View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Dedicated Marketing Ethics Course: Design and Test

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Dedicated Marketing Ethics Course: Design and Test
Language: English
Authors: Aguirre, Grant C., II, Hyman, Michael R. (ORCID 0000-0001-6675-8808), Jones, Jeri L.
Source: Marketing Education Review. 2020 30(3):177-194.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Marketing, Ethics, Small Businesses, Decision Making, Corporations, Critical Thinking, Teaching Methods, Logical Thinking, Course Descriptions, Undergraduate Students, Identification, Case Studies, Philosophy, Pretests Posttests
DOI: 10.1080/10528008.2020.1787845
ISSN: 1052-8008
Abstract: To explore the best structure for a dedicated marketing ethics course, two field experiments were conducted in which two case types (i.e., small business/personal decision-making versus corporate-wrongdoing) and the timing of logic and critical thinking instruction were manipulated. Results show undergraduates can identify and apply ethical theories to business decision-making more readily when instruction begins with logic and critical thinking, is followed by instruction in theory combined with small business decision-making cases, and concludes with more complex cases about large corporations. Also, enhanced ethical awareness fostered by a dedicated marketing ethics course increases students' idealism but may decrease their relativism.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1263075
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGrpmyw8Iz2iknArIBOeIIsAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLyMnHJRsa7MbcfBJQIBEICBmpyQSnnVJMez4jA98ASow8uEOq0x56AboRP-xcTWfkXHFuylazfMYlc_vP7Lkl4QbZ6oocWQzvr89-df99k8js6W6n7S_QD1z-WC2jLb6suFKeQo-DnMYDeR6ETzgBpW8DNvAM58HHoDpNB7wh7lwWngeh6ugZY9Agg0veasYd6evZvq_N2gqP7UUxys5vEibQgm2IRCe8clAGk=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0144848226;fm401sep.20;2020Aug01.03:18;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0144848226-1">DEDICATED MARKETING ETHICS COURSE: DESIGN AND TEST </title> <p>To explore the best structure for a dedicated marketing ethics course, two field experiments were conducted in which two case types (i.e., small business/personal decision-making versus corporate-wrongdoing) and the timing of logic and critical thinking instruction were manipulated. Results show undergraduates can identify and apply ethical theories to business decision-making more readily when instruction begins with logic and critical thinking, is followed by instruction in theory combined with small business decision-making cases, and concludes with more complex cases about large corporations. Also, enhanced ethical awareness fostered by a dedicated marketing ethics course increases students' idealism but may decrease their relativism.</p> <p>Marketing educators have long debated the best approach for teaching marketing ethics (Bodkin & Stevenson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref1">9</reflink>]; Hawkins & Cocanougher, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>]). One alternative is the casuist or change readiness approach, which relies on a bottom-up process that begins with situation-specific circumstances and factors. Casuistry is an action- rather than a rationale-centric case-based reasoning approach that people use to solve new problems based on solutions to similar past problems (Chonko, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>]). Through this approach, whereby general moral principles are applied to particular actions, students may reflect on courses of action per a moral standard.</p> <p>The case method provides a holistic educational approach (Kolb, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref4">48</reflink>]) that boosts understanding, logical abilities, and subject matter appreciation (Udovic, Morris, Dickman, Postlethwait, & Wetherwax, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref5">79</reflink>]). Although it may be suboptimal for some marketing courses (Shugan, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref6">68</reflink>]), the case method is ideal for marketing ethics instruction. Prior research suggests instructors use the case method, which is the most popular ethics pedagogy tool (Allan & Wood, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>]), to nurture marketing students' ethical development (Hunt & Laverie, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref8">37</reflink>]; Yoo & Donthu, 2002). Relative to a traditional lecture format, the case method can lead to greater ethical development because it relies on a dialectic process for evaluating alternative attitudes and behaviors (Yoo & Donthu, 2002).</p> <p>Before 1991, AACSB required accreditation-seeking institutions to offer a dedicated ethics course. After AACSB adopted mission-based assessment, business schools could opt for either teaching ethics via a dedicated course or integrating ethics instruction throughout the curriculum (Swanson & Fisher, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref9">74</reflink>]). The few AACSB-accredited business schools – far less than 25% and likely closer to 10% – with a dedicated undergraduate marketing ethics course typically offer it as an elective rather than a required course (Ferrell & Kieg, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>]). Relative to other marketing courses, dedicated ethics courses tend to rely less on exams and more on class discussion, term papers, and group projects (Ferrell & Kieg, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>]). Although there are well-known advantages and disadvantages associated with either instructional approach (Evans, Treviño, & Weaver, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>]; Hartman & Hartman, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref13">33</reflink>]; Rubin & Dierdorff, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref14">64</reflink>]; Sims, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref15">70</reflink>]), the focus here is on identifying the optimal structure for a dedicated marketing ethics course.</p> <p>Although encouraging adults to behave more ethically may be problematic, they can learn critical thinking (Klebba & Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref16">44</reflink>]) and discernment (i.e., "sizing up the ethical situation ....[which is] the equivalent of diagnosis in personal medical matters" [O'Boyle & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref17">57</reflink>], p.45]). Without discernment, emotional responses or aspiration group members' actions may drive attempts to behave ethically. In such cases, moral reasoning may be a rationalization rather than a cause of ethical behavior (Haidt, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref18">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>No prior experiment-based research has assessed the efficacy of small business/personal decision-making cases versus corporate-wrongdoing cases in a dedicated marketing ethics course (Bush, Smith, & Bush, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>]). Although the most effective cases contain content relevant to students (; Hunt & Laverie, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref20">37</reflink>]; Kolb, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref21">48</reflink>]; Sims, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref22">70</reflink>]), corporate ethics generally is foreign to undergraduates because they lack corporate work experience. In contrast, undergraduates identify with ethical issues in relatable contexts (i.e., small business/personal decision-making). As their familiarity with ethical issues increases, the ability to generalize their awareness and understanding to corporate environments also should increase.</p> <p>Because "the literature regarding the efficacy of instruction on ethics in university level business classes is inconclusive ... further study is warranted" (Bodkin & Stevenson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref23">9</reflink>], p. 210). Hence, the following four research questions are posed:</p> <p> <bold>RQ#1</bold>: Does training in logic and critical thinking enhance marketing students' ethical reasoning and discernment?</p> <p> <bold>RQ#2</bold>: Are small business/personal decision-making cases more effective than corporate-wrongdoing cases for teaching marketing ethics?</p> <p> <bold>RQ#3</bold>: Do relativism and idealism orientations differ between (a) marketing undergraduates and non-business undergraduates, and (b) marketing undergraduates starting versus ending their marketing coursework?</p> <p> <bold>RQ#4</bold>: Does a dedicated marketing ethics course improve students' ethical orientation?</p> <p>Answering these four research questions contributes to marketing ethics pedagogy in five ways. First, it assesses the ethical perspectives of students at the beginning and end of their marketing education; specifically, undergraduates enrolled in a Principles of Marketing course are compared to undergraduates enrolled in a senior-level marketing ethics course. Second, it identifies if, and possibly when, formal training in logic and critical thinking improves marketing students' ethical decision-making. Third, it compares two alternative case types – i.e., small business/personal decision-making cases versus corporate-wrongdoing cases – to determine which, if either, is more effective in developing students' ability to recognize ethical arguments (i.e., discernment). Fourth, it tests for shifts in the ethical orientation of marketing students who completed a dedicated marketing ethics course. Fifth, it assesses differences in the ethical perspectives of marketing students versus non-business students, which is warranted by the relativistic ethical reasoning that fostered many recent business scandals (e.g., the sub-prime mortgage crisis, Enron, WorldCom) (Barnett, Bass, Brown, & Herbert, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]; Hellwig, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref25">35</reflink>]; Jennings, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref26">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Idealism and relativism are continuous rather than binary constructs. Being near the endpoint of either continuum is problematic. For example, extreme relativists often espouse the means/ends justifications that abet heinous business practices (e.g., Purdue Pharma and opioids). They can rationalize ethically suspect business practices in emerging economies, such as FoxConn's deplorable employee labor conditions, as unavoidable developmental pain needed to secure greater happiness among current consumers and greater happiness among future workers (Xu & Li, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref27">86</reflink>]). Such reasoning is faulty because no properly constructed cost/benefit analysis should compromise fundamental values like human rights. Unfortunately, the extent that marketing students tend to exceed other students on relativism may presage future business ethics fiascos. However, marketing students who learn to apply at least some absolutist moral principles (i.e., shift toward greater idealism) and to disdain a singular focus on net profits may help their companies avoid ethical transgressions. Evidence for the value of greater idealism is the adoption by many new companies, such as Tom's Shoes and Bombas, of a triple bottom line that focuses on people, our planet, and profits.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-2">Popular Structures for Philosophy-Focused Marketing Ethics Course</hd> <p>Because most organizations discourage employees from violating laws, government regulations, and ethical practices, their marketing ethics training often focuses on compliance. As a result, organizations typically train their employees to make ethical marketing decisions grounded in organizational values, norms, and culture. Such post-university training notwithstanding, university instruction about business ethics can provide an excellent prelude, rather than replacement, for the way organizations teach marketing ethics. Essentially, the marketing ethics courses offered by universities should complement the marketing ethics training provided by organizations.</p> <p>Each of the five basic and viable approaches to teaching a marketing ethics course – philosophical, managerial, cross-cultural, stakeholder, and societal – are popular and manifold. As summarized in Table 1, each approach has advantages and disadvantages. Although not universal to alternative pedagogical approaches, the advantages of non-philosophical approaches include implementation ease, broad scope, diversity-focus, and compatibility with business school curricula, marketing ethics research, and corporate training programs developed by a range of companies and institutions in the wake of the Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and sub-prime mortgage crises. Similarly, the disadvantages include analysis paralysis, limitations of the economic utility framework, deployment to justify social abuse (e.g., incompatible with exercising people's basic rights), and lack of practical guidance. In contrast, a philosophical approach attempts to identify fundamental truths while spurring the discovery of best ethical practices. The philosophical approach is holistic and encourages deeper level analysis. Ultimately, the level of critical analysis may be the primary benefit for students, as it trains them to think more critically and less reactively or instinctually (i.e., lead to better decision-making in all areas, not just those with ethical import).</p> <p>Table 1. Alternative pedagogical approaches to marketing ethics: overall focus, advantages, and disadvantages.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Approach</td><td>Focus</td><td>Advantages</td><td>Disadvantages</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Managerial</td><td>To evaluate risks firms take and issues employees face, including legal and regulatory risk.</td><td>Easily implemented (i.e., merely follow the law). Businesspeople are comfortable with it because business school curricula are predicated on utilitarian thinking. Can address foundational normative frameworks.</td><td>Fails to recognize economic utility's market failure limitations (e.g., tragedy of the commons, negative externalities, excessive privatization), and "rights" incompatibilities (e.g., human, womens', worker). Used by business-people to justify regionally legal and common abuses.</td></tr><tr><td>Cross-cultural</td><td>To recognize all business is international. Requires a respect for diversity and multi-culturalism.</td><td>Recognizes diversity's value in employment, product development, and consumer interactions.</td><td>In the extreme, allows businesses to justify cultural relativism and practices, such as child labor, sweat shops, and a "race to the bottom".</td></tr><tr><td>Stakeholder</td><td>To identify all stakeholders (e.g., shareholders, officers, employees, consumers, vendors, community) affected by business decisions.</td><td>Requires managers to consider the influence of business decisions on more than the financial bottom line; may be called the triple bottom line of people, planet, and profits.</td><td>Offers little practical guidance for coping with conflicting and competing interests. Can induce analysis paralysis.</td></tr><tr><td>Societal</td><td>Focuses on businesses' general obligations to society (e.g., do no harm, engage in CSR).</td><td>Compatible with corporate social responsibility, which is of increasing interest to marketing academicians and practitioners.</td><td>Offers little practical guidance for employees, managers, executives, and entrepreneurs. In the extreme, can lead to corporatism (i.e., governmental form underpinning fascism).</td></tr><tr><td>Philo-sophical</td><td>Encompasses subsequent approaches because philosophy can answer knowledge questions. Demands a rational analysis, with the goal of identifying fundamental truths.</td><td>Spurs discovery of best practices (i.e. ones that achieve the ideal for all stakeholders). Natural because all people engage in philosophy whether or not they realize it.</td><td>Can induce analysis paralysis. Requires some formal exposure to philosophical methods including the ability to recognize theory validity. Many managers and executives may lack the appropriate background.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Pedagogical research and folklore encourage instructors to develop courses that play to their strengths (Gallup Organization, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref28">26</reflink>]; Glanz, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref29">27</reflink>]). Hence, a philosophical approach to teaching marketing ethics is merely a pedagogical option. However, there are more and less effective ways for instructors who prefer a philosophical approach to teach marketing ethics.</p> <p>A philosophical approach is the most comprehensive because it encompasses all the other approaches, and the study of philosophy includes an understanding of what people can know and how they can know it. Regardless of cognizance – much like Molière's bourgeois gentleman, who was unaware he had been speaking prose his entire life – marketers engage in philosophical thinking when pondering ethical dilemmas. Increasing sensitivity to such thinking is the first step toward helping future marketers improve the ethicality of their business decisions.</p> <p>Instructors preferring a philosophy-centric approach to teaching marketing ethics tend to favor either an inductive approach, which derives general principles from patterns implied by select situations, or a deductive approach (Grube, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref30">28</reflink>]). The latter approach, which is compatible with the Socratic Method, starts with first principles (e.g., what is justice), and ends with concepts applicable to particulars, is comprised of two components: an introduction to logic (for relating theory to particulars), and an overview of philosophical theory. The subsequently summarized empirical studies explore the optimal sequence for introducing these components.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-3">Preparatory Content</hd> <p>For the logic and critical thinking portion of a course, instructors can teach students to write a position essay, recognize logical fallacies, develop hypothetical syllogisms (i.e., syllogisms with a least one conditional premise), construct valid deductive arguments, and use general principles of deductive logic (e.g., modus ponendo ponens [affirm by affirming], modus tollendo tollens [denying the consequent], and reductio ad absurdum [argument to absurdity]) (Weston, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref31">84</reflink>]). Students can enhance their discernment ability (i.e., identify issues and stakeholders, consider applicable rules from major ethical theories, apply those rules, and specify the best solution) by analyzing ethics-centric cases (Sharpe, Aguirre, & Kickham, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref32">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>For the philosophical theory portion of a course, instructors can introduce major ethical theories (e.g., teleology [consequences], deontology [duties or rules], and virtue [personal character]) and encourage discussions about ethical challenges from the subjectivist, cultural relativist, and psychological determinist perspectives. Ethical subjectivism posits that there are no objective moral characteristics, and ethical declarations are arbitrary (i.e., do not state indisputable truths) (Rachels, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref33">61</reflink>]). Cultural relativism rejects the existence of a privileged perspective for judging ethical rights and wrongs (i.e., all cultural perspectives for judging ethicality are equally valid) (Rachels, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref34">61</reflink>]). Psychological determinism implies that determinism underestimates each person's uniqueness and freedom to choose their destiny.</p> <p>Philosophical discussions can include topics such as the existence of "free will" and using the moral minimum to assess ethical situations (Rachels, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref35">61</reflink>]). Free will presumes people (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>) act independently of their surroundings, experiences, and personal traits, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>) are not morally responsible for behaviors that they were compelled to perform (Rachels, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref38">61</reflink>]). The "moral minimum" entails (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>) decisions based on logical argumentation, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>) a willingness to consider opinions and alternatives offered by others, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>) a willingness to act based on rational analysis (Rachels, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref42">61</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-4">Case Studies</hd> <p>Case studies in marketing ethics textbooks for undergraduates, which often describe improper behaviors within major corporations, are meant to help students hone their ethical decision-making ability (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref43">42</reflink>]). However, most undergraduates are naïve about complex business situations and corporate misconduct. Hence, relatable marketing ethics case studies for undergraduates should impel ethical sensemaking based on typical undergraduate experiences (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref44">42</reflink>]); for example, ethical dilemmas facing entry-level or frontline employees in retail or service industries (Bush et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]). (See Appendix A for a sample case.) Thinking about relatable work experiences helps undergraduates (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>) to identify and understand ethical dilemmas, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>) to improve their ethical decision-making skills by drawing from germane ethical philosophies (Thiel et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref48">76</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-5">Dedicated Marketing Ethics Course</hd> <p>Critics of business ethics instruction often argue university students cannot learn to conduct business ethically because moral compass calibration occurs during adolescence and classroom instruction is ineffectual for teaching ethical reasoning (Duska, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref49">19</reflink>]; Hanlon & Frost, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref50">32</reflink>]; Lane, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref51">50</reflink>]). Accordantly, several studies reported similar ethical perspectives/behaviors among business majors who did or did not complete an ethics course (Peppas & Diskin, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref52">60</reflink>]; Sigurjonsson, Arnardottir, Vaiman, & Rikhardsson, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref53">69</reflink>]; Waples, Antes, Murphy, Connelly, & Mumford, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref54">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>Ethical decision quality depends on the decision-making process, with logic preferable to emotion (Haidt, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref55">31</reflink>]). Logical approaches to a dedicated marketing ethics course could focus on philosophical schools, managerial practices, cross-cultural differences, countervailing stakeholder needs and wants, and societal impact (Ferrell & Kieg, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref56">22</reflink>]). Table 2, which is distilled from various disciplines that influence marketing ethics – philosophy (Rachels, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref57">61</reflink>]; Sedgwick, 1981), marketing (Schlegelmilch & Oberseder, 2010; Tadepallli, Moreno, & Trevino, 1999), and management (Aguinis & Glavas, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref58">2</reflink>]) – briefly describes and then summarizes the limitations of each approach.</p> <p>Table 2. Alternative pedagogical approaches to marketing ethics:implementation and related issues.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Approach</td><td>Background</td><td>Limitations</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Philosophy</td><td>Stresses "consideration of the morality (and immorality) of particular marketing practices based on ethical analysis ....[by] encouraging students to use normative principles to critically examine their own values and beliefs ... [to] understand the moral dimensions and consequences of potentially difficult marketing situations. To accomplish this, the ... course devotes a large proportion (up to 50%) of total course time to instruction on moral philosophies" (p.122).</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Lack of adequately trained instructors (p.123)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Incompatible with corporate ethics training and decision-making approaches (p.123)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Lack of integration with related decision-making constraints (e.g., legal, ethical codes) (p.123)</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Managerial</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Most common approach for teaching marketing ethics</p></list-item><list-item><p>Stresses practical and applied nature of marketing ethics</p></list-item><list-item><p>Three main recurring themes:</p></list-item></list> (1) Recognizing and understanding the breadth of ethical issues, which leads to more comprehensive coverage (including legal and public policy issues) (2) Application of ethical concepts to real business situations (3) Effect of ethical behavior on the marketing profession<list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Although formal ethical decision-making frameworks may be outlined initially, moral philosophy is covered in far less depth than under a philosophy-focused approach</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Superficial coverage of many topics, caused by course breadth, may ill-prepare students to resolve work-related ethical dilemmas</p></list-item><list-item><p>"Students may not gain as many personal perspectives on how to resolve ethical conflicts and how to use foundational principles to resolve issues." (p.123)</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Cross-cultural</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Stresses "developing students' sensitivity to differences in moral norms and ethical expectations between countries based on unique cultures, traditions, and values." (p.124)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Courses often begin with moral norms foundations and then rely on scenarios to show how "culturally influenced differences in moral norms" (p.124) can affect ethical decision-making</p></list-item><list-item><p>Reinforces the importance of ethical diversity in global marketing</p></list-item><list-item><p>Provides more in-depth coverage of international issues</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>May encourage students to adopt "situational ethics" perspective</p></list-item><list-item><p>Addresses narrower range of issues and often takes a macro-normative rather than managerial perspective</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Stakeholder</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Extends ethical implications of marketing to a wider range of stakeholders (i.e., beyond the traditional customer focus)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Considers positive stakeholder relationships a marketing priority (i.e., marketing ethics central to strategic decision-making)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Often focuses primarily on environmental stakeholders</p></list-item><list-item><p>Most similar to the managerial approach</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Typically focuses on social responsibility rather than ethical decision-making</p></list-item><list-item><p>Approach from a more top-management perspective (i.e., less germane to entry-level positions most students accept initially)</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Society</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Focuses on societal issues affected by marketing strategy and decision-making</p></list-item><list-item><p>"Most prominent topics covered ... include social issues, consumer protection, sustainability, and corporate governance." (p.125)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Often examines how marketing knowledge and decisions (in)directly affect society</p></list-item><list-item><p>Explores (1) social criticisms of marketing, public policy, and government regulation, and (2) how marketing can minimize societal harm and maximize societal benefits</p></list-item><list-item><p>Often taught from a consumer or societal perspective, the typical focus is on social responsibility rather than ethical decision-making</p></list-item><list-item><p>Most similar to the stakeholder approach</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Encourages students to assume organizational ethics emerge from social issue considerations</p></list-item><list-item><p>Perspective may be incompatible with an entry-level marketing position</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Adapted from Ferrell and Kieg ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref59">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-6">Hypotheses</hd> <p>Critical thinking pedagogy can guide ethics instruction. To encourage ethical thought and behavior, students should acquire four critical thinking skills: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>) identifying and questioning assumptions, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>) seeking various opinions and alternatives, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>) making connections, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>) fostering active involvement (Kienzler, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref64">43</reflink>]). Focusing on these skills facilitates the ongoing integration of ethics into different instructional milieus. Students able to relate ethical arguments to ethical opinions – i.e., think critically about ethics – will be better able to find solutions to ethical dilemmas acceptable to all stakeholders and understand the larger contexts that embed ethically problematic behaviors (Kienzler, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref65">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Case studies can enhance students' ability to think logically (Udovic et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref66">79</reflink>]). Formal training in logic and critical thinking – unless limited to a few hours of lecture and a single case study (Howard, Tang, & Austin, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref67">36</reflink>]) – should enhance students' ability to recognize types of arguments, awareness of philosophical theories associated with various arguments, and capacity for making sound philosophical arguments. Furthermore, the business ethics pedagogy literature recommends logic training (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref68">21</reflink>]; Izzo, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref69">39</reflink>]; Weber, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref70">83</reflink>]). Thus, instruction in logic and critical thinking provides a foundation for recognizing and analyzing ethical issues (Seele, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref71">66</reflink>]). Case studies offer the most effective instructional tool for improving students' ability to recognize ethical issues and to make ethical decisions (Martinov-Bennie & Mladenovic, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref72">52</reflink>]). Case complexity may moderate the ability of case-based ethics education to facilitate the acquisition and transfer of knowledge needed to make ethical business decisions (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref73">42</reflink>]). Hence,</p> <p> <bold>H1a</bold>: Instruction in logic and critical thinking will enhance students' ability to identify arguments from commonly accepted philosophical schools of business ethics thought.</p> <p> <bold>H1b</bold>: Beginning with instruction in logic and critical thinking is more effective than beginning with instruction in philosophical ethics.</p> <p> <bold>H2</bold>: Introducing marketing ethics dilemmas with small business/personal decision-making cases rather than corporate-wrongdoing cases will enhance students' ability to identify arguments from commonly accepted philosophical schools of business ethics thought.</p> <p>The now-classic Hawkins and Cocanougher ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref74">34</reflink>]) article focused on students' attitudes toward ethics in several marketing contexts. Results comparing business students to non-business students and juniors to seniors (e.g., class standing) indicated (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>) business majors were more likely to tolerate ethically questionable practices than non-business majors, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>) the amount of business education completed and tolerance for ethically questionable behavior correlated positively. Thus, business students' acceptance of ethical subjectivity increased as they completed business courses.</p> <p>Other studies contradict these results. For example, the ethical sensitivity of business and non-business students in New Zealand was similar (Tse & Au, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref77">78</reflink>]). Undergraduate major was unrelated to ethical sensitivity in business contexts but influenced beliefs about corporate social responsibility (Arlow, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref78">4</reflink>]), which is surprising given the consanguinity between business ethics and corporate social responsibility (Rundle-Thiele & Wymer, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref79">65</reflink>]). Although most Australian and U.S. business students were willing to act unethically, they were more sensitive to ethical considerations in situations with a potential negative social impact (Lane, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref80">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>Two philosophies believed to guide ethical decision-making are idealism and relativism (Forsyth, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref81">24</reflink>]). Idealism assumes an action's inherent goodness or badness dictates its ethicality. In contrast, relativism focuses on an action's consequences; only actions that produce the greatest net positive outcomes for society are deemed ethical.</p> <p>People high on idealism and high on relativism are <emph>situationists</emph>, which corresponds roughly to classical utilitarianism or act utilitarianism (i.e., an act is morally right if and only if it produced no less happiness than any alternative act) (Rachels, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref82">61</reflink>]). People high on idealism and low on relativism are <emph>absolutists</emph>, which corresponds roughly to Kant's deontological ethics and categorical imperative. People low on idealism and high on relativism are <emph>subjectivists</emph>. Subjectivism is problematic because it assumes no universal moral laws exist; hence, it is emotive rather than rational. People low on idealism and relativism are <emph>exceptionists</emph>, which corresponds roughly to rule utilitarianism (Assudani, Chinta, Manolis, & Burns, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref83">5</reflink>]; Rachels, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref84">61</reflink>]). Although it addresses some problems with act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism requires ascertaining causes in complex situations with absolute certainty. (See Table 3.)</p> <p>Table 3. Taxonomy of ethical ideologies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Idealism</td><td>Relativism</td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td>Low</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>High</bold></td><td><bold>Situationists</bold> Rejects moral rules; advocates individualistic analysis of each act in each situation; relativistic</td><td><bold>Absolutists</bold> Assumes that the best possible outcome always are achievable by following universal moral rules</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Low</bold></td><td><bold>Subjectivists</bold> Appraisals based on personal values and perspective rather than universal moral principles; relativistic</td><td><bold>Exceptionists</bold> Although moral absolutes should guide judgments, open to exceptions; pragmatic, utilitarian</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Based on Forsyth (1980).</p> <p>A business college can offer ethics instruction via (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>) a non-discipline-specific ethics course (i.e., a course taught by the philosophy department), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref86">2</reflink>) a single business ethics course, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref87">3</reflink>) several discipline-specific ethics courses, or (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref88">4</reflink>) ethics content dispersed throughout its curriculum. Conditions supporting Option (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref89">4</reflink>) include an already full curriculum with no replaceable courses and adequate ethics expertise among the faculty (AACSB, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>]; Ferrell & Kieg, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref91">22</reflink>]). When such conditions do not pertain, then the choice among the remaining options mainly depends on business faculty resources (i.e., adequate expertise) and efficacy (i.e., students' enhanced ability to make more ethical business decisions). Although Option (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>) is available to all universities with a Philosophy Department, a business or marketing-specific course may provide a more effective venue for marketing undergraduates to learn how to make more ethical business decisions. Option (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref93">2</reflink>) is beyond the scope of the empirical studies summarized here because the experiments were conducted in a business college that offered only a marketing-specific ethics course. Option (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref94">3</reflink>) is superior if a dedicated marketing ethics course causes marketing majors to develop a healthier ethical framework – operationally defined as a more idealistic and less relativistic ethical perspective – than non-business students. Hence, H3a and H3b address differences in ethical idealism and relativism between marketing versus non-business majors.</p> <p>Specifically, H3a posits marketing undergraduates will be more relativistic than non-business students. Because a relativistic approach is intuitive, formal instruction in alternative ethical theories may encourage deeper and more sophisticated ethical reasoning. Relatable course materials (e.g., small business/personal decision-making cases; short cases based on newspaper stories) and assessment tasks lend themselves to ethical intuition development (Bonner, Neely, Neely, & Mittal, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref95">11</reflink>]; Mladenovic, Martinov-Bennie, & Bell, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref96">54</reflink>]). H3b relates to idealism, with a low score corresponding to subjectivism and exceptionism. Moral philosophers recognize subjectivism as a major challenge to ethics; its intuitive appeal derives from its seeming prima facie truth (Rachels, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref97">61</reflink>]). Like act utilitarianism and subjectivism, rule utilitarianism is intuitively appealing.</p> <p>Formally stated,</p> <p> <bold>H3a</bold>: Marketing undergraduates will score higher than non-business undergraduates on ethical relativism.</p> <p> <bold>H3b</bold>: Marketing undergraduates will score lower than non-business undergraduates on ethical idealism.</p> <p>By comparing junior-level to senior-level marketing majors, H3c and H3d control for maturation effects (i.e., an interaction between course efficacy and completed coursework). Specifically, H3c tests for a shift in the ethical relativism of marketing students between two times in their program of study – initially in a Principles of Marketing (henceforth PoM) course and subsequently in a Marketing Ethics (henceforth ME) course. Similarly, H3d tests for a shift in students' ethical idealism from the start of the PoM course to the end of the ME course.</p> <p> <bold>H3c</bold>: Senior-level marketing undergraduates will score higher than junior-level marketing undergraduates on ethical relativism.</p> <p> <bold>H3d</bold>: Senior-level marketing undergraduates will score lower than junior-level marketing undergraduates on ethical idealism.</p> <p>Finally, the influence of ethics education on a student's ethical position was tested. Kohlberg argued most people's cognitive and moral thinking evolves throughout their life (Kohlberg, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref98">46</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref99">47</reflink>]). He believed maturity, experience, and education could help managers act more ethically by improving their values and ability to analyze ethical dilemmas (i.e., moral maturation). If true, then a reasonable goal for organizational ethics training would be to help managers become more idealistic by considering other stakeholders when making ethical assessments (Weber, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref100">83</reflink>]). Accounting students taught with actual (rather than fictitious) cases and shown various decision-making frameworks applicable to those cases developed more sophisticated and contextualized business ethics perspectives (Mladenovic et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref101">54</reflink>]). Hence,</p> <p> <bold>H4</bold>: Increased ethical awareness will increase students' idealism.</p> <p> <bold>H5</bold>: Increased ethical awareness will decrease students' relativism.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-7">Testing Procedure</hd> <p>Following a pretest, students in one marketing ethics course (ME1) received basic instruction in logic and critical thinking followed by philosophical instruction on ethics; in the other course (ME2), the sequence was reversed. This resequencing allowed a between-groups comparison for instructional efficacy. As students often are unfamiliar with argumentation rules, beginning with instruction in logic and critical thinking should provide vital tools for recognizing and analyzing ethical issues.</p> <p>Small business/personal decision-making cases were used for the first half of one course (i.e., ME1) and the second half of the other course (i.e., ME2). Corporate-wrongdoing cases were used in the remaining half of each course. This resequencing controlled for primacy and recency effects.</p> <p>H1 was tested by evaluating students' ability to recognize types of logical arguments, types of logical fallacies, and arguments from various schools of philosophical thought. Specifically, differences in students' pre- and posttest scores on a two-part ethics knowledge instrument designed for this study were assessed. (See Appendix 2 for sample questions.)</p> <p>Two control groups were used to compare results and test the manipulation. One control group consisted of non-business (henceforth NB) undergraduates enrolled in a non-business course. The other control group consisted of marketing undergraduates enrolled in a PoM course. Pre- and posttest instruments were administered to both control groups at the beginning and end of the semester. The independent variable, training in logic and critical thinking, was manipulated by resequencing the logic versus ethics modules. Specifically, ME1 began with logic instruction and finished with ethics instruction; the sequence was reversed for ME2.</p> <p>H2 was tested by resequencing the two types of cases used for half the semester. To control for primacy and recency effects, the sequence of case-type usage was assigned randomly to the two courses (i.e., corporate cases for the first half and small business/personal decision-making cases for the second half of one course [ME1], and the reverse sequence for the other course [ME2]). Improvement in students' ability to identify the philosophical school that grounded an ethical argument was assessed by comparing scores on the pre- and posttest administrations of the ethics knowledge instrument.</p> <p>The relativism and idealism subscales of the well-known Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ) (Forsyth, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref102">24</reflink>]) were used to test H3a through H3d. Students' ethical positions served as a dependent variable, and students' major served as an independent variable for H3a and H3d. Marketing students' class standing also served as an independent variable for H3c and H3d.</p> <p>H4 and H5 were tested by comparing pretest and posttest idealism or relativism scores from the relevant EPQ subscale. Two control groups were used to compare results and check the manipulation. The extent of marketing education, operationalized as the number of marketing courses completed, was a covariate.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-8">Pre- and Post-Course Instrument and Assessment</hd> <p>Pre- versus post-training comparison is suitable for assessing the effect of pedagogical approaches on students' ethical beliefs about marketing practices (Bodkin & Stevenson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref103">9</reflink>]; Burton, Johnson, & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref104">12</reflink>]; Sorensen, Miller, & Cabe, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref105">71</reflink>]; Wu, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref106">85</reflink>]). Here, changes in ethical predisposition and knowledge were assessed via pre- and post-course administration of the ethics knowledge questionnaire and EPQ.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-9">Ethical Knowledge</hd> <p>Each course began with a pretest meant to access students' knowledge about (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref107">1</reflink>) general ethical theories, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref108">2</reflink>) logic and critical thinking. To identify the superior pedagogical approach, end-of-course progress in acquiring this knowledge was assessed by comparing these scores to posttest scores on the same two-part questionnaire. Part 1 contains 30 objective questions meant to assess general knowledge about ethics, logic and critical thinking, and logical fallacies. Part 2 entails five marketing ethics vignettes followed by four multiple-choice questions that first present a protagonist's possible decision and its justification and then asks which philosophical school of thought grounds that justification. To minimize confounding, the decision is identical across all questions in Part 2; only the rationale supporting it is manipulated. (Upon request, the first author will provide a copy of the complete instrument.)</p> <p>To ensure its reliability and validity, this questionnaire was pretested with experts, a student panel, and students in a classroom setting. First, a convenience sample of five faculty members knowledgeable about philosophy and marketing ethics provided feedback about general content and structure. As a result, one of the 30 items in Part 1 was modified. Four experts scored 100%, and one expert scored 98% on the revised version, which indicates high validity.</p> <p>Next, six junior and senior marketing students attending a comprehensive research university in the southwestern U.S. responded to the questionnaire via a verbal protocol procedure (Bolton & Bronkhorst, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref109">10</reflink>]). Per this protocol, panelists "thought aloud" about the directions and questions as they proceeded. Although the instructions posed no difficulties, all panelists expressed problems/difficulties related to a lack of ethics knowledge. Given their unfamiliarity with philosophy and marketing ethics, no panelist scored higher than 50%, which again suggests a valid assessment instrument.</p> <p>Finally, the 50-item questionnaire was pretested with 25 undergraduates – drawn from the same pool as the student panel – in a classroom setting. Treating ethics and reasoning knowledge as a single "course content" factor, the α was 0.75, which exceeds the accepted threshold of 0.70 and indicates adequate reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref110">56</reflink>])</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-10">Ethical Predisposition</hd> <p>Although many scales can assess ethical sensitivity, researchers have used the EPQ in many survey-based ethics studies (Barnett et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref111">7</reflink>]; Kleiser, Sivadas, Kellaris, & Dahlstrom, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref112">45</reflink>]; Tansey, Brown, Hyman, & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref113">75</reflink>]). The EPQ consists of 20 objective items designed to measure respondents' attitudes on ethical relativism (10 items) and ethical idealism (10 items).</p> <p>The EPQ was administered at the beginning and end of a semester to undergraduates enrolled in a semester-long marketing ethics course at a large comprehensive university in the southcentral U.S. Also, data about major, class standing, and other socio-demographics were collected.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-11">Analysis and Results</hd> <p>Testing H1 and H2 entail comparing scores between pre- and posttest administrations of the ethics knowledge questionnaire. Students who completed a dedicated marketing ethics course (ME1 and ME2) were compared to two control groups – the Principles of Marketing (PoM) and non-business (NB) students. H1 posits instruction in logic and critical thinking will enhance students' ability to identify arguments from major philosophical schools of business ethics thought. H2 posits the initial use of small business/personal decision-making cases rather than corporate-wrongdoing cases will better enhance students' ability to identify arguments from those schools.</p> <p>Table 4, which summarizes results of the repeated measures ANOVA between ME1 and ME2 students versus PoM and NB students, shows significant differences among all four groups at the 0.001 level. ME1 students – who began with instruction in logic and critical thinking followed by instruction in theory combined with small business/personal decision-making cases – improved most in their ability to identify and apply ethical theories to ethical decision-making. Hence, H1 is supported.</p> <p>Table 4. Ethics instrument, repeated measures ANOVA.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Comparison Groups</td><td>Source</td><td>Type III Sum of Squares</td><td>Df</td><td>Mean Square</td><td>F</td><td>Sig.</td><td>Partial Eta<sup>2</sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. NB Students</td><td>Ethics Test</td><td>8395.5</td><td>1</td><td>8395.5</td><td>69.9</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.50</td></tr><tr><td>Ethics Test * Group</td><td>5759.4</td><td>2</td><td>2879.7</td><td>24.0</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>Error (Ethics Test)</td><td>8405.8</td><td>70</td><td>120.1</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. PoM Students</td><td>Ethics Test</td><td>6952.9</td><td>1</td><td>6952.9</td><td>47.9</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>Ethics Test * Group</td><td>3089.1</td><td>2</td><td>1544.6</td><td>10.6</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><td>Error (Ethics Test)</td><td>8424.4</td><td>58</td><td>145.2</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To test for differences between ME1 and ME2 students versus PoM and NB students, a one-way between-factor ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc analyses were conducted. Table 5 shows significant differences among the three groups at the 0.002 or better level except for ME2 versus PoM (<emph>p</emph> =.090).</p> <p>Table 5. Ethics instrument, one-way ANOVA and post-hoc analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Comparison Groups</td><td>Mean Difference (I-J)</td><td>Std. Error</td><td>Sig.</td><td>95% Confidence Interval of the Difference</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Bound</td><td>Upper Bound</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. NB Students</td><td>ME1</td><td>ME2</td><td>15.58</td><td>4.35</td><td>0.001</td><td>6.91</td><td>24.25</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>30.78</td><td>4.45</td><td>0.001</td><td>21.88</td><td>39.63</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>ME1</td><td>−15.58</td><td>4.35</td><td>0.001</td><td>−24.25</td><td>−6.91</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>15.17</td><td>4.57</td><td>0.001</td><td>6.05</td><td>24.30</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>ME1</td><td>−30.76</td><td>4.45</td><td>0.001</td><td>−39.63</td><td>−21.88</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>−15.17</td><td>4.57</td><td>0.001</td><td>−.24.30</td><td>−6.05</td></tr><tr><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. PoM Students</td><td>ME1</td><td>ME2</td><td>15.58</td><td>4.78</td><td>0.002</td><td>6.01</td><td>25.15</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>26.57</td><td>6.31</td><td>0.000</td><td>13.94</td><td>39.20</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>ME1</td><td>−15.58</td><td>4.78</td><td>0.002</td><td>−25.15</td><td>−6.01</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>10.98</td><td>6.42</td><td>0.092</td><td>−1.86</td><td>23.82</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>ME1</td><td>−26.57</td><td>6.31</td><td>0.000</td><td>−39.20</td><td>−13.94</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>−10.98</td><td>6.42</td><td>0.092</td><td>−23.82</td><td>1.86</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To determine if any within-group scores improved significantly, paired-samples tests using the pre- and posttest data for each group were performed. Table 6 shows significant improvement from pre- to posttest administration of the ethics knowledge questionnaire for ME1 and ME2 students. Paired-samples tests for NB students and PoM students are non-significant. Both results support H2.</p> <p>Table 6. Ethics instrument, paired samples test.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Student Group</td><td>Mean</td><td>Std. Dev.</td><td>95% Confidence Interval of the Difference</td><td>T</td><td>Df</td><td>Sig.*</td></tr><tr><td>Lower</td><td>Upper</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ME1</td><td>−30.67</td><td>21.39</td><td>−39.13</td><td>−22.21</td><td>−7.45</td><td>26</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>−15.08</td><td>14.12</td><td>−21.04</td><td>−9.12</td><td>−5.23</td><td>23</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>0.09</td><td>3.98</td><td>−1.67</td><td>1.85</td><td>0.11</td><td>21</td><td>0.916</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>−4.10</td><td>6.40</td><td>−8.68</td><td>0.48</td><td>−2.02</td><td>9</td><td>0.074</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>These results indicate that the initial use of small business/personal decision-making cases causes the largest improvement in students' ethics knowledge scores. Although ME1 and ME2 students' scores improved, ME1 students showed a greater improvement, which suggests initial use of small business/personal decision-making cases provides a relatable context that prepares students for corporate-wrongdoing cases.</p> <p>H3a posits students who complete a marketing ethics course (ME1 and ME2) score higher than non-business (NB) students on relativism. Although Table 7 shows NB students scored lowest on relativism, both ME1 and ME2 students also scored low on relativism. Nonetheless, the one-way ANOVA results show no significant differences among the three groups (F = 1.33, df = 72, <emph>p</emph> = 1.0). Thus, a post hoc analysis is unnecessary, and H3a is unsupported.</p> <p>Table 7. Relativism and idealism: ME1 and ME2 versus NB and PoM students.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td>Control Group</td><td>EPQ Subscale</td><td>Student Group</td><td>N</td><td>Mean</td><td>Std. Dev.</td><td>95% Confidence Interval for Mean</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Bound</td><td>Upper Bound</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>Relativism</td><td>ME1</td><td>27</td><td>5.49</td><td>1.45</td><td>4.91</td><td>6.06</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>24</td><td>5.63</td><td>1.53</td><td>4.98</td><td>6.27</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>22</td><td>4.87</td><td>2.06</td><td>3.96</td><td>5.78</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>73</td><td>5.35</td><td>1.69</td><td>4.95</td><td>5.74</td></tr><tr><td>Idealism</td><td>ME1</td><td>27</td><td>6.46</td><td>1.32</td><td>5.94</td><td>6.98</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>24</td><td>5.26</td><td>1.93</td><td>4.45</td><td>6.07</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>22</td><td>6.47</td><td>1.18</td><td>5.95</td><td>6.99</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>73</td><td>6.07</td><td>1.60</td><td>5.69</td><td>6.44</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>Relativism</td><td>ME1</td><td>27</td><td>5.49</td><td>1.45</td><td>4.91</td><td>6.06</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>24</td><td>5.63</td><td>1.53</td><td>4.98</td><td>6.27</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>10</td><td>6.41</td><td>1.26</td><td>5.51</td><td>7.31</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>61</td><td>5.69</td><td>1.47</td><td>5.32</td><td>6.07</td></tr><tr><td>Idealism</td><td>ME1</td><td>27</td><td>6.46</td><td>1.32</td><td>5.94</td><td>6.98</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>24</td><td>5.26</td><td>1.93</td><td>4.45</td><td>6.07</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>10</td><td>6.00</td><td>1.57</td><td>4.88</td><td>7.12</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>61</td><td>5.91</td><td>1.69</td><td>5.48</td><td>6.34</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>H3b posits students who complete a marketing ethics course (ME1 and ME2) score lower than non-business (NB) students on idealism. Table 8 shows NB students scored highest on idealism. One-way ANOVA results show significant differences among the three student groups (F = 5.11. df = 72, <emph>p</emph> =.008). The Scheffe post hoc analysis produced mixed results (see Table 7). Differences between ME1 versus ME2 students and between ME2 and NB students are significant, but the difference between ME1 and NB students is non-significant (<emph>p</emph> = 1.0). Hence, H3b is supported partially.</p> <p>Table 8. Idealism, scheffe post-hoc test.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td>Control Group</td><td>Comparison Groups</td><td>Mean Difference (I-J)</td><td>Std. Error</td><td>Sig.</td><td>95% Confidence Interval of the Difference</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Bound</td><td>Upper Bound</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>ME1</td><td>ME2</td><td>1.20</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.14</td><td>2.26</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.43</td><td>1.00</td><td>−1.10</td><td>1.08</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>ME1</td><td>1.20</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.03</td><td>−2.30</td><td>−0.14</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>1.21</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.03</td><td>−2.23</td><td>−0.09</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>ME1</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.43</td><td>1.00</td><td>−1.08</td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>1.21</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.09</td><td>2.33</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>ME1</td><td>ME2</td><td>1.20</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.05</td><td>2.34</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.15</td><td>−1.05</td><td>1.97</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>ME1</td><td>1.20</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.04</td><td>−2.34</td><td>−0.06</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.48</td><td>−2.28</td><td>0.79</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>ME1</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.75</td><td>−1.98</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.48</td><td>−0.79</td><td>2.28</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>H3c posits senior-level marketing students score higher than junior-level marketing students on relativism. Table 7 shows PoM students scored highest on ethical relativism. The one-way ANOVA results show no significant differences among the three student groups (F = 1.52, df = 60, <emph>p</emph> =.75). Thus, a post hoc analysis is unnecessary, and H3c is unsupported.</p> <p>H3d posits senior-level marketing (ME1 and ME2) students score lower than junior-level marketing (PoM) students on idealism. Table 7 shows PoM students scored higher on idealism than ME2 students but lower than ME1 students. One-way ANOVA results show significant differences among the three student groups (F = 3.48, df = 60, <emph>p</emph> =.037). The Scheffe post hoc analysis shows significant differences between ME1 and ME2 students but no statistical difference between PoM students and either ME1 or ME2 students (<emph>p</emph> =.75). (See Table 8.) Hence, H3d is unsupported.</p> <p>H4 posits enhanced ethical awareness, fostered by a dedicated marketing ethics course, will boost students' idealism. To test H4, students who completed a marketing ethics course (ME1 and ME2) were compared to two control groups – the Principles of Marketing (PoM) and non-business (NB) students – on pre- and posttest idealism scores assessed with the EPQ's 10-item idealism subscale.</p> <p>The repeated measures ANOVA in Table 9 shows significant differences among all four student groups at the 0.001 level. However, these results alone do not suggest where the differences lie. The greatest increase in idealism scores occurred among ME2 students. The control groups – PoM and NB students – showed little pre- to posttest change. Table 10, which summarizes one-way ANOVA and post hoc Scheffe tests for idealism scores, shows significant differences at the 0.02 level or better between ME1 versus ME2 students, ME2 versus NB students, and ME2 versus PoM students; the difference between ME1 versus NB and PoM students was non-significant (<emph>p</emph> =.24). The paired samples tests summarized in Table 11 shows (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref114">1</reflink>) a significant increase in idealism score between the pre- and posttest for ME1 versus ME2 students and ME2 versus PoM and NB students, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref115">2</reflink>) no significant change in idealism score between the pre- and posttest for NB and PoM students (<emph>p</emph> =.24). Based on the preceding analysis, H4 is supported partially.</p> <p>Table 9. Idealism, repeated measures ANOVA.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>EPQ Subscale</td><td>Comparison Groups</td><td>Source</td><td>Type III Sum of Squares</td><td>df</td><td>Mean Square</td><td>F</td><td>Sig.</td><td>Partial Eta<sup>2</sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Idealism</td><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. NB Students</td><td>Idealism Test</td><td>19.74</td><td>1</td><td>19.74</td><td>26.83</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Idealism Test * Group</td><td>14.38</td><td>2</td><td>7.19</td><td>9.77</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Error (Idealism)</td><td>51.50</td><td>70</td><td>0.74</td><td /></tr><tr><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. PoM Students</td><td>Idealism Test</td><td>12.41</td><td>1</td><td>12.41</td><td>14.03</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Idealism Test * Group</td><td>11.51</td><td>2</td><td>5.75</td><td>6.50</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>Error (Idealism)</td><td>51.31</td><td>58</td><td>0.89</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Relativism</td><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. NB Students</td><td>Relativism</td><td>23.36</td><td>1</td><td>23.36</td><td>26.98</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Relativism* Group</td><td>15.92</td><td>2</td><td>7.96</td><td>9.19</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>Error (Relativism)</td><td>60.62</td><td>70</td><td>0.87</td><td /></tr><tr><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. PoM Students</td><td>Relativism</td><td>16.79</td><td>1</td><td>16.79</td><td>16.25</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Relativism* Group</td><td>9.39</td><td>2</td><td>4.68</td><td>4.52</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>Error (Relativism)</td><td>59.93</td><td>58</td><td>1.03</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 10. Idealism, one-way ANOVA and post-hoc analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td>EPQ Subscale</td><td>Comparison Groups</td><td>Mean Difference (I-J)</td><td>Std. Error</td><td>Sig.</td><td>95% Confidence Interval of the Difference</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Bound</td><td>Upper Bound</td></tr><tr><td>Idealism</td><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. NB Students</td><td>ME1</td><td>ME2</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.11</td><td>1.81</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>−0.60</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.24</td><td>−1.47</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>ME1</td><td>−0.96</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.02</td><td>−1.81</td><td>−0.11</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>−1.56</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.00</td><td>−2.46</td><td>−0.67</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>ME1</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.24</td><td>−0.27</td><td>1.47</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>1.56</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.67</td><td>2.46</td></tr><tr><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. PoM vs. NB Students</td><td>ME1</td><td>ME2</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.03</td><td>1.90</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>−0.71</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.36</td><td>−1.94</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>ME1</td><td>−0.96</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.04</td><td>−1.90</td><td>−0.03</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>−1.67</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.01</td><td>−2.93</td><td>−0.41</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>ME1</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.36</td><td>−0.53</td><td>1.94</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>1.67</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.41</td><td>2.97</td></tr><tr><td>Relativism</td><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. NB Students</td><td>ME1</td><td>ME2</td><td>−0.63</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.25</td><td>−1.55</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>1.03</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.08</td><td>1.97</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>ME1</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.25</td><td>−0.30</td><td>1.55</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>1.63</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.68</td><td>2.62</td></tr><tr><td>NB</td><td>ME1</td><td>−1.03</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.03</td><td>−1.97</td><td>−0.08</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>−1.65</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.00</td><td>−2.62</td><td>−0.68</td></tr><tr><td>ME1 vs. ME2 vs. PoM Students</td><td>ME1</td><td>ME2</td><td>−0.63</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.31</td><td>−1.64</td><td>0.39</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>0.99</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.19</td><td>−0.35</td><td>2.32</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>ME1</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.31</td><td>−0.39</td><td>1.64</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>1.61</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.25</td><td>2.97</td></tr><tr><td>PoM</td><td>ME1</td><td>−0.99</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.19</td><td>−2.32</td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><td>ME2</td><td>−1.61</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.02</td><td>−2.97</td><td>−0.25</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 11. Idealism and relativism, paired samples test.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>EPQ Subscale</td><td>Student Group</td><td>Mean</td><td>Std. Dev.</td><td>T</td><td>Df</td><td>Sig.</td><td>95% Confidence Interval of the Difference</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Bound</td><td>Upper Bound</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Idealism</td><td>ME1</td><td>−0.62</td><td>1.05</td><td>−3.05</td><td>26</td><td>0.05</td><td>−1.03</td><td>−0.20</td></tr><tr><td /><td>ME2</td><td>−1.58</td><td>1.77</td><td>−4.35</td><td>23</td><td>0.00</td><td>−2.33</td><td>−0.83</td></tr><tr><td /><td>NB</td><td>−0.02</td><td>0.30</td><td>−0.29</td><td>21</td><td>0.78</td><td>−0.15</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td /><td>PoM</td><td>0.09</td><td>−0.20</td><td>0.70</td><td>9</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>Relativism</td><td>ME1</td><td>0.94</td><td>1.29</td><td>3.78</td><td>26</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.43</td><td>1.45</td></tr><tr><td /><td>ME2</td><td>1.56</td><td>1.82</td><td>4.20</td><td>23</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.79</td><td>2.33</td></tr><tr><td /><td>NB</td><td>−0.09</td><td>0.29</td><td>−1.49</td><td>21</td><td>0.15</td><td>−0.22</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td /><td>PoM</td><td>−0.05</td><td>0.20</td><td>−0.81</td><td>9</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.09</td><td>−0.81</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>H5 posits enhanced ethical awareness, fostered by a dedicated marketing ethics course, will reduce students' relativism. Pre- and posttest scores on the EPQ's 10-item relativism subscale among students enrolled in the ethics course (ME1 and ME2) and two control groups – the Principles of Marketing (PoM) and non-business (NB) students – show significant differences among all four groups at the 0.05 level (see Table 9). However, these results do not alone suggest where the differences lie. Table 10 indicates ME2 students showed the greatest decline in relativism scores. The control groups – NB and PoM students – showed little pre- to posttest change in their score, which suggests a dedicated marketing ethics course may decrease students' relativistic tendencies.</p> <p>To test for differences between ME1 and ME2 students versus NB and PoM students, a one-way between-factor ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc analyses were conducted. Table 10 shows no significant differences among the three groups at the 0.05 level. As the test for H5 compares ME1 and ME2 students to NB students, the non-difference between ME1 and ME2 students is irrelevant. However, ME1 and ME2 students differ significantly from NB students.</p> <p>To test for differences between ME1 and ME2 students versus NB and PoM students, a one-way between-factor ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc analyses were conducted. Table 10 shows significant differences between ME2 and PoM students at the F < 0.05 level but no differences (<emph>p</emph> =.25) between ME1 and ME2 students. As the test for H5 compares ME1 and ME2 students to PoM students, the non-difference between ME1 and ME2 students is irrelevant. However, ME1 students alone differ significantly from PoM students (<emph>p</emph> =.02).</p> <p>The results show significant differences between ME1, ME2, and NB students. Furthermore, ME2 and PoM students differ significantly. To determine if there were significant changes in the scores within each group, a paired sample test comparing pre- to posttest relativism scores for each group was performed. Table 11 shows (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref116">1</reflink>) a significant decrease in relativism score between the pre- and posttest for ME1 and ME2 students but not PoM and NB students (<emph>p</emph> =.00), and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref117">2</reflink>) no significant change in relativism score between pre- and posttest for NB and PoM students (<emph>p</emph> =.50). As these student groups served as control groups, the lack of pre- to posttest changes in relativism score supports H5.</p> <p>Based on the preceding analysis, H5 is supported partially. The repeated measures ANOVA indicated significant differences among the groups. The Post Hoc Scheffe test indicated significant differences between ME1, ME2 students and NB students. However, only ME2 differed from PoM students. The paired samples t-tests indicate a decrease in relativism score for ME1 and ME2 students. Relativism scores for the NB and PoM students did not change between relativism scale administrations.</p> <p>Table 12 summarizes the results of statistical tests related to the five hypotheses developed here.</p> <p>Table 12. Summary of results.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Hypothesis</td><td>Result</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>H1a</bold>: Instruction in logic and critical thinking will enhance students' ability to identify arguments from the main philosophical schools of business ethics thought.</td><td>Supported</td></tr><tr><td><bold>H1b</bold>: Beginning with instruction in logic and critical thinking is more effective than beginning with instruction in philosophical ethics.</td><td>Supported</td></tr><tr><td><bold>H2</bold>: Introducing marketing ethics dilemmas with small business/personal decision-making cases rather than corporate-wrongdoing cases will enhance students' ability to identify arguments from the main philosophical schools of business ethics thought.</td><td>Supported</td></tr><tr><td><bold>H3a</bold>: Marketing undergraduates will score higher than non-business undergraduates on ethical relativism.</td><td>Unsupported</td></tr><tr><td><bold>H3b</bold>: Marketing undergraduates will score lower than non-business undergraduates on ethical idealism.</td><td>Partially supported</td></tr><tr><td><bold>H3c</bold>: Senior-level marketing undergraduates will score higher than junior-level marketing students on ethical relativism.</td><td>Unsupported</td></tr><tr><td><bold>H3d</bold>: Senior-level marketing undergraduates will score lower than junior-level marketing undergraduates on ethical idealism.</td><td>Unsupported</td></tr><tr><td><bold>H4</bold>: Increased ethical awareness will increase students' idealism.</td><td>Partially supported</td></tr><tr><td><bold>H5</bold>: Increased ethical awareness will decrease students' relativism.</td><td>Partially supported</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0144848226-12">Discussion</hd> <p>Dedicated marketing ethics courses remain a rarity despite evidence for their pedagogical superiority over ethics instruction dispersed across business curricula (Baetz & Sharp, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref118">6</reflink>]; Ferrell & Kieg, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref119">22</reflink>]; Rundle-Thiele & Wymer, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref120">65</reflink>]). Nonetheless, continuing ethical misconduct in business and increasingly lax regulatory oversight may pressure business schools to offer a dedicated course (Beggs & Dean, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref121">8</reflink>]). As a result, marketing ethics instructors and their students would benefit from empirically derived knowledge about the best content and structure for such a course.</p> <p>Factors such as student diversity (e.g., age, work experience, and exposure to abstract thinking) and students' major complicate pedagogical choices. Rather than merely training students to use ethical decision-making templates or checklists (Hyman, Skipper, & Tansey, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref122">38</reflink>]), marketing ethics instruction is meant to develop students' ability to identify and scrutinize ethical dilemmas. Teaching students to resolve ethical dilemmas logically rather than emotionally will help them to cope with job-related ethical dilemmas. As suggested by the empirical results reported here, one way to achieve this goal is to use carefully designed and sequenced case studies in a dedicated marketing ethics course that includes a basic introduction to logic, critical thinking, and various ethical schools of thought.</p> <p>The findings summarized here concur with the previously reported value of using multiple conceptual approaches and types of assignments for business ethics instruction (Ferrell & Kieg, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref123">22</reflink>]), such as presenting various ethical perspectives or a conflict resolution framework, and creating assignments based on newspaper articles and group work (Mladenovic et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref124">54</reflink>]). As a decision-making tool, a conflict resolution framework is analogous to a major ethical theory (e.g., deontology), and newspaper articles are analogous to relatable cases about small businesses and personal ethics-tinged decisions. Mixing instruction about various philosophical tools (e.g., logical reasoning) and ethical schools of thought with experiential exercises (e.g., case study analyses) will develop students' ethical decision-making abilities better than using either pedagogical approach alone (Martinov-Bennie & Mladenovic, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref125">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Prior research indicates the value of case-based learning in ethics education correlates positively with case quality (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref126">42</reflink>]). To extend that finding, this study indicates that relatability is an important component of ethics case quality. Although many ethics instructors may prefer realistic or historically derived cases to fictitious cases describing extreme situations, believed realism is a function of the issues broached and students' reasoning ability and ethical development. Marketing undergraduates with limited business experience and undeveloped reasoning skills and ethical awareness are less likely to identify ethical dilemmas, problems, contingencies, and other issues in complex (e.g., Harvard-type) cases than in cases with simple and familiar information (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref127">42</reflink>]). Because complex ethics cases can overwhelm undergraduates, marketing ethics instructors should slowly increase the complexity of their case study assignments during the semester.</p> <p>Because case developers have focused on writing traditional corporate-centric ethics cases, marketing ethics instructors can choose from many alternatives. In contrast, case developers have written few simple, timely, and relatable marketing ethics cases. To address this shortage, case developers should create more such cases.</p> <p>Finally, this study pertains to ethics training by organizations. Employees face ethically charged decision-making pressures daily. Without adequate training, ignorance and fear may overwhelm employees' ability to make ethically sound decisions. Instead, managers should reinforce their organization's values and codes of conduct with theoretical and experiential training that will encourage employees to think critically and adopt effective, ethical decision-making frameworks. The experiential training would rely on appropriately complex case studies that depict organizationally relevant ethical dilemmas.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-13">Conclusions</hd> <p>Relative to sporadic multi-course exposure to various ethics topics often presented by minimally versed instructors, a dedicated marketing ethics course better enhances students' ethical awareness (Ferrell & Kieg, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref128">22</reflink>]). No empirical research has focused on the sequencing of theoretical content, reasoning tools, and case types in dedicated business ethics courses; hence, the mandate for the empirical study summarized here.</p> <p>This study explored the efficacy of various pedagogical devices and their sequencing in a dedicated marketing ethics course. Students completing such courses showed an improved ability to recognize ethical issues (i.e., discernment) and the philosophical school from which an ethical argument derives. Furthermore, relatable cases (i.e., small business/personal decision-making cases) rather than corporate-wrongdoing cases better enhance students' ability to ponder ethical dilemmas in marketing, especially if scheduled toward the middle of such courses.</p> <p>The marketing ethics acumen of undergraduates taught first about logic and critical thinking, and second about philosophical schools germane to marketing ethics, improved more than students taught about these topics in the reverse order. However, even suboptimal sequencing of these course modules improved students' ability to identify ethics-related philosophies and to think critically about marketing ethics. Thus, instruction in logic and critical thinking enhances ethics-relate thinking regardless of placement within a dedicated marketing ethics course.</p> <p>Relative to non-business students, marketing students were more relativistic and less idealistic. However, business courses in general and marketing courses in particular do not induce marketing undergraduates to become more relativistic. Given the typical utilitarian (and hence more relativistic) orientation of business courses – for example, a predilection for using cost-benefit analyses to make business decisions – the lack of influence on the ethical perspectives of marketing undergraduates is surprising (Nantel & Weeks, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref129">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>In summary, marketing ethics educators should adopt a more comprehensive and evolutionary pedagogical approach that begins with logic and critical thinking, is followed by ethical schools of thought, continues with relatable cases, and ends with corporate cases. Furthermore, the relatable case studies should be short, relevant, realistic, and believable (Bonner et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref130">11</reflink>]; Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref131">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-14">Three Caveats</hd> <p>Although this research contributes to the literature on business cases and ethical decision-making, several caveats are warranted. First, the research team relied on an informal process to screen for outlier group members (e.g., a priori knowledge about students enrolled in each course). As a result, homogeneity assumptions about each comparison group may not be true of all group members; for example, (a) no non-business student previously completed a course that broached ethical decision-making, (b) all students enrolled in the marketing ethics course were traditional (in age and years of coursework) seniors, and none were transfer students who previously completed an ethics-related course, and (c) no students enrolled in the marketing ethics course had completed a logic or critical thinking or philosophy course. However, it is highly improbable that the informal process failed sufficiently to compromise the validity of reported results.</p> <p>Second, all student participants attended the same demographically homogeneous metropolitan university in the southcentral U.S. (e.g., 71% less than 25 years old, 60% self-identify as Caucasian). Although students' responsiveness to the course elements studied here may differ intra-nationally and internationally, the research team judged it more critical to control for experimental confounds than to boost external validity for this first study. Thus, future research can overcome this generalizability caveat by studying different student populations.</p> <p>Third, results may be an artifact of the case stimuli; for example, students attending mid-western U.S. universities may respond differently to farming or oil and gas cases than students attending coastal U.S. universities may respond to riparian water rights cases. Again, additional research could (dis)confirm the possibility of a stimuli artifact issue, so at worst, the results reported here are preliminary.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-15">Future Research</hd> <p>Five additional research possibilities are noteworthy. First, the empirical study examined only two case types: corporate-wrongdoing versus small business/personal decision-making cases. In contrast, law schools use cases subtly manipulated to depict shades of gray and nuance. Such manipulations force students to cope with complexity, which may further develop their ethical decision-making ability. Hence, future research involving different types of relatable cases may prove fruitful.</p> <p>Second, the premise that undergraduates with no business experience are more likely to find short cases about relatable companies and situations more engaging, although reasonable, was untested. Perhaps marketing majors would find short cases about popular or highly newsworthy companies more engaging. To ensure the validity of the results reported here, future research should confirm the original premise.</p> <p>Third, the following accepted pedagogical approaches and materials were untested: traditional lectures, standard textbooks, journal/magazine articles, experiential learning (Hunt & Laverie, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref132">37</reflink>]), "works of literature featuring protagonists who exercise moral courage in organizations" (Comer & Schwartz, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref133">17</reflink>], p. 703), graphic novels (Fischbach, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref134">23</reflink>]), computer-animated and other types of simulations (Castleberry, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref135">14</reflink>]; Jagger, Siala, & Sloan, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref136">40</reflink>]), online multi-player games (Spain, Engle, & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref137">72</reflink>]), popular feature films (O'Boyle & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref138">57</reflink>]; O'Boyle & Sandona, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref139">58</reflink>]), instructor's video commentaries posted on the course website (Fort, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref140">25</reflink>]), life-cycle case studies (DesJardins & Diedrich, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref141">18</reflink>]), integrative live cases (Venkat Raman, Garg, & Thapliyal, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref142">80</reflink>]), mini-cases and political cartoons for in-class discussion (Ferrell & Kieg, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref143">22</reflink>]; Mills, Robson, & Pitt, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref144">53</reflink>]), student debates (Roy, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref145">63</reflink>]), and self-reflective writing tasks (Gu & Neesham, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref146">29</reflink>]; Laird-Magee, Gayle, & Preiss, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref147">49</reflink>]). The optimal usage and mix of these alternative approaches are unknown. Casual use of some approaches may eschew boredom, whereas intensive use of other approaches may enhance understanding about ethical dilemmas in business (Spain et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref148">72</reflink>]). For example, running in an "Ethics Awareness Week exercise" across multiple courses and instructors could expose students to different interpretations and recommendations related to the same fact pattern.</p> <p>Fourth, the delivery method – face-to-face versus strictly online versus "blended" – of the dedicated marketing ethics course begs further study. Despite mixed reports about the efficacy of online course, the growing popularity of online ethics instruction recommends its further study (Bodkin & Stevenson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref149">9</reflink>]; Peltier, Schibrowsky, & Drago, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref150">59</reflink>]). Also, no study has explored marketing ethics instruction within a blended format course.</p> <p>Fifth, students' responsiveness to the various ethics course structures examined here may differ by their demographic, socioeconomic, and psychological profiles (Cheng & Chu, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref151">15</reflink>]; Malinowski & Berger, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref152">51</reflink>]; Traiser & Eighmy, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref153">77</reflink>]). For example, male students may be more responsive than female students to ethics instruction via a dedicated course (Ritter, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref154">62</reflink>]; Wang & Calvano, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref155">81</reflink>]). Meaningful inter-student differences may suggest the need for self-selectable pedagogical materials (i.e., students choose which assignments and exercises they will complete) (Steiner & Hyman, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref156">73</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-16">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>Authors A, B, and C declare that he/she has no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-17">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-18">Informed Consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-19">Appendix A. Sample Commonplace Case Study</hd> <p>Jeff has wanted to pursue an accounting career since watching the movie "Shawshank Redemption" and working at his dad's small accounting firm one summer. After a solid but unspectacular academic performance in high school, Jeff received and accepted a modest scholarship at the nearby state university. Once he completed the general degree requirements, Jeff applied to and was accepted into the business college. That semester, Jeff began taking accounting courses. Because he excelled in those courses, Jeff became familiar to the accounting faculty. He joined Beta Alpha Psi (the accounting fraternity) and soon was elected its vice president.</p> <p>Although he'd now spent several summers working at his dad's firm, Jeff knew it was time for a summer internship with a larger and more prestigious firm. Such an internship could serve as a prelude to a job upon graduation–one that would launch his career while he continued to work toward a CPA.</p> <p>Jeff asked several of his favorite accounting instructors to suggest possible firms for a summer internship. Based on their collective recommendations, he applied for an internship at Shepherd & Herdman, a local accounting firm recognized for its long-standing and excellent internship program. The glowing letters of recommendation Jeff received from his professors ensured his selection. Jeff was thrilled to accept the internship offer and was impatient to begin working at Shepherd & Herdman.</p> <p>Fred Herdman and his partner, Nat Shepherd, had enrolled in the same cost accounting course at Midwest State University more than three decades earlier. They soon became good friends. After several beers one night, they joked about starting an accounting firm. Eventually, that joking grew into a serious possibility. When neither was satisfied with the job offers they received after graduation, they decided to introduce the world to Shepherd & Herdman.</p> <p>Although their friendship has survived three decades of a business partnership, Fred slowly and secretly began to resent Nat, who had attracted and retained their firm's most lucrative clients. Fred also knew that Nat was the more personable and technically competent accountant. In contrast to the far more likable Nat, Fred was arbitrary, sullen, ill-mannered, prickly, and arrogant. Thus, Fred's clients and employees increasingly recognized him for the perpetual and growing chip on his shoulder.</p> <p>Although far more comfortable with Nat, Jeff was assigned to work with Fred. Despite Fred's confrontational and often demeaning interpersonal style – especially when addressing subordinates – Jeff believed he could learn much about "being an accountant" by observing Fred.</p> <p>Since launching their partnership, Fred and Nat have taken year-end bonuses predicated on both client worth and annual client billings. Although Nat is more personable, Fred has clients who appreciate and encourage his aggressive behavior, especially when resolving day-to-day accounting problems, such as customers with delinquent accounts and vendors who might be overcharging. Nonetheless, Fred's billings have declined somewhat during the last year due to modest client defections. Fred is concerned his bonus check will reflect this reduced revenue because he depended on it to pay for a new sports car.</p> <p>To ensure a bonus check sufficient to cover the car's cost, Fred instructs Jeff to inflate the hours Fred billed his half-dozen most lucrative clients. These clients are unlikely to notice the additional cost, as their bills are complex due to the extensive work performed regularly on their behalf. Also, Fred instructs Jeff to inflate the accounts receivable and gross revenue on these clients as well as to delay paying certain expenses. Such "creative accounting" will inflate overall net income (which will be reflected in the equity section of the balance sheet), thereby inflating overall client worth (a major component of the bonus calculation).</p> <p>Fred insists that Nat should never learn about these accounting practices and hints that Jeff's continued discretion would be rewarded with either a job after graduation or a fantastic letter of recommendation. However, should Nat learn of these practices, Fred would plead ignorance and blame the improper practices on Jeff's professional incompetence.</p> <p>Although Jeff hoped to begin his career with a larger accounting firm, he knew he could do far worse than starting at Shepherd & Herdman. Certainly, a superb letter of recommendation would boost the likelihood Jeff would land his "dream job". Also, Jeff generally believed in following his supervisor's instructions and already recognized that crossing the mean-spirited and vindictive Fred Herdman was a recipe for personal disaster regardless of the circumstances. Thus, Jeff followed Fred's instructions.</p> <hd id="AN0144848226-20">Appendix B. Sample Knowledge and Vignette Questions (with correct answer underlined)</hd> <p>Sample Knowledge Questions</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Business ethics is a multidisciplinary field that includes:</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>philosophy, law, management, marketing, and public policy.</emph> </item> <p></p> <item> sociology, philosophy, management, and marketing.</item> <p></p> <item> management, marketing, public policy, and psychology.</item> <p></p> <item> marketing, management, sociology, and psychology.</item> <p></p> <item> The study of philosophy deals with the problems of:</item> <p></p> <item> life, biology, psychology.</item> <p></p> <item> history, psychology, ethics.</item> <p></p> <item> ethics, metaphysics, psychology.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>knowledge, conduct, governance.</emph> </item> <p></p> <item> Epistemology is the study of ________________.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• ethics</p> <p></p> <p>• reality</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>knowledge</emph> </item> <p></p> <item> governance</item> </ulist> <p>Sample Vignette and Questions</p> <p>You have a friend who works for a wholesale wine distributor that is running a special contest for its salespeople. Your friend is 10 cases short of selling enough wine to earn a $5000 bonus. Although your friend often sells wine to the owner of the Booze 'R Us liquor store, the owner is reluctant to buy all 10 cases needed to earn the bonus. Your friend believes that if he/she tells the owner about the contest and offers to split the bonus, then the owner will purchase all 10 cases.</p> <p>Q1. Your friend believes that bribery usually creates more problems than it is worth. In this case, the store owner may come to expect such incentives in the future, and this may not be sustainable. Although not technically illegal, offering to split the bonus with the store owner is similar to a bribe, so your friend decides not to tell the store owner about the contest and the offer to split the bonus.</p> <p>Your friend is using which theory to justify his/her action?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Virtue ethics (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref157">3</reflink>) Deontological ethics</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Utilitarian ethics</emph> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref158">4</reflink>) Subjectivism</item> </ulist> <p>Q2. Because bribery can never be a behavior accepted as logically consistent, your friend believes that <emph>not engaging in bribery</emph> is a categorical moral principle. Your friend doesn't believe in violating such rules, so he/she doesn't tell the store owner about the contest and the offer to split the bonus.</p> <p>Your friend is using which theory to justify his/her action?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Virtue ethics (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref159">3</reflink>) <emph>Deontological ethics</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Utilitarian ethics (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref160">4</reflink>) Subjectivism</item> </ulist> <p>Q3. Your friend is loyal to his/her company. He/she believes that telling the store owner about the contest and then making an offer to split the bonus would be disloyal to his/her company. Thus, your friend decides not to tell the store owner about the contest and the offer to split the bonus.</p> <p>Your friend is using which theory to justify his/her action?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Virtue ethics</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref161">3</reflink>) Deontological ethics</item> <p></p> <item> Utilitarian ethics (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref162">4</reflink>) Subjectivism</item> </ulist> <p>Q4. Your friend believes it's wrong to tell the owner about the contest and make the offer to split the bonus because if your friend owned this company, he wouldn't want salespeople to make such decisions. Your friend chooses not to tell the store owner about the contest and offer to split the bonus.</p> <p>Your friend is using which theory to justify his/her action?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Virtue ethics (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref163">3</reflink>) Deontological ethics</item> <p></p> <item> Utilitarian ethics (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref164">4</reflink>) <emph>Subjectivism</emph></item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0144848226-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref36" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> AACSB. (2016). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation: Engagement, innovation, impact. Tampa, FL : Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. Retrieved May 1, 2017 from <ulink href="http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Docs/Accreditation/Standards/2013-bus-standards-update.ashx">http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Docs/Accreditation/Standards/2013-bus-standards-update.ashx</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38 (4), 932 – 968. doi: 10.1177/0149206311436079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref7" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allan, D., & Wood, N. T. (2009). Incorporating ethics into the marketing communications class: The case of Old Jose and New Jo Camel. Marketing Education Review, 19 (2), 63 – 71. doi: 10.1080/10528008.2009.11489076</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref63" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arlow, P. (1991). Personal characteristics in college students' evaluation of business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 10 (3), 63 – 69. doi: 10.1007/BF00383694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref83" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Assudani, R. H., Chinta, R., Manolis, C., & Burns, D. J. (2011). The effect of pedagogy on students' perceptions of the importance of ethics and social responsibility in business firms. Ethics & Behavior, 21 (2), 103 – 117. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2011.551467</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref118" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baetz, M. C., & Sharp, D. J. (2004). Integrating ethics content into the core business curriculum: Do core teaching materials do the job? Journal of Business Ethics, 51 (1), 53 – 62. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000032343.68115.dd</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, T., Bass, K., Brown, G., & Herbert, F. (1998). Ethical ideology and ethical judgments of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (7), 715 – 723. doi: 10.1023/A:1005736404300</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref121" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beggs, J. M., & Dean, K. L. (2007). Legislated ethics or ethics education? Faculty views in the post-Enron era. Journal of Business Ethics, 71 (1), 15 – 37. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9123-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref1" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bodkin, C. D., & Stevenson, T. H. (2007). University students' perceptions regarding ethical marketing practices: Affecting change through instructional techniques. Journal of Business Ethics, 72 (3), 207 – 228. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9166-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bolton, R. N., & Bronkhorst, T. M. (1996). Questionnaire pretesting: Computer-assisted coding of concurrent protocols. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions (pp. 37 – 64). San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bonner, R., Neely, A. R., Neely, A. D., & Mittal, S. (2018). The generationally relevant case method: An alternative approach to case-based undergraduate level management instruction. Journal of Strategic Management Education, 14, 1 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burton, S., Johnson, M. W., & Wilson, E. J. (1991). An experimental assessment of alternative teaching approaches for introducing business ethics to undergraduate students. Journal of Business Ethics, 10 (7), 507 – 517. doi: 10.1007/BF00383349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bush, V. D., Smith, R. K., & Bush, A. J. (2013). Ethical dilemmas and emergent values encountered by working college students: Implications for marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 35 (2), 107 – 118. doi: 10.1177/0273475313491577</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castleberry, S. (2014). Salesperson ethics: An interactive computer simulation. Journal of Marketing Education, 36 (2), 209 – 216. doi: 10.1177/0273475314529289</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheng, P., & Chu, M. (2014). Behavioral factors affecting students' intentions to enroll in business ethics courses: A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and social cognitive theory using self-identity as a moderator. Journal of Business Ethics, 124 (1), 35 – 46. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1858-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chonko, L. B. (2004). Casuistry and change readiness: Fundamental aspects of teaching ethics in marketing decision making. Marketing Education Review, 14 (3), 23 – 45. doi: 10.1080/10528008.2004.11488876</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Comer, D. R., & Schwartz, M. (2017). Highlighting moral courage in the business ethics course. Journal of Business Ethics, 146 (3), 703 – 723. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2919-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DesJardins, J. R., & Diedrich, E. (2003). Learning what it really costs: Teaching business ethics with life-cycle case studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 48 (1), 33 – 42. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000004365.29526.c9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duska, R. F. (1991). What's the point of a business ethics course? Business Ethics Quarterly, 1 (4), 335 – 354. doi: 10.2307/3857601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, J. M., Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2006). Who's in the ethics driver's seat? Factors influencing ethics in the MBA curriculum. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5 (3), 278 – 293. doi: 10.5465/amle.2006.22697017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, C. J., & Ferrell, L. (2002). Business ethics: Ethical decision-making and cases. Boston, MA : Houghton Mifflin Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferrell, O. C., & Kieg, D. L. (2013). The marketing ethics course: Current state and future directions. Journal of Marketing Education, 35 (2), 119 – 128. doi: 10.1177/0273475313491498</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischbach, S. (2015). Ethical efficacy as a measure of training effectiveness: An application of the graphic novel case method versus traditional written case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 128 (3), 603 – 615. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2118-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (1), 175 – 184. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.1.175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fort, T. L. (2016). Adding ethics to the classroom. BizEd, January/February, pp. 48 – 54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallup Organization. (2006). Teach with your strengths: How great teachers inspire their students. Educational Horizons, 84 (3), 170 – 175. Retrieved April 28, 2020 from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/42926587">www.jstor.org/stable/42926587</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanz, J. (2002). Finding your leadership style: A guide for educators. Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grube, G. M. A. (1992). Plato republic. Cambridge, UK : Hackett Publishing Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gu, J., & Neesham, C. (2014). Moral identity as leverage point in teaching business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 124 (3), 527 – 536. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-2028-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108 (4), 814 – 834. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY : Pantheon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanlon, R. J., & Frost, S. (2013). Teaching corporate social responsibility, human rights and corruption: A survey of 343 faculty at the top 20 business schools in the Financial Times global MBA rankings. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 10 (1), 5 – 46. doi: 10.5840/jbee2013102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartman, L. P., & Hartman, E. M. (2005). How to teach ethics: Assumptions and arguments. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 1 (2), 165 – 212. doi: 10.5840/jbee20041212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawkins, D. I., & Cocanougher, A. B. (1972). Student evaluations of the ethics of marketing practices: The role of marketing education. Journal of Marketing, 36 (2), 61 – 64. doi: 10.1177/002224297203600212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hellwig, M. F. (2009). Sytemic risk in the financil sector: An analysis of the subprime-mortgage financial crisis. De Economist, 157 (2), 129 – 207. doi: 10.1007/s10645-009-9110-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howard, L. W., Tang, T. L., & Austin, M. J. (2015). Teaching critical thinking skills: Ability, motivation, intervention, and the Pygmalion effect. Journal of Business Ethics, 128 (1), 133 – 147. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2084-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunt, S. D., & Laverie, D. A. (2004). Experiential learning and the Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics: Teaching marketing ethics by integrating theory and practice. Marketing Education Review, 14 (3), 1 – 14. doi: 10.1080/10528008.2004.11488874</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyman, M. R., Skipper, R., & Tansey, R. (1990). Ethical codes are not enough. Business Horizons, 33 (2), 15 – 22. doi: 10.1016/0007-6813(90)90004-U</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Izzo, G. (2000). Compulsory ethics education and the cognitive moral development of salespeople: A quasi-experimental assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 28 (3), 223 – 241. doi: 10.1023/A:1006206829583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jagger, S., Siala, H., & Sloan, D. (2016). It's all in the game: A 3D learning model for business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 137 (2), 383 – 403. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2557-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings, M. M. (2003). The critical role of ethics: Recent history has shown that when individual ethics are compromised corporate ethics fail and financial disaster is not far behind. Internal Auditor, 60 (6), 46 – 59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, J., Bagdasarov, Z., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L., Devenport, L., Mumford, M., & Thiel, C. (2012). Case-based ethics education: The impact of cause complexity and outcome favorability of ethicality. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7 (3), 63 – 77. doi: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.3.63</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kienzler, D. (2001). Ethics, critical thinking, and professional communication pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10 (3), 319 – 339. doi: 10.1207/s15427625tcq1003_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klebba, J. M., & Hamilton, J. G. (2007). Structured case analysis: Developing critical thinking skills in a marketing case course. Journal of Marketing Education, 29 (2), 132 – 139. doi: 10.1177/0273475307302015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleiser, S. B., Sivadas, E., Kellaris, J., & Dahlstrom, R. (2002). Ethical ideologies: Efficient assessments and influence on ethical judgments of marketing practices. Psychology and Marketing, 20 (1), 1 – 21. doi: 10.1002/mar.10056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohlberg, L. (1966). Moral education in schools: A developmental view. The School Review, 74 (1), 1 – 27. doi: 10.1086/442759</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Gosselin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347 – 480). Chicago, IL : Rand McNally.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laird-Magee, T., Gayle, B. M., & Preiss, R. (2015). Personal values and mission statement: A reflective activity to aid moral development. Journal of Education for Business, 90 (3), 156 – 163. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1007907</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane, J. C. (1995). Ethics of business students: Some marketing perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 14 (7), 571 – 580. doi: 10.1007/BF00871985</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malinowski, C., & Berger, K. A. (1996). Undergraduate student attitudes about hypothetical marketing dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 15 (5), 525 – 535. doi: 10.1007/BF00381928</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinov-Bennie, N., & Mladenovic, R. (2015). Investigation of the impact of an ethical framework and an integrated ethics education on accounting students' ethical sensitivity and judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 127 (1), 189 – 203. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-2007-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mills, A. J., Robson, K., & Pitt, L. F. (2013). Using cartoons to teach corporate social responsibility: A class exercise. Journal of Marketing Education, 35 (2), 181 – 190. doi: 10.1177/0273475313489558</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mladenovic, R., Martinov-Bennie, N., & Bell, A. (2019). Business students' insights into their development of ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 155 (1), 275 – 287. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3523-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nantel, J., & Weeks, W. A. (1996). Marketing ethics: Is there more to it than the utilitarian approach? European Journal of Marketing, 30 (5), 9 – 19. doi: 10.1108/03090569610118713</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY : McGraw-Hill, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Boyle, E. J., & Dawson, L. E. (1991). Helping students of marketing deal with ethics: A new pedagogy. Marketing Education Review, 1 (2), 44 – 53. doi: 10.1080/10528008.1991.11488302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Boyle, E. J., & Sandona, L. (2014). Teaching business ethics through popular feature films: An experiential approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 121 (3), 329 – 340. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1724-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peltier, J. W., Schibrowsky, J. A., & Drago, W. (2007). The interdependence of the factors influencing the perceived quality of the online learning experience: A causal model. Journal of Marketing Education, 29 (2), 140 – 153. doi: 10.1177/0273475307302016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peppas, S. C., & Diskin, B. A. (2000). Ethical perspectives: Are future marketers any different? Teaching Business Ethics, 4 (2), 207 – 220. doi: 10.1023/A:1009822500621</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rachels, J. (2012). The elements of moral philosophy (7th ed.). New York, NY : McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritter, B. A. (2006). Can business ethics be trained? A study of the ethical decision-making process in business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 68 (2), 153 – 164. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9062-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roy, D. P. (2012). Promoting active learning of ethical issues in marketing communications using debates. Marketing Education Review, 22 (1), 73 – 76. doi: 10.2753/MER1052-8008220112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2011). On the road to Abilene: Time to manage agreement about MBA curricular relevance. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10 (1), 148 – 161.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rundle-Thiele, S. R., & Wymer, W. (2010). Stand-alone ethics, social responsibility, and sustainability course requirements. Journal of Marketing Education, 32 (1), 5 – 12. doi: 10.1177/0273475309345002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seele, P. (2018). What makes a business ethicist? A reflection on the transition from applied philosophy to critical thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 150 (3), 647 – 656. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3177-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharpe, B., Aguirre, G., & Kickham, K. (2010). Managing in the public sector: A casebook in ethics and leadership. White Plains, NY : Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shugan, S. M. (2006). Editorial: Save research—Abandon the case method of teaching. Marketing Science, 25 (2), 109 – 115. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1060.0202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sigurjonsson, T. O., Arnardottir, A. A., Vaiman, V., & Rikhardsson, P. (2015). Managers' views on ethics education in business schools: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 130 (1), 1 – 13. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2202-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sims, R. R. (2002). Business ethics teaching for effective learning. Teaching Business Ethics, 6 (4), 393 – 410.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sorensen, D. P., Miller, S. E., & Cabe, K. L. (2015). Developing and measuring the impact of an accounting ethics course that is based on the moral philosophy of Adam Smith. Journal of Business Ethics, 140 (1), 175 – 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spain, J. W., Engle, A. D., & Thompson, J. C. (2005). Applying multiple pedagogical methodologies in an ethics awareness week: Expectations, events, evaluation, and enhancements. Journal of Business Ethics, 58 (1), 7 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steiner, S. D., & Hyman, M. R. (2010). Improving the student experience: Allowing students enrolled in a required course to select online or face-to-face instruction. Marketing Education Review, 20 (1), 31 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson, D. L., & Fisher, D. G. (2012). The rise and fall of CR education. Corporate Responsibility Magazine. Retrieved June 1, 2017, from <ulink href="http://www.thecro.com/topics/business-ethics/the-rise-and-fall-of-cr-education/">http://www.thecro.com/topics/business-ethics/the-rise-and-fall-of-cr-education/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tansey, R., Brown, G., Hyman, M. R., & Dawson, L. E. (1994). Personal moral philosophies and the moral judgments of salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14 (1), 59 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thiel, C. E., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L., Devenport, L. D., Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J. F., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Case-based knowledge and ethics education: Improving learning and transfer through emotionally rich cases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (1), 265 – 286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Traiser, S., & Eighmy, M. A. (2011). Moral development and narcissism of private and public university business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 99 (3), 325 – 334.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tse, A. C., & Au, A. K. (1997). Are New Zealand business students more unethical than non-business students? Journal of Business Ethics, 16 (4), 445 – 450.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Udovic, D., Morris, D., Dickman, A., Postlethwait, J., & Wetherwax, P. (2002). Workshop biology: Demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning in an introductory biology course. Bioscience, 52 (3), 272 – 281.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Venkat Raman, G., Garg, S., & Thapliyal, S. (2019). Integrative live case: A contemporary business ethics pedagogy. Journal of Business Ethics, 155 (4), 1009 – 1032.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, L. C., & Calvano, L. (2015). Is business ethics education effective? An analysis of gender, personal ethical perspectives, and moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126 (4), 591 – 602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87 (1), 133 – 151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber, J. (2006). Business ethics training: Insights from learning theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 70 (1), 61 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weston, A. (2008). A rulebook for arguments (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA : Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, C. (2003). A study of the adjustment of ethical recognition and ethical decision-making of managers-to-be across the Taiwan Strait before and after receiving a business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics, 45 (4), 291 – 307.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, K., & Li, W. (2012). An ethical stakeholder approach to crisis communication: A case study of Foxconn's 2010 employee suicide crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 117 (2), 371 – 386.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Grant C. Aguirre II; Michael R. Hyman and Jeri L. Jones</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref156"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1263075
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Dedicated Marketing Ethics Course: Design and Test
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aguirre%2C+Grant+C%2E%2C+II%22">Aguirre, Grant C., II</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hyman%2C+Michael+R%2E%22">Hyman, Michael R.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6675-8808">0000-0001-6675-8808</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jones%2C+Jeri+L%2E%22">Jones, Jeri L.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Marketing+Education+Review%22"><i>Marketing Education Review</i></searchLink>. 2020 30(3):177-194.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Marketing%22">Marketing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Small+Businesses%22">Small Businesses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Corporations%22">Corporations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+Thinking%22">Critical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Logical+Thinking%22">Logical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Course+Descriptions%22">Course Descriptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Identification%22">Identification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Philosophy%22">Philosophy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pretests+Posttests%22">Pretests Posttests</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10528008.2020.1787845
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1052-8008
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: To explore the best structure for a dedicated marketing ethics course, two field experiments were conducted in which two case types (i.e., small business/personal decision-making versus corporate-wrongdoing) and the timing of logic and critical thinking instruction were manipulated. Results show undergraduates can identify and apply ethical theories to business decision-making more readily when instruction begins with logic and critical thinking, is followed by instruction in theory combined with small business decision-making cases, and concludes with more complex cases about large corporations. Also, enhanced ethical awareness fostered by a dedicated marketing ethics course increases students' idealism but may decrease their relativism.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1263075
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1263075
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10528008.2020.1787845
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 177
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Marketing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Small Businesses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Corporations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Critical Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Logical Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Course Descriptions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Identification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Philosophy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pretests Posttests
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Dedicated Marketing Ethics Course: Design and Test
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aguirre, Grant C., II
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hyman, Michael R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jones, Jeri L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1052-8008
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 30
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Marketing Education Review
              Type: main
ResultId 1