Name: Amellia Samantha

Auditing / 008201500036
Critical Review (Group 13 and 1)
Title: Ethics During Adolescence: A Social Networks Perspective
Author: Elodie Gentina, Gregory M. Rose, and Scott J. Vitell
Journal: J Bus Ethics (2015) DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2577-5 © Springer 2015
1. Motivation
The researchers want to conduct this study because prior studies generally measure intention to behave
ethically but rarely measure the association between intentions and behaviors. Moreover, the researchers are
aware that research on adolescents, as opposed to adults or children, is needed because adolescents are
qualitatively different from consumers in other stages of development, both in the value that they attach to peer
groups and in their adoption of harmful and illegal consumption activities (Cox et al. 1990; Rose et al. 1992).

2. Theory
Adolescence is a period of transition, during which social identities begin to take root (Erikson 1968).
According to Brewer (1991, p. 477), social identity formation stems from a fundamental tension between the
need for assimilation to others and the need for individuation. Assimilation refers to promoting group
membership, whereas individuation refers to distinguishing oneself from out-groups (Brewer 1991).

3. Logic behind hypothesis

H1(a,b): A high need for autonomy and a propensity for risk taking are associated with a predisposition
toward less ethical beliefs among college students (Rallapalli et al. 1994). H2(a,b): Research among
adolescents has demonstrated that social influence, perceived group norms, and conformity contribute to risky
behaviors (Rose et al. 1992). H3(a,b): As individuals with high closeness centrality are more central to their
entire peer network, they should feel less isolated and be less likely to engage in behavior that potentially
compromises their position within that network. H4: Research among adolescents has established the co-
occurrence of multiple negative beliefs and behaviors, e.g., substance abuse and negative achievement beliefs,
(Willoughby et al. 2004).

4. Methodology
Instrument: Questionnaire/survey, adolescent informants were asked to nominate five of their closest
friends in their classes, in order of priority. Sample: 984 adolescents between the age of 13 and 18 (grades 8
through 12) two private schools and three public schools in the city of Lille in Northern France. The first sample
(n1 = 215) served to validate the measurement scales. The second sample (n2 = 769 adolescents across 25
school classes) was used to test the proposed model. Measurement: Tian et al.’s (2001) scale for measuring
consumer need for uniqueness (CNFU), Muncy and Vitell (1992) 20-item instrument for ethical predisposition,
and normative deviance scale (NDS) (Vazsonyi et al. 2001) 9 items for risky behavior. All scales are rated on
a 5-point Likert-scale. Independent Variables: Adolescent need for uniqueness (CNFU) and Centrality (degree
centrality and closeness centrality). Dependent Variables: Ethical Predisposition (EP) and Risky Behavior
(RB). Moderator: Gender. Statistical analysis: Structural equation modeling to test the theoretical models
(using AMOS) and factor analysis to establish the measurement model.

5. Result
H1(a,b): Supported, the analyses highlight a significant and negative relationship between CNFU and
EP (c1a = -0.08; t =-2.00; p =\0.05). H2(a,b): Supported, degree centrality is negatively related to EP (c2a = -
1
0.02; t =-2.58; p =\0.05). Similar relationships were found for risky behavior. H3a: Supported, closeness
centrality relationship to ethical predisposition was positive and significant (c3a = 0.01; t = 2.15; p\0.05),
meaning that closeness centrality favors ethical beliefs. H3b: Not supported, the relationship between
closeness centrality and RB was non-significant (c3b = 0.00; t = 0.70; p = 0.48). H4: Supported, EP is positively
correlated to RB (c4 = 0.27; t = 7.37; p =\0.001).

6. Conclusion
In conclusion, a survey of 984 adolescents demonstrates that EP and RB stem from a balance between
assimilation (i.e., centralities within the peer network) and individuation (i.e., need for uniqueness). In
particular, it is shown that adolescents with close first degree relationships within a specific peer group
(measured by high degree centrality) and/or high need for uniqueness have lower EP and engage in more RB,
while adolescents that are more central to the entire network (measured by high closeness centrality) have
higher EP.

7. Limitation and Future Research

The limitations of the study include data being restricted to one specific type of social network—
friendship in the context of a school class and the fact that the research is inherent to the centrality indicators
used. Future research could examine teen social structures and marketing behavior among peers in social clubs,
and even social network sites that bring adolescents together, incorporate additional explanatory variables in
studying EB/RP during adolescence, and investigate how consumer ethics vary across cultures.

Title: Personal Motives, Moral Disengagement, and Unethical Decisions by Entrepreneurs: Cognitive
Mechanisms on the ‘‘Slippery Slope’’
Author: Robert A. Baron, Hao Zhao, and Qing Miao
Journal: J Bus Ethics (2015) 128:107–118 DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2078-y © Springer 2014
1. Motivation
The researchers conduct this study in response of Moore et al. (2012, p. 39) call that additional studies
in ‘‘actual work contexts would be particularly valuable,” by extending previous work in examining moral
disengagement as a mediating process linking entrepreneurs’ personal motives and their tendency to make
unethical decisions.

2. Theory
Bandura (1986) proposed eight interrelated mechanisms of moral disengagement, but in subsequent
research, Moore (2008) combined closely related mechanisms to form the following three basic categories.
First, individuals can cognitively distort reprehensible acts so that they appear less harmful and even benign,
with tactics including euphemistic labeling and advantageous comparison. Second, people can minimize their
personal role in the unethical decisions through displacement or diffusion of responsibilities. Lastly, people
can reduce identification with the victims of harmful acts, or even hold victims as responsible for the harm they
experience.

3. Logic behind hypothesis

H1a: Because attention is a limited cognitive resource (Wickens 1980), strong motivation for financial
gains may also lead entrepreneurs to ignore or neglect other information and cues, including information

2
relating to ethically relevant issues such as harm to other persons and additional negative consequences of their
actions. H1b: The motivation of self-realization often involves efforts to attain increased independence and
autonomy, hence, entrepreneurs may be less likely to minimize their personal responsibility for unethical
decisions, or to blame others for the negative consequences of their decisions. H2: Detert et al. (2008) have
found that college students’ moral disengagement is related to unethical decisions such as cheating. The
rsearchers reason that moral disengagement will produce similar effects among entrepreneurs. H3(a,b):
Together, H1 and H2 suggest a mediating role for moral disengagement with respect to the relationship between
motivation for financial gains and tendency for unethical decisions.

4. Methodology
Method: Questionnaire/survey, entrepreneurs’ participation in the full study was voluntary and surveys
were distributed by research assistants after class. Participants were rewarded with gifts worth of $40 for
completing the surveys. Sample: Of the 415 China’s entrepreneurs who registered for the training sessions, a
total of 133 provided usable responses at Time 1 and 116 provided valid responses at Time-2. Responses rate
is about 30%. Measurement: The 7-item measure of four vignettes from Longenecker et al. (2006), three from
Norris and Gifford (1988), and one vignette specifically created for this study for Tendency to Make Unethical
Decisions, 24-item scale developed by Detert et al. (2008) for Moral Disengagement, and the career reason
scale developed by Carter et al. (2003) for Entrepreneurs’ Motivation for Financial Gains and Motivation for
Self-Realization. All scales are rated on a 5-point Likert-scale. Independent Variables: Entrepreneurs’
motivation for financial gains and motivation for self-realization. Dependent Variable: Tendency to make
unethical decision. Moderator: Moral disengagement. Control Variables: Environmental dynamism, startup
experience, and gender. Statistical analysis: SPSS macro provided by Preacher and Hayes (2008).

5. Result
H1a: Supported, path a and path b are significant. H1b: Not supported, path a is near zero and not
significant. H2: Supported, path a and path b are significant. H3a: Supported, path a*b is positive, and the
bootstrapped 95 % CI of the indirect effect does not include zero. H3b: Not supported, the bootstrapped 95 %
CI of the indirect effect includes zero.

6. Conclusion
The desire for financial gain is an important motive for many entrepreneurs and is often emphasized by
the field of entrepreneurship and in entrepreneurship education. But there may also be important limits to the
benefits (Grant and Schwartz 2011). Specifically, strong motivation for financial gain can, by encouraging
moral disengagement, ‘lubricate’ the downward slope toward unethical decisions and behavior. Previous
findings and the theoretical model developed here suggest that if entrepreneurs wish to behave in ways
consistent with their own moral values, they must successfully modulate their motivation for financial gains
and recognize, as as Ralph Waldo Emerson once suggested, that sometimes, the quest for personal wealth
simply ‘‘costs too much’’ (1860, p. 94).

7. Limitation and Future Research

The limitations in this study include the present research that was largely cross-sectional in nature and
the dependent variable that is based on vignettes instead of actual decisions or actions. Future research could
expand the study framework to study the effects on entrepreneurs of engaging in unethical decisions such as
the generation of emotional states that lead entrepreneurs and others to engage in prosocial actions designed to
reduce powerful feelings of guilt because of engaging in a morally wrong behavior.
3