing, 60 (January), 6172.
and (2001), Instituting the Marketing Concept in a
Multinational Setting: The Role of National Culture, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (3), 25575.
Nunally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2d ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Pew Research Center (2005), U.S. Image Up Slightly, but Still
Negative, Pew Global Attitudes Project (June 23), (accessed September 5, 2006), [available at http://pewglobal.org/reports/
display.php?ReportID=247].
Pires, Guilherme and John Stanton (2002), Ethnic Marketing
Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics, 36 (March), 11118.
Rallapalli, Kumar C., Scott J. Vitell, and S. Szeinbach (2000), Marketers Norms and Personal Values: An Empirical Study of Marketing Professionals, Journal of Business Ethics, 24 (1), 6575.
55
56