Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 89:539–546
DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-0015-7
Impact of Emotional Intelligence
and Other Factors on Perception
of Ethical Behavior of Peers
ABSTRACT. This study investigates factors impacting
perceptions of ethical conduct of peers of 293 students in
four US universities. Self-reported ethical behavior and
recognition of emotions in others (a dimension of
emotional intelligence) impacted perception of ethical
behavior of peers. None of the other dimensions of
emotional intelligence were significant. Age, Race, Sex,
GPA, or type of major (business versus nonbusiness) did
not impact perception of ethical behavior of peers.
Implications of the results of the study for business schools
and industry professionals are discussed.
KEY WORDS: emotional intelligence, ethical behavior,
ethical conduct
Introduction
The popular media has paid considerable attention
to the illegal and abusive lending practices of the
financial-service industry and the subsequent
collapse of the subprime-mortgage market in the
United States (Sachdev, 2008). This mess has spiked
foreclosure rates, damaged the US real estate market,
and is expected to continue dampening the US
economy late into 2008. Other major business
scandals in the press last year include contaminated
pet food that resulted in the deaths of several cats and
dogs, recall of millions of toys that contained
excessive amounts of lead, and evidence that a for-
mer manager at Siemens bribed government officials
in Nigeria, Russia, and Libya. Unfortunately, ethical
problems and scandals are not likely to fade away
in the near future. In a recent national survey of
human resource professionals by the Society for
Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the
Ethics Resource Center (ERC), only 33% of the
Ó Springer 2008
Jacob Joseph
Kevin Berry
Satish P. Deshpande
respondents indicated that their firm had a com-
prehensive ethics and compliance program in place
(Ethics Resource Center, 2008a).
But ethical abuses are not limited to for-profit
organizations. Large non-profit organizations like the
Smithsonian Institute, United Way, and Red Cross
have been investigated for financial irregularities or
violation of ethics rules (Harned, 2008; Wulfson,
2001). The Olympics, often associated with high
ideals and true sportsmanship, have been tarred with
issues like alleged drug use by high-profile athletes
and alleged bribes paid to secure Olympic venues.
Even government employees report a high incidence
of ethical misconduct. More than half the respon-
dents of a recent survey of government employees
said that they had observed misconduct in the past
year (Ethics Resource Center, 2008b). In addition,
nearly one-third of the respondents said that the
government is not socially responsible.
It is not surprising that business schools have been
criticized for doing an inadequate job of teaching
students how to apply ethical principles and to
understand the social responsibility of firms
(Verschoor, 2003). In 2003, the board of directors
of The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business (AACSB International), a not-for-profit
organization devoted to the improvement and pro-
motion of higher education in accounting and
business administration, strengthened the focus on
ethics in their new accreditation standards. In addi-
tion, they established the Ethics Education Task Force
to examine how the crisis in business ethics can be
used to strengthen business curricula. The task force
in their 2004 report clearly identified a need for
business educators to focus more on ethical
responsibility of individuals and businesses.
540 Jacob Joseph et al.
While many business schools have responded to
their critics by strengthening the ethics component
in their curriculum, a big debate still exists among
educators as to how business ethics should be taught
(Lowry, 2003). AACSB International does not pre-
scribe a set of courses but requires schools to justify
how curriculum contents meet the mission of the
school and learning goals of each program. Unfor-
tunately, some business school faculty think teaching
business ethics is a waste of time. Reasons cited by
faculty include the belief that values are formed in
childhood and cannot be changed during their short
stay at universities and that employers do not really
care about ethics (Mathieson and Tyler, 2008).
Mathieson and Tyler (2008) examine these and
other objections raised by business faculty, and
present evidence to refute these negative perceptions
and support the need for a strong commitment to
ethics education.
Literature review
In the last few years, a number of studies have
examined factors impacting ethical behavior of stu-
dents. Lawson (2004) reported that students felt that
unethical behavior was the norm in the business
world. This study also found a strong relationship
between student’s propensity to cheat in an aca-
demic setting and attitude toward unethical behavior
in the business world. Deshpande and Joseph (2008)
in a study of counterproductive behavior of 217
students of a large northeastern public university
found that business majors were no different than
non-business majors when in came to unethical
behavior. On the other hand, Bernardi et al. (2004)
in a study of cheating behavior of 220 students from
three universities reported that business students
scored significantly lower on moral development
and moral reasoning scales that other majors. In
addition, they found that 66.4% of all students
reported that they cheated in high school, college, or
both high school and college. This is very disturbing
because previous research suggests that these students
are likely to continue their unethical behavior in a
professional work setting (Nonis and Swift, 2001;
Sims, 1993).
Previous reviews of studies done in business ethics
have strongly recommended the need for additional
investigation of ‘‘individual, situational, and issue-
related influences’’ of the ethical decision-making
process (O’Fallon and Butterfield, 2005, p. 399).
Emotional intelligence is a relatively new concept
and is being looked at by researchers across many
disciplines (Ng et al., 2007). Emotional intelligence
gained a lot of attention in the popular media after
the publication of Daniel Goleman’s book, Emotional
Intelligence, in 1995. Mesmer-Magnus et al. (2008) in
a study of 198 undergraduate students at a university
found that overall emotional intelligence (EI) as
measured by the 16 item Wong and Law EI scale
was significantly correlated with both ethical
behavior of peers and ethical behavior of self. They
cogitate that employees with high EI may be less
likely to interpret others’ unethical actions as justi-
fication for their own unethical behavior. Past
research has concluded that emotional intelligence
positively impacts job performance, leadership
effectiveness, and job satisfaction in a variety of jobs
(Cherniss et al., 2006). Van Rooy and Viswesvaran
(2004) in a meta-analysis found a correlation of 0.23
between EI and performance. The four-dimensional
definition of emotional intelligence proposed by
Davies et al. (1998) has been considered to be the
most comprehensive (Law et al., 2004). The four
dimensions are appraisal and expression of emotion
in oneself (SEA), appraisal and recognition of emo-
tion in others (OEA), regulation of emotions in
oneself (UOE), and the use of emotions to facilitate
performance (ROE). One of the objectives of this
paper is to examine the impact of various dimen-
sions/facets of EI on perception of ethical behavior
of peers.
Reviews of the ethical decision-making literature
have identified a number of studies over time that
have suggested an ever present influence of signifi-
cant others like coworkers or peers on ethical
decision making by individuals (Loe et al., 2000;
O’Fallon and Butterfield, 2005). Deshpande et al.
(2006) in a study of 203 hospital employees in
Midwestern and Northwestern United States found
that ethical behavior of peers had the most signifi-
cant impact on ethical behavior. These findings are
in line with Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
(Bandura, 1977) which suggests that referent others
have a significant impact on the behavior of indi-
viduals (O’Fallon and Butterfield, 2005). It is also
consistent with Differential Association Theory
 Impact of Emotional Intelligence and Other Factors on Perception of Ethical Behavior of Peers
which ‘‘assumes that ethical/unethical behavior is
learned in the process of interacting with persons
who are a part of intimate personal groups or role
sets’’ (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985, p. 90). More
recently, Kidwell and Valentine (2008) in a study of
military reserve personnel found a negative rela-
tionship between perceptions of positive workgroup
context and withholding efforts or neglecting job
duties by employees.
While past research has used perception of ethical
behavior of peers as an independent variable, current
research suggests that a measure of ethical behavior of
peers is a more valid measure of ethical misconduct
than a self-reported measure of ethical behavior.
According to Vardi (2001, p. 319), this measure
‘‘minimizes the potential perceived threat, as well as
social desirability’’ associated with measures asking
subjects their own misconduct. Studies done by the
Ethics Resource Center in 2003 and 2005 have also
used misconduct by others as the dependent variable.
More recently, Andreoli and Lefkowitz (2008) also
make a strong case for using ethical behavior of
coworkers instead of measures self-reported mis-
conduct. They suggest that self-report assessment of
misconduct suffer from ‘‘fake good’’ bias. One of the
arguments they make is that people often attribute
their repressed thoughts and behavior to others or
project their misconduct on others. This theory is
based on the defensive mechanism of psychological
projection or projection bias. We will use ethical
behavior of peers as the dependent variable in our
study. In addition, we will also examine if self-
reported ethical behavior has an impact on perception of
ethical behavior of peers. A review of ABI-INFORM
and current literature reviews of the ethical decision-
making literature did not identify any other study
that has examined the impact of self-reported ethical
behavior and various individual level variables on the
perception of ethical behavior of peers. The variables
we will examine in our study are self-reported ethical
behavior of individual, level of emotional intelli-
gence, GPA, color, sex, major in college. We will
also test for overclaiming by subjects.
The study
The sample for this study came from four universi-
ties in the Midwestern and Northwestern United
541
States. The survey used to collect data for this study
was handed out in late 2007 and early 2008 in var-
ious classes on the participating campuses. There
were no incentives given to the students to partici-
pate in the study. Two hundred and ninety-three
surveys were deemed useable giving us a response
rate of 85%. This was not unexpected given that the
surveys were handed and collected during class to
ensure a high response rate. Table I indicates that
62% of the respondents were females. The average
age of a respondent was 22 years. The grade point
average of an average respondent was 3.28. Of the
respondents, 27.6% were accounting majors. Also
82.3% of the students were white.
The student survey covered measures of ethical
behavior of peers, ethical behavior of self, emotional
intelligence, and demographic measures. It also
included a number of variables not included in this
study. Ethical behavior of peers was measured using
12 items (e.g., students make personal calls at work).
These items were based on previous business ethics
research (Jackson, 2001; Viswesvaran et al., 2000).
Ethical behavior of self was measured using 12
similar items (e.g., I make personal calls at work).
These items, as presented in the Appendix, were
rated on a four-point Likert scale (4 = very fre-
quently, 1 = very infrequently). The Cronbach’s
alpha for ethical behavior of peers and self was 0.87
and 0.73, respectively.
The Wong and Law EI Scale (WLEIS) was used
to measure four dimensions of emotional intelli-
gence (Law et al., 2004). Self-emotions appraisal
(SEA) was measured using the following items:
I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings
most of the time, I have good understanding of my
own emotions, I really understand what I feel, and
TABLE I
Demographic variables
Item N Mean SD
Age 287 22.29 3.88
Male 293 0.33 0.51
White 293 0.82 0.38
Accounting 292 0.28 0.45
GPA 279 3.30 1.66
542 Jacob Joseph et al.

I always know whether or not I am happy. Others-
emotions appraisal (OEA) was measured using the
following items: I always know my friends’ emotions
from their behavior, I am a good observer of others’
emotions, I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions
of others, and I have good understanding of the
emotions of people around me. Use of emotions
(UOE) was measured using the following items:
I always set goals for myself and then try my best to
achieve them, I always tell myself I am a competent
person, I am a self-motivating person, and I would
always encourage myself to try my best. Regulation of
emotions (ROE) was measured using the following
items: I am able to control my temper so that I can
handle difficulties rationally, I am quite capable of
controlling my own emotions, I can always calm
down quickly when I am very angry, and I have good
control of my own emotions. This scale was recently
used by Deshpande and Joseph (2008) to examine
tendency of nurses to engage in unethical behavior.
Cronbach’s alpha for SEA, OEA, UOE, and ROE
was 0.80, 0.80, 0.80, and 0.85, respectively.
Overclaiming scales were used to control for
social desirability bias in our survey. The procedure
to detect overclaimers in this study was initially
proposed by Randall and Fernandes (1991).
Respondents were asked to rate their degree of
familiarity with different categories like movies,
products, TV shows, and designer labels on a three-
point Likert scale (3 = very familiar, 1 = not at all
familiar). All these items were nonexistent. These
fake items are presented in the Appendix. Over-
claiming score were arrived at by adding up score of
fake items and dividing by the number of items.
High scoring respondents claimed that they were
aware of nonexistent items. Cronbach’s alpha for this
scale was 0.78. Respondents were also asked to
provide their age, race, sex, GPA, and college major.
Results
Table II indicates that self-reported ethical behavior,
OEA, age, and Business major were significantly
correlated with ethical behavior of peers (EBP).
While overclaiming was not significantly correlated
with EBP, it was significantly correlated with ethical
behavior of self. We also observed a number of sig-
nificant correlations between other predictors of
EBP. Thus, it would be hasty and premature to
draw conclusions on the impact of various inde-
pendent variables as the intercorrelations can impact

TABLE II
Correlations among the variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Ethical beh 1.00

of peers
2 Ethical beh 0.29** 1.00
of self
3 SEA -0.04 0.02 1.00
4 OEA -0.31** -0.13* 0.36** 1.00
5 UOE -0.11 0.04 0.29** 0.27** 1.00
6 ROE 0.05 0.13* 0.35** 0.06 0.30** 1.00
7 Age 0.13* 0.20** -0.06 -0.20** -0.03 -0.16** 1.00
8 White -0.01 -0.03 0.04 -0.01 0.01 -0.07 0.03 1.00
9 Male 0.09 -0.16** -0.01 -0.25** -0.11 -0.01 0.08 0.07 1.00
10 GPA -0.05 0.01 -0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03 -0.03 -0.12 -0.06 1.00
11 Business major 0.12* 0.03 -0.04 -0.23** -0.07 -0.08 0.23** -0.06 0.20** 0.05 1.00
12 Overclaiming -0.05 -0.21** 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.00 -0.06 -0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.04 1.00

*p < 0.05 (two-tailed), **p < 0.01 (2-tailed).

Listwise n = 276.
 Impact of Emotional Intelligence and Other Factors on Perception of Ethical Behavior of Peers 543

TABLE III important that students learn about repercussions of

Regression analysis for ethical behavior of peers
Independent variables b disciplines, business schools have specially come
Ethical behavior of self 0.29*
Self Emotions Appraisal (SEA) 0.04
Others Emotions Appraisal (OEA) -0.25*
Use of Emotions (UOE) -0.05
Regulation of Emotions (ROE) 0.06
Age 0.02
White 0.00
Male 0.04
GPA -0.04
Business 0.05
Overclaiming 0.02
N 276
R-square 0.19
F 5.57*
*p < 0.01, **p < 0.05.
significance of the relationships of interest. Correlations
also have another limitation. They give us an estimate
of the association among the variables, but they do not
tell us if a variable is dependent upon the others.
Regression analysis allows us to examine the
dependence of a variable on various explanatory
variables. Therefore, regression analysis will allow us
to draw more valid conclusions. The most widely
used method of estimation for the regression model,
ordinary least squares (OLS), was used in our study.
Regression analysis presented in Table III provides a
stronger test of the variables investigated in our
study. Regression analysis indicated that among the
independent variables only ethical behavior of self
and OEA significantly influenced EBP.
Implications and conclusions
Both business schools and industry professionals can
benefit from the results of this study. Previous re-
search has indicated that on an average, students
have weaker ethical values than working profes-
sionals (Cole and Smith, 1996). While there could
be a number of reasons for this conclusion (e.g.,
more liberal viewpoints of what is unethical or less
experience in dealing with unethical behaviors), it is
their unethical actions and change their behavior
before entering the workplace. Among various
under a lot of criticism for creating an environment
that has produced graduates that are unethical.
Business school faculty have also been accused of
making unreasonable assumptions like student’s
values are rigid and fixed by the time they reach
business school and faculty have an insignificant role
in teaching values (Mitroff, 2004). In our study,
business school students perceived ethical behavior
of their peers no differently than nonbusiness stu-
dents. Klein et al. (2007) in their study on cheating
found no significant difference among cheating by
business and professional students. But they also re-
port that business students tend to be more lax in
their definition of cheating compared to other stu-
dents. Borkowski and Ugras (1998) in a meta-analysis
of 47 studies also did not find a significant effect of
academic major on ethical attitudes/behavior. Our
results support the view that unethical student
behavior is a global phenomenon and not a domain of
business students alone.
Previous reviews of studies done in business ethics
have strongly recommended the need for additional
investigation of ‘‘individual, situational, and issue-
related influences’’ of the ethical decision-making
process (O’Fallon and Butterfield, 2005, p. 399).
The concept of emotional intelligence is relatively
new and is being looked at by researchers in a wide
range of disciplines (Ng et al., 2007). This investi-
gation opens up a new line of research by looking at
the impact of dimensions of emotional intelligence
on perception of ethical behavior of peers. Students
with greater ability to perceive and understand
emotions of others (OEA) or empathy were signif-
icantly more likely to be aware of unethical behavior
of peers. But other dimensions of emotional intel-
ligence – a student’s ability to be aware of their own
mood and thought (SEA), regulate their emotions
(UOE), or facilitate performance (ROE) – had no
significant impact on perception of ethical behavior
of peers. This could be due to high intercorrelations
among the various dimensions of emotional intelli-
gence as seen in Table II. Daniel Goleman (2006) in
his latest book Social Intelligence makes a strong case
on the importance of social awareness for success in
life and examines ways in which these skills can be
544 Jacob Joseph et al.
nurtured and developed. Research needs to be done
on the best way to enhance empathy and social
awareness skills among students and employees.
Those who reported higher levels of ethical
behavior of self were significantly more likely to
report higher levels of ethical behavior of peers too.
This suggests that perceptions of ethical behavior of
peer is a reflection of individual’s ethical behavior.
Previous research using regression analysis has found
that ethical behavior of peers significantly impacts
ethical behavior of self (Deshpande and Joseph, 2008).
This raises an interesting topic of investigation for
future researchers. What is the directional relationship
between the two variables? Andreoli and Lefkowitz
(2008) examine this issue and conclude that there
exists no appropriate basis to anticipate directionality.
In their study they combined the two variables into
one variable since the correlation between the two
variables in their study was high (0.43) and the reli-
ability of their measure of observed misconduct of
others was low (0.43). But the correlation between
the two variables in our study was not as high as in
theirs (0.29) and both the variables had high reliabil-
ities in our study (peers = 0.87, self = 0.73). Future
researchers can further examine if it makes sense to
combining these two variables into a single measure of
ethical behavior.
But it should be noted that unlike ethical
behavior of peers, ethical behavior of self is sig-
nificantly correlated with overclaiming. This sug-
gests that in spite of the facts that there was no way
of tracking down responses of specific respondents,
subjects still inflated their responses on their own
ethical behavior. This raises questions about validity
of studies that have used self-reported ethical
behavior and not controlled for overclaiming. Future
business ethics research must control for social
desirability bias.
This study was limited to four universities in the
US. In an analysis not shown in the paper, the type
of university (private versus public) or location did
not impact the significance of the results of this
study. Future research can examine if the nature of
the university (religious versus secular) or the type
of business major (HR versus Finance) impacts the
results. Future research can use a longitudinal
design to examine if values of the students change
once they leave the university and enter the
workforce.
Appendix
Items used to measure various constructs
Ethical behavior of peers
a. Students make personal calls at work.
b. Students surf the web at work.
c. Students take office supplies home.
d. Students share music on the internet.
e. Students download term papers off the internet.
f. Students give friends an extra discount at a
store or free food at a café/restaurant.
g. Students sometimes help themselves to food
if working at a fast food joint.
h. Students do homework for friends.
i. Students have used fake ID to purchase
alcohol.
j. Students have used fake ID to get into a bar.
k. Students have cheated on an exam.
l. In order to get ahead in life, students
believe that one has to compromise on ethi-
cal standards.
Ethical behavior of self
a. I’d make personal calls at work.
b. I’d surf the web at work.
c. I’d take office supplies home.
d. I’d share music on the internet.
e. I download term papers off the internet.
f. I’d give a friend an extra discount at a store
or free food at a café/restaurant.
g. I’d sometimes help myself to food if I
worked at a fast food joint.
h. I’d do homework for my close friends.
i. I’ve used fake ID to purchase alcohol.
j. I’ve used fake ID to get into a bar.
k. I’ve cheated on an exam.
l. In order to get ahead in your future career
you will have to compromise your ethical
standards.
Overclaiming scales
a. How familiar are you with each of the fol-
lowing movies?
Turned to Gold
Katherine’s Mistake
 Impact of Emotional Intelligence and Other Factors on Perception of Ethical Behavior of Peers
b. How familiar are you with each of the fol-
lowing products?
Microsoft Statistical Assistant
New Life Spices
c. How familiar are you with the following
albums?
Cosmic Being
Offender After Dark
d. How familiar are you with each of the fol-
lowing TV programs?
The Adventure of Johnnie
Chicago Heat
e. How familiar are you with each of the fol-
lowing designer labels?
Ocean City
Jones, L.A.
References
Andreoli, N. and J. Lefkowitz: 2008, ‘Individual and
Organizational Antecedents of Misconduct in Orga-
nizations’, Journal of Business Ethics, Retrieved on
June 23rd, 2008 through http://www.springerlink.com/
content/e1u286241t084402/.
Bandura, A.: 1977, Social Learning Theory (Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Bernardi, R. A., R. L. Metzger, R. G. Scofield Bruno,
M. A. Wade Hoogkamp, L. E. Reyes and G. H.
Barnaby: 2004, ‘Examining the Decision Process of
Students’ Cheating Behavior: An Empirical Study’,
Journal of Business Ethics 50(4), 397–414. doi:10.1023/
B:BUSI.0000025039.47788.c2.
Borkowski, S. C. and Y. J. Ugras: 1998, ‘Business Stu-
dents and Ethics: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Business
Ethics 17(11), 1117–1127. doi:10.1023/A:10057487
25174.
Cherniss, C., M. Extein, D. Goleman and R. Weissberg:
2006, ‘Emotional Intelligence: What Does the
Research Really Indicate?’, Educational Psychologist
41(4), 239–245. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4104_4.
Cole, B. and D. Smith: 1996, ‘Perception of Business
Ethics: Students Versus Business People’, Journal of
Business Ethics 15, 889–896. doi:10.1007/BF00381856.
545
Davies, M., L. Stankov and R. D. Roberts: 1998,
‘Emotional Intelligence: In Search of an Exclusive
Construct’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
75, 989–1015. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.989.
Deshpande, S. P. and J. Joseph: 2008, ‘The Impact of
Ethical Values and Perceptions of Ethical Conduct on
Counterproductive Behavior of Future Managers’,
Advances in Competitiveness Research (in press).
Deshpande, S. P., J. Joseph and R. Prasad: 2006, ‘Factors
Impacting Ethical Behavior in Hospitals’, Journal of
Business Ethics 69, 207–216. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-
9086-5.
Ethics Resource Center: 2008a, ‘Performance Reviews
Often Skip Ethics, HR Professionals Say’, Retrieved
on June 23rd, 2008 through http://ethics.org/about-
erc/press-releases.asp.
Ethics Resource Center: 2008b, ‘Governments at All
Levels Show High Rates of Misconduct; ‘‘Next
Enron’’ Could Be in Public Sector’, Retrieved June 23rd,
2008 through http://www.ethics.org/about-erc/press-
releases.asp.
Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, ‘A Contingency
Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision
Making in Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 49(Sum-
mer), 87–96. doi:10.2307/1251618.
Goleman, D.: 2006, Social Intelligence (Bantam Books,
New York).
Harned, P. J.: 2008, ‘Your Online Resource for a Broad
Range of Organizational Ethics and Character
Development Issues’, Retrieved June 23rd, 2008
through http://www.ethics.org/ethics-today/0408/
pat-column.asp.
Jackson, T.: 2001, ‘Cultural Values and Management
Ethics: A 10-Nation Study’, Human Relations 54,
1267–1302.
Kidwell, R. E. and S. R. Valentine: 2008, ‘Positive
Group Context, Work Attitudes, and Organizational
Misbehavior: The Case of Withholding Job Effort’,
Journal of Business Ethics. Published Online 4 June,
2008.
Klein, H. A., N. M. Levengurg, M. McKendall and W.
Mothersell: 2007, ‘Cheating During the College
Years: How Do Business School Students Compare?’,
Journal of Business Ethics 72, 197–206. doi:10.1007/
s10551-006-9165-7.
Law, K., C. Wong and L. Song: 2004, ‘The Construct
and Criterion Validity of Emotional Intelligence and
Its Potential Utility for Management Studies’,
The Journal of Applied Psychology 89(3), 483–496.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.483.
Lawson, R. A.: 2004, ‘Is Classroom Cheating Related to
Business Students’ Propensity to Cheat in the ‘‘Real
546 Jacob Joseph et al.
World’’?’, Journal of Business Ethics 49, 189–199.
doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000015784.34148.cb.
Loe, T., L. Ferrell and P. Mansfield: 2000, ‘A Review of
Empirical Studies Assessing Ethical Decision Making
in Business’, Journal of Business Ethics 25, 185–204.
doi:10.1023/A:1006083612239.
Lowry, D.: 2003, ‘An Investigation of Student Moral
Awareness and Associated Factors in Two Cohorts of
an Undergraduate Business Degree in a British Uni-
versity: Implications for Business Ethics Curriculum
Design’, Journal of Business Ethics 48, 7–19. doi:
10.1023/B:BUSI.0000004383.81450.96.
Mathieson, K. and C. Tyler: 2008, ‘‘‘We Don’t Need No
Stinking Ethics’’: The Struggle Continues’, Journal of
College & Character 9(4), 1–12.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., C. Viswesvaran, J. Joseph and S. S.
Deshpande: 2008, ‘The Role of Emotional Intelli-
gence in Integrity and Ethics Perceptions’, in W.
Zerbe, N. Ashkansky and C. Hartel (eds.), Research on
Emotions in Organizations: Emotions, Ethics, and Deci-
sion-Making, Vol. 4 (Quorum Books/Greenwood
Publishing Group, Westport, CT).
Mitroff, I. I.: 2004, ‘An Open Letter to the Deans and
Faculties of American Business Schools’, Journal of
Business Ethics 54(7), 185–189.
Ng, K., C. Wang, C. Zalaquett and N. Bodenhorn: 2007,
‘A confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Wong and Law
Emotional Intelligence Scale in a Sample of Interna-
tional College Students’, International Journal for the
Advancement of Counseling, 173–185. doi:10.1007/
s10447-007-9037-6.
Nonis, S. and C. O. Swift: 2001, ‘An Examination of the
Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and
Workplace Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation’,
Journal of Education for Business, 69–76.
O’Fallon, M. J. and K. D. Butterfield: 2005, ‘A Review
of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature:
1996–2003’, Journal of Business Ethics 59, 375–413.
doi:10.1007/s10551-005-2929-7.
Randall, D. M. and M. F. Fernandes: 1991, ‘The Social
Desirability Response Bias in Ethics Research’, Journal
of Business Ethics 10, 805–817. doi:10.1007/BF0038
3696.
Sachdev, A.: 2008, ‘Mortgage Mess Becomes Prime
Territory for Law Firms’, Retrieved on May 28, 2008
through www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tue-
law-notebookmar11,1,968395.story.
Sims, R. L.: 1993, ‘The Relationship Between Academic
Dishonesty and Unethical Business Practices’, Journal of
Education for Business 68(4), 207–212.
Van Rooy, D. and C. Viswesvaran: 2004, ‘Emotional
Intelligence: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Pre-
dictive Validity and Nomological Net’, Journal of
Vocational Behavior 65, 71–95. doi:10.1016/S0001-
8791(03)00076-9.
Vardi, Y.: 2001, ‘The Effects of Organizational and
Ethical Climates on Misconduct at Work’, Journal of
Business Ethics 29, 325–337. doi:10.1023/A:1010710
022834.
Verschoor, C. C.: 2003, ‘Is Ethics Education of Future
Business Leaders Adequate?’, Strategic Finance 85,
20–21.
Viswesvaran, C., S. P. Deshpande and J. Joseph: 2000,
‘Are Ethical Perceptions of Various Practices Affected
by Workplace Dependencies?’, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 30, 2050–2057. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.
2000.tb02423.x.
Wulfson, M.: 2001, ‘The Ethics of Corporate Social
Responsibility and Philanthropic Ventures’, Journal of
Business Ethics 29, 135–145. doi:10.1023/A:1006459
329221.
Jacob Joseph and Kevin Berry
School of Management,
University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks, AK 99775-6080, U.S.A.
E-mail: ffjj@uaf.edu;
ffktb@uaf.edu
Satish P. Deshpande
Western Michigan University,
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5314, U.S.A.
E-mail: satish.deshpande@wmich.edu