Philosophy type interaction in the ethical decision-making process of retailers

The purpose of this study is to examine a number of current moral philosophies and their effects on retailers in work and nonwork settings.;The study focused on whether or not retailers in general have more than one philosophy type. In addition, the research tested the reactions of different philosophy types when perceived risk was introduced.;A set of hypotheses were developed which examined whether perceived risk would affect the philosophy type and the individual's intention to behave. In addition, the research tested certain, philosophy type's individually and organizationally perceived ethicalness. The hypotheses were tested using data gathered by questionnaire within one corporation. Analysis of variance techniques were the most common form of analysis for the thirty six hypotheses.;The results of the first set of hypotheses show that retailers classified as act deontologists and egoists are more likely to change their philosophy type between work and nonwork situations than any other. The second set of hypotheses tested whether or not specific philosophy types perceived themselves as ethical. The findings showed that within work situations all philosophy types perceived their decisions as ethical, with rule deontologists as the most ethical and egoists the least. Within nonwork situations, act utilitarians and egoists perceived the decisions they made as unethical.;The third set of hypotheses measured the likelihood of each philosophy type changing their decision when some form of risk was included. The results showed that egoists are more likely, with rule deontologists the least likely, to alter their decision based on perceived risk. The final set of hypotheses tested the organizational ethicalness of each philosophy type. The results showed that rule deontologists are more ethical, as defined by a scale to measure ethicalness from the organization's perspective, than any other philosophy type.