THE EFFECTS OF RELIGIOSITY AND COMMITMENT TO MORAL SELFIMPROVEMENT ON ETHICS OF BUSINESS STUDENTS Lada Kurpis, Gonzaga University Mirjeta Beqiri, Gonzaga University James G. Helgeson, Gonzaga University Working Paper May 27, 2006 THE EFFECTS OF RELIGIOSITY AND COMMITMENT TO MORAL SELFIMPROVEMENT ON ETHICS OF BUSINESS STUDENTS In the wake of ongoing corporate scandals, society expects that business educators will contribute to solving this problem by preparing a cohort of students who will raise the ethical standards of the business world. In a recent Business Week survey, an impressive 97.75% of 2,700 respondents think that ethics should be either a required, stand-alone course for MBA students or that ethics should be incorporated into teaching of other business disciplines (Business Week, January 21, 2003). Apparently, business schools can respond to public expectations by emphasizing the ethics component in their curricula. Jesuit business schools, with their missions stemming from traditions of spirituality, humanism, and social justice, in particular seem to be prime candidates for taking the leadership role in the implementation of this educational strategy. However, there are many alternative routes that can be taken in the process of augmenting the ethics component of business education. The American Assembly of the Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) promotes the importance of ethics in business education but leaves it to individual institutions to determine the extent and methods of ethics education to be provided to students (AASCB 2004). Better understanding of factors affecting business students’ moral development can provide valuable insights into designing and implementing a program of business ethics education. The present study uses empirical research to re-examine the effects of religiosity on ethics. Religiosity has been well researched as a personality-level factor known to affect ethical decision-making. We extend the research on religiosity and ethics by 1 proposing a new variable intended to measure an individual’s commitment to moral selfimprovement (CMSI). We explore the relationship between religiosity and CMSI as well as the effect of CMSI on individual’s moral judgments and behavioral intentions. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Theories of Ethics Two of the most influential theories of moral development, namely Piaget’s Cognitive Moral Judgment theory (1932) and Kohlberg’s Theory of Cognitive Moral Development (1981), emphasize cognition as the central component of this development. Piaget’s theory posits that cognitive and moral development go on hand-in-hand. Based on original empirical research, he defined schemas and cognitive structures that are stated to be innate, invariant, hierarchical, and culturally universal (Rich and DeVitis 1985, p. 46). However, some limitations of Piaget’s theory arise from the fact that his research on ethics was developed using a limited group of very young (5 to 13 years old) children. Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development is better suited for assessment of the ethics of adults. Kohlberg identifies six stages and three levels in moral development and emphasizes moral judgment as its central component. According to Kohlberg (1981), society progresses through the six stages of moral development, starting from the punishment orientation stage (the lowest level) and progressively to the morality of conscience stage (the highest level). According to Kohlberg, higher stages of cognitive moral development are superior to the lower levels because they allow for better social adaptation and because they are believed to use philosophically superior universal 2 principles of justice and fairness (Kohlberg 1981). Kohlberg posits that it is cultural change that brings about the change in morality in a society. Children move through the stages at their individual pace for the most part reaching the stage prevailing in their society. According to Kohlberg’s conceptualization, it is possible to assess an individual’s level of moral development by measuring one’s response to standardized moral dilemmas known as the Defining Issues Test. The Neo-Kohlbergian approach, proposed by Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and Thoma (1999) extends the main tenets of the Kohlberg theory by emphasizing the fact that morality is a multi-component process. Rest et al. (1999) put forward the four-component model of morality. The four components can be briefly described as follows: 1. Recognition of moral problems (moral sensitivity), 2. Judging which action will be more justifiable in a moral sense (moral judgment), 3. Commitment to taking moral actions, valuing moral values over other values, and taking personal responsibility (moral motivation), 4. Overcoming fatigue and temptations, persisting in a moral task and carrying on with the behavior (moral character). An essential distinction of the four-component model by Rest et al. (1999) versus the classical Kohlbergian theory is the fact that cognitive moral development, the central tenet of the Kohlberg model, is only one of the processes in Rest’s model. Business is a complex area of professional activity involving a lot of social interactions and capable of affecting a wide variety of stakeholders. Due to businesses’ specialized nature, business professionals are likely to face moral dilemmas that are 3 unique to their profession. Therefore, the study of ethics in business settings, led to development of specialized theories of business ethics. A Contingency Framework for Ethical Decision-Making in Marketing by Ferrell and Gresham (1985) and a Theory of Marketing Ethics by Hunt and Vitell (1986) provide examples of comprehensive ethics theories specific to the business environment. Both models outline groups of factors capable of affecting ethical cognitions, intentions and behaviors. The Hunt-Vitell theory (1986) provides an especially detailed account of these influencing factors. According to Hunt and Vitell (1986), these factors include cultural, professional, organizational, and industry environments as well as personal characteristics. The term “personal characteristics” in the Hunt-Vitell model embraces religion, value system, belief system, strength of moral character, level of cognitive moral development, and ethical sensitivity. Although, the four-component model of morality by Rest et al (1999) implies that religion and religious values will influence all four elements of morality, only two of these processes were selected as key dependent variables for this study: recognition of an ethical problem (moral sensitivity) and ethical behavioral intensions (moral motivation), in response to ethical scenarios. Religiosity and Ethics Allport and Ross (1967) define religious orientation as “the personal practice of religion (p. 432).” Analysis of the research literature on religious orientation suggests that the terms “religiousness” and “religiosity” are used by researchers essentially in the same sense (e.g., Conroy and Emerson 2004; La Barbera and Gürhan 1997, Singhapakdi et al. 2000), to describe one’s adherence to the practice of religion. 4 All of the aforementioned theories of morality acknowledge, either directly or implicitly, that religiosity plays an important role in influencing an individual’s morality. Religion serves as a social force and, for religious people, as a source of moral philosophies that are internalized through socialization. As Rest et al. (1999) put it: “…Morality deals with this world; religion deals with the transcendent; but when religion defines how we in this world are to relate to each other, then religion serves to define morality (p. 163).” Both the Piagetian and Kohlbergian views of morality explicitly posit that cognitive moral development is an experience-based and continuous process unfolding over time during an individual’s life span. Therefore, an individual’s ethics is expected to be improved over time in response to educational and social influences, including religion-related socialization. If a person holds religion in high regard, she is also likely to hold the dogma of morality dictated by her religion in high regard. Therefore, a highly religious person is likely to consider ethics more important relative to a person with a low level of religiosity: H1: Religiosity is positively related to the perceived importance of ethics. Empirical research examined the influence of religiosity on ethics on numerous occasions (see, for instance, Rest et al. (1999) for a list of studies examining the influence of religion on moral development). A review of recent empirical studies examining the effects of religiosity on ethics specifically in business settings reveled substantial support to the notion that religiosity is positively related to ethical attitudes and behavioral intentions. Using a sample of 453 members of the American Marketing Association, Singhapakdi et al. (2000) found that religiosity was a significant predictor of ethical 5 problem recognition and ethical intentions. Knotts, Lopez, and Mesak (2000) found that in their sample of 242 undergraduate students, respondents with greater levels of religiosity evaluated the ethical scenarios as more unethical than those with lower levels of religious commitment. A survey of 473 Christian business students by Angelidis and Ibrahim (2004) showed that high religiosity corresponded to greater concern about the ethical component of corporate social responsibility and a weaker orientation toward economic performance. Finally, Longenecker et al. (2004) investigated the relationship between religiosity and ethics using a sample of 1234 businesspersons in the United States. They found that, in response to 16 ethical scenarios, those respondents who reported a high or moderate level of religious intensity (measured as importance of religion) showed a higher level of ethical judgment compared to the respondents who self-reported that religion was of no or low importance to them. Literature review, therefore, suggests that there is a strong positive relationship between religion and ethics. Thus, the following hypotheses were set forth: H2a: Religiosity is positively related to ethical problem recognition. H2b: Religiosity is positively related to ethical behavioral intentions. Empirical research provides little evidence that religious affiliation per se (e.g, Catholic or Protestant) has an effect on ethical judgments or behavioral intentions. Knotts, Lopez, and Mesak (2000), did not find that affiliation with a particular organized religion translated into more critical judgments about ethical scenarios. Longenecker et al. (2004) did not find any difference between groups based on religious orientation in terms of their responses to ethical scenarios, except for Evangelical Protestants who were found to hold more ethical attitudes. 6 These findings are in line with Allport and Ross’ (1967) conceptualization of the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic religious orientation. According to Allport and Ross (1967), people with an extrinsic religious orientation tend to use religion for their own ends. People with this orientation can use religion as a source of solace and security, to socialize, to affirm social status, etc. People with an intrinsic religious orientation “find their master motive in religion. Other needs, strong as they may be, are regarded of less ultimate significance, and they are, so far as possible, brought into harmony with the religious beliefs and prescriptions” (Allport and Ross 1967, p. 434). Although some people, according to Allport and Ross (1967), simultaneously endorse both extrinsic and intrinsic attitudes, blurring the line between these two groups, the distinction between an extrinsic and intrinsic orientation might explain why church attendance alone is rarely positively related to ethics. Simply attending worship services might signify an extrinsic orientation, the pragmatic use of religion where no relation to ethics can be expected. On the other hand living one’s religion (intrinsic orientation) should lead to internalization of moral values endorsed by one’s religion and translate into more ethical attitudes and behaviors. Some of the reviewed empirical studies explored the relationship between ethics and behavioral measures of religiosity (usually measured as frequency of church/worship attendance). Kidwell, Stevens, and Bethke (1987) used a sample of 100 managers and found no difference in ethical judgments based on frequency of respondents’ church attendance. Singhapakdi et al. (2000) also report very limited evidence in support of a positive relationship between this particular dimension of religiosity (church attendance) and ethical judgments and intentions. Conroy and Emerson (2004) used church 7 attendance as a proxy measure of religiosity and found a positive relationship between this measure and ethical attitudes. Limited empirical evidence in support of a positive relationship between church attendance and ethical attitudes suggests that a more promising approach might lie in focusing on various aspects of intrinsic religiosity. In application to morality, strong internal religious orientation might signal itself in various ways. For instance, the intrinsically religious individuals, those who strive to bring their lives in harmony with their religious values and beliefs, would be expected to fully accept the ethical norms prescribed by their religions. An intrinsically religious individual might be less inclined to “bend” the moral rules to suit the need of the moment, thus demonstrating greater commitment to ethical judgments and behaviors. Notably, most major religions require their adepts not only to adhere to high morals standards but to continuously work on their moral self-improvement. The present study explores the concept of commitment to moral self-improvement and its relationship with religiosity and ethics of an individual. Commitment to Moral Self-Improvement Multiple studies of commitment explored and defined this construct from the perspective of various disciplines and in various settings (see, for example, Iniesta and Sanchez 2002, for a recent review). As Burke and Reitzes (1991) note, past conceptualizations of commitment, tended to focus on a tie between an individual and either 1) a line of activity, 2) particular role partners, or 3) an organization. Applied to ethical development, the definitions of commitment that focus on consistency in certain lines of activity appear to be most relevant. One of the first influential conceptualizations of this type was suggested by Becker (1960) who defined 8 commitment primarily as consistent behavior. Conceptualization of commitment as consistent behavior was further extended in the works by McCall and Simmons (1966), Kanter (1968), Stryker (1968, 1980), Serpe (1987), and Burke and Reitzes (1991) from the perspective of the identity theory. Identity theory explains behavioral consistency through the concept of “identity salience” or the relative salience of a given identity in relation to another (Serpe 1987, p. 44). According to the identity theory, one of the consequences of high level of commitment to a social identity (e.g., being a religious person) is that people will work harder to maintain positive appraisals of their relevant behaviors by other members of society. A religious person, therefore, will be inclined to reflect on the morality of one’s thoughts and actions. She will also tend to “tune in” to what other people might think of the morality of her behavior and use these external inputs (appraisals) in fine-tuning her moral development. Thus, identity theory helps to explain the mechanism contributing a religious person’s enduring motivation for continuous moral self-improvement. Teachings of most major religions endorse moral self-improvement as a valid and laudable personal goal for people who practice these religions. This happens via many mechanisms. By setting high standards of morality, most religious practices require that their adherents constantly work on reaching those standards, resulting in constant moral self-improvement. Many religious practices achieve this either by providing examples of highly virtuous people (e.g., saints in Catholic or Orthodox Christianity) or by directly drawing on the authority of the supreme being(s) to instill moral values in the adepts of a religion. If a moral standard is set extremely high, if not unreachable by definition, the adepts are in pursuit of an ever-distant goal. This creates a motivation for their 9 continuous work on moral self-improvement. Higher level of cognitive moral development, in turn, is likely to result in setting even higher standards, basically sending a signal: “No matter how moral you are, there is always opportunity for moral selfimprovement.” In terms of the Hunt-Vitell (1986) Theory of Ethics, the CMSI construct represents part of the personal-level value system, very closely related to and influenced by religious values. A highly religious person, therefore, is more likely to accept the need for constant moral development as an internalized norm. H3: Religiosity is positively related to commitment to moral self improvement (CMSI). As stated previously, greater commitment to moral self-improvement is expected to lead to achieving higher levels of cognitive moral development, resulting in greater perceived importance of ethics. H4: Commitment to moral self-improvement (CMSI) is positively related to perceived importance of ethics. Higher levels of cognitive moral development by definition allow for better identification of moral problems. Once a dilemma is identified as an ethical problem, greater levels of CMSI should lead to greater intention to behave consistently with one’s moral norms, resulting in more ethical behavioral intentions. H5a: Commitment to moral self-improvement (CMSI) is positively related to ethical problem recognition. 10 H5b: Commitment to moral self-improvement (CMSI) is positively related to ethical behavioral intentions. Therefore, commitment to moral self-improvement is hypothesized to be influenced by internalized religious beliefs and values. In turn, the CMSI is expected to positively affect ethical problem recognition and behavioral intentions. As stated previously, previous research has well established that religiosity is positively related to ethical problem recognition and behavioral intentions. The hypothesized relationship is illustrated in Fig. 1. [Insert Fig. 1 here] This relationship between variables implies that CMSI might mediate the effect of religiosity on ethical problem recognition and behavioral intentions: H6a: Commitment to moral self-improvement (CMSI) mediates the effect of religiosity on ethical problem recognition. H6a: Commitment to moral self-improvement (CMSI) mediates the effect of religiosity on ethical behavioral intentions. Methodology Participants. The data were collected in classroom settings using a paper-andpencil questionnaire in a small private, religiously affiliated university in the Northwest. The total of 244 valid questionnaires was completed by the participants. All participants were undergraduate students who participated in the study in exchange for a partial course credit. Less than half of the respondents were women (42 %). The majority of the respondents described themselves as Catholics (56.9%), with the next largest religious 11 orientation represented in our sample being Protestant (16.3%), and other Christian denominations (14.7%). Majority of the respondents (52.5%) self-reported that they attend church one or more times a month. The overwhelming majority (89.4%) of respondents self-reported that they had taken one or more business classes that either were entirely devoted to the study of business ethics or had a significant business ethics component. The age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 44, with a mean of 21 years. The demographic profile of the participants is presented in Table 1. [Insert Table 1 Here] Independent Variables. Three independent variables pertaining to the above hypotheses were included in a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Religiosity. Based on Allport and Ross’ (1967) conceptualization of the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, an effort was made to measure cognitive and behavioral religiosity separately. The cognitive measure of religiosity was modified from La Barbera and Gurhan (1997) and presented respondents with a question: “How important are religious beliefs in your life?” The behavioral measure of religiosity asked respondents to indicate frequency of their church attendance on a scale from (1) “never” to (7) “more than once a week.” While multi-item measures are generally preferred, it has been suggested that “if the construct being measured is sufficiently narrow or unambiguous to the respondent, a single-item measure may suffice” (Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy, 1997). Single-item measures of religiosity are not uncommon in ethics research (e.g., Angelidis and Ibrahim, 2004; Conroy and Emerson 2004; La Barbera and Gurhan 1997; Longenecker, McKinney, and Moore, 2004). 12 Commitment to Moral Self-Improvement (CMSI). A 7-item measure was developed in order to operationalize CMSI. The CMSI measure was developed specifically for this study. The scale was developed following the procedures recommended in the literature (e.g., Bagozzi 1994, Churchill 1979, Nunnally 1967). Scale items were generated based on relevant literature and on discussions with colleagues. Examples of typical items are “I would like to become a more ethical and moral individual” and “I think that it is my obligation to continue improving my moral self throughout my life.” The items were further analyzed using reliability analysis and factor analysis (factor loadings and scree plot). The reliability analysis and the factor analysis led to elimination of two items, resulting in a 5-item measure of CMSI which can be seen in Appendix B. The reliability of the resulting measure was satisfactory, with the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.8 (Bagozzi 1994). The retained 5 items explained approximately 46% of variance in the data. The responses to the CMSI items were measured on a 9-point scale, ranging from (1) “completely disagree” to (9) “completely agree.” Dependent Variables. The present study investigated the effects of the measured independent variables on the perceived importance of ethics, recognition of ethical problems, and ethical behavioral intentions. Given our research objective of examining the influence of religiosity and CMSI on ethical problem recognition and behavioral intentions, specifically in the business domain, business-related scenarios were chosen as a means of measuring respondents’ ethics. Business-related scenarios describing an ethically challenging situation have been widely used in empirical research in the past (e.g., Conroy and Emerson 2004; Hunt and 13 Laverie 2004; Longenecker et al. 2004; Singhapakdi et al. 2000; Singhapakdi and Marta 2005). Four scenarios, all of which have been previously used in studies of ethics (e.g., Singhapakdi et al. 2000) were adopted from the study by Dornoff and Tankersley (1975). The scenarios are presented in Appendix A. Perceived Importance of Ethics. The PRESOR (Perceived Importance of Ethics and Social Responsibility) scale developed by Singhapakdi, Vitell, Rallapalli, and Kraft (1996) was used to measure perceived importance of ethics. PRESOR consists of three sub-scales: “Social Responsibility and Profitability,” “Long-Term Gains,” and “ShortTerm Gains.” The responses were recorded on a scale from (1) Completely disagree to (9) Completely agree. After recoding the negatively worded items, the scale was subjected to reliability analysis. All three PRESOR subscales were reliable, with Cronbach alpha being in the acceptable range from 0.68 (the Social Responsibility and Profitability subscale) to 0.78 – 0.79 (the Short-Term Gains and the Long-Term Gains scales, respectively). Ethical Problem Recognition and Behavioral Intentions. As it was discussed earlier, ethical problem recognition and ethical behavioral intentions were operationalized using four ethics scenarios adopted from Dornoff and Tankersley (1975). Recognition of Ethical Problems was measured as a degree of agreement with the following statement: “Generally speaking, the situation described above involves an ethical problem” (adopted from Singhapakdi et al. 2000) using a Likert scale from (1) Strongly disagree to (9) Strongly agree. Ethical behavioral intentions were measured as an agreement with the statement: “If you were [the business person] in this situation, what is the likelihood that you will take the same course of actions that [the businessperson] did?” using a Likert 14 scale from (1) Very unlikely to (9) Very likely. This measure was also modified from Singhapakdi et al. (2000). Other Demographic Measures. Respondents also provided information about their academic status, extent of business ethics education, age, gender, and work experience. They were also asked to indicate their religious affiliation, with the available response categories being Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, and Other (open-ended response option). The extent of business ethics education received by the respondents was measured in two different ways. First of all, respondents were asked to provide the information about their academic status. Since the survey was taken by the students who are already taking classes in a business school, possible response options included: sophomores, juniors, and seniors. The assumption was that the more years a student spent studying at the university level, the more chances she had to be exposed to ethics instruction. In addition to this, a respondents were asked to indicate how many business school classes that they took which were either entirely devoted to study of ethics or contained a significant ethics component, with the responses recorded using a 5point scale from (1) “none,” to (5) “over 8 classes” (see Table 1). Results and Discussion The data were analyzed using the SPSS 14.0 statistical software. Effects of Religiosity on Perceived Importance of Ethics. To test Hypothesis 1, which predicted a positive relationship between religiosity and perceived importance of ethics (PRESOR), a series of separate linear regressions were run, using the cognitive measure of religious intensity as a predictor and the three sub-scales of the PRESOR 15 scale as dependent variables. None of these models reached significance (df=240), thus leading us to rejection of Hypothesis 1. The data provide no evidence of the direct effect of religiosity on perceived importance of ethics. Effects of Religiosity on Ethical Problem Recognition and Behavioral Intentions. Hypotheses 2a and 2b predicted that religiosity is positively related to ethical problem recognition and ethical behavioral intentions. Recall that problem recognition and behavioral intentions were operationalized using four ethical scenarios. Hypotheses 2a and 2b were tested with the help of a series of linear regressions where religiosity was a predictor and problem recognition and behavioral intentions were dependent variables. These regressions were run separately for each dependent variable and repeated for each scenario. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2. [Insert Table 2 here] As can be seen from Table 2, the direction of the effect was as predicted for both dependent variables. Those respondents who self-reported greater religiosity were more likely to agree that a situation described in a scenario was an ethical problem. Highly religious individuals were also less likely to agree that they would behave in the same manner as a businessperson in a scenario. Disagreement with the latter statement indicated a more ethical behavioral intention. However, these relationships reached significance for only 2 of the 8 dependent variables. Further analysis indicates that on a scale from 1 to 9, the means of the problem recognition variable were fairly high for the first three of the four scenarios: 7.11, 6.88, and 8.0, respectively. The problem recognition mean for the fourth scenario was 5.23. Scenario 4 might have been considered to be more harmless than the other three 16 scenarios, resulting in a lower mean of problem recognition. The means of behavioral intentions (lower numbers indicate ethical behavioral intentions) for all four scenarios were fairly low: 2.3, 3.36, and 1.8 for scenarios 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The mean of behavioral intentions for scenario 4 was higher (4.31), possibly reflecting consequences of this scenario not being perceived as a serious ethical problem. Overall, Hypothesis 2a was not supported and Hypothesis 2b received limited support. Effects of Religiosity on Commitment to Moral Self-Improvement (CMSI). Hypothesis 3 predicted that religiosity was positively related to commitment to moral self-improvement (CMSI). A regression analysis revealed that religiosity was a significant predictor of commitment to moral self-improvement (β=0.217, t(240)=3.436, p=0.001), explaining 4.7% (R2=0.047) of the variance in CMSI scores, thus supporting Hypothesis 3. Effects of CMSI on Perceived Importance of Ethics. Hypothesis 4 was tested with the help of three linear regressions where CMSI was a predictor and the PRESOR subscales served as dependent variables. The effect of CMSI on the Social Responsibility sub-scale was not significant (t(242)=-0.386, n.s.). CMSI, however, was a significant predictor of the Long-Term Gains subscale of the PRESOR scale (t (242)=5.408, p<0.001) and of the Short-Term Gains subscale (t(242)=-3.433, p<0.01). Overall, the data yields evidence in support of Hypothesis 4. Respondents with high commitment to moral self-improvement were more likely to endorse the statements of the Long-Term Gains subscale (typical items: “Being ethical and socially responsible is the most important thing a firm can do” or “Business has social responsibility beyond making a profit.”) At the same time, respondents with high level of commitment to moral self-improvement 17 tended to disagree with the statements from the Short-Term Gains subscale (typical items “The most important concern for a firm is making a profit, even if it means bending or breaking the rules” or “Efficiency is much more important to a firm than whether or not the firm is seen as ethical or socially responsible.”) Effects of CMSI on Problem Recognition and Behavioral Intentions. Hypotheses H5a and H5b predicted that commitment to moral self-improvement is positively related to recognition of ethical problems and to ethical behavioral intentions. These hypotheses were tested with the help of separate simple regressions using CMSI as a predictor and ethical problem recognition and behavioral intentions in response to each ethical scenario as outcome variables. Table 3 summarizes the results of these analyses. [Insert Table 3 here] As it can be seen in Table 3, the CMSI was a significant predictor of ethical problem recognition and behavioral intentions in response to all four ethical scenarios, thus supporting Hypothesis 5a and 5b. Greater commitment to moral self-improvement corresponded to greater levels of ethical problem recognition. At the same time, respondents with high levels of CMSI were less likely to agree with the statement that they might engage in ethically questionable behavior described in the scenarios. CMSI as a Mediator of the Effects of Religiosity on Ethics. Hypotheses 6a and 6b state that CMSI mediates the effects of religiosity on ethical problem recognition and behavioral intentions. As it was determined before, CMSI is positively related to religiosity. A test was carried out to explore whether the effect of religiosity on ethical attitudes and intentions was mediated by CMSI. This test was performed using the guidelines outlined in Baron and Kenny (1986). As stated by Baron and Kenny (1986), to 18 demonstrate mediation, three conditions have to be met: (a) the independent variable must affect the mediator; (b) the independent variable has to affect the dependent variable, and (c) when regressing the dependent variable on both the independent variable and on the mediator, the mediator must affect the dependent variable. If these effects are all observed in the predicted direction, then the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable should be less in the third equation (equation (c) above) than in the second (equation (b) above). Based on the existing theory, this study made an assumption that religiosity affects CMSI, while simultaneously affecting ethical problem recognition and behavioral intentions. As has been demonstrated, CMSI at the same time affects ethical problem recognition and behavioral intention. Thus, religiosity serves as an independent variable and measures of ethics serve as dependent variables, while CMSI is hypothesized to be a possible mediator of the effect of religiosity on the measures of ethics: ethical problem recognition and behavioral intentions. The opportunities for conducting mediation analysis were limited for this set of data since the effect of religiosity on ethics was observed only for ethical behavioral intentions and only for two scenarios. Thus, the sequence of tests recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) could be applied to only these two dependent variables. For the first scenario, the effect of religiosity on behavioral intentions was significant (t (240)= -2.22, p<0.05). The effect of CMSI on behavioral intentions for this scenario was also significant (t(240) - 3.04, p<0.01). When CMSI was added as a predictor to a regression of behavioral intentions on religiosity, the CMSI remained a significant predictor of behavioral intentions (t(239)= - 2.66, p<0.01). However, when 19 CMSI was introduced as a predictor in the third equation, the effect of religiosity dropped to non significance (t(239)=-1.62, n.s.). According to Baron and Kenny (1986) this signifies that CMSI fully mediates the effect of religiosity on ethical intentions in our sample. For the second scenario, the effect of religiosity on behavioral intentions was significant (t(240)=5.59, p<0.05). CMSI remained a significant predictor (t(240) - 3.63, p<0.001) of behavioral intentions for this scenario as well. When CMSI was added as a predictor to a regression of behavioral intentions on religiosity, CMSI remained a significant predictor (t(239)= - 2.66, p<0.01). However, when CMSI was introduced as a predictor in the third equation, the effect of religiosity dropped in significance (t (239)=1.65, n.s.) thus demonstrating that CMSI fully mediates the effect of religiosity. Effects of CMSI on the Extent of Business Ethics Education. In order to achieve further insight into the effects of the CMSI, a correlation between CMSI and the selfreported extent of business ethics education received by respondents. This correlation was weak and not significant (r=0.01, n.s.), indicating no relationship between CMSI and business ethics education. This finding seems counterintuitive because logically, one would expect that high-CMSI subjects would opt for taking more business ethics classes as opposed to low-CMSI subjects, resulting in a systematic relationship between the two variables. This relationship was not observed in our data. The lack of the relationship between CMSI and ethics education can perhaps be attributed to the fact that business majors have of a high number of required courses. This means less flexibility in choosing between classes. Even if the individual maintains high level of commitment to moral self- 20 improvement, she has limited opportunities to translate it into a specific course-selection personal strategy. General Discussion The present study contributes to the body of research on business ethics in several different ways. From the theoretical perspective, the study extends our understanding of factors contributing to an individual’s moral development. First of all, the study extends the research on religiosity by introducing and testing a new construct, commitment to moral self improvement (CMSI). Secondly, it reexamines the effects of religiosity on ethics. A 5-item measure of CMSI was developed for the purpose of this study and used to test the hypotheses about the relationship between religiosity, commitment to moral self-improvement, and ethical problem recognition and behavioral intentions. Table 4 presents the summary of the hypotheses and findings of the study. [Insert Table 4 here] Based on the results of this present study, highly religious people tend to have higher levels of commitment to moral self-improvement. Apparently, commitment to moral self-improvement results in higher levels of moral cognitive development: higher levels of CMSI in our study translated in a belief about greater importance of business ethics. The data provides evidence that CMSI is positively related to respondents’ ability to recognize ethical problems. High-CMSI respondents in our sample also tended to declare more ethical behavioral intentions in regard to the ethical business scenarios used in the study. 21 Compared to religiosity, the CMSI actually turned out to be a better predictor of perceived importance of ethics, ethical problem recognition, and ethical behavioral intentions. Regarding religiosity, this study provided limited support to the notion that higher religiosity is related to higher ethics. Empirical evidence, consistent with this proposition, was limited to behavioral intentions and was observed in response to only two ethical scenarios. This finding is contrary to the results of several empirical studies where such relationship was observed (e.g., Singhapakdi et al. (2000), Knotts et al. (2000), Longenecker et al. (2004)). Several factors might explain why the effect of religiosity on ethics was not observed in this study. First of all, this study used a student sample that was very homogenous in terms of their religiosity: the majority of the respondents (64.1%) selfreported high levels of importance of religion in their life (scores of 6 and above on a scale from (1) extremely unimportant to (9) extremely important). This comes as no surprise given that the data were collected in a private, religious-affiliated university. Homogeneity has a potential to suppress correlation values. Glass and Hopkins (1996), for instance, point out that: “Other things being equal, the greater the variability between observations, the greater the value of r [regression coefficient] (p. 121).” The opposite is true as well: if variable A is homogeneous, the correlations between this variable and some other variable B will be much less than if variable A were very heterogeneous. Further analysis yielded evidence consistent with our hypothesis regarding the mediating role of CMSI. The data revealed that CMSI mediated the effect of religiosity on ethical behavioral intentions in the two of the four ethical scenarios where this analysis could be conducted. 22 In terms of Allport and Ross (1967) conceptual distinction between intrinsic (religion for the sake of religion) and extrinsic (use of religion for personal goals) religious orientation, CMSI is closer to the pure intrinsic orientation. The fact that in our highly homogenous (in terms of religiosity) sample, CMSI turned out to be a variable better capable of predicting ethical judgments and ethical behavioral intentions than a measure of religiosity might be interpreted as additional support to Allport and Ross (1967) conceptualization of religiosity. Research on religiosity and ethics might gain if the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity is taken into consideration when designing future studies. Taken together, these results suggest that commitment to moral self-improvement is a promising construct that warrants further investigation in studies of ethics, especially in the context of ethics education. Future Research Future research could also use a less homogeneous sample than the present study. As it was discussed, homogeneity of the sample might have attenuated the effects of religiosity on dependent variables. Design of future studies could also employ a broader range of dependent variables going beyond ethical problem recognition and behavioral intentions. Possible variables of interest could include various measures of ethical judgment, the Defining Issues Test measure (Rest 1999), or the measures of actual ethical behavior, as opposed to measures of behavioral intentions. Other extensions of this study could include systematic manipulation of severity of ethical situations described in the scenarios (as an independent variable) and exploring its effect on dependent variables. 23 This present study made a contribution to research on ethics by introducing the construct of commitment to moral self-improvement (CMSI) and demonstrating that this variable mediates the effects of religiosity on ethical sensitivity and behavioral intentions. It was demonstrated that religiosity positively contributes to development of CMSI. This leaves unanswered a number of questions. How can CMSI be formed in non-religious people? Are non-religious people systematically lower in CMSI than religious people, or is the relationship between the two constructs more complex? Future research could focus on further development of the CMSI scale which is currently “tailored” to the education domain (e.g., two items of the CMSI scale make specific reference to “university education.”). Further development of this scale could increase its generalizabiility. Future research might continue examination of CMSI while developing and testing more comprehensive models that would include a wider range of explanatory variables. This present study dealt with a very homogenous sample consisting of people of similar education, age, socioeconomic status, level of religiosity. Future research could concentrate on examining whether each of these variables is capable of influencing the level of commitment to moral self-improvement. In terms of practical applications for CMSI research, the investigation of possibility of increasing the level of CMSI via ethics education could be a viable avenue for future research. 24 REFERENCES AACSB International (2004), Report of the Ethics Education Task Force to AACSB International’s Board of Directors, retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/eerc/EETF-report-6-25-04.pdf on May 28, 2006. Allport, Gordon and Michael Ross (1967), “Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5 (4), April, 432-443. Angelidis, John and Nabil Ibrahim (2004), “An Exploratory Study of the Impact of Degree of Religiousness Upon an Individual’s Corporate Social Responsiveness Orientation,” Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 119-128. Bagozzi, Richard P. (1994), Measurement in Marketing Research: Basic Principles of Questionnaire Design, In “Principles of Marketing Research: Basic Principles of Questionnaire Construction,” Ed. Richard Bagozzi, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1-49. Baron, Ruben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (December), 1173-1182. Becker, Howard S. (1960), “Notes on the Concept of Commitment,” The American Journal of Sociology, 66 (1), July, 32-42. Burke, Peter J. and Donald C. Reitzes (1991), “An Identity Theory Approach to Commitment,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 54 (3), September, 239-251. Churchill, G. A. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73. 25 Conroy, Stephen J. and Tisha L.N. Emerson (2004), “Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical Awareness among Students,” Journal of Business Ethics, 50 (4), April, 383-391. Dornoff, Ronald J. and Clint B. Tankersley (1975), “Perceptual Differences in Market Transactions – A Source of Consumer Frustration,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 9 (1), 97-103. Ferrell, O.C. and Larry G. Gresham (1985), “A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 49 (Summer), 87-96. Glass, Gene V. and Kenneth D. Hopkins (1996), Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Hunt, Shelby D. and Debra A. Laverie (2004), “Experiential Learning and the HuntVitell Theory of Ethics: Teaching Marketing Ethics by Integrating Theory and Practice,” Marketing Education Review, 14 (3), Fall, 1-14. Hunt, Shelby D. and Scott J. Vitell (1986), “A General Theory of Marketing Ethics,” Journal of Macromarketing, 6 (Spring), 5-16. Iniesta, M. Angeles and Manuel Sanchez (2002), “Retail-Consumer Commitment and Market Segmentation,” The International Review of Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research, 12(3), July, 261-279. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1968), “Commitment and Social Organization: A study of Commitment Mechanisms in Utopian Communities,” American Sociological Review, 33 (4), August, 499-517. 26 Kidwell, J.M., R.E. Stevens, and A.L. Bethke (1987), “Differences in Ethical Perceptions Between Male and Female Managers,” Journal of Business Ethics, 6 (6), 489-493. Knotts, Tami L., Tara Burnthorne Lopez, and Hani I. Mesak (2000), “Ethical Judgments of College Students: An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Education for Business, 75 (3), January/February, 158-163. Kohlberg, Lawence (1981), Essays on Moral Development: The Philosophy of Moral Development, Harper and Row Publishers, San Francisco. La Barbera, Priscilla A. and Zeynep Gürhan (1997), “The Role of Materialism, Religiosity, and Demographics in Subjective Well-Being,” Psychology and Marketing, 14 (1), 71-97. Longenecker, Justin G., Joseph A. McKinney, and Carlos W. Moore (2004), “Religious Intensity, Evangelical Christianity, and Business Ethics: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 373-386. MBAs Need More than Ethics 101: Reader Survey Results, Business Week, January 21, 2003. McCall, George J. and J.L. Simmons (1966), Identities and Interactions, New York: Free Press. Nunnally, Jum C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, New York: NY, McGraw-Hill. Piaget, Jean (1932), The Moral Judgment of the Child, New York, NY: Collier (1962). Rest, James, Darcia Narvaez, Muriel J. Bebeau, Stephen J. Thoma (1999), Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach, Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 27 Rich, John Martin and Joseph L. DeVitis (1985), Theories of Moral Development, Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Serpe, Richard T. (1987), “Stability and Change in Self: A Structural Symbolic Interactionist Explanation,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 50 (1), 44-55. Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Scott J. Vitell, Kumar C. Rallapalli, Kenneth L. Kraft (1996), The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: A Scale Development,” Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1131-1140. Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Janet K. Marta, Kumar C. Rallapalli, C.P. Rao (2000), “Toward an Understanding of Religiousness and Marketing Ethics: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Business Ethics, 27 (4), 305-319. Singhapakdi, Anusorn and Janet K. Marta (2005), “Comparing Marketing Students with Practitioners on Some Key Variables of Ethical Problems,” Marketing Education Review, 27 (4), 305-319. Stryker, Sheldon (1968), “Identity Salience and Role Performance,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 4, 558-564. Stryker, Sheldon (1980). Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings. Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., and M.J. Hudy (1997), “Overall Job Satisfaction: How Good Are Single-Item Measures?” Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252. 28 FIGURE 1 CMSI AS A HYPOTHESIZED MEDIATOR OF THE EFFECT OF RELIGIOSITY ON ETHICAL PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS Ethical Problem Recognition Religiosity Ethical Behavioral Intentions CMSI 29 TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS Characteristic Frequency Percentage Gender Male Female 139 103 57.4 42.6 Academic Status Sophomore Junior Senior 96 79 66 39.8 32.8 27.4 136 39 1 16 12 35 56.9 16.3 0.4 6.7 5.0 14.7 35 15 65 45 32 45 5 14.5 6.2 26.8 18.6 13.2 18.6 2.1 Religious Orientation Catholic Protestant Jewish Agnostic Atheist Other (e.g., nondenominational Christian) Church Attendance Never Once a year A few times a year Once a month 2-3 times a month Once a week More than once a week Work Experience Had work experience 230 Did not have work 12 experience 95.1 4.9 Number of business ethics classes taken at the university level None 25 10.6 1-2 121 51.3 3-4 64 27.1 5-6 18 7.6 7-8 7 3.0 Over 8 classes 1 0.4 30 TABLE 2 REGRESSION ANALYSIS – THE EFFECT OF RELIGIOSITY ON ETHICAL PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND ETHICAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS Dependent Variables Predictor T P (Religiosity), β Scenario 1 – Failure To Honor Warranty Problem Recognition 0.04 0.62 n.s. Behavioral Intentions -0.142 -2.223 <0.05 Scenario 2 – Over-Eager Salesman Problem Recognition 0.087 1.35 n.s. Behavioral Intentions -0.151 -2.364 <0.05 Scenario 3 - Taking Advantage Of Underprivileged Consumers Problem Recognition 0.097 1.503 n.s. Behavioral Intentions -0.08 -1.248 n.s., p=0.213 Scenario 4 - Withholding Information From Consumers Problem Recognition 0.002 0.026 n.s. Behavioral Intentions -0.102 -1.589 n.s., p=0.113 Overall model, F (df=1, 241) P 0.385 4.94 n.s. <0.05 1.82 5.59 n.s. <0.05 2.26 1.56 n.s. n.s., p=0.213 0.001 2.526 n.s. n.s., p=0.113 TABLE 3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS – THE EFFECT OF CMSI ON ETHICAL PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND ETHICAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS Dependent Variables Predictor T P (Religiosity), β Scenario 1 – Failure To Honor Warranty Problem Recognition 0.273 4.414 p<0.001 Behavioral Intentions -0.192 -3.042 p<0.01 Scenario 2 – Over-Eager Salesman Problem Recognition 0.248 3.988 p<0.001 Behavioral Intentions -0.227 -3.634 p<0.001 Scenario 3 - Taking Advantage Of Underprivileged Consumers Problem Recognition 0.208 3.314 p=0.001 Behavioral Intentions -0.202 -3.202 p<0.01 Scenario 4 - Withholding Information From Consumers Problem Recognition 0.132 2.066 p<0.05 Behavioral Intentions -0.174 -2.746 p<0.01 Overall model, F (df=1, 241) P 19.486 9.254 p<0.001 p<0.01 15.907 13.205 p<0.001 p<0.001 10.981 10.256 p=0.001 p<0.01 4.269 7.54 p<0.05 p<0.01 31 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS TESTS Hypothesis Description of Hypothesis Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2a Hypothesis 2b Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 5a Hypothesis 5b Hypothesis 6a Hypothesis 6b Religiosity → Importance of Ethics Religiosity → Problem Recognition Religiosity → Behavioral Intentions Religiosity → CMSI CMSI → Importance of Ethics CMSI → Problem Recognition CMSI → Behavioral Intentions Religiosity → CMSI → Problem Recognition Religiosity → CMSI → Behavioral Intentions Results of Hypothesis Testing Not supported Not supported Partial support Supported Mostly supported Supported Supported Was not tested Partial support 32 APPENDIX A MARKETING ETHICS SCENARIOS (ADOPTED FROM DORNOFF AND TANKERSLEY (1975) SCENARIO 1 (Failure To Honor Warranty) A person bought a new car from a franchised automobile dealership in the local area. Eight months after the car was purchased, he began having problems with the transmission. He took the car back to the dealer, and some minor adjustments were made. During the next few months he continually had a similar problem with the transmission slipping. Each time the dealer made only minor adjustments on the car. During the 13th month after the car had been bought, the man returned to the dealer because the transmission was again not functioning properly. At this time, the transmission was completely overhauled. Action: Since the warranty was for only one year (12 months from the date of purchase), the dealer charged the full price for parts and labor. SCENARIO 2 (Over-Eager Salesman) A young man, recently hired as a salesman for a local retail store, has been working very hard to favorably impress his boss with his selling ability. At times, this young man, anxious for an order, has been a little over-eager. To get the order, he exaggerates the value of the item or withholds relevant information concerning the product he is trying to sell. No fraud or deceit is intended by his actions, he is simply over-eager. 33 Action: His boss, the owner of the retail store, is aware of this salesman’s actions, but he has done nothing to stop such practice. SCENARIO 3 (Taking Advantage Of Underprivileged Consumers) A retail grocery chain operates several stores throughout the area including one in the city’s inner city (the so-called “ghetto”) area. Independent studies have shown that prices do tend to be higher and there is less of a selection of products in this particular store than in the other locations. Action: On the day welfare checks are received in this area of the city, the retailer increases prices on all of his merchandise. SCENARIO 4 (Withholding Information From Consumers) Sets of a well-known brand of “good” china dinnerware are advertised on sale at a considerable discount by a local retailer. Several patterns of a typical 45-piece service for eight are listed. The customer may also buy any “odd” pieces which are available in stock (for instance, a butter dish, a gravy bowl, etc.). The advertisement does not indicate, however, that these patterns have been discontinued by the manufacturer. Action: The retailer offers this information only if a customer directly asks if the merchandise is discontinued. 34 APPENDIX B ITEMS USED TO MEASURE COMMITMENT TO MORAL SELF-IMPROVEMENT (CMSI) 1. I would like to become a more ethical and moral individual. 2. I would like to receive more ethics instruction as part of my university education. 3. I think that I could benefit from receiving more ethics education while I study in a university. 4. I think that it is my obligation to continue improving my moral self throughout my life. 5. No matter how highly moral you are, there is always opportunity for improvement. 35