IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/indrel/qt05n3d6pj.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Male Pragmatism in Ethical Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Kray, Laura J.
  • Haselhuhn, Michael P.

Abstract

Why do men have more lenient ethical standards than women? To address this question, we test the male pragmatism hypothesis, which posits that men rely on their social and achievement motivations to set ethical standards more so than women. Across two studies, motivation was both manipulated and measured before examining ethicality judgments. Study 1 manipulated identification with two parties in an ethical dilemma and found that men were more egocentric than women. Whereas men’s ethicality judgments were affected by the identification manipulation, women’s judgments were not. Study 2 examined whether implicit negotiation beliefs, which predict achievement motivations to either demonstrate or develop negotiating skill, predicted ethicality judgments and, if so, whether this relationship was moderated by gender. As hypothesized, fixed beliefs predicted lower ethical standards, particularly for men. In combination, these findings suggest men are more pragmatic in setting ethical standards than women.

Suggested Citation

  • Kray, Laura J. & Haselhuhn, Michael P., 2011. "Male Pragmatism in Ethical Decision Making," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt05n3d6pj, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:indrel:qt05n3d6pj
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/05n3d6pj.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buchan, Nancy R. & Croson, Rachel T.A. & Solnick, Sara, 2008. "Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 466-476, December.
    2. Dreber, Anna & Johannesson, Magnus, 2008. "Gender differences in deception," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 197-199, April.
    3. Babcock, Linda, et al, 1995. "Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1337-1343, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alessandra Capezio & Astghik Mavisakalyan, 2016. "Women in the boardroom and fraud: Evidence from Australia," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 41(4), pages 719-734, November.
    2. van Staveren, I.P., 2012. "The Lehman Sisters Hypothesis: an exploration of literature and bankers," ISS Working Papers - General Series 545, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    3. Irene van Staveren, 2014. "The Lehman Sisters hypothesis," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(5), pages 995-1014.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nhat Minh Tran & Thu Thuy Nguyen & Thi Phuong Linh Nguyen & Anh Trong Vu & Thi Thanh Hoa Phan & Thi Hong Tham Nguyen & Ngoc Diep Do & Anh Tuan Phan, 2022. "Female Managers and Corruption in SMEs: A Comparison Between Family and Nonfamily SMEs in Vietnam," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    2. Jingnan Chen & Daniel Houser, 2017. "Promises and lies: can observers detect deception in written messages," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(2), pages 396-419, June.
    3. Selim Jürgen Ergun & Teresa García-Muñoz & M.Fernanda Rivas, 2010. "Gender Differences in Economic Experiments," ThE Papers 10/14, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    4. Michael Breen & Robert Gillanders & Gemma Mcnulty & Akisato Suzuki, 2017. "Gender and Corruption in Business," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(9), pages 1486-1501, September.
    5. Gneezy, Uri & Saccardo, Silvia & Serra-Garcia, Marta & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2020. "Bribing the Self," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 120, pages 311-324.
    6. Van Zant, Alex B. & Kray, Laura J., 2013. ""I Can't Lie to Your Face": Minimal Face-to-Face Interaction Promotes Honestry," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt88f3409v, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    7. Barron, Kai & Stüber, Robert & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2019. "Motivated motive selection in the lying-dictator game," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2019-303, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    8. Abraham, Diya & Greiner, Ben & Stephanides, Marianne, 2023. "On the Internet you can be anyone: An experiment on strategic avatar choice in online marketplaces," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 251-261.
    9. Olayinka Oyekola & Martha A. Omolo & Olapeju C. Ogunmokun, 2023. "Are majority-female-owned firms more susceptible to bribery solicitations?," Discussion Papers 2311, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    10. Gylfason, Haukur Freyr & Olafsdottir, Katrin, 2017. "Does Gneezy's cheap talk game measure trust?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 143-148.
    11. Miller, Luis & Ubeda, Paloma, 2012. "Are women more sensitive to the decision-making context?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 98-104.
    12. Kai Barron & Robert Stüber & Roel van Veldhuizen, 2022. "Moral Motive Selection in the Lying-Dictator Game," CESifo Working Paper Series 9911, CESifo.
    13. Philip Maximilian Linhart & Olaf Stotz, 2022. "Which factors support trust in the recommendation process of pension products? Trust and pension products," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(4), pages 322-334, December.
    14. Kray, Laura, 2011. "Gender Bias in Negotiators’ Ethical Decision Making," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt1639379n, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    15. Gylfason, Haukur Freyr & Vésteinsdóttir, Vaka & Kristinsson, Kari & Asgeirsdottir, Tinna Laufey & Schram, Arthur, 2023. "Gender differences in lying: The role of stakes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    16. Wellalage, Nirosha Hewa & Fernandez, Viviana & Thrikawala, Sujani, 2020. "Corruption and innovation in private firms: Does gender matter?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    17. Kleinknecht, Janina, 2019. "A man of his word? An experiment on gender differences in promise keeping," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 251-268.
    18. Despoina Alempaki & Gönül Doğan & Silvia Saccardo, 2019. "Deception and reciprocity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 980-1001, December.
    19. Dugar, Subhasish & Mitra, Arnab & Shahriar, Quazi, 2019. "Deception: The role of uncertain consequences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-18.
    20. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gender; ethical judgment; egocentrism; self-interest; negotiation; motivated reasoning; Business;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:indrel:qt05n3d6pj. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/irucbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.