Please can you assist in conceptualizing and drawing key themes/ dimensions of Machiavellianism Ohilosophy and Ethics in Technology.

The response should include The definition of Machiavellianism Ohilosophy and Ethics in Technology. and key concepts derived from the case study below.

Subject: Business Ethics

Case Study Below:

Individual Differences in the Acceptability of Unethical Information Technology Practices: The Case of Machiavellianism and Ethical Ideology

ABSTRACT. While information technologies present organizations with opportunities to become more competitive, unsettled social norms and lagging legislation guiding the use of these technologies present organizations and individuals with ethical dilemmas. This paper presents two studies investigating the relationship between intellectual property and privacy attitudes, Machiavellianism and Ethical Ideology, and working in R&D and computer literacy in the form of programming experience. In Study 1, Machiavellians believed it was more acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Programmers and R&D workers considered violating intellectual property rights more acceptable. Programmers did not consider violating privacy rights more acceptable, but R&D workers did. Finally, there was an interaction between Machiavellianism, programming and R&D. Machiavellians who also had programming experience or worked in R&D found violations of intellectual property much more acceptable. The effect of Machiavellianism on attitudes toward violations of privacy was enhanced by working in R&D, but not by programming experience. In Study 2, idealists believed it was less acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Relativists found it more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights, though they did not consider it more acceptable to violate privacy rights. Those with programming experience were more accepting of intellectual property rights violations, but not of privacy violations. Finally, programming experience moderated the relationship between idealism, relativism and attitudes toward these unethical information practices. Implications for diminishing unethical behavior among Machiavellians, Relativists, programmers and those in R&D are discussed.

Modern information technologies (IT) have proliferated in our personal and professional lives. These technologies make it much easier to collect, store and access information. While this promises competitive advantage to organizations, it raises concerns about unethical information practices (Mason, 1986; Oz, 1994) that track, profile, and expose customer and employee data. Similarly, these technologies make it much easier to copy and distribute intellectual property. Even as end-users and computer experts gain access to equipment and information to violate intellectual property and privacy rights, we know little about how they think about unethical information practices and what factors influence their intellectual property and privacy decisions. Ethics research has identified predictors of general unethical behavior, but has not determined if they apply to IT-related ethical attitudes and decisions. This research will help us better understand how end-users and computer experts make intellectual property and privacy decisions by exploring predictors of their attitudes toward IT-related unethical behaviors.

Review of literature and development of hypotheses Ethics and information technology Ethical principles represent agreed upon social norms about right and wrong. However, there may be disagreement about appropriate actions when these principles are applied to new behaviors. Social norms about the new capabilities enabled by innovations in IT are still unsettled; it is not clear whether groups differ in their attitudes toward these new information practices, or which actions consistently raise ethical concerns (Friedman, 1997; Loch et al., 1998; Shaw, 2003). There are many categories of ethical dilemmas, but intellectual property and privacy rights are most clearly threatened by our increased ability to collect, store, manipulate, and transmit data using IT (Calkins, 2002; Gladney, 2000; Mason, 1986; Shaw, 2003). Intellectual property is original intangible work created by the mind such as books, music, or an invention. It may be protected by copyright, trade secret, or patent laws (Shahin, 1999), some of which have tried to address the new protection challenges posed by advances in IT. However, these laws lag behind changes in IT and the Internet crosses national boundaries, allowing information to be easily copied and distributed (Calkins, 2002; Gladney, 2000). Consequently, protecting intellectual property rights will depend on individual ethical decisions. Privacy has been defined in various ways, including the right to control information about oneself, to be left alone, and to keep others from collecting data about oneself (Mason, 1986; Shaw, 2003). Outside of the medical profession, few laws govern the use of data by private companies in the U.S. The Fair Information Principles provide guidance, but research has indicated that many firms' data handling procedures violate these guidelines (Culnan, 2000). Predicting ethical attitudes and behavior Research on ethics has identified predictors of general unethical attitudes and behavior. Decades of research on business ethics have helped us understand how ethical ideology (Vitell and Singhapakdi, 1993) and ethical climate (Victor and Cullen, 1988) are related to whistleblowing (Miceli et al., 1991) when more traditional ethical quandaries are encountered. However, whether conclusions regarding traditional ethical issues apply to IT-related behaviors is unknown (Tavani, 2002). Previous research on ethical issues and IT includes several approaches, but, only one is relevant to predicting attitudes toward IT-related behaviors. This literature focuses on internal stakeholders (workers or managers) and tests a social psychological model (Ajzen, 2001) with additional dispositional, situational, or demographic predictors (Banerjee et al., 1998; Kreie and Cronan, 1999, 2000; Loch and Conger, 1996; Trevino, 1986). Generally, students are presented a small set of scenarios describing an ethical quandary, and asked to evaluate the actions taken. Our work does not involve students responding to a small number of scenarios. We collected data from working adults on a variety of ethically questionable general behaviors. In addition, since attitudes are clearly a strong predictor of behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 2001), we focus on predicting ITrelated ethical attitudes themselves.

Theoretical foundation and hypotheses Ethical attitudes reflect both individualistic factors (Forsyth, 1992) and group norms (Greenberger et al., 1987) and understanding ethical attitudes requires us to ascertain how these factors interact. In IT, where ethical issues are poorly defined, both will likely be influential. We performed two studies predicting ethical attitudes regarding intellectual property and privacy from two dispositional tendencies investigated in the ethics literature (Machiavellianism and Personal Moral Philosophy), and membership in the scientific and programmer communities. Machiavellianism. Based on Machiavelli's (1965a, b) work and conceptualized by Christie and Geis (1970), Machiavellianism is a dispositional tendency affecting ethical decision-making (Christie and Geis, 1970). It is an amoral approach that ignores the needs and rights of others and a general interpersonal strategy of employing devious, manipulative tactics (Calhoon, 1969; Robinson and Shaver, 1973) for personal gain (Christie and Geis, 1970). Machiavellians see nothing wrong with stealing (Harrell and Hartnagel, 1976), cheating (Flynn et al., 1987), or lying (Fletcher, 1990) in their own self-interest (Mudrack, 1993). They lean more toward decisions suggested by an unethical person than toward those proffered by an ethical individual (Wayne and Rubinstein, 1992). Geis and Christie (1970) concluded that ''High Machs manipulate more, win more, are persuaded less, [and] persuade others more...'' (p. 312). While Machiavellians are usually less ethical (Hegarty and Sims, 1978, 1979), this is not universal across situations and types of ethical infractions. Machiavellianism did not predict unethical behavior for questionable payments by international corporations to foreign officials (Rosenberg, 1987). Giacalone and Knouse (1990) found that Machiavellianism alone was not related to justification of unethical behavior (i.e., employee sabotage), although those who were both Machiavellian and hostile were more likely to justify unethical behaviors. The link between unethical attitudes and Machiavellianism has not been investigated for IT-related infractions. Because Machiavellians capitalize on situations that are ill-defined, the ambiguity inherent in violations of intellectual property and privacy provides Machiavellians with a favorable situation for unethical activity (see Robinson and Shaver, 1973). Therefore, we predict that Machiavellianism will affect attitude toward unethical IT-related behaviors. zHypothesis 1a: Higher Machiavellian individuals will consider intellectual property infractions more acceptable. Hypothesis 1b: Higher Machiavellian individuals will consider privacy infractions more acceptable. Personal moral philosophy. Understanding personal moral philosophy is important to understanding ethical judgments and behavior (Barnett et al., 1994, 1996; Bass et al., 1999; Stead et al., 1990; Tansey et al., 1994), though they are most relevant when the violated norm is salient (Forsyth and Nye, 1990). Forsyth's (1980, 1992) Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ) has predicted moral decision making in organizational settings (e.g., Singhapakdi, 1999b) and represents a model-based measure that can extend previous ethics research findings to IT. Using his EPQ, Forsyth (1980) classified individuals according to two orthogonal dimensions underlying moral judgments: idealism (the desire to avoid harming others) and relativism (the tendency to disregard universal moral rules). Idealists are unwilling to harm others even in a case of situational urgency. Low relativists conform to universal moral rules; high relativists believe that appropriate behavior varies (Forsyth, 1980, 1992). Studies have provided support for the idealism-relativism classification system (Forsyth, 1981, 1985; Forsyth and Pope, 1984; Forsyth et al., 1988; Stead et al., 1990; Vitell et al., 1991). Ethical ideologies affect ethical decision making. Idealism increases moral intensity and the importance of ethics and social responsibility in organizational effectiveness. Relativism lowers the perceptions of moral intensity, hinders the recognition of ethical issues, and negatively influences the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility (Forsyth, 1981; 1985; Forsyth and Pope, 1984; Forsyth et al., 1988; Singhapakdi, 1999a; Singhapakdi et al., 1995b). Those high in relativism tend to disregard

universal moral rules, such as respect for intellectual property and privacy rights. Therefore, we predict: Hypothesis 2a: High relativists will consider intellectual property infractions more acceptable. Hypothesis 2b: High relativists will consider privacy infractions more acceptable. Because high idealists desire moral choices without mixed outcomes, and negative repercussions are likely when intellectual property and privacy rights are violated, we predict: Hypothesis 3a: High idealists will consider intellectual property infractions less acceptable. Hypothesis 3b: High idealists will consider privacy infractions less acceptable. Ethical beliefs also reflect group norms and some aspects of property and privacy vary among cultures (Friedman, 1997). Two groups known to have distinct values with regards to intellectual property and privacy are programmers and those working in R&D (Oz, 2001; Paradice, 1990; Walleij, 1998). Computer literacy. Computer experts are more responsible for ethical IT use because they are more knowledgeable, can more easily use IT unethically, and are responsible for innovations that create ethical dilemmas (Mason, 1986). Those with programming experience are more computer literate (Gutek et al., 2000), and have been exposed to the norms of the programmer community. Intellectual property. Programmer culture and its norms regarding intellectual property have been influenced by a history of knowledge sharing and collaborative development of products such as operating systems (e.g., Linux), networking protocols (e.g., TCP/IP), markup languages (e.g., HTML), and other Open Source Software Development. Many programmers value access to knowledge and create ''pet programming projects'' that develop their professional reputations and are distributed for free (Templin, 1999). IT professionals have less respect for intellectual property rights in general (Oz, 2001; Paradice, 1990) and some even assert that all knowledge must be shared (Denning, 1990; Ross, 1990; Walleij, 1998). We believe that these norms will affect the attitudes of those with higher computer literacy as measured by programming experience toward ITrelated violations of intellectual property rights. Hypothesis 4a: Individuals with higher levels of computer literacy as measured by programming experience will consider intellectual property infractions more acceptable. Privacy. In contrast to the clear norm in favor of disseminating knowledge without regard for intellectual property rights, the programmer culture does not appear more tolerant of privacy rights violations. Although hackers are concerned about companies violating privacy rights by collecting personal information, they believe that government and corporate information is not private (Denning, 1990; Ross, 1990; Walleij, 1998). However, neither of these beliefs is shared by the broader community and IS professionals' respect for privacy is the same as that of other professionals (Oz, 2001). Overall, IT professionals are more interested in providing good information systems and tools than in considering the privacy ramifications of their use (Wilder and Soat, 2001). Based on the literature, we cannot conclude that those with higher levels of computer literacy as measured by programming experience are different from the broader population with regards to respecting the privacy rights of individuals. Hypothesis 4b: Individuals with higher levels of computer literacy as measured by programming experience will not consider privacy infractions more acceptable. Working in research and development. Research and development (R&D) groups also have distinct values. Because of differing goals, training, language and thinking (Gaines, 1994), R&D workers identify with their scientific communities, not with their employers (Debackere et al., 1996; Walleij, 1998). R&D groups' values and norms differ from those of their employers and they are often in conflict with management (Badawy, 1973; Miller, 1986). Research has investigated R&D workers' attitudes toward the exchange of information, including some forms of intellectual property. Intellectual property. R&D groups emphasize an open atmosphere where creativity flourishes (Burrill, 1986). Like programmers, researchers are less motivated by monetary rewards than by communality, the advancement of knowledge, and professional recognition, which depend upon the wide dissemination of results (Badawy, 1973; Burrill, 1986; Debackere et al., 1996; Mellican, 1992; Rappa and Debackere, 1992). R&D teams that exchange information are both more effective and more innovative (Bouty, 2000; Rappa and Debackere, 1992), so this norm may reflect the circumstances required for a productivity. The importance of information exchange to R&D work suggests that they will have less respect for intellectual property rights.

Hypothesis 5a: R&D workers will consider intellectual property infractions more acceptable. Privacy. After an exhaustive search, we were unable to find any specific information on the extent to which privacy is valued by R&D workers. However, they are reported to believe that organizational rules do no apply to them, to demand special treatment, and to actively fight against conforming to organizational rules, practices, routines and policies (Badawy, 1973, 1988; Miller, 1986). This rejection of corporate rules and emphasis on knowledge creation over other values may lead them to consider violations of privacy rights more acceptable. Hypothesis 5b: R&D workers will consider privacy infractions more acceptable. Group membership effects on Machiavellianism. Christie and Geis (1970) theorized an interaction between Machiavellians and the situations they are in. A Machiavellian's main interest is personal gain, but the attitudes and behaviors that are rewarded and lead to that gain will vary by context. When Machiavellians belong to groups whose norms are to accept particular kinds of ethical violations, their inherent tendency to perceive fewer ethical problems will be enhanced because they encounter few negative consequences for doing so. Computer literacy. Programmers consider intellectual property infractions more acceptable, so higher levels of computer literacy will enhance the effect of Machiavellianism on intellectual property beliefs. Hypothesis 6a: Computer literacy as measured by programming experience will moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism and accepting intellectual property infractions. The relationship will be stronger for those with more programming experience. Programmers do not consider privacy infractions more acceptable, so computer literacy will not enhance the effect of Machiavellianism on privacy beliefs. Hypothesis 6b: Computer literacy as measured by programming experience will not moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism and accepting privacy infractions. The relationship will not be stronger for those with more programming experience. Working in R&D. Machiavellianism interacts with the degree to which a situation is structured (i.e., ''loosely structured'' versus ''highly structured''). The greatest difference in the tactics used by high and low Machiavellians is in loosely structured situations (see Christie and Geis, 1970). R&D environments are characterized by uncertainties and unknowns (Badawy, 1988; Miller, 1986) and they provide considerable worker autonomy (Debackere et al., 1996). Consequently, we expect that working in the loosely structured environment typical of R&D will enhance the effect of Machiavellianism on both intellectual property and privacy beliefs. Hypothesis 7a: Working in R&D will moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism and accepting intellectual property infractions. The relationship will be stronger for those in R&D. Hypothesis 7b: Working in R&D will moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism and accepting privacy infractions. The relationship will be stronger for those in R&D. Joint effects of ethical position and computer literacy. Idealistic and non-relativistic individuals rate ethical issues as important, judge ethically ambiguous actions more harshly, exhibit higher honesty and integrity, and perceive ethics and social responsibility as more important than others (Barnett et al., 1998; Ho et al., 1997; Singhapakdi et al., 1995a; Tansey et al., 1994; Vaicys, 1996; Vitell et al., 1993; Vitell and Singhapakdi, 1993b). For most people, violating intellectual property and privacy rights should: (1 represent a moral breach and (2) result in harm to others. Therefore, these activities should be less acceptable to either high idealists or low relativists. However, both low idealists and high relativists should consider these activities more acceptable. Hypothesis 8a: For those low in computer literacy as measured by programming experience, there will be an interaction between idealism and relativism. Those low in idealism and high in relativism should find violations of intellectual property and privacy rights more acceptable than those either high in idealism or low in relativism. This relationship will not hold for those high in computer literacy as measured by programming experience. These people have been influenced by the norms of the programming community and so likely do not believe that violations of intellectual property rights represent a breach of moral rules and will not result in harm to others. Hypothesis 8b: For those high in computer literacy, idealists will consider violations of intellectual property and privacy rights less acceptable, but relativism will have no effect. Although working in R&D would also be hypothesized to interact with ethical position in predicting the acceptability of violating intellectual property and privacy rights, our data set did not include enough R&D workers to provide a stable mean, so these were not tested in this paper. Figure 1 summarizes the hypotheses tested in study one. Study 1: The effects of Machiavellianism Method Participants. People who have used email and the Web and have work experience are more likely to have formed opinions about what constitute ethical and unethical IT activities. Consequently, the sampling frame consisted of adults 18 years of age or older, working full-time, with e-mail addresses, who had access to the Web. To maximize diversity, students enrolled in an upper level undergraduate business information systems class identified working adults who were not students and fit the criteria listed above and supplied their basic contact information. Our respondent profile was quite similar to that found by other researchers who have randomly selected consumers based on e-mail addresses (Sheehan and Hoy, 1999). Men constituted a little more than half of our sample (54.8%), with most being between 21 and 49 years old (74.7%), having more than a high school education (68.2%) and six or more years of work experience (67.8%). The largest industry group represented was banking (21.7%), followed by services (10.1%), manufacturing (9.4%), education (9.1%), and sales (9.1%). About one-third of the respondents were salaried non-managerial workers (30.9%) and over 40% were managers (44.5%). Most respondents (79.3%) had more than 5 years of computer experience, used computers for more than 30 hours a week (50.6%), and worked in for-profit firms (80.1%).

Procedures. Four hundred and four individuals received e-mail messages containing a description of the study, assurances of confidentiality, instructions for participation, and a link to a web-based survey. If the recipient had not completed the survey within a week, a reminder e-mail was sent out. The 290 usable surveys returned represent a 71.8% response rate. Measures. The survey included predictor measures which assessed Machiavelliansim, computer literacy and whether they worked in R&D. Machiavellianism was measured with the Mach IV Likert-based scale taken from Christie and Geis (1970). Computer literacy was assessed with a single question taken from Gutek et al. (2000). Respondents were asked about their experience in writing computer programs. Sixty-five percent had no experience (coded as zero), 17.8% had experience with one language (coded as one), and 17.1% had experience with multiple languages (coded as two). Working in R&D was assessed by asking respondents to indicate their functional area: Accounting/Finance (10.9%), HRM (3.5%), Information Systems (18.2%), Marketing/Sales (16.8%), Operations (12.6%), R&D (3.5%) or Other (34.4%). Intellectual property and privacy. A review of the literature found no general measures of attitudes toward intellectual property and privacy violations (Smith et al. (1996) developed a measure of consumers' concern for information privacy) so we developed scales to measure these constructs. Consistent with current best practices (Clark and Watson, 1995; Hinkin, 1998; Smith and McCarthy, 1995), we cast a wide net in identifying candidate items and a list of 28 ethically questionable uses of IT relating to intellectual property and privacy was drafted. To ensure that the items were understandable and reasonably complete, they were pre-tested on 24 students in an upper level undergraduate business information systems class who had more than 1 year of full-time work experience and were currently employed. Minor wording changes were made, but no additional items were suggested. The final list of items is shown in Table I. For each item, participants were asked ''To what extent do you believe each of the following is ethically acceptable?'' There were five specific response options providing equal appearing intervals: 1 Never Acceptable (0% of the time), 2 Seldom Acceptable (25% of the time), 3 About Half of the Time (50% of the time), 4 Frequently Acceptable (75% of the time), and 5 Always Acceptable (100% of the time). We included additional measures expected to show no relationship (e.g., education, industry) to assess discriminant validity. All inter-item correlations were acceptable and a principle components factor analysis with an oblique rotation indicated that the intellectual property items represent a separate factor. The privacy items represent four factors: data collection, improper use, general secondary use, and specific secondary uses accounting for 55% of the variance, slightly below the recommended 60%. All items' factor loadings exceeded the recommended 0.4 cutoff and the communalities were generally quite high (loadings available from the authors). Based on these analyses and our interest in measuring broad constructs, we created two separate scales, five items measuring attitudes toward violations of intellectual property rights and 23 items measuring attitudes toward violations of privacy. The unidimensionality of these measures was then assessed. Inter-item correlations and item-total correlations were above the recommended minimum as were Cronbach's a (see Table II). Non-significant relationships between characteristics unrelated to ethical judgments and attitudes toward violations of intellectual property provide evidence of discriminant validity (education r 0.07, n.s.; industry F9;304 1:86, n.s.) and privacy rights (education r 0.07, n.s.; industry segment F9;304 0:88, n.s.). Results Table II shows the means, standard deviations and correlations for the predictors and outcomes. In general, the zero-order correlations support the predicted relationships. Machiavellianism and computer literacy were most strongly related to attitudes toward intellectual property violations, but were also related to privacy attitudes. The correlations between working in R&D and the outcomes of interest were in the predicted direction, but were not significant. The outcome measures were also related to each other. Because bivariate correlations do not control for confounding factors such as demographics and other situational circumstances, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed. Intellectual property. Table III presents the regression results for the tests of Hypotheses 1a, 4a, 5a, 6a, and 7a, predicting attitudes toward ethical violations involving intellectual property. To test the main effects (Hypotheses 1a, 4a and 5a), Machiavellianism, computer literacy and working in R&D were entered on step 2. Taken together, the main effects were significant and accounted for about 9% of the variance. Machiavellianism was positively related to intellectual property attitudes, over and above all of the other predictors in the regression equation, providing strong support for Hypothesis 1a. Computer literacy was also positively and uniquely related, providing strong support for Hypothesis 4a. Finally, working in R&D was also positively and uniquely related to our outcome measure, providing support for Hypothesis 5a. The last step of the regression tested the hypothesized two-way interactions by adding two interaction terms: Machiavellianism computer literacy and Machiavellianism working in R&D.

Table IV shows that the interaction effects were significant and accounted for about 4% of the variance. Individually, the interaction between Machiavellianism computer literacy (testing Hypothesis 4a) was significant and the Machiavellianism working in R&D interaction (Hypothesis 7a) was also significant. We then plotted the attitudes for respondents one standard deviation above the mean and for those one standard deviation below the mean on Machiavellianism computer literacy (Aiken and West, 1991). We did the same for Machiavellianism working in R&D. Consistent with our hypotheses, for both computer literacy and working in R&D, higher levels of Machiavellianism were associated with much greater acceptance of intellectual property violations (see Figures 2 and 3). For those with little computer literacy the slope predicting acceptance of intellectual property violations from Machiavellianism was not significantly different from zero (b 0.116, t 1.46, n.s.). For those high in computer literacy, the slope was significant and positive (b 0.372, t 4.74, p < 0.001). For those who do not work in R&D, the slope predicting acceptance of intellectual property violations from Machiavellianism was not significantly different from zero (b 0.121, t 1.45, n.s.). For those working in R&D, the slope was significant and positive (b 0.402, t 4.74, p < 0.001). The main effects remained significant even after the interactions were included in the equation. Thus, those higher in Machiavellianism who had higher levels of computer literacy, or worked in R&D were more accepting of violations of intellectual property rights. Privacy. Table IV presents the regression results for the tests of Hypotheses 1b, 4b, 5b, 6b, and 7b, predicting attitudes toward ethical violations involving privacy. To test the main effects (Hypotheses 1b, 4b and 5b), Machiavellianism, computer literacy and working in R&D were entered on step 2. Taken together, the main effects were significant and accounted for about 3% of the variance. Individually, only two of our three hypothesized main effects were supported. As predicted in Hypothesis 1b, Machiavellianism was positively and uniquely related to attitudes toward privacy violations. As predicted in Hypothesis 4b, computer literacy was not uniquely related. Hypothesis 5b predicted that working in R&D would be related to privacy attitudes, but was not supported. The last step of the regression tested the hypothesized two-way interactions by adding two interaction terms: Machiavellianism computer literacy and Machiavellianism working in R&D. Table IV shows that, after controlling for the main effects of Machiavellianism, computer literacy and working in R&D, lianism remains significant even after the interactions are included in the equation. Thus, at the means of the other predictors, high Machiavellians or those working in R&D find it more acceptable to violate privacy rights.

the interaction effects, taken together, were significant and accounted for about 4% of the variance. As predicted, the interaction between Machiavellianism and computer literacy (testing Hypothesis 6b) was not significant. Providing support for Hypothesis 7b, the interaction between Machiavellianism and working in R&D was significant. Again, we plotted respondents' attitudes. As predicted, for those working in R&D, higher levels of Machiavellianism were associated with much greater acceptance of privacy violations (see Figure 4); for those not working in R&D, the slope predicting acceptance of intellectual property violations from Machiavellianism was not significantly different from zero (b 0.016, t 0.24, n.s.). For those who worked in R&D, the slope was significant and positive (b 0.235, t 3.37, p < 0.001). Once the interactions were included, the positive main effect of working in R&D became significant, providing support for Hypothesis 5b. Machiavellianism remains significant even after the interactions are included in the equation. Thus, at the means of the other predictors, high Machiavellians or those working in R&D find it more acceptable to violate privacy rights. Study 2: The effects of ethical position Figure 5 summarizes the hypotheses tested in study 2. Method Participants. The sampling frame was the same as for Study 1 and our respondent profile was quite similar. Our sample was slightly more male (51.3%) than female and characterized by a 21-49 (86.1%) age range in which most (82.3%) had more than a high school education and over two-thirds (68.1%) had six or more years of work experience. The largest industry group represented was banking (21.5%), followed by services (14.2%), manufacturing (14.6%), education (5.7%), and sales (6.3%). Over one-third were salaried non-managerial workers (35.8%) with another 40.8% being managers. Most (79.2%) had more than 5 years of computer experience and half (50.2%) used computers more than 30 hours a week; most respondents worked in forprofit firms (84.7%). Working in R&D was assessed by asking respondents to indicate the functional area they worked in. Although the percentages in each functional area were similar to those in Study 1, there were too few respondents working in R&D (n 7) to test hypotheses about its effects.

Procedures. The same procedures were used as for Study 1, but 440 individuals received e-mail messages. The 316 usable surveys returned represent a 71.8% response rate. Measures. Except for idealism and relativism and the elimination of Machiavellianism, all measures were the same as in Study 1. Idealism and relativism were measured using the Ethics Position Questionnaire developed by Forsyth (1980). Assessing computer literacy, respondents reported the following experience in writing computer programs: 63.5% had no experience (coded as a zero), 18.0% had experience with one language (coded as a one), and 18.6% had experience with multiple languages (coded as a two). Results Table II shows the means, standard deviations and correlations for the hypothesized predictors and outcomes. In general, the zero-order correlations support the predicted relationships. Idealism and computer literacy are most strongly related to attitudes toward intellectual property violations, but idealism is related to privacy attitudes as well. Highly relativist participants and those with higher computer literacy report that intellectual property violations are more acceptable, but show no difference in acceptance of privacy violations. Idealism is positively related to relativism and negatively related to computer literacy. The outcome measures are also positively related to each other. As with Study 1, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to control confounding factors. Intellectual property. Table V presents the regression results for the tests of hypotheses 2a, 3a, 4a, 8a, and 8b predicting attitudes toward ethical violations involving intellectual property. Step 1 controls for demographic and situational factors that may result in spurious effects. To test the main effects (Hypotheses 2a, 3a, and 4a), idealism, relativism, and computer literacy were entered on step 2. The main effects were significant and accounted for about 9% of the variance. Individually, each of our three hypothesized main effects was supported. As predicted by Hypothesis 2a, idealism is negatively related to accepting violations of intellectual property rights after all higher order interactions had been included. Similarly, Hypothesis 3a is supported. Relativism is positively related to accepting violations of intellectual property rights. Providing support for hypothesis 4a, computer literacy is also related to accepting violations of intellectual property rights. The third step in the regression analysis controlled for the lower level interactions included in the hypothesized three-way interaction. Three interaction terms were entered: idealism relativism, idealism computer literacy, and relativism computer literacy. The two-way interactions are not significant and accounted for less than 1% of the variance. The last step tested the hypothesized idealism relativism computer literacy interaction: Model Four shows support for Hypotheses 8a and 8b a significant three-way interaction.

Once again, to investigate the form of the interaction, we plotted attitudes one standard deviation above the mean and one standard deviation below the mean on idealism, relativism, and computer literacy (Aiken and West, 1991). Consistent with our hypotheses 8a and 8b, for those low in computer literacy there is an idealism relativism interaction. Those low in idealism and high in relativism consider it much more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights than do those high in idealism or low in relativism (see Figure 6). In other words, highly idealistic non-programmers find it less acceptable to violate intellectual property rights, regardless of relativism. Those low in idealism and low in relativism find it less acceptable to violate intellectual property rights than do those low in idealism and high in relativism. For those high in idealism, the relativism slope is not significant (b 0.005, b 0.013, t 0.123, n.s., a )0.232). For those low in idealism, the relativism slope is positive and significant (b 0.158, b 0.407, t 3.41, p < 0.001, a 0.078). Providing support for Hypothesis 8b, those high in computer literacy, idealism and relativism do not interact (see Figure 7). Higher levels of idealism are associated with lower acceptance of intellectual property violations, but higher levels of relativism are not. Low idealists with programming experience think it is more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights. For those high in idealism, the relation is not significant, indicating no effect of relativism (b 0.058, b 0.148, t 1.45, n.s. a )0.136). For computer experts low in idealism, the relativism slope is also not significant (b 0.047, b 0.122, t 1.25, n.s., a 0.320). Privacy. Table VI presents the same regression results for the tests of Hypotheses 2b, 23, 4b, 8a, and 8b predicting attitudes toward ethical violations involving privacy. The main effects, (testing Hypotheses 2b, 3b, and 4b), were significant and accounted for 7% of the variance. As Hypothesis 1b predicted, idealism was negatively related to accepting violations of intellectual property rights at the mean of relativism and computer literacy after all of the higher order interactions terms were included. Hypothesis 3b was not supported. Relativism was not related to accepting violations of intellectual property rights. Hypothesis 4b was supported; computer literacy was not related to accepting violations of privacy rights. As before, step 3 in the regression analysis controlled for the lower level interactions included in the hypothesized three-way interaction. The twoway interactions were not significant and accounted for less than 1% of the variance. In the last step, we tested the idealism relativism computer literacy three-way interaction. Model Four presents the results, demonstrating support for the three-way interaction in Hypothesis 8. Consistent Hypotheses 8a and 8b, plotted interactions for those low in computer literacy show an idealism relativism interaction. Those low idealists and high relativists find it more acceptable to violate privacy rights than do high idealists or low relativists (see Figure 8). In other words, highly idealistic respondents with little programming experience find it less acceptable to violate privacy rights regardless of relativism. Those low in idealism and low in relativism find it less acceptable to violate privacy rights than do those low in idealism and high in relativism. For those high in idealism, the slope of the line for those low and high on relativism is not significant, indicating that there is no effect of relativism (b 0.007, b 0.025, t 0.23, n.s., a )0.109). For those low in idealism, the relativism slope is significant (b 0.072, b 0.267, t 2.20, p < 0.05, a 0.078). Providing support for Hypothesis 8b, for those high in computer literacy, idealism and relativism do not interact (see Figure 9). For those with more programming experience, higher levels of idealism were associated with lower acceptance of privacy violations, but higher levels of relativism were not. Low idealists think it is more often acceptable to violate privacy rights. For those high in idealism, the relativism slope is not significant, indicating that there is no effect of relativism (b 0.021, b 0.079, t 0.76, n.s. a 0.181). For those low in idealism, the relativism slope is also not significant (b )0.027, b )1.00, t )1.01, n.s., a 0.181). Discussion All but one of our hypotheses were supported. Consistent with previous research, Machiavellians believed that it was more acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Consistent with the norms of the IT development community, programmers also believed that it was more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights, but did not consider it more acceptable to violate privacy rights. Similarly, our results are consistent with the norms for the R&D community, with those working in R&D indicating that it was more acceptable to violate both intellectual property and privacy rights in favor of open access to data and knowledge. Finally, the effect of Machiavellianism on attitudes toward violations of intellectual property was enhanced by computer literacy and working in R&D. The effect of Machiavellianism on attitudes toward violations of privacy was enhanced by working in R&D, but not by computer literacy. Idealists believe that it is less acceptable to ignore intellectual property and privacy rights. Relativists consider it more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights, but do not consider it more acceptable to violate privacy rights (the only hypothesis not supported). Consistent with the norms of the IT development community, those with programming experience are more accepting of intellectual property rights violations, but not of privacy violations. Finally, computer literacy moderated the relationship between idealism, relativism and attitudes toward unethical information practices. Respondents both low in idealism and high in relativism, but who did not have programming experience were much more accepting of both intellectual property and privacy rights violations than were respondents high in idealism or low in relativism. For those with programming experience, there was no interaction between idealism and relativism. High idealists considered violations of both intellectual property and privacy rights less acceptable than low idealists. Relativism had no affect on attitudes toward these activities. We extended the literature on Ethical Ideology and on Machiavellians' approach to ethical decision making to the field of unethical IT-related behaviors. In some situations, Machiavellians have been found to be amoral, ignore the rights of others and see nothing wrong with questionable ethical actions, but previous results have been inconsistent. Our research has confirmed that Machiavellians consider IT practices that violate either intellectual property or privacy rights to be more acceptable. They held

more permissive attitudes toward unethical behavior and showed lower levels of concern with IT-related ethical issues. Idealists value protecting others from harm and have been found to make decisions that minimize negative consequences. Our research has confirmed that idealists are less accepting of IT practices that violate either intellectual property rights or privacy rights. They believed that these practices should be avoided because they may result in harm to others. Relativists believe that the morality of a decision depends upon its circumstances. They are more accepting of IT practices that violate intellectual property rights because they believe there are circumstances where these activities may be justified. Relativists were not more accepting of IT practices that violate privacy rights. It may be that these practices were perceived as less severe violations of prevailing rules and norms or than were the violations of intellectual property rights. We also extended the literature on the prevailing norms of workers with programming experience and those in R&D. As expected, those with programming experience are not more accepting of IT practices that violate privacy rights. However, the value that programmers place on free access to knowledge was reflected in their more permissive attitudes toward IT practices that violate intellectual property rights. Consistent with previous research indicating that R&D workers often reject organizational routines and policies, R&D workers also found questionable IT privacy practices more acceptable. Further, the hypothesis that Machiavellianism interacts with the situations in which people find themselves was confirmed: Machiavellians whose group norms accepted particular kinds of ethical violations were especially permissive. Machiavellian programmers tend to be amoral, ignore the rights of others and see nothing wrong with questionable ethical actions. In addition, they have been socialized to value free access to knowledge. This norm enhances their inherent tendency, resulting in more permissive attitudes toward violating intellectual property rights. In contrast, they have not been socialized to value free access to personal information, so their attitudes toward violating privacy rights are not notably more permissive

Machiavellian R&D workers were in environments where they experienced considerable autonomy and uncertainty. Working under loosely structured conditions, their inherent tendency to ignore the rights of others was exacerbated. These workers had exceptionally permissive attitudes toward IT practices that violated intellectual property and privacy rights. Further, the hypothesis that computer literacy interacts with ethical position was also confirmed. Relativists low on idealism with little programming experience were especially permissive toward violations of both intellectual property and privacy rights. They believe that moral behavior is situational and are not particularly concerned if it harms others. Whether the behavior is acceptable or not, then, depends on personal preferences. In contrast, although idealists with programming experience consider violations of intellectual property and privacy rights less acceptable than do non-idealists, relativism has no affect. Those with programming experience do not believe that these activities represent a violation of rules or norms, so acceptance of universal rules does not affect acceptance of the activities. Limitations Although provocative, these results have limitations. Because the study used a network sample, it did not take into account the ethical climate within the organization (Victor and Cullen, 1988). While competitive environments may attract Machiavellian employees, an ethical climate substantially reduces Machiavellian behaviors and discourages Machiavellians from entering the organization (Verbicke et al., 1996). Relatedly, Singhapakdi (1999a) found that the organization's ethical climate effectively narrows the perceptual gap between high Machiavellian and low Machiavellian groups, thereby having greater positive effect on both the perceptions of an ethical problem and on the perceptions of remedial alternatives. In addition, the measure of computer literacy may misclassify some IT workers who are experts, but do not have programming experience (e.g., database and network administrators). They would have been

included in the end-user group and so may have diluted the true effect of computer literacy. If they had been classified as computer experts, the true difference between them and other end-users may actually be larger than that found. In addition, we were unable to distinguish between computer literacy and the group norms shared by programmers, so we are unable to disentangle the effects of these two distinct constructs. Conclusion As recent IT innovations become ubiquitous, the easy access to information systems and the data stored on them present both new business opportunities and unethical practices that can damage corporate reputations and profits. Our research has extended the work on predictors of general ethical attitudes to determine whether these predictors apply equally well to IT-related attitudes. Our results indicate that personality, computer literacy, and social norms affect attitudes toward IT-related unethical practices. We have extended previous results on Machiavellianism, idealism and relativism to the area of unethical computer-related issues. The ethical implications of norms found among two groups that are in key positions in the information-age society (programmers and those working in R&D) were also explored. Further research should consider other ethical issues raised by IT related practices, the role of other dispositional factors, and the effects of organizational socialization on the norms of programmers and those working in R&D. Ultimately, our understanding of IT-related ethical decision making, particularly in the areas of privacy and intellectual property, must be recognized as both elementary and dynamic. Even as the literature has demonstrated a dearth of understanding of these issues, the quickly changing technology will force constant reconsideration of what is ethically acceptable, making our understanding of ethical acceptability ever changing. Future research will need to consider how the ethical issues might be addressed as the technology continues to evolve. As we create new IT, it is incumbent upon us to understand and manage the many ethical issues they raise.

References Aiken, L. S. and S. G. West: 1991, Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA). Ajzen, I.: 2001, 'Nature and Operation of Attitudes', Annual Review of Psychology 52, 27-58. Badawy, M. K.: 1973, 'Bureaucracy in Research: A Study of Role Conflict of Scientists', Human Organization 32(2), 123-133. Badawy, M. K.: 1988, 'Managing Human Resources: What We've Learned', Research-Technology Management 31(5), 19-35. Banerjee, D., T. P. Cronan and T. W. Jones: 1998, 'Modeling IT Ethics: A Study in Situational Ethics', MIS Quarterly 22(1), 31-60. Barnett, T., K. Bass and G. Brown: 1994, 'Ethical Ideology and Ethical Judgment Regarding Ethical Issues in Business', Journal of Business Ethics 13, 469-480. Barnett, T., K. Bass and G. Brown: 1996, 'Religiosity, Ethical Ideology, and Intentions to Report a Peer's Wrongdoing', Journal of Business Ethics 15(11), 1161- 1174. Barnett T., K. Bass, G. Brown and F. J. Hebert: 1998, 'Ethical Ideology and the Ethical Judgments of Marketing Professionals', Journal of Business Ethics 17(7), 715-723. Bass, K., T. Barnett and G. Brown: 1999, 'Individual Difference Variables, Ethical Judgments, and Ethical Behavioral Intentions', Business Ethics Quarterly 9(2), 183-205. Bouty, I.: 2000, 'Interpersonal and Interaction Influences on Informal Resource Exchanges between R&D Researchers across Organizational Boundaries', Academy of Management Journal 43(1), 50-65. Burrill, G. S.: 1986, 'Managing the Technical Professional: A Question of Balance', Management Review 75(12), 46-49. Calhoon, R. P.: 1969, 'Niccolo Machiavelli and the Twentieth Century Administrator', Academy of Management Journal 12(2), 205-212. Calkins, M.: 2002, 'Rippers, Portal Users and Profilers: Three Web-based Issues for Business Ethicists', Business and Society Review 107(1), 61-75. Christie, R. and F. Geis: 1970, Studies in Machiavellianism (Academic Press, New York). Clark, L. A. and D. Watson: 1995, 'Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development', Psychological Assessment 7(3), 309-319. Culnan, M.: 2000, 'Protecting Privacy Online: Is Selfregulation Working?', Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 19(1), 20-26. 298 Susan J. Winter et al. Debackere, K., M. A. Rappa and B. Clarysse: 1996, 'Autonomy and Persistence in Industrial Laboratory Research: The Dilemma Revisited', Journal of HighTech Management Research 7(1), 69-78. Denning, D. E.: 1990, 'Hackers Who Break into Computer Systems', Proceedings of the 13th National Computer Security Conference (Washington, DC). Also available at http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/crime/ denning.hackers.html. Fletcher, C.: 1990, 'The Relationship between Candidate Personality, Self-Presentation Strategies, and Interviewer Assessments in Selection Interviews: An Empirical Study', Human Relations 43(8), 739-749. Flynn, S., M. Reichard and S. Slane: 1987, 'Cheating as a Function of Task Outcome and Machiavellianism', Journal of Psychology 121(5), 423-427. Forsyth, D. R.: 1980, 'A Taxonomy of Ethical Ideologies', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(1), 175-184. Forsyth, D. R.: 1981, 'Moral Judgment: The Influence of Ethical Ideology', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 7(2), 218-223. Forsyth, D. R.: 1985, 'Individual Differences in Information Integration During Moral Judgment', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49(1), 264-272. Forsyth, D. R.: 1992, 'Judging the Morality of Business Practices: The Influence of Personal Moral Philosophies', Journal of Business Ethics 11, 461- 470. Forsyth, D. R. and W. R. Pope: 1984, 'Ethical Ideology and Judgments of Social Psychological Research: A Multidimensional Analysis', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46, 1365-1375. Forsyth, D. R. and J. L. Nye: 1990, 'Personal Moral Philosophies and Moral Choice', Journal of Research in Personality 24, 398-414. Forsyth, D. R., J. L. Nye and K. Kelley: 1988, 'Idealism, relativism, and the Ethic of Caring', The Journal of Psychology 112, 243-248. Friedman, B.: 1997, 'Social Judgments and Technological Innovation: Adolescents Understanding of Property, Privacy, and Electronic Information', Computers in Human Behavior 13(3), 327-351. Gaines, H.: 1994, 'The Disconnect between Scientists and Corporations', Business Horizons 37(4), 1-4. Geis, F. and R. Christie: 1970, 'Overview of Experimental Research', in R. Christie and F. L. Geis (eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism (Academic Press, New York), pp. 285-313. Giacalone, R. A. and S. B. Knouse: 1990, 'Justifying Wrongful Employee Behavior: The Role of Personality in Organizational Sabotage', Journal of Business Ethics 9(1), 55-61. Giacalone, R. A. and C. A. Jurkiewicz: 2003, Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY). Gladney, H. M.: 2000, 'Are Intellectual Property Rights a Digital Dilemma? Controversial Topics and International Aspects', Information Impacts Magazine. Greenberger, D. B., M. P. Miceli and D. Cohen: 1987, 'Oppositionists and Group Norms: The Reciprocal Influence of Whistle-Blowers and Co-Workers', Journal of Business Ethics 7, 527-542. Gutek, B. A., S. J. Winter and I. V. Eriksson: 2000, 'Measuring Computer Literacy in the Context of Work: Development and Initial Validation', Transactions in International Information Systems-Systems Analysis and Development Theory and Practice 2, 53- 72. Harrell, W. A. and T. Hartnagel: 1976, 'The Impact of Machiavellianism and the Trustfulness of the Victim on Laboratory Theft', Sociometry 39(2), 157-165. Hegarty, W. H. and H. P. Sims Jr.: 1978, 'Some Determinants of Unethical Decision Behavior: An Experiment', Journal of Applied Psychology 63(4), 451-457. Hegarty, W. H. and H. P. Sims Jr.: 1979, 'Organization Philosophy, Policies, and Objectives Related to Unethical Decision Behavior: A Laboratory Experiment', Journal of Applied Psychology 64(3), 331- 338. Hinkin, T. R.: 1998, 'A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires', Organizational Research Methods 1(1), 104- 121. Ho, F. N., S. J. Vitell, J. H. Barnes and R. Desborde: 1997, 'Ethical Correlates of Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Marketing: The Mediating Role of Cognitive Moral Development', Academy of Marketing Science Journal 25(2), 117-126. Kreie, J. and T. P. Cronan: 1999, 'Copyright, Piracy, Privacy, and Security Issues: Acceptable or Unacceptable Actions For End Users?', Journal of End User Computing 11(2), 13. Kreie, J. and T. P. Cronan: 2000, 'Making Ethical Decisions: How Companies Might Influence the Choices One Makes', Communications of the ACM 43(12), 66-71. Loch, K. D. and S. Conger: 1996, 'Evaluating Ethical Decision Making and Computer Use', Communications of the ACM 39(7), 74-83. Loch, K. D., S. Conger and E. Oz: 1998, 'Ownership, Privacy and Monitoring in the Workplace: A Debate on Technology and Ethics', Journal of Business Ethics 17, 653-663. Machiavelli, N.: 1965a, The Prince, translated by A. Gilbert (Duke University Press, Durham, NC Machiavelli, N.: 1965b, Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, translated by A. Gilbert (Duke University Press, Durham, NC). Mason, R. O.: 1986, 'Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age', MIS Quarterly 10(1), 4-12. Mellican, E. R.: 1992, 'From Fusion Frenzy to Fraud: Reflections on Science and its Cultural Norms', Bulletin of Science Technology and Society 12, 1-9. Miceli, M. P., J. P. Near and C. R. Schwenk: 1991, 'Who Blows the Whistle and Why?', Industrial and Labor Relations Review 45, 113-130. Miller, D. B.: 1986, 'Understanding the R&D Culture', Management Review 75(12), 34-39. Mudrack, P. E.: 1993, 'An Investigation into the Acceptability of Workplace Behaviors of a Dubious Ethical Nature', Journal of Business Ethics 12, 517-524. Oz, E.: 1994, Ethics for the Information Age (Wm. C. Brown Communications, Dubuque, IA). Oz, E.: 2001, 'Organizational Commitment and Ethical Behavior: An Empirical Study of Information System Professionals', Journal of Business Ethics 34, 137-142. Paradice, D. B.: 1990, 'Ethical Attitudes of Entry-Level MIS Personnel', Information and Management 18(3), 143-151. Rappa, M. A. and K. Debackere: 1992, 'Technological Communities and the Diffusion of Knowledge', R&D Management 22(3), 209-220. Robinson, J. P. and R. Shaver: 1973, Measurement of Social Psychological Attitudes (Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI). Rosenberg, R. D.: 1987, 'Managerial Morality and Behavior: The Questionable Payments Issue', Journal of Business Ethics 6, 23-36. Ross, A.: 1990, 'Hacking Away at the Counterculture', Postmodern Culture 1(1). Shahin, J. B.: 1999, 'Regulation, Governance and the Internet: The Quest for a Global Ethic?', Proceedings of the Fourth ETHICOMP International Conference on the Social and Ethical Impacts of Information and Communication Technologies (Rome, Italy). Shaw, T. R.: 2003, 'The Moral Intensity of Privacy: An Empirical Study of Webmasters Attitudes', Journal of Business Ethics 46(4), 301-318. Sheehan, K. B. and M. G. Hoy: 1999, 'Flaming, Complaining, Abstaining: How Online Users Respond to Privacy Concerns', Journal of Advertising 28(3), 37-51. Singhapakdi, A.: 1999a, 'Perceived Importance of Ethics and Ethical Decisions in Marketing', Journal of Business Research 45(1), 89-99. Singhapakdi, A.: 1999b, 'Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Effects of Perceived Moral Intensity and Personal Moral Philosophies', Academy of Marketing Science Journal 27, 19-36. Singhapakdi, A., K. L. Kraft, S. J. Vitell and K. C. Rallapalli: 1995a, 'The Perceived Importance of Ethics and Social Responsibility on Organizational Effectiveness: A Survey of Marketers', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23, 49-56. Singhapakdi, A., K. C. Rallapalli, C. P. Rao and S. J. Vitell: 1995b, 'Personal and Professional Values Underlying Ethical Decisions: A Comparison of American and Thai Marketers', International Marketing Review 12(4), 65-76. Smith, G. T. and D. M. McCarthy: 1995, 'Methodological Considerations in the Refinement of Clinical Assessment Instruments', Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 300-308. Smith, H. J., S. J. Milberg and S. J. Burke: 1996, 'Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals Concerns about Organizational Practices', MIS Quarterly 20(2), 167-196. Snyder, C. R. and S. J. Lopez: 2001, Handbook of Positive Psychology (Oxford, New York). Stead, W. E., D. L. Worrell and J. G. Stead: 1990, 'An Integrative Model for Understanding and Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations', Journal of Business Ethics 9, 233-242. Tansey, R., G. Brown, M. R. Hyman and L. E. Dawson Jr.: 1994, 'Personal Moral Philosophies and the Moral Judgments of Salespeople', Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 14, 59-75. Tavani, H. T.: 2002, 'The Uniqueness Debate in Computer Ethics: What Exactly is at Issue, and Why Does it Matter?', Ethics and Information Technology 4, 37-54. Templin, L.: 1999, 'Philosophical Changes in 1990's Information Technology', Also available at http://www. leonine.com/lion/pub_papers/itphil/paper. html. Trevino, L. K.: 1986, 'Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model', Academy of Management Review 11(3), 601-617. Vaicys, C. L.: 1996, 'The Moderating Effect of Work Climate on Individual Ethical Decision-Making', Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana Tech University, LA. Verbicke, W., C. Ouwerkerk and E. Peelen: 1996, 'Exploring the Contextual and Individual Factors on Ethical Decision Making by Salespeople', Journal of Business Ethics 15, 1175-1187. Victor, B. and L. B. Cullen: 1988. 'The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates', Administrative Science Quarterly 33, 101-125. Vitell, S. and A. Singhapakdi: 1993, 'Ethical Ideology and Its Influence on the Norms and Judgments of Marketing Practitioners', Journal of Marketing Management 3,Vitell, S. J., R. Kumar and A. Singhapakdi: 1993, 'Marketing Norms: The Influences of Personal Moral Philosophies and Organizational Ethical Culture', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21, 331- 337. Vitell, S. J., J. R. Lumpkin and M. Y.A. Rawwas: 1991, 'Consumer Ethics: An Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of Elderly Consumers', Journal of Business Ethics 10(5), 365-375. Walleij, L.: 1998, 'Copyright Does Not Exist', Translated by Daniel Arnrup. Also available at http:// svenskefaen.no/cdne/cdne.pdf. Wayne, S. J. and D. Rubinstein: 1992, 'Extending Game Theoretic Propositions About Slack and Scarcity In Managerial Decision-Making', Human Relations 45(5), 525-536. Wilder, C. and J. Soat: 2001, 'A Question of Ethics', InformationWeek.com 19, 39-50..