How Does Reciprocity Affect Undergraduate Student Orientation towards Stakeholders?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Stakeholder Approach
2.2. Social Preferences
2.3. Hypotheses
3. Analysis and Results
3.1. Sample
3.2. Design and Implementation of the Experiments
3.3. Measurement of Variables
“Firms should take into account their stakeholders’ interests only when such groups may affect the firms’ activities and goals now or in the future”.
“Firms should always take into account their stakeholders’ interests because that is the right thing to do, even when such groups are not able to affect the firms’ activities and goals now or in the future”.
3.4. Results
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Waddock, S.; Lozano, J. Developing more holistic management education: Lessons learned from two programs. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2013, 12, 265–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crossan, M.; Mazutis, D.; Seijts, G.; Gandz, J. Developing leadership character in business programs. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2013, 12, 285–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ditlev-Simonsen, C.D.; Midttun, A. What motivates managers to pursue corporate responsibility? A survey among key stakeholders. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011, 18, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diamontopoulos, A.; Schelegelmilch, B.B.; Sinkovics, R.R.; Bohlen, G.M. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 465–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bollani, L.; Bonadonna, A.; Peira, G. The Millennials′ concept of sustainability in the food sector. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, N.S.; Connell, J.A.; McMinn, N.E. How will the next generation change the business world? A report on a survey. Insights A Chang. World J. 2011, 1, 45–55. [Google Scholar]
- Deloitte. Big Demands and High Expectations The Deloitte Millennial Survey Executive Summary. 2014. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-dttl-2014-millennial-survey-report.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2019).
- Klimkiewicz, K.; Oltra, V. Does CSR enhance employer attractiveness? The role of millennial job seekers’ attitudes. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2017, 24, 449–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nonet, G.; Kassel, K.; Meijs, L. Understanding responsible management: Emerging themes and variations from European business school programs. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 139, 717–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Ng, E.; Burke, R. Predictor of business students’ attitudes toward sustainable business practices. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 95, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, J.S.; Bosse, D.A.; Phillips, R.A. Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strateg. Manag. J. 2010, 31, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borkowski, S.C.; Ugras, Y.J. Business students and Ethics: A meta-analysis. J. Bus. Ehtics 1998, 18, 1117–1127. [Google Scholar]
- Hummel, K.; Pfaff, D.; Rost, K. Does Economics and Business education wash away moral judgment competence? J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 559–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, M.M.; Chung, K.Y.; Eichenseher, J.W. Business students’ perception on Ethics and moral judgment: A cross-cultural study. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 43, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, S.; Johnston, M.W.; Wilson, E.J. An experimental assessment of alternative teaching approaches for introducing business ethics to undergraduate business students. J. Bus. Ethics 1991, 10, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawson, R.A. Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the “real world”? J. Bus. Ethics 2004, 49, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L.; Peytcheva, M.; Li, P. Investor-paid ratings and conflicts of interest. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahn, T. Reciprocal stakeholder behavior: A motive-based approach to the implementation of normative stakeholder demands. Bus. Soc. 2015, 54, 9–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.E.; Harrison, J.S.; Wicks, A.C.; Parmar, B.L.; de Colle, S. Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ferrell, O.C.; Gresham, L.G. A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. J. Mark. 1985, 49, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bridoux, F.; Stoelhorst, J.W. Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strateg. Manag. J. 2014, 35, 107–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felin, T.; Foss, N.J. Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strateg. Organ. 2005, 3, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bridoux, F.; Stoelhorst, J.W. Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value creation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2016, 41, 229–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pitman Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Greenley, G.E.; Hooley, G.J.; Rudd, J.M. Market orientation in a multiple stakeholder orientation context: Implications for marketing capabilities and assets. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 1483–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.; Henriques, I. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 159–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, M. Capitalism and Freedom; Chicago University Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Donaldson, T.; Preston, L. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 65–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, R.K.; Agle, B.R.; Wood, D.J. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 853–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egels-Zandén, N.; Sandberg, J. Distinctions in descriptive and instrumental stakeholder theory: A challenge for empirical research. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2010, 19, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, T.M. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 404–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waddock, S.; Graves, S. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 303–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Castro, R.; Ariño, M.A.; Canela, M.A. Over the long-run? Short-run impact and long-run consequences of stakeholder management. Bus. Soc. 2011, 50, 428–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hillman, A.J.; Keim, G.D. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cennamo, C.; Berrone, P.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R. Does stakeholder management have a dark side? J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 89, 491–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, M. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Bus. Ethics Q. 2002, 12, 235–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, M.; Meckling, W. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. J. Financ. Econ. 1976, 3, 305–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, R.A.; Freeman, R.E.; Wicks, A.C. What stakeholder theory is not? Bus. Ethics Q. 2003, 13, 479–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.E. Stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach; Donaldson, T., Werhane, P.H., van Zandt, J.D., Eds.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Hill, T.E. Humanity as an end in itself. Ethics 2002, 91, 84–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasnas, J. Whither stakeholder theory? A guide for the perplexed revisited. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 112, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garriga Cots, E. Stakeholder social capital: A new approach to stakeholder theory. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2011, 20, 328–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hood, J.N.; Logsdon, J.M. Business ethics in the NAFTA countries: A cross-cultural comparison. J. Bus. Res. 2002, 55, 883–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazar, I.; Osoian, C.; Ratiu, P. The role of work-life balance practices in order to improve organizational performance. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2010, 13, 201–214. [Google Scholar]
- Cowart, T.; Gilley, A.; Avery, S.; Barber, A.; Gilley, J.W. Ethical leaders: Trust, work-life balance, and treating individuals as unique. J. Leadersh. Account. Ethics 2014, 11, 70–81. [Google Scholar]
- Henrich, J.; Boyd, R.; Bowles, S.; Camerer, C.; Fehr, E.; Gintis, H.; McElreath, R. In search of homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 2001, 15 small-scale societies. Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engelman, D.; Strobel, M. Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximum preferences in simple distribution experiments. Am. Econ. Rev. 2004, 94, 857–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolton, G.E.; Ockenfels, A. ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. Am. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90, 166–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fehr, E.; Schmidt, K.M. A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 1999, 114, 817–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Güth, W.; Schmittberger, R.; Schwarze, B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1982, 3, 367–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahneman, D.; Knetsch, J.L.; Thaler, R.H. Fairness and the assumptions of economics. J. Bus. 1986, 59, S285–S300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forsythe, R.; Horowitz, J.; Savin, N.E.; Sefton, M. Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econ. Behav. 1994, 6, 347–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, A.E. Bargaining experiment. In Handbook of Experimental Economics; Kagel, J., Roth, A.E., Eds.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1995; pp. 253–348. [Google Scholar]
- Camerer, C.; Thaler, R.H. Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators and manners. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handgraaf, M.J.J.; van Dijk, E.; De Cremer, D. Social utility in ultimatum bargaining. Soc. Justice Res. 2003, 16, 263–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosse, D.A.; Phillips, R.A. Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2016, 41, 276–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bosse, D.A.; Phillips, R.A.; Harrison, J.S. Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 1964, 30, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simon, L.S. Industrial reciprocity as a business stratagem. Ind. Manag. Rev. 1966, 7, 27–39. [Google Scholar]
- Harrison, J.S.; Bosse, D.A. How much is too much? The limits to generous treatment of stakeholders. Bus. Horiz. 2013, 56, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weg, E.; Zwick, R. Toward the settlement of the fairness issues in ultimatum games. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1994, 24, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dijk, E.; Vermunt, R. Strategy and fairness in social decision making: Sometimes it pays to be powerless. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 36, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheres, A.; Sanfey, A.G. Individual differences in decision making: Drive and reward responsiveness affect strategic bargaining in economic games. Behav. Brain Funct. 2006, 2, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charness, G.; Gneezy, U.; Kuhn, M.A. Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2013, 91, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, J.C. Trust, fear, reciprocity, and altruism: Theory and experiment. Developments on Experimental Economics. Lect. Notes Econ. Math. Syst. 2007, 590, 75–90. [Google Scholar]
- Hoffman, E.; McCabe, K.; Smith, V.L. Social distance and other-regarding behaviour in dictator games. Am. Econ. Rev. 1996, 86, 653–660. [Google Scholar]
- Güth, W.; Kocher, M.G. More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2014, 108, 396–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, S.; Ertac, S.; Gneezy, U.; Hoffman, M.; List, J.A. Stakes matter in ultimatum games. Am. Econ. Rev. 2011, 101, 3427–3439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherry, T.L.; Frykblom, P.; Shogren, J.F. Hardnose the dictator. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92, 1218–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, J.P.; Verhoogen, E.; Burks, S. The effect of stakes in distribution experiments. Econ. Lett. 2005, 86, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ghoshal, S. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2005, 4, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfeffer, J. Why do bad management theories persist? A comment on Ghoshal. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2005, 4, 101–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, R.H.; Gilovich, T.; Regan, D.T. Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? J. Econ. Perspect. 1993, 7, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marwell, G.; Ames, R.E. Economists free ride, does anyone else? Experiments on the provision of public goods, IV. J. Public Econ. 1981, 15, 295–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, B.; Schulze, G.G. Does economics make citizens corrupt? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2000, 43, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCabe, D.L.; Butterfield, K.D.; Treviño, L.K. Academia dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2006, 5, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D. The norm of self-interest. Am. Psychol. 1999, 54, 1053–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giacalone, R.A.; Thompson, K.R. Business Ethics and social responsibility education: Shifting the worldview. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2006, 5, 266–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galvão, A.; Mendes, L.; Marques, C.; Mascarenhas, C. Factors influencing students’ corporate social responsibility orientation in higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 290–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gligor-Cimpoieru, D.G.; Munteanu, V.P.; Nitju-Antonie, R.D.; Schneider, A.; Preda, G. Perceptions of future employees toward CSR environmental practices in tourism. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, M.J.; MacDonald, J.B.; Antoine, G.E.; Smolarski, J.M. Exploring Muslim Attitudes Towards Corporate Social Responsibility: Are Saudi Business Students Different? J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 154, 1103–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzpatrick, J. Business Students’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility. Coll. Stud. J. 2013, 47, 86–95. [Google Scholar]
- Gilligan, C. In A Different Voice; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Burton, B.K.; Dunn, C.P. Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Bus. Ethics Q. 1982, 6, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cron, W.L.; Dubinsky, A.J.; Michaels, R.E. The influence of career stages on components of salesperson motivation. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 78–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weeks, W.A.; Moore, C.W.; McKinney, J.A.; Longenecker, J.G. The effects of gender and career stage on ethical judgment. J. Bus. Ethics 1999, 20, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eweje, G.; Brunton, M. Ethical perceptions of business students in a New Zealand university: Do gender, age and work experience matter? Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2010, 19, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godos-Díez, J.L.; Fernández-Gago, R.; Cabeza-García, L. Business education and idealism as determinants of stakeholder orientation. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 131, 439–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleinbaum, D.G.; Kupper, L.L.; Muller, K.E. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods; PWS-KENT Publishing Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Bechler, C.; Green, L.; Myerson, J. Proportion offered in the Dictator and Ultimatum games decreases with amount and social distance. Behav. Process. 1998, 115, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Engel, C. Dictator games: A meta study. Exp. Econ. 2011, 14, 583–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simgan-Mugan, C.; Daly, B.A.; Onkal, D.; Kavut, L. The influence on nationality and gender on ethical sensitivity: An application of the issue contingent model. J. Bus. Ethics 2005, 57, 139–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eaton, T.V.; Giacomino, D.E. An examination of personal values: Differences between accounting students and managers and differences between genders. Teach. Bus. Ethics 2001, 5, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghoshal, S.; Moran, P. Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 13–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitroff, I.I. An open letter to the deans and faculties of American business schools. J. Bus. Ethics 2004, 54, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferraro, F.; Pfeffer, J.; Sutton, R.I. Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2005, 30, 8–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennis, W. Managing the Dream: Reflections on Leadership and Change; Perseus: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Fernández-Gago, R.; Martínez-Campillo, A. Teaching business management from a perspective beyond self-interest. Innovar J. Adm. Soc. Sci. 2012, 22, 165–174. [Google Scholar]
- Shareef, R. Want better business theories? Maybe Karl Popper has the answer. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2007, 6, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dierksmeier, C. From Jensen to Jensen: Mechanistic management education or humanistic management learning? J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 1–15, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dierksmeier, C. Reorienting Management Education: From the Homo Economicus to Human Dignity. Humanistic Management Network, Research Paper Series No. 13–05. 2011. Available online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1766183 (accessed on 11 October 2019). [CrossRef]
- Melé, D. Understanding Humanistic Management. Humanist. Manag. J. 2016, 1, 33–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Trencher, G.; Vincent, S.; Bahr, K.; Kudo, S.; Markham, K.; Yamanaka, Y. Evaluating core competencies development in sustainability and environmental master’s programs: An empirical analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 829–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moosmayer, D.C.; Waddock, S.; Wang, L.; Hühn, M.P.; Dierksmeier, C.; Gohl, C. Leaving the Road to Abilene: A Pragmatic Approach to Addressing the Normative Paradox of Responsible Management Education. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 157, 913–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ang, S.H.; Leong, S.M. Out of the mouths of babes: Business ethics and youths in Asia. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 28, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Axinn, C.N.; Blair, M.E.; Heorhiadi, A.; Thach, S.V. Comparing ethical ideologies across cultures. J. Bus. Ethics 2004, 54, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marta, J.K.M.; Attia, A.; Singhapakdi, A.; Atteya, N. A Comparison of Ethical Perceptions and Moral Philosophies of American and Egyptian Business Students. Teach. Bus. Ethics 2003, 7, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, G. National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 1983, 13, 46–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laroche, M.; Bergeron, J.; Tomiuk, M.-A.; Barbero-Forleo, G. Cultural differences in environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of Canadian consumers. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 2002, 19, 267–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mourali, M.; Laroche, M.; Pons, F. Individualistic orientation and customer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. J. Serv. Mark. 2005, 19, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bal, M.; Bryde, D.; Fearon, D.; Ochieng, E. Stakeholder engagement: Achieving sustainability in the construction sector. Sustainability 2013, 6, 695–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molm, L.D.; Quist, T.M.; Wisely, P.A. Imbalanced structures, unfair strategies: Power and justice in social exchange. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1994, 59, 98–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Mean | Std. Dev. | Median | Minimum | Maximum | % b |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
INSTRUMENTAL | 5.438 | 1.129 | 6 | 3 | 7 | |
NORMATIVE | 4.495 | 1.288 | 5 | 1 | 7 | |
RECIPROCAL | 1.316 | 1.765 | 0.5 | 0 | 5 | |
NON-RECIPROCAL | 3.189 | 1.908 | 4 | 0 | 5 | |
ECON_EDUCATION | 52.8 | |||||
GENDER | 24.5 | |||||
EXPERIENCE | 25.5 |
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. INSTRUMENTAL | 1 | ||||||
2. NORMATIVE | −0.195 * | 1 | |||||
3. RECIPROCAL | 0.164 † | −0.137 | 1 | ||||
4. NON-RECIPROCAL | −0.190 † | 0.212 * | −0.870 ** | 1 | |||
5. ECON_EDUCATION | 0.193 * | −0.335 ** | 0.116 | −0.165 † | 1 | ||
6. GENDER | 0.207 * | −0.101 | −0.096 | 0.047 | 0.275 ** | 1 | |
7. EXPERIENCE | −0.065 | 0.137 | −0.099 | 0.079 | −0.185 † | 0.069 | 1 |
Independent Variables | Dependent Variable: INSTRUMENTAL | Dependent Variable: NORMATIVE |
---|---|---|
RECIPROCAL | 0.166 † (1.716) | |
NON-RECIPROCAL | 0.160 † (1.707) | |
ECON_EDUCATION | 0.112 (1.102) | −0.285 ** (−2.867) |
GENDER | 0.195 † (1.945) | −0.035 (−0.358) |
EXPERIENCE | −0.042 (−0.427) | 0.074 (0.785) |
R2 | 0.092 | 0.143 |
F | 2.555 * | 4.221 ** |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Godos-Díez, J.-L.; Fernández-Gago, R.; Cabeza-García, L. How Does Reciprocity Affect Undergraduate Student Orientation towards Stakeholders? Sustainability 2019, 11, 5987. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215987
Godos-Díez J-L, Fernández-Gago R, Cabeza-García L. How Does Reciprocity Affect Undergraduate Student Orientation towards Stakeholders? Sustainability. 2019; 11(21):5987. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215987
Chicago/Turabian StyleGodos-Díez, José-Luis, Roberto Fernández-Gago, and Laura Cabeza-García. 2019. "How Does Reciprocity Affect Undergraduate Student Orientation towards Stakeholders?" Sustainability 11, no. 21: 5987. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215987