Fluent Essays

Analyze the article separately and correlate it to your personal ethics assessment results. You are encouraged to share some specific examples of your assessment results to support your opinion. However, if you would like to keep your results private, you can speak to your results in general terms. Write a 1-2 page summary on your analysis of the article to your assessment results and how you believe this content has increased your ethical self-awareness. Please discuss these points from: alternatives, analysis, application, and action. Article and personal discussion information attached. W3 Discussion Making Decisions How would you handle a situation that teetered on the edge of unethical but was not against company policy? For example, there is no clear rule in your employee handbook forbidding romantic relationships. However, the receptionist, Alyssa, has begun dating a salesperson, Connor. The receptionist will occasionally receive cold calls from potential clients. There is an assumption on the sales team that Connor may be getting routed these cold calls due to his relationship with Alyssa. This week’s reading had me interested and opened my eyes to learning even more regarding ethics. The discussion this week brings about great questions in the situation about ethical decision-making. There is nothing like being clear and concise to employees in an organization. An organization must be clear if it matters when there is a possibility that employees could become romantically involved. Myself coming from the military side, there are rules in place for certain ranks regarding relationships. It is against the rules for a lower enlisted to date an officer or supervisor. A married couple can not have a spouse as a supervisor or be in their evaluation chain. It is not clear if not having a written policy affects how employees work and relate to each other. However, having a policy in place sets boundaries and rules for employees. If there is not any specific information in the employee handbook which states that dating co-workers are not allowed, then I would not investigate that part of the relationship aspect. However, when it comes to the receptionist using her position to promote or give advantage to her boyfriend just because they are dating, then I believe that is wrong. Speaking with the couple first, rather than going to any other higher office, such as the Human Resources Offices or manager, would be my first decision. There are only rumors and no proven fact given that she is routing the cold calls to him. It would be a huge mistake to assume that it is happening and reporting it, causing more trouble in the office and the individuals involved. I have friends that work as a car salesperson, and I have been told that their business has a plan in place as to how the cold calls are routed. There is a list posted, and when a call comes in it is routed to the next salesperson in line for the call. The call is documented next to the salesperson's name for verification. With this being said, we know that every business or organization runs differently. The little blurb for or discussion does not go that deep into detail to know. In the end, there is a thought of caution I would have to have when it comes to fighting unethical situations that could have no positive change. We have to pick and choose our ethical battles. Group Ethical Decision Making Process in Chinese Business: Analysis From Social Decision Scheme and Cultural Perspectives Jianfeng Yang Research Center of Cluster and Enterprise Development Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics Hao Ji School of Management Zhejiang University Conor O’Leary Griffith Business School Griffith University Literature concerning group ethical decision making in a business setting has traditionally focused on directly comparing group versus individual decisions and then investigating differences. Analysis of the interactive process of group ethical decision making appears sparse. This study addresses the gap by investigating group decision making from a social decision scheme (SDS) perspective in a Chinese cultural setting. A cohort of Chinese accountancy students evaluated ethical business scenarios individually and then in a group context. Group responses could be explained in terms of both the SDS and the Chinese cultural perspective (zhongyong). Specifically, groups did not select the most ethical choice but rather the most moderate of all choices advocated by the majority (zhongyong). These results show the application of SDS theory in a culturally specific (Chinese) environment and note the impact of culturally specific factors (zhongyong) on business decision making. The implications are significant for business. If ethical decisions are entrusted to groups, the impact of culturally specific factors must be fully appreciated in evaluating the final decision. Keywords: group ethical decision making, social decision scheme, culture, zhongyong INTRODUCTION Because of the complex nature of business decisions, groups are often perceived as a better way with which to arrive at the optimum decision, rather than entrusting the decision to an individual Correspondence should be addressed to Jianfeng Yang, Research Center of Cluster and Enterprise Development, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nachang Province, Jiangxi, China. E-mail: [email protected] ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 27(3), 201–220 Copyright © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 online DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2016.1157690 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9851-7523 mailto:[email protected] (Nichols & Day, 1982). Therefore, business decisions are usually made by groups rather than individuals in organizations (Abdolmohammadi, Gabhart, & Reeves, 1997; Sarker, Sarker, Chatterjee, & Valacich, 2010). Business decisions often involve moral components and as such can be seen as ethical decisions (Jones, 1991). Hence the process of group ethical business decision making appears critical and in need of significant research (Treviño, Nieuwenboer, & Kish-Gephart, 2014). Business ethics has been examined intensively on an individual level (e.g., DeGrassi, Morgan, Walker, Wang, & Sabat, 2012; Pearsall & Ellis, 2011; Stenmark, 2013). However, there are only a few empirical studies that have examined the outcomes and antecedents of group ethical decision making (GEDM; e.g., Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; O’Leary & Pangemanan, 2007; Sarker et al., 2010). Studies such as O’Leary and Pangemanan (2007) found that a group ethical decision is not significant stricter than the average of individuals’ ethical decisions. Conversely, other studies showed that group ethical decisions are stricter than the average of individuals’ ethical decisions (Abdolmohammadi et al., 1997; Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; Nichols & Day, 1982). They were still found to be less ethical than the decision of the most ethical group member (Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; Nichols & Day, 1982). Some other studies showed that factors such as group diversity (DeGrassi et al., 2012), leader- ship (Schminke, Wells, Peyrefitte, & Sebora, 2002), and moral microcosms (Brief, Buttram, & Dukerich, 2001) can impact GEDM significantly. Although those studies have supplied much important knowledge on the outcomes and antecedents of GEDM, they have two imperative shortcomings. The first is that they cannot help us understand the exact process of GEDM (Treviño et al., 2014). This could help us understand both why a consistent positive group effect on ethical decisions has not been noted and how those antecedents impact on the outcomes of GEDM. Second, previous studies are implemented in America, the United Kingdom, and Australia. No empirical study on GEDM has been conducted in China, where the culture is much different from those three countries (Hofstede, 2003). Previous studies have demonstrated that nationality/cultural backgrounds have important impacts on factors such as ethical reasoning (Flaming, Agacer, & Uddin, 2010; Koning, Van, Van, & Steinel, 2010; Zheng, Gray, Zhu, & Jiang, 2014), the selection of a decision model, and decision preference (Weber & Hsee, 2000). Therefore, it is unclear whether the results of previous studies would be valid in China, a country that is becoming increasingly important in the global business environment. China is now a country of huge global economic importance and unfortunately, the occa- sional business scandal. China is the world’s second largest economy with a gross domestic product of US$9–10 trillion (Bergmann & Yellin, 2013). Countries from all over the world, including the European Union, the United States, and Japan, are investing in China (Bloomberg, 2013). Similarly, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (2013) noted how Chinese business entities are expanding their investments overseas, especially in Africa and Latin America. It follows therefore that business interactions between and within multinational companies, international governments, and their Chinese equivalents are already at a significant level and are predicted to increase. These business interactions will invariably involve ethical decision making. Furthermore, like many other countries China has recently experienced incidences of unethical business practices leading to negative reactions. To avoid any further accounting scandals, Interactive Brokers Group Inc. forbade its customers from investing in more than 130 Chinese public companies (Spicer & Giannone, 2011). Similarly, after some false 202 YANG, JI, O’LEARY accounting was noted in some of its Chinese clients, Deloitte & Touche was investigated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Deloitte & Touche subsequently announced it would strengthen audit procedures for new clients in the Chinese region (Sanchanta & Mavin, 2013). These events highlight issues with business ethics in China. This study attempts to address these two shortcomings of previous research, just noted, by pursuing two objectives. First, the main objective is to develop a new social decision scheme (SDS; zhongyong scheme), based upon extant SDS theory, but incorporating an important Chinese cultural feature (zhongyong). Current SDS theory is now a key concept in current group decision making research (Laughlin, 2011). It is hoped the new scheme will help to better explain the GEDM process in a Chinese business context. Second, the results of GEDM in a Chinese business context will be compared to those obtained from Western countries, as noted in the earlier studies. Specifically, the following four questions are evaluated in a Chinese context: 1. Are group ethical decisions stricter than individual ethical decisions? 2. Is the ethical decision of the most ethical group member stricter than group ethical decisions? 3. Do all-female groups make stricter ethical decisions than all-male groups? 4. Would diversity enhance GEDM? LITERATURE REVIEW When we consider group decision making in a Chinese business ethics environment, there are three topics to discuss: 1. Whether groups perform better than individuals in ethical decision making. 2. Effects of gender and diversity on GEDM. 3. The process that groups apply in order to make ethical decisions. The first two topics have received some examination in the past 30 years; however, few studies have explored the process of GEDM in detail. Therefore, this study tests whether the results of the first two topics are as valid in a Chinese context as in other countries. Critically, the study also extends research into the third topic, the process of GEDM. Let us now examine the extant literature in each of the three topic areas. GEDM versus Individual Ethical Decision Making Since group judgment is usually more accurate than individual judgment (Sniezek & Henry, 1990), group ethical reasoning is considered to be at a higher level than individual ethical reasoning (Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; Nichols & Day, 1982). These researchers argued that group members might be highly influenced and persuaded by individuals whose ethical reasoning is at a high level and might become more sensitive to morality via group interaction and discussion (Nichols & Day, 1982). This should then lead to a group decision that would be stricter than an individual’s in ethical judgment. Some empirical studies support this view; for example, Nichols and Day (1982) and Abdolmohammadi and Reeves (2003) found that groups got a significantly higher score than individuals in Defining Issues Tests, a widely used GROUP ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN BUSINESS 203 instrument to assess moral reasoning and moral development (see, e.g., Rest, Bebeau, & Volker, 1986). However, O’Leary and Pangemanan (2007) did not get a similar result in Australia. Furthermore, Abdolmohammadi et al. (1997) found that groups improved male students’ P-scores (an index of ethical cognition, which can be calculated from the scores of Defining Issues Tests) significantly but decreased female students’ scores. They also noted the difference between group ethical decisions to be marginally but not significantly stricter than average member ethical decisions. Regarding whether groups outperform the best members, groups usually fall short of their best member (Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Steiner, 1972). Furthermore, previous business ethics studies consistently found groups being outperformed by their best group member on ethical tasks (Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; Nichols & Day, 1982). Effects of Gender and Diversity on GEDM For the antecedents of GEDM, some factors have been examined. Among those factors, gender and diversity have been studied most extensively. First, regarding gender, women are usually found to be stricter than men on ethical decision making (You, Maeda, & Bebeau, 2011). Women are concerned with caring, and men place more emphasis on justice (Gilligan, 1982). Furthermore, according to social role theory (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000), men have more “agentic” characteristics, and their typical role is as a provider. Therefore, men are more assertive, aggressive, and competitive than women. On the other hand, women have more “communal” characteristics, and the domestic role is their more typical role. Therefore, women are more caring, friendly, and unselfish than men. In the context of GEDM, gender composition could therefore influence a group’s final decision (LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Colquitt, & Ellis, 2002). Regarding group diversity, heterogeneous groups have at least two advantages for ethical decision making. First, heterogeneous groups have more links to diverse external stakeholders and have more channels to get information for decision making which could lead to a better understanding of external stakeholders’ needs (Hillman, Cannella, & Paetzold, 2000). Therefore, heterogeneous groups could consider the benefit of more external stakeholders when they make ethical decisions. On the other hand, homogeneous groups have common background, char- acters, and experience, so members can reach conclusions faster than heterogeneous groups (DeGrassi et al., 2012). However, those similarities would limit groups’ moral imagination (Yang, 2013). Second, diverse groups can have a wider range of skills, knowledge, and styles to apply decision information (Ali, Ng, & Kulik, 2014). For example, women tend to be more risk averse and detail oriented; they want to know more about their decision tasks. Women always try to consider all the relevant factors in a decision making process (Stendardi, Graham, & O’Reilly, 2006). On the other hand, men always use heuristic ways to process information in a more comprehensive way. This helps men to focus their attention on the most dominant and available information (Stendardi et al., 2006). Integrating the advantages of both men and women, gender diverse group may better understand external stakeholders and so arrive at a stricter decision. 204 YANG, JI, O’LEARY Process of GEDM: SDS Theory Regarding the GEDM process, three studies that mentioned it have noted two approaches (Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; DeGrassi et al., 2012; O’Leary & Pangemanan, 2007). The first approach is to use the four-step individual ethical decision making model (Rest et al., 1986) directly to represent GEDM process without supplying any theoretical supports (DeGrassi et al., 2012). The second one is to suggest that groups appear more likely to make a “neutral” decision in order to compromise, rather than the most strictly ethical decision (Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; O’Leary & Pangemanan, 2007). Although the second way has given us a valuable insight into the GEDM process, this does not answer an important further question: how groups “compromise.” This is the main research question, which is addressed through the perspectives of SDS theory and Chinese culture in this study. SDS theory (Davis, 1973) is considered to be one of the most prominent theories in current group decision making literature (Laughlin, 2011). This theory has been applied to explain group decision on many tasks, such as jury decision making (e.g., Davis, 1973; Stasser, 1999), intellective tasks (e.g., Laughlin & Ellis, 1986), risk judgment (e.g., Laughlin & Earley, 1982), value judgment (e.g., Green & Taber, 1980), and attitude judgment (e.g., Kerr, Davis, Meek, & Rissman, 1975). SDS theory divides the group decision making process into four subprocesses. These are individual preference, group distribution, group interaction process, and group response (Stasser, 1999). First, when individuals receive a group decision task, they form a personal preference for a choice or option before group discussion. Second, the group distribution reflects the distribu- tion of group members’ initial preferences. Third, individual initial choices may shift through group interaction, and the group would update its distribution according to individual new choices. Furthermore, the way individual initial choices shift would be determined by the different means (social decision schemes) to reach consensus. Finally, group response involves selecting a choice or option from multiple alternatives as a group decision. Basing on SDS, group decision making outcomes can be predicted by analyzing the group members’ choice distributions and group interactions (the SDS; Davis, 1973; Stasser, 1999). After individual and group choices have been arrived, the group interaction process for a group decision making task can be identified by statistically comparing predicted group decisions with FIGURE 1 Schematic of the predictive process of social decision scheme theory. Note. P1, P2, P3, . . ., Pe = probabilities of distinguishable group choices. β1, β2, β3, . . ., βf = probabilities of distinguishable distributions of member decisions. [dfe] = decided by social decision schemes. GROUP ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN BUSINESS 205 their corresponding actual group decisions (Stasser, 1999). Then an explanation can be found as to how group members reached a consensus for the group decision. This predictive scheme of SDS theory is summarized in Figure 1. Two basic schemes of SDS have been identified: majority-wins scheme (Hinsz, 1990; Ohtsubo, Masuchi, & Nakanishi, 2002) and truth-wins scheme (Ohtsubo et al., 2002; Tindale & Sheffey, 2002). Under majority-wins scheme, the group choice will be decided by the majority of group members (Davis, 1973). For example, if a five-member group evaluate the risk of a project on a 5-point Likert scale and three members support 3, one supports 1, and the last member supports 4, under the process of majority-wins, group members will ultimately select 3 as the group answer because most members support it. Under truth-wins process, the most correct option will always be accepted by the group (Davis, 1973) even though it is proposed by only one or just a few group members. For example, if other group members in the preceding scenario are convinced by the member who supports 4 and ultimately consider 4 is the correct answer, then they will select 4 as the group answer. This correct option may actually be the really true answer (such as the answer to a math problem) or may just be perceived as the correct option by all group members. Why do some groups make decision by truth-wins scheme but others by majority-wins scheme? The main reason refers to an important feature of decision making tasks: demonstrability (Swol, 2008). Demonstrability is “how easy it is to demonstrate to group members that an alternative is the correct response” (Hinsz, 1990). Demonstrability has four dimensions (Laughlin & Ellis, 1986). First, group members have a common language to communicate their judgments with each other. Second, group members must have sufficient information to determine the correct answer. Third, uncorrected group members can recognize and accept the correct answer when it is presented by other members. Fourth, the correct members can and will communicate the correct answer with other members. Typical high demonstrability tasks are intellective tasks where the correct answers can be communicated and recognized easily by group members, such as logic or mathematic questions; in contrast, typical low demonstrability tasks are judgmental tasks that usually have no abso- lutely correct answer, such as behavioral or aesthetic judgments (Laughlin & Ellis, 1986). Generally, groups would apply truth-wins scheme to solve high demonstrability tasks and use majority-wins scheme to solve low demonstrability tasks (Swol, 2008). Moral tasks are judgmental tasks because they are low in most dimensions of demonstrability. Group members might be different from each other in many moral-related field, such as on major, moral development stages (Kohlberg, 1969), moral attentiveness (Reynolds, 2008), and mental models (Werhane, 1999). Those differences make group members analyze tasks through difference perspectives, emphasize different elements, and cause difficulty in persuading others. Furthermore, a business context is very complex and dynamic, and it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine which answer is the most strictly ethical one. Therefore, even members who have ethical answers and are willing and able to tell others their answers may lack a common language, information, and possibility for other members to recognize and accept their answers. SDS may be used to explain the decision making process. However the basic SDS may not be accurate enough to describe the process of group decision making homogeneously in every environ- ment. As mentioned previously, cultural factors impact group decision making, so in reviewing the ability of SDS to explain group decision making in a culturally specific (Chinese) setting, a group behavior mode culturally specific (to China) must be considered. Let us now consider the doctrine of zhongyong, which may dominate group decision making processes in this environment. 206 YANG, JI, O’LEARY Zhongyong Zhongyong is the ancient Confucian doctrine of mean (Cheung et al., 2006). It heavily influences Chinese thinking, judgment, and behavior in everyday life (Wang, Tang, Kao, & Sun, 2013; Yao, Yang, Dong, & Wang, 2010), such as Chinese students are more likely than Canada and American students to choose midpoint regarding the use habit of rating scales (Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1995). About 850 years ago, Chu Hsi, a Chinese philosopher, explained “Zhong” as “avoiding extremes,” because “to go beyond is as wrong as to fall short.” “Yong” is explained as mediocre or ordinary (Hsi, 1985). Originally, ancient zhongyong is a kind of Confucian philosophy, which includes moral components (Xu, 1998). However, modern zhongyong implies a mode of action suggesting that people need to think things thoughtfully from different perspectives, seek an appropriate point (i.e., the middle) rather than extremes, and maintain interpersonal harmony in the interac- tion system (Cheung et al., 2003; Ji, Lee, & Guo, 2010; Yang, 2010). Zhongyong, as a mode of action, does not have an intrinsic relationship with the substantive moral principles of Confucianism (Cheung et al., 2003). This mode of action even can be distinguished and isolated from the substantive values of Confucianism (Cheung et al., 2003). Therefore, this study treats zhongyong as the mode of action rather than a kind of Confucius philosophy. Zhongyong therefore encourages people to make holistic consideration (Ji et al., 2010; Yang, 2010; Yao et al., 2010). Many researchers have found that Chinese regularly behave and make decisions in the way of zhongyong. For example, Chinese are more likely than other cultures to make moderate responses (Chen et al., 1995; Hamamura, Heine, & Paulhus, 2008), take a holistic approach to cognition situations (Ji, Peng, & Nisbett, 2000), engage in dialectical thinking rather than take extreme views (Lee, 2000), and reach a compromised solution that can be accepted by most people if contradictory alternatives exist (Cheung et al., 2003). Therefore, the main effect of zhongyong in a group context is to develop or keep harmony, which can result in the majority or median decision being selected. From the perspective of SDS theory, zhongyong is similar to the majority-wins scheme; however, they operate differently when more than one option is advocated by a similar number of group members. Under zhongyong, the group will tend to take the median choice, whereas all options that gain same number of supporters have an equal chance of being selected under the majority-wins scheme. For example, considering the scenario raised previously, when two members support 2, two support 5, and one supports 3, under the “majority-wins” scheme, the group has a 50% probability of selecting 2 or 5 as the group answer. But under the zhongyong scheme, the group has a 100% probability of choosing 3 as the group answer, because the 3 is the median of options 2 and 5. METHODOLOGY Participants Two hundred domestic undergraduate students majoring in accounting at a Chinese University participated in this study. There were 68 (34%) male subjects and 132 (66%) female subjects. The mean age was 18.8 years. They all had completed similar courses relating to business and GROUP ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN BUSINESS 207 economics up to this point in their degree program. Therefore it could be anticipated that they all had a similar knowledge of business and ethical decision making at tertiary level. Sixty-one groups (10 all-male, 20 all-female, and 31 mixed-gender) took part in this study. Mixed-gender groups were composed of three to five members, and all-female and all-male groups were composed of three to four members, except for four groups, which had only two participants. These four groups were formed simply to use all participants, as they had been left out when dividing up the cohorts. They were removed from the subsequent analysis. Therefore, there are valid data for 57 groups (nine all-male, 20 all-female, and 28 mixed-gender). In this university, classmates of each class live in the same hostel (four classmates share a living room); these participants had spent at least 1 year together to get to this point in their degree program. Therefore, all group members within each group knew each other well, so these groups are considered good proxies for real work groups. Measures Ethical Decisions Five ethical accounting scenarios adopted from O’Leary and Pangemanan (2007) were used to assess ethical decisions. In each scenario, subjects were given a business dilemma followed by five options, from which they had to choose one only. A sample scenario is shown in Appendix. Following Jones’s (1991) definition of ethicality, the ethicality of each option is determined by the extent to which it is both legally and morally acceptable to the larger community. For example, the first option in all scenarios was the most unethical option (illegal and morally unacceptable by society), the third option is neutral (legal but morally unaccepted by society), and the fifth option was the most strictly ethical option (legal and morally acceptable by society). The five options were scored on a 5-point Likert scale with the first option scored as 1 and the fifth option scored as 5. The sum of scores of all five scenarios represented a total score for ethical decision making. Whereas the scoring may not be a perfect measure of the range of ethical behavior, the justification for its use lies in the fact it has been used in similar studies, such as Jones (1991), mentioned previously; Haines and Leonard (2007); and White and Lean (2008). Also, as we employed SDS theory to explore the process of GEDM, scores were needed to compare individual group members’ preferences to group decisions, to enable identification of any social decision schemes in operation. As the ethical scenarios and scoring section were translated from English to Chinese, translation equivalence (Mullen, 1995) was established. First the scenarios were translated into Chinese by one author, then back into English by a PhD candidate who is familiar with business ethics but was independent of the study. The researchers then performed a final revision to ensure there were no misunderstandings. The Cronbach’s alpha score for responses to the five scenarios was 0.61, which is considered acceptable for this type of experimental study (Caldwell & Moberg, 2007). Gender and Diversity The participants were randomly divided into three types of groups: all-female groups, all- male groups, and mixed-gender groups. In the subsequent analysis section, differences between 208 YANG, JI, O’LEARY all-female groups and all-male groups were used to reflect gender effect on GEDM, and distinction between same-gender groups, including all-female groups and all-male groups, and mixed-gender groups to represent the impact of (gender) diversity on GEDM. Procedure For the purpose of reducing self-selection bias, participants were not informed of the real research aim and were simply invited to attend an experiment about business decision making during free class time. Furthermore, to avoid possible framing effects, the words “moral” and “ethics” were not mentioned to participants until they finished the whole experiment. Before the experiment research, assistants read the instructions aloud to all participants, answered partici- pants’ questions, and told participants that they could leave at any time if they felt uncomfortable with the experiment. No one dropped out during the experiment procedures. Procedures involved two steps. First, all participants completed a survey instrument in which they make decisions for the five ethical scenarios by themselves as individuals and provided the basic demographic details of gender and age. Any communication among participants was forbidden at this step. Second, they were subsequently randomly divided into groups and were informed to complete a further copy of the same survey instrument as groups. Each group was composed of three to five group members rather than by a fixed number of group members. Only at this step were group members allowed to communicate with each other and reach a consensus on each scenario. However, intergroup communication was forbidden. Ample time was given at both the individual and the group steps. When participants finished all experimental tasks, they were given a small gift as compensation for their time. RESULTS Individual versus GEDM Results Figure 2 shows the range of responses for the combined five scenarios, both for individuals and groups. The proportions of individual responses across the choice of options from 1 (most unethical) to 5 (most ethical) were, respectively, 13%, 13%, 27%, 38%, and 8%. The compara- tive group responses were 9%, 14%, 29%, 46%, and 2%. There was no significant difference between those two distributions (χ2 = 0.29, p > .05). Consistent with those results, Table 1 shows no statistically significant difference between individual and group ethical decision. At the same time, the difference between groups and each group’s strictest member in ethical decision were compared (n = 57). The group member who had the highest total score on individual ethical decision making was chosen as the strictest group member. If a group had more than one strictest member (i.e., two or more group members had the same highest total score), the mean score on each scenario of those strictest members was taken. The score reveals …