Associations between Hofstede’s Cultural Constructs and Social Desirability Response Bias
Journal of Business Ethics 65 (1):43 - 53 (2006)
Abstract
This paper examines the associations among social desirability response bias, cultural constructs and gender. The study includes the responses of 1537 students from 12 countries including Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Nepal, South Africa, Spain, and the United States. The results of the analysis indicate that, on average, social desirability response bias decreases (increases) as a country’s Individualism (Uncertainty Avoidance) increases. The analysis also indicates that women scored significantly higher on Paulhus’ Image Management Subscale on an overall basis and for seven of the 12 country comparisons. This research serves as a caution when considering the research findings of prior international survey-based ethics research that do not include a direct measure of social desirability response bias. For example, the finding that women score higher on Paulhus’ measure of social desirability response bias calls into question prior research that does not control for social desirability response bias indicating women are more ethically sensitive than men.DOI
10.1007/s10551-005-5353-0
My notes
Similar books and articles
A comparative analysis of ethical beliefs: A four country study. [REVIEW]Mee-Kau Nyaw & Ignace Ng - 1994 - Journal of Business Ethics 13 (7):543 - 555.
Exploring social desirability bias.Janne Chung & Gary S. Monroe - 2003 - Journal of Business Ethics 44 (4):291 - 302.
Gender Differences in Ethics Research: The Importance of Controlling for the Social Desirability Response Bias. [REVIEW]Derek Dalton & Marc Ortegren - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 103 (1):73-93.
The social desirability response bias in ethics research.Donna M. Randall & Maria F. Fernandes - 1991 - Journal of Business Ethics 10 (11):805 - 817.
Does Education Influence Ethical Decisions? An International Study.Richard A. Bernardi, Caryn L. Lecca, Jennifer C. Murphy & Elizabeth M. Sturgis - 2011 - Journal of Academic Ethics 9 (3):235-256.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
34 (#345,695)
6 months
1 (#450,425)
2009-01-28
Downloads
34 (#345,695)
6 months
1 (#450,425)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Gender Differences in Ethics Research: The Importance of Controlling for the Social Desirability Response Bias. [REVIEW]Derek Dalton & Marc Ortegren - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 103 (1):73-93.
How Important Are CEOs to CSR Practices? An Analysis of the Mediating Effect of the Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility.José-Luis Godos-Díez, Roberto Fernández-Gago & Almudena Martínez-Campillo - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 98 (4):531-548.
Effects of Nationality, Gender, and Religiosity on Business-Related Ethicality.Robert A. Peterson, Gerald Albaum, Dwight Merunka, Jose Luis Munuera & Scott M. Smith - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 96 (4):573-587.
Machiavellianism, Moral Orientation, Social Desirability Response Bias, and Anti-intellectualism: A Profile of Canadian Accountants.Anis Triki, Gail Lynn Cook & Darlene Bay - 2017 - Journal of Business Ethics 144 (3):623-635.
Social Desirability Response Bias, Gender, and Factors Influencing Organizational Commitment: An International Study.Richard A. Bernardi & Steven T. Guptill - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 81 (4):797-809.
References found in this work
The social desirability response bias in ethics research.Donna M. Randall & Maria F. Fernandes - 1991 - Journal of Business Ethics 10 (11):805 - 817.
Methodology in business ethics research: A review and critical assessment. [REVIEW]D. M. Randall & A. M. Gibson - 1990 - Journal of Business Ethics 9 (6):457 - 471.
Concerns of college students regarding business ethics.Richard F. Beltramini, Robert A. Peterson & George Kozmetsky - 1984 - Journal of Business Ethics 3 (3):195 - 200.
The importance of gender across cultures in ethical decision-making.Maria L. Roxas & Jane Y. Stoneback - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 50 (2):149-165.