Shareholder value ideology, reciprocity and decision making in moral dilemmas.

O'Reilly, B. 1994. "The New Deal: What Companies and Employees Owe One Another." Fortune 129: 44-52.

O'Toole, J. 1991. "Do Good, Do Well: The Business Enterprise Trust Awards." California Management Review 33: 9-24.

Randall, D. M. and A. M. Gibson. 1990. "Methodology in Business Ethics Research: A Review and Critical Assessment." Journal of Business Ethics 9: 457-71.

Rappaport, A. and A. M. Chammah. 1965. Prisoner's Dilemma. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Remus, W. 1986. "Graduate Students as Surrogates for Managers in Experiments on Business Decision Making." Journal of Business Research 14: 19-25.

Reputation Management: A Critical, but Often Overlooked, Component of Business Growth. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/expertise/reputation.asp (accessed September 28, 2005).

Ryan, L. V. and W. G. Scott. 1995. "Ethics and Organizational Reflection: The Rockefeller Foundation and Postwar Moral Deficits 1942-1954." Academy of Management Review 20: 438-61.

Sharp, D.J. and S. B. Salter. 1997. "Project Escalation and Sunk Costs: A Test of the International Generalizability of Agency and Prospect Theories." Journal of International Business Studies 28: 101-21.

Smith, J. H. 2003. "The Shareholders Vs. Stakeholders Debate." Sloan Management Review 44: 85-90.

Tichy, N. M. 2002. The Leadership Engine: How Winning Companies Build Leaders at Every Level. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

Trevino, L. K. and G. R. Weaver. 1994. "Business ETHICS/BUSINESS Ethics: One Field or Two?" Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 13-128.

Trochim, W. M. K. 1999. The Research Methods Knowledge Base (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.

van Dijk, E. and M. Zeelenberg. 2003. "The Discounting of Ambiguous Information in Economic Decision Making." Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 16: 341-52.

Volkema, R.J. 2004. "Demographic, Cultural, and Economic Predictors of Perceived Ethicality of Negotiation Behavior: A Nine-country Analysis." Journal of Business Research 57: 69-78.

Watson, K. D., M. J. Polonsky and M. R. Hyman. 2002. "Designing Vignette Studies in Marketing." Australian Marketing Journal 10: 41-58.

Wyld, D. C. and C. A. Jones. 1997. "An Empirical Look at the Use of Managerial and Non-managerial Student Subjects for Inquiries into Ethical Management." Management Research News 20: 18-30.

Zerbe, W.J. and D. L. Paulhus. 1987. "Socially Desirable Responding in Organizational Behavior: A Reconception." Academy of Management Journal 12: 25064.

(1) The information in italics is the shareholder value manipulation (presented only to participants in experimental groups #1 and #3), whereas the information in italics and bold is the reciprocity manipulation (presented only to participants in experimental groups #2 and #3).

Charnchai Tangpong

Assistant Professor of Management

North Dakota State University

James G. Pesek

Professor of Management

Clarion University of Pennsylvania Table 1. Selected Sample Profile Demographics Percent Gender

Male 52

Female 48 Age

Less than 30 years 93

30 years and above 7 Ethnicity

White 88

Non-White 12 Class Standing

Juniors 29

Seniors 60

Graduate Students 11 Currently Employed

Yes 61

No 39 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics

Decision Outcomes

Vignette #1

(Supplier-related)

Unfavorable Favorable

Decision Decision Control Group: No Manipulation 38.61% 61.39% Exp. Group #1: Shareholder Value

Manipulation 54.76% 45.24% Exp. Group #2: Reciprocity Manipulation 26.25% 73.75% Exp. Group #3: Both Manipulations 40.00% 60.00%

Decision Outcomes

Vignette #2

(Customer-related)

Unfavorable Favorable

Decision Decision Control Group: No Manipulation 20.79% 79.21% Exp. Group #1: Shareholder Value

Manipulation 27.38% 72.62% Exp. Group #2: Reciprocity Manipulation 18.75% 81.25% Exp. Group #3: Both Manipulations 24.00% 76.00%

Decision Outcomes

Vignette #3

(Employee-related)

Unfavorable Favorable

Decision Decision Control Group: No Manipulation 71.29% 28.71% Exp. Group #1: Shareholder Value

Manipulation 77.38% 22.62% Exp. Group #2: Reciprocity Manipulation 57.50% 42.50% Exp. Group #3: Both Manipulations 69.33% 30.67% Table 3. Results of Logistic Regression Analyses

Dependent Variable:

Vignette #1 Decision Outcome

(Supplier-related)

Control 1 (B (b)) Model 1 (B (b)) Control Variables Course Level -0.34 ([dagger]) -0.35 ([dagger])

(1.20) (0.20) Gender -0.30 -0.35

(0.23) (0.24) Age Group 0.00 0.05

(0.24) (0.24) Managerial Experience -0.04 -0.06

(0.07) (0.07) Work Experience 0.02 0.03

(0.04) (0.04) Ethnicity 0.19 0.14

0.40 (0.41) Independent Variables Shareholder Value (H1) 0.63*

(0.31) Reciprocity (H2) -0.70*

-0.34 Interaction Term Shareholder Value x 0.04

Reciprocity (H3) (0.48) Chi-Square 7.69 23.04** -2 Log Likelihood (Log L) 435.48 420.13 D (a): -2Log [L.sub.control] - 15.35 **

(-2Log [L.sub.model])

Dependent Variable:

Vignette #2 Decision Outcome

(Customer-related)

Control 2 (B (b)) Model 2 (B (b)) Control Variables Course Level -0.07 -0.07

(0.23) (0.23) Gender 0.31 0.31

(0.27) (0.27) Age Group -0.01 -0.01

(0.28) (0.28) Managerial Experience -0.06 -0.06

(0.08) (0.08) Work Experience 0.02 0.03

(0.05) (0.05) Ethnicity 0.34 0.31

(0.50) (0.50) Independent Variables Shareholder Value (H1) 0.19

(0.36) Reciprocity (H2) -0.25

-0.39 Interaction Term Shareholder Value x 0.28

Reciprocity (H3) (0.54) Chi-Square 2.94 4.77 -2 Log Likelihood (Log L) 347.82 345.99 D (a): -2Log [L.sub.control] - 1.83

(-2Log [L.sub.model])

Dependent Variable:

Vignette #3 Decision Outcome

(Employee-related)

Control 3 (B (b)) Model 3 (B (b)) Control Variables Course Level 0.65 ** 0.69 **

(0.22) (0.23) Gender -0.07 -0.10

(0.25) (0.25) Age Group -0.3 -0.27

(0.25) (0.25) Managerial Experience -0.05 -0.07

(0.06) (0.07) Work Experience 0.01 0.02