Business Students and Ethics:
Borkowski
A Meta-Analysis
ABSTRACT. Given the proliferation of research
regarding the ethical development of students in
general, and business students in particular, it is dif-
ficult to draw conclusions from the contradictory
results of many studies. In this meta-analysis of
empirical studies from 1985 through 1994, the rela-
tionships of gender, age and undergraduate major to
the ethical attitudes and behavior of business students
are analyzed. The results indicate that female students
exhibit stronger ethical attitudes than males. The
same is also true for older versus younger students.
However, the relationship with undergraduate major
is still difficult to interpret.
The development and expression of ethical atti-
tudes and behavior are areas of practical concern
to the business community as indicated by the
increasingly large number of studies, articles and
interviews published in both academic journals
and popular business publications. Is ethical
behavior in business “an oxymoron because there
is a conflict between the pursuit of self-interest
and consideration of others”, or is ethical
behavior imperative for today’s managers in
“building trust and creating value . . .
develop(ing) trust and cooperat(ing) with others
on whom managers are interdependent for
Susan C. Borkowski is an associate professor of accounting
at La Salle University, Philadelphia, PA. She has
published numerous articles about, and served as a con-
sultant to the United Nations on, international transfer
pricing issues, and also writes about ethical issues relating
to business faculty, practitioners, and students.
Yusuf J. Ugras is Associate Dean of the School of Business
Administration at La Salle University, Philadelphia,
PA. His research interests include cost allocation and
performance evaluation, and business ethics issues.
Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1117–1127, 1998.
© 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Susan C.
Yusuf J. Ugras
success?” (Collins, 1994, p. 7). This study applies
meta-analysis to existing empirical research in
ethical development and decision-making to
provide some insight into how ethical values may
differ due to individual factors such as gender,
age, and educational background, and how this
information may be useful in both business and
academic environments.
Empirical research in ethical development
and decision-making in the business community
addresses three sectors: students, academics, and
professionals, either separately or across sectors.
Given the quantity of individual and cross-sector
research undertaken during the past ten years,
and the natural division of the sectors by certain
demographic factors, this study is concerned with
studies involving business students. Meta-analyses
on business academics and professionals are in
progress as extensions of this study.
The use of meta-analysis to study ethical
behavior in a business context allows for both
traditional and quantitative reviews of the studies.
The method applies less traditional but poten-
tially more reliable techniques for summarizing,
moderating and establishing relationships among
the studies. Meta-analytic procedures should
“lead to summary statements of greater thor-
oughness, greater precision, and greater inter-
subjectivity or objectivity” (Rosenthal, 1991,
p. 11), which in turn should support, refute or
clarify current theory regarding the ethical devel-
opment and behavior of business students.
The findings of previous business ethics
studies, while independently relevant, have
sampled very different populations in terms of
size and type, have measured the same variables
in different ways, and have yielded contradictory
conclusions. For example, results of differences
1118 Susan C. Borkowski and Yusuf J. Ugras
in ethical behavior by gender have been mixed;
females have been shown to be more ethical, the
same, or less ethical than males, depending on
the study. Existing research has not been method-
ically compared and contrasted to produce a
consensus about their findings due partly to
research problems, to the conservative nature of
many researchers regarding newer analytic
methods, and to the initial complexity in
applying meta-analytic techniques. Therefore, it
has been difficult to generalize to the larger
business student community and draw strong
conclusions from prior studies. Meta-analytic
procedures yield a synthesis of the prior findings
of the reviewed studies, strengthening some rela-
tionships between ethical behavior and certain
explanatory factors, and explaining why contra-
dictory findings were found in other studies, e.g.
due to sampling error rather than to a legitimate
significant relationship. These procedures should
yield a better understanding of the relationship
of gender, age and undergraduate major to the
development of ethical behavior and attitudes.
Empirical foundation for factors related to
ethical behavior
Most empirical studies in the development of
ethical beliefs and decision-making of business
students use survey data based on specific instru-
ments such as the Defining Issues Test, case
scenarios, or laboratory studies. In a review of
empirical ethics studies, Ford and Richardson
(1994) identified individual and situational factors
assumed to affect ethical behavior and decision
making. The individual factors include personal
attributes (nationality, religion, gender and age),
education, employment, personality, values and
beliefs. When the relevant empirical studies on
business students were reviewed for this meta-
analysis, the individual factors reported with
consistency are gender, age, and undergraduate
major.
Gender
Gilligan (1982) maintains that females address
ethical issues through a “care” or responsibility-
oriented framework, while males employ a
“justice”, or rights-oriented approach, as posited
by Kohlberg (1984). The moral development of
females occurs in a different context and through
different stages than that of males, leaving open
the question of differences in ethical behavior
and attitudes due to gender. Beltramini et al.
(1984) found that female college students were
more concerned with ethical issues than their
male counterparts. While Thoma (1985) found
that females were generally more ethical than
males, both he and Rest (1986) did not find the
differences to be significant. In Ford and
Richardson’s (1994) review of fourteen studies
analyzing behavior by gender, seven reported that
females would behave more ethically than males,
while seven found no relationship between
gender and ethical behavior.
The 47 studies included in this meta-analysis
yielded 49% significant, 34% non-significant and
17% mixed findings regarding the relationship of
gender and ethical behavior. Therefore, the first
hypothesis to be tested (in the null form) is as
follows:
H1: A meta-analysis of the existing studies
should reveal no significant differences
between male and female business stu-
dents in ethical behavior.
Age
Age was considered by Kohlberg (1984) to pos-
itively affect moral development, with adults
evidencing continuing development through
the six stages of cognitive moral development.
Kohlberg’s identification of age as a determinant
of ethical behavior was supported by Thoma
(1985) and Rest (1986). Ford and Richardson
reviewed eight studies addressing age, of which
five found no significant relationship between age
and ethical behavior, and three reported signifi-
cant, but contradictory, results.
The 35 studies relating age and ethical
behavior provided inconsistent results, with 29%
significant, 51% non-significant, and 20% mixed.
The second hypothesis to be tested (in the null
form) is as follows:
 Business Students and Ethics
H2: A meta-analysis of the existing studies
should reveal no significant differences
between younger and older business
students in ethical behavior.
Undergraduate major
In addition to gender, Beltramini et al. (1984)
assessed the link between undergraduate major
and ethical behavior, and found no significant
differences between business and non-business
students, or among different majors. Ford
and Richardson (1994) reviewed eight studies
addressing ethical behavior and type of educa-
tion, such as business versus non-business, and
technical versus non-technical, majors. Four
studies were not significant and four provided
results which were both significant and contra-
dictory.
Of the 30 studies considering undergraduate
major, findings were again mixed, with 20% sig-
nificant, 57% non-significant, and 23% mixed.
The final hypothesis to be tested (in the null
form) is:
H3: A meta-analysis of the existing studies
should reveal no significant differences
between business and non-business stu-
dents in ethical behavior.
Meta-analysis methodology
The first approach to a meta-analysis is the
voting (counting) method. This simple but robust
approach counts significant positive, significant
negative, and non-significant relationships
between the dependent variable (ethical behavior
of business students) and the independent, poten-
tially explanatory variables identified in the
literature (gender, age, and undergraduate major).
The final count estimates the direction of these
relationships, but not their strength or degree
(Glass et al., 1981; Rosenthal, 1991).
The next step uses statistical procedures to
evaluate the studies in terms of statistical signif-
icance and effect sizes. These meta-analytic pro-
cedures are useful in synthesizing quantitative
1119
research findings when there are multiple studies
addressing the same research question, in this
case, what influences the ethical behavior and
decision-making of business students? These pro-
cedures determine whether differences in inde-
pendent measures across those studies are real,
or due to study artifacts. Effect sizes are stan-
dardized mean differences which provide a quan-
titative estimate of the size of the effect of a
specific independent variable, such as age, on the
dependent variable, ethical behavior, for each
study. An analysis of these effect sizes determines
whether differences are due to sampling error, or
if the studies are truly different (heterogeneous).
Effect sizes are calculated from the statistical
results reported in each study, and are derived
from reported t-statistics, F-tests, chi-square tests,
correlation coefficients, and probability values.1
If some studies yield significant, and others
insignificant, results, what conclusions can be
drawn? Are the differences between the two
groups real? Comparing the significance levels
generated by the studies can determine whether
the findings of the studies are due to significant
differences, or to sampling error.
The meta-analytic procedures appropriate for
more than two studies compare studies using
diffuse and focused tests of significance and effect
size, and combine studies to test significance and
estimate effect size. Meta-analyses using diffuse
tests reveal whether the studies “differ signifi-
cantly among themselves with respect to signif-
icance levels or effect sizes, but . . . not how they
differ or whether they differ according to any sys-
tematic basis” (Rosenthal, 1991, p. 60). If diffuse
tests are significant, then meta-analyses using
focused tests are done comparing the significance
levels and effect sizes of the studies to determine
“whether the studies differ significantly among
themselves in a theoretically predictable or mean-
ingful way” (p. 61).
There exists the possibility that studies may
be omitted from the analysis because relevant
studies with non-significant results are more
likely not to be published and therefore hidden
in file drawers. The first meta-analysis combine
studies addresses the file-drawer problem by cal-
culating an overall level of significance and a fail-
safe number N. The former is the probability that
1120 Susan C. Borkowski and Yusuf J. Ugras
the combined results of the studies could have
occurred if the null hypotheses of no relation-
ships between gender, age and major with ethical
attitudes were true. The fail-safe N is the number
of “unreported studies averaging a null result
(that) would have to exist somewhere before the
overall results could reasonably be ascribed to
sampling bias” (Rosenthal, 1991, p. 106), and
bring the probability level up to 0.05. While
acknowledging that there are no generally
accepted guidelines for acceptable fail-safe
numbers, Rosenthal proposes to set file-drawer
tolerance at [(5 ´ K) + 10] to provide a “con-
servative but reasonable tolerance level” (p. 106),
where K = number of studies. For example, for
gender the fail-safe tolerance level is [(5 ´ 47) +
10], or 245 unreported studies.
The second meta-analysis combining studies
estimates the average size of the effect. The cal-
culated d is the mean standardized difference
between means, and indicates the magnitude of
the combined effect size. Another estimator cal-
culated is the binomial effect size display (BESD),
which addresses the effect on ethical attitudes/
behaviors of gender, age and major. In meta-
analyses, such statistics as r and r2 are difficult to
interpret. For example, a study of the effect of
specific drugs on death rates yielded an r2 of 0.10,
with a BESD of 0.34 to 0.60. While the r2 is very
small, the BESD shows that the success rate of
keeping patients alive increased from 34% to
60%, “hardly a trivial effect” (Rosenthal, 1991,
p. 133). The BESD is an “index of the practical
meaning of . . . research results” which might
be overlooked if a meta-analysis yields a small
mean correlation coefficient r or r2 (Rosenthal,
1991, p. 136).
Identification of relevant studies
A traditional review of current empirical studies
involving business students is the first, and most
important step, in a successful meta-analysis. The
identification of such studies is difficult due to
the size and extent of domain, which includes
published studies, not only in business journals
but in journals dealing with moral development
and broader ethical concerns, as well as unpub-
lished studies such as dissertations and working
papers. Extensive manual and on-line searches
of business and ethics journals, citations, refer-
ences, Dissertation Abstracts Online, ABI/
Inform, Educational Resources Information
Center (ERIC), and bibliographies identified
more than two hundred articles and dissertations
on empirical studies concerning ethics and
business students written during the last ten
years.
The ten year period of 1985–1994 was chosen
for several reasons. During this decade there was
much concern about unethical business, prac-
tices, including insider trading, savings and loan
failures, and government contract fraud. This
concern led to an increase in research on ethics
in general, and on business ethics in particular.
From 1965–1974, of the 261 dissertations written
on ethics, only three (1%) addressed business
ethics. During the years 1975–1984, the number
of ethics dissertations increased to 835, of which
51 (6%) concerned business ethics. From 1985–
1994, 2,067 ethics dissertations were written,
with 208 (11%) involving business ethics.
Following the methodology of Glass et al.
(1981), no studies were eliminated based on pre-
determined criteria, such as type of journal or
status of publication (such as unpublished disser-
tations). The inclusion of all studies, regardless of
methodological strength, does not affect the con-
clusions drawn from meta-analyses (Shapiro and
Shapiro, 1980). The inclusion of unpublished dis-
sertations in the analysis also lessens the impact
of the file-drawer problem.
Empirical studies of non-U.S. students were
eliminated because of possible cross-cultural dif-
ferences in ethical standards. After eliminating
studies which compared students with profes-
sionals without reporting data on individual
factors, and studies which contained only anec-
dotal data, percentages, or no data, 56 empirical
studies concerning the ethical behavior of
business students were identified. In studies with
incomplete data and/or statistics reported, the
author(s) were contacted twice in an effort to
recover the missing data.
The variables coded for each study included
the date of publication, source of study (article,
dissertation, working paper, presentation), num-
 Business Students and Ethics 1121

ber of students in the sample, and breakdown by
any or all of the following characteristics: gender,
age, and undergraduate major. Of the 56 studies
included in this meta-analysis, 47 reported data
on ethical behavior analyzed by gender, 35 by
age, and 30 by undergraduate major. Table I
presents these studies by factor and statistical
findings.
Using the voting (counting) methodology,
studies were coded as + if no significant differ-
ences were reported, – if one group was found
to differ significantly from the other, and +/– if
mixed results were reported. For the subsequent
meta-analyses, studies with mixed results were
classified as + or – according to the authors’
judgments. There was complete inter-rater agree-
ment on all reclassifications. The study samples
ranged in size from 66 to 2,196 students, with 4
studies with samples less than 100 and 3 studies
greater than 1,000 students. Average sample size
was 409 students for gender, 465 for age, and 394
for undergraduate major.
Results of the meta-analysis
The six meta-analyses were undertaken and the
primary effect size (r) calculated using BASIC
programs (Mullen and Rosenthal, 1985). The
r was determined according the following
formulas, based on the type of statistical test
employed in each study:
Comparison of significance levels (diffuse)
The results reported by each study are signifi-
cantly different for both gender and undergrad-
uate major. This may be interpreted as the studies
are significantly different (heterogeneous), and
the results are not likely to have occurred by
chance. Results were not significant for age.
Comparison of effect sizes (diffuse)
Given the significance of the first meta-analysis
for gender and major, are the differences between
studies real or due to sampling error? The
meta-analyses comparing effect sizes are again
significant for gender and major, indicating that
the studies are significantly heterogeneous (not
equivalent) and that the differences are not due
to sampling error. As expected, given the results
of the first meta-analysis, age was not significant;
therefore, H3 of no differences due to age cannot
be rejected. However, the null hypotheses of no
differences in ethical behavior due to gender (H1)
and undergraduate major (H3) may be rejected at
this point.
Comparison of significance levels (focused)
Given that the studies were published over a ten
year period, a meta-analysis using the year of
study as the focus found no significant results (i.e.

Ö
–––2
2 c no time trend) for gender, age, or undergrad-
For studies using chi : r = –––
N uate major. This means that the significance levels
of the studies do not appear to change with

Ö
––––––––
t2 time.
For studies using t-tests: r = –––––––
2
t + df

Ö
––––––––
F Comparison of effect sizes (focused)
For studies using F tests: r = –––––––
F + df
The focused comparison of effect sizes, which

Ö
–––2
For studies reporting Z measures the magnitude of effects, were not
r = –––
probabilities: N significant for gender and age. The only signifi-
cant factor was undergraduate major, suggesting
The results for the meta-analyses are presented in that the effect sizes do increase with the time
Table II, and are analyzed for each factor by each of the studies. One interpretation is that the
meta-analysis. Results are considered significant ethical attitudes of business majors in 1994 are
at alpha = 0.05. different from those of business majors in 1985.
1122 Susan C. Borkowski and Yusuf J. Ugras

TABLE I
Empirical studies on business student ethics

Study Year Type N Gender N Age N Major

Arlow 1991 A 0138 +/– 0138 +/– 0138 +/–

Beggs 1989 A 0222 + 0222 – 0222 +
Betz et al. 1989 A 0213 –
Borkowski & Ugras 1992 A 0130 + 0130 +/– 0130 +
Brown 1994 D 0228 – 0228 + 0228 +/–
Burton et al. 1991 A 0387 – 0387 + 0387 +
Cole 1993 D 0537 – 0537 + 0537 +
Crittenden et al. 1986 P 0136 +
Crow et al. 1991 A 0240 –
Davis and Welton 1991 A 0391 + 0391 +/–
Deering et al. 1994 A 0066 –
Fulmer and Cargile 1987 A 0200 +
Gaedeke et al. 1992 A 0327 – 0327 – 0327 +
Giacalone et al./a 1988 A 0099 –
Giacalone et al./b 1988 A 0099 –
Giacomino 1992 A 0443 +/– 0443 + 0443 +
Glenn 1988 A 1626 + 01663 –
Harris 1989 A 0161 +/–
Hiltebeitel and Jones 1992 A 0325 –
Jarreau 1990 D 0445 +/– 0438 +/– 0452 –
Jeffrey 1991 WP 0397 – 0397 –
Jeffrey 1993 A 0502 – 0251 –
Jones 1992 D 0443 –
Jones and Gautschi 1988 A 0450 – 0447 +
Kleinman 1992 D 0743 – 0743 + 0743 +
Kochunny et al. 1992 A 0326 +
Laczniak and Inderrieden 1987 A 0113 + 0113 + 0113 +
Lane et al. 1988 A 0335 +/–
Lane & Schaupp 1989 A 0266 +/– 0266 + 0266 +/–
McBride and Cline 1990 P 0178 –
McCabe et al. 1991 A 0731 – 0731 +/– 0731 +
McCabe et al. 1994 A 0177 – 0177 +
McNichols and Zimmerer 1985 A 0912 + 0912 +
Miesing and Preble 1985 A 0472 – 0464 – 0409 +
O’Clock and Okleshen 1993 A 0195 + 0195 +/–
Paradice 1990 A 0125 + 0125 + 0125 +/–
Paradice and Dejoie 1991 A 0237 + 0237 + 0237 –
Peterson et al. 1991 A 1681 – 1681 + 1681 +
Poorsoltan et al. 1991 A 0249 – 0249 +
Reall 1993 D 0118 +
Ruegger and King 1992 A 2196 +/– 2196 –
Shepard and Hartenian 1990 A 0239 +/– 0244 +/–
Sikula and Costa 1994 A 0171 +
Snodgrass 1993 D 0513 – 0506 + 0660 +
St. Pierre et al. 1990 A 0479 – 0479 –
Stanga and Turpen 1991 A 0151 +/– 0151 +
Stevens and Stevens 1987 A 0210 +
 Business Students and Ethics 1123

Table I (continued)

Study Year Type N Gender N Age N Major

Stevens et al. 1993 A 0113 +

Tsalikis and Ortiz-Buonafina 1990 A 0175 +
Tyson 1990 A 0135 –
Tyson 1992 A 0415 + 0488 + 0420 +
Wafa 1989 D 0079 – 0079 –
Wayne 1989 A 0682 – 0681 –
Whipple and Swords 1992 A 0319 – 0315 +
White and Dooley 1993 A 0184 + 0184 +/– 0184 +/–
Zinkham et al. 1989 A 0561 +

Gender Age Major

Number of students 19,226 16,289 11,818
Number of studies 00,047 00,035 00,030
– Significant studies 00,023 00,010 00,006
+ Non-significant studies 00,016 00,018 00,017
+/– Studies with mixed results 00,008 00,007 00,007
A Published article P Presentation D Dissertation WP Working Paper

TABLE II
Results of meta-analyses for gender, age and major

Gender Age Major

Number of subjects (N) 19,226 16,289 11,818

Number of studies 00,047 00,035 00,030
Average study size 00,409 00,465 00,394
Significance levels (p) 0.0191* 0.3374 0.0169*
(diffuse)
Effect size (p) 0.0033** 0.3462 0.0019**
(diffuse)
Significance levels (p) 0.1639 0.1432 0.0638
(focused)
Effect size (p) 0.4218 0.1127 0.0277*
(focused)
Combined significance 0.0001** 0.0001** 0.1535
levels (p)
Fail-safe number 01,511 00,180 00,083
Mean standardized 0.1316 0.0646 0.0311
difference (d)
Combined effect sizes (p) 0.0691 0.0323* 0.0156*
Binomial effect size 0.4672 to 0.4839 to 0.4922 to
display (BESD) 0.5328 0.5161 0.5078

** p significant at alpha = 0.01

* p significant at alpha = 0.05
1124 Susan C. Borkowski and Yusuf J. Ugras
Within business, however, marketing, manage-
ment, finance and accounting majors are not
significantly different from each other.
Combination of significance levels
This meta-analysis estimates both the overall
level of significance and the fail-safe N. Both
gender and age are significant, implying that the
combined results are unlikely to have occurred
by chance. The differences attributed to gender
and age are both real and significant.
The fail-safe N provides an estimate of how
many unpublished studies with non-significant
findings not included in the meta-analysis would
have to be included in order to change the overall
significance levels calculated in the prior meta-
analyses. For gender, age and major, the number
of studies needed to change the prior significant
results are 1,511, 180, and 83 respectively.
Combination of effect sizes
The average size of the effect is estimated by
d, which is the mean standardized difference
between means The combined effect size is small
in magnitude when d is £ 0.2, medium if d is
between 0.2 and 0.8, and large if d ³ 0.8). The
effect sizes are very small for all three factors. The
BESDs show the effects of gender, age and major
are 6.6%, 3.2% and 1.6% respectively.
Due to the presence of three large studies with
more than one thousand students, the meta-
analyses were rerun using the jack-knife tech-
nique. The meta-analyses were performed three
times, each time dropping one of the large
studies, and all were consistent with the results
already reported using all the studies. The meta-
analyses are therefore not significantly influenced
by the presence of the three larger studies.
Interpretations and conclusions
The findings of prior studies reporting a rela-
tionship of gender and ethical behavior/attitudes
are supported by the meta-analyses. Of 47
studies, no conflicting findings were reported.
Sixteen studies found no significant differences,
and two with mixed results did not specify the
relationship. Twenty-nine studies reported that
females (males) exhibited more (less) ethical atti-
tudes/behavior than their counterparts. Given
the meta-analyses, the null hypothesis of no rela-
tionship between gender and ethical behavior can
be rejected. Women seem to demonstrate more
ethical attitudes/behavior then men; however,
this does not mean that women are more ethical
than men. Reacting more ethically to fictional
dilemmas does not necessarily translate to more
ethical behavior when confronted by real-world
situations.
The meta-analyses also support the findings
of the prior studies using age as a factor. Of 35
studies, nineteen found no significant relation-
ship, one mixed study did not report findings,
thirteen found that older (younger) students
responded more (less) ethically, while two studies
found the opposite. As with gender, the null
hypothesis can be rejected. Attitudes/ behavior
seem to become more ethical with age, sup-
porting Kohlberg’s (1984) theory that individuals
exhibit increasingly moral behavior as they
mature.
Finally, the meta-analyses on undergraduate
major were mixed, reflecting the mixed nature of
the thirty studies analyzed. The null hypothesis
cannot be rejected, and no relationship between
major and ethics can be discerned given the
research to date. It seems that the ethical attitudes
of both business and non-business majors have
changed over time, but that both groups of
students do not differ significantly when
compared to each other.
These findings suggest that additional exposure
to ethics theory and ethical dilemmas would
benefit the business community, whether in
practice or in academia. The earlier students
learn that ethical behavior is valued by the
business community, and the more it is full inte-
grated into applicable courses across the business
curriculum, the sooner students may demonstrate
more ethical behavior and attitudes, eventually
appreciating such behavior for its intrinsic values,
rather than for the perceived extrinsic employ-
ment rewards. Stand-alone courses in business
 Business Students and Ethics
ethics suggest that somehow ethics is unrelated
to the rest of the curriculum, which defeats that
idea that ethics should guide all actions. The
ethical implications of decisions across business
disciplines reinforces the importance of being an
ethical member of the business community.
One limitation of this meta-analysis is also a
strength: it is limited to students in the United
States, thus eliminating most cultural bias or
influences. As such, it is only generalizable
to students in United States-based business
programs. As with any meta-analysis, the relia-
bility of the findings depend on the inclusion of
all relevant studies. Given the large fail-safe
numbers, the conclusions seem reliable and well-
founded.
Note
1
See Rosenthal (1991) and Hunter et al. (1982) for
a detailed discussion of effect size statistics and their
derivation. They also provide an in-depth discussion
of meta-analysis and the specific meta-analytic pro-
cedures used in this study.
References
References marked with an asterisk (*) are studies
included in the meta-analysis.
*Arlow, P.: 1991, ‘Personal Characteristics in College
Students’ Evaluations of Business Ethics and
Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Business
Ethics 10, 63–69.
*Beggs, J. and M. Lane: 1989, ‘Corporate Goal
Structures and Business Students: A Comparative
Study of Values’, Journal of Business Ethics 8, 471–
478.
Beltramini, R., R. Peterson and G. Kozmetsky: 1984,
‘Concerns of College Students Regarding Business
Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 3, 195–200.
*Betz, M., L. O’Connell and J. Shepard: 1989,
‘Gender Differences in Proclivity for Unethical
Behavior’, Journal of Business Ethics 8, 321–324.
*Borkowski, S. and Y. Ugras: 1992, ‘The Ethical
Attitudes of Students as a Function of Age, Sex and
Experience’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 961–
979.
*Brown, P.: 1994, ‘Ethical Standards of Potential
Business Teachers and Potential Businesspersons on
1125
Selected Business Practices’, unpublished disserta-
tion, University of Kentucky.
*Burton, S., M. Johnston and E. Wilson: 1991, ‘An
Experimental Assessment of Alternative Teaching
Approaches for Introducing Business Ethics to
Undergraduate Students’, Journal of Business Ethics
10, 507–517.
*Cole, B.: 1993, ‘Perceptions of College Business
Students and of Experienced Business Practitioners
regarding the Ethics of Business People’, unpub-
lished dissertation, Memphis State University.
Collins, J.: 1994, ‘Is Business Ethics an Oxymoron?’,
Business Horizons Sept/Oct, 1–8.
*Crittenden, V., M. Crittenden and J. Hawes:
1986, ‘Ethical Standards of Marketing Students’,
Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of
the Academy of Marketing Science.
*Crow, S., L. Fok, S. Hartman and D. Payne: 1991,
‘Gender and Values: What is the Impact of
Decision-Making?’, Sex Roles 25(3/4), 255–268.
*Davis, J. and R. Welton: 1991, ‘Professional Ethics:
Business Students’ Perceptions’, Journal of Business
Ethics 10, 451–463.
*Deering, T., T. Cavenaugh, K. Kelley and A.
Stanitz: 1994, ‘Philosophies of Education and
Business Majors’, Educational Horizons 73(3), 146–
152.
Ford, R. and W. Richardson: 1994, ‘Ethical Decision
Making: A Review of the Empirical Literature’,
Journal of Business Ethics 13, 205–221.
*Fulmer, W. and B. Cargile: 1987, ‘Ethical Percep-
tions of Accounting Students: Does Exposure to
a Code of Professional Ethics Help?’, Issues in
Accounting Education 2(2), 207–219.
*Gaedeke, R., C. Kelley and D. Tootelian: 1992,
‘Business Students’ Perceptions of Ethics in Mar-
keting’, Journal of Education for Business May/June,
294–299.
*Giacalone, R., S. Payne and P. Rosenfeld: 1988,
‘Endorsement of Managers Following Accusations
of Breaches in Confidentiality’, Journal of Business
Ethics 7, 6 1–629.
*Giacomino, D.: 1992, ‘Ethical Perceptions of
Accounting Majors and Other Business Majors: An
Empirical Study’, Accounting Educators’ Journal 4(2),
1–26.
Gilligan, C.: 1982, In a Different Voice: Psychological
Theory and Women’s Development (Harvard Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge MA).
Glass, G., B. McGaw and M. Smith: 1981, Meta-
analysis in Social Research (Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills CA).
*Glenn, J.: 1988, ‘Business Curriculum and Ethics:
1126 Susan C. Borkowski and Yusuf J. Ugras
Student Attitudes and Behavior’, Business &
Professional Ethics Journal 7(3/4), 167–185.
*Harris, J.: 1989, ‘Ethical Values and Decision
Processes of Male and Female Business Students’,
Journal of Education for Business 64(Feb), 234–238.
*Hiltebeitel, K. and S. Jones: 1992, ‘An Assessment
of Ethics Instruction in Accounting Education’,
Journal of Business Ethics 11, 37–46.
Hunter, J., F. Schmidt and G. Jackson: 1982, Meta-
analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies
(Sage publications, Beverly Hills CA).
*Jarreau, Matt: 1990, ‘Student Perceptions of Business
Ethics: An Empirical Investigation’, unpublished
undergraduate honors thesis, University of New
Orleans.
*Jeffrey, C.: 1991, ‘Ethical Development and Rule
Observance Attitudes of Accounting and Non-
Accounting Business Students’, working paper,
Iowa State University.
*Jeffrey, C.: 1993, ‘Ethical Development of
Accounting Students, Non-Accounting Business
Students, and Liberal Arts Students’, Issues in
Accounting Education 8(1), 86–96.
*Jones, G.: 1992, ‘Unethical Behavioral Intentions
in Organizations: Empirical Exploration of an
Integrative Model’, unpublished dissertation, State
University of New York – Albany.
*Jones, T. and F. Gautschi: 1988, ‘Will the Ethics of
Business Change? A Survey of Future Executives’,
Journal of Business Ethics 7, 231–248.
*Kleinman, G.: 1992, ‘Constructing the Auditor and
Accountant (Ethics)’, unpublished dissertation,
Rutgers University.
*Kochunny, C., H. Rogers and A. Ogbuehi: 1992,
‘Maccoby’s Head/Heart Traits: Marketing Versus
Accounting Students’, Journal of Education for
Business 67(6), 371–376.
Kohlberg, L.: 1984, Essays on Moral Development
(Harper and Row, San Francisco CA).
*Laczniak, G. and E. Inderrieden: 1987, ‘The
Influence of Stated Organizational Concern upon
Ethical Decision Making’, Journal of Business Ethics
6, 297–307.
*Lane, M., D. Schaupp, and B. Parsons: 1988,
‘Pygmalion Effect: An Issue for Business Education
and Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 223–229.
*Lane, M. and D. Schaupp: 1989, ‘Ethics in
Education: A Comparative Study’, Journal of
Business Ethics 8, 943–949.
*McBride, M. and C. Cline: 1990, ‘To Be or Not to
Be Ethical: That’s the Question for Advertising
Students and Practitioners’, paper presented at the
73rd Annual Meeting of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
(Minneapolis MN, August 1–4).
*McCabe, D.: 1994, ‘The Effects of Professional
Education on Values and the Resolution of
Ethical Dilemmas: Business School vs. Law School
Students’, Journal of Business Ethics 13, 693–700.
*McCabe, D., J. Dukerich and J. Dutton: 1991,
‘Context, Values and Moral Dilemmas: Comparing
the Choices of Business and Law School Students’,
Journal of Business Ethics 10, 951–960.
*McNichols, C. and T. Zimmerer: 1985, ‘Situational
Ethics: An Empirical Study of Differentiators of
Student Attitudes’, Journal of Business Ethics 4,
175–180.
*Miesing, P. and J. Preble: 1095, ‘A Comparison of
Five Business Philosophies’, Journal of Business
Ethics 4, 465–476.
Mullen, B. and R. Rosenthal: 1985, BASIC Meta-
Analysis: Procedures and Programs (Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers: Hillsdale NJ).
*O’Clock, P. and M. Okleshen: 1993, ‘A Comparison
of Ethical Perceptions of Business and Engineering
Majors’, Journal of Business Ethics 12, 677–687.
*Paradice, D.: 1990, ‘Ethical Attitudes of Entry-Level
MIS Personnel’, Information and Management 18,
143–151.
*Paradice, D. and R. Dejoie: 1991, ‘The Ethical
Decision-Making Processes of Information System
Workers’, Journal of Business Ethics 10, 1–18.
*Peterson, R., R. Beltramini and G. Kozmetsky:
1991, ‘Concerns of College Students Regarding
Business Ethics: A Replication’, Journal of Business
Ethics 10, 733–738.
*Poorsoltan, K., S. Amin and A. Tootoonchi:
1991, ‘Business Ethics: Views of Future Leaders’,
Advanced Management Journal 56 (Winter), 4–9.
*Reall, M.: 1993, ‘The Relationship of Cognitive
Moral Development. Moral Reasoning and Moral
Conduct of Business Students in a Competitive
Environment’, unpublished dissertation, University
of Idaho.
Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in
Research and Theory (Praeger Publishers, New York
NY).
Rosenthal, R.: 1991, Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social
Research, Revised Edition (Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills CA).
*Ruegger, D. and E. King: 1992, ‘A Study of the
Effect of Age and Gender Upon Student Business
Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 179–186.
Shapiro, D. and D. Shapiro: 1982, ‘Meta-analysis of
Comparative Psychotherapy Outcomes Studies’,
Psychological Bulletin 92, 581–604.
 Business Students and Ethics
*Shepard, J. and L. Hartenian: 1990, ‘Egoistic and
Ethical Orientations of University Students Toward
Work-Related Decisions’, Journal of Business Ethics
10, 303–310.
*Sikula, A. and A. Costa: 1994, ‘Are Women More
Ethical than Men?’, Journal of Business Ethics 13,
859–871.
*Snodgrass, J.: 1993, ‘Business Ethics: A Comparative
Study of Undergraduates’, unpublished disserta-
tion, University of Idaho.
*Stanga, K. and R. Turpen: 1991, ‘Ethical Judgments
on Selected Accounting Issues: An Empirical
Study’, Journal of Business Ethics 10, 739–747.
*Stevens, G. and F. Stevens: 1987, ‘Ethical Inclinations
of Tomorrow’s Managers Revisited: How and Why
Students Cheat’, Journal of Business for Education,
October, 24–29.
*Stevens, R., O. Harris and S. Williamson: 1993, ‘A
Comparison of Ethical Evaluations of Business
School Faculty and Students: A Pilot Study’,
Journal of Business Ethics 12, 611–619.
*St. Pierre, K., E. Nelson and A. Gabbin: 1990, ‘A
Study of the Ethical Development of Accounting
Majors in Relation to Other Business and Non-
business Disciplines’, Accounting Educators’ Journal
3(1), 23–35.
Thoma, S. J.: 1985, ‘On Improving the Relationship
Between Moral Judgment and External Criteria:
The Utilizer/Non-utilizer Dimension’, unpub-
lished dissertation, University of Minnesota.
*Tsalikis, J. and M. Ortiz-Buonafina: 1990, ‘Ethical
Beliefs’ Differences of Males and Females’, Journal
of Business Ethics 9, 509–517.
1127
*Tyson, T.: 1990, ‘Believing that Everyone Else is Less
Ethical: Implications for Work Behavior and Ethics
Instruction’, Journal of Business Ethics 9, 715–
721.
*Tyson, T.: 1992, ‘Does Believing that Everyone
Else is Less Ethical Have an Impact on Work
Behavior?’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 707–717.
*Wafa, S.: 1989, ‘A Cross-Cultural Study of Business
Ethical Standards among Business Students from
Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the United
States of America, unpublished dissertation, United
States International University.
*Wayne, F.: 1989, ‘An Instrument to Measure Adher-
ence to the Protestant Ethic and Contemporary
Work Values’, Journal of Business Ethics 8, 793–
804.
*Whipple, T. and D. Swords: 1992, ‘Business Ethics
Judgments: A Cross-Cultural Comparison’, Journal
of Business Ethics 11, 671–678.
*White, C. and R. Dooley: 1993, ‘Ethical or
Practical: An Empirical Study of Students’ Choices
in Simulated Business Scenarios’, Journal of Business
Ethics 12, 643–651.
*Zinkham, G., M. Bisesi, and M. Saxton: 1989,
‘MBAs Changing Attitudes toward Marketing
Dilemmas: 1981–1987’, Journal of Business Ethics
8, 963–974.
Department of Accounting,
La Salle University,
Philadelphia, PA 19141,
U.S.A.