Development of the Ethical Evaluation Questionnaire: A Machiavellian, Utilitarian, and Religious Viewpoint

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool to enhance ethical evaluation literature. The tool consists of two subscales named ‘Bases of ethical evaluation’, and ‘Grounds of ethical evaluation’. In order to determine the factor structure of the scales, both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were applied. The results revealed that Ethical Evaluation Questionnaire is a valid and reliable scale. The results presented that there was a positive correlation between the factors and the total ‘Bases of ethical evaluation’ scale. Similarly, there was a positive correlation between the factors and the total ‘Grounds of ethical evaluation’ scale. Since the Ethical Evaluation Questionnaire is a valid and reliable scale, it can be generalized for the other professions. The instrument is developed with respect to Islam religion in Turkish culture. However, scholars and managers can use the instrument for different cultures and religions. While there have been many studies examining ethical decision-making with different factors, intentions for examining religiosity as an underlying reason for ethical evaluation has been inadequate. So, studying Muslims in Turkey, this study is supposed to contribute to the literature related to ethical ideology and religiosity with regard to Islamic perspective

Keywords

• Ethical evaluation, instrument development, Mach, religion, utilitarian

Kaynakça

1. Baloglu, N. (2009). Negative behavior of teachers with regard to high school students in classroom settings. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(1), 69-78.
2. Barnett, T., Bass, K., & Brown, G. (1996). Religiosity, ethical ideology, and intentions to report a peer's wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1161-1174.
3. Bass, K., Barnett, T., & Brown, G. (1999). Individual difference variables, ethical judgements, and ethical behavioral intentions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2), 183-205.
4. Burris, C. T. (1999). Religious orientation scale. In P. Hill & R. W. Hood, Jr. (Eds.), Measures of Religiosity (pp. 144-154). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press. Retrieved from http://phd.mshaffer.com/projects/religiosity/
5. Casali, G. L. (2011). Developing a multidimensional scale for ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 485–497.
6. Cohn, M. (1987). To be a teacher. Newyork: Random Hause.
7. Cohen, J.R., Pant, L.,W., & Sharp, D.J. (1992). Cultural and socioeconomic constraints on international codes of ethics: Lessons from accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 319-336.
8. Cohen, J.R., Pant, L.,W., & Sharp, D.J. (1993). Culture-based ethical conflicts confronting multinational accounting firms. Accounting Horizon, 7 (3), 1-13.

9. Cohen, J. R., Pant, L., W., & Sharp, D. J. (1996). Measuring the ethical awareness and ethical orientation of Canadian auditors. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8, 98-119.
10. Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 1019-1031.
11. Cornwall, M., Albrecht, S.L., Cunningh, P.H., & Pitcher, B.L. (1986). The dimensions of religiosity: A conceptual model with an empirical test. Review of Religious Research, (27)3, 226-244.
12. Cruz, C. A., Shafer, W.E. and Strawser, & J. R. (2000). A multidimensional analysis of tax practitioner's ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(3), 223-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006140809998
13. Cokluk, O., Sekercioglu, G., & Buyukozturk, S. (2010). Multivariate statistics for social sciences. Ankara: Pegem Press.
14. Dahling, J.J., Whitaker, B.G., & Levy, P.E. (2009). The development and validation of a new machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35(2,). 219-257. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308318618.
15. Dozier, J.B. and Miceli, M.P. (1985). Potential Predictors of Whistle-Blowing: A Prosocial Behavior Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 823-836.
16. Ford, R.C., & Richardson, W.D. (1994) Ethical decision making: a review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 2, 205-221.
17. Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.
18. Forsyth, D.R., & O’Boyle, E.H. (2011). Rules, standards, and ethics: Relativism predicts cross-national differences in the codification of moral standards. International Business Review, 20, 353–361.
19. Hamilton, B. (2012). How to use the best outcomes or utility test. Retrieved from http://ethicsops.com/
20. Hoo, Q.C., Yeing, L.S., & Chai, G.E. (2010). Ethics code awareness, usefulness, and professionalism of Malaysian journalists. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics. (5) 2, 31-42.
21. Hunt, S:D. and Chonko, L.B. (1984). Marketing and Machiavellianism. Journal of Marketing. (48)3. 30-42.
22. Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S.J. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6, 5-16.
23. Hunt, S.D., & Vitell, S.J. (2006). The general theory of marketing ethics: a revision and three questions, Journal of Macromarketing, (26)2, 1-11. Doi: 10.1177/0276146706290923
24. Jenkins, J. (2003), p.98. Ethics and religion. (Heinemann Advanced Religious Studies). 2nd edition. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.
25. Jones, T.M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. The Academy of Management Review, (16)2, 366-395.
26. Joreskog, K.G., Sorbom, D. & Wallentin, F.Y. (2006) Latent variable scores and observational residuals. Retrieved from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel
27. Kayiklik, H. (2000). Dini yasayis bicimleri: psikolojik temelleri acisindan bir degerlendirme (Doctoral Thesis). Izmir: Dokuz Eylul University.
28. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
29. Lau, T. (2010). The good, the bad and the ugly: The shifting ethical stance of Malaysian consumers. Intangible Capital, 6(2), 236-257.
30. Lind, G. (1999). Scoring of the moral judment test (MJT). Retrieved from www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/b-publik.htm
31. Liyanarachchi, G., & Newdick, C. (2009). The Impact of moral reasoning and retaliation on whistle-blowing: New Zealand evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 37–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9983-x
32. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1988). A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 73(1), 107-117.
33. Miceli, M. P., & Near J. P. (1988). Individual and situational correlates of whistleblowing, Personnel Psychology, 41, 267–281.
34. Mill, J.S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, West Strand. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.
35. Narvaez, D. Getz, I., Rest, J.R., & Thom, S.J. (1999). Individual Moral Judgment and Cultural Ideologies. Developmental Psychology. (35)2, 478-488.
36. Nayir, D. Z., Herzig, C. (2012). Value orientations as determinants of preference for external and anonymous whistleblowing. J Bus Ethics, 107, 197–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1033-4
37. Near, J.P., Rehg, M.T., Scotter, J.R.V., & Miceli, M.P. (2004). Does type of wrongdoing affect the whistleblowing process? Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 219-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq200414210
38. O’Fallon, M.J., Butterfield, K.D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996-2003, Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375-413.
39. Reidenbach, R., & Robin, D. (1990). Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 639-653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00383391
40. Robinson, S. L., and Bennett, R. J. (1995) A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
41. Sanford, P.J. & Emer, E. (1988). Understanding classroom management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
42. Sims, R. L., & J. P. Keenan (1999). A cross-cultural comparison of managers’ whistleblowing tendencies. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 12(2), 137–151.
43. Singhapakdi, A. & Vitell, S. J. (1990). Marketing ethics: Factors influencing perceptions of ethical problems and alternatives. Journal of Macromarketing, 10(1), 4-18.
44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027614679001000102
45. Singhapakdi, A., Marta, J.K., Rallapalli, K.C., & Rao, C.P. (2000). Toward an understanding of religiousness and marketing ethics: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 305-319.
46. Somers, M. and Casal, J.C. (2011). Type of Wrongdoing and Whistle-blowing: Further Evidence that type of Wrongdoing Affects the Whistle-blowing Process. Public Personnel Management, 40(2), 151-163.
47. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Science (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. Sumer, N. (2000). Yapisal esitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve ornek uygulamalar. Turk Psikoloji Yazilari, 3(6), 49–74.
49. Simsek, O.F. (2007). Yapisal Esitlik Modellemesine Giris. Ankara: Ekinoks Press.
50. Tavakoli, A. A., Keenan, J.P., & Crnjak-Karanovic, B. (2003). Culture and whistleblowing an empirical study of Croatian and United States managers utilizing Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1-2), 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022959131133
51. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
52. Teall, E.J., & Carrol, A., B. (1999). Moral reasoning skills: Are entrepreneurs different? Journal of Business Ethics, (19), 229–240.
53. Thong, J.Y.L., and Yap, C. (1998). Testing an Ethical Decision-Making Theory: The Case of Softlifting. Journal of Management Information System. 15(1). 213-237.
54. Toker-Gokce, A. (2013a). University students’ perception of discrimination on campus in Turkey. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, (35)1, 72–84.
55. Toker-Gokce, A. (2013b). Ethical awareness and ethical orientation of Turkish teachers. Education, 134(1), 35-49. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1032946
56. Toker-Gokce, A. (2013c). Relationship between whistle-blowing and job satisfaction and organizational loyalty at schools in Turkey. Educational Research and Reviews. 8(14), 1186-1197.
57. Toker-Gokce, A. (2015). Relating teachers' whistleblowing tendency and personal features: Machiavellianism, religiosity, and utilitarianism. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 517-534. http://www.iier.org.au/iier25/toker-gokce.pdf
58. Toker-Gokce (2016). The effect of teachers’ spirituality and ethical ideology on their preference of reporting wrongdoings at schools. International Education Studies, 9(5), 85-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n5p85
59. Torres, M. B. (2001). Character and decision-making (Doctoral dissertation). IESE: University of Navarra. Retrieved from www.iese.edu/research/pdfs/T_103.pdf
60. Vitell, S.J., Nwachukwu, S.L., & Barnes, J. H. (1993). The effects of culture on ethical decision-making: An application of Hofstede's typology. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 753-760.
61. Woiceshyn, J. (2011). A model for ethical decision making in business: Reasoning, intuition, and rational moral principles. Journal Business Ethics, 104, 311–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0910-1
62. Zimmerman, A.Z. (2008). Mill’s utilitarianism. Retrieved from http://ethicsops.com/