ach
2000). The number of items for each dimension of the
marketing ethical norms construct was as follows: marketing
price and distribution norms (5 items), information and contract
norms (6 items), product and promotion norms (5
items), obligation and disclosure norms (4 items), and general
honesty and integrity (4 items). In addition, using all 24
items of marketing norms, we created a new composite
variable, “overall marketing ethics construct,” and correlated
it with the five cultural dimensions.
DATA, SAMPLE, AND
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES
Cultural Values on Marketing Ethical Norms 39
In the second part of the questionnaire, 26 items measured
the five dimensions of individual cultural values. It was a
slightly modified version of the scale that Donthu and Yoo
(1998) and Yoo and Donthu (2002) originally used and validated
to capture Hofstede’s dimensions of culture at the individual
level better. The items included collectivism (6
items), uncertainty avoidance (5 items), masculinity (4
items), power distance (5 items), and long-term orientation
(6 items).
As we noted previously, we purposely selected the United
States and India to reflect variance on the characteristics of
interest (Douglas and Craig 2006). We chose an exemplar
institution with comparable characteristics from each country.
We used a judgmental (nonprobability) sample in each
case; informants from comparable MBA programs were
approached and voluntarily provided data for the study.
A 英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】total of 298 students participated in this study, 188 from
India and 110 from the United States. All participants from
Table 1.
Summary of Hypotheses:
Relationship Between the
Cultural Dimensions and
Marketing Ethics
Hypotheses
Cultural
Dimension
Variable
Overall
Effect on
Marketing
Ethical
Norms
(MEN) Country Type Differences
H1 Individualism
(IDV)
Polar opposite:
collectivism (COL)
+ U.S. score = 91 (rank 1/50) > India’s
score = 48 (rank 21/50)
•i.e., IDVU.S. > IDVIndia
•i.e., COLU.S. < COLIndia
Correspondingly, MENU.S. < MENIndia
H2 Uncertainty
avoidance (UAV)
+ U.S. score = 46 (rank 43/50) > India’s
score = 40 (rank 45/50)
•i.e., UAVU.S. > UAVIndia
Correspondingly, MENU.S. > MENIndia
H3 Masculinity (MAS) _ U.S. score = 62 (rank 15/50) > India’s
score = 56 (rank 20/50)
•i.e., MASU.S. > MASIndia
Correspondingly, MENU.S. < MENIndia
H4 Power distance
(PDI)
_ U.S. score = 40 (rank 38/50) < India’s
score = 77 (rank 10/50)
•i.e., PDIU.S. < PDIIndia
Correspondingly, MENU.S. > MENIndia
H5 Long-term
orientation (LTO)
+ U.S. score = 29 (rank 17/22) < India’s
score = 56 (rank 7/22)
•i.e., LTOU.S. < LTOIndia
Correspondingly, MENU.S. < MENIndia
Notes: Ranks and scores are from Hofstede (1991).
40 Pallab Paul, Abhijit Roy, and Kausiki Mukhopadhyay
India were enrolled in the regular MBA program, and the
U.S. sample consisted mostly of regular MBA students and a
few executive MBA students. An examinati
本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 |
论文编号：
lw200802181146224211 
