Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375

Culture influence on educational public relations officers’

ethical judgments: A cross-national study
Mohammed A.S. El-Astal ∗
Department of Journalism, Gaza Islamic University, Palestine

Received 15 December 2004; received in revised form 15 December 2004; accepted 1 May 2005

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a questionnaire sent to 573 officers practicing public relations in higher education
institutions in eight countries–officers from different cultures. The officers were asked to state their opinions on
how ethical or unethical were the 25 hypothetical practices used in the study. Based on the findings, difference of
culture produced differences in the officers’ ethical judgments. The results of the study enhance the idea of cultural
relativism and this is seen as a challenge to globalizing public relations ethics.
© 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Culture; Influence; Education; Ethics; Judgment; Absolutism; Relativism

1. Introduction

For higher education public relations practitioners, globalization, competition and new technology
have presented new ethical challenges. Although all codes of ethics in public relations field call upon
practitioners to be ethical, the issue remains individual, voluntary and subjected to some considerations.
This study focuses mainly on culture as one of these considerations.
With this in mind, globalizing ethical standards seems one of the biggest challenges for public relations
ethics in general and educational public relations in particular, simply because concepts and practices of
public relations vary from country to country.

∗
Tel.: +971 6 5050689; fax: +971 6 5050688.
E-mail address: mokirat@sharjah.ac.ae.

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.05.019
 M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375 363

Consistently, Vazquez and Taylor (1999: pp. 433–449) say that the influence of culture reflects a grow-
ing concern for the belief that “a single theory is appropriate for all societies”. Approvingly, Sriramesh,
Kim, and Takasaki (in Taylor, 2000: pp. 277–293) argue that societal culture influences the practice of
public relations in every nation and region of the world, especially in ethical crises. Taylor, Ming-Yi
and Chen (2001: pp. 317–336) view organizations as structures that operate within specific social and
cultural environments and these cultural environments shape the organizational values, policies and
practices.

2. Literature review

The issue of global ethics is not always a question of a country’s values being right or wrong, or better
or worse than another’s. In principle, a universal code of ethics is possible given the definition that: “Ethics
are principles of conduct based on distinction between right and wrong”, says Sjöberg (1991: pp. 24–27).
But, he adds, it is not possible when we go from principle to practice because our day-to-day practice is
based somehow on our cultural heritage, local customs and circumstances. For example, taking one of the
general principles laid down in the Code of Venice adopted by International Public Relations Association
(IPRA) that a member has a duty of fair dealing towards his clients or employers, past or present.
Here, Sjöberg wonders whether or not the phrase “fair dealing” is understood in the same way in all
countries.
In such a cross-national study, the most suitable codes to refer to are IPRA Codes of Conduct: both
the code adopted by IPRA in Venice in 1961 and the Code of Athens in which IPRA members modified
Venice Code when they met in Athens in 1965. Considering that all public relations associations in the
member countries of the United Nations Organization have declared that they accept as their moral charter
both the Code of Venice and the Code of Athens.

2.1. Ethical absolutism versus relativism

Absolutism holds that all moral statements are absolute, whether they are broad general moral prin-
ciples or detailed moral codes of behavior containing absolute moral rules. This implies that ethics is
absolute/independent; not dependent or relative to any variable (Shomali, 2001: p. 26). In contrast to the
tenets of relativism, Husted, Dozier, McMahon and Kattan (1996) concludes that despite the dominance
of ethical relativism in international marketing ethics, a global moral order is emerging. According to
Husted et al. (1996), this emergence of a global moral order reflects a maturing consensus among differ-
ent cultures on evaluating moral judgments and attitudes regarding questionable international business
and marketing practices. Absolutists or universalists argue that there are constants in most fundamental
human values and there are basic concepts of good and evil that transcend cultural boundaries. Because of
these constants, they argue, there are no special ethical problems inherent in the interactions of different
peoples.
The opposite view to ethical absolutism is ethical relativism, says Unerman (in Shomali, 2001: p.
26). Starck and Kruckeberg (in Kruckeberg, 1996: pp. 181–189) say that one, intuitively, would posit
that different cultures and different social, political and economic systems would require different public
relations theories and practice with a corresponding need for different ethics. Sriramesh and White (in
Kruckeberg, 1996: pp. 181–189) after reviewing the literature of cultural anthropology and organizational
364 M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375

dynamics concluded that they are in a strong agreement with the advocates of the culture-specific approach
and contended that organizations are affected by culture. This linkage between public relations ethics on
one hand and religious, cultural, social, political and economic systems on the other hand clearly shows
the dependency of public relations ethics.

2.2. Cultural relativism

Culture in the study is treated as a synonym of nation. Hunt and Vitell’s 1986–1993-model proposes
that the problem is affected by four constructs; namely, cultural environment, industry environment,
organizational environment, and personal attributes. Showing the relationship between culture and ethics,
Barry (1986) says that culture influences ethics and the latter constitutes a part of the former. Each of us
has a set of morals that differs somewhat from anyone else’s. These individual morals spring from our
culture morals.
Williams (1992), explaining how morality in a society is relative to the society culture, says that people
who do business in the international market argue that the morality of paying a bribe to government
officials in a foreign country in order to do business there depends solely on whether or not the culture
in that country considers bribery immoral. Denig and Meiden (1985) view that what is ethical or moral
in a society might be a suspect if not unethical or immoral in another as long as cultures are not the
same in all societies. In some cultures, giving and receiving monetary gifts, even tangible gifts of some
value, is an accepted and legal practice in circumstances that would be interpreted in the United States
as bribery. A US public relations agency lost an account in London because its budget for entertaining
the media was too low, suggesting that the agency was not good at entertaining the press. Such practice
is frowned upon in America and specifically forbidden by the ethics codes of the Society of Professional
Journalists and the Public Relations Society of America (Roth, Hunt, Stavropoulos and Babik, 1996:
pp. 151–161).
Cultural relativists argue against a universal public relations code of ethics for two reasons: (1)
public relations cannot be defined, and (2) there are differences within the global community as
to what constitutes ethical behavior (Zupko, 2001: www.pr ethic.com, 22/3/2001). McElreath (in
Pratt & Cornelius, 1994: pp. 25–71) observes that relativism has two assumptions: (1) different
publics have different values and, consequently, different ethics; and (2) intuitive rules are based on
different social values that may very from society to another. Approvingly, Sarwono and Armstrong
(2001) found that perceived ethical problem scores were significantly different across the three
cultures: Australia, Malaysia and Singapore. Singhapakdi, Vitell and Leelakulthanit (1994) also
found that American marketers and Thai marketers are significantly different on all ethics variables
measured.
Interestingly, Reardon (1982: pp. 16–21) found when she studied how acceptable giving gifts is
in China, the Arab World, Japan, Latin America, Britain, France, and Germany that the business
executives interviewed were, regardless of their different cultures, in agreement that such practice
is acceptable but they differed on the value of the gift. For example, Japan was described as the
home of greatest gift-giving people in the world while Britain was found as one of the least gift-
giving people. Small gifts are more acceptable in Britain. On the contrary, gift giving is not to be
taken lightly in the Arab World and it looks bad if the giver presents the gift to the recipient in
private unless he knows him very well. They prefer gifts in presence of others and in less personal
relationships.
 M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375 365

3. Methodology

3.1. Research hypothesis

On the basis of the literature reviewed above, the following hypothesis was developed:

Hypothesis. Difference of culture does produce significant differences in the ethical judgments of higher
education institutions public relations officers.

3.2. Study design and sampling procedures

The population of this study consists of the public relations officers in higher education institutions
that have English web-sites in the United States, India, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Israel, Palestine and
the United Arab Emirates. The countries represented were selected purposively taking into consideration
culture difference. All institutions selected for the study were chosen from “Yahoo-higher education,
universities and colleges-by region”, after conducting a careful site-to-site web-search in October 2000.
A systematic random sample of 254 higher education institutions were drawn from a total of 2540
of the United States institutions which is 10% of the total number while all English web-sited higher
education institutions of the other countries were surveyed. They were as follows: India 139, China 50,
Malaysia 44, Thailand 37, Israel 21, Palestine 14 and the United Arab Emirates 14. Thus, 573 institutions
were surveyed in the eight countries represented.

3.3. Study instrument construction

The instrument of this survey is a three-part, closed and open-ended questionnaire. This instrument was
seen as the most appropriate method for collecting data from a geographically scattered population. The
first and second parts of the questionnaire were designed to gather data about the institutions, the public
relations officers’ personal attributes as well as their professional characteristics and responsibilities.
The third part of the questionnaire contained 25 hypothetical public relations practices. Officers were
asked to judge on the hypothetical public relations practices by ticking only one of the categories listed in
a 4-point scale—very ethical, ethical, unethical or very unethical. This Likert-type scale was seen suitable
to be used in this study. According to Oppenheim (1966), the reliability of Likert-type scale tends to be
good partly because of the greater range of answers permitted to respondents.
The hypothetical practices listed in the third part of the questionnaire relate to public relations ethical
standards such as, loyalty, public interest, accuracy, justice, and honesty and to paragraphs mentioned in the
International Public Relations Association Codes of Conduct, known as IPRA codes–the code adopted
in 1961, known as the Code of Venice and the one modified in 1965 in Athens. The 25 hypothetical
practices listed in the questionnaire were grouped into five clusters according to their relation to the
ethical guidelines of public relations as follows:
1. Practices related to giving gifts to media representatives—Items such as: “giving mementos or sou-
venirs of value, using institution money, to journalist before a press conference/or in an annual dinner
organized by the institution”; “giving small mementos or souvenirs, using institution money, to jour-
nalists in a press conference/or in an annual dinner organized by the institution”; and “buying a meal
366 M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375

or a drink, using institution money, for reporters you have invited to cover events related to the institu-
tion/or others came without invitation to seek information about the institution” relate to giving gifts to
media representatives. The Code of Venice states in its eighth paragraph that members shall not engage
in any practice which tends to corrupt the integrity of channels of public communication. Among the
practices prohibited by this paragraph are: (1) giving gifts of more than nominal value, and (2) any
form of payment or compensation to a member of a media in order to obtain preferential coverage.
2. Practices related to giving/accepting gifts from other publics—Items like: “visiting secondary schools
for promotion purposes, giving pens that carry institution’s name to students”; “visiting secondary
schools for promotion purpose, giving headmasters mementos or souvenirs of low value/or of value”;
and “accepting a gift of value/or a small souvenir or memento from a company that is interested in
carrying out projects under your control” relate to giving and accepting gifts from publics. The Code
of Venice states in its fifth paragraph that members, in performing services for clients, shall not accept
fees, commission or any other valuable consideration in connection with those services from any one
other than clients or without the express consent of clients or employers.
3. Practices related to loyalty and public interest—items such as: “abiding by a decision taken by the top
management of the institution that not to talk about issues concerning its policy”; “telling reporters,
confidential information about activities, done by the institution, that may have legal implications”;
“telling selected reporters confidential information about activities, done by the institution, that may
have legal implications/or information that may have illegal implications”; and “not to disclose infor-
mation about a major crime occurred in the institution to maintain its reputation” relate to loyalty
and public interest. Consistently, the Code of Athens states in its ninth paragraph that members shall
undertake to carry out their commitments and show loyalty and integrity, in all circumstances, so
as to keep the confidence of their clients and publics affected; and in its eighth paragraph, it states
that members shall undertake, in all circumstances, to take into account the interests of the publics
concerned.
4. Practices related to accuracy and justice—items like: “releasing information you are not sure of to
reporters because the information is to the advantage of the institution”; “telling the truth only when
it is to the institution’s advantage to maintain its reputation”; “reporting to media top management’s
views only when a dispute or disagreement occurs between the top management and staffs/or between
the top management and students”; and “sending invitations to journalists whom you know to cover
events organized by the institution” relate to accuracy and justice. Relatively, the Code of Athens
states in its eleventh paragraph that members shall refrain from circulating information which is not
based on established and ascertainable facts. On justice, the Code of Venice clearly states in its first
paragraph that members have a general duty of fair dealing towards all parties affected.
5. Practices related to honesty—items such as: “telling the public a lie on a matter of no real importance/a
matter of real importance to protect the reputation of the institution”; and “telling the public a lie on
a matter of no real importance/a matter of real importance to protect the reputation of an employee”
relate to honesty which was clearly mentioned in the twelfth paragraph of the Code of Athens. The
code asks members to refrain from taking part in any venture which is unethical or dishonest.

3.4. Data gathering and analysis

The questionnaire of this study was designed and installed at www.comn.usm.my/graduate/. The site’s
URL was sent to each participant at his/her e-mail address in an invitation letter. For the participants
 M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375 367

whose e-mail addresses were not accessible, invitation letters were sent to the web-masters or the info-
desks, requesting them to forward the letters to the right persons. From two to five follow-up letters, in six
months, were sent to the participants to remind them to complete the questionnaire and submit it online.
Due to the need for an acceptable response from some countries, invitation letters via mail as well as
e-mail were sent.
After receiving the responses, the data were carefully coded and entered into SPSS-program for Win-
dows software, version 10.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). For the purpose of data analysis
and hypothesis evaluation, several statistical tools and methods were utilized from the SPSS-program.
First, a reliability analysis was conducted to make sure of the consistency of the measurements. In order
to determine the tendency of educational public relations officers toward what is ethical or unethical, the
mean was seen as the most suitable measure of central tendency for interval and ratio data because these
data can be meaningfully added and divided (Furlong, Lovelace & Lovelace, 2000: p. 94). For testing the
hypothesis of the study, One-Way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) at the 0.05 level was seen suitable to
measure the variability between or among the group means or totals. From SPSS-program also, Fisher’s
least-significant difference (LSD) statistical method for balanced and unbalanced samples was utilized
to find out the difference among means.

4. Findings and discussions

Ninety-nine (17.27%) out of 573 educational public relations chief executive officers replied, com-
pleting the questionnaire sent for this study. The highest response received was from Palestine (64.28%).
The second and the third were the Emirates (42.85%) and Malaysia (34.9%) consecutively. The other
countries were respectively: Israel (28.57%), the USA (16.92%); Thailand (13.51%); China (8%); and
India (7.91%).
Respondents, as One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed, from the eight countries
represented in the study agreed on 12 (48%) of the 25 hypothetical practices and differed on 13 (52%). In
other words, the respondents’ different countries produced differences in their ethical judgments on: (1)
five (83.33%) of the six hypothetical practices that relate to giving gifts to media representatives while
there was no significant difference in their judgments on only one (16.66%) of the six practices; (2) two
(40%) of the five hypothetical practices that relate to giving/accepting gifts from other publics while
there were no significant differences in their judgments on the other 3 (60%) practices; (3) two (40%)
of the five hypothetical practices that relate to loyalty and public interest while there were no significant
differences in their judgments on the other three (60%) practices; (4) three (60%) of the five hypothetical
practices that relate to both accuracy and justice while there were no significant differences in their
judgments on the other two (40%) practices; and (5) only one (25%) of the four hypothetical practices that
relate to honesty while there were no significant differences in their judgments on the other three (75%)
practices.
Based on this, the study hypothesis was accepted. Culture does produce significant differences in the
ethical judgments of higher education institutions public relations officers.
The study showed that there was a strong relationship between the respondents’ cultures and their judg-
ments. For example, the Emirates’ respondents differed significantly with those, besides the Americans
and Malaysians, of Israel when they were asked about “giving mementoes or souvenirs of value, using
institution money, to journalists before a press conference organized by the institution.” ANOVA results
368 M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375

for the said item (30) showed a significance probability of 0.035. Interestingly, although “giving small
mementos or souvenirs, using institution money, to journalists in a press conference organized by the
institution” was prohibited by the eighth paragraph of the Code of Venice, it was perceived by the Emi-
rates’ respondents as an ethical practice which makes them differ significantly with Israel’s respondents.
ANOVA test for this item (32) showed a significance probability of 0.049.
Again, although “buying a meal or a drink, using institution money, for reporters who came without
invitation to seek information about the institution”; and “visiting secondary schools for promotion
purposes, giving pens that carry the institution’s name to students” items 35 and 36 were not prohibited
by the eighth paragraph of the Code of Venice, both were perceived by India’s respondents as unethical
practices which makes them differ significantly with those of the Emirates, Thailand, Malaysia, Israel,
Palestine and the United States in the first situation and those of Thailand, the United States, Malaysia
and Palestine in the second situation. ANOVA tests revealed a significance probability of 0.031 and 0.033
for both items consecutively. Relatively, Reardon (1982: pp. 16–21), studying how acceptable giving
gifts is in China, the Arab World, Japan, Latin America, Britain, France, and Germany found, regardless
of the practitioners different cultures, the practice acceptable but practitioners differed on the value of
the gift.
On loyalty, Thailand’s respondents perceived “telling reporters confidential information about activi-
ties, done by the institution, that may have legal implications” item 42 as an ethical practice which makes
them differ significantly with those of the Emirates, China, Malaysia, India, and the United States whose
judgments came consistent with the ninth paragraph of the Code of Athens. ANOVA test for this item
showed a significance probability of 0.013.
On public interest, the respondents of China and Palestine perceived “not to disclose information about
a major crime occurred in the institution to maintain its reputation” item 45 as an ethical practice which
makes them differ significantly with both of the United States and Israel. ANOVA test for the said item
showed a significance probability of 0.007.
Regarding accuracy practices, the United States’ respondents whose judgments came consistent with
the Code of Athens perceived “releasing information that officers are not sure of to reporters because the
information is to the advantage of the institution” item 46 as unethical practice which makes them differ
significantly with those of Thailand, India, the Emirates and Palestine. ANOVA test for the item mentioned
showed a significance probability of 0.019. Again, the United States’ respondents perceived “telling the

Table 1
Country, sample and response received
Country Sample size Response Percent
USA 254 43 16.92
India 139 11 7.91
China 50 4 8.0
Malaysia 44 15 34.9
Thailand 37 5 13.51
Israel 21 6 28.57
The UAE 14 6 42.85
Palestine 14 9 64.28
Total 573 99 17.28
Table 2.1
Countries of respondents, the means of their judgments on practices related to giving gifts to media representatives, and ANOVA results

M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375

Item no. The practice Country Grand mean ANOVA result

VE (4) E (3) UE (2) VUE (1) USA Malaysia India Palestine UAE Israel Thailand China
Item 30 “Giving mementos or souvenirs 1.72 1.87 2.09 2.00 2.50 1.50 2.20 2.00 1.88 F = 2.279 p = 0.035
of value to journalists before a
press conference”
Item 31 “Giving mementos or souvenirs 1.79 2.07 2.18 2.44 2.50 1.83 2.80 2.25 2.05 F = 2.911 p = 0.009
of value to journalists in an
annual dinner”
Item 32 “Giving small mementos or 2.07 2.53 2.55 2.22 3.00 2.00 2.40 2.50 2.30 F = 2.119 p = 0.049
souvenirs to journalists before a
press conference”
Item 33 “Giving small mementos or 2.31 2.60 2.63 2.22 3.00 2.33 2.80 3.00 2.47 F = 1.273 p = 0.273
souvenirs to journalists in an
annual dinner”
Item 34 “Buying a meal or drink, using 2.60 3.20 2.64 2.89 3.17 2.83 3.00 2.75 2.80 F = 2.170 p = 0.044
institution money, for reporters
you invited”
Item 35 “Buying a meal or drink, using 2.61 2.93 2.18 2.75 3.00 2.80 3.00 2.75 2.68 F = 2.338 p = 0.031
institution money, for reporters
you did not invite”

369
 370
Table 2.2

M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375

Countries of respondents, the means of their judgments on practices related to giving/accepting gifts from other publics, and ANOVA results
Item no. The practice Country Grand mean ANOVA result
VE (4) E (3) UE (2) VUE (1) USA Malaysia India Palestine UAE Israel Thailand China
Item 36 “Visiting secondary schools for 3.19 3.15 2.33 3.13 2.75 2.67 3.20 3.00 3.03 F = 2.316 p = 0.033
promotion purpose, giving pens
to students”.
Item 37 “Visiting schools, giving 2.98 2.80 2.44 2.67 3.67 2.60 2.40 3.25 2.85 F = 2.221 p = 0.040
headmasters/headmistresses
mementos of low value”.
Item 38 “Visiting schools, giving 2.12 1.87 2.10 2.25 2.75 1.60 2.20 2.00 2.09 F = 1.547 p = 0.163
headmasters/headmistresses
mementos of value”.
Item 39 “Accepting a gift of value from a 1.88 1.60 1.82 1.89 1.83 1.67 2.40 1.75 1.84 F = 976 p = 0.453
company interested to carry out
projects you control”.
Item 40 “Accepting a small souvenir 2.50 1.87 2.09 2.44 2.50 2.00 2.60 2.50 2.33 F = 1.572 p = 0.154
from a company interested to
carry out projects you control”.
Table 2.3

M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375

Countries of respondents, the means of their judgments on practices related to loyalty, public interest, and ANOVA results
Item no. The practice Country Grand mean ANOVA result

VE (4) E (3) UE (2) VUE (1) USA Malaysia India Palestine UAE Israel Thailand China
Item 41 “Abiding by an institutional 3.02 2.86 3.09 3.00 3.17 3.00 2.80 3.25 3.01 F = 576 p = 0.774
decision not to talk about issues
concerning its policy”.
Item 42 “Telling reporters confidential 1.60 1.71 1.64 2.33 1.80 2.17 2.80 1.75 1.80 F = 2.719 p = 0.013
information about legal activities
your institution done”.
Item 43 “Telling selected reporters 1.67 1.67 1.91 2.33 1.80 2.17 2.60 1.67 1.85 F = 2.020 p = 0.061
confidential information about
institutional legal activities”.
Item 44 “Providing information to 2.00 1.60 1.70 2.11 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.25 1.95 F = 923 p = 0.493
selected reporters about illegal
activities your institution done”
Item 45 “Not to disclose information 1.67 2.07 2.09 2.67 2.17 1.50 2.00 2.75 1.95 F = 3.039 p = 0.007
about a major crime to maintain
the institution reputation”

371
 372
Table 2.4
Countries of respondents, the means of their judgments on practices related to accuracy and justice, and ANOVA results

M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375

Item no. The practice Country Grand mean ANOVA result
VE (4) E (3) UE (2) VUE (1) USA Malaysia India Palestine UAE Israel Thailand China
Item 46 “Releasing information you are 1.58 1.87 2.18 2.11 2.17 1.67 2.40 1.75 1.83 F = 2.555 p = 0.019
not sure of because it is to the
institution advantage”
Item 47 “Telling the truth only when it is 1.76 2.73 3.00 2.78 2.60 2.00 2.80 2.67 2.29 F = 7.036 p = 0.000
to the institution advantage to
maintain its reputation”
Item 48 “Reporting to media top 2.17 2.25 2.45 2.44 2.00 2.60 2.00 2.25 2.24 F = 839 p = 0.558
management’s views only if a
dispute occurs between it and
staffs”
Item 49 “Reporting to media top 2.24 2.08 2.45 2.33 2.17 2.40 2.00 2.25 2.24 F = 0.503 p = 0.830
management’s views only if a
dispute occurs between it and
students”
Item 50 “Sending invitations only to 2.41 1.93 2.00 2.44 2.83 2.33 1.60 2.67 2.29 F = 2.488 p = 0.023
journalists whom you know to
cover institutional events”
 M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375
Table 2.5
Countries of respondents, the means of their judgments on practices related to honesty, and ANOVA results
Item no. The practice Country Grand mean ANOVA result
VE (4) E (3) UE (2) VUE (1) USA Malaysia India Palestine UAE Israel Thailand China
Item 51 “Telling the public a lie on a 1.69 1.71 1.44 2.11 2.00 2.00 1.60 2.00 1.76 F = 969 p = 0.459
matter of no real importance to
protect institution’s reputation”
Item 52 “Telling the public a lie on a 1.40 1.71 1.64 2.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 2.33 1.57 F = 1.962 p = 0.069
matter of real importance to
protect institution’s reputation”
Item 53 “Telling the public a lie on a 1.63 1.86 2.09 2.38 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.86 F = 1.275 p = 0.272
matter of no real importance to
protect employee’s reputation”
Item 54 “Telling the public a lie on a 1.52 1.79 2.27 2.33 1.83 2.00 1.80 2.00 1.80 F = 2.255 p = 0.037
matter of real importance to
protect employee’s reputation”

373
374 M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375

truth only when it is to the institution’s advantage to maintain its reputation” item 47 as unethical practice
which makes them differ significantly with those of India, Thailand, Palestine, Malaysia, China, and the
Emirates. ANOVA test for this item showed a significance probability of 0.000.
Finally, on honesty practices, although all respondents perceived “telling the public a lie on a matter of
real importance to protect the reputation of an employee in the institution” item 54 as unethical practice
which is consistent with the Code of Athens, the United States’ respondents differed significantly with
those of Palestine and India. ANOVA test for the said item revealed a significance probability of 0.037
(Table 1).
Besides the results obtained in this study, ethical judgments were found relative to culture in many
studies such as: Hunt and Vitell (1986) who identified that cultural environment affects the ethical decision
making process; Singhapakdi et al. (1994) who found that American marketers and Thai marketers were
significantly different on all ethics variables measured; and Armstrong (in Sarwono & Armstrong, 2001:
pp. 41–56) found that perceived ethical problem scores were significantly different across the three
cultures: Australia, Malaysia, and Singapore (Tables 2.1–2.5).

5. Conclusion

On the first hand, respondents’ ethical judgments on the 25 hypothetical practices of the study came,
to a large extent, consistent with IPRA Codes of Conduct. On the second hand, based on the significant
differences among officers, the study enhances the idea of ethical relativism made by relativists who argue
against a universal public relations code of ethics and this is seen as a challenge to globalizing public
relations ethics.

References

Barry, V. (1986). Moral Issues in business (3rd ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth, Inc.
Denig, E., & Meiden, A. (1985). A geography of public relations trends. Dordrecht: Martinus N. Publishers.
Furlong, N., Lovelace, E., & Lovelace, K. (2000). Research methods and statistics: an integrated approach. 6277 sea harbor
drive. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace and Company.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). The general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(3), 5–16.
Husted, B. W., Dozier, J. B., McMahon, J. T., & Kattan, M. W. (1996). The impact of cross-cultural carriers of business ethics
on attitudes about questionable practices and form of moral reasoning. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2),
391–411.
Kruckeberg, Dean. (1996). A global perspective on public relations ethics: the middle east. Public Relations Review, 22(2),
181–189.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York: Basic Books, Publishers.
Pratt, Cornelius B. (1994). Applying classical ethical theories to ethical decision making in public relations. Management
Communication Quarterly, 8(1), 70–95.
Reardon, K. K. (1982). International gift giving: why and how it is done. Public Relations Journal, 38(6), 16–20.
Roth, N. L., Hunt, T., Stavropoulos, M., & Babik, K. (1996). Can not we all just get along: cultural variables in codes of ethics.
Public Relations Review, 22(2), 151–161.
Sarwono, S. S., & Armstrong, R. W. (2001). Micro-cultural differences and perceived ethical problems: an international business
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(1), 41–56.
Shomali, A. Mohammed. (2001). Ethical relativism: an analysis of the foundations of morality. Willesden, London: IGAS.
 M.A.S. El-Astal / Public Relations Review 31 (2005) 362–375 375

Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Leelakulthanit, O. (1994). A cross-cultural study of moral philosophies, ethical perceptions and
judgments: a comparison of american and Thai marketers. International Marketing Review, 11(6), 65–78.
Sjöberg, G. E. (1991). Law and ethics of public relations. International Public Relations Review, 14(1), 24–27.
Taylor, Maureen. (2000). Cultural variance as a challenge to global public relations: a case study of the coca-cola scare in europe.
Public Relations Review, 26(3), 277–293.
Taylor, M., Ming-Yi, Wu, & Chen, Mong-Ju. (2001). Exploring societal and cultural influences on taiwanese public relations.
Public Relations Review, 27(3), 317–336.
Vazquez, G. M., & Taylor, Maureen. (1999). What cultural values influence american public relations practitioners? Public
Relations Review, 25(4), 433–449.
Williams, G. J. (1992). Ethics in modern management. quorum books. In One madison avenue. New York: Greenwood Publishing
Group, Inc.
Zupko Sarah, J. (2001). The current debate surrounding public relations ethics. www.pr-ethic.com.