4. Data Analysis
4.4 Individual Level Comparison of Ethical Scores and Reasoning
death too great to remain silent
6 12.8% 8 24.2%
Other 2 4.3% 0 0.0%
N/A 1 2.1% 2 6.1%
Total 47 100.0% 33 100.0%
Table 6.12: Chi-Square Analysis of Reason for Ethical Question No.5 (TW/US)
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.634(a) 6 .356
Likelihood Ratio 7.332 6 .291
Linear-by-Linear Association .095 1 .758
N of Valid Cases 80
a. 8 cells (57.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .83.
*= P<0.05, **= P<0.05, ***= p<0.001
4.4 Individual Level Comparison of Ethical Scores and Reasoning
At the individual level, the research compares the ethical scores and reasoning of the TW and TW2 groups. The independent variable in the comparison is the business ethics course. After comparing their ethical scores in all five vignettes, although the TW2 group shows slightly higher ethical averages than the TW group, there is no significant difference in the ethical scores in all vignettes between the two groups (see Table 7.1&7.2).
Table 7.1: Comparison of Ethical Score Means between TW and TW2 Groups National
‧
Table 7.2: Difference in Ethical Scores between TW and TW2 Groups Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
EthicScore1 Equal variances
assumed .000 .998 -.084 78 .933
Equal variances
not assumed -.084 68.750 .933
EthicScore2 Equal variances
assumed .096 .757 -.556 78 .580
Equal variances
not assumed -.553 67.680 .582
EthicScore3 Equal variances
assumed 4.210 .044 -1.079 78 .284
Equal variances
not assumed -1.179 75.581 .242
EthicScore4 Equal variances
assumed 5.137 .026 -1.702 78 .093
Equal variances
not assumed -1.787 77.562 .078
EthicScore5 Equal variances
assumed .325 .570 -.114 78 .909
Equal variances
not assumed -.112 63.741 .911
*= p<0.05, **= p<0.01, ***= p<0.001
‧
Moreover, the author compares the ethical reasoning in all five vignettes between the TW and TW2 group, there is no significant difference in the reasoning between the two groups from the same cultural background. This result indicates that the participant from the same cultural context will prioritize similar reasons to for their actions taken in the five vignettes.
In the first vignette when the two groups of Taiwanese participants were asked the likelihood to pay to enter a new prospective market, 25.5% (12) of the TW group reasoned that ―the decision is not unethical, and it is just a price to pay to do business (see Table 7.3).‖ Another 25.5% (12) of the same group thinks that ―the decision won’t hurt anyone.‖ On the other hand, 21.2% (7) of the TW2 group prioritize the same reason like the TW group that it is not
unethical and just a price to pay to do business. However, there is also another 21.2% (7) of the TW2 group think the action is illegal. This suggests the high variation among the general Taiwanese participants, and the issue of business bribe may be viewed quite differently by them. Nonetheless, the difference in their ethical reasoning is not statistically significant (see Table 7.4; X2=9.386, df=6, P=0.153>0.05).
Table 7.3: No.1 Reason for Ethical Question No.1(TW/TW2)
TW TW2
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Against company policy 3 6.4% 5 15.2% paid to do business
12 25.5% 7 21.2%
Other 6 12.8% 1 3.0%
N/A
‧
Table 7.4: Chi-Square Analysis of Reason for Ethical Question No.1 (TW/TW2)
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 9.386(a) 6 .153
Likelihood Ratio 9.812 6 .133
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.234 1 .135
N of Valid Cases 80
a. 7 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.06.
*= P<0.05, **= P<0.05, ***= p<0.001
In the second vignette concerning the sharing of business information, similar to the comparison in the previous cross-cultural setting, the author avoided ambiguous reasoning option and found 27.7% (13) of the TW and 51.5% (17) of the TW2 group reasoned that ―it is unethical for the employee to provide and for the employer to ask‖ (see Table 7.3). From Table 7.6, we can see that there is no difference in their ethical reasoning in this vignette (X2=6.978, df=6, P=0.323>0.05).
Table 7.5: No.1 Reason for Ethical Question No.2(TW/TW2)
TW TW2
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Unethical for Smith to provide
and unethical for employer to ask
13 27.7% 17 51.5%
Unethical for employer to mislead Smith when he was hired
‧
Table 7.6: Chi-Square Analysis of Reason for Ethical Question No.2 (TW/TW2)
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.978(a) 6 .323
Likelihood Ratio 7.497 6 .277
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.626 1 .105
N of Valid Cases 80
a. 8 cells (57.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .41.
*= P<0.05, **= P<0.05, ***= p<0.001
In the third vignette, both TW (27, 57.4%) and TW2 (23, 69.7%) expressed their concern for the environment and life when they were asked if they will approve the use of milling equipment‖ (see Table 7.7). Therefore, the difference in the two groups’ ethical reasoning in this vignette was not found (see Table 7.8; X2=4.696, df=5, P=0.460>0.05).
Table 7.7: No.1 Reason for Ethical Question No.3(TW/TW2)
TW TW2
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
It would be illegal 14 29.8% 8 24.2% would be installed if available
‧
Table 7.8: Chi-Square Analysis of Reason for Ethical Question No.3 (TW/TW2)
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.649(a) 5 .460
Likelihood Ratio 6.107 5 .296
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.496 1 .221
N of Valid Cases 80
a. 8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .41.
*= P<0.05, **= P<0.05, ***= p<0.001
In the first vignette concerning the publication of a nuclear bomb book, both 36.2% (17) of the TW group and 36.4% (12) of the TW2 group prioritize the reason that ―it is too dangerous to the world safety‖ (see Table 7.9). Therefore, the two Taiwanese groups are consistent in choosing the ethical reason for their action taken in this vignette (see Table 7.10; X2=3.132, df=5, P=0.680>0.05).
Table 7.9: No.1 Reason for Ethical Question No.4(TW/TW2)
TW TW2
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Too dangerous to world safety 17 36.2% 12 36.4% theirs to make choice
2 4.3% 2 6.1%
Those who want the information can get it now from other sources
11 23.4% 3 9.1%
Other 1 2.1% 1 3.0%
Total 47 100.0% 33 100.0%
‧
Table 7.10: Chi-Square Analysis of Reason for Ethical Question No.4 (TW/TW2)
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.132(a) 5 .680
Likelihood Ratio 3.316 5 .651
Linear-by-Linear Association .734 1 .391
N of Valid Cases 80
a. 5 cells (41.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .83.
*= P<0.05, **= P<0.05, ***= p<0.001
In the last vignette, when the two groups of Taiwanese participants were asked if they will report the defected automobile parts , 51.1% (24) of the TW group and 63.6% (21) of the TW2 group reasoned that ―the company has a responsibility to the public, and it is criminal and dishonest to remain silent (see Table 7.11).‖ From Table 7.12 we can see that there is no statistically significant difference in the reasoning of the two Taiwanese groups ( X2=4.539, df=6, P=0.604>0.05).
Table 7.11: No.1 Reason for Ethical Question No.5(TW/TW2)
TW TW2
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Ward has no additional
responsibility; loyalty will responsibility to the public;
criminal and dishonest to remain silent
24 51.1% 21 63.6%
Risk to firm's image, profitability, and long run potential too great to remain silent
9 19.1% 7 21.2%
Chances of causing injury or death too great to remain silent
6 12.8% 4 12.1%
Other 2 4.3% 0 0.0%
N/A 1 2.1%
Total 47 100.0% 33 100.0%
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
47
Table 7.12: Chi-Square Analysis of Reason for Ethical Question No.5 (TW/TW2)
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.539(a) 6 .604
Likelihood Ratio 6.369 6 .383
Linear-by-Linear Association .072 1 .788
N of Valid Cases 80
a. 9 cells (64.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .41.
*= P<0.05, **= P<0.05, ***= p<0.001