Professional Codes of Ethics

exploring an ethical system that will guide their decision-making processes. Lambeth ( 1986 )
observes that such "a system of ethics cannot ignore the classical approaches of deontology and
teleology, or the variants of them" (p. 28). Self-regulation by codes of ethics is a far-reaching
measure the advertising industry has taken to address the everyday ethical questions that it
confronts. But critics have argued that such codes may not improve the professionalism and
practice of advertising ( Ekelund & Saurman, 1988). Supporters, on the other hand, contend that
the rationale for such codes is to help the industry distinguish what precisely is wrong from what
is right. Beyond that, such self-regulation has the advantage of addressing head-on some of the
unfavorable public perceptions of advertising.

A number of professional associations that seek self-regulation of advertising in the United States
have adopted codes of ethical conduct to which practitioners are expected to adhere, thus
emphasizing the importance of deontological ethics. In his highly influential book on advertising
ethics Bishop ( 1949 ) argued for a utilitarian, relativistic, and somewhat elastic standard of ethics
for the industry; he wrote:

The ethical standard for advertising must be a utilitarian, not an ideal, one. The advertiser must,
that is to say, conform to the rules of conduct which a developing public conscience establishes as
proper in matters of business persuasion. (pp. 87-88)

Today, researchers such as Nevett ( 1985 ) and Pratt ( 1993 ) call for more rigid and socially
responsible standards.

Advertising is also scrutinized in the international venue. The International Chamber of

Commerce, for example, is the most important, independent, nongovernmental, international
advertising regulatory body. The International Code of Advertising Practice from the chamber is
a self-regulatory instrument that has also been used to formulate many national laws and
governmental regulations concerning advertising.

Additionally, international professional advertising organizations have developed codes and

standards of practice. Such organizations include the Advertising Association, the American
Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA), European Association of Advertising Agencies,
Institute of Practitioners of Advertising, European Advertising Tripartite, International
Advertising Association, World Federation of Advertisers, and the Asian Federation of
Advertising Associations.

The continuing search for clear-cut do's and don'ts has been a major focus of a number of
advertising departments, agencies, and associations. The eight-item Advertising Principles of
American Business adopted by the AAF's board of directors in 1984 is replete with
nonconditional, unequivocal "shalls" and "shall nots." Similarly, the Standards of Practice of the
AAAA uses "musts" and "will nots" to disapprove unethical conduct among practitioners. These
principles and standards satisfy the principle of utility and Kant's categorical imperative and
reject the notion of situational ethics ( Briggs & Bernal, 1992). Thus, theoretically, the major
professional organizations--and their members--supposedly embrace nonconditional
requirements.

Method
The Instrument

A three-part questionnaire was used to gather information about practitioner and student
perceptions of ethical dilemmas. The first part of the questionnaire consisted of four ethical
dilemmas presented as scenarios (Appendix A).

Each scenario was accompanied by six statements, each of which was anchored on a 4-point
response scale ranging from (definitely yes) to (definitely no). Three of these six statements were
expressed in strict deontological terms: "was wrong," "should be fired," and "regardless of my
response."

The second part of the questionnaire comprised 17 items on advertising ethics, each of which was
anchored on a 4-point scale ranging from (strongly agree) to (strongly disagree).

The third part of the questionnaire focused on respondents' demographics.

The scenarios as well as the items on the questionnaire were developed from instruments used in
previous studies (e.g., Bellizzi & Hite, 1989; DeConinck & Good, 1989; Dubinsky, Jolson,
Kotabe, & Lim, 1991; Hunt & Chonko, 1987), as well as telephone and face-to-face interviews
with advertising practitioners.

The questionnaire was pretested for clarity and face validity on a random sample of 20
advertising practitioners.

Sampling

A systematic sample of AAF clubs and federations was first selected from those listed in the 1991
roster. Executive directors or secretaries were then contacted and asked to distribute the survey
package comprising a questionnaire, a cover letter, and a business reply envelope to club
members at the next club meeting. Approximately 2,000 were mailed to consenting clubs and
organizations. Additionally, a slightly modified version of the questionnaire was administered to
a random sample of undergraduate advertising students in two universities, one in the South, the
other in the Upper Midwest. Participation was voluntary, responses were anonymous, and student
respondents earned extra credits towards their grade for the course.

Statistical Analysis

Stepwise discriminant analysis was used to analyze the data. Multivariate stepwise discriminant
analysis, using Rao's V criterion, was adopted to select the best possible combination of the
independent variables that would maximize the differences between the two groups. Rao's V
(a.k.a. the Lawley-Hotelling's trace) is a measure of a variable's contribution to group differences
when that variable is added in a stepwise discriminant analysis. Rao's V increases--and can also
decrease--when variables are added to the model. The greater the increase, the greater the
variable's contribution to defining the discriminant function.1

At each step, the variable that contributed the largest separation between groups was added to the
combination. The Wilks's lambda values reported in this study represent the ratio of the between-
group mean sum of squares and cross-product determinants relative to the determinants of the
total group mean sum of squares for the two groups. When variance between the group centroids
is larger relative to the total variance, lambda tends to be higher.

As is the standard practice in multivariate discriminant analysis, the sample was randomly split
into an analysis subsample and a holdout subsample where the groups were randomly
proportionate. One group was used to analyze the data whereas the other group was used to
validate the discriminant function. To avoid an upward bias in the predictive accuracy of the
discriminant function, the sample was split. Such a bias could occur if the same individuals were
used to derive the discriminant function and develop the classification matrix. Quality of results is
usually insensitive to variable subsample size ratio ( Frank, Massey, & Morrison, 1965; Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1992).

Results

Four hundred eighty-one (23.9%) of the 2,010 copies mailed to practitioners were returned. Only
460 (22.9%) were usable. Data were also gathered from 251 students who had not taken any
ethics courses. Although this study was not particularly concerned with the comparative
demographics of students and practitioners, the following is of interest. Most of both the
professional (50.6%) and student (53.5%) respondents were female. A sizable segment (34%) of
the practitioners was between 35 and 43 years old, whereas students (73%) mainly fell in the 18-
to 24-year-old category. The most representative category (26%) of professional experience was
11 to 20 years.

About 78.3% of the student sample were advertising seniors in their last semester of school. They
all expected to pursue advertising careers.

The Scenarios

The results in Table 1 show that a total of 340 cases were analyzed in the stepwise discriminant
analysis. Of these, 211 were practitioners and 129 were students. A full 74.41% of all cases were
correctly classified. The 24 statements associated with the four scenarios (4 scenarios × 6
statements) were entered into a stepwise discriminant analysis and the results noted in Table 2.
The data show that there were significant differences between students and practitioners on 11 of
the 24 statements. The two groups differed significantly in each of Scenarios 1 (Mary) and 2
(John) on three items: 1, 4, and 5. Additionally, the two groups differed on Items 4 and 5 in the
third (Pete) and fourth (Sally) scenarios. There was also a statistically significant difference for
Item 6 in Scenario 4 (Sally). Wilks's lambda was substantial, ranging from .86 to .77. The
variable most important in defining the stepwise discriminant function was Item 5, Scenario 4
(Sally). The least important variable was Item 4, Scenario 5 (Sally).

Table 1: Classification Matrix of Scenario Variables

Predicted Group
Actual Group n 1 2
Group 1 (practitioners) 211 159 52
  75.4% 24.6%
Group 2 (students) 129 35 94
  27.1% 72.9%
Note. Percentage of grouped cases classified correctly = 74.41%
Table 2: Discriminant Analysis of Scenario Variables (N = 340)
Variable Practitioners Students Lambda* Rc
Sally 5 3.13 1.98 .86 .58
Mary 5 3.14 2.04 .83 .41
Mary 1 2.47 2.24 .81 -.27
John 5 3.46 2.43 .80 .28
John 1 2.48 2.47 .79 -.29
John 4 2.17 1.96 .79 -.23
Pete 4 2.64 2.32 .78 .21
Pete 5 3.57 2.65 .77 .22
Sally 4 2.96 2.52 .77 .12
Mary 4 2.51 2.33 .77 -.19
Sally 6 1.98 1.49 .77 -.16
Note. Variable description: Item 1: What _____ did was wrong; Item 3: I would
do just what _____ did; Item 4: Most ad execs would do what _____ did; Item 5: My
firm/department has a policy,a either written or oral, that addresses this situation
or practice; Item 6: Regardless of my response to statement Number 5, it is a good
idea for my firm/department to have a policy,b either written or oral, that addresses
the situation or practice.a The student version read: "The firm/department should
have. . . ."b The student version read: ". . . the firm/department to have. . . ."
*
p <. 0001.
Other Variables

In the second analysis 334 cases were randomly selected. Of these, 211 were practitioners and
123 were students. Alpha was substantial, with the classification procedure correctly classifying
76.5%. The perceptions of practitioners and students were found to be significantly different on
11 of the 17 variables considered. Wilks's lambda was strong, ranging from a .92 to a .76. The
most important variable that defined the discriminant function was Item 15 ("[i]t is wrong for an
agency/department to actively seek an account that is currently handled by a competing
agency/department"). The least important was Item 9 ("Ad agencies/departments that want to be
responsive to the public interest must act consistently in the public's best interest and not just
when it is convenient to do so").
Table 3: Classification Matrix of Ethics Item Variables
Predicted Group
Actual Group n 1 2
Group 1 (practitioners) 211 156 55
  73.7% 26.1%
Group 2 (students) 123 23 100
  18.7% 81.3%
Note. Percent of grouped cases classified correctly = 76.65%
Discussion

The purpose of this study was to compare the ethics of practitioners and students, and to classify
and discuss the extent to which deontological ethics is reflected among sample groups. The
discussion that follows is in two parts: practitioner and student views on the four scenarios,
practitioner and student views on the 17 variables on advertising ethics.

Four Scenarios
Interpretation based on the signs of the discriminant function coefficients (R c ) and on the means
of the scenario variables leads to the following three conclusions:
1. Item 1 is common to Scenarios 1 (Mary) and 3 (John). Because the R c signs are negative, it
means that, when compared to students, practitioners were less likely than the students to
agree with the statement that what Mary and John did was wrong. In other words, the sample
practitioners were less likely to perceive the ethical conduct identified in the scenario from a
deontological standpoint.
2. There is a significant difference between practitioners' and students' responses to Items 4 and
5, across all four scenarios. For Item 4, two of the scenarios (Pete and Sally) have positive
loadings on the discriminant function and two are negative. Thus, for Item 4, when
compared with students' responses, practitioners were significantly more likely to agree with
the statement that "most ad execs would do what X did." While such a practitioner
agreement casts a cloud on the perceived level of their ethicalness, it also suggests that
deontology, as a theory of ethics is, again, not the ethical preference of practitioners.

For Item 5, all the R c signs are positive across all four scenarios, indicating that, when
compared with students, practitioners were significantly more likely to agree that "[t]he
firm/department has [should have] a policy, either written or oral, that addresses this
situation or practice." It is plau

Table 4: Discriminant Analysis of Variables on Advertising Ethics (N = 334)

Variable Practitioners Students Lambda* Rc
Item 15 3.37 2.87 .92 .48
Item 5 2.72 2.35 .87 .30
Item 10 1.96 1.61 .85 .36
Item 16 3.0 2.78 .83 .26
Item 6 2.34 2.57 .82 -.29
Item 17 2.73 2.56 .80 .40
Item 4 2.05 2.23 .78 -.23
Item 8 2.06 1.73 .78 .21
Item 12 2.69 2.58 .77 .26
Item 11 2.57 2.16 .76 .22
Item 9 1.70 1.59 .76 .21
Note. Variable descriptions are: Item 4: Advertising agencies' practices, for the most part,
are based on high professional standards; Item 5: Ad directors expect results even if their
advertising personnel sometimes have to be dishonest to do so; Item 6: Ad
agencies/departments in general do not lie to clients; Item 8: Ad agencies/departments use
weasel words (e.g., "the best," "the most") in ads, even though such words cannot be proven
in association with the advertised product/service; Item 9: Ad agencies/departments that
want to be responsive to the public interest must act consistently in the public's best interest,
and not just
when it is convenient to do so; Item 10: Whenever an ad claim has been ruled false or
misleading, the ad agency/company involved should run corrective ads; Item 11: Ad
agencies/departments should tell customers about limitations of the products/services they
advertise, as well as about their advantages; Item 12: It is acceptable for ad
agencies/departments to use puffery or exaggerated claims in their ads; Item 15: It is wrong
for an ad agency/department to actively seek an account that is currently handled by a
competing agency/department;
Item 16: It is good advertising strategy for an ad agency/department to change the color and
packaging of a product and market it for a limited time as "new and improved," even though
its other characteristics are significantly unchanged; Item 17: Ad agencies/departments work
consistently in the public interest.
*
p < .001.