This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 THE INFLUENCE OF GENDER ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ORIENTATION By TAMEKIA MASSALINE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 T amekia M assaline
3 To my m om
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express a heartfelt thank you to my committee chair Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson for her guidance encouragement and support Her eagerness to help and encouraging words truly kept me going throughout this process. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Linda Hon and Dr. Moon Lee for their advice and insight. I am forever grateful to my family and friends for their unconditional love and ongoing support throughout this journey. Their faith in my ability to succeed motivated me to push forward and keep going. Finally, I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for guiding me an d truly being the co author of this thesis
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 What is CSR? ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 10 CSR as Gender Issue ................................ ................................ ....................... 11 Gender and Ethics ................................ ................................ ............................ 11 Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 12 Statement of Purpose ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 History of CSR ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14 Public Relations and CSR ................................ ................................ ....................... 17 Public Relations Models ................................ ................................ .......................... 18 Issues for Public Relations ................................ ................................ ...................... 19 Gender Issues in Public Relations ................................ ................................ .......... 20 Components of CSR ................................ ................................ ............................... 22 Corporate Social Responsibility Ori entation ................................ ............................ 24 Item Selection and Content Validity ................................ ........................... 25 Studies Using CSRO Instrument ................................ ................................ 25 Gender ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 27 Androgyny ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 27 Gender Roles ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 29 Gender Schema Theory ................................ ................................ ................... 29 Gender Identity Theory ................................ ................................ ..................... 30 Social Role Theory ................................ ................................ ........................... 31 Gender and Ethics ................................ ................................ ............................ 32 BSRI ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 33 BSRI Criticisms ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 34 Hypotheses and Rationale ................................ ................................ ...................... 37 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 38 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 39 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 42
6 Descriptive Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 42 Reliability of Scales ................................ ................................ ................................ 43 Hypothesis Testing ................................ ................................ ................................ 51 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ .............................. 73 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ...... 74 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 75 Limitations and Future Research ................................ ................................ ............ 77 APPENDIX : FORMS AND SURVEYS ................................ ................................ ........... 79 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 91 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 98
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Descriptive statistics ................................ ................................ ........................... 43 4 2 Factor analysis CSR orientation statements ................................ ...................... 44 4 3 Factor analysis masculinity, femininity and neutral constructs ............................ 48 4 4 ANOVA sex role by sex ................................ ................................ ...................... 51 4 5 ANOVA sex role by androgyny ................................ ................................ ........... 51 4 6 ANOVA CSR orientation by sex ................................ ................................ ........ 52 4 7 Correlations CSR components and sex role ................................ ....................... 54 4 8 Significance of difference of correlation tests ................................ ..................... 55 4 9 Correlations 4 years of college or less ................................ ................................ 57 4 10 Correlations practitioners with advanced degrees ................................ ............. 59 4 11 Correlations sector p rivate ................................ ................................ ............... 61 4 12 Correlations sector not for profit ................................ ................................ ....... 62 4 13 Correlations industry PR agency ................................ ................................ ...... 64 4 14 Correlations industry government ................................ ................................ .... 66 4 15 Correlations industry non profit ................................ ................................ ........ 68 4 16 Correlations ind ustry health related/trade associations ................................ .... 70 4 17 Correlations industry independent PR consultants ................................ ........... 72
8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication THE INFLUENCE OF GENDER ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ORIENTATION By Tamekia Massaline August 2011 Chair : Mary Ann Ferguson Major: Mass Communi cation This paper explored the effects of sex role on the corporate social responsibility orientation of public relations practitioners. A sample of 123 practitioners were recruited to participate in the current su rvey. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire measuring sex role and CSR orientation. Previous studies have looked at CSR orientation through the lens of sex, major and religiosity but the present study looked at CSR orientation in terms of g ender. Results indicated that practitioner s who scored high on the femininity index were found to more highly favor ethical and discretionary CSR components and those who scored high on the masculinity index were found to more highly favor the legal CSR co mponent. In addition to sex the study also looked at additional factors that affect the likelihood to value certain CSR dimensions over others. Specifically level of education, sector of employment, and organization of employment were studied. The study c oncludes with a discussion of the implications for practitioners and theory building.
9 CHAPTER 1 I NTRODUCTION Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has evolved vastly over the years. CSR has grown from a narrow one dimensional notion of philanthropy to a complex multifaceted concept that is central to much corporate decision making (Cochra n, 2007). The fact that over 80% of Fortune 500 companies feature CSR issues on their company Web sites further demonstrates the growth of corporate CSR initiatives and the value that companies are now seeing in CSR activities (Drumwright & Murphy, 2001 ). What is CSR? Mohr, Webb and Harris (2001) define CSR as "a company's commitment to minimizing or eliminating any harmful effects and maximizing its long run beneficial impact on society" (p.47). Davis (1973) offered a definition of CSR as "the firm's consideration of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm to accomplish social benefits along with the traditiona l Carroll (1983) describes CSR as the conducting of business that is profitable, ethical, law abiding, and socially responsible. He defines social responsibility by the extent to which a corporation contribute s to society financially, with its resources and with its time. Carroll (1979) further explained that for social responsibility to fully address the entire range of obligations a business has to society, it must embody the economic, legal, ethical, and dis cretionary categories of business performance. These four categories of social responsibility reflect definitions of many different scholars and show how social responsibility is believed to include more than economic and legal concerns, which were formerl y the focus throughout much of the history of business. CSR
10 assumes that corporations do more than simply adhere to the law in conducting business by look ing beyond the financial interest of their stockholders and onto the societal impact of their existenc e. Background Decreased trust in government and increased power of corporations ha ve heightened the role that corporations now play in society (Ucello, 2009). No longer can corporations exist with the sole purpose of producing a profit. Consumers now expe ct more from the companies in which they spend their hard earned money. There are numerous incentives for corporations to be socially responsible. Consumers are more likely to identify with a company that promotes a positive social identity. Consumers who identify with a company have more loyalty and also are more likely to promote the company to others, and furthermore are more resistant to negative attacks against that company (Mohr & Webb, 2005). According to Marin et al. (2008) this growing interest in CSR is because of its influence on consumer behavior at a time when consumers are 65). For some time the question was whether corporate decision makers should be concerned with issues that extended beyond the bottom line. Friedman (1970) contended that the only stakeholder who corporations are accountable to is stockholders. Friedman writes: There is one and only one social responsibility of busi ness to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud (Friedman, 1970 p. 178)
11 This view is n ow only held by the minority and increasingly most large companies are recognizing both the value and necessity of CSR (Carroll, 1999). CSR as Gender Issue While the body of knowledge on CSR is extensive and scholars have examined CSR from many perspecti ves, little research has examined CSR as a gender issue. With practitioners increasingly understanding the importance of CSR, it is interesting to investigate the CSR orientation between male and female public relations practitioners. Differences between men and women extend to not only to the biological level but also are apparent psychologically. Bem (1974) describes been associated with an instrumental orientation, a cognitive focus on "getting the job done and femininity has been associated with an expressive orientation, an affective implications in the roles and duties that men and women assume in the workplace and also in their approaches to carrying out these duties. Gender and Ethics Many studies have explored gender issues within the field of public relations. As reported in Aldoory and Toth (2002) although the publ ic relations field is nearly 70% female, men nevertheless are favored i n hiring, elevated salaries, and promotion to management positions. Research has given numerous explanations for this phenomenon. One of those explanations is the varied ethical decision making between men and women. Mason and Murack (1996) conducted a s urvey of business students
12 inference that men and women hold different ethical values &Shepherd, 1989; White and Manolis 1997; Gilligan 1982). Other researchers have criticized gender related research suggesting that it only reinforces stereotypical images. Dobbins and Platz (1986) report that they found no differences in the way men and women managers responded to work situations. Theory Social role theory helps to explain the varying roles between the sexes. Social role theory posits that differential social roles arise from the separate social roles that society has traditionally assumed for the sexes (Harrison & Lynch, 2005). These roles are perpetuated in the work place through assignments of sex appropriate roles and are often apparent in occupational decision making. Statement of Purpose With findings showing th at men and women have varying ethical codes it is important to explore how this orientation affects approach es to CSR. As the number of women in the public relations profession continues to rise, the question is whether the manner in which CSR is practice d has changed because of this shift. Many previous studies have examined ethical differences between men and women in varying occupations. Previous studies on the factors affecting CSR orientation focus on the demographic characteristics of managers, such as sex religion, major etc. This paper will explore the effects of sex role on the CSR orientation of public relations practitioners. This study will explore whether s ex role may be a better predictor of CSR orientation than sex. This information will prove important for practitioners and theory building T he Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) will be used as a masculinity femininity scale to determine sex role
13 social responsibility scale will be used to observe how these tra its determine CSR CSR components This study will also look at how public relations education, sector and industry employment of public relations practitioner s a ffects their corporate social r esponsibility orientation s
14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW History of CSR As the study is focused on U.S. practitioners, t his section will focus on primarily the U.S. h istory of CSR. As early as the turn of the 20 th century glimpses of CSR could be seen on an individual basis through philanthropy. Wealthy individuals such as Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford donated generously to the needy in a time whe n the poor did not have Medicare or Social Security to assist them. With an increasing need for more assist ance due to population increases and as a result of the aftermath of World War I, the burden to help the poor was too much for individuals and businesses began to share in the responsibility (Clark, 2000). The 1950 s can be considered the beginning of the modern era of corporate social responsibility. Carroll (2009) identifies the period prior to the 1950s as the philanthropic era Social Responsibilities of the Businessman marks the beginning of modern literature on corporate social responsibility. In the book Bowen notes the power of large businesses in decision making that touches the lives of society. In this book published more than 50 years ago Bowen predicted that corporate social responsibility was not a passing trend but would be an important concept that would guide business in the future. Carroll executives were getting more comfortable with the concept of CSR (p. 26). The late 1950s to the 1960s marked a decrease in public faith in the government as a result of government initiatives that failed to alleviate community needs. With less e public turned to corporations to
15 initiatives to fill the void In this decade some companies also began producing social reports (Clark, 2000) Also in the 1960s capitalism looked to establish legitimacy. As a result there was a growing concern with corporate ethics and social responsibility. This period saw an emergence of businessmen more willing to su pport the concept of CSR (Nehme & Wee, 2008). The 1960s marked a growth to formulate what CSR really means. The idea that CSR could spur profitability in the long term was derived during this period (Davis, 1960). Friedman asserted a counterargument to the movement towards corporate social responsibility. He asked the question He declared F ew trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much mon 133). As an economist, he believed that social matters were not the concern of businesses and such problem s should resolv e themselves in a free market. Friedman affirms that managers are required only to use econo mic and legal analysis and that an ethical analysis is not necessary in making decisions (Kok et al., 2001). Critics of this viewpoint argue that a business must consider in addition to its profit the long range social costs of its activities (Shaw and Bar justification for the existence of any corporation is that it serves its purpose: to benefit
16 public interest in CSR continued to increase throughout the 1970s and cor porate social responsibility became a more commonly used phrase in business circles (Nehme & Wee, 2008). In th e 1970s, there were references to corporate social responsiveness and corporate social performance in addition to corporate social responsibility. According to Clark (2000) the rise of CSR, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, coincided with increase d concern for corporate image. In the 1980s CSR continued to be redefined and academics began developing alternative and complementary concepts to c orp orate social responsibili ty. T here was a shift in research from studying how CSR should be practiced to actually discovering ethical means to respond to social issues (Clark, 2000). The idea of corporate social performance continued to grow in this decade Issues that rose to importance were environmental pollution, employment discrimination, employee safety, quality of work life, deterioration of urban life and abusive practices of multinational corporations (Carroll, 2009). In the 1990s sustainability wa s an emerging theme. There was an increase in managing corporate giving. In the early 1990s corporate social performance became an increasingly popular notion. Wood (19 91) revisit ed the Carroll ( 1979) model and the Wartick and Cochran (1985) model a nd placed CSR in a broader context emphasizing outcomes, which we re implicit in previous models. The concern for CSR accelerated after the fall of the Berlin Wall which represented the f all of communism and accelerated globalization (Hopkins, 2006). Communism was seen as a threat to the American way of life and in response
17 businesses leaders decided that their obligation was not only to their o wn company but also to society. In the 2000 s corporate irresponsibility in cases such as Enron and World Com and increase in environmental concerns fueled public interest in CSR and in holding corporations more accountable. Also the internet made it easier to gain access to information regarding c The 2000s also brought rise to more empirica l research on the topic of CSR. U c cello (2009) noted a shift due to globalization. As corporations gain power and importance in the global marketplace so does the importance of CSR. In the past decades, en terprises were local businesses and mom and pop shops that were integral components in the community. These family owned and operated businesses were indebted and dependent on the surrounding communit y for survival, and consequently th eir businesses practices reflected a positive regard for community well being because of the se personal relationships. With globalization the influence and power of corporations ha ve grown significantly. Corporations are in the position to provide jobs and positively affect the social conditions of communities around the world (U c cello, 2009). Public Relations and CSR maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and publics on 05 p.3). Dozier (1992) notes relations unit in an organizat ion.
18 Arthur W. Page, one of the early pioneers of the public relations field, coined many concepts that remain true today in approaching both public relations and CSR activities. One of those ideas in particular provides important insight and remains usef ul in the 21 st Waeraas (2007) drawing on the work of German sociologist Max Weber, defined public relat he public. This definition of public relations also provides a basis for the foundation of CSR as a legitimate activity of public relations. ) explains the relationship between public relations and CSR. She asserts that public relations and CS R are not activities which should be evaluated separately The author suggests that all too often the two activities are interconnected in such a way that CSR becomes a tool for public relations. further describes public relations role in co rporate social responsibility: Corporate social responsibility has become important to public relations because such programs offer the opportunity to build good will by promoting the benefits of the company to its stakeholders. In addition to its advisory management role public relations also provides the techniques to communicate these activities to target publics which may include the media and individuals seen to be of influence to the organization (p.115) Public Relations Models An understanding of p ublic relations models is helpful in understanding issues that public relations practitioners face in CSR. Grunig and Hunt (1984) introduced the
19 concept of models to help explain ways in which organizations relate to publics. The authors outlined four mode ls of public relations: press agentry, public information, two way asymmetrical and two way symmetrical. Press agentry and public information are one way models with the sole focus on organizational gain Grunig and Hunt discuss press agentry as the oldest model which serves the purpose of creating and disseminating favorable information in order to manipulate public opinion. The authors explain the public information model values the truth but only disseminates information selectively from the organizatio n to the public. In contrast, the two way asymmetrical model involves research gathering on issues salient to the public. This information is then disseminated with the goal of persuading the public. Finally, the two way symmetrical model is similar to th e asymmetrical model in that it gathers and disseminates information but the goal is instead to provide mutual gain for both the organization and public. The two way symmetrical model is ideal in practice because it results in long term relationships and m utual gain for the organization and its public. Issues for Public Relations In addition to the role that practitioners play in advising top management, practitioners also provide the techniques to communicate these activities to target publics which inclu de the media individuals and other groups of influence to the organization. Th e role of public relations then is both to facilitate t he activity and communicate the activity for CSR in itself can be seen as an example o f symmetrical public relations but once communicated to a third party it can be seen as publicity. This publicity raises ethical questions and can be a moral dilemma to a company. The publi cizing of a CSR initiative
20 brings rise to questions over the moral motivation of the initiative. The question is whether the corporation and practitioners are motivated by a self interested desire to achieve publicity or a sincere obligation to socie ty With measuring the effectiveness of a CSR program by the means of me dia hits and attention and not the outcome s related in the enacted program the company suggests a motivation grounded in self interest. Practitioners that openly and honestly communicate the self interest in the CSR activity can then be seen as operating i n the public information model because there is in fact no action on behalf of the organization as result of the disseminated information Symmetry is more closely achieved once the claim to being a good corporate citizen is no longer measured by media hi ts but success is measured by achieving the intended goal on the beneficiarie s which the initiatives s eek to impact. The role of the practitioner is important because the practitioner has the ability from the inception of the initiative to cultivate the di rection that the corporation will take Gender Issues in Public Relations Gender issues in public relations are well represented in public relations literature. In the 1940s women in the public relations industry were fighting for equal p ay and also combating the perception that having women in public relations management positions would diminish the value of the profession (Cheryl, 2006). In 1968 only one in every 10 members of PRSA was female. That ratio was one in every seven in 1975 (Broom, 1982). By the 1980s the field was 50 % female (Aldoory & Toth, 2002). In 2000, 70% to 80% of students in U.S. college public relations classes were women (Grunig, et. al, 2000). Aldoory and Toth (2002) report ed that similar to public relation s clas s es, the profession is nearly 70 % female.
21 There is extensive literature exploring gender issues in public relations Aldoory and Toth (2002) show in their study that both men and women believe that men are promoted more quickly and that it is more difficul t for women than men to reach top level positions. The Toth and Cline (1991) study found that both men and women found number of men in the field position them as valuable assets to their organization and male and female management often reward men with promotions with hopes of retention of the valued males. The Aldoory and Toth (2002) study found that men are socialized to feel like they are entitled to move up in an organi zation and feel more confident in asking for a promotion. Socialization has a major impact on negotiation skills in men and women. Men are socialized to be aggressive and assertive at a young age. Men take these skills into salary negotiations, resulting i n higher pay and higher promotion rates. Men feel less fear and apprehensions in asking for promotions because of their comfort in approaching negotiation situations. Women are more timid and feel that their work is not deserving of a promotion. Negotiatio n situations in general are less familiar for women. Toth and Cline (1991) found that nearly half of men found their gender helpful to their careers. Less than 20% of women, on the other hand, found their gender helpful. Twice as many women as men reported gender to be unhelpful in their careers. This shows that men find their gender advantageous where women believe their gender to (1993) survey showed concern that the incre ase in the number of women in public relations would drive down salaries of all practitioners.
22 Grunig, et al. (2000) argue that public relations is an industry founded on feminist values. These values include qualities such as such as honesty, justice, and sensitivity. With the utilization of these values, practitioners are able to better practice symmetrical communication. The authors argue that the two way symmetrical model of public relations, the model defined as including conflict resolution and relati onship building, is an intrinsically feminist value (Grunig, et al., 2000). Scholars (e.g., J. E. Grunig, 1992) suggest that a feminine world view produces the most effective public relations. This feminine world view can be seen through a balanced, two wa y communication between an organization and its stakeholders and is believed to make the greatest contribution to organizational effectiveness. Some values that are considered feminine values are listed as following: altruism, caring, commitment, equality, equity, ethics, fairness, forgiveness, integrity, justice, loyalty, morality, nurturance, perfection, quality of life, reciprocity, respect, standards, tolerance, and cherishing children (Grunig, et al., 2000) The literature suggests that women possess c haracteristics and values best suited for the practice of public relations. Grunig, et al. (2000) suggests that given this, practitioners with feminine values should be the most socially responsible practitioners. Components of CSR According to Carroll (1 979) the four components : economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary 40) Legal responsibilities require that companies operate within the limitations of the law. As businesses have carry out this contract within the confine s of the law. This requirement includes
23 adherence to all laws and regulations relevant to the company. This element aligns with obligation that businesses possess in a democratic country to exist by public approva l (Carroll, 1979) Ethical responsibilities go beyond what is required by the law and includes acting with fairness and behaving in accordance with social values. This ex tends beyond what companies must do to what companies should do for the best interest of society. Societal expectations for ethical behavior hold companies to a standard higher than that of basic legal requirements. These behaviors include behaviors that are expected by society and are often the most difficult to define (Carroll, 1979) Discretionary responsibilities include those activities that are consistent with charitable expectation of society. These include activities that work towards improving the quality of life of the community in which the company exists (Carroll, 1979). Economic responsibilities include producing goods and services that consumers need and want in order to make a profit. All other business responsibilities are dependent on this responsibility because without it the other responsibilities cannot be carried out (Carroll, 1979) Carroll (1991) later depicted the four components of CSR using a pyramid with the economic responsibility forming the base of the pyramid. The next level is legal followed by e thical and finally discretionary responsibilities which form the top of the pyramid. He states that his four dimensions are more exhaustive than previous models although they are not mutually exclusive (Carroll, 1979). Carroll (1991) emphasizes the importance of all four dimensions: In summary, the total corporate social responsibility of business entails the simultaneous fulfillment of the firm's economic, legal, ethical, and
24 philanthropic responsibilities. Stated in more pragmatic a nd managerial terms, the CSR firm should strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate citizen (p 229) Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation Because managers have discretion in choosing specific initiatives that they p refer to enact, their own personal philosophy in decision making regarding CSR becomes important. Given this, examining factors that affect particular orientation to certain CSR responsibilities is a necessary area of research. Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfie ld (1985) describe t he initial purpose of th eir study was to develop an instrument to measure degree of orientation to social responsibility based upon a model defining corporat e social responsibility that had appeared in the literature. Although the auth ors recognized that there was no universally accepted defini ti on for CSR Carroll ( 1979) definition was used in this study for instrument development because Carroll's conceptualization had multiple components that lend themselves to measurement and test ing. Carroll (1979) proposed that there was a clear ordering of priorities for the four components of responsibilities and relatively the importance of each responsibility was fairly consistent. The approximate weightings of the four CSR responsibilities: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic, were 4:3:2:1 respectively. Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation (CSRO) is important because it can indicate the areas considered most important to managers in their decision making. To measure CSR orienta tion Aupperle (1982, 1984) drawing on the work of Carroll (1979) created an
25 Item S election and C ontent V alidity The first concern in the creation of this instrument was construct validity. In order to ensure that s tatements on corporate social responsibility were representati ve, an exhaustive list of state ments representing the three non economic components of derived from five studies: Eilbirt and Parket (1973), Corson and Steiner (1974), Paluszek (1976), Holmes (1977), and Ostlund (1977). Industry specific items were removed in order to ensure meaningful ratings across industries. Items selected to represent the economic component were extracted from performance measures typically found in corporate sections of Business Week an d Forbes, being well established economic measure in managerial finance texts. An inventory of 117 statements was developed for each of the four components A panel of six independent judges screened the 117 statements making certain that each statement represented f ro m the other categories. A consensus for a statement was granted when at least five judges agreed. Panel judges reviewed each to e nsure that the statement had equal levels of social desirability S tatements were randomly ordered to reduce response bias (Aupperle, Carroll & Hatfield, 1985) Studies Using CSRO Instrument Smith and Blackburn (1988) and Burton and Hegarty (1999) conduct ed a study gender, Machiavellian corporate social responsibility. Machiavellianism is a strategy for dealing with peop le that is described as emotional detachment and a view of people as being manipulative. Social desirability is a long recognized pr oblem in self report surveys. It is assumed that
26 w ith social responsibility respondent s give answers that conform to current ly accept ed societal attitudes, even if that point of view is not congruent with their own personal belief. Burton and Hegarty found that females saw economic responsibilities as less important than males and found no difference in legal and discretionary responsibilities. As far as Machiavellianism, the researchers found that the importance of economic responsibilities rose with the increasi ng levels of Machiavellianism. McDonald and Scott (1997) used the Aupperle scale to examine the attitudes of business and non business students economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary corporate actions. The study specified differences according to three variables: gender, major and race. Findings reported that female students had a stronger orientation than male st udents toward discretionary and ethical corporate actions and that males students held a stronger economic orientation than females. Business major s had a stronger economic orientation than non business majors and non white students had stronger discretio nary orientation. Ibrahim, Howard and Angelidis ( 2008 ) used the instrument to determine a relationship between an i ndividual's degree of religious ness and his or her CSR orientation. After surveying both students and managers the authors reported th at that religiousness philanthropic responsibilities of business. However, level of religiousness did not have a The study ultimately, corrobor ated previous studies reporting does not have an impact on ethical decision making.
27 Gender Exploring and defining gender are imperative in understanding the importance of the present study. The terms sex and gend er are often used interchangeably without much differentiation betwee n the meanings of the two terms However t he definition offered by Wood (1997) best describes the d ifference between the two terms. Wood while gender is socially and determined at birth. While we are born male or female gender is defined by society and expressed through interactions with others (Woods, 1997). G ender unlike sex is not stable and can change over time. Wood (1997) further explains: In most cases, sex and gender go together; most men are primarily masculine, and most women are primarily feminine. In some cases, however, a male expresses himself m ore femininely than most men, or a woman expresses herself in more masculine ways than most women. Many gender theories have been developed to help explain male and female differences. Androgyny The concept of androgyny is less commonly discussed and shou ld be more thoroughly defined for the purpose of this study. In the 1970s, researchers coined the word androgyny by combining the Greek word aner or andros, meaning Greek word gyne, (Wood, 1997). Bem (1974, 1975) define s the concept of androgyny, referring to a high propensity of both feminine and masculine characteristic in an individual. Bem explains that this heightened propensity represents a more flexible standard of psychological health than m ost sex typed individuals.
28 Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz (1972) explain that sex role stereotypes str ongly influence individuals' standards and evaluations of behavior. They report that men and masculine characteristics are more highly valued than women and f eminine characteristics According to their findings, b oth males and females agreed masculine characteristics are more socially desirable. Schein (1973, 1975) also found agreement by male an d female managers on a masculine profile as a favorable profile fo r a successful manager. Basil (1973) reported that attributes rated as highly important in upper management levels also were perceived as more likely to be found in men than women. Bem (1975) suggests that people should no longer be socialized to conform t o outdated notions of masculinity and femininity but instead be encouraged to be androgynous. Androgyno us individuals are more likely to display sex role adaptability and engage in situationally appropriate behavior without regard to stereotypes of sex app ropriate behavior. Brenner and Greenhaus (1979) in a study of male and female managers and non managers found that traits such as aggression, dominance, and achievement orientation, which have been attributed to male managers, are more likely to be associa ted with both men and women who have attained managerial positions. Powell and Butterfield (1979) report that as more women become managers, it is poss ible that traditional masculine oriented standards for managerial behavior are being replaced by androgyn ous standards. They also suggest that it is also possible that new female managers take on masculine traits and behaviors typical of male managers to succeed in the masculine working world (Powell & Butterfield 1979)
29 Caudill, Hathorn, and O'Brien (1977) b elieve androgynous males to be more inclined to display discrete masculine or feminine behaviors across situations, whereas androgynous females would more likely blend sex role behaviors. Heilbrun (1986) proposed that males are more likely than females to utilize either masculine or feminine behavior in order to maximize social reinforcement from one situation to the next. Androgynous females, on the other hand, are more likely t o blend sex role behaviors across situations. Heilbrun (1986) suggest s androgy ny to be more impor tant for women than it is for men because androgynous women have proven more effective than women displaying other sex types. Androgynous men have not been found to be more or less effective. Ellis and Range (1988) propose that androgyn ous individual s demonstrate more reasons for living than gender typed individuals. Androgynous individuals function more adaptively in modern living and also are more psychologically healthy. Gender Roles Gender serves an important role in culture and eac h culture has developed a gender appropriate tasks based on sex, all cultures are alike in t he fact that these roles are taught in childhood through socialization (Bem, 1981). Bem describes the process 354). Gender Schema Theory Bem (19 81) describes gender schema:
30 The theory proposes that sex typing results, in part, from the fact that the self concept itself gets assimilated into the gender schema. As children learn the contents of the society's gender schema, they learn which attribut es are to be linked with their own sex and, hence, with themselves. Engrained in the very essence of child rearing is the idea of gender favorable concepts. Little girls are praised for properly nurturing their baby dolls, while little boys are complimente d on how big and strong they are becoming. According to Maltz and Borker (1982) when boy s play their play is more group o riented, competitive and status oriented compared to girls who are more dyadic, cooperative and egalitarian. These comments of gender appropriate sex attributes carry on into adulthood and these attributes are selected above other less appropriate traits. Self concept is built, based on the ability to fulfill the created gender schema (Bem, 1981). Aries (1996) reports that men are more l ikely to dominate in groups by talking and interrupting, to emerge as leaders and to be oriented to solving problems. Women, on the other hand, are more expressive, supportive, facilitative, and cooperative and develop more personal relationships. Gender I dentity Theory individually constructed is gender identity theory. Stoller (1964) describes that gender identity is established by age three through the relationship between mother and child. This relationship is experienced differently for boys and girls. From that time on, gender identity, which is the core of personality, is irreversible and unchanging. Gender identity consists of biological sex, instrumental and expressive psycholog ical traits and gender role attitudes. Psychological gender refers to the masculine and feminine traits associated with males and females. Gender role attitudes
31 refer to individuals' beliefs about which roles are gender appropriate to endorse or reject for men and women (McCabe et. al.2006). Social Role Theory Social role theory helps to better explain the link between sex and workplace expectations. Social role theory suggests that differential social roles arise from the separate social roles that socie ty has traditionally assumed for the sexes (Harrison & Lynch, 2005) Social role theory was developed out of an effort to better understand the causes of sex differences and similarities in social behavior. According to Eckes and Trautner (2000) T his the ory argues that the beliefs that people hold about the sexes are derived from observations of the role performances of men and women and thus Historically, men and women were a ssigned labor tasks that were consistent with their physical attributes. Men were assigned roles that required speed and strength while women had the primary responsibility of caring for home and family. In time these social roles became gender role expect ations for men and women. Men and women who do not adhere to traditional gender roles often experience social disapproval (Harrison & Lynch, 2005). Betz et al. (1989) indicates that g ender differences in ethical perceptions decline with increasing work exp erience. For example Ragins and Sundstrom ( 1990) concluded that students with the absence of work experience are more likely to base their perceptions of managers on sex role stereotypes whereas employees are more likely to rely on actual information abou t their managers in forming perceptions
32 Gender and Ethics Many researchers have sought to find a link between sex and ethics. Results have reported a link in ethical beliefs, values and behavior. General conclusions of the research report that men are m ore willing than women to behave unethically and women are more likely to deem questionable acts as unethical. Several studies report sex differences in ethical perceptions of business leaders (Mason & Mudrack, 1996; Arlow, 1991; Boyd 1981 ) while others ha ve reported that there is no pattern that links gender and ethics (Davis & Welton, 1991; Dubinsky & Levy 1985; Singhapakadi & Vitell 1990; McCuddy & Peery, 1996). With conflicting evidence supporting both sides the verdict is still out on wh ether a link doe s indeed exist. Gilligan (1982) states males and females have distinctly different moral orientations. Women conceptualize moral questions as problems of care while men conceptualize moral questions as problems of rights. Schminke, Ambrose and Miles (2003 by interviewing 300 undergraduate students The research showed that men and women share similar perceptions of own gender and other gender ethics, but the perceptions in r eality were inaccurate reflections of their ethical orientation. Women held more accurate ethical perceptions than men. Both men and women were more accurate A meen, Guffet and McMillan (1996) found femal e accounting students more sensitive and less tolerant of unethical academic misconduct. The female accounting students in this study were found to be less tolerant of unethical behaviors and less likely to engage in unethical academic activitie s than thei r male counterparts.
33 Betz et al. (1989) found that the gap between the sexes was widest in questions pertaining to u n ethical behavior. Their study found that men were more than two times likely than women to engage in actions regarded as unethical. In thei r sample of 213 business students they found distinct differences in work related values and tendency toward unethical behavior. Ibrahim and Angelidis (1991) found in their study, which surveyed female members of boards of directors for females to be mor e oriented towards discretionary responsibilities and less economically driven than men White and Manolis (1997) utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods on 258 first year law students. Findings were consistent with those of Gilligan (1982) repo rting that a positive relationship between gender and the use of care and justice ethics. Findings reported that female students were most likely to utilize the ethic of care while male students were most likely to utilize the ethic of justice. BSRI While sex ha s been used in numerous previous studies to explore differe nces between men and women, the present study will look at sex role as determined by t he Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) The BSRI is an instrument that is used to identify sex typed individual s on the basis of their self concepts or self ratings of their personal attributes. (Bem, 1974 ). Bem developed a measure of masc ulinity and femininity based on American cultural definitions of appropr iate and inappropriate behaviors of sexes According to scores: masculinity, femininity and androgyny. Masculinity and femininity scores indicate the extent to which a person endorses masculine and feminine personality traits. Masculinity equals the mean self rating for all masculine items and femininity the mean self rating for al l feminine items. The two scores are independent of one another.
34 A masculine sex role represents not only the endorsement of masculine attributes but simultaneously the reje ction of feminine attributes (Bem 1974). In constructing the scales Bem used judges to rate the desirability of personality traits either for a man or a woman in American society. Items were selected through a process of identifying personality characteris tics that were positive in value in either femininity or masculinity. From an initial list of 400, 40 final items were selected by using the criteria of more desirability in American culture for one sex over the other Bem (1974) Twenty traits were select ed for the masculinity scale and 20 were selected for the femininity scale. A trait was determined to be masculine if it was independently judged by males and females to be significantly more desirable for a man than a woman Likewise, a trait was determin ed to be feminine if it was independently judged by males and females to be significantly more desirable for a woman than a man. Additionally 20 traits whose mean ratings did not differ significantly were classified as neutral T he 20 neutral items serve a s an index of social desirability (Harris, 1994) The BSRI asks the respondent to indicate on a 7 point scale how well each of 60 attributes describes himself or herself. BSRI Criticisms Ameri can society si nce the 1970 s has changed greatly and the current validity of the BSRI has been questioned given the changing roles of men and women in society. Women have entered the work force changing their attitudes and gender role orientations. As a result, men have also adjusted their gender role orientations. Man y researchers have had concern with the BSRI and have attempted to replicate or validate the instrument.
35 Edwards and Ashworth (1977) attempted to replicate the item selection of the BSRI. The items were rated by college students for social desirability in an American male or female. Criterion for the original BSRI item selection was based on each item being rated by both male and female judges as significantly more desirable in a male than in a female for masculine items or significantly more desirable in a female than in a male for feminine items. Only the two items masculine and feminine were judged to meet this criterion. Edwards and Ashworth (1977) drew the conclusion that the role stereotypes h as changed since the time Bem collected her ratings of social desirability (p.506). Holt and Ellis (1998) criticize these findings because face to face interviews were used to collect the data which may have had an influence on the results through social d esirability effects Concerns regarding the validity of the adjectives used in the BSRI, given the changes in American culture since the 1970 s prompted Holt and Ellis (1998) to conduct a partial replication of the method that Bem (1974) used to validate th e masculine and feminine adjectives The researchers looked to examine whether the adjectives were presently valid representations of gender role perceptions in terms of masculinity and femininity. Holt and Ellis (1998) conducted a study using 138 individu als (68 men and 70 women) The participants were asked to measure on a seven point Li desirable is it in American so ciety for a man or woman to pos sess each of these e proced ure, instructions and m aterials used were all identical to what the Bem (1974) study used to validate the adje ctives with
36 the exception that the 20 neutral items fro m the BSRI were not included because the study was only looking to assess changes in perceived gender roles in ter ms of the masculine and f eminine adjective s. Results revealed that all of the 20 masculine adjectives rated as significantly more desirable for a man than for a woman All but two of the feminine adjectives were rated as significantly more desirable for a woman than a man The feminine adje ctive s and marginally rated as more de sirable for a woman The G ender role perceptions have changed over the years, but not enough to inva (Holt & Ellis, 1998, p. 939). Additionally Harris (1994) inclusion. Ballard Reisch and E lton (1992) also conducted a study examining the reliability of the f actor structure of the BSRI. Results indicated that the original factors are reliable but that the assumption that masculine and feminine items of the BSRI are both posit ive and perceived as relating to one gender orientation was not supported. This was due to the finding that although many of the BSRI items were were considered masculine or feminine. The researchers concluded that these results indicate that the BSRI is measuring personality characteristics that may no longer have anything to do with traditional sex role stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. The researchers as more descriptive categories.
37 Hypotheses and Rationale H1a d Sex role rather than sex is more predictive of CSR orientation. Past studies have looked at the relationship between sex and CSR orientation. Gender unlike sex is defin ed by society and expressed through interactions with others (Woods, 1997). Stoller (1964) describes gender identity as the core of personality. Gender identity theory suggests that gender consists of: biological sex, instrumental and expressive psychologi cal traits and gender role attitudes (McCabe et. al.2006). Therefore, by looking at sex role instead of sex one can better make predictions concerning H2a b Practitioners identified as feminine will value ethical and discr etionary CSR activities more than those identified as masculine. H3a b Practitioners identified as masculine will value economic and legal CSR activities more than those identified as feminine As a result of the discretion given to management in choosing specific initiatives that they prefer to enact, their own personal philosophy in decision making regarding CSR becomes important. Kohlberg (1966) explains that sex typed individuals are motivated to keep their behavior consistent with an internalized sex r ole standard. This goal that is presumably accomplishes by suppressing any behavior that might be considered undesirable or inappropriate for his sex. Therefore a narrowly masculine self concept might restrict behaviors that are stereotyped as feminine, an d a narrowly feminine self concept might restrict behaviors that are stereotyped as
38 H4, 5 a d Androgyny will be more strongly correlated with all four CSR components than will femininity or masculinity. Androgyn ous individuals are more likely to display sex role adaptability and engage in situationally appropriate behavior without regard to stereotypes of sex appropriate behavior. Kohlber (1966) explains that an androgynous self concept allows an individual to freely engage in both "masculine" and "feminine" behaviors. Androgynous individuals function more adaptively in modern living and also have improved psychological health. Research Questions The following research questions will be examined because while gender and sex are the primary focus of this stud y, it is interesting to see the impact of additional factor s on CSR orientation. Specifically by examining the impact of advance d degrees, for profit versus non profit and industry of employment this research will gain further insight into factors contrib uting to CSR orientation. 1) How will advance d degrees mediate the impact of sex role on CSR orientation? 2) How will for profit versus not for profit sector mediate the role of sex role on CSR orientation? 3) How will industry of employment mediate the impact of sex role on CSR orientation?
39 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY For the present study an online survey with a self administered questionnaire was conducted. The advantages of using an online survey are cost savings in avoiding printing and mailing costs and the short time frame for the collection of responses (Cobanoglu, Warae & Morec, 2001). Lefever, Dal, and Matthasdttir (2007) point out that online data collection protects against the loss of data and simplifies the transfer of data into a database for analysis. Another advantage of an online survey is that respondents can decide when and where to complete the survey and can participate at their own convenience. Respondents were recruited through several methods. The first method used was an e mail list server for public relations practitioners. Mertler (2002) discusses a benefit of using email for direct contact with members of the sample population as being able to publicize a web based survey and encourage participation through email. This enables the researcher to determine the response rate and allows an increased confidence in the generalizability of the research results. The researcher e mailed a link to the survey to members of the Florida Public Relations Association. Additionally, requests to send the surv ey over the chapter e mail list server were sent to all 116 PRSA Chapters. Respondents were also recruited through Facebook and LinkedIn ( #PRintern | #EntryPR Black Public Relations Soci ety of Atlanta Florida Public Relations Association Innovative Marketing, PR, Sales, Word of Mouth & Buzz Innovators National Black Publ ic Relations Society, Inc. Network of PR Professionals PRSSA Public Relations Society of America National Public Relations Professionals Corporate
40 Social Responsibi lity Corporate Social Responsibility CSR and Sustainable Development ) groups In order to increase response rate the researcher offered a n incentive to respondents. Every 50 th respondent received a $20 donation to a charity of his or her choice as an incentive to increase response rate The survey was launched February 14, 2011 via Facebook and LinkedIn Initial e mails to the FPRA members were sent March 11 and follow up e mails were sent on April 11. E mail requests were sent to PRSA chapters March 20. The survey was closed May 25. Because the purpose of this study is to examine how gen der influences CSR orientation the instrument used in this study included three parts. The first part of the instrument included the Aupperle (1984) survey. This survey instrument was chosen because of its reliability in past studies ( Ibrahim & Angelidis, 1993, 1995; Pinkston and Carroll, 1996) and because it is groun part CSR definition. This instrument is orientation Also, the forced choice format of the instrument helps to minimize response bias, an important element of concern with self report data. Participants were asked to allocate up to 10 points among four statements in each of several sets of statements. Each of the four statements in part CSR definition (Aupperle, 1989) The second part of the instrument included the Bem Sex Role Inventory scale. The BSRI is used to measure sex role orientation. The BSRI identifies respondents a s masculine, feminine or androgynous based on their inventory score This inventory was
41 chosen for use because it includes a separate masculine and feminine scale, defined in terms of cultural desirability, for males and females (Bem, 1974). This inventor y was chosen as opposed to o ther masculinity femininity scales such as the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Schmitt, Leclerc & Rioux, 1988) and the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1957) because as Bem (1974) describes : The BSRI was founde d on a conception of the sex typed person as someone who has internalized society's sex typed standards of desirable behavior for men and women, these personality characteristics were selected as masculine or feminine on the basis of sex typed social desir ability and not on the basis of differential endorsement by males and females as most other inventories have done (155). The final part of the instrument includes demographic questions, specifically, questions identifying education level, industry and se ctor (for profit, not for profit, private) of employment.
42 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Descriptive Analysis This research explored the effects of sex role on the CSR orientation of public relations practitioners (n = 122). Twenty five percent (n = 31) of responden ts were male with 75% (n = 91) were female. This is representative of the gender imbalance in the field. Among the respondents, 64% (n = 80) had four years of college or less and 33.6% (n=42) of respondents held an advanced degree. Given the subjects are p rimarily practitioners, this is lower than the (2006) study reporting 52.7% of practitioners holding advanced degrees. Nineteen percent (n = 23) work in the public sector 46% (n = 59) work in the private sector and 30% (n=36) wor k in the not for profit s ector. Of the respondents 22.1% (n=27) worked for corporations, 17.2% (n = 21) for a PR agency, 9.8% (n = 12) for government, 19.7% (n = 24) for a non profit organization, 10.7% (n = 13) for an education related organization, 9.8% (n = 12) for health relat ed and trade associations and 10.7% (n = 13) worked as independent PR consultants. Table 4 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the subjects.
43 Table 4 1 Descriptive s tatistics Characteristics Frequ ency Percent Sex Male 31 25 .0 % Female 91 75 .0 % Ag e 18 25 8 6.6 % 26 34 41 33.6 % 35 54 44 36.1 % 55 64 25 20.5 % 65 or over 4 3.3 % Education 4 year C ollege Degree or Less 80 65.6 % Advanced Degree 42 34.4 % Organization Corporation 27 22.1 % PR Agency 21 17.2 % Government 12 9.8 % Non profit Organization 24 19.7 % Education Related 13 10.7 % Health Related/ 12 9.8 % Trade Association Independent PR Consultant 13 10.7 % Sector Public 24 20.2 % Private 59 49.6 % Not for profit 36 30.3 % Reliability of Scales For all of the constructs, reliability testing was conducted in order to test the reliability of the scales. Indices were constructed using factor scores so that there were standardized variables with a mean of ze ro and a standard deviation of 1. A principal axis factor analysis with an oblique rotation was used interpreting the pattern matrix for economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary. The results show a four factor solution. T he component correlation matrix also found that the factors were not highly correlated thus showing that there are four distinct factors. The reliability of these items is shown in Table 4 2. All 15 economic items loaded on the economic component, 14 disc retionary items loaded on the discretionary component and 14 legal items loaded on the legal component. One ethical item loaded as
44 discretionary and both a legal and discretionary item loaded in the ethical component. Two legal and one ethical item cross loaded but the primary loadings were all near or above .5 ; therefore no items were eliminated. Table 4 2 Factor analysis CSR o rientation s tatements Component Economic Discretionary Legal Ethical Q5_1econ allocate resources on their ability to improve long term profitability. .827 Q4_2econ long term return on investment is maximized. .824 Q2_1econ being as profitable as possible. .794 Q8_1econ pursue opportunities which will enhance earnings per share. .787 Q7_ 1econ It is important that a successful firm be defined as one which: is consistently profitable. .779 Q9_3econ monitor new opportunities which can enhance financial health. .777 Q6_2econ ensure a high level of operatin g efficiency is maintained. .764 Q13_4econ allocate organizational resources as efficiently as possible. .747 Q12_3econ maintain a high level of operating efficiency. .738 Q15_3econ profit margins remain strong relative to major competitors. .709 Q11_2econ consistent profitability as a useful measure of corporate performance. .706 Q1_1econ expectations of maximizing earnings per share. .693 Q10_4econ being as profitable as possible. .682 Q14_1ec on pursue only those opportunities which provide the best rate of return. .660 Q3_4econ maintain a strong competitive position. .636
45 Table 4 2. Continued Component Economic Discretionary Legal Ethical Q4_3dicr managers and employees participate in voluntary and charitable activities within their local communities. .832 Q2_2discr voluntary and charitable activities. .814 Q7_4discr fulfills its philanthropic and charitable responsibilities. .814 Q12_4discr maintai n a policy of increasing charitable and voluntary efforts over time. .732 Q3_3discr assist the fine and performing arts. .707 Q5_3discr examine regularly new opportunities and programs which can improve urban and community life. .697 Q1_3ethic the philanthropic and charitable expectations of society. .690 Q8_3discr support, assist and work with minority owned businesses. .689 Q6_1disc provide assistance to private and public educational institutions. .683 Q15_1di scr philanthropic and voluntary efforts continue to be expanded consistently over time. .679 Q13_1discr assist voluntarily those projects which enhance a .627 Q11_1discr -philanthropic behavior as a useful measu re of corporate performance. .537 Q14_2discr provide employment opportunities to the hard core unemployed. .329 .509 Q9_4discr monitor new opportunities which can enhance ability to help solve social problems. .453 Q 7_2legal fulfills its legal obligations. .817
46 Table 4 2. Continued Component Economic Discretionary Legal Ethical Q9_2legal monitors new opportunities which can enhance compliance with local, state, and federal statutes. .770 Q5_2legal comply promptly with new laws and court rulings. .769 Q2_3legal abiding by laws and regulations. .743 Q4_1legal legal responsibilities are seriously fulfilled. .705 Q10_1legal doing what the law expects. .69 6 Q1_2legal expectations of government and the law. .694 Q13_2legal provide goods and services which at least meet minimal legal requirements. .684 Q3_2legalcomply with various federal regulations. .672 Q14_3legal comply fully an d honestly with enacted laws, regulations, and court rulings. .653 Q11_3legal compliance with the law as a useful measure of corporate performance. .638 Q12_2legal fulfill all corporate tax obligations. .420 .606 Q12_2legal fulfill al l corporate tax obligations. .594 Q8_2legal avoid discriminating against women and minorities. .426 Q2_4ethic moral and ethical behavior. .770 Q1_4discr expectations of societal mores and ethical norms. .759 Q14_4ethic recog nize that can often be as important as the written. .753 Q7_3ethic fulfills its ethical and moral responsibilities. .711
47 Table 4 2. Continued Component Economic Discretionary Legal Ethical Q12_1ethic recognize that corporate integrity and ethical behavior go beyond mere compliance with laws and regulations. .652 Q13_3ethic avoid compromising societal norms and ethics in order to achieve goals. .619 Q8_4ethic prevent social norms from be ing compromised in order to achieve corporate goals. .566 Q5_4ethic recognize and respect new or evolving ethical/moral norms adopted by society. .539 Q11_4ethic compliance with the norms, mores, and unwritten laws of society as useful measur es of corporate performance. .536 Q3_1ethic recognize that the ends do not always justify the means. .525 Q10_3ethic doing what is expected morally and ethically. .519 Q9_1ethic monitor new opportunities which can enhance the organiz moral and ethical image in society. .352 .478 Q4_4ethic when securing new business, promises are not made which are not intended to be fulfilled. .478 Q15_2legal contract and safety violations are not ignored in order to complete or exp edite a project. .365 .432 Q6_4ethic advertise goods and services in an ethically fair and responsible manner. .405 Q15_4ethic be discouraged at any corporate level. .391 Q10_2discr providing voluntary assistance to charities and community organizations.
48 For masculinity, femininity and the neutral constructs used in the BSRI a factor analysis was also conducted. (Table 4 3). The factor analysis showed that the 20 item masculine scale had high internal co The component correlation matrix additionally showed that there were three separate components. Average scores were created f or sex role variables indicating the extent to which a person endorses masculine and feminine personality traits The reliability of these items is shown in Table 4 3 Table 4 3 F actor a nalysis m asculinity, femininity and n eutr al c onstructs Component Feminine Masculine Neutral Q34_11fem sensitive to the needs of others .743 Q35_11fem warm .740 Q35_2fem compassionate .739 Q34_14fem understanding .720 Q20_5fem cheerful .671 .436 Q35_3neu sincere .662 Q 35_15neu friendly .646 Q20_15neu happy .639 .338 Q36_14fem gentle .634 Q20_3neu helpful .585 Q35_14fem tender .584 Q36_12neu tactful .572 Q35_9neu likable .542 Q34_8fem sympathetic .494 Q36_11fem lov es children .477 Q20_11fem affectionate .477 Q35_6neu conceited .474 .316 Q20_6neu moody .430 Q36_3neu inefficient .422 Q20_9neu conscientious .412 Q34_6neu reliable .403
49 Table 4 3 Continued Component Feminine Masculine Neutral Q35_5fem eager to soothe hurt feelings .391 Q34_12neu truthful .367 Q34_2fem loyal .366 Q34_9neu jealous .350 Q36_6neu adaptable .335 Q36_8fem does not use harsh language Q 20_13masc assertive .766 Q35_7masc dominant .719 Q36_4masc act as a leader .308 .715 Q36_1masc aggressive .703 Q34_1masc strong personality .686 Q35_13masc willing to take a stand .684 Q34_4masc forceful .673 Q34_13masc willing to take risks .653 Q36_10masc competitive .619 Q34_10masc has leadership abilities .474 .597 Q35_4masc self sufficient .506 .333 Q35_1masc makes decisions easily .498 Q36_13masc ambitious .481 Q20_4m asc defends own beliefs .460 Q35_10masc masculine .407 .315 Q20_10masc athletic .378 Q20_1masc self reliant .376 .362 Q20_7masc independent .365 .329 Q34_3neu unpredictable .354 Q36_15neu conventional Q36_7masc individualistic Q34_15neu secretive Q20_14fem flatterable Q35_12neu solemn .670 Q35_8fem soft spoken .305 .558 Q34_7masc analytical .543
50 Table 4 3 Continued Component Feminine Masculine Neutr al Q20_8fem shy .474 .521 Q36_2fem gullible .328 Q20_2fem yielding .325 Q36_5fem childlike .323 Q34_5fem feminine Q20_12neu theatrical Q36_9neu unsystematic ANOVA (Table 4 4) shows that within the m asculine sex role group, males and females show a sta tistically significant difference (F (1,120) = 10.84, p < .001 ). Females score lower on the masculine sex role index than do males (M = 5.0 SD = .65 vs. M = 5.4 SD = .68). However, for the feminine sex rol e scores males (M= 4.6 SD= .46) and females (M = 4.8 SD = .53) are not significantly different at the .05 level. (F (1, 120) = .067, p < 144). As anticipated, sex role is not related to sex for the neutral scores (p < .796). Androgyny difference scores we re calculated by utilizing the androgyny score (F emininity Masculinity ) the index of androgyny, and multiplying the score by 2.322. This for mula was derived by Bem (1974 ). Sex does not have a significant relationship to the androgyny scores (F (1,120) =.8 11, p < .370) See (Table 4 5).
51 Table 4 4 ANOVA s e x role by s ex df Mean Square F Sig. Masculine Between Groups 1 4.719 10.839 .001 Within Groups 120 .435 Total 121 Feminine Between Groups 1 .562 2.166 .144 Within Groups 120 .259 Total 121 Neutral Between Groups 1 .018 .067 .796 Within Groups 120 .276 Total 121 Tabl e 4 5 ANOVA sex role by a ndrogyny df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1 1.601 .811 .370 Within Groups 120 1.973 Total 121 Hypothesis T esting H1 expected that sex role would be more predictive than sex for all four CSR components ANOVA for CSR Orientation by sex (Table 4 6) shows no significant difference between males and females with respect to the economic, discretionary and legal CSR components. A statistically significant difference was found only with females scoring higher than males on the ethical CSR component ( F ( 1,120) = 4.01, p =.048). H1 a c is supported with there being no statistically significance for economic, discretionary and legal components.
52 Table 4 6 ANOVA CSR orientation by s ex df Mean Square F Sig. Economic_CSR Between Groups 1 2.795 2.776 .098 Within Groups 120 1.007 Total 12 1 Discretionary_CSR Between Groups 1 .707 .692 .407 Within Groups 120 1.022 Total 121 Legal_CSR Between Groups 1 .272 .264 .608 Within Groups 120 1.028 Total 121 Ethical_CSR Between Groups 1 3.984 4.008 .048 Within Groups 120 .994 Total 121 Table 4 7 shows correlations between the CSR components and sex roles. The discretionary CSR component is slightly negatively correlated with masculine and the association is significant (r = 0.18) (p < .05) and the ethical com ponent is slightly negatively correlated with masculine (r = 0.18) (p .05) Also, the discretionary CSR component is slightly positively correlated with feminine (r = .25) (p < .01). The difference of correlation test (Table 4 8 ) show s that there is a si gnificantly stronger correlation between feminine and ethical and discretionary CSR components than masculine and ethical and discretionary components. Thus H2a b is supported.
53 Other statistically significant findings show that the legal component is sl ightly negative ly correlated with feminine (r = .20) (p < .05). H3b is supported but H3a cannot be supported with the data.
54 Table 4 7 Corre lations CSR components and sex r ole Masculine Feminine Androgyny Economic_ CSR Discretionar CSR Legal_ CSR Eth ical_ CSR Masculine Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (1 tailed) Feminine Pearson Correlation .130 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .075 Androgyny Pearson Correlation .267 ** .198 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .001 .014 Economic_CSR Pearson Cor relation .023 .021 .249 ** 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .399 .411 .003 Discretionary_ CSR Pearson Correlation .183 .253 ** .021 .092 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .021 .002 .410 .154 Legal_CSR Pearson Correlation .104 .198 .162 .102 .006 1 Sig. (1 ta iled) .125 .014 .037 .130 .472 Ethical_CSR Pearson Correlation .184 .136 .026 .207 .274 ** .162 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .021 .067 .387 .010 .001 .035 N=123 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1 tailed). *. Correlation is signi ficant at the 0.05 level (1 tailed).
55 Table 4 8 Significance of difference of c orrelati on t ests Ethical Discretionary Economic Legal Fem Mas Fem Mas Fem Mas Fem Mas Androgyny .009 NS .03 NS .002 .04 .002 .02 Feminine (p <) -.006 -.0006 -NS -NS H4a d expected that androgyny would be more strongly correlated with all four CSR components than both feminine or masculine. Correlations between sex roles and CSR components (Table 4 7) show androgyny to on ly be negatively correlated with the economic CSR component (r = .25 ) (p = .01). Difference of correlations t est (T able 4 8) does not show significant correlations for androgyny. Answering H5a d, feminine was positively correlated with the discretionary C SR component (r=.25) (p < .01) and negatively correlated with the legal CSR component (r = .198) (p< .05). Masculine was negatively correlated with the discretionary CSR component (r = .183) (p < .05) and also negatively correlated with the ethical CSR c omponent (r = .184) (p < .05). H5a d also affirms H1. Difference of correlations test s (T able 4 8) show femininity is more strongly correlated to all four CSR components than androgyny and androgyny correlations with masculinity only are significant for th e legal CSR component. H4a d and H5a d are rejected. To answer RQ1 Table 4 9 shows correlations between the CSR components and education for practitioners with four years of college or less. Correlations show that for practitioners with four years of colle ge or less androgyny and economic are moderately negatively correlated (r = 0.246) (p < .05), feminine and discretionary are slightly positively correlated(r = .218) (p < .05), a ndrogyny and legal are moderately positively
56 correlated(r = .263) (p < .01) and masculine is moderately negatively correlated with ethical (r = 0.244) (p < .05).
57 Table 4 9 Corr elations 4 years of college or l ess Masculine Feminine Androgyny Economic_ CSR Discretionary_ CSR Legal_ CSR Ethical_ CSR Masculine Pearson Correlati on 1 Sig. (1 tailed) Feminine Pearson Correlation .088 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .219 Androgyny Pearson Correlation .088 .059 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .220 .302 Economic_CSR Pearson Correlation .049 .062 .246 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .332 .293 .014 Discretionary_ CSR Pearson Correlation .181 .218 .134 .069 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .054 .026 .118 .272 Legal_CSR Pearson Correlation .151 .141 .263 ** .009 .302 ** 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .091 .107 .009 .468 .003 Ethical _CSR Pearson Correlation .244 .082 .049 .080 .370 ** .334 ** 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .015 .236 .332 .241 .000 .001 N=80 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1 tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1 tailed).
58 Add itionally for RQ1 practitioners with advanced degrees (Table 4 10) androgyny is moderately negatively correlated with economic (r = 0.259) (p < .05), feminine is moderately positively correlated with the discretionary CSR component(r = 0.262) (p < .05), negatively correlated with the legal component (r = 0.271) (p < .05) and moderately positively correlated with the ethical component (r =.263) (p < .05). None of the correlations with masculine were statistically significant. Difference of correlation te sts showed that none of the difference s in orientation for practitioners with four year s of college or less and those with advanced degrees i s significant
59 Table 4 10 Correlations p ractitioners with a dvanced degrees Masculine Feminine Androgyny Eco nomic_ CSR Discretionary_ CSR Legal_ CSR Ethical_ CSR Masculine Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (1 tailed) Feminine Pearson Correlation .197 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .105 Androgyny Pearson Correlation .671 ** .482 ** 1 Sig. (1 ta iled) .000 .001 Economic_CSR Pearson Correlation .190 .199 .259 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .114 .103 .049 Discretionary_CSR Pearson Correlation .092 .262 .226 .158 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .281 .047 .075 .158 Legal_CSR Pearson Correlation .064 .271 .015 .270 .489 ** 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .343 .041 .463 .042 .001 Ethical_CSR Pearson Correlation .053 .263 .021 .482 ** .092 .083 1 Sig. (1 tailed) .368 .046 .447 .001 .280 .300 N=42 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level ( 1 tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1 tailed).
60 Answering RQ2 correlations between the CSR components and sector show no significant correlations for practitioners in the public sector (n = 24 ). For the private sector (n = 59 ) (T able 4 1 1 ) correlations show masculine to have a moderate negative correlation with the discretionary (r = 0.276) (p < .05) and ethical (r = 0.311) (p < .05) CSR components. Androgyny is positively correlated to the legal component (r = .421) (p < .01). F or practitioners in the not for profit sector (n = 36 ) ( Table 4 1 2 ) only one statistically significant relationship was found with feminine being positively correlated with discretionary CSR component (r = .365) (p < 05). Difference of correlation test s showed no significant difference of correlations for orientation for practitioners working in the not for profit sector and those working in the private sector.
61 Table 4 11 Correlations sector p rivate Masculine Feminine Androgyny Economic_ CSR D iscretionary_ CSR Legal_ CSR Ethical_ CSR Masculine Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2 tailed) Feminine Pearson Correlation .037 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .778 Androgyny Pearson Correlation .342 ** .272 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .008 .0 37 Economic_CSR Pearson Correlation .073 .015 .203 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .583 .908 .123 Discriminatory_ CSR Pearson Correlation .276 .218 .075 .004 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .035 .097 .570 .975 Legal_CSR Pearson Correlation .072 .166 .421 ** .023 .296 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .589 .208 .001 .865 .023 Ethical_CSR Pearson Correlation .311 .168 .075 .109 .480 ** .423 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .016 .203 .574 .413 .000 .001 N=59 **.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *.Corr elation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).
62 Table 4 12 Correlations sector n ot f or p rofit Masculine Feminine Androgyny Economic_ CSR Discretionary_ CSR Legal_ CSR Ethical_ CSR Masculine Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2 tailed) Feminine Pearson Correlation .166 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .333 Androgyny Pearson Correlation .044 .030 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .799 .862 Economic_CSR Pearson Correlation .224 .255 .089 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .188 .134 .605 Discre tionary_ CSR Pearson Correlation .072 .365 .006 .479 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .675 .028 .971 .003 Legal_CSR Pearson Correlation .158 .104 .110 .072 .344 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .358 .546 .521 .678 .040 Ethical_CSR Pearson Correlation .023 .012 .230 .548 ** .218 .160 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .894 .944 .178 .001 .202 .350 N=36 *.Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed). **.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).
63 Answering RQ3 correlations were used to learn how i ndustry of employment mediates the impact of sex role on CSR orientation. The correlation showed no statistically significant values for corporations (n = 27). With PR Agencies (n = 21) (Table 4 13) feminine was found to be negatively correlated with lega l (r = .0441) (p < .05 ). Androgyny is strongly positively correlated with the legal CSR component (r = 0.696) (p < .01). All other CSR components were not found to be statistically significant
64 Table 4 13 Correlations industry PR a gency Masculine Fe minine Androgyny Economic_ CSR Discretionary_ CSR Legal_ CSR Ethical_ CSR Masculine Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2 tailed) Feminine Pearson Correlation .352 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .117 Androgyny Pearson Correlation .663 ** .444 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .001 .044 Economic_CSR Pearson Correlation .021 .237 .250 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .928 .301 .275 Discretionary_ CSR Pearson Correlation .140 .322 .085 .650 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .546 .155 .714 .001 .875 .464 Legal_ CSR Pearson Correlation .326 .441 .696 ** .434 .037 1 .134 Sig. (2 tailed) .149 .045 .000 .049 .875 .563 Ethical_CSR Pearson Correlation .317 .302 .060 .335 .169 .134 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .162 .184 .795 .138 .464 .563 N=21 **.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *.Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).
65 For practitioners working for the government (Table 4 14) correlations found androgyny to be negatively correlated with discretionary (r = .578) (p < .05). Since the sample size for government was small (n = was used which gives a (r = 0.639) for the same relationship and in addition found a strong negative correlation between masculine and legal CSR component (r = 704) both with (p < .05).
66 Table 4 14 Correlations industry g overnment Masculine Feminine Androgyny Economic_ CSR Discretionary_ CSR Legal_ CSR Ethical_ CSR Masculine Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2 tailed) Feminine Pearson Correla tion .217 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .498 Androgyny Pearson Correlation .534 .390 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .074 .211 Economic_CSR Pearson Correlation .311 .122 .471 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .324 .705 .122 Discretionary_ CSR Pearson Corre lation .404 .489 .578 .200 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .193 .107 .049 .533 Legal_CSR Pearson Correlation .488 .279 .048 .204 .037 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .107 .380 .882 .525 .908 Ethical_CSR Pearson Correlation .065 .101 .130 .085 .224 .270 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .842 .754 .687 .793 .485 .395 N=12 *.Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).
67 For non profits organizations (n = 24) (Table 4 15) feminine and the discretionary CSR component were positively correlated (r = .473) (p < 05). Both Pearson and rho correlation showed no statistically significant values for practitioners working in education (n = 13).
68 Table 4 15 Correlations industry n on profit Masculine Feminine Androgyny Economic_ CSR Discretionary_ CSR Legal CSR Ethical_ CSR Masculine Pearson Correlation 1 .237 .086 .379 .118 .129 .069 Sig. (2 tailed) .266 .689 .067 .582 .549 .749 Feminine Pearson Correlation .237 1 .054 .365 .473 .104 .111 Sig. (2 tailed) .266 .802 .080 .020 .628 .604 Androgyny Pearson Correlation .086 .054 1 .013 .039 .140 .107 Sig. (2 tailed) .689 .802 .952 .856 .514 .618 Economic_CSR Pearson Correlation .379 .365 .013 1 .444 .176 .490 Sig. (2 tailed) .067 .080 .952 .030 .410 .015 Discretionary_ CSR Pearson Correlation .118 .473 .039 .444 1 .452 .347 Sig. (2 tailed) .582 .020 .856 .030 .027 .097 Legal_CSR Pearson Correlation .129 .104 .140 .176 .452 1 .161 Sig. (2 tailed) .549 .628 .514 .410 .027 .453 Ethical_CSR Pearson Correlati on .069 .111 .107 .490 .347 .161 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .749 .604 .618 .015 .097 .453 N=24 *.Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).
69 For health related and trade associations (n = 12) (Table 4 correlation found a stron g negative correlation with feminine practitioners and the legal CSR component (r = .747) (p < .01). Androgyny had a strong posit ive correlation with the legal c omponent (r = .731) (p < .01). For m asculine practitioners there was strong negative correlati on with ethical ( r = 0.735 ) (p < .01). Non parametric tests agree but in economic (r = .676) (p < .05) and also feminine practitioners to be positive ly correlated with the ethical CSR component 0.599 (p < .05).
70 Table 4 16 Correlations industry health r el ated/trade a ssociations Masculine Feminine Androgyny Economic _CSR Discetionary_ CSR Legal_ CSR Ethical_ CSR Masculine Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2 tailed ) Feminine Pearson Correlation .721 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .008 Abs_androgeny Pearson Correlation .648 .789 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .023 .002 Economic_CSR Pearson Correlation .528 .438 .484 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .078 .155 .111 Disc retionary _C SR Pearson Correlation .466 .533 .508 .692 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .127 .074 .092 .013 Legal_CSR Pearson Correlation .411 .747 ** .731 ** .154 .294 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .185 .005 .007 .632 .354 Ethical_CSR Pearson Corre lation .735 ** .535 .503 .417 .388 .015 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .006 .073 .096 .177 .212 .963 N=12 **.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *.Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).
71 For the Independent PR Consultant ( n = 12 ) ( Table 4 17) correlations show that androgyny was strongly negatively correlated with the economic CSR component (r = .710) (p < androgyny with ethical (r = 0.657) (p < .05 ).
72 Table 4 17. Correlations industry independent PR c onsultants Masculine Feminine Androgyny Economic_ CSR Discretionary _CSR Legal_ CSR Ethical_ CSR Masculine Pearson Correlation 1 .040 .111 .266 .057 .043 .189 Sig. (2 tailed) .898 .718 .381 .853 .889 .536 Feminine Pearson Correlation .040 1 .471 .322 .045 .500 .052 Sig. (2 tailed) .898 .104 .283 .883 .082 .865 Androgyny Pearson Correlation .111 .471 1 .710 ** .048 .268 .537 Sig. (2 tailed) .718 .104 .007 .875 .377 .058 Economi c_CS R Pearson Correlation .266 .322 .710 ** 1 .387 .212 .712 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .381 .283 .007 .192 .486 .006 Discretionary_ CSR Pearson Correlation .057 .045 .048 .387 1 .015 .000 Sig. (2 tailed) .853 .883 .875 .192 .962 .999 Legal_CSR Pearson C orrelation .043 .500 .268 .212 .015 1 .418 Sig. (2 tailed) .889 .082 .377 .486 .962 .155 Ethical_CSR Pearson Correlation .189 .052 .537 .712 ** .000 .418 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .536 .865 .058 .006 .999 .155 N=13 **.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).
73 Summary of Findings Findings show strong endorsement for males of masculinity. Practitioners who scored high on the Bem Femininity index were found to more highly favor ethical and discretionary CSR components and those who scor ed high on the masculin ity index were found to m ore highly favor the legal CSR component. Those who scored high on femininity favored all four CSR components more than those who scored high on androg y ny There were no statistically significant differences for sex role when comparing practitioners with advanced degrees to those with four years of college or less. On the other hand, f emininity showed strong relationships with discretionary across educational levels; those who are feminine sex typed practitio ners consistently endorse the discretionary CSR component. This also held true for those sex typed as feminine practitioners in the not for profit sector and also those who listed not for profit as their specific industry of employment. Those who sex typed as more masculine practitioners in the private sector showed more negative orientations toward discretionary and ethical CSR components.
74 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCL USIONS This study intended to explore how sex role as determined by the BSRI can be us ed in regards to predicting CSR orientation. Although some of the findings replicated previous findings, this study adds to the research by offering an additional factor of consideration by combining the use of the BSRI and CSR orientations measures. Mea ns within the masculine sex typed group show men have a stronger orientation towards masculinity. The feminine and androgyny group however did not show significant differences. Higher masculine scores among men represent higher levels of male endorsement o f masculine attributes. Although the literature suggests androgynous individuals to be more adaptable, the results do not show androgyny to be endorsed more by either sex. Feminine sex typed practitioners were in fact found to more strongly endorse all fou r CSR components supporting Grunig et. al (2000) assertion that those possessing feminine values should be the most socially responsible practitioners. For sex, f emales were found to be more strongly oriented to the ethical component than males. This corro borated previous research (Ameen, Guffet & McMillan, 1996; Betz et al., 1989; Ambrose & Miles, 2003) findings that report mor e of a value of ethics for women. The present study however did not find other sex connections commonly reported. Previous studies report females also being more oriented toward the discretionary components and males being more strongly oriented towards legal and economic components H owever the present study did not show roles and role expectations. S ocial role theory explains that the beliefs that people hold about the
75 sexes are changing as men and women do not adhere to traditional role expectations and social disapproval is no longer a major consequence as a result to this lack of adherence (Harrison & Lynch, 2005). Conversely, looking at sex role versus sex the current study found a strong association with femininity and discretionary CSR as well as ethical CSR components which supports Gilligan (1982 ) She described t his positive relationship between females and the use of care, but the sex role of femininity may be a better indicator of this relationship. Masculine sex typed practitioners more strongly endorsed the economic component compared to feminine sex typed pra ctitioners Furthermore with the literature (Grunig, et al., 2000 ) suggesting feminine values best suited for public relations and stating that the most socially responsible practitioners possess feminine values the BSRI serves as a measurement tool for identifying practitioners who possess those values With H4a d the researcher expected to find strong correlations with all four CSR components but only one was found. The literature explains that androgynous individuals show more adaptability and engage i ndependent of sex appropriate behavior explaining why correlations did not exist. This flexibility cannot be predicted ; thus, correlations were not present. Implications Corporate s ocial r esponsibility orientation is important because it can indicate the areas considered most important to managers in their decision making. With the important role that practitioners play in cultivating and facilitating CSR initiatives as discussed earlier, this study provides valuable insight to both practitioners and theo ry building In understanding the value that practitioners possess in areas of interests
76 practitioners can be more confident in their decision making and better identify the values that drive decision making. This study adds a means of looking beyond sex to make assessments about CSR increasingly aggressive and independent and men increasingly possess attributes that were once traditionally feminine (Powell and Butter field 1979) Simply making assumptions based on gender is not the best predictor of CSR orientation. Assuming will value the discretionary components is a flawed app roach at making predictions regarding orientation. Any research in gender brings questions about the legitimacy of the terms masculinity and femininity. Whether we can comfortably use these terms given the changes in society and gender roles has been under great debate. The most important issue is not the labels that we place on the terms but the underpinning values that the terms represent. What is worth looking at along with the feminine and masculine constructs are the underlining values that compose th e construct s Values that Grunig, et. al (2000) listed as feminine included : altruism loyal ty tolerance reciprocity, and nurturance These values prove valuable in public relations practice and in enacting CSR initiatives These values allow for the sym metrical communication which is considered the best model in benefitting public interest. It will prove vital to educate masculine sex typed individuals on the importance of all CSR components for a company looking to be more CSR
77 focused How to educate t hese practitioners on the importance of the values has not been explored in th e present study. Companies must recognize the values that are important to the organization and these values must be communicated and modeled by management and through corporate action. Companies claiming to value the ethical component must not only This is important if there is a sincere desire for there to be a fundamental change in corporat e values. Limitations and Future Research One major limitation of the present study was the modest sample size which limits the external validity of the study A larger study would provide a better ground for statistical analysis and would allow for gene ralization of the results. With access to a public relations directory a greater number of respondents could have been reached. An addi tional limitation with the use o f the online survey method, the survey was open to anyone who identified themselves as working in public relations or CSR and the researcher could not verify who was in fact taking the survey. Additionally, individuals who consider themselves as corporate social responsibility practitioners are not well represented in this study. Future res earch should investigate CSR orientation and BSRI within this population. It would be interesting to see how practitioners who operate solely in this function would score on both of the measurement scales. While gender specifically in public relations has been explored thoroughly sex role has been less explored. Future research should also look to theory building in regards to the why feminine masculine and androgynous individuals respond the way that they do specifically focusing on the
78 values that under lie the construct that the sex r oles represent. Future research also should be done to develop a new sex role scale given the criticism given to the Bem Sex Role Inventory, which is the most valid scale to date. Additionally as discussed in implications a future study should look to explore whether individuals can be educated or trained to endorse all four CSR components.
79 APPENDIX FORMS AND SURVEYS Informed Consent Form Protocol Title: The Influence of Personal Attributes on Public Relations Belie fs Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of personal attributes on public relations beliefs. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will complete a survey, which will take 10 15 minutes to complete. You will be asked to allocate up to, but not more than, 10 points to each of the 15 sets of four statements and rate yourself along a 7 point scale, according to how much each of 60 adjectives describes yourself. Time required: 10 15 minutes Risks and Benefits: There are no known risks if you decide to participate in this research study. There are no direct benefits for participants. Compensation: There is no direct compensation to you for participating in the study. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by the law. You will be asked to include your e mail address when you complete the online survey so that we can notify the recipients regarding the charitable donation. You will be assigned a participant number, and only the participant number will appear with your survey responses which will be therefore anonymous. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.
80 Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Principal Investigator Tamekia Massaline, Graduate Student, Department of Journalism and Communications Faculty Supervisor Mary Ann Ferguson, PhD, College of Journalism and Communications Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office Yes No
81 Statements that follow are about how you think about corporate social responsibility and the role of corporations in society. Based on their relative importance please allocate up to, but not more than 10 points to each s et of four statements. For example, you could allocate points as follows A = 4 A = 1 A = 0 B = 3 B = 2 B = 4 Either C = 2 or C = 0 or C = 3 etc. D = 1 D = 7 D = 0 Total = 10 points Total = 10 points Total = 7 points Q1 It is important for corporations to perform in a manner consistent with: ______ expectations of maximizing earnings per share. ______ expectations of government and the law. ______ the philanthropic and charitable expectations of society. ______ expectations of societal mores and ethical norms. Q2 It is important for corporations to be committed to: ______ being as profitable as possible. ______ voluntary and charitable activities. ______ abiding by laws and regulations. ______ moral and ethical behavior. Q3 It is impor tant for corporations to: ______ recognize that the ends do not always justify the means. ______ comply with various federal regulations. ______ assist the fine and performing arts. ______ maintain a strong competitive position. Q4 It is important for cor porations that: ______ legal responsibilities are seriously fulfilled. ______ long term return on investment is maximized. ______ managers and employees participate in voluntary and charitable activities within their local communities. ______ when securing new business, promises are not made which are not intended to be fulfilled.
82 Q5 It is important to: ______ allocate resources on their ability to improve long term profitability. ______ comply promptly with new laws and court rulings. ______ examine regul arly new opportunities and programs which can improve urban and community life. ______ recognize and respect new or evolving ethical/moral norms adopted by society. Q6 It is important to: ______ provide assistance to private and public educational institu tions. ______ ensure a high level of operating efficiency is maintained. ______ be a law abiding corporate citizen. ______ advertise goods and services in an ethically fair and responsible manner. Q7 It is important that a successful firm be defined as on e which: ______ is consistently profitable. ______ fulfills its legal obligations. ______ fulfills its ethical and moral responsibilities. ______ fulfills its philanthropic and charitable responsibilities.
83 Based on their relative importance please alloc ate up to, but not more than, 10 points to each set of three or four statements. For example, you could allocate points as follows: A = 4 A = 1 A = 0 B = 3 B = 2 B = 4 Either C = 2 or C = 0 or C = 3 etc. D = 1 D = 7 D = 0 Total = 10 points Total = 10 points Total = 7 points Q8 It is important for corporations to: ______ pursue opportunities which will enhance earnings per share. ______ avoid discriminating against women and minorities. ______ support, assist and work with minority owne d businesses. ______ prevent social norms from being com promised in order to achieve corporate goals. ______ moral and ethical image in society. ______ compliance with lo cal, state, and federal statues. ______ financial health. ______ ability to help solve social problems. Q10 It is important that good corporate citizenship be defined as: ______ doing what the law expects. ______ providing voluntary assistance to chariti es and community organizations. ______ doing what is expected morally and ethically. ______ being as profitable as possible. Q11 It is important to view: ______ philanthropic behavior as a us eful measure of corporate performance. ______ consistent profita bility as a us eful measure of corporate performance. ______ compliance with the law as a u seful measure of corporate performance. ______ compliance with the norms, mores, an d unwritten laws of society as useful measures of corporate performance.
84 Q12 It is important to: ______ recognize that corporate integrity and ethical behavior go beyond mere compliance with laws and regulations. ______ fulfill all corporate tax obligations. ______ maintain a high level of operating efficiency. ______ maintain a policy of increasing chari table and voluntary efforts over time. Q13 It is important to: ______ assist voluntarily those projects w ______ provide goods and services which a t least meet minimal legal requirements. ___ ___ avoid compromising societal norms and ethics in order to achieve goals. ______ allocate organizational resources as efficiently as possible. Q14 It is important to: ______ pursue only those opportunities whic h provide the best rate of return. ______ p rovide employment opportunities to the hard core unemployed. ______ comply fully and honestly with enacted laws, regulations, and court rulings. s and codes can often be as important as the written. Q15 It is important that: ______ philanthropic and voluntary effor ts continue to be expanded consistently over time. ______ contract and safety violations are not i gnored in order to complete or expedite a project. ______ profit margins remain strong relative to major competitors. Q16 Indicate how well each of the characteristics below describes yourself.
85 Never or almost never true Usually not true Sometimes but infrequently true Occasionally true Often true Usually true Always or almost always true self reliant yielding helpful defends own beliefs cheerful moody independent shy conscientious athletic affectionate theatrical assertive flatterable happy
86 Q17 Indicate how well each of the characteristics below describes yourself Never or almost never true Usually not true Sometimes but infrequently Occasionally true Ofte n true Usually true Always or almost always true strong personality loyal unpredictable forceful feminine reliable analytical sympathetic jealous has leadership abilities sens itive to the needs of others truthful willing to take risks understanding secretive
87 Q18 Indicate how well each of the characteristics below describes yourself. Never or almost never true Usually not true Somet imes but infrequently Occasionally true Often true Usually true Always or almost always true makes decisions easily compassionate sincere self sufficient eager to soothe hurt feelings conceited dominant soft spoken likable masculine warm solemn willing to take a stand tender friendly
88 Q19 Please indicate how well each of the characteristics below describes yourself. Never or almost never true Usually not true Sometimes but infrequently true Occasionally true Often true Usually true Always or almost always true aggressive gullible inefficient act as a leader childlike adaptable individu alistic does not use harsh language unsystematic competitive loves children tactful ambitious gentle conventional
89 Q20 What is your sex? Male Female Q21 What is the highest level of education you have completed? Less than High School High School / GED Some College 2 year College Degree 4 year College Degree Masters Degree Doctoral Degree Professional Degree (JD, MD) Q22 The organization you work for is in which of the following: Pu blic sector (e.g. government) Private sector (e.g. most businesses and individuals) Not for profit sector Other ____________________ Q23 What best describes the type of organization you work for? Corporation Public relations agency Government Non profit O rganization Education related organization Health related organization Trade association Independent PR Consultant Other ____________________ Q24 How old are you? 18 25 26 34 35 54 55 64 65 or over ____________________ Q25 Full time experience in the prac tice of public relations (in years)
90 1 2 3 5 6 10 11 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 over 30 Q26 What best describes your title CEO/President/Owner Vice President Senior Account Supervisor Account Supervisor Account Executive Director Manager Public Relations Speciali st Educator Other ____________________ Q27 What is your annual income range? Below $20,000 $20,000 $29,999 $30,000 $39,999 $40,000 $49,999 $50,000 $59,999 $60,000 $69,999 $70,000 $79,999 $80,000 $89,999 $90,000 or more
91 LIST OF REFERENCES Ahmed, P., Nanda, S., & Schnusenberg, O. (2010). Can firms do well while doing good? Applied Financial Economics 20 (11), 845 860. doi:10.1080/09603101003652409. Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2002). Gender discrepancies in a gendered profession: A developing t heory for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 14 (2), 103 126. Ameen E., D. Guffet & McMillan J. (1996). Gender differences in d etermining the e thical s ensitivity of f uture a ccounting p rofessionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 15 (5), 59 1 597. A ries E. (1976). Interaction patterns and themes of male, female, and mixed groups. Small Group Behavior, 7, 7 18. Arlow, P. (1991). Personal characteristics in college students evaluations of business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Jo urnal of Business Ethics 10, 63 69. Aupperle K .( 1984 ). An empirical measure of corporate social orientation Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 6, 27 54. Aupperle, K., A. Carroll, & Hatfield J ( 1985 ). An empirical examina tion of the relationship between corporate social r espon sibility and profitability. Academy of Management Review 28(2), 446 463. Ballard Reisch, D., & Elton, M. (1992). Gender orientation and the Bern Sex Role Inventory: A psy chological construct revisited. Sex Roles 27, 291 306. Basil, D.C (1973) Women in Management. New York McGraw Hill. Bem, S. (1974) The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155 162. Bem, S. L. (1979). Theory and measu rement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur Tetenbaum and Locksley Colten critiques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 1047 1054. Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex Role Inventory: Professional ma nual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press Benn, S., Todd, L., & Pendleton, J. (2010). Public relations leadership in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 96 (3), 403 423. & J. Shepard (1989). Gender d ifferences in p roclivity for u nethical b ehavior, Journal of Business Ethics 8 321 324.
92 Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing b etter at d oing g ood: When, w ho, and h ow c onsumers r espon d t o c orporate s ocial i nitiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9 24. Retrieved from Business Source Premier d atabase. Boyd, D. P. (1981). Improving ethical awareness through the business and society course. Business and Society 20(2), 27 31. Bowen H R. (1953). Social R esponsibilities of the B usinessman New York: Harper & Row Brenner 0 C., & Greenh aus, J. H. ( 1979 ) Managerial status, sex and selected personality characteristics Journal of Management 5 107 113. Broom, G. M., Center, A. H., & Cutlip, S. M. (2005). Effective Public Relations Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall. Broom, G. M & Dozie r, D. M. (1986). Advancement for public relations role models. Public Relations Review, 17 56. Broverman, L, Voge l, S., Broverman, D., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz (1972). P. S. Sex role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues 28, 5 9 78 Burton, B. K. & Hegarty W. H. ( 1999 ). Some Determinants of Student Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation Business and Society 38(2), 188 205. Cochran, P. (2007). The evolution of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons 50 (6), 449 454. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from the Science Direct database. Carroll, A. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497 505. Carroll, A. (1983). Corporate Social Responsibility. Vital Spe eches of the Day 49 (19), 604. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database Carroll, A. (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders, Business Horizon 39 48. Carroll, A. (1999). Cor porate social responsibility. Business and Society, 38 (3), 268 295. Retrieved October 22, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 44660325). Carroll, A. (2009). A History of Corporate Social Responsibility Concepts and Practices The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (Oxford Handbooks in Business and Management) (pp. 19 46). New York: Oxford University Press, USA. Clark, C. (2000). Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility: An analysis. Public Relations Review 26(3), 363 38
93 Cobanoglu, Cihan, Ward e, & Moreo P. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax, and web survey methods International Journal of Market Research 43, 441 52. Corson, J. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1974). Measuring business' social performance: Th e corporate social audit. New York: Committee for Economic Development. Davis, J.R. & Welton, R.E. (1991), Professional ethics: Journal of Business Ethics 10, 451 4 63. Davis, K. ( 1973 ) The case for and against business a ssumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal 16, 312 322. Dawson, L. M. (1997). Ethical differences between men and women in the sales profession, Journal of Business Ethics 16(1), 1143 1152. Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986). S ex differences in leadership: How real a re they? Academy of Management Review 11, 118 127. Dozier, D. M.,& Broom, G. M. (1995). Evolution of the manager role in public relations practice. Journal of Public Relations Research 7, 3 26. Drumwright, M. E., & Murphy, P. E. (2001). Corporate societal marketing. In Paul N. Bloom & Gregory T. Gundlach (Eds.), Handbook of marketing and society (pp. 162 183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dubinsky, A. J. & Ingram T. N. (1984).Ethics in retailing: Perceptions of retail s alespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 13 1 16. Eckes, T., & Trautner, H. M. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and Similarities. The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123 157). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc iates. Edwards, A. L., & Ashworth, C. D. (1977 ). A replication study of item selection for the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Applied Psychological Measurement 1, 501 507. Eilbirt, H., & Parket, R. I. (1973). The practice of business: The current status o f corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons 16 (4), 5 14. Ellis, J., & Range, L. (1988). Femininity and reasons for living. Educational and Psychological Research 8, 19 24 Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chi cago Press. Friedman, M. (1970) The Social Responsibility of Business Is To Increase Its Profit. New York Times. Sept. 13, 122 126. Gilligan, C (1982). In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
94 Gough, H. G. (1957). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press. Griswold, G., Jr. (1967). How AT&T public relations policies developed. Public Relations Quarterly 12 7 16. Grunig J E. (1984). Organizations, Environments, and Models of Public Relations. Public Relations Research & Education 1, 6 29. Grunig, J. E., & IABC Research Foundation. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management Communication textbook series. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associ ates. Grunig, J. E ., & Hunt, T. (1984). M anaging P ublic R elations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Grunig, L., Toth, E., & Hon, L. (2000). Feminist values in Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 49 68. Harris, A. (1994). Ethn icity as a determinant of sex role identity: A replication study of item selection for the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 31, 241 273. Harrison, L., & Lynch, A. (2005). Social Role Theory and the Perceived Gender Role Orientation of Athletes. Sex Roles 52 (3/4), 227 236. doi:10.1007/s11199 005 1297 1. Heilbrun, A. (1986 ). A ndrogyny as type and androgyn y as behavior: Implications for gender schema in male s an d females. Sex Roles 14, 123 139. Hoffman, R., & B orders, L. (2001). Twenty five y e ars after th e Bem Sex Role Inventory: a reassessment and new issues regarding classification v ariability. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development (American Counseling Association) 34 (1), 39. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database Holmes, S. L. (1977). Corporate social performance: Past and present areas of commitment. Academy of Management Journal 20, 433 538. Holt, C. L., & Ellis, J. B. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 39, 929 941. Hopkins, M. (2 006). What is c orporate s ocial r esponsibility all a bout? Journal of Public Affairs (14723891) 6 (3/4), 298 306. doi:10.1002/pa.238. Ibrahim, N ., & Angelidis, J.P. (1991). Effects of board members, gender on level of involvement in strategic management and corporate social responsiveness orientation. Proceeding of the Northeast Decision Sciences Institute, 208 210.
95 Ibr ahim, N. & Angelidis J. P. ( 1995 ). The c orporate s ocial r esponsiveness o rientation of b oard m embers: Are t here d ifferences b etwee n i nside an d o utside d irectors ? Journal of Business Ethics 14 405 410. Ibrahim, N. Howard & Angelidis J. P. (2008). The r elationship b etween r eligiousness and c orporate s ocial r esponsibility o rientation: Are There Differences Between Business Managers and Students ? Journal of Business Ethics 78, 165 174. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd e d ) New York Wiley. Kelly, J. A., Caudill, S., Hawthorn, S., & O'Brien,C. G. (1977). Socially undesirable sex correlated characteristics: Implications for androgyny and adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 45, 1185 1186. Kohlberg, L. (1966). A c ognitive d evelopmental analysis of children's sex role concepts and attitudes. In Maccoby, E. E., editor, The Development of S ex Differences Stanford University Press, Stanford CA. Kok, P., T. V. D. Weile, R. McKenna & Brown A. (2001). A corporate social responsibility audit within a quality management framework, Journal of Business Ethics 31(4), 285 297. L'Etang, J. (1994), Pub lic relations and corporate social responsibility; some issues arising Journal of Business Ethics 111 23. Lefever, S., Dal, M., & Matthasdttir, . (2007). Online data collection in academic research: advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educa tional Technology 38 (4), 574 582. doi:10.1111/j.1467 8535.2006.00638.x. Maltz, D. & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumpertz (ed.) Language and social identity (pp. 196 216). Cambridge, England: Cambridg e University Press. Mason, S., & Mucrack, P. (1996). Gender and Ethical Orientation: A Test of Gender and Occupational Socialization Theories. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (6), 599 604. McCabe, C. M. R. Ingram & Conway M. (2006). The business of ethics and gender, Journal of Business Ethics 64, 10 1 116 ethical beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics 15, 261 272. McDonald,R. & Scott, V. (1997). Attitudes of business and non business students toward corporate actions. Teaching Business Ethics, 1, 213 225.
96 Mer tler, C. (2002). Demonstrating t he p otential For w eb b ased s urvey m ethodology w ith a c ase s tudy. American Secondary Education 30 (2), 49. Retrieved from Academic Searc h Premier Database Mohr, L., & Webb, D. (2005). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and Price on Consumer Responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs 39 (1), 121 147. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database Mohr, Lois A., Deborah J. Webb, & Harris K. E. (2001) Do c onsumers e xpect c ompanies to b e s ocially r esponsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 35 (1), 45 72. Nehme, M., & Wee, C. (2008). T racing t he h istorical d evelopment of c orp orate s ocial r esponsibility a nd c orporate s ocial r eporting. James Cook University Law Review (15), 129 168. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database Ostlund, L. E. (1977). Attitudes of managers toward corporate social policy. California Management Review, 19 (4), 35 49. Paluszek, J. L. (1976). Business and society: 1976 2000, an AMA report. New York: AMACOM. Pink ston, T. S. & Carroll A. B. (1996). A Retrospective Examination of CSR Orientations: Have They Changed? Journal of Business Ethics 15 19 9 206. D. A. (1979). : Mascu line or androgynous? Academy of Management Journal 22, 395 403. Procter Rogers, C. (2006 ). Celebrating women's role in PR. PRweek 9 (13). Schein, V. E.( 1973 ) The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology 57, 95 100. Schein, V. E.( 1975 ) Relationships between sex role stereotypes an d requisite management char acteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340 344. Schminke, M. Ambrose, M. & Miles, J. A. (2003). The impact of gender and setting on Sex Roles 48 (7/8), 361 375. Schmitt, B., Leclerc F. & Dub Rioux, L. (1988). Sex t yping and c onsumer b e havior: A t est of g ender s chema t heory. Journal of Consumer Research 15 (1), 122 128. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database Shaw, W. H. & Barry V. ( 1992 ) Moral I ssues in Business, 5th edition Wa dsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA
97 Smith, W. & Black burn R. ( 1988 ). Corporate s ocial r esponsibility: A p sychometric e xamination of a m anagement i nstrument. Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, pp. 293 295. Singhapakdi, A. & Vitell S. J. (1990). Marketing ethics: Factors influencing perception s of ethical problems and alternatives. Journal of Macromarketing 10 4 18. Stoller, R. J. ( 1964 ). A c ontribution to the s tudy of g ender i dentity. International Journal of Psycho Analysis 45 220 226. Toth, E. L., & Cline, C. G. (1991). Public relations pr actitioner attitudes toward gender issues: A benchmark study. Public Relations Review, 17 (2), 161 175. Toth, E. L., & Grunig, L. A. (1993). The missing story of women in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5, 153 176. Uccello, C. (2009) Social i nterest and s ocial r esponsibility in c ontemporary c orporate e nvironments. Journal of Individual Psychology 65 (4), 412 419. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. 1985. The evolution of the corporate soc ial performance model. Academy of Management Review, 4,758 769. Wraas, A. (2007). The re enchantment of social institutions: Max Weber and public relations. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 281 286. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.05.007. White, J., & Manolis, C (1997). Individual d ifferences In e thical r easoning a mong l aw s tudents. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 25(1), 19. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database Wood, D.J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academ y of Management Review, 16, 691 718.
98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tameki a Massaline is from S ebring, FL She attended the University of Florida earning a Bachelor of Science in 2009, with a major in public relations and a minor in education. She began her graduate studies at the University of Florida in August 2009 pursuing a Master of Arts in Mas s Communications with a specialization in public relations.