Journal of Business Ethics (2020) 163:347–363

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4020-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Moral Intensity, Issue Characteristics, and Ethical Issue Recognition

in Sales Situations
Evelyne Rousselet1 · Bérangère Brial1 · Romain Cadario2 · Amina Béji‑Bécheur1

Received: 7 August 2017 / Accepted: 12 September 2018 / Published online: 22 October 2018
© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract
Researchers have considered individual and organizational factors of ethical decision making. However, they have little
interest in situational factors (McClaren, Journal of Business Ethics 112(1):101–125, 2013) which is surprising given the
many situations sales persons face. We address this issue using two pilot qualitative studies successively and a 2 by 2 within-
subject experiment with sales scenarios. Qualitative and quantitative data are obtained from front-line employees of the main
French retail banks that serve low-income customers. We show that the recognition of an ethical issue differs depending on
the role behavior salespersons are engaged in and the nature of the conflict of interest they face. Moreover, the combined
effect of these two situational characteristics is mediated by moral intensity. This study not only adds evidence on situational
factors affecting ethical decision but also extends empirical research on sales ethics by revealing sales situations that are not
considered in the empirical literature. The research implications of the findings are discussed along with the study’s limita-
tions and suggestions for future research.

Keywords  Ethical issue recognition · Moral intensity · Salesperson · Conflict of interest · Role behavior

Introduction
The number of low-income customers is constantly grow-
ing in developed countries (Ekström and Hjort 2009). One
related key issue is the lack of will or ability of firms to
serve these customers in a manner consistent with their
needs (Ekström and Hjort 2009; Hill 2002, 2008; Khavul
and Burton 2013; Taludkar 2008). In France, having a bank
account for receiving deposits, including social benefits,
is compulsory. However, retail banks are often criticized
* Evelyne Rousselet
evelyne.rousselet@u‑pem.fr
Bérangère Brial
berangere.brial@u‑pem.fr
Romain Cadario
r.cadario@ieseg.fr
Amina Béji‑Bécheur
amina.becheur@u‑pem.fr
1
University Paris Est, IRG, Institut de Recherche en Gestion,
5 bd Descartes, Cité Descartes, Champs‑sur‑Marne,
77454 Marne‑la‑Vallée cedex 2, France
2
IÉSEG School of Management (LEM-CNRS UMR 9221), 1
Parvis de La Défense, 92044 Paris La Défense, France
because of their poor service and high prices for the low-
income segment, which they consider as having “low eco-
nomic value”. The situation has worsened so much that
the government created a national observatory of banking
inclusion (2014) which monitors the sustainable access of
individuals to banking products and services that meet their
needs1. Despite the development of e-banking, French low-
income consumers continue to visit branches. In this context,
how do bank salespersons2, who are under great pressure to
generate revenue (Poujol et al. 2016), behave when serving
customers with low incomes and high social needs?
Addressing this issue requires consideration of the ethical
decisions made by bank salespersons. Ethical decision mak-
ing (EDM) has been widely studied. The rationalist-based
approach considers that EDM is a multistage process (Fer-
rell and Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986; Jones 1991;
Rest 1986; Trevino 1986; Wotruba 1990). The first step
consists of the recognition by an individual that the issue
being addressed has an ethical concern; this recognition is
1
  Source the website of the Ministry of Economic and Financial
Affaires: https​://www.econo​mie.gouv.fr/insta​llati​on-de-l-obser​vatoi​
re-de-lincl​usion​-banca​ire.
2
  Following Poujol et al. (2016), we use the term “bank salesperson”
rather than “bank front-line employee,” although both are equivalent
in the French context.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

348
essential since it triggers the entire decision process (Ferrell
and Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986; Jones 1991; Rest
1986). For instance, the ethical (unethical) behavior of banks
salespersons when serving low-income customers depends
on whether or not they perceive that the conflict between
economic and social objectives or the conflict between their
own system of values and the marketing strategy of their
employer has an ethical content. Therefore, the question is
to determine whether bank salespersons have this ethical
sensitivity.
The literature provides useful information regarding
this issue. The recognition of an ethical issue appears to
depend on individual and organizational factors (Craft 2013;
McClaren 2013; O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005). Jones
(1991) also argues that it depends on the characteristics of
the moral issue itself. He introduces, in the so-called issue-
contingent model, the concept of moral intensity (MI), which
“capture[s] the extent of issue-related moral imperative[s]
in a situation” (p. 372). Empirical studies mostly confirm
the strong, positive, and direct effect of MI on ethical issue
recognition (REC) (Craft 2013; O’Fallon and Buttterfield
2005). However, they rarely use samples of salespersons.
“Future research might investigate whether previous find-
ings about MI from other populations are applicable to sales
practitioners and selling” (McClaren 2013, p. 109). Indeed,
Bush and colleagues (2017) suggest that salespeople differ
from other employees from an ethical perspective, which
“could result in a different mindset when it comes to ethical
behavior” (p. 550).
Our goal is to help fill the gap in the literature by testing
the effects of MI on REC in the situations that sales practi-
tioners face. This effort is important because “maintaining
an ethical workforce remains a challenging issue for organi-
zations given the complexity of business operations” (Agni-
hotri et al. 2012, p. 243). Moreover, the relation between
MI and REC may be contingent upon the context (May and
Pauli 2002; Valentine and Hollingworth 2012). However,
one reason why salespersons face many dilemmas is that
they are responsible for multiple activities and have many
roles (Bush et al. 2017; Dubinsky et al. 1986). Therefore, we
also aim to add to the understanding of EDM in the context
of sales (Agnihotri et al. 2012; Hansen and Riggle 2009;
Valentine 2009) by focusing on a variety of sales situations.
In this research, we first construct a set of theoretical
propositions about the characteristics of sales situations that
could influence the recognition of an ethical problem. This
step is based on both literature and an exploratory qualita-
tive analysis (study 1) that includes individual and focus
group interviews. Then, we test these propositions in stage 2
with an experimental design using sales scenarios (study 2).
Qualitative and quantitative data are obtained from front-line
employees of the main French retail banks that serve low-
income customers. This empirical setting can be considered
13
E. Rousselet et al.
as an extreme case (Yin 1994). Indeed, retail banks offer
what these customers have a priority need for: money. This
may reveal ethical issues that could be difficult to observe
in other circumstances.
This paper is organized as follows. The next section pro-
vides the theoretical foundations. Then, we successively
present the results of the qualitative analysis (study 1), the
hypothesis development, the method, and the results of our
quantitative analysis (study 2). The final section is dedicated
to a general discussion including the discussion of our find-
ings, the limitations of our research, and a research agenda.
Theoretical Foundations
Ethical Decision Models in Business and Sales
A number of models have been proposed to help explain eth-
ical (or unethical) behaviors in business. Most of these are
rationalist based (Schwartz 2016). These models consider
EDM as a multistage process (Ferrell and Gresham 1985;
Hunt and Vitell 1986; Jones 1991; Rest 1986; Trevino 1986;
Wotruba 1990). EDM consists of four successive steps: the
recognition of an ethical issue, the judgement of the ethical-
ity of the issue, the formation of behavioral intentions, and
the subsequent behavior (Hunt and Vitell 1986; Rest 1986).
Each step of this moral decision structure (Wotruba 1990)
depends on the previous one.
The “ethical decision/action process” framework Wotruba
(1990) developed specifically for salespeople is built on
this moral decision structure and includes three other major
components: characteristics of the decision-maker, situ-
ational moderators, and outcomes. This framework enables
researchers to direct research activity to specific components
of the ethical decision process in the context of sales (Ferrel
et al. 2007; McClaren 2000).
Empirical research in sales ethics has increased substan-
tially since the end of the 1990s (McClaren 2013). Research-
ers have introduced sales-specific components in EDM
models such as sales activity (Ferrel et al. 2007; McClaren
2000) or sales subculture (Bush et al. 2017). They particu-
larly study organizational factors such as the sales ethical
climate, the supervisory style, and the use of rewards and
punishments (see Ferrel et al. 2007; McClaren 2013) which
are highly important for sales force management. Research-
ers also consider individual factors of EDM such as age,
gender, education, and personal values (McClaren 2013).
However, they have little interest in MI (McClaren 2013)
which is the situational factor introduced by Jones (1991).
Moral Intensity, Issue Characteristics, and Ethical Issue Recognition in Sales Situations 349
MI and REC
The construct of MI refers to the individual’s evaluation of
the specific context of an ethical (unethical) decision. It is
seen as « a barometer for engaging in ethical behavior and
intentions, with stronger moral intensity producing more
salient ethical intentions » (Lenhert et al. 2015, p. 205). It
is composed of six dimensions: the magnitude of the con-
sequences, social consensus, proximity, the probability of
effect, the concentration of effect, and temporal immediacy
(Jones 1991). Jones (1991) argues that MI has a direct effect
on each of the four steps of EDM.
Ethical issue recognition refers to “the degree to which
an individual recognizes the aspects of a situation that
carry a reasonable likelihood of moral wrong or harm to
individuals, classes of people, or other entities” (VanSandt
et al. 2006, p. 414). The relationship between MI and REC
is confirmed in various studies (Barnett 2001; Barnett and
Valentine 2004; Butterfield et al. 2000; Deconinck 2005;
Leitsch 2004; May and Pauli 2002; Singhapakdi et al. 1996,
1999; Valentine and Hollingworth 2012). However, with the
exception of DeConinck (2005), these studies do not use
samples of salespersons (McClaren 2013). This is all the
more surprising as salespersons perform various activities
(Bush et al. 2017; Dubinsky et al. 1986) and interact with
many stakeholders (Agnihotri et al. 2012). Therefore, there
may be variations in sales situations.
Moreover, MI appears to have a different effect on REC
depending on the various scenarios used within an empiri-
cal scenario-based study (Barnett and Valentine 2004; May
and Pauli 2002; Sweeney and Costello 2009). Valentine and
Holligworth (2012) suggest “explor[ing] the differences in
scenarios with respect to the different types of ethical per-
spectives that are embedded within them.” (Valentine and
Hollingworth 2012, p. 519). Thus, understanding the rela-
tionship between MI and REC in a sales context means iden-
tifying the characteristics that differentiate sales scenarios or
sales situations from an ethical point of view.
Sales Situations from an Ethical Perspective
Not all sales contexts have an ethical concern (Singhapaki
1999). Nevertheless, it is well known that salespersons face
many ethical dilemmas (McClaren 2000). The literature
highlights several reasons among which the various inter-
ests they have to balance (Agnihotri et al. 2012; Valentine
2009) and their many activities and roles (Bush et al. 2017;
Dubinsky et al. 1986). We examine to what extent further
evaluating these reasons may help identify various types of
situations that can differ from an ethical perspective.
Salespersons face ethical dilemmas because their own
interests and the interests of their customers and employ-
ers may conflict. Levy and Dubinski (1983) differentiate
sales ethical problems based on the individuals who gener-
ate them. They suggest that there are three situations that
may pose ethical problems: customer-related situations that
“involve customers and have [a] direct impact upon them”
(p. 48), work-related situations that are caused by the firm’s
directives or procedures and peer-related situations that
involve friends and relatives. This classification is contro-
versial because it implicitly considers that the interaction
between a salesperson and a customer is isolated from the
firm. However, from the perspective of service-dominant
(S-D) Logic, the customer relationship should be consid-
ered as a result of the processes of serving; in other words,
the experience is co-created by the service supplier and the
service beneficiary (Vargo and Lusch 2004). Therefore, cus-
tomer-related situations and work-related situations cannot
be systematically distinguished from an ethical perspective.
In addition, it is precisely because customer-related situ-
ations involve three shareholders—the customer, the firm,
and the salesperson—whose goals or interests often conflict
(Agnihotri et al. 2012) that sales forces frequently face con-
flicts of interest (Agnihotri et al. 2012; Bellizzi and Hasty
2003).
A conflict of interest occurs when one individual has sev-
eral goals or interests that, if mutually pursued, may result
in injury to the customers or to the firm (Beauchamp and
Bowie 1979). The literature most often describes customer-
related situations in which the interests of the sales force
conflict with those of their customers. Such conflicts arise,
for instance, when the desire of a salesperson to reach a sales
quota may not produce a benefit to the customer (Abratt and
Penman 2002; Boyle 2000; Honeycutt et al. 2001; Lee et al.
2009; Schepers et al. 2012; Valentine and Barnett 2007).
Schepers et al. (2012) also refer to customer-related situa-
tions in which the interests of the customers contradict those
of the firm. However, salespersons might not give the same
importance to ethical transgressions depending on whether
their interests conflict with either their customers or their
employers (Chonko and Hunt 1985; Dabholkar and Kella-
ris 1992; Kellaris and Dabholkar 1989). Therefore, from an
ethical perspective, customer-related situations may differ
according to the parties involved in the conflict of interest.
As mentioned above, the salesforce may also face many
ethical dilemmas because of their many roles and activi-
ties (Bush et al. 2017). McClaren (2000) and Ferrell and
colleagues (2007) suggest that sales or selling activity
impacts the MI of a situation (McClaren 2000, 2013). Efforts
have been made to study the extent to which certain sales
activities impact EDM (McClaren 2013). However, despite
McClaren’s claims (2000, 2013), there has been a very
limited use of selling taxonomies in sales ethics research
(McClaren 2013). Management control researchers have
long distinguished between in-role behaviors and extra-
role behaviors (McKenzie et al. 1991, 1998; Williams and
13

350
Anderson 1991), which may offer one possible classification
for sales situations from an ethical point of view.
Role behavior refers to the nature of the behavior that
employees adopt. In-role behaviors are required and are also
prescribed behaviors (Katz 1964; Van Dyne et al. 1998).
In contrast, extra-role behaviors refer to activities that are
voluntarily engaged in outside of role prescriptions and are
beyond the call of duty (Kim and Mauborgne 1996). This
distinction is particularly interesting for salespeople since
their autonomy and boundary-spanning positions could facil-
itate extra-role behaviors. When applied to salespersons in
customer-related situations, in-role behaviors include activi-
ties such as sales planning, sales adaptability, and after-sales
support, which are included in sales job descriptions. In con-
trast, extra-role behaviors are initiatives that improve service
interactions with customers or respond to customer concerns
that go beyond formal role requirements (Bettencourt and
Brown 1997). For instance, a salesperson recommends the
business activity of one of his customers; he introduces cus-
tomers to people who can help them solve problems whether
those problems are work related or not (MacKenzie et al.
1998); or he gives personal advice to the customer (Brief
and Motowidlo 1986; MacKenzie et al. 1998).
An important issue is the boundary between in-role and
extra-role behaviors. It could vary depending on industry
or organization (Morrison 1994). However, Van Dyne and
Lepine (1998) found that employees, peers, and supervisors
distinguish extra- and in-role behaviors consistently over
time. Moreover, focusing on one particular form of extra-
role behavior (organizational citizenship behavior), Vey and
Campbell (2004) found that in-role behaviors were more
frequently associated with conscientiousness and courtesy,
whereas extra-role behaviors were more frequently associ-
ated with altruism and civic virtue items. This finding could
indicate that in-role and extra-role behaviors are not inspired
by the same moral virtues. However, ethical conflict may
arise when salespeople’s values differ from those perceived
to be held by their immediate professional environment
(Schwepker et al. 1997). Thus, there could be a difference
in ethics between customer-related situations where sales-
persons perform an in-role behavior, and situations where
salespersons adopt an extra-role behavior.
To conclude, from an ethical point of view, two char-
acteristics could distinguish sales situations: the nature of
the conflict of interest and the role behavior of salesper-
sons. Some examples suggest that these characteristics can
be combined. For instance, when a salesperson considers
whether to make false promises to close a sale (Abratt and
Penman 2002), the interest of his customer conflicts with
his self-interest while engaging in in-role behavior. When a
customer asks a salesperson to promote his business to other
customers (Bettencourt et al. 1997), this salesperson must
balance the interests of this one customer and the interests
13
E. Rousselet et al.
of his company whose reputation he may put at risk while
performing this extra-role behavior. However, the litera-
ture does not describe the four situations resulting from the
combination of these two characteristics. Moreover, there
are very few empirical studies on customer-directed extra-
role behaviors. Thus, we first conduct a qualitative study,
which has two goals: understanding how the salespersons
of banks interpret their in-role (extra) role behaviors and
understanding the nature of the possible conflicts of interest
they must cope with in situations where they perform these
role behaviors. Then, we construct hypotheses and conduct
a quantitative experiment.
Qualitative Research Background
Our qualitative research includes twenty-one individual and
two focus group interviews. Appendix A describes why and
how we use these interviews and the methodological details.
The main results are presented below.
There are six low customer-related situations mentioned
by most of the interviewees. Only one situation is initiated
by bank salespersons: selling a banking product or service
to an existing low-income customer. Customers drive all
the other interactions. They visit branches frequently and
have frequent requests, which result in five situations for
the bank salespersons: reducing (or not) an overdraft fee for
a customer who overdraws his account every time he meets
an unexpected expense; reducing (or not) a debit rejection
charge for a customer in similar conditions; helping (or not)
a customer manage his money and account; helping (or not)
a customer obtain an advance of money, even if his bank
overdraft has reached the maximum allowed; and opening
(or not) a bank account for a new customer.
The situation where bank salespersons sell a banking
product or service to an existing low-income customer as
well as three of the five situations initiated by low-income
customers cause bank salespersons to engage in a behavior
that fits with what they consider to be their job. There is
no doubt that, for any of the interviewees, opening a bank
account, selling a product or service to an existing customer,
or negotiating an overdraft fee or debit rejection charge rep-
resent a component of their job. These behaviors belong to
the general tasks they spontaneously list when they describe
their job during the personal interviews. Bank salespersons’
role behavior in the last two situations that consist of help-
ing the customers is less obvious. However, the interpre-
tation of the data results in classifying them as extra-role
behavior since these situations are either associated with
environments that are different from the bank such as chari-
ties, or are contradictory to the business dimension of banks.
Selected quotes supporting our interpretation are provided
in Table 1.
Moral Intensity, Issue Characteristics, and Ethical Issue Recognition in Sales Situations 351

Table 1  Bank sales persons’ extra-role behavior: additional evidence as direct when the seller considers that his personal inter-
Situations Representative quotes
est contradicts with the interest of the buyer. The interest
divergence is indirect when the seller does not perceive that
Helping a customer Customers think we manage their banking his interests conflict but considers that those of his company
manage his money account. They are wrong. We are not here
may conflict with those of the buyer.
and account for that
Bank is a commercial firm. We are in branch Combining data from the individual interviews and focus
to do business groups, we classify situations according to the nature of the
I am not a social worker conflict of interest and the role behavior. Next, we focus
Helping a customer That is not in our hands on four of the six situations, excluding circumstances with
with an advance of ­ oeura
I tell them to go to les Restos du C
legal or technical issues that may create ambiguity about
money
ethics. The four scenarios include the following: selling a
a
 Charities banking product or service to a low-income customer (SAL);
reducing an overdraft fee for a low-income customer who
overdraws his account every time he meets an unexpected
Regarding role behavior, the interviewees classify the expense (OVE); helping a low-income customer manage his
situations in the same way; however, their behaviors vary. money and account, while he has various types of expenses
Some of them respond favorably to low-income customers’ and credit card debt that he cannot afford (MAN); helping a
requests for help, whereas others do not. It could perhaps low-income customer whose bank overdraft has reached the
depend on their sensitivity to the distress of their custom- maximum allowed, although he struggles to meet his basic
ers. Our qualitative research does not allow for conclusive needs and lacks money (HEL). Table 2 shows the charac-
statements on this issue. However, the analysis reveals that teristics of these situations regarding conflict of interest and
most of the focus group interviewees view the six situations role behavior.
as conflicts of interest, which differ according to the parties
involved.
Bank salespersons do not feel personally involved in situ-
ations where the interest of their company is at stake, for
Hypothesis Development
instance when low-income customers apply for a reduction
As shown in Fig. 1, we posit that the interplay of role behav-
in overdraft charges. One interviewee explains that his inter-
ior and interest divergence with REC is mediated by moral
est is not at stake, and he emphasizes that “bank employees
intensity. In this section, we develop separate hypotheses to
do not receive any commission on banking fees”. This is also
disentangle the associated mechanisms.
the case when a salesperson reduces (or not) an overdraft
fee for a customer who overdraws his account every time he
The Effect of Salesperson’s In‑role Versus Extra‑role
meets an unexpected expense. Moreover, some employees
Behaviors
consider that this situation is unbalanced: the advance that
low-income customers ask for is a substantial amount of
REC is an interpretative process (Rest 1986), and situations
money for them, whereas the cost for the bank in case of
are not always easy to interpret. Individuals use cognitive
non-repayment is very tiny compared to its profit.
frameworks to process information when evaluating a cir-
In contrast, bank salespersons appear to consider their
cumstance they encounter (Gioia and Poole 1984). These
own interests in any situation where they may either lose
frameworks are partly shaped by the working social context
an opportunity to reach their quota—in a sales situation—
that people operate in (Butterfield et al. 2000; Morris and
or lose time. All the interviewees consider low-income
McDonald 1995; Valentine and Barnett 2007; Valentine and
customers to be time-consuming. For a bank salesperson,
Bateman 2011). A context with increased commercial pres-
helping (or not) a customer manage his money and account
sure on sales and aggressive competition results in lower
takes time without an opportunity to reach his or her quota
REC (Butterfield et al. 2000; Valentine and Bateman 2011).
because of the poor economic value of the customer; for
Situations where salespersons adopt in-role behaviors are
most of the interviewees, opening a bank account for a low-
contexts where people are focused on sales, whereas situ-
income consumer means losing time with time-consuming
ations where they engage in extra-role behaviors are not
people because of the many payment incidents and without
(MacKenzie et al. 1998). Extra-role behaviors refer to the
the opportunity to sell banking products or services.
completion of extra duties (Hoffman et al. 2007). Conse-
Therefore, in what follows, we shall use the term “inter-
quently, we could expect REC to be higher in situations
est divergence”, which represents the conflict or tension
in which salespeople engage in extra-role behaviors than
between the interests of two parties involved in a sale:
in situations in which they engage in in-role behaviors.
buyer, seller, and employer. “Interest divergence” is defined

13

352 E. Rousselet et al.

Table 2  Typical salesperson/low-income customer situations

Salesperson role behavior
In-role Extra-role

Interest divergence
 Direct: between the customer
and the seller
 Indirect: between the customer Cutting on overdraft fees (OVE) A low-income customer
and the bank
Sales (SAL) A customer has incomes so low that his account Help with account and money management
is frequently in the red at the end of month. However, (MAN) A low-income customer does not
selling him a banking product or service can help a bank manage his money. He has various types of
salesperson to meet his sales targets. The bank salesperson expenses and consumer credits whereas he
has to decide whether to make a sale or not cannot afford them. The bank salesperson
with whom he is in contact has to decide
whether to help him manage his money and
account or not
Help when necessity of money for meeting
has his overdraft accounts in excess of the authorized limit basic needs (HEL) A low-income customer
every time he meets an unexpected expense. This results meets financial difficulties from a personal or
in bank charges for him. The salesperson with whom he is family event. His bank overdraft has reached
in contact has to decide whether to reduce overdraft fees the maximum allowed. However, he struggles
or not to meet his basic needs including food and
hygiene. He needs money. The bank salesper-
son with whom he is in contact has to decide
whether to help him or not

Direct vs. H1  REC will be stronger in situations in which salespeo-

indirect interest
divergence
H2
Salesperson in- Moral Intensity
- Magnitude of consequences,
role vs. extra-role
- Probability of effect
behavior H3
- Temporal immediacy
H1
Fig. 1  Theoretical framework
In addition, firms provide training programs to improve
the performance and effectiveness of their salesforce’s in-
role behaviors. During these trainings, salespersons learn
about customer categories, sales strategies, and practices
(Sharma et al. 2007). Valentine and Hollingworth (2012)
suggest that the use of cognitive scripts and quantitative
decision tools could reduce the ability of employees to “per-
ceive and interpret the ethical nuances or moral implications
of a particular situation” (Valentine and Hollingworth 2012,
p. 512) because they contribute to over-simplified decision
making. Following Valentine and Hollingworth (2012),
guiding sales forces to engage in the most appropriate in-
role behavior (Sharma et al. 2007) could reduce their ability
to identify ethical nuances in situations where they adopt
in-role behaviors. In contrast, extra-role behaviors are spon-
taneous behaviors (Hoffman et al. 2007). Therefore, we sug-
gest that when adopting them, salespersons deliberate and
therefore pay attention to ethical nuances. These converging
arguments lead to the following hypothesis:
ple engage in extra-role behaviors than those in which they
engage in in-role behaviors.
Ethical
issue
recognition
H3 The Interplay Between Salesperson Role Behaviors
and Interest Divergence
We first consider situations in which salespeople adopt in-
role behaviors. A careful review of empirical findings reveals
that the literature focuses on in-role behaviors. Earlier
research suggests that salespersons judge ethical transgres-
sions affecting customers as less ethical than those affecting
their employers (Chonko and Hunt 1985). We can try and
extrapolate this assumption about moral judgement on REC.
However, empirical studies report conflicting results (Abratt
and Penman 2002; Dabholkar and Kellaris 1992).
Nevertheless, when salespeople perform in-role behaviors
and face situations in which interest divergence is direct,
they can choose to favor their self-interest, whereas they
are unlikely to do so when interest divergence is indirect.
This occurs because salespersons may not promote their
self-interest at the customers’ cost since they risk punish-
ment (Trevino 1992). Therefore, salespersons may perceive
the situations where interest divergence is direct as riskier
than situations where interest divergence is indirect. How-
ever, sales managers who perceive greater risk in an ethical
dilemma are more likely to consider that the dilemma is an
ethical issue (Cherry and Fraedrich 2002). Extending this
result beyond sales managers to any salesperson, we present
the following hypothesis:

13
Moral Intensity, Issue Characteristics, and Ethical Issue Recognition in Sales Situations 353
H2a  For situations in which salespeople engage in in-role
behaviors, REC will be stronger when interest divergence is
direct than when it is indirect.
In contexts where salespersons can adopt extra-role
behaviors, our qualitative study reveals that these are help-
ing behaviors. To our knowledge, no research has previously
studied the helping behaviors of salespeople that are directed
at customers. There has been a large amount of research
on helping behaviors that are directed at other employees
within organizations (Karriker and Williams 2009; Moss-
holder et al. 2011; Podsakoff et al. 2000; Tang et al. 2008).
These behaviors appear to be significantly associated with
fairness or justice perceptions (Karriker and Williams 2009).
We can assume that the cognitive frameworks salespersons
use when evaluating situations that require them to engage
in extra-role behaviors are partly shaped by equity concerns.
According to equity theory (Adams 1963, 1965), people
evaluate the fairness of a situation by comparing the ratio of
their own inputs and outcomes with the ratio of the inputs
and outcomes of others. In our case, it is difficult to support
this principle because salespeople are not directly involved
in situations where interest divergence is indirect. How-
ever, our qualitative study reveals that several bank sales-
persons spontaneously noted that situations where interest
divergence is indirect present a great imbalance: the finan-
cial issue of the situation is much more important for the
low-income customer than for the bank. None of the bank
salespersons stressed such an imbalance in situations where
interest divergence was direct. Therefore, the salespersons
may perceive that situations for which interest divergence
is indirect present greater financial inequity than situations
for which interest divergence is direct. Consequently, the
former situations should be more salient than the latter one.
However, salient issues are more likely to catch the attention
of any decision-maker (Jones 1991). These elements lead us
to suggest the following hypothesis:
H2b  For situations in which salespeople engage in extra-
role behaviors, REC will be stronger when interest diver-
gence is indirect than when it is direct.
The Mediating Role of MI
As mentioned before, MI appears to have a direct influence
on REC in several studies (Barnett 2001; Barnett and Valen-
tine 2004; Butterfield et al. 2000; Deconinck 2005; Leitsch
2004; May and Pauli 2002; Singhapakdi et al. 1996, 1999;
Valentine and Hollingworth 2012). With the exception of
Deconinck (2005), these studies do not use samples of sales-
people (McClaren 2013); however, we can expect that MI
has a positive impact on REC.
Moreover, we suggest that, in situations where salesper-
sons perform in-role behaviors, MI is stronger when interest
divergence is direct than when it is indirect. In these situa-
tions, salespeople focus on sales (MacKenzie et al. 1998),
which partly shapes the cognitive frameworks they use
when evaluating situations (Gioia and Poole 1984; Morris
and McDonald 1995). It is possible that salespersons evalu-
ate the MI of situations by primarily considering their sales
quotas and incentives because these would be in their self-
interest. However, salespersons’ interests are more obvious
in situations where interest divergence is direct than when
it is indirect.
Let us use the following as an example: a salesperson
favors his customer in a situation where interest divergence
is direct. His prejudice is related to his variable compensa-
tion since salespersons often have high performance-related
bonuses. In a situation where interest divergence is indirect,
if a salesperson favors his customer to the detriment of his
employer, the negative consequence for his employer may
be offset by the positive results of other salespersons. Thus,
the effect of his behavior on himself is more likely in the
former situation than in the latter one. This effect is also
more immediate. Indeed, sales quotas generally apply to
shorter periods than the sales or profit targets of companies.
Therefore, for situations in which employees engage in in-
role behaviors, MI should be stronger when interest diver-
gence is direct than when it is indirect. This hypothesized
relationship combined with our assumption regarding the
positive impact of MI on REC implies that when salespeople
perform in-role behaviors, interest divergence affects REC
via a mediator, MI:
H3a  For situations in which salespersons engage in in-role
behaviors, MI will mediate the positive impact of direct
interest divergence on REC.
In contrast, in situations where salespersons are supposed
to adopt an extra-role behavior, they no longer focus on sales
issues. The qualitative results reveal that low-income cus-
tomers ask the bank salespersons for help. We can expect
that salespersons assess the MI of the situation first con-
sidering the interests of their customers. However, custom-
ers’ requests for help are not the same in both situations
in which salespeople may engage in extra-role behaviors.
Low-income customers ask for advances for essential needs
such as food, hygiene, or housing in situations where interest
divergence is indirect, whereas they ask for assistance with
managing their bank account in situations where interest
divergence is direct. We suggest that salespersons perceive
that the financial difficulties of low-income customers are
more important in the former situation than in the latter one.
Salespersons may also consider that if they choose to help
13

354
Table 3  Summary of hypotheses
Hypotheses
H1 REC will be stronger in situations in which salespeople engage in extra-role behaviors than those in which they engage in in-role behaviors
H2a For situations in which salespeople engage in in-role behaviors, REC will be stronger when interest divergence is direct than when it is
indirect
H2b For situations in which salespeople engage in extra-role behaviors, REC will be stronger when interest divergence is indirect than when it
is direct
H3a For situations in which salespersons engage in in-role behaviors, MI will mediate the positive impact of direct interest divergence on REC
H3b For situations in which salespeople engage in extra-role behaviors, the moral intensity will mediate the negative impact of direct interest
divergence on REC
low-income customers, the positive consequence of their
behavior for their customers will be more immediate when
interest divergence is indirect than when it is direct. Indeed,
assistance with managing a bank account, which can be
viewed as improving financial literacy, can help customers
improve their financial situation in a progressive manner. In
contrast, providing an advance to a low-income customer
helps him immediately.
Therefore, salespersons should perceive greater and more
immediate consequences of their behavior related to custom-
ers in the former situation (indirect interest divergence) than
in the latter one (direct interest divergence). Therefore, for
extra-role behaviors, MI should be stronger when interest
divergence is indirect than when it is direct. This proposed
relationship combined with our assumption regarding the
impact of MI on REC implies that when salespeople perform
extra-role behaviors, interest divergence affects REC via a
mediator, moral intensity.
H3b  For situations in which salespeople engage in extra-
role behaviors, the moral intensity will mediate the negative
impact of direct interest divergence on REC.
Table 3 summarizes the hypotheses tested in study 2.
Study 2
Method
Design, Participants, and Scenarios
We use a 2 (salesperson’s role behavior: extra-role vs. in-
role) by 2 (interest divergence: direct vs. indirect) within-
subject experiment with sales scenarios. In the ethics lit-
erature, researchers often use quantitative scenario-based
methodologies (O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005; Lenhert
2015). The use of profession-specific settings ensures
that participants are completely involved (Greenberg and
Eskew 1993) and avoids candid or ready-made responses
(Robertson and Anderson 1993). Projective questioning
13
E. Rousselet et al.
helps reduce social desirability bias (Robertson and
Anderson 1993). The first pair is salesperson behavior:
extra-role vs. in-role, and the second pair is interest diver-
gence: direct vs. indirect.
Ninety-nine French bank apprentices participated in
the study. In France, an apprenticeship is similar to the
definition proposed by Lewis (2014): « a contract between
an employer and a person that combines a structured pro-
gramme of on-the-job training and productive work with
part-time, formal technical education » (Lewis 2014,
p. 498). Apprentices spend about 60 percent of their time
in bank branches where they are considered full members
and placed in front-line positions of increasing responsibil-
ity. The participants, of whom 54 percent are women, are
on average 22 years old and have seniority of 15 months
in front-line positions in retail banking. Thus, they can
be considered as junior bank salespersons. It is unlikely
that they consider themselves as students, as they are not
mixed with students who are not apprentices. Participants
were recruited through two leading French universities and
have not received any ethics courses, which could sub-
ject the study to bias. Apprentices interviewed in the two
focus groups of study 1 were excluded from this study. We
conducted all experimental sessions in classrooms during
teaching hours to minimize the risk that students would
rush while answering the questionnaire.
We developed four scenarios from our qualitative study,
following the vignette model used by Valentine and Bate-
man (2011), in the sense that each scenario describes a
situation but does not report the action the salespersons
have decided to pursue. This is not the most common type
of scenario in the business ethics empirical literature, but
it is well suited to our study since our qualitative findings
reveal great variations in the behaviors bank employees
adopt when facing the same circumstances. We deliber-
ately wrote short texts to determine the test length and
ran a pretest involving four bank employees who had
over 20 years of experience working in retail banks. The
vignettes appear to be entirely plausible, although the texts
are brief. We made a few semantic adjustments for two
of the vignettes to ensure the participants would be able
Moral Intensity, Issue Characteristics, and Ethical Issue Recognition in Sales Situations 355
to understand them. The four scenarios are presented in
Table 2. In the questionnaire, the sequence of vignettes
was randomized to avoid position bias (Converse and
Presser 1986).
Dependent and Mediating Measures
REC was measured with a single item that has been used
in previous research (Barnett and Valentine 2004; Bateman
et al. 2013; Hollingworth and Valentine 2015; Singhapakdi
et al. 1996, 1999; Valentine and Barnett 2007; Valentine
and Hollingworth 2012). MI was measured by the probable
magnitude of the consequences. Magnitude of the conse-
quences is the first factor of the 3-factor structure of MI that
McMahon and Harvey (2006) found. It includes three of the
six dimensions of MI: magnitude of consequences, prob-
ability of effect, and temporal immediacy. Each dimension
was measured with two items that are also used in McMahon
and Harvey (2006). All the responses used a seven-point
Likert format anchored by “completely agree/completely
disagree”. These items were developed in English and had
never been translated into French. Two professional transla-
tors translated them into French, and we ran a pilot test on 20
students. At the end of the test, participants were encouraged
to ask questions, and there did not appear to be any problems
understanding them. All the items are presented in Appen-
dix B. Separate reliability analyses for each dimension of
MI by experimental conditions yielded acceptable results
(Cronbach’s alpha was higher than 0.74 for MI). Reliability
analyses yielded Spearman–Brown statistics ranging from
0.33 to 0.72.
We performed Harman’s single factor tests for all four
within-subject experimental conditions. The total variance
explained by a single factor varied from 27 to 36%. Common
method bias was not considered an issue since these val-
ues were below the threshold of 50% (Podsakoff and Organ
1986).
Control Variables
Ethical predisposition and ethical climate are included as
control variables based on previous research findings (see
Appendix C). Ethical predisposition refers to the cogni-
tive framework individuals preferentially use in the ethical
decision-making process (Brady and Wheeler 1996), which
influences REC (Reynolds 2006). Researchers usually con-
sider that ethical predisposition has two main forms: utilitar-
ian and formalist. These forms were measured using items
from Brady and Wheeler (1996). These items have previ-
ously been used in ethics research (Reynolds 2006). Formal-
ism (α = 0.73) was measured using a three-item scale scored
using a 7-point Likert format that included “honest”, “trust-
worthy”, and “good-intentioned”. Utilitarianism (α = 0.57)
was measured on a three-item scale scored on a 7-point Lik-
ert format that included “influential”, “result-oriented”, and
“ambitious”. In alignment with Reynolds (2006), formalism
and utilitarian were not correlated (r = 0.05, p = 0.58).
Ethical climate can be broadly defined as an employee’s
perception of the ethical content of the practices, proce-
dures, and actions of his company (Victor and Cullen 1988;
Wimbush and Shepard 1994). We included this as a con-
trol variable for two reasons: ethical climate may influence
the ethical decision-making process (Valentine and Barnett
2007) and the participants in our survey worked in different
French retail banks that may have different ethical climates.
Ethical climate was measured using the scale developed by
Lavorata (2007), which includes commercial components.
Poujol and colleagues (Poujol et al. 2016) used this scale
to measure ethical climates in retail banks (Poujol et al.
2016). The first dimension, ethical procedures within the
company, was measured with three items (α = 0.86): “The
general management of your company has made it clear that
non-ethical behavior will not be tolerated”; “Salespersons
acting unethically in the company’s interest are sanctioned”;
and “Salespersons acting unethically in their own interest
are sanctioned”. The second dimension, ethical peer behav-
iors, was also measured with three items (α = 0.72): “In your
company, customers are sometimes encouraged to buy prod-
ucts they don’t really need”; “In your company, sales person-
nel are primarily evaluated on their results rather than on the
quality of their work”; and “In your company, sales competi-
tions push salespeople to sell products that are not always
suited to their customers’ needs”. This scale was originally
developed in a French-speaking context. We controlled for
translation as with the previous variables.
Results
Repeated Measures ANOVAs
First, we ran a repeated measures ANOVA on MI with
the within-subject independent variables salesperson role
behavior and interest divergence as well as their interaction.
The results for the main effect of salesperson role behavior
show that MI is stronger for extra-role than in-role behaviors
(M = 5.45 vs. M = 4.65, F(1.94) = 42.78, p < 0.001). There
was no main effect for interest divergence. Of greater impor-
tance, we find a significant interaction between salesper-
son role behavior and interest divergence (F(1.94) = 26.51,
p < 0.001) (see Fig. 2). Planned contrast tests showed that
for the extra-role behavior condition, MI is lower in the
case of direct interest divergence (M = 5.27 vs. M = 5.63,
F(1.94) = 8.41, p < 0.01). However, for the in-role behavior
condition, MI is higher in the case of direct interest diver-
gence (M = 4.99 vs. M = 4.31, F(1.94) = 22.65, p < 0.001).
13

356 E. Rousselet et al.

6 vs. M = 4.62, F(1.94) = 8.05, p < 0.01). However, for the in-

5.63
role behavior condition, REC is higher in the case of direct
Moral intensity*

5.27

4.99 interest divergence (M = 5.21 vs. M = 3.57, F(1.94) = 47.49,

5
p < 0.001).
4.31 Although the significance of the main effects is not con-
4
sistent for the two dependent variables, the pattern of the
Extra-role In-role interaction effect is stable for both dependent variables:
Salesperson role behavior there is a decrease for the extra-role behavior condition and
* captured by the three dimensions of the probable magnitude of the consequences an increase for the in-role behavior condition (see Fig. 2).
Hence, MI appears to be a mediator in the relationship
between the interplay of salesperson role behavior and
6
interest divergence on REC. In the next section, we describe
Ethical issue

5.21
mediation analyses to test this assumption.
recognition

5
4.62
We also ran similar repeated measures ANOVAs using
4
4.03
the different dimensions of MI as dependent variables (see
3.57
Table 4). Consistent with the previous results, we find that
3 the interaction effect is significant for the three components
Extra-role In-role
we selected for measuring MI: the magnitude of the conse-
Salesperson role behavior
quences, the probability of effect, and temporal immediacy.
Indirect Direct
Interest divergence Mediation Analyses

Fig. 2  The interplay between salesperson role behavior and the nature We conducted mediation analyses using Montoya and
of interest divergence Hayes’s (2017) mediation and moderation in repeated meas-
ures (MEMORE) macro. Given the absence of the moder-
ated mediation macro in the within-subject design, we ran
Second, we ran a repeated measures ANOVA on REC
separate mediation analyses for each condition of salesper-
with the within-subject independent variables salesperson
son role behavior. We ran two mediation analyses (1) for the
role behavior and interest divergence, as well as their inter-
extra-role behavior condition and (2) for the in-role behavior
action. The results show a main effect of interest divergence,
condition and for both the indirect and direct interest diver-
such that REC is stronger in the case of direct interest diver-
gence. The macro calculates the difference between the two
gence (M = 4.62 vs. M = 4.07, F(1.94) = 10.55, p < 0.01).
mediator measurements (MI for direct interest divergence
There was no main effect for salesperson role behavior. Of
minus MI for indirect interest divergence) and the differ-
greater importance, we find a significant interaction between
ence between the two dependent variable measurements (MI
role behavior and interest divergence (F(1.94) = 51.06,
for direct interest divergence minus MI for indirect inter-
p < 0.001), which is illustrated in Fig. 2. Planned contrast
est divergence). These are modeled in accordance with the
tests showed that for the extra-role behavior condition, REC
is lower in the case of direct interest divergence (M = 4.03

Table 4  Direct (H1) and Dependent variables Independent variables

interaction (H2) effects from the
repeated measures ANOVAs Salesperson role Interest divergence Role behav-
behavior (H1) ior × interest diver-
gence (H2)

Ethical issue recognition (REC) 0.15 10.55** 51.06***

Moral intensity (MI) 42.78*** 3.23 26.51***
Magnitude of consequences (MC) 51.41*** 8.25** 26.36***
Probability of effect (PE) 29.27*** 3.87 8.97**
Temporal immediacy (TI) 15.70*** 0.28 20.32***

Note Results from repeated measures ANOVAs. Each line represents a specific depended variable, and the
three columns correspond to the two within-subject factors, as well as their interaction. Value reported is
the F-Statistic
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

13
Moral Intensity, Issue Characteristics, and Ethical Issue Recognition in Sales Situations 357
Table 5  Results from the mediation analyses (H3)
Mediators M Within the salesperson’s in-role behavior
condition (H3a)
X on M
Moral intensity (MI) 0.66**
 Magnitude of consequences (MC) 0.99**
 Probability of effect (PE) 0.62**
 Temporal immediacy (TI) 0.38*
Note The independent variable X is the nature of interest divergence. The dependent variable Y is ethical issue recognition. We used the macro
MEMORE (Montoya and Hayes 2017) for within-subject design mediation analysis
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
procedure described in Montoya and Hayes (2017) and Judd
et al. (2001). Table 5 summarizes the mediation analyses.
First, for the extra-role behavior condition, we find
that direct interest divergence negatively influences MI
(a = − 0.36, t = − 2.83, p < 0.01). Second, controlling for
interest divergence, we find that MI significantly influences
REC (b = 0.61, t = 4.04, p < 0.001). Third, controlling for
MI, we find that interest divergence marginally influences
REC (c = − 0.35, t = − 1.83, p = 0.07). Finally, the indirect
path of the effect of interest divergence on REC through the
MI (a × b = − 0.22) was significant with a 99 percent confi-
dence interval excluding zero (− 0.5141 to − 0.0262).
Second, for the in-role behavior condition, we find
that direct interest divergence positively influences MI
(a = 0.66, t = 4.58, p < 0.001). Second, controlling for inter-
est divergence, we find that MI significantly influences REC
(b = 0.41, t = 2.44, p < 0.05). Third, controlling for MI, we
find that interest divergence significantly influences REC
(c = 1.38, t = 5.31, p < 0.001). Finally, the indirect path of
the effect of interest divergence on REC through the MI
(a × b = 0.27) was significant with a 95 percent confidence
interval excluding zero (0.0371 to 0.5604).
General Discussion
In this section, we discuss the results, the contributions of
the research, its limitations, and conclude by offering sug-
gestions for future studies.
Discussion of the Results
Our goal is to enhance the understanding of sales EDM by
testing the contingent nature of REC in sales situations.
We find that REC depends both on MI and a combina-
tion of two issue characteristics: role behavior and interest
divergence. Our results are consistent with the literature.
Within the salesperson’s extra-role behavior condi-
tion (H3b)
M on Y X on Y X on M M on Y X on Y through M
through M
0.40* 0.27* − 0.36* 0.60** − 0.35**
0.29* 0.29* − 0.40* 0.44** − 0.18*
0.26* 0.16* − 0.17 0.31* − 0.06
0.20 0.07 − 0.50** 0.42** − 0.20**
First, the results confirm that REC is issue-contingent
(Jones 1991) and more precisely, that it depends on MI,
as observed in past research (Barnett and Valentine 2004;
Butterfield et al. 2000; Deconinck 2005; Leitsch 2004;
May and Pauli 2002; Singhapakdi et al. 1996, 1999; Val-
entine and Bateman 2011; Valentine and Hollingworth
2012). Second, the impact of MI on REC differs depend-
ing on the situation. This result supports the assumption
of May and Pauli (2002) when interpreting their findings:
“It may be that the moral intensity—moral recognition
relation is contingent on the context involved.” (p. 109).
We study the characteristics of the context involved. Our
results suggest that the nature of conflict of interest sales-
persons face does not elicit ethical sensitivity in the same
way depending on the role behavior they are engaged in. For
situations in which salespersons engage in in-role behaviors,
REC is stronger when interest divergence is direct than when
it is indirect. When salespeople engage in in-role behaviors
and face circumstances where interest divergence is direct,
they can choose to favor their self-interest whereas they
are not likely to do so when interest divergence is indirect.
Thus, salespersons may perceive the situations where inter-
est divergence is direct as riskier than situations where inter-
est divergence is indirect. Indeed, the ethics codes of banks
and the ethical training banks provide to their salesforces
probably emphasize and draw attention on in-role behav-
iors and situations where interest divergence is direct rather
than indirect because banks aim at reducing situations where
salespersons behave in a self-interested manner. This can
lead to a higher ethical sensitivity of salespersons in the
former situation.
Regarding situations in which salespeople engage in
extra-role behaviors, REC is stronger when interest diver-
gence is indirect than when it is direct. One explanation lies
in the gap perceived by sales persons between the conse-
quences of their behavior for parties involved. Indeed, in
the qualitative study, the bank salespersons highlight that a
small amount of money does not impact the bank, whereas
13

358
Table 6  The strength of the mediating effect of MI on the relation-
ship between the combination of the two issue characteristics and
REC
In-role Extra-role
Direct Interest Divergence REC + REC -
Indirect Interest Divergence REC - REC+
it is of great importance for poor people. Moreover, they do
not compare the consequences of their behavior for their
customers and the consequences for themselves in situations
with extra-role behaviors. Therefore, the gap between the
consequences for the parties involved is probably stronger
in situations where interest divergence is indirect than in sit-
uations where it is direct. Therefore, salespersons could pay
more attention to the ethical issue in the former situations.
MI mediates the relationship between the combination
of the two issue characteristics (role behavior and interest
divergence) and REC. This result attests that the two issue
characteristics are not sufficient to model ethical issue recog-
nition. MI has also an impact. Moreover, as shown in Table 6,
the strength of the mediating effect of MI (indicated by the
intensity of the gray shading) differs according the situation.
For situations with extra-role behaviors, the mediating effect
of MI is less important probably because it is not discussed
in the code of conduct, whereas for situations with in-role
behaviors, the sellers have increased awareness, and MI is
more important.
Contributions
First, our research extends empirical research on sales eth-
ics (McClaren 2000, 2013) by revealing and using sales
situations that are not considered in the empirical litera-
ture. Although researchers frequently use sales scenarios
including conflicts of interest, they primarily rely on cus-
tomer-related situations where the interests of the customer
conflict with the interests of the salespersons (Abratt and
Penman 2002; Bellizzi and Hasty 2003; Barnett and Val-
entine 2004; Boyle 2000; Deconinck 2005; Lee et al. 2009;
Valentine and Barnett 2007; Schweper and Good 2007). Our
research describes situations where the conflict of interest
lies between the customer and the employer. Revealing and
emphasizing this type of conflict of interest in customer-
related situations is essential because how a firm reduces
it does not depend on the salespersons but on the capacity
of the firm to better meet customers’ needs and ensure the
long-term performance of its brand equity.
Likewise, our research describes customer-related extra-
role behaviors. Although role behavior is a valuable con-
cept in the sales management literature (MacKenzie et al.
1998), it has thus far been excluded from the ethics litera-
ture. By carefully reviewing the vignettes used in empirical
research on sales ethics, we note that they describe only
13
E. Rousselet et al.
customer-related situations where salespersons engage in-
role behaviors: they develop sales arguments (Honeycutt
et al. 2001) and charge prices (Bellizzi and Hasty 2003).
Therefore, our research draws attention to one type of behav-
ior that has not been previously considered.
Second, our research contributes to the sales ethics lit-
erature by exploring the relationship between MI and REC,
which has rarely been studied (McClaren 2013). More
importantly, by revealing two characteristics of sales situ-
ations whose combined effect on REC is mediated by MI,
our research contributes to the ethics literature on MI by
confirming that the relationship between MI and REC is
contingent, as assumed by May and Pauli (2002) and Val-
entine and Hollingworth (2012).
Finally, our research identifies a way to differentiate sales
activities from an ethical perspective, while sales activity is
considered as a specific component of sales EDM models
(Ferrell et al 2007; McClaren 2000). Therefore, it comple-
ments previous research on sales ethics. Moreover, from a
practical point of view, it provides descriptions of the cir-
cumstances where ethical issue recognition is important or
not and therefore guidance to sales organizations. Despite
these contributions, our research has some limitations, some
of which present opportunities for future research.
Limitations and Future Research
The limitations of this study are mainly methodological.
First, we did not include an actual measure of social desir-
ability as a control in the experimental conditions in study
2. Because of our within-subject design, between-subject
differences such as social desirability “cannot contribute
to the within-subject error variance because these indi-
vidual differences affect all the repeated measures of a
subject in the same way” (Csikszentmihalyi 2011, p. 288).
However, future research may further explore the influence
of within-subject social desirability to eliminate the risk
of social desirability biases. Second, given the cross-sec-
tional research design of study 2, our research cannot dem-
onstrate causality among the variables. Thus, the results
must be interpreted with caution. Third, we use the prob-
able magnitude of the consequences as a proxy of MI. It
is the first of the three factors that McMahon and Harvey
(2006) identify when studying the factor structure of MI.
However, McMahon and Harvey also find two other factors
and each consists of items related to one component that
Jones proposes: proximity (factor 2) and social consensus
(factor 3). We do not include these in our measure of MI.
Not every empirical study includes all six components of
MI (Tsalikis et al. 2008). However, future research should
test our hypotheses that measure MI based on these two
other factors.
Moral Intensity, Issue Characteristics, and Ethical Issue Recognition in Sales Situations 359

Finally, the generalizability of our findings is limited for
two reasons. The focus groups and the quantitative study
were carried out using junior salespersons at banks. Our
sample had a seniority of 15 months when interviewed.
Therefore, we can assume that they understand the situations
described in the study and have already encountered ethical
dilemmas at work. Nevertheless, they are young. REC could
be influenced by age (Craft 2013; McClaren 2013; Lenhert
et  al. 2015) and work experience (Lenhert et  al. 2015).
Therefore, our results may not be generalized to career bank
salespersons. We encourage future empirical research to use
samples that include both senior and junior salespersons that
work in retail banks. More importantly, we chose to carry
out an extreme case (Yin 1994): data were obtained on bank
salespersons who serve low-income customers. This context
allowed the study to consider some issues that could not
be observed in other circumstances. However, consistently
with study 1, this led us to consider only one type of cus-
tomer-related extra-role behavior, namely, helping custom-
ers. However, the literature mentions other such behaviors,
including taking the initiative to improve service (Betten-
court et al. 1997, 2001) and recommending a customer’s
business to other customers (MacKenzie et al. 1998). We
recommend that future research considers other sales situ-
ations to strengthen the external validity of our findings:
circumstances where bank salespersons interact with mid-
dle- and high-income customers and circumstances in other
business activities where extra-role behaviors may be dif-
ferent from helping. This is the first suggestion for future
research.
This cannot be done without strengthening the under-
standing of the constructs of situational characteristics we
identify in our research: role behavior and interest diver-
gence within seller–buyer interactions. We recommend
adopting a grounded research approach because qualitative
research should better help understand the perceptions sales
persons have of their role behaviors and the nature of the
conflict of interest they have to cope with. This is our second
recommendation for future research.
MI is the first situational factor that was identified in the
ethics literature. Our study explores the relationship between
MI and REC. Future research is also needed to explore the
relationship between MI and each of the other steps of
EDM, including ethical judgement, ethical intent, and ethi-
cal behavior.
Appendix A: Qualitative Research
Methodology
Research Design
Our qualitative study combines both individual and group
interviews with grounded-theory building. The individual
interviews mainly focus on bank salespersons’ interactions
with low-income customers and related situations. This
type of interview is appropriate for exploring a theme for
which there have been few empirical studies. We use focus
group interviews to explore role behavior and conflict of
interest because these are sensitive issues. The focus group
method allows participants to feel more comfortable than
they would in individual interviews because the questions
are not specifically directed to a single person (Carey
1994). This general scheme does not accurately reflect
the comprehensive goals and uses of individual and group
interviews; these are detailed in the following Table 7.

Table 7  Goals of the study, data obtained, and use of the data from the individual and group interviews
Individual interviews (21) Group interviews (2)

Goals Identify the main objectives and tasks of the inter-
viewee
Identify and describe any circumstances where bank
salespersons meet low-income customers and the
behaviors associated with these situation
Identify possible tensions within these circumstances
and their causes
Data
 Interview duration 54 h and 38 min
 Transcribed verbatim material 937 pages of text
Use of data Produce a list and description of low-income
customer-related situations
Improve our understanding of the organizational
context of bank salespersons and their perceptions
of in-role behavior
Triangulate evidence from group interviews regarding
role behavior and conflict of interest
Understand how bank salespersons interpret their role
behaviors and the possible conflicts of interest they
face when helping low-income customers
1 h and 40 min
123 pages of text
Identify the type of conflict of interest possibly
involved in situations identified in individual inter-
views
Identify the type of role behavior associated with situ-
ations identified in individual interviews
Triangulate evidence from personal interviews regard-
ing low-income customer-related situations

13

360
Data Collection
Individual Interviews
Twenty-one face-to-face semi-structured interviews were
conducted by the authors. All the participants were front-
line employees of retail banks who were in direct contact
with low-income customers. The participants were cho-
sen to maximize structural variation (Glaser and Strauss
1967). We aimed to collect data from employees who rep-
resent the diversity of salespersons who work in French
retail banks and their various positions within branches,
which include the following: receptionists, customer advi-
sors, and branch managers. In their positions, the partic-
ipants meet low-income customers when they have too
many incidents of non-payment or have credit problems.
Data collection continued until redundancy was reached,
implying theoretical saturation (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
The respondents were 24–50 years old, with an average
age of 34 years. Nine participants were male and 12 were
female. At the beginning of the study, the participants
were asked general questions about their bank, their pro-
fessional careers, and their present position. Then, the
interview guide reviewed the following topics: (1) the
major missions and goals the interviewee had regarding
low-income customers; (2) the day-to-day relationships
with low-income customers; (3) the perceptions of these
customers and their banking needs and attitudes; and (4)
the products and services the bank provides to these cus-
tomers. The interviews were conducted by two of the four
authors of this study.
Group Interviews
Data were collected by means of two group interviews; there
were four retail banking apprentices in each group. Appren-
tices are part-time employees. All of the participants have
been in direct contact with low-income customers from 12
to 24 months in the main French retail banks. They can be
considered as junior employees and have an average age of
22 years.
One of the authors conducted the interviews for both
groups following the same semi-structured framework. The
session began by asking the apprentices to describe their
relationships with low-income customers and the various
circumstances in which they serve those customers. Then,
the interviewer presented one of the situations mentioned
in the individual interviews. The participants were asked
which behavior their colleagues would adopt and the nature
of these behaviors, referring to in-role behavior and extra-
role behavior. They were also asked to reflect on the possible
interpretation of the situation as a conflict of interest and
to clarify which parties were in conflict. This pattern was
13
E. Rousselet et al.
used for each of the six situations identified in the individual
interviews. The interviewer did not note domination by any-
one who could have biased the discussion.
Both the individual and focus group interviews were
audiotaped, with the consent of the participants, and fully
transcribed.
Data Analysis
The data analysis was conducted separately by two of the
four authors following a manual procedure.
Step 1: Coding Individual Interviews
The analysis focused on two subjects: the low-income cus-
tomer-related situations bank salespersons face and the per-
ceptions they have of their goals and tasks.
The situations were defined as circumstances involving
both a bank salesperson and a low-income customer regard-
less of who was at the origin of the interaction. While read-
ing the selected data, the coders created a separate list of
situations and reread them to complete the list. In addition,
they noted a careful description of the situations, the parties
directly or indirectly involved and the behavior of the inter-
viewees. Second, the authors had a discussion about the situ-
ations. Third, they read the selected data again, combined
some of the situations to reduce their number, and assessed
whether the situations recurred in all the interviews. Finally,
they discussed the results and produced a list of the situa-
tions, their descriptive details, and the various behaviors the
bank salespersons adopted.
Regarding the perceptions bank sales persons have of
their role and tasks, the coders created a list of the tasks each
bank salespersons mentioned when they described their job
during the personal interviews. They compared this list from
on interviewee to one another. They isolated any comment
regarding the representation interviewees had of their role
and tasks. This material was used to triangulate data from
focus group interviews.
Focus Groups Interviews
Data were examined by two of the four authors and ana-
lysed using the following research questions as a template:
Were the situations interpreted by interviewees as a con-
flict of interest? When this was the case, which parties had
conflicting interests? Finally, were the behaviors exhibited
during these situations viewed as either in-role or extra-role
behaviors? What were the reasons for these perceptions? The
authors paid attention to both manifest and latent content
(Bergh 2004).
Moral Intensity, Issue Characteristics, and Ethical Issue Recognition in Sales Situations 361

Appendix B Cronbach’s alpha

Ethical climate: ethical peer behaviors (Lavorata 0.72

Scales, items, and reliability for moral intensity* by experimental con-
dition
Magnitude of consequence** (MC)
 The negative consequences (if any) of
the decision will be very serious (R)
 The overall harm (if any) as a result of
the decision will be very small
Probability of effect** (PE)
 There is a very small likelihood that the
decision will actually cause any harm
 The decision is likely to cause harm (R)
Temporal immediacy** (TI)
 The decision will not cause any harm in
the immediate future
 The negative effects (if any) of the deci-
sion will be felt very quickly (R)
Moral intensity***
(MI* = MC + PE + TI)
*Captured by the three dimensions of the probable magnitude of the
consequences
**Two items: Spearman–Brown statistic
***More than two items: Cronbach’s alpha
Appendix C
Scales, items, and reliability for control variables
Ethical predispositions: Formalism (Brady and
Wheeler 1996)
 Trustworthy
 Honest
 Good-intentioned
Ethical predispositions: Utilitarism (Brady and
Wheeler 1996)
 Influential
 Result-oriented
 Ambitious
Ethical climate: procedures within the company 0.86
(Lavorata 2007)
 The general management of your company has
made it clear that non-ethical behavior will not
be tolerated
 Salespersons acting unethically in the com-
pany’s interest are sanctioned
 Salespersons acting unethically in their own
interest are sanctioned
2007)
 In your company, customers are sometimes
encouraged to buy products they do not really
need
MAN SAL HEL OVE  In your company, sales personnel are primarily
evaluated on their results rather than on the
0.58 0.72 0.58 0.67 quality of their work
 In your company, sales competitions push
salespeople to sell products that are not always
suited to their customers’ needs
0.33 0.72 0.59 0.68
References
0.47 0.68 0.51 0.50
Abratt, R., & Penman, N. (2002). Understanding factors affecting sales-
people’s perceptions of ethical behavior in South Africa. Journal
of Business Ethics, 35(4), 269–280.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Jour-
nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–463.
0.74 0.86 0.74 0.78 Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New
York: Academic Press.
Agnihotri, R., Rapp, A., Kothandaraman, P., & Singh, R. K. (2012). An
emotion-based model of salesperson ethical behaviors. Journal of
Business Ethics, 109(2), 243–257.
Barnett, T. (2001). Dimensions of moral intensity and ethical decision
making: An empirical study. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 31(5), 1038–1057.
Barnett, T., & Valentine, S. (2004). Issue contingencies and marketers’
recognition of ethical issues, ethical judgments and behavioral
intentions. Journal of Business Research, 57, 338–346.
Bateman, C. R., Valentine, S., & Rittenburg, T. (2013). Ethical deci-
sion making in a peer-to-peer file sharing situation: The role
of moral absolutes and social consensus. Journal of Business
Ethics, 115(2), 229–240.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. E. (1979). Ethical theory and busi-
Cronbach’s alpha ness. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bellizzi, J. A., & Hasty, R. W. (2003). Supervising unethical sales
0.73 force behavior: How strong is the tendency to treat top sales per-
formers leniently? Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 337–351.
Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sci-
ences (5th edn.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Contact employees:
0.57 Relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and
prosocial service behaviors. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 39–61.
Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A com-
parison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictors of
service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29–41.
Blocker, C. P., Ruth, J. A., Sridharan, S., Beckwith, C., Ekici, A.,
Goudie-Hutton, M., & Varman, R. (2013). Understanding pov-
erty and promoting poverty alleviation through transforma-
tive consumer research. Journal of Business Research, 66(8),
1195–1202.

13

362
Boyle, B. A. (2000). The Impact of customer characteristics and
moral philosophies on ethical judgments of salespeople. Journal
of Business Ethics, 23(3), 249–267.
Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical
predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927–940.
Brenkert, G. G. (1998). Marketing and the vulnerable. Business Eth-
ics Quarterly, 1, 7–20.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational
behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725.
Bush, V., Bush, A. J., Oakley, J., & Cicala, J. E. (2017). The sales
profession as a subculture: Implications for ethical decision
making. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 549–565.
Butterfield, K. D., Trevin, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2000). Moral
awareness in business organizations: Influences of issue-related
and social context factors. Human Relations, 53(7), 981–1018.
Carey, M. A. (1994). The group effect in focus groups: Planning,
implementing, and interpreting focus group research. In J.
Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods
(pp. 225–241). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cherry, J., & Fraedrich, J. (2002). Perceived risk, moral philosophy
and marketing ethics: mediating influences on sales managers’
ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Research, 55(12),
951–962.
Chonko, L. B., & Hunt, S. D. (1985). Ethics and marketing manage-
ment: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Research,
13(4), 339–359.
Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcraft-
ing the standardized questionnaire (Vol. 63). Thousands Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-mak-
ing literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2),
221–259.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2011). Handbook of research methods for study-
ing daily life. New York: Guilford Press.
Dabholkar, P. A., & Kellaris, J. J. (1992). Toward understanding mar-
keting students’ ethical judgment of controversial personal selling
practices. Journal of Business Research, 24(4), 313–329.
Deconinck, J. B. (2005). The influence of ethical control systems and
moral intensity on sales managers’ethical perceptions and behav-
ioral intentions. Marketing Management Journal, 15(2), 123–131.
Dubinsky, A. J., Howell, R. D., Ingram, T. N., & Bellenger, D. N.
(1986). Salesforce socialization. The Journal of Marketing, 50,
192–207.
Ekström, K. M., & Hjort, T. (2009). Hidden consumers in marketing:
The neglect of consumers with scarce resources in affluent socie-
ties. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(7–8), 697–712.
Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for
understanding ethical decision making in marketing. The Journal
of Marketing, 49, 87–96.
Ferrell, O. C., Johnston, M. W., & Ferrell, L. (2007). A framework
for personal selling and sales management ethical decision mak-
ing. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27(4),
291–299.
Gioia, D. A., & Poole, P. P. (1984). Scripts in organizational behavior.
Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 449–459.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.
Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.
Greenberg, J., & Eskew, D. E. (1993). The role of role playing in
organizational research. Journal of Management, 19(2), 221–241.
Hansen, J. D., & Riggle, R. J. (2009). Ethical salesperson behavior in
sales relationships. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manage-
ment, 29(2), 151–166.
Hill, R. P. (2002). Stalking the poverty consumer a retrospective exami-
nation of modern ethical dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics,
37(2), 209–219.
13
E. Rousselet et al.
Hill, R. P. (2008). Disadvantaged consumers: An ethical approach
to consumption by the poor. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1),
77–83.
Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007).
Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the
OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 555–566.
Hollingworth, D., & Valentine, S. (2015). The moderating effect of per-
ceived organizational ethical context on employees’ ethical issue
recognition and ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics,
128(2), 457–466.
Honeycutt, E. D., Glassman, M., Zugelder, M. T., & Karande, K.
(2001). Determinants of ethical behavior: A study of autosales-
people. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(1), 69–79.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics.
Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5–16.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organi-
zations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management
Review, 16, 366–395.
Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating
and testing mediation and moderation in within-subjects designs.
Psychological Methods, 6, 115–134.
Karriker, J. H., & Williams, M. L. (2009). Organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behavior: A mediated multifoci model.
Journal of Management, 35(1), 112–135.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 9(2), 131–146.
Kellaris, J. J., & Dabholkar, P. A. (1989). The PSE scale: A scenario-
based approach to assessing the ethical sensitivity of sales stu-
dents and professionals. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 9, 60–70.
Khavul, S., & Bruton, G. D. (2013). Harnessing innovation for change:
Sustainability and poverty in developing countries. Journal of
Management Studies, 50(2), 285–306.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1996). Procedural justice and man-
agers’ in-role and extra-role behavior: The case of the multina-
tional. Management Science, 42(4), 499–515.
Lavorata, L. (2007). Proposal for a measurement scale of the ethical cli-
mate in business: A study in the area of B-to-B selling. Recherche
et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 22(1), 1–23.
Lee, N., Beatson, A., Garrett, T. C., Lings, I., & Zhang, X. (2009). A
study of the attitudes towards unethical selling amongst Chinese
salespeople. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 497–515.
Lehnert, K., Park, Y. H., & Singh, N. (2015). Research note and
review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature:
Boundary conditions and extensions. Journal of Business Eth-
ics, 129(1), 195–219.
Leitsch, D. L. (2004). Differences in the perceptions of moral inten-
sity in the moral decision process: An empirical examination
of accounting students. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(3),
313–323.
Levy, M., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1983). Identifying and addressing retail
salespeople’s ethical problems: A method and application. Journal
of Retailing, 59(1), 46–66.
Lewis, P. (2014). The over-training of apprentices by employers in
advanced manufacturing: A theoretical and policy analysis.
Human Resource Management Journal, 24(4), 496–513.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some
possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role
salesperson performance. The Journal of Marketing, 87–98.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational
citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of
managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123–150.
May, D. R., & Pauli, K. P. (2002). The role of moral intensity in ethical
decision making: A review and investigation of moral recognition,
evaluation, and intention. Business & Society, 41(1), 84–117.
Moral Intensity, Issue Characteristics, and Ethical Issue Recognition in Sales Situations 363
McClaren, N. (2000). Ethics in personal selling and sales management:
A review of the literature focusing on empirical findings and con-
ceptual foundations. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(3), 285–303.
McClaren, N. (2013). The personal selling and sales management eth-
ics research: Managerial implications and research directions from
a comprehensive review of the empirical literature. Journal of
Business Ethics, 112(1), 101–125.
McMahon, J. M., & Harvey, R. J. (2006). An analysis of the factor
structure of Jones’ moral intensity construct. Journal of Business
Ethics, 64(4), 381–404.
Montoya, A. K., & Hayes, A. F. (2017). Two condition within-partic-
ipant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework.
Psychological Methods, 22(1), 6–27.
Morris, S. A., & McDonald, R. A. (1995). The role of moral intensity
in moral judgments: An empirical investigation. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 49(11), 1367–1393.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship
behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy
of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543–1567.
Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. (2011). Human
resource systems and helping in organizations: A relational per-
spective. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 33.
O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical
ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 59(4), 375–413.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of
the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational
research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4),
531–544.
Poujol, F. J., Harfouche, A., & Pezet, E. (2016). Salespeople’s unethi-
cal behavior during a sales contest: The mediation effect of the
perceived ethical climate of the game. Recherche et Applications
en Marketing (English Edition), 31(2), 21–39.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and
theory. New York: Praeger.
Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions:
Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition
of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 233–243.
Robertson, D. C., & Anderson, E. (1993). Control system and task
environment effects on ethical judgment: An exploratory study
of industrial salespeople. Organization Science, 4(4), 617–644.
Schepers, J., Falk, T., Ruyter, K. D., Jong, A. D., & Hammerschmidt,
M. (2012). Principles and principals: Do customer stewardship
and agency control compete or complement when shaping front-
line employee behavior? Journal of Marketing, 76(6), 1–20.
Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated
approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(4), 755–776.
Schwepker, C. H., Ferrell, O. C., & Ingram, T. N. (1997). The influence
of ethical climate and ethical conflict on role stress in the sales
force. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 99.
Sharma, A., Levy, M., & Evanschitzky, H. (2007). The variance in
sales performance explained by the knowledge structures of sales-
people. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27(2),
169–181.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Franke, G. R. (1999). Antecedents,
consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity
and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 27(1), 19–36.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). Moral intensity
and ethical decision-making of marketing professionals. Journal
of Business Research, 36(3), 245–255.
Sweeney, B., & Costello, F. (2009). Moral intensity and ethical
decision-making: An empirical examination of undergraduate
accounting and business students. Accounting Education, 18(1),
75–97.
Talukdar, D. (2008). Cost of being poor: Retail price and consumer
price search differences across inner-city and suburban neighbor-
hoods. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 457–471.
Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Davis, G. M. T. W., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim,
A. H. S., & Wagner, S. L. (2008). To help or not to help? The
Good Samaritan Effect and the love of money on helping behavior.
Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4), 865–887.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A
person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management
Review, 11(3), 601–617.
Trevino, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organiza-
tions: A justice perspective. Academy of Management Review,
17(4), 647–676.
Tsalikis, J., Seaton, B., & Shepherd, P. (2008). Relative importance
measurement of the moral intensity dimensions. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 80(3), 613–626.
Valentine, S. (2009). Ethics training, ethical context, and sales and mar-
keting professionals’ satisfaction with supervisors and coworkers.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3), 227–242.
Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2007). Perceived organizational ethics and
the ethical decisions of sales and marketing personnel. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27(4), 373–388.
Valentine, S., & Hollingworth, D. (2012). Moral intensity, issue impor-
tance, and ethical reasoning in operations situations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 108(4), 509–523.
Valentine, S. R., & Bateman, C. R. (2011). The impact of ethical ide-
ologies, moral intensity, and social context on sales-based ethical
reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 155–168.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role
behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy
of Management journal, 41(1), 108–119.
VanSandt, C. V., Shepard, J. M., & Zappe, S. M. (2006). An examina-
tion of the relationship between ethical work climate and moral
awareness. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(4), 409–432.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic
for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Vey, M. A., & Campbell, J. P. (2004). In-role or extra-role organi-
zational citizenship behavior: Which are we measuring? Human
Performance, 17(1), 119–135.
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical
work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101–125.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organi-
zational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship
and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.
Wimbush, J. C., & Shepard, J. M. (1994). Toward an understanding of
ethical climate: Its relationship to ethical behavior and supervi-
sory influence. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(8), 637–647.
Wotruba, T. R. (1990). A comprehensive framework for the analysis of
ethical behavior, with a focus on sales organizations. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 10(2), 29–42.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods, applied
social research methods series. Biography, 5. London: Sage
Publications.
13