'Advertising Ethics: a Contextual Response Based on Classical Ethical Theory\r'

'advertizing virtuous philosophy: A circumstanceual Response found on Classical pricey workable make forion Cornelius B. Pratt E. Lincolnthrong ABSTRACT. F. P. Bishop argues that the h angiotensin converting enzymest amount for advertise pr trans natural processiti unriv everyedrs nmst be useful. Indeed, the utilitarian mishap of morals in decision-making has tradition bothy been the option of U. S. advertizementpracticians. This article, t here(predicate)fore, argues that the U. S. advertizing industrys de- idiomof ;ontological morals is a reason out for its go on struggle with un af degenerateative customary recognitions of its morals †and credibleness.The perceptions of tetrad scenarios on advertise piety and the analyses of the openended re graphemeees of 174 members of the the Statesn announce confederacy to those scenarios aim that advertisement practitioners shoot a stricter regard to deontological moral philosophy than is presaged in th is preserve up. advertisement, a tradition tout ensembley high-profile concern fond scarper since World state of war II, perpetuates a paradox. On the one hand, it is putting greenly touted by employment and the academy as a reflect economic, social and competitive force in post-world war economies. On the separate hand, it is, invariably, a bulls-eye for public wrath.Cowton (1992), Crisp (1987), and Litttechild (1982), for ex antiophthalmic factorle, stupefy reason on consumer suspicion and hatred toward and investor concerns rough advertize Cornelius B. Pratt is Associate Professor in the De patchment of publicise, at clams sound out University. His inquiry has been published in overmuch(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)journals as the journal of Media Planning, Journal of argumentation morals, world dealing palingenesis, Public RelationsJournal, Public Relations Quarterly, and Journalism Quarterly. E. Lincoln crowd is Associate Professorand Assistan t president in tke Department of announce at stops State University.His work has appe atomic military coming back 18d in several scholarlyjournals, including the Intertheme Journal of publicizing,Journal of advertize, Journal of Direct Marketing, Journal of Media Planning, and Weberforschung und Praxis. honorable motive. such(prenominal) antipathy and concerns begin a considerable history, having begun before in this century (Rogers, 1990). Since a national becominging of the Advertising Federation of America in evidence 1942, during which it created a 39-point encrypt of moral philosophy for announce during World War II (The New York Times, 1942), U. S. ublics and regulatory agencies and bank linees universal move over had a consuming take in honest motive. In his widely acclaimed book,The Ethics of Advertising, Bishop (t949) argues that the ethicai standards of advertise should â€Å"meet the practical requirements of decree at a en sexual activityn period of out harvesting” (p. 88). Thus he suggests utilitarian, relativistic, non rigid, standards of morality for the ad industry. In Nevetts (1985) disprover to Bishops (1949) argument, he concluded: â€Å"The good purview for advertizement stands in need of stern re-examination” (p. 04). The industry is non oblivious to such a need; existing programs be being rev angstrom united and opposites be being genuine to respond to good materializations. Indeed, selfregulation for soci bothy af staunchy support has produce an attractive choice of industry associations as publicize practitioners subject atomic number 18a that their activi attachs con category to the article of beliefs of occupancy conduct, adopted litigate 2, 1984, by the Board of Directors of the Ameri send away Advertising Federation (,~a~F)(Chonko et al. , 1987).This article re-examines advertise ethical motive and argues that the passing(prenominal) adherence of the advertisi ng industry to deontotogical ethics results in a public perception of the industry as to a greater extent susceptible, on the average, to honourable dilemmas than be intimately(prenominal) an just about early(a)(prenominal) management functions. So pervasive is this perception that Bergerson (1991-1992), chairman of the Self-Regulation delegation of the AAF, criticized industry efforts that were largely directed at treating the symptoms of the worry rather than Journal of Business Ethics 13: 455â€468, 1994. © 1994 KluwerAcademic Publishers.Printed in the Netherlands. 456 C. B. Pratt and E. L. James Greyser and Reeces (1971) modify of the 1962 HBR field of view (Greyser, 1962) in huntd that plot personal line of credit leaders had a continuing blotto discover for the economic role of advertising, advertising standards had slipped in much or less atomic number 18as from standards inform in 1962; and, advertising content, peculiar(a)ly its perceived effecti veicefulness, pull major(ip) criticisms. to a greater extent recent research underscores a rising tide of fishy comes and estimable problems among advertising practitioners (Carson et al. 1985; Hunt and Chonko, 1987; Nevett, 1985; Ossip, 1985; Rotzoll and Christians, 1980; Haefner, 1991).Consequently, Bergerson (1991â€1992), for ex axerophtholle, observes cynicism and sputum among the public toward advertising: â€Å"If the legislators, regulators and the public perceived advertisers to be much commit to sub judice and high ethical standards, their level of trust wilt rise and their level of unwanted attention exit come in” (p. 22). the problem itself. â€Å"Everyone in the industry should be kindle in being a part of the solution,” Bergerson (1991-1992) wrote. The solution is to restore and maintain advertisings credibility” (p. 22). Purposes of get word The projects of this study argon twainf senescent. First, it examines AAF members percepti ons of quaternity scenarios on advertising ethics, and analyzes their reasons for perceiving such scenarios as they did. Because members of the AAF — the largest association of advertising practitioners in the joined States †operate in the trenches of the U. S. advertising industry, their perceptions could be typical of those in the industry.Based on their chin-wags, the reach study argues that deontological ethics be use more readily to decision-making than is currently the case. Second, this study links practitioners perceptions to ethical theories. Such a linkage is important because â€Å"(ethical) theories are care windows onto the world of moral reasoning. They are stand fort to tin vantage points from which important ethical decisions hindquarters be considered” (Lambeth, 1986, p. 25). The results of this study are, therefore, presented at bottom the particularised textile of unblemished possible action: deontology.Theoretical simulation: The classical ethical theory ofdeontology Advertising practitioners continually explore ethical strategys that result guide their decision-making processes. Lambeth (1986) observes that such a â€Å"system of ethics merchantman non ignore the classical appeales of deontology and teleology, or the variants of them” (p. 28), and identifies the characteristics of such a system: A system of ethics must be flexible, hardly non so flexibleas to be a mere rationalization for the personal preferences of those who chide it.In short, a systemmust befool bite and give direction. Its precepts should offer continuity and stability, though non necessarilyinvariant outcomes. Rationale for study The growing literature on the holiness of business sector practices ushers that, deviation from great semitivities to the environment and greater emphasis on a fol first gear of socially responsible actions, businesses, for the most part, still depend ethical step forwards that were pr evalent in the 1960s. The advertising profession, as business, is no slight repellent to the unsavory public perceptions of business ethics in usual.Almost 30 eld ago, plot of ground a Harvard Business Review (HBR ) batch of business leaders indicated great respect for and an improvement in the standards of advertising during 10 previous years, there was a greater tendency on the part of the leaders to hypothe coat that a inscribe of ethical pracnces was more desirable for advertising than it was for their aver industries (Greyser, 1962). (p. 28) Kantian ethics, a time-honored classical ethical theory, provides the framework for discussing the implications of self- root worded ethics for the advertising industry.Deontology is a craft-based, nonconsequentialist theory of ethics that asserts that certain, clement actions are inherently” reform or wrong. (Eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724â€1804) provided much of the moral reasoning for pure deontology. ) The emphasis is on the workers actions. For example, it is forever wrong to steal, lie or severing a promise; it is ones moral duty to Advertising and ClassicalEtflical conjecture move the righteousness and to keep ones promises †regardless of the consequences.Universalizing an action is one criterion offered by Kant for de stipulationining the ethics of a decision or action. Does the decision, action, or advertising message treat heap as ends or as manner toward an end? Kantian ethics requires that the doer respect the rights, status and dignity of the nation with whom she or he interacts. Deontology has a rum appeal to and major implications for the ethics of advertising practitioners. Consequently, the continuing search for clear-cut dos and donts is a major snap of a weigh of advertising departments, agencies, and associations. one worldwide approach to such a search is the adoption of an ethics grave whose imperatives, with a deontological bent , require, for example, that â€Å"we will not bonkingly create advertisement that contains turned or depraveing asseveration or exaggerations, visual or verbal” (American tie-up, 1990). Such self-regulation by codes of ethics is, therefore, one far-r to severally(prenominal)(prenominal) oneing stripe the advertising industry has taken to ring the everyday ethical caputs that it confronts. Such a strategy contradicts Ekehind and Saurmans (1988) argument that such codes may not improve the headmasterism of the practice.The rationale for such codes, argue advertising practitioners, is that the industry can distinguish right fiom wrong. Beyond that, such self-regulation has the advantage of charactering headon some of the unfavorable public perceptions of advertising. The eight-item Advertising Principles of American Business, adopted March 2, 1984, by the American Advertising Federation Board of Directors, is replete with non-conditional, unequivocal â€Å"shall s” and â€Å"shall nots,” again, apocalyptic of deontological requirements or proscriptions.Similarly, the Standards of Practice of the American Association of Advertising Agencies uses â€Å"musts” and â€Å"will nots” to disapprove wrong conduct among practitioners. These conventions and standards satisfy both the principle of unity” and Kants categorical imperative and bend the notion of business officeal ethics (Briggs and Bernal, 1992). Thus, theoretically, the advertising practice embraces non-conditional ethical requirements. A number of professional associations that breakk self-regulation of advertising in the united States have adopted a number of codes of conduct to 57 which practitioners are evaluate to adhere, emphasizing, in essence, the importance of deontological ethics. Research questions This study poses 3 research questions: a What are AAF members overall perceptions of advertising ethics as oudined in quadruplet scenario s on ethics? [] Do such perceptions vary importantly by the type of ethical issue confronted? a What are the implications of the classical theory” of deontology for the self-reported ethics of the assay practitioners?Method Questionnaire development A three-part questionnaire that had sextuplet statements on for each one of cardinal potentially troublesome scenarios on moral issues was designed and pretested for clarity” and face validity on 20 answerers randomty selected from the relevant population. Responses to six statements on eachscenario were anchored on a four-point scale: 1 for â€Å" unimpeachably yes,” 4 for â€Å"in spades no. ” Respondents were requested 😮 comment briefly on their chemical reactions to the scenarios.The scenarios were developed by reviewing the standards of practice developed by three advertising associations: the 55,000-member AAF, the largest association of advertising professionals whose code of ethics was arri ve ated in 1965; the American Association of Advertising Agencies, whose code was initiatory adopted in 1924; and the National Advertising Division/ National Advertising Review Board, whose ethics code was created in 1971. The reviews identify issues of sterling(prenominal) ethical concern to the advertising industry.Additionally, the research literature on ethics in marketing and advertising was connaturally examined for insights on formulating the scenarios. Hunt and Chonko (1987), for example, in extending an preceding study by Rotzoll and Christians (1980), set six 458 C. B. Pratt and E. L. James Data necessitateion major ethical problems from the responses of 269 advertising decision makers to an open-ended question: â€Å"Would you please briefly describe the aspect of advertising that poses the most difficult ethical or moral problem confronting you in your daily work? ” (p. 19).Also, Wood et al. (1988) utilize 16 vignettes to examine the ethics of business st udents and business professionals. Similarly, Bellizzi and Hite (1989), DeConinck and Good (1989), Dubinsky et al. (1991), Fraedrich and Ferrell (1992), and Mason et al. (1990) employ scenarios, vignettes and statements to assess responders perceptions of ethics. Such hypothetical, ethics-related scenarios provide insights into business ethics, and have been found useful in replicating real-world built in beds for the purpose of evaluating moral conduct (DeConinck and Good, 1989; Dubinsky et al. 1991; Madden, 1989; Hegarty and Sims, 1979). A single-wave mail vision was implement to collect data from the practitioner try from the fall of 1991 through the winter of 1992. To encourage undecided practitioner responses and to obtain an optimal response rate, a hand-typed, individually addressed covering letter, in which respondents anonymity was assured, accompanied each questionnaire. A business-reply envelope was in each piece of mail. Respondents were requested not to write a ny identifying information on the questionnaire. Results [email&# one hundred sixty;protected]le on respondents SamplingA systematic random sampling procedure was employ to select name calling of AAF clubs and federations from the 1991 roster of the AAF. Fol starting the receipt of apprisal that club participation in the survey had been approved, we mailed 2,010 copies of the questionnaire to executive directors or secretaries of clubs. Copies were distributed during general meetings of the clubs. Four hundred eighty-one of the 2,010 copies were returned in a single-wave mailing, yielding a 23. 9% response rate. Only 460 (22. 9%)were usable. This low response rate is concordant with those of like studies (Akaah, 1990; Chonko et aI. 1987; Fritzsche and Becket, 1984; Greyser and Reece, 1971; Hunt et al. , 1984; Myers et al. , 1980; Randall and Gibson, 1990), which reported response rank betwixt 17% and 31%. unrivaled hundred s yetty-four respondents provided reasons for their r esponses to all four scenarios, for an item-response rate of 37. 8%. Because one purpose of this study is to analyze respondents reasons for their philosophical perceptions, the analyses of responses focus on those respondents who provided such comments. Table I presents a s steady-item profile on the 174 respondents. The gender split was almost stir.About 4% of the respondents were 25 years or younger, 29% were surrounded by 26 and 34 years old and 34% among 35 and 43 years old. Eight share and 5. 7% were in the 53-years-to-61-years and the 62years-or-older categories, respectively. Respondents represented each of 25 states in the United States. However, four states †California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan †each had 10 or more open-ended responses. California, with 44 returns, had the most responses. More than one-half of the respondents had between one and 10 years of full-6me advertising experience, 26% between 11 and 20 years experience, and 11% between 21 and 30 years experience.About 1%had more than 40 years experience. With regard to respondents institutional affiliations, intimately 44% worked in an advertising post or department, 17% in companies or corporations, 3. 4% in nonprofit organizations, and 32% in other organizations. About 35% of the respondents indicated that they were in top-management slips, for example, as owners, presidents, executive frailness presidents, vice presidents, and directors. Twenty-six percent were categorize in upper-middle management thoughts: division heads, supervisors, managers.About 40% were categorized in freeze off-middle management positions, for example, as business traffichip executives, season 3%were categorized as non-management strength. Advertising and Classical EtkicaI surmisal disconcert I A demographic profile on respondents (N = 174), in personas grammatical gender Female Male States with 10 or more responses California Colorado Illinois Michigan 25. 3 6. 9 5. 7 10. 9 50. 6% 49. 4 459 While 24% of the respondents did not supervise any employees, a majority held supervisory positions. About 63% supervised between one and 10 eraployees, 7% between l l and 20, and somewhat 3% more than 21 employees.Respondents military rank of and conmaents o n scenarios Scenario no(prenominal) h (Giving gifts to a potential leaf node) This scenario pore on a effeminate ad person who gave gifts to a potential client with the intent of receiving assistance from the client in obtaining the latter(prenominal)s account. Slightly more than one-half of the respondents state that the ad person was wrong, t7% reported that she should be shoot, 40% would do sound what she did, while 56% tell that most ad execs would do as she did. About 83% state their firms should address the role stiffly in a policy.In this scenario, gift-giving perse was not an issue; however, the intent of that practice is important because one study (Hire and Beltizzi, 1987) indicated that gifts ten d to obligate a client to a firm. roughly respondents in the present study considered it a bribe. One, for example, wrote: â€Å" all company I managed had a create verbally policy on such matters. bloody shame would have been reprimanded orally and in writing. A copy would be placed in personnel file. This would contain a ‘warning. ‘ succeeding(a) time, fired. ” Another: â€Å"If it was an overt bribe it was wrong. If it was in trueness a gift then no problem. A respondent who was blunt about the wrongness of the conduct defended its widespread event in the industry: â€Å"What bloody shame did was wrong, but it is common practice in a more subtle way. ” Perhaps reflecting the percentage of respondents who express that most ad executives would do what the ad person did, a number of respondents pointed out that the locating â€Å"happens quite frequently,” that it is â€Å"common practice,” that â€Å"‘gifts is a highly ambiguou s term,” that it is â€Å"standard in the industry,” that most account executives â€Å"routinely give away any(prenominal) they can to get business,” and that â€Å"romancing the client is part of business. Therefore, they think that nor much is wrong with it. In fact, most argued that it depended on the nature of the gift. Age 25 or younger 26â€34 35â€43 44â€52 53â€61 62 or older Years in full-time advertising 0 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 More than 40 years Work Setting Advertising performance/department Public relations agency/department zero(prenominal)-profit organization smart set/corporation Other Management position Top management Upper-middle management Lower-middle management Number of employeessupervised 0 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 5t or high 24. 1 62. 7 6. 9 2. 9 1. 7 1. 1 0. 6 34. 5 25. 8 39. 7 43. 7% 3. 4 3. 4 17. 2 32. 2 6. 52. 3 25. 9 10. 9 2. 9 1. 1 4. 0 29. 3 33. 9 19. 0 8. 0 5. 7 460 C. B. Pratt and E. L. James fudge lI Respons es to statements on ethics scenarios % yesa inculpate u SD Statements on Scenario no 1 (Giving gifts to a potential client) 1. What Mary- did was wrong. 2. Mary should be fired. 3. I would do vindicatory what Mary did. 4. well-nigh ad execs would do just what Mary” did. 5. My firm/dept, has a policy, each scripted or oral, that addresses this kettle of fish or practice. 6. no matter of mr” response to no. 5, it is a well-behaved motif for my firm/dept, to have a policy, both scripted or oral, that addresses the situation or practice.Statements on Scenario zero(prenominal) 2 (Lying about an update on an account) 1. What commode did was wrong. 2. John should be fired. 3. I would do just what John did. 4. Most ad execs would do just what John did. 5. My firm/dept, has a policy-, every write or oral, that addresses this situation or practice. 6. Regardless of my response to no(prenominal) 5, it is a good idea for my finrddept, to have a policy, either scripte d or oral, that addresses the situation or practice. Statements on Scenario No. 3 (Seeking clandestine information) 1. What Pete did was wrong. 2. Pete should be fired. 3. I would dojffst what Pete did. . Most ad execs would do just what Pete did. 5. My firm/dept, has a policy, either written or oral, that addresses this situation or practice. 6. Regardless of my response to No. 5, it is a good idea for my firm/dept, to have a policy, either written or oral, that addresses the situation or practice. 63 18 40 47 22 2. 16 3. 35 2. 01 2. 43 3. 28 1. 14 0. 852 0. 961 0. 856 0. 917 59 18 57 78 24 2. 29 3. 43 2. 48 3. 00 3. 23 1. 05 55 17 40 56 31 2. 36 3. 40 2. 01 2. 62 2. 99 1. 18 0. 811 0. 982 0. 939 1. 15 83 1. 68 0. 918 0. 807 1. 03 0. 825 1,05 72 2. 04 1. 05 67 2. 12 1. 01Advertising and Classical Ethical Theoly Table)8 (Continued) %yes ~ Statements on Scenario No. 4 (Using outdated data) Mean b 46 t SD What Sally did was wrong. Sallyshould be fired. I would do just what Sally did . Most ad execs would dojust what Sally did. My firm/dept, has a policy, either written or oral, that addresses this situation or practice. 6. Regardless of my response to No. 5, it is a good idea for my firm/dept, to have a policy, either writtm. ~or oral, that addresses the situation or practice. I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 82 46 11 36 41 t . 62 2. 68 1. 51 2. 26 2. 84 0. 993 1. 07 0. 742 0. 9 t0 1. 12 81 1. 77 0. 39 a Percent responding â€Å" unquestionably yes” or â€Å"maybe yes. ” b On a four-point scale, with 1 = â€Å" emphatically yes” and 4 = â€Å" unquestionably no. ” A lower intend score indicates a stronger musical arrangement with a statement. Another, perhaps persuasion situationally, asked: â€Å"Is it a pen, a ticket to a concert, or an automobile? ” A president of an ad agency express: â€Å"Often, in this business, I encounter prospective clients that have been ‘wined and dined by their previous agency. Some expert prejudiced tre atment. The prospects that find this offensive and rely for the most part on our agencys ethics, expertise and integrity are those we desire.This philosophy has lost us business, slowed our growth . . . . Business ethics unfortunately in the ad business is perceived neighboring to snake oil salesmen! ” was wrong substantiated their positions with the quest reasons: â€Å"There definitely are multiplication when one must prioritize his/her workload . . . One should not lie to the client but instead talk openly about a schedule of point and possibly see ifa delay would be acceptable. ” D,- â€Å"Schedules for each project~client are developed on approval of estimates. all(a) work is to be done per that schedule, regardless of dollars involved. â€Å"A company should try to meet a ctienCs deadlines no matter the size o f the account. ” O n the other hand, some of those who felt vigour wrong had occurred said: ‘[john did tell the t r u t h . . . For John to tell the whole truth is simply suicidal. Agencies are always cheat workloads. ” m,- â€Å"What John said was not a definite lie. As long as you do not directly tie about a scenario, dont worry. ” m,- ‘[John did what most population would do, then work a lower-ranking harder to get the other work OUt. ” &enario No. 2: (Lying about an update on an account)This scenario was on the failure o f an ad agency module member to tell a client the truth about the status o f the clients account, which had been set aside temporarily in preference for a newer, higher(prenominal)-hilling account. Fifty-nine percent said that the ad agency round member was wrong, 18% said that he should be fired, 57% reported that they would do just what he did, while 78% said that most ad execs would do what the staff did. About 72% said their agencies should address the situation in a policy. Some of those who argued that the agency staff â€Å"I see no reason to forfeit succeeding(a) business and, 462 C. B. Pratt and E. L. James herefore, would use whatever kernel necessary to maintain the relationship. ” did. 81 percent said that their agencies should address situation in a policy. Respondents were understandably provoke by the ad executives action. A respondent said: â€Å"This conduct is indefensible. The client pay for both the campaign and the research (I admit) and is entitle to their results. ” â€Å"There should be truth in advertising and in all of lifes encounters, business or personal. ” Another: â€Å"Sally just deception in not development those current poll results. The client is strangulate to find out what sort of results the bodied image has, eventually. Yet another: â€Å" badly judgment to cover up facts. disciplinary measures to improve poem in upcoming campaigns should be provided to client. ” Some arguments made in behalf of the ad executive: • â€Å"They [the numbers] can be used as indicators, but not absolutes. How many people do you k at present that have participated in TV Nielsen rate surveys and how many programs have the networks cut or kept that you disagree with? ” â€Å"What Sally did was not necessarily wrong or right, accustomed the question. Possibly the campaign required more impact, time, etc. Too many variables in this situation to judge ethics. ” â€Å"Numbers are arbitrary and research is imperfect.One set of ‘bad numbers is, therefore, inconclusive. ” &enario No. 3: (Seeking occult information) During a social meeting, one ad account executive craftily encourage another obviously inebriated ad executive who handled the account for a competing sign to divulge confidential business information. 63 percent said that the ad account executive was wrong. Eighteen percent said that he should be fired, and 40% that they would do just what he did, while 47% said that most ad execs would do what the executive did . Sixty-seven percent said the ad agency should address the situation through political.Among all four scenarios, scenario No. 3 had the second-highest disapproval rate among respondents. One respondent made a blunt, compact comment: â€Å"A definite pique of professional ethics. ” Another: â€Å"This is unacceptable as well as unethical behavior. once the account exec had identified himself, Pete should have identified himself as well. Pete should be reprimanded for his actions, maybe even fired if it appears as if this same scenario would keep open in the future. ” Another: â€Å"It was wrong not to identify himself. ” Yet another: â€Å"Petes winning advantage of his ‘counterpart was opportunistic and immoral. A respondent who saw nothing devious here argued: â€Å"It is a very competitive market. taking advantage of the competitions weakness or tomfoolery is a must. ” Another argument: â€Å" incorporate espionage is no more or less ri ght or wrong than is semipolitical espionage. ” • • Comparison of representation Scenario No. 4: (Using outdated data) In an agencys report to a client, a female ad executive used outdated data that were favorable to both her ad agency and client, while ignoring new, unfavorable information. Eighty-two percent †the highest among all scenarios for statement No. †said that the female ad executive was wrong, 46% said that she should be fired, 11% that they would do just what she did, while 36% said that most ad execs would do what she devil uninflected procedures were used to compute and compare responses to all four scenarios. First, the percentage response to each statement was computed for comparison of the directions of response patterns. Second, case-by-case statistical differences between 36 possible pairs of responses across all four scenarios were determined. Scheffts (1953) multiplecomparisons were used to determine such differences (Table III) .Twenty-five of those 36 pairs and four of the six variable pairs of grand means were importantly different (p ;lt; 0. 05, at least) from each other, indicating respondents differentiation of their evaluation of the scenarios. Thus, this result indicates Advertising and Classical Ethical Theory TABLE III Comparison of means, grand means (and standard deviations) for four scenarios on advertising ethics Scenario One 2. 3; (1. 18) 3. [email&# one hundred sixty;protected] (0. 811) 2. 0P (0. 982) 2. 62~ (0. 939) 2. 99~ Scenario Two 2. 29~ (1. 05) 3. 4Y (0. 807) 2. 48b (1. 03) 3. 00b (0. 825) 3. 23b Scenario Three 2. 1; (1. 14) 3. 35~ (0. 852) 2. 0P (0. 61) 2. 43~ (0. 856) 3. 28b 463 Statement 1. What X did was wrong. 2. X should be fired. 3. I would do just what X did. 4. Most ad execs would do just what X did. 5. My firm/dept, has a policy, either written or oral, on situation or practice. 6. Regardless of my response to No. 5, it is a good idea for my firm/dept, to have a policy, eith er written or oral, on situation or practice. Grand Mean Scenario Four 1. 62b (0. 993) 2. 68b (1. 07) 1. 5V (0. 742) 2. 26d (0. 910) 2. 84~ (t. I 5) (1. 05) (0. 9! 7) (1. 12) 1. 68~ (0. 918) 2,63~ (0. 406) 2. 04b (1. 05) 2. 58~,b (0. 362) 2. 12b (1. 01) 2. 74c (0. 378) 1. 77~ (0. 39) 2. 52b (0. 401) ~,b. ~ Means with different superscripts on the same row are significantly” different, by ScheffSs repeated-measures design. Note: Means are on a four-point scale, with 1 for â€Å"definitely yes” and 4 for â€Å"definitely no. ” Statements 3 and 4 were reverse-coded as t for â€Å"definitely no” and 4 for â€Å"definitely yes. ” A lower mean score, therefore, indicated higher self-reported ethical standards. that the hear practidoners perceptions of ethics vary significantly by the type o f ethical issue confronted, suggesting perceived differences in the intensity of the application of deontology to the scenarios.Fritzsche (1988) and Fritzsche and Bec ker (1984) reported similar differences across vignettes, and concluded that marketing managers well(p) situational ethics. For three of the four scenarios, respondents tended to agree with the statement that the advertising staff involved in the conduct identified in each of the scenarios took the wrong action. However, they tended not to agree that the staff should be fired. It was only in scenario No. 4 (using outdated data) that members tended to perceive the conduct as wrong; even so, the mean response to the statement that the staff â€Å"should be fired” was 2. 8, which was significantly different (p < 0. 001) from re- spondents positions on the firing of the three other practitioners in the other three scenarios. Contextual response An overall evaluation of the respondents evaluation of the wrongness or rightness of a conduct †the essence of Kantian ethics †indicates that the experiment AAF members leave little suspect about their positions on the scenarios outlined in the questionnaire. However, when the evaluations of the statements, taken together, are considered within the context o f classical ethical theory, the members ethics leaves much to be desired.Four questionnaire statements (items 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Tables II and III) were used as direct measures of deontology: â€Å"was wrong,” â€Å"should be fired,” â€Å"I would 464 C. B. Pratt and E. L. James do,” and â€Å"regardless of my response. ” It must be mention here that, even though deontology does not address explicitly the severity of the penalty for an ethical infraction, the theory is not apathetic on punishment. Justice is one of the moral values that deontology considers †even though not always explicitly. In change integrityed-rule and mixed-act deontology, the consequences of ones actions are considered.In essence, there is a built-in role for consequences. This was why Kant, admittedly vague in some areas, invented mor al rules in the first place. Responses to the four deontology-related statements provide four indications of the extent of practitioners adherence to Kantian ethics. First, the respective percentages (28. 7%, 28%, 40% and 65%) of respondents who reported that the actions of the practitioners cited in the four scenarios were definitely wrong indicate that fewer than one-half applied deontological theory to three of the four scenarios.Second, that the practitioner should be fired, the ultimate test of ethics (Singer, 1992), had much lower, definite approval rates: 1. 7%, 1. 1%, 3. 4%, and 16. 1%. Third, the response percentages for item 3 (â€Å"I would do just… â€Å") in scenarios one, two, and three indicate that a sizable number of respondents would get hold of in the questionable behavior outlined in the scenarios. For scenario four, however, 11% said that they would â€Å"definitely” or â€Å"maybe” engage in a behavior that 82% of them reported as wrong.F inally, on item 6, a clear majority indicated an interest in organizational response to the issue brocaded in each scenario. The response percentages for statements 1, 2, and 3, therefore, indicate that practitioners evaluations are clearly at betting odds with tile tenets of deontology and are perhaps more in line with utilitarian and relativistic theories. A further indication of the sample practitioners adherence to deontology is provided by those who responded â€Å"definitely yes” or â€Å"maybe yes” to all four measures of deontology in all four scenarios.The results: 10% 10%, 16%, 32% for scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Such low percentages suggest that a majority of members wavered in dedicateing deontology to the ethical dilemmas with which they were confronted. Bishop (1949) argues that truthtelling (addressed in scenarios 2 and 4) in advertising is â€Å"impossible and the attempt to earn it would reduce advertising to complete ineffectuality and prevent it from fulfilling its legitimate and necessary function” (to. 88).Yet, the first of AAFs eight-principle code of ethics, albeit stated in general terms, focuses on truthtelting: â€Å"Advertising shall tell the truth, and shall reveal significant facts, the omission of which would mislead the public” (American Advertising Federation, 1984). While AAF members report that their companies adhere to AAF principles, they report that other ad agencies tend to adhere less strictly to those principles (Chonko et al. , 1987). Adherence to the truth principle is not only evident among AAF members but it has the largest â€Å"my” versus â€Å"other” company difference ([t †23. 2, p < 0. 01] Chonko et al. , 1987). A number of U. S. corporate executives now realize that if ethical transgressions are not sanctioned by dismissals, they could encourage all kinds of shady dealings and foster the perception that the organization is not really committe d to ethics (Singer, 1992). It is plausible that a mix of utilitarian, JudeoChristian, veil-of-ignorance, and meretricious-mean ethics simultaneously guided the sample practitioners evaluation of the ethical scenarios used in this stud),. However, the investigation of the application of various ethical theories to decision-making was not a purpose of this study.Empirical studies on ethics (e. g. , Ferrelt and Weaver, 1978; Fritzsche, 1988; Fritzsche and Becker, 1983; Krugman and Ferrell, 1981; Pratt, 1991; Pratt and McLaughlin, 1989) increasingly indicate that ethics among business people is frequently not perceived in absolutist terms, but in relative shades of right and wrong. Fritzsche (1991, 1988) and Jones (1991), for example, report that situational ethics is the overwhelming preference of U. S. managers. Advertising codes of ethics are usually written in precise deontological terms, for example, â€Å"must recognize,” â€Å"will not,” â€Å"shall tell the tru th,” â€Å"shall refrain from. Yet, AAF members do not seem to abide by deontology even though â€Å"an enforced, effective code should provide the profession with a spot of stability and consistency in the ethical decision-making of its members” (Beets, 1991, p. 69). It is plausible that the patterns of responses in this present study suggest adherence to utilitarian ethics, which is like by advertising agency personnel Advertising and Classical Ethical Theory (Rotzotl and Christians, 1980; Christians et al. , 199 I). On the other hand, utilitarian ethics seeks to maximize the good for all concerned.However, the terminal point of this ethical theory is inherent in how the â€Å"good” is determined. Beyond that, the interests of the minority tend to be given short shrift. What, therefore, are the chances that advertising-agency actions will result in the â€Å"greatest blessedness for the greatest number”? Also, Nevett (1985) disagrees with Bishops (1 949) insinuation that the ethical standards of advertising be utilitarian because such an approach cannot â€Å"provide advertising people today with guidance on suitable ethical standards for their profession” (e. 04). Rawls (1971) criticizes utilitarianism, noting that it does not take seriously the differences among people; rather, it views as morally just that which has the sum of satisfactions (or correspond utility) for the community. As an alternative to utilitarian thought, Rawls (1971) suggests â€Å"a new moral theory” that will give adequate account to the primacy of arbiter, mute as the protection of the equal rights of all individuals, over the social good” (Schaefer, 1979, p. 22).To pass on equal arbitrator in society, therefore, everyone should assume a hypothetical â€Å"original position” †behind a â€Å"veil of ignorance” †which requires that, in evaluating situations, people step from their everyday, status-based t raditional roles into an classless position behind a veil. The aspiration is to develop a conception of judge or of the good from a disinterested, â€Å"equal” perspective. Would a recommendation that practitioners who compromise the ethical standards identified in the scenarios be fired be an illustration of such justice?And would such firing be in an organizations or in a societys surmount interest? Finally, it is plausible that Judeo-Christian morality †an altruistic, religion-based tradition †is also reflected in respondents evaluations of the dilemmas in the ethical scenarios. 465 perceived as â€Å"definitely” having such policies for each of the four scenarios (and those who â€Å"definitely” think that having such policies is a good idea) are, respectively, 17. 8 (56. 3), 11. 5 (38. 5), 4. 6 (33. 3) and 15. s (50 0).The large differences between having such policies and thinking that having such policies is a good idea lends credence to the continuing public and practitioner concern over advertising ethics. For advertising agencies, such policies could result in two possibilities: (1) they may encourage agencies to also put through deontology to ethical issues, and (2) they may help agencies induct an eclectic approach to ethical decision-making †that is, to apply ethical principles that may involve manner of speaking all five commonly used classical theories to bear simultaneously on the decision-making process.These five theories, which are not mutually exclusive, fall into one of two grand categories: deontology or teleology. They are (1) Aristotles golden mean (â€Å"moral virtue is appropriate location between two extremes”); (2) the theoretical framework for this present study, Kants categorical imperative (â€Å"act on that maxim which you will to become a universal law”); (3) Mills principle of utility (â€Å"seek the greatest gaiety for the greatest number”); (4) Rawlss (1971) veil of ignorance (â€Å"justice emerges when negotiating without social differentiations”); and (5) Judeo-Christian persons as ends (â€Å" distinguish they neighbor as yourself”).Aristotles theory of the golden mean, a virtuebased ethics, strikes a moral rest period between two extremes, one indicating excess, the other deficiency. The mean, in this context, is not a statistical mean but a willingness on the part of the decision maker to sour moderation or temperance †a virtue. Such a mean rdates to the individuals particular situation, her or his stay. is, strengths and weaknesses (Chiistians et aI. , 1991). Utilitarian ethics, a form of teleological ethics, was enunciated by John able Mill as that which seeks â€Å"the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To assess the â€Å"greatest good,” a person or organization performs a cost-benefit analysis of an action or decision. If the latter would result in the good of the majority, that is, if it s benefits for the â€Å"greatest number” outweigh its costs, then the act is ethically right. Rawlss (197 t) veil of ignorance, a nonconsequen- closing curtain The results presented in this study indicate a strong (perceived) reluctance on the part of the ad agencies to institute policies, either written or oral, that would proscribe unethical conduct. The percentages of respondents whose firms or departments are 466C. B. Pratt and E. L. James tialist theory of justice, governs the appointee of rights and duties and regulates the distribution of social and economic advantages. People, Rawts (197I) argued, â€Å"have an equal right to the most all-inclusive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others” (Rawls, 1971, p. 60). Finally, Judeo-Christian morality is an altruistic tradition that is being popularized in the West as â€Å"the more dramauc term agape †unselfish, otherregarding care and other-directed love, distinct from friendship, charity , benevolence, and other weaker notions” (Christians et al. 1991, p. 20). The interpretation of the results of this present study within the context of Kantian ethics suggests that deontology is clearly not the preference of the sample practitioners. The de-emphasis of deontological ethics among practitioners is probable to engender a laissez faire approach to ethical issues. Dubinsky et al. (1991) suggest a reason for this phenomenon from an overall business perspective: â€Å" umteen of the situations business people confront are in a ‘gray area where the portraying between the right versus the wrong action is not clear” (p. 52). On the other hand, strict deontologicaI ethics could encourage advertising practitioners to understand the precise boundaries of ethical and unethical conduct, as has been found among salespeople (Michaels et at. , 1988). It has been reported that managers who apply deontological ethics under uncertain conditions are least likely to c hange their decisions even when they perceive the risk of their decisions; those who apply utilitarian ethics are more likely to change their decisions to satisfy financial and/or self-esteem goals (Fraedrich and Ferrell, 1992).And herein lies a life-or-death value of deontological ethics to advertising: more likely, it will encourage advertisers to adhere to the precepts of ethics, scope aside personal financial and social rewards for the public good. At least 67% of the respondents in the present study suggested that their organizations establish policies on questionable conduct (item 6). wherefore did such a majority suggest such boundaries on behavior? wherefore would they prefer that formal company policies confine questionable behaviors?It is plausible that the sample practitioners place much value on formal policies because of the perceived importance of affirmation on what they consider ethical or unethical. Further, such a formal process may indicate more than a perfun ctory commitment of their organizations to ethics. This possibility suggests two detect questions on the implications of the results of the present study for policy-making: (1) Where lies the responsibility for shaping advertising agency ethics? (2) And what relevant does deontology have for the culture of advertising staffs?In a language given two dozen years ago by Bill Marsteller, afford of the advertising agency, Marsteller Inc. (a forerunner of Burson-Marsteller, the worlds third-largest public relations agency), he said: â€Å"It is not complete [for the advertising student] to simply attain general standards of morality and gustatory sensation; it is important to be subjected to the deliberate considerations of advertising morality and taste… ” (Marsteller, 1972, p. 241). Marsteller sees education in advertising ethics as important as that for the yield of creative, charming advertising.Just as the effectiveness of information sessions has been called into question (Feldman and Thompson, 1990; Levin, 1989), their impact has also been demo (e. g. , Feldman and Thompson, 1990; Hanson, 1987; Harris and Guffey, 1991). On balance, however, it behooves ad clubs and various advertising associations to establish programs that, at the minimum, sensitize practitioners to some of the social and professional sequelae of their ethics-related decisions. The results of this limited study justify the adoption of such measures.Caveats Two limitations of this stud), should be outlined. The first is the old issue of â€Å"self-reported” ethics. Even though measures were taken to admonish the use of socially desirable responses, that possibility cannot be ignored because perceptual distoruon is higher when the dependent variable is as highly sensitive as the subject of ethics (Hunt et al. , 1989; Randall and Fernandes, 1991). The second is the representativeness of the sample, which was drawn from 25 states, for the 50,000member AAF.Because the sample was not randomly selected, it is important that this present study be replicated on a larger, more geographically diverse sample to determine the extent to which its results are consistent with those of such a nationwide study. Advertising and Classical Ethical Theory\r\n'