A Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Ethical Dimensions of Alcohol

STEPHEN R. McDANIEL, LANCE KINNEY and LAURENCE CHALIP

A CROSS-CULTURAL INVESTIGATION OF THEETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF ALCOHOL AND

TOBACCO SPORTS SPONSORSHIPS

(Accepted 27 October 2000)

ABSTRACT. While the sport industry has grown into a multi-billion dollar internationalbusiness with unique ethical concerns, there is little empirical research examining the ethicsinvolved in sport sponsorships, especially sponsorship of alcohol and tobacco brands. Thisstudy investigates the potential influence of culture and gender on future practitioners’willingness to work in the tobacco and alcohol sport sponsorship areas. The nature of therelationship between sports, alcohol and tobacco is reviewed, along with past research onvariables noted to influence ethical decision making. Three hypotheses are investigatedfor differences between American and Australian students. A cultural difference in ethicalperceptions is supported, while gender differences are not significant. The implications ofthese findings are discussed, along with the study’s limitations and future directions forethics research in sport marketing.

KEY WORDS: alcohol, cross cultural, ethics, gender, multivariate ethics scale, sponsor-ship, sport marketing, tobacco

INTRODUCTION

The study of business ethics cuts across a variety of fields and hasimportant implications for scholars and practitioners. To date, many facetsof marketing and management behavior have been investigated acrossvarious industries and populations (Ford and Richardson, 1994). This workhas focused on such areas as personal ethical development, along withindustry codes of conduct and statements or policies developed by organ-izations to guide employee behavior. While the ethical issues relating tomarketing in various industries have received attention from researchers,the literature neglects to address the special concerns of the growing sportsindustry (Hums et al., 1999). One area of sports business that meritsparticular attention is sport marketing, especially corporate sponsorship ofsporting events to help promote tobacco, alcohol and lotteries (Cornwelland Maignan, 1998; Howard and Crompton, 1995; McDaniel and Heald,2000; McDaniel and Mason, 1999).

Teaching Business Ethics 5: 307–330, 2001.© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

308 STEPHEN R. McDANIEL ET AL.

Although the global sports industry generates enough revenue to rankas the world’s twenty-second largest enterprise (Schaaf, 1995), the issueof business in this context has received little attention in the marketingand management literature (Hums et al., 1999). According to Hums et al.,sport managers face concerns that are unique to their industry, although theauthors’ overview of industry issues fails to include certain ethical issuesgermane to sport. Among the different approaches to sport marketingis the use of sporting events as vehicles to help promote consumergoods or services (Chalip, 1992). These sponsorships sometimes involvethe promotion of some goods and services (like alcohol, tobacco andlotteries) that are considered to be controversial because of potential healthand social concerns related to their consumption and because childrencomprise a large part of the audience for sports (Howard and Crompton,1995). According to Cornwell and Maignan (1998), alcohol and tobaccosponsorships will be subject to increasing regulatory scrutiny throughoutthe world. Consequently, the ethical concerns surrounding alcohol andtobacco companies’ sponsorship of athletic events provide a fertile areafor cross-cultural marketing ethics research (Branvold, 1996; Cornwell andMaignan, 1998; Zinkhan, 1994).

Existing research on ethics and marketing practices focuses on severalinfluential variables, including culture, gender, age and ethics education.The current study builds on the business ethics literature by examining theimpact of nationality and gender on evaluations of ethics in sport spon-sorships involving alcohol or tobacco companies. This is done using theMultidimensional Ethics Scale (MES) to assess differences in Americanand Australian students’ evaluations of such sponsorships (Reidenbachand Robin, 1990). In addition, the relationship between evaluations andself-reported behavioral intentions toward being professionally involved inthe solicitation or implementation of sponsorships from tobacco or alcoholcompanies is also explored. First, the business relationships betweensports, alcohol and tobacco industries are examined. A review of literatureon marketing ethics follows, and the significant role of sport marketingcontexts is noted.

ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO BRANDSAS SPONSORS OF SPORTING EVENTS

Sport Sponsorship

Sport sponsorship, a promotion strategy also known as event marketing,has been defined as “a cash and/or in-kind fee paid to a property in return

ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO SPONSORSHIPS 309

for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with thatproperty” (Ukman, 1995, p. 1). In 1994, $10 billion dollars were spentto procure sponsorship rights worldwide, with almost $3 billion dollarsdevoted to sporting events (Ukman, 1995, p. 14). These expenditures illus-trate why event marketing is one of the fastest growing areas of advertisingand promotion (Cunningham and Taylor, 1995; Ukman, 1995).

Sponsorship strategies, such as promotional tie-ins and productsampling at events, are sometimes used to increase brand awarenessand enhance brand image (Cunningham and Taylor, 1995; Levin, 1993;Schreiber, 1994). It has been argued that event marketing operates differ-ently from more traditional advertising as a result of its inability to addressspecific product attributes or benefits (Hastings, 1984, Ukman, 1995).Partly for this reason, sponsorships are usually leveraged through addi-tional advertising and/or promotional expenditures to make the connectionbetween the sponsor and the event salient to consumers (Crimmins andHorn, 1996; Ukman, 1995). However, some product categories, such asalcohol and tobacco, have limited access to traditional advertising outletsbecause they are constrained by restrictive legislation or regulatory policy(cf. Goitein et al., 1996; O’Neill, 1998). The effect of such constraints is toincrease the importance of event signage and event-related promotions inthe marketing communication strategies of alcohol and tobacco companies(cf. Cornwell, 1997; Howard and Crompton, 1995).

In many parts of the world, it would be unusual to view a sporting eventwithout seeing some form of event signage or a commercial for an alcoholor tobacco brand. For instance, some stadiums in the United States andCanada, such as Busch Stadium in St. Louis, Missouri, or Molson Centrein Montreal, Quebec, are named after the beer companies that own them(and the sports team playing there). It is also commonplace to see tobaccobrands sponsoring sporting events, such as the Winston Cup in NASCARracing, or Virginia Slims in women’s professional tennis. In fact, alcoholsponsorship is estimated to account for 11% of all sponsorship activity,while another 4% of all revenue in this area is attributed to spending bytobacco companies (Ukman, 1995, p. 14).

Sports and controversial products, like alcohol and tobacco, have along history of association in the United States (Howard and Crompton,1995). This type of marketing dates back at least 1900, when someAmerican baseball owners were brewers and some stadiums had signagepromoting chewing tobacco. Tobacco sponsorships currently account forfar less sponsorship spending than alcohol, however, tobacco sponsorshipsare arguably more controversial than alcohol sponsorships. The differ-ence has been attributed to the more serious nature of health concerns


associated with smoking versus drinking (Howard and Crompton, 1995).Since tobacco products were banned from American broadcasting in 1971,the industry has continued to support its brands with extensive print andoutdoor media, as well as sponsorship of sports and other events. Spon-sorship for one tobacco company, Phillip Morris, is estimated at $100million, much of it in automobile racing, with additional millions spent onpromotions to leverage the sponsorship investment (UST, Phillip Morris. . . , 1996). Criticisms of tobacco sponsorships include targeting chil-dren, obfuscating health concerns and subverting broadcast advertisingbans (Howard and Crompton, 1995; Cornwell, 1997). Tobacco marketerscontend that they do not target youth, but do encourage switching behaviorvia events with overwhelmingly adult attendance and viewing audiences(Robertson, 1996, p. 8).

Perhaps no other sport is as closely associated with cigarettes as Amer-ican NASCAR automobile racing. R. J. Reynolds Corporation (RJR),parent corporation of Winston cigarettes, has sponsored the Winston Cupracing series since 1970. Estimates have placed RJR’s financial commit-ment at more than $10 million annually. In 1994, Winston sponsored 31major events with a total attendance of 4.9 million (Kulfan, 1995). Winstonalso supports approximately 100 local racetracks around the country (VanAllen and McClintock, 1997). RJR recognizes the importance of this spon-sorship in its promotion mix, with a company spokesperson noting thatracing fans, “smoke more than the general population and are more loyalto Reynolds brands than other smokers are” (Racing sputters . . . , 1995).While racing fans and drivers vigorously defend tobacco’s association withthe sport, critics respond that children are targeted with auto racing. TheFood and Drug Administration has estimated NASCAR’s young fans (12–17 years old) at 20%, with other studies suggesting fans under 18 compriseonly 4.6% (Van Allen and McClintock, 1997).

Many countries other than the United States have strict regulationson alcohol and tobacco marketing at sport events. In fact, tobacco is themost commonly restricted product category in event marketing, with anestimated 30% of event properties declining to accept tobacco companysponsorships (Howard and Crompton, 1995, p. 282). Tobacco advertisingwas banned in Australian broadcast media in 1976, followed by a print banin 1989. This caused Australian tobacco marketers to put more emphasison other promotion opportunities, e.g., the “sponsorship loophole (espe-cially sports)” to circumvent television bans on advertising (Cornwell,1997, p. 256). In 1990, the Australian Supreme Court ruled that telecastingevents sponsored by tobacco was illegal. These laws were later extended


to prevent tobacco sponsorship of cultural events (Howard and Crompton,1995).

While tobacco sponsorships are not currently as regulated in the UnitedStates as they are in other parts of the world, legislation is pending beforeCongress that would modify or eliminate this practice (Pollack, 1997).This would mean that tobacco sponsors would be unable to offer brandedmerchandise or free samples of tobacco products at sports or other events.Free cigarettes and clothing are often part of the “carnival” atmosphere atNASCAR events (Racing Sputters . . . , 1995). Also, brand names would beeliminated from title sponsors (e.g. “Winston Cup Racing”), but corporatenames, “RJR Cup Racing,” would be permissible. This would mean thattobacco sponsors would be unable to use the elaborate designs that make somany race cars appear like cigarette packages. Instead, advertising wouldbe restricted to simpler visuals, such as tombstone ads and black and whitephotos of packaging.

As with tobacco sponsorships, there are concerns regarding the asso-ciation of alcohol and sporting events. Some argue that these sponsor-ships are problematic because of the messages they convey to underageconsumers (Howard and Crompton, 1995). Others maintain that alcoholconsumption is inconsistent with the physical demands of sports parti-cipation and promoting its use is hypocritical in athletic environmentswhich otherwise castigate drug use (e.g., the Olympics). Some countries,like Austria, have laws prohibiting public references to alcohol at sportingevents (Johnson, 1988). However, the international nature of some eventscan allow sponsors to defeat national or local regulations prohibiting theirinvolvement.

Even when sports governing bodies try to prohibit or regulate sport-related promotions for alcohol, they sometimes encounter difficulties whenit comes to broadcasters. For example, the National Collegiate AthleticAssociation (NCAA) in the U.S., became concerned in the 1980’s withbeer advertising surrounding college basketball’s biggest event, the NCAAFinal Four basketball tournament. The NCAA voiced its concerns to thetelevision network broadcasting the games, CBS, noting that alcohol spon-sorship was contrary to the NCAA’s drug policy guidelines. Realistically,the NCAA had little recourse. While the NCAA was responsible for anydirect associations with the event, CBS marketed and sold commercialspots during the games to individual advertisers. Excluding alcohol advert-isers might have impinged on CBS’ return on their investment in NCAAbroadcast rights (Carter, 1996). Some schools have restricted or eliminatedtheir association with collegiate sports events and alcohol brand spon-sors (Naughton, 1998). However, the growing dependence of “amateur”


athletics on commercial support continues to create ethical dilemmasacross the sports world.

As in the case of sponsorship of sport events by tobacco companies,alcohol sponsorship controversies have also been associated with majorinternational events. For example, Anheuser Busch (AB) has been involvedas a sponsor of both World Cup Soccer and the 1996 Atlanta OlympicGames. As an Olympics sponsor, AB was allowed to use the Olympicsrings logo in advertising. Again, critics suggested this strategy targetedyouth, as well as being incompatible with athletic activities (Carter, 1996).AB has tried to combat the negative criticism associated with its sportsmarketing efforts by airing ads encouraging consumers to drink respon-sibly. Cynics contend that ads touting responsibility are merely efforts toadvertise brand names and images, as expenditures for such campaigns arewell below the brewer’s advertising encouraging brand use (Carter, 1996).

Managers of sports teams, leagues and events properties often arguethey are dependent upon sponsorship dollars to fund events and/or main-tain profitability (McDaniel and Mason, 1999). Moreover, some publicopinion research suggests that fans often believe sponsorships keep theirticket prices down, and fans often associate drinking and/or smokingbehaviors with their viewing experience (Carter, 1996; McDaniel andMason, 1999). Therefore, it is uncertain how current and future sportmarketers might perceive the ethical concerns related to sponsorshipsfor sport products. To compound the issue, some sport governing bodiesdifferentiate between seemingly similar product categories. For example,the International Olympic Committee (IOC) accepts beer sponsorshipwhile contending that liquor and tobacco sponsorships would be incon-sistent with Olympic values (International Olympic Committee, 1997).Consequently, given the complexity of this matter and the interna-tional nature of the events industry, research is needed that examinesethical perceptions across different product categories, events and nationalcultures.

BUSINESS ETHICS, CULTURE AND GENDER

Given that sporting activities are often portrayed as being important forchildren, in terms of instilling such values as “fair play” and “sportsman-ship,” one might naively expect such values to undergird the commercialside of sports. However, there are those who believe that there are few“rules” in the competitive world of business. DeGeorge (1990, p. 3)calls this widely accepted view “the myth of amoral business,” writing:“According to the myth, people in business are not explicitly concerned


with morality – they are amoral. This does not mean they are immoral.Rather, they feel that moral considerations are inappropriate in business.”

DeGeorge (1990) suggests that business people and organizationsreflect the values embedded in their native cultures. Hofstede (1983) refersto this cultural imprinting as collective mental programming. Each culturetransmits to its members standards of morally acceptable or immoral beha-vior. For example, while paternalism is important in a Japanese businesssetting, it is not a prominent feature of American business (DeGeorge,1990, p. 10). Both of these scholars suggest that ethical judgments can varygreatly between cultures, laying the groundwork for comparative ethicalstudies of any activity, including business practices, “. . . the vast varietyof business practices are all appropriate objects of moral evaluation”(DeGeorge, 1990, p. 17). What may be culturally acceptable business prac-tice in one culture (e.g., bribery), may be unacceptable in another culture.Individuals may perceive themselves to be acting morally, if their actionsare in accordance with acceptable moral standards for their country orcultural group.

Ethical business practice is not to be confused with legal business prac-tice. DeGeorge (1990) maintains the most deeply held moral principlesof a culture will be reflected in the culture’s legal codes. For example,while some forms of alcohol and tobacco advertising and promotion arecurrently legal in the United States, many people, including advertising andmarketing practitioners, question the ethical nature of such practices (Hungand Rice, 1994; Hunt and Chonko, 1987; Rotzoll and Christians, 1980;Zinkhan et al., 1989). DeGeorge might suggest that tobacco marketingregulations introduced recently in the United States at the federal levelwould indicate that promoting smoking behavior has become a nationalmoral issue. Australia has had a number of restrictions on alcohol andtobacco promotions for several years (Howard and Crompton, 1995).Legal prohibitions against tobacco sponsorships in Australia, but not theUnited States, might suggest a stronger national moral commitment inAustralia. The current regulatory interest, and the questioning of tobaccoand alcohol promotion by American business professionals, suggests thata study of potential sport business practitioners’ views toward marketingthese controversial products is very timely.

Nationality and Ethical Decision Making

In a business environment characterized by rapid internationalization,cross-cultural studies addressing business practices take on added urgency.Ethical questions may be of particular interest to sport marketers andpotential event sponsors because of the international nature of many


sporting events, but the literature appears devoid of empirical studiesinvestigating ethical issues specific to the sports industry, in either nationalor international contexts (Hums et al., 1999).

A number of researchers have investigated the impact of nationalityon ethical decision making behaviors across a wide variety of coun-tries, subjects and business disciplines other than sport. While resultsare mixed as to the influence of nationality, significant differences arefound in several instances. According to Ford and Richardson’s (1994)review of ethics research, studies are not directly comparable due to avariety of measures, inconsistent sampling, use of ethical or unethicalbusiness scenarios, questionnaires, etc. Also, many studies are appliedor phenomenological in nature with few theoretic rationales employed toexplain differences.

Armstrong (1992) investigates perceived ethical differences betweenrandomly selected Australian international business managers relative tohow they think colleagues conduct business in other countries. Accordingto Armstrong (1992, p. 168), Australian managers generally believe inter-national markets are more tolerant of unethical practices than Australianhome markets. He goes on to note that cultural differences betweenAustralian business practices and the business practices of other countriesrank second in terms of ten reported ethical problems, making internationalethical dilemmas highly important to these managers.

Based on Preble and Reichel’s (1988) finding of significant differencesbetween American and Israeli students, Small (1992) compares Australian,American and Israeli business students. Significant differences are notedbetween the Australian and American students, as well as between theAustralian and Israeli students, based on a questionnaire used to determineattitudes toward business ethics. However, Small goes on to suggest thatobserved differences are negligible. Many of the reported significant differ-ences occur between the “disagree strongly” and “disagree” scale loca-tions. No instances of complete disagreement are observed, e.g. one groupof students agreeing strongly while another group disagrees strongly. Thisstudy was later replicated and extended by Moore and Radloff (1996) toinclude South African students. Again, significant differences are noted onsome items between Israeli and South African students.

In a similar study, Nyaw and Ng (1994) employ ethical dilemma scen-arios to investigate differences among business students in Canada, HongKong, Japan and Taiwan. A theoretic rationale based on Hofstede andBond’s (1988) four cultural dimensions is employed to develop hypothesesand interpret results. Overall, the students in these countries cannot beclassified as more or less ethical in relationship to one another. Instead,


differences are noted between student groups on specific scenarios. Forexample, Canadian students are more tolerant of situations involvingemployment insecurity than other students, Hong Kong’s students aresignificantly more likely to support unethical behavior toward customers,etc. Inconsistent findings lead Nyaw and Ng to hypothesize that factorsother than those suggested by Hostede influence decision making.

Armstrong (1996) revisits ethical differences between nationalities,comparing business students in Malaysia, Australia and Singapore usingthe same Hofstede (1988) dimensions employed by Nyaw and Ng (1994).Armstrong reports that Malaysia’s students exhibit the highest ethicalmean, followed by Australia and Singapore. The contrary results of thesetwo studies may be related to the research methods employed. WhereasNyaw and Ng use ethically questionable scenarios and ask respondentsto place themselves in the situation, Armstrong uses a more straight-forward questionnaire asking respondents to evaluate the importance ofwell-defined ethical problems.

In summary, while nationality or culture appears to play some role inethical business behavior, no definitive statements can be made regardingimpact on ethical decision making. When confronted with certain practicesor scenarios, respondents of various nationalities respond in seeminglycontradictory ways. Inconsistent results may demonstrate a lack of soundmeasurement techniques for isolating differences. Also, theory may nothave advanced to a point allowing the development of accurate hypotheses.

Gender and Ethical Decision Making

Gender may be the single most studied variable across the body ofempirical research on ethics (Ford and Richardson, 1994). As comparedto nationality, there appears to be greater consistency among findingsconcerning the influence of gender. A review of the literature mightlead to the belief that females are more ethical than males. Even whensignificant differences are not reported, females’ ethical evaluation scoresare higher than those of their male counterparts. Ford and Richardsonreport an even split, with half the studies reviewed indicating significantgender-based ethical differences. Again, mixed results suggest unreliablemeasures of ethical assessments or poor theoretical explication of gender’simpact. Theories offered to explain gender’s influence include structuraltheory stressing stronger ethical socialization for females, and situationaltheories suggesting that ethical thoughts and behaviors are context specific,sometimes favoring males and other times favoring females (Dawson,1997).


It seems clear that a growing number of women are interested in busi-ness careers. Female enrollment in American business schools increasedfrom 9% of total enrollment in 1970 to 45% in 1990 (Smith and Oakley,1997). Additionally, one-third of MBA students are female (Sikula andCosta, 1994). These professional women will enter an increasingly inter-national business climate, including the sports industry; yet, few cross-cultural studies investigate the impact of gender on business ethics andnone of these examine sport marketing.

Whipple and Swords (1992) investigate ethical differences betweenAmerican and British business students, reporting consistently higherethical scores for females from both countries. Likewise, Okleshen andHoyt (1996) compare business students from America and New Zealandusing a questionnaire in conjunction with 15 business scenarios portrayingfraud, coercion, influence dealing, self interest and deceit. Students areasked to indicate approval or disapproval with behaviors described inthe scenarios. Generally, American students are less tolerant of fraudu-lent behaviors and practices involving coercion or narrowly-defined selfinterest. Females from both countries exhibit higher ethical scores thanmales from both countries across all scenarios.

Sport and the Australia versus United States Comparison

Although studies of business ethics in sport contexts are rare (Hums et al.,1999), general business ethics in Australia and the United States have beencompared (Moore and Radloff, 1996; Small, 1992). Differences have beennegligible. This is not particularly surprising, since both countries shareBritish colonial histories, capitalist economies, democratic institutions,and business enterprises that participate broadly in the global economy.

Given the above similarities, the comparison of Australia with theUnited States takes on a new appeal when one looks specifically at thesport industry and its association with tobacco and alcohol. Despite thesimilarities of the two countries’ economic, social, and political institu-tions, each country has evolved a significantly different system for sport(cf. Chalip and Johnson, 1996; Farmer and Arnaudon, 1996). One of themost salient differences between the two systems is the unique role thatsocial clubs play in the management of Australian sport (Hing et al., 1998).In Australia, sport is typically organised around clubs that provide oppor-tunities for members to gather, talk, eat, and drink. Clubs are a hub ofAustralian social life. Recent surveys indicate that over half of the adultAustralian population belongs to at least one licensed club (Ross, 1996).Even professional sport franchises, such as football teams, provide socialclubs that fans and local residents can join. There is no comparable sport


service in the U. S. Clubs in Australia are typically open each day, andvirtually all clubs feature the sale of alcoholic beverages. As a result,alcohol enjoys an institutionalized social linkage to sport in Australia thatit does not have in the United States (Caldwell, 1977; Crompton, 1983).

There is substantial work demonstrating that attitudes toward alcoholand tobacco are mediated by social and cultural norms (e.g., Duncan et al.,1995; Lo and Globetti, 1999; Waldron, 1991). Other work suggests that theacceptability of smoking and drinking depends on the situation in whichthe smoking and drinking take place (e.g., Gilbert, 1995; Greenfield andRoom, 1997). Given the socially institutionalized association of alcoholwith sport in Australia, one would expect that association to be consideredmore ethical by Australians than it is by Americans.

The situation is less clear for tobacco. Levels of smoking and drinkingare generally higher in Australia than in the United States (Pierce,1989; Savage and Holcomb, 1997–1998), but Australian attitudes towardsmoking have become more negative in recent years, with new evidencesuggesting that attitudes in the two countries may now be comparable(Laforge et al., 1998). Further, tobacco use is not linked to sport inAustralia through social institutions in the same way that alcohol is.

The two countries do share similar patterns of gender difference. Inboth countries, rates of drinking and smoking are higher for males thanfor females (Connor et al., 1999; Lo, 1995; Rogers et al., 1995; Williamsand Wortley, 1991). However, in the Australian case, it has been arguedthat women see alcohol and tobacco use as a positive form of resistance tosocially prescribed gender roles (Ricciardelli et al., 1998; Wearing et al.,1994). If so, gender differences might be expected in ethical evaluationsabout alcohol and tobacco sponsorships of sport.

Ethics in the Business Curriculum

While studies directly addressing the impact of ethics education arefew, results appear to be consistent. Students receiving ethics instruc-tion demonstrate more ethical decision making than students receivingno ethics instruction. Research reported in business journals and text-books examines the value of “teaching” ethics in the business school, withsome researchers arguing that integrating ethics into the standard busi-ness school curriculum will improve ethical business practice (Arlow andUlrich, 1985).

According to Konrad (1978), an ethics course sensitizes students toethical issues while simultaneously promoting values already ingrainedin the students. Ethics instruction may also impact perceptions of busi-ness practices many years later. Purcell (1977) reports that students taking


an ethics course as part of their business school instruction are moreapt to recommend ethical behavior 10 years after graduation. Similarly,Barach and Nicol (1980) note that ethics instruction resonates across otherareas of business activity, not just in the specific scenarios reviewed inclass. Ford and Richardson’s (1994) review examines type of education,concluding that few differences exist between students of different majorswho receive ethics instruction. However, given the lack of research on thesport industry, little is known about how ethics education might impact astudent’s perspective on certain issues, like being involved in alcohol andtobacco sponsorship of sporting events.

Moral Equity and Moral Relativism

One potential framework for examining evaluations of business ethics insport marketing is the Multidimensional Ethics Scale (MES) developedby Reidenbach and Robin (1988, 1990). This eight-item instrument isa process-oriented approach, constructed to measure ethical assump-tions and ideas common to five prominent moral philosophies (justice,relativism, utilitarianism, egoism and deontology). Reidenbach and Robinmaintain their scale improves upon Hunt and Vitell (1986) by theorizinga more central role for cultural influences. Factor analysis reveals threefactor structures: moral equity, relativism and contractualism. Strong alphareliability coefficients are reported for the scale, averaging 0.80; moreover,valuative and predictive validity also seem strong across a variety ofcontexts and populations (Reidenbach et al., 1991).

Reidenbach and Robin (1990, p. 646) describe the first factor, moralequity, as a right and wrong dimension. Decision making grounded ina moral equity framework is more likely to be concerned with “justice,fairness, goodness and rightness” of actions. The second factor, relativism,accounts for “parameters inherent in the social system.” They suggest thisfactor “may account for differing ethical evaluations of business activitiesacross cultures”. Reidenbach and Robin tie the two dimensions together,theorizing that basic beliefs about right and wrong are transmitted byacculturation and can vary between cultures. The third factor, contractu-alism, deals with the nature of business agreements (i.e., implicit contractsand promises).

The MES offers the opportunity to review individual ethical reasoningfrom a cultural perspective. Reidenbach and Robin (1990) suggest themoral equity factor is more deontologically-based, rooted in duty to others,which may vary between individuals. In contrast, the relativism factor,with its emphasis on dynamic change based on circumstances, is lessindividually based and reflects a stronger cultural influence. According to


Robin and Reidenbach (p. 646), this dimension develops in the individual:“. . . beliefs are subject to the dictates of society . . . as the individualexperiences adequate and sufficient social intercourse to develop greaterunderstanding of cultural and traditional norms”. These norms and beliefsregarding duty toward others can vary among cultures. To date, there areno known studies using multi-item measures of ethical decision makingto investigate issues related to the sports industry. Therefore, the MES,as used here, seems appropriate to begin cross-cultural investigation ofthe ethical nature of sports sponsorships promoting controversial productcategories, such as alcohol and tobacco.

Based on the preceding review of literature on business ethics, sportmarketing and sponsorships, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H1: American and Australian students’ ethical evaluations of sport spon-sorships promoting alcohol and tobacco products differ as a functionof nationality and gender, controlling for age, year in school andethics education (p < 0.05).

H2: American and Australian students’ behavioral intentions towardcareers involving sport sponsorships promoting alcohol and tobaccoproducts differ as a function of nationality and gender, controlling forage, year in school and ethics education (p < 0.05).

H3: The strength of the relationship, between American and Australianstudents’ ethical evaluations of sport sponsorships promoting alcoholand tobacco products and behavioral intentions toward careersinvolving such activities differs as a function of nationality (p <0.05).

METHOD

This study builds upon the ethics research literature in business, in an effortto add to that body of knowledge, while also contributing to understandingof evaluations of ethics involved in sport marketing practices across genderand cultures. The subjects (n = 274) in this research are comprised ofundergraduate student volunteers from two universities: (1) a large south-eastern university in the U.S. (n = 149); and (2) a large university located inthe southeastern corner of the Australian state of Queensland (n = 125). Interms of the gender makeup of respondents, 139 were male and 135 werefemale. These students represent a mixture of business, communicationand sport management backgrounds.

In addition to answering demographic questions regarding gender,age and year in school, respondents completed several 7-point scales


related to ethical evaluations, behavioral intentions and self-reports ofethics education. The surveys were administered in classroom settingsand each contained 4 scenarios involving alcohol and tobacco sponsor-ships, followed by an abbreviated version of the Reidenbach and RobinMES (1990). It was decided a priori to exclude the contractualism factorof the MES, as the emphasis of this research was more about evalu-ations of corporate social responsibility than it was about evaluations ofspecific business relationships/agreements. Statements like, “I consider abeer company’s sponsorship of athletic events to be . . .” were followedby a 4-item semantic differential measure of moral equity (unfair/fair,unjust/just, unacceptable to my family/acceptable to my family, notmorally right/morally right) and a similarly scaled 2-item measure ofrelativism (traditionally unacceptable/traditionally acceptable; culturallyunacceptable/culturally acceptable). Similar statements were constructedregarding liquor and tobacco sponsorships, with the latter product categoryinvestigated in both auto racing and athletic event contexts (to test forpotential differences in evaluations across different events and differentproduct categories that may influence differences in evaluations of ethics).Each of the scales was later summed and averaged to create indexes ofmoral equity and relativism for each scenario. In terms of construct reli-ability, the MES data gathered in this study are consistent with previousresearch using this scale, with results ranging from 0.85 to 0.91.

For each scenario involving a beer, liquor or tobacco sponsorship,the MES was subsequently followed by a 3-item behavioral intentionsscale, similar to Reidenbach et al. (1991). For example, the state-ment, “I would have a problem working in an organization where Iwould be directly involved in buying/selling of sport sponsorships topromote beer”, was assessed with improbable/probable, unlikely/likelyand impossible/possible. Scaling was such that negative ethical evaluationswould positively correlate with negative behavioral intentions and visaversa. Similar to the MES, these scales were also summed and averaged tocreate indexes. Cronbach alpha coefficients suggest behavioral intentionsmeasures were also reliable, with values ranging from 0.88 to 0.95 acrossthe sponsorship scenarios. In addition, a single-item measure of ethicseducation was listed following the MES and behavioral intentions scalesfor each scenario: “I have believe my classes have adequately addressedthe issues and ethics involved in business practices like the buying/sellingof sport sponsorships to promote beer” (strongly disagree/strongly agree).


RESULTS

A two-way (gender × nationality) multiple analysis of covariance(MANCOVA) technique was used to test the first two hypotheses of thisstudy. For each of the sponsorship scenarios (i.e., involving hard alcoholand beer and tobacco sponsorships of either athletics or auto racing),students’ ethical evaluations (i.e., moral equity and relativism) and beha-vioral intentions were entered as dependent variables. This yielded twelvedependent variables. Gender (male or female) and nationality (Australianor American) were entered as the grouping factors. The student’s age, yearin school, and the degree to which they felt their coursework had preparedthem for marketing ethics (relating to each sponsorship scenario) were allentered as covariates.

It was possible that American and Australian students might differ inthe degree to which they felt their coursework had addressed the sponsor-ship issues being studied here. Such a difference would yield some collin-earity between the nationality factor and the covariates, thus reducing,rather than enhancing, the power of the test. As a preliminary check forcollinearity, the American and Australian students were compared on thosecovariates. There is no significant difference between these American andAustralian students in the degree to which they felt their coursework hadaddressed the sponsorship issues (0.025 < t(276) < 1.45, p > 0.1).

Age, year in school, and the degree to which students felt courseworkaddressed ethical matters involved in sponsorships promoting controver-sial products are each related to at least one dependent variable. Forexample, age is negatively associated with evaluation of beer (B = –0.091,t(248) = 4.04, p < 0.001) and tobacco sponsorships (B = –0.062, t(248) =2.07, p = 0.04), in terms of moral equity. Consequently, the older thestudent in this study, the more negatively they evaluate the practice of sportsponsorships promoting beer or tobacco. Conversely, year in school ispositively related to behavioral intentions regarding tobacco sponsorshipsfor sport (B = 0.243, t(248) = 2.14, p = 0.03). Thus, the further alongstudents are in their education, the less difficulty they anticipate workingfor a company that buys or sells tobacco sponsorships for sporting events.Finally, the ethics education measure is positively related to the behavioralintentions measure in the beer sponsorship scenario (B = 0.211, t(248) =2.58, p = 0.01). Therefore, the more adequately that students feel course-work has addressed ethical issues involved in beer sponsorships, the morewilling they are to work for a company involved in beer sport marketingpractices.

In terms of multivariate effects, no statistically significant interactionis detected between gender and nationality (F(12,248) = 1.73, p > 0.05).


TABLE I

National differences in ethical evaluations

Dependent Variables by Scenario Adj. Mean USA Adj. Mean Australia F(1,259)

LIQUOR: Athletic events

Moral equity 4.52 4.53 0.00

Relativism 4.89 4.68 0.93

Behavioral intentions 4.40 5.21 11.38∗∗∗BEER: Athletic events


Relativism 5.56 5.06 6.98∗∗Behavioral intentions 5.29 5.46 0.77

TOBACCO: Athletic events


Relativism 4.21 3.76 3.73∗Behavioral intentions 4.17 4.34 0.36

TOBACCO: Auto racing


Relativism 4.42 4.44 0.15

Behavioral intentions 3.53 4.39 8.53∗∗

∗∗∗p < 0.001.∗∗p < 0.01.∗p = 0.05.

Likewise, gender is also found to be insignificant (F(12,248) = 1.31, p >0.05). However, nationality does have significant main effects (F(12,248)= 2.74, p = 0.002). To explore the nature and direction of differences,univariate F-tests were run for each of the twelve dependent variables.Means, adjusted for the influence of covariates, and F-ratios for the twelvedependent variables are shown in Table I.

Examination of Table I shows the significant difference betweenAustralian and American students is a consequence of ratings on fourmeasures. This provides partial support for the first two hypotheses. Forexample, Australian students tend to report significantly lower levels ofrelativism than their American counterparts when evaluating sponsorshipsinvolving beer and tobacco brands. However, Australian students reportmore willingness to work for a company that buys or sells sponsorshipsfor athletic events promoting either liquor or tobacco brands. It shouldbe noted that no significant moral equity differences were found betweenstudents from the two countries.


TABLE II

Comparison of strength of relationship between evaluations of ethics involved in eventsponsorships and intention to work in such endeavors

Variable Pearson product-moment correlations Fischer’s z

USA (n = 149)

Australia (n = 125)

Liquor & Athletic Events 1.13

USA 0.38∗∗Australia 0.49∗

Beer & Athletic Events 2.15∗USA 0.58∗∗Australia 0.38∗∗

Tobacco & Athletic Events 0.66

USA 0.59∗∗Australia 0.64∗∗

Tobacco & Autoracing 1.53

USA 0.45∗∗Australia 0.59∗∗

∗p < 0.02.∗∗p < 0.01.

In order to explore hypothesis 3, zero-order correlations were calcu-lated for the relationship between students’ ethical evaluations and beha-vioral intentions in each sponsorship scenario. The two ethics constructswere summed and averaged to create a global indicator of respondents’evaluations of the ethics involved (cf. Reidenbach and Robin, 1990).Correlations were then calculated separately for each nationality and thencompared using Fisher’s z-test to measure differences in strength of asso-ciation. The correlations and z-tests are presented in Table II. Examinationof Table II shows that ethical evaluations and behavioral intentions aresignificantly related across all sponsorship scenarios for students fromboth countries. In other words, the more positive the evaluation of eventsponsorships promoting liquor, beer or tobacco brands, the less likely it isthat students from either country would have a problem being involved insuch sport marketing practices. Ethical evaluations and behavioral inten-tions share between 15% and 42% common variance. When students fromthe two countries are compared, only the correlation between evaluationsand intentions in the case of beer sponsorships is significantly different.


American students are found to have a significantly stronger relationshipbetween their ethical evaluations and behavioral intentions in this scenario,providing partial support for research hypothesis 3.

DISCUSSION

This study suggests that the social context of a particular industry and itsinstitutions may make a difference in ethical evaluations associated withthe industry. While the sampling and research methods are consistent withmuch of the existing research in the area of business ethics, no gener-alizations or inferences can be made from the findings reported here, interms of one country being more or less ethical than the other (cf. Nyawand Ng, 1994). The results merely support the notion that cultures maydiffer in terms of their evaluations of certain business practices, like sportmarketing. Consequently, this study adds to the literature on businessethics, while answering Hums et al.’s (1999) call for ethics research on thesport industry, as well as the need for work addressing socially undesir-able sponsorships (cf. Cornwell and Maignan, 1998; McDaniel and Heald,2000).

The study’s findings on the influence of age, year in school and ethicseducation are mixed. For example, according to the data, the older thestudent, the more negatively he/she views the practice of sport sponsor-ships promoting liquor or tobacco. However, the further students are intheir education, the less difficulty they have seeing themselves workingfor a company that buys or sells tobacco sponsorships for sporting events.Likewise, the more adequately that respondents felt coursework hadaddressed the matter of beer sponsorship, the more willing they were to seethemselves working for a company that buys or sells beer sponsorships forsporting events. This may indicate a socialization effect. As students trainto work in an industry with a history of alcohol and tobacco sponsorship(and as they get closer to graduating and seeking work in that industry),they may become more accepting of such sponsorship. Clearly, there is aneed for more ethics research on this area of sport marketing. In addition,future investigations should focus on the effects of ethics education as itpertains to business practices in the sport industry (cf. Arlow and Ulrich,1985; Konrad; 1978; Purcell, 1977; Barach and Nicol, 1980; Richardson,1994).

In terms of findings concerning main effects, the current study fails tosupport previous research on gender differences in evaluations of ethicalbusiness practices (cf. Okleshen and Hoyt, 1996; Whipple and Swords,1992). This may be due to the unique aspects of the sport industry (cf.


Hums et al., 1999), as Dawson (1997) suggests that findings on genderdifferences in business ethics are often context specific. Consequently,sport sponsorship might be one area where males and females are moresimilar in their perspectives, compared to other business areas. Giventhe growing female presence in athletics, as managers, participants andconsumers, future ethics research should continue to examine the poten-tial for gender-based differences in evaluations across a variety of sportindustry practices.

No significant differences are found between Australian and Americanstudents on the moral equity dimension of the MES, which deals with“right” and “wrong”. However, the results do support the validity of therelativism subscale, which Reidenbach and Robin (1990) note can accountfor cultural differences in ethical evaluations of business activities. Forexample, Table I shows that Australian students report significantly lowerrelativism scores relating to sport sponsorships involving beer and tobaccobrands than do the American students in this study. This may be a resultof Australia’s stricter sponsorship regulations in place longer than the U.S.regulations (cf. Howard and Crompton, 1995).

The significant relationships between behavioral intentions measuresand the MES scores reported here also provide support for the predictivevalidity of the multivariate scale across cultures (cf. Reidenbach et al.,1991). For all 4 sponsorship scenarios examined here, the more positivethe evaluation, the less of a problem students from either country reporthaving being involved in such sport marketing practices (see Table II). It isunclear, however, why the only bivariate relationship on which the studentsdiffer significantly is that between ethical evaluations of beer sponsorshipsand the associated behavioral intentions, where the model explained 34%of the variance for Americans compared to only 14% for Australians. Itmight be argued that the socially institutionalized nature of alcohol’s asso-ciation with sport in Australia serves to weaken the linkage between ethicalevaluations and behavioral intentions in this context. Future inquiries inthis area should continue to explore how ethical evaluations relate tobusiness behaviors.

The findings in the current study are consistent with other research onthe influence of culture on evaluations of business practices (Armstrong,1996; DeGeorge, 1990; Moore and Radloff, 1996; Small, 1992). Not onlydo the two student groups differ significantly in terms of the relativismmeasure of the MES. There are also significant differences in behavioralintentions (see Table I). The differences are consistent with differences inthe social institutions for sport in the two countries.


Discrepancies in the adjusted mean scores in Table I also suggestthat respondents might see differences in business relationships betweencertain product categories and events, which is in line with similar publicopinion research on tobacco and beer sponsorships of sporting events(McDaniel and Mason, 1999). For example, both MES and behavi-oral intentions mean scores are higher across nationalities for both beerand liquor sponsorships than MES and behavioral intentions scores foreither tobacco sponsorship scenario. Likewise, the adjusted means for alldependent variables are higher for the beer scenario than they are forliquor. Future studies of ethical issues in sport marketing should extendthe current work by examining differences in evaluations of sponsorshippractices across product categories and events.

In the context of the sport industry, a variety of issues warrant futureexamination (Hums et al., 1999). Given the recent scandals associated withthe IOC and the bidding process to select Olympic venues, it is evidentthat sport has become an industry that is fraught with ethical dilemmas,including the use of sporting events as a vehicle to promote alcohol and/ortobacco brands. This study provides an initial step in examining certainaspects of sport marketing – those pertaining to sponsorships promotingarguably unhealthy products. Business ethics researchers should seek toreplicate and extend the current study to examine other controversial areasof sponsorship, such as the promotion of lotteries and casinos. Otherareas in need of exploration might be evaluations of marketing commu-nications promoting nutritional supplements or home exercise equipment,as well as other areas of the industry previously outlined by Hums etal. (1999). Such work should compare across national contexts, industrysegments, practitioners and consumers. The understanding obtained fromsuch investigations would be useful for the development of ethics dimen-sions in sport management education, as well as for the formulationof sport industry policies. Regardless of the focus, it appears that theMES (Reidenbach and Robin, 1990) may offer a useful starting point forapproaching the study of ethical evaluations of sport business practices.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, R. W.: 1992, ‘An Empirical Investigation of International Marketing Ethics:Problems Encountered by Australian Firms’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 161–171.

Barach, J. A. and E. A. Nicol: 1980, Fall, ‘Teaching Ethics in Business School’, CollegiateNews and Views, 5–8.

Branvold, S.: 1996, ‘Ethics’, in B. L. Parkhouse (ed.), The Management of Sport: ItsFoundation and Application, 2nd edition. Mosby, St. Louis, MO, pp. 149–163.


Caldwell, G. T.: 1977, ‘Leisure’, in A. F. Davies, S. Encel and M. J. Berry (eds.),Australian Society: A Sociological Introduction. Longman Cheshire, Melbourne,Australia, pp. 410–439.

Carter, D. M.: 1996, Keeping Score: An Inside Look at Sports Marketing. The Oasis Press,Grants Pass, OR.

Chalip, L.: 1992, ‘The Construction and Use of Polysemic Structures: Olympic Lessonsfor Sport Marketing’, Journal of Sport Management 6, 87–89.

Chalip, L. and A. Johnson: 1996, ‘Sports Policy in the United States’, in L. Chalip, A.Johnson and L. Stachura (eds.), National Sports Policies: An International Handbook.Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, pp. 404–430.

Connor, J. P., R. J. Williams and L. A. Ricciardelli: 1999, ‘Gender Differences in DrinkingRestraint’, Journal of Studies on Alcohol 60, 643–646.

Cornwell, T. B.: 1997, ‘Worldwide Circumvention of Advertising Restrictions in theTobacco Industry: The Sponsorship Loophole’, in M.C. Macklin (ed.), Proceedings ofthe 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising. University of Cincinnati,Cincinnati, OH, pp. 256–257.

Cornwell, T. B. and I. Maignan: 1998, ‘An International Review of Sponsorship Research’,Journal of Advertising 27(1), 17–20.

Crimmins, J. and M. Horn: 1996, ‘Sponsorship: From Management Ego Trip to MarketingSuccess’, Journal of Advertising Research 36(4), 11–21.

Crompton, J. L.: 1983, ‘Why Can’t I Get a Beer When I Go to the Recreation Centre?’,in K. Hollinshead (ed.), Liquor Licensing for Leisure and Recreation. Institute ofRecreation, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 69–75.

Cunningham, M. H. and S. F. Taylor: 1995, ‘Event Marketing: State of the Industry andResearch Agenda’, Festival Management and Event Tourism 2, 123–127.

Dawson, L. M.: 1997, ‘Ethical Differences Between Men and Women in the SalesProfession’, Journal of Business Ethics 16, 1143–1152.

DeGeorge, R. T.: 1990, Business Ethics, 3rd ed. Macmillan Publishing Company, NewYork, NY.

Duncan, T. E., E. Tildesley, S. C. Duncan and H. Hops: 1995, ‘The Consistency of Familyand Peer Influences on the Development of Substance Use in Adolescence’, Addiction90, 1647–1660.

Farmer, P. J. and S. Arnaudon: 1996, ‘Australian Sports Policy’, in L. Chalip, A.Johnson and L. Stachura (eds.), National Sports Policies: An International Handbook.Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, pp. 1–22.

Ford, R. C. and W. D. Richardson: 1994, ‘Ethical Decision Making: A Review of theEmpirical Literature’, Journal of Business Ethics 13, 205–221.

Gilbert, D. G.: 1995, Smoking: Individual Differences, Psychopathology, and Emotion.Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA.

Goitein, L., G. S. Chernack, G. Liu and M. T. Davis: 1996, ‘Developments in Policy: TheFDA’s Tobacco Regulations’, Yale Law & Policy Review 15, 399–446.

Greenfield, T. K. and R. Room: 1997, ‘Situational Norms for Drinking and Drunkenness:Trends in the US Adult Population, 1979–1990’, Addiction 92, 33–47.

Hastings, G. B.: 1984, ‘Sponsorship Works Differently From Advertising’, InternationalJournal of Advertising 3, 171–176.

Hing, N., H. Breen and P. Weeks: 1998, Club Management in Australia. Hospitality Press,Melbourne, Australia.

Hofstede, G. and M. H. Bond: 1988, ‘The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots toEconomic Growth’, Organizational Dynamics 16(4), 5–21.


Hofstede, G.: 1983, ‘The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories’,Journal of International Business Studies 18 (Fall), 75–89.

Howard, D. R. and J. L. Crompton: 1995, ‘Sponsorship of Sport by Tobacco and AlcoholCompanies’, in Financing Sport. Fitness Information Technology, Inc. Morgantown,WV, pp. 267–292.

Hums, M. A., C. A. Barr and L. Gullion: 1999, ‘The Ethical Issues Confronting Managersin the Sport Industry’, Journal of Business Ethics 20(1), 51–66.

Hung, H. and M. Rice: 1994, ‘Ethical Problems of Canadian Advertising Agency Execut-ives’, in K. W. King (ed.), Proceedings of the 1994 Conference of the American Academyof Advertising. University of Georgia. Athens, GA, pp. 214–220.

Hunt, S. D. and L. B Chonko: 1987, ‘Ethical Problems of Advertising Agency Executives’,Journal of Advertising 16(4), 16–24.

Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell: 1986, ‘A General Theory of Marketing Ethics’, Journal ofMacromarketing 6 (Spring), 5–16.

International Olympic Committee: 1997, ‘Are the Olympic Games Too Commercial?’, inSupporting the Dream: Financing the Olympic Movement. Brochure.

Johnson, W. O.: 1988, August, ‘Sports and Suds’, Sports Illustrated, pp. 68–82.Konrad, R.: 1978, ‘Are Business Ethics Worth Studying?’ Business and Society Review

27(Fall), 54–57.Kulfan, T.: 1995, August 11, ‘Brand Names Might Go Up in Smoke’, The Detroit News.Laforge, R. G., W. F. Velicer and R. L. Richmond: 1999, ‘Stage Distributions for Five

Health Behaviors in the United States and Australia’, Preventive Medicine 28, 61–74.Levin, G.: 1993, June 21, ‘Sponsors Put Pressure on for Accountability’, Advertising Age,

pp. S-1, S-4.Lo, C. C.: 1995, ‘Gender Differences in Collegiate Alcohol Use’, Journal of Drug Issues

25, 817–836.Lo, C. C. and G. Globetti: 1999, ‘Gender Differences in the Drinking Patterns of Amer-

ican and Hong Kong Adolescents: A Cross-Cultural Study’, International Journal ofComparative Sociology 40, 307–331.

McDaniel, S. R. and Heald, G.: 2000, ‘Young Consumers’ Responses to Event Sponsor-ship Advertisements of Unhealthy Products – Implications of Schema-triggered AffectTheory’, Sport Management Review 3(2), 163–184.

McDaniel, S. M. and D. S. Mason: 1999, ‘An Exploratory Study of Influences on PublicOpinion Towards Alcohol and Tobacco Sponsorship of Sporting Events’, Journal ofServices Marketing 13, 481–499.

Moore, R. S. and S. E. Radloff: 1996, ‘Attitudes Toward Business Ethics Held by SouthAfrican Students’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 863–869.

Naughton, J.: 1998, January 9, ‘Colleges Eye Restrictions on Promotions by BrewingCompanies’, The Chronicle of Higher Education XLIV (18), A57–A58.

Nyaw, M. and I. Ng: 1994, ‘A Comparative Analysis of Ethical Beliefs: A Four CountryStudy’, Journal of Business Ethics 13, 543–555.

Okleshen, M. and R. Hoyt: 1996, ‘A Cross Cultural Comparison of Ethical Perspectivesand Decision Approaches of Business Students: United States of America versus NewZealand’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 537–549.

O’Neill, W. D.: 1998, ‘Governmental Restrictions on Beverage Alcohol Advertising’, StLouis University Law Journal 42, 267–300.

Pierce, J. P.: 1989, ‘International Comparisons of Trends in Cigarette Smoking Prevalence’,American Journal of Public Health 79, 152–157.


Pollack, J.: June 23, 1997, ‘Media Outlets to Grapple with Evaporating Eig Ads’,Advertising Age, pp. 26.

Preble, J. F. and A. Reichel: 1988, ‘Attitudes Toward Business Ethics of Future Managersin the US and Israel’, Journal of Business Ethics 12, 941–949.

Purcell, T. V.: 1977, ‘Do Courses in Ethics Pay Off?’, California Management Review 19,50–58.

Racing Sputters Over Proposed Cigarette-ad Banning: 1995, Available: http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ap/oth/1995/oth/car/feat/archive/083095.

Reidenbach, R. E., D. P. Robin and L. Dawson: 1991, ‘An Application and Extension of aMultidimensional Ethics Scale to Selected Marketing Practices and Marketing Groups’,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19(2), 83–92.

Reidenbach, R. E. and D. P. Robin: 1990, ‘Toward the Development of a MultidimensionalScale for Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 9, 639–653.

Reidenbach, R. E. and D. P. Robin: 1988, ‘Some Initial Steps Toward Improving the Meas-urement of Ethical Evaluations of Marketing Activities’, Journal of Business Ethics 7,871–879.

Ricciardelli, L. A., R. J. Williams and M. J. Kiernan: 1998, ‘Relation of Drinking andEating to Masculinity and Femininity’, Journal of Social Psychology 138, 744–752.

Robertson, T. W.: 1996, June, ‘Should Tobacco Companies Market Through Sports?’ TeamMarketing Report, pp. 8.

Rogers, R. G., C. B. Nam and R. A. Hummer: 1995, ‘Demographic and SocioeconomicLinks to Cigarette Smoking’, Social Biology 42, 1–21.

Ross, M.: 1996, April, ‘President’s Column’, Club News, p. 1.Rotzoll, K. B. and C. G. Christians: 1980, ‘Advertising Agency Practitioners’ Perceptions

of Ethical Decisions’, Journalism Quarterly 57 (Autumn), 425–431.Schaaf, P.: 1995, Sports Marketing: It’s Not Just a Game Anymore. Prometheus Books,

Amherst, NY.Savage, M. P. and D. R. Holcomb: 1997–1998, ‘Physical Activity Levels and Self-

Reported Risk Taking Behavior among Rural Australian and American 7th–9th GradeAdolescents’, International Quarterly of Community Health Education 17, 345–360.

Schreiber, A. L.: 1994, Lifestyle and Event Marketing: Building The New CustomerPartnership. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Sikula, Sr., A. and A. D. Costa: 1994, ‘Are Women More Ethical Than Men?’ Journal ofBusiness Ethics 13, 859–871.

Small, M. W.: 1992, ‘Attitudes Towards Business Ethics Held by Western AustralianStudents: A Comparative Study’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 745–752.

Smith, P. L. and E. F. Oakley III: 1997, ‘Gender-related Differences in Ethical and SocialValues of Business Students: Implications for Management’, Journal of Business Ethics16, 37–45.

Ukman, L.: 1995, The IEG’s Complete Guide to Sponsorship: Everything You Needto Know About Sports, Arts, Event, Entertainment and Cause Marketing. IEG, Inc.,Chicago, IL.

UST, Phillip Morris Propose Curbs on Sports Sponsorships: 1996, Sports Industry News,May 17, 1996.

Van Allen, K. and J. McClintock: 1997, April 17, ‘How the Tobacco Rule MayAffect NASCAR Racing. Racewire (online). Available: http://www.racewire.com/stories/NWC/19970417-231301.


Waldron, I.: 1991, ‘Patterns and Causes of Gender Differences in Smoking’, Social Scienceand Medicine 32, 989–1005.

Wearing, B., S. Wearing and K. Kelly: 1994, ‘Adolescent Women, Identity and Smoking:Leisure Experience as Resistance’, Sociology of Health and Illness 16, 626–643.

Whipple, T. W. and D. F. Swords: 1992, ‘Business Ethics Judgments: A Cross-CulturalComparison’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 671–678.

Williams, R. J. and R. K. Wortley: 1991, ‘Sex Differences in the Interaction of Drinking,Positive Expectancies and Symptoms of Dependence in Young Adults’, Drug andAlcohol Dependence 29, 63–68.

Zinkhan, G. M.: 1994, ‘Advertising Ethics: Emerging Methods and Trends’, Journal ofAdvertising 23(3), 1–15.

Zinkhan, G. M., M. Bisesi and M. J. Saxton: 1989, ‘MBAs’ Changing Attitudes TowardMarketing Dilemmas: 1981–1987’, Journal of Business Ethics 8, 963–974.

Stephen R. McDanielDepartment of KinesiologyUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742USAE-mail: [email protected]

Documents

A Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Ethical Dimensions of Alcohol