our attitude our choice

Individual and Organizational Antecedents of Professional Ethics of Public Relations Practitioners in Korea

Ji Yeon Han • Hyun Soon Park • Hyeonju Jeong

Received: 9 April 2011 / Accepted: 1 September 2012 / Published online: 14 September 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This study examines the effects of individual

ethical values and organizational factors on the profes-

sional ethics of PR practitioners in Korea by considering a

person–situation interactionist model. Individual ethical

values are used as individual factors, and organizational

factors consist of an organization’s reward and punishment

for ethical/unethical behavior, the behavior of peers, and

the ethical integrity of the chief ethics officer. The pro-

fessional ethics of PR practitioners (the dependent vari-

able) are classified into the following three dimensions:

professional ethics for the public, the client, and the PR

industry. The results indicate that agency practitioners were

more likely to be committed to their profession than to

their organization, whereas in-house practitioners were

more likely to be committed to their organization than to

their profession. That is, in-house practitioners showed

weak professional commitment, indicating that they per-

ceived themselves as employees, not as PR professionals.

Organizational factors such as reward, punishment, and

peers’ ethical behavior had considerable influence on the

professional ethics of in-house practitioners, whereas they

had little influence on agency practitioners. Organizational

factors as well as individual ethical values were more likely

to influence the professional ethics of in-house practitio-

ners than that of agency practitioners. Thus, to foster in-

house practitioners’ professional ethics and commitment,

professional associations in the PR industry should make

efforts to provide in-house practitioners with more infor-

mation on the PR industry and more opportunities for

interacting and maintaining communication with their

colleagues in the industry.

Keywords Codes of ethics � Korea � Professional ethics � Public relations

Socially responsible business management is critical to the

survival of any organization (Stohl et al. 2009). An orga-

nization without credibility in markets and society is likely

to fail even if it shows good performance, as indicated by

Enron, Arthur Andersen, Worldcom, Exxon, Bridgestone,

and Firestone, among many others (Andreoli and Lefko-

witz 2009; Beschorner 2006; McKinney et al. 2010;

Premeaux 2009; Simola 2003). Furthermore, simply having

a written code of ethics is not sufficient for preventing

unethical behavior (Messikomer and Cirka 2010).

Arlow and Ulrich (1980) argued that the ethical deci-

sion-making process in the business context is very com-

plicated and different from that in a general context in that

decision makers in business contexts are required to con-

sider various issues related not only to corporate social

responsibility but also to shareholders, including conflicts

of interest among various stakeholders such as customers,

employees, shareholders, and competitors (McKinney et al.

2010). In addition, it is unavoidable that decision makers in

business settings experience ethical conflicts not only

between their given accountability and duty to various

J. Y. Han

Office of Public Relations, Planning Division, Korean

Educational Development Institute, Seoul, South Korea

e-mail: clickhjy@naver.com

H. S. Park (&) � H. Jeong

Department of Mass Communication & Journalism,

Sungkyunkwan University, 32625 Dasankyoungje-kwan,

Meyongnyun-dong 3-ga, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-745,

South Korea

e-mail: serenity@skku.edu

H. Jeong

e-mail: dally12kr@yahoo.co.kr

123

J Bus Ethics (2013) 116:553–566

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1480-6

stakeholders in situations involving conflicts of interest but

also between their organization’s interests and their per-

sonal interests.

With the recognition of the crucial role played by

communication with stakeholders in business settings,

society has demanded high ethical standards from the

public relations (PR) sector (Snyder et al. 2006). As pro-

fessionals, PR practitioners should spare no effort to build

and maintain mutually beneficial relationships between

firms and stakeholders (Dozier and Lauzen 2000; L’Etang

and Pieczka 2006). Although such efforts entail diverse

difficulties and methods, they must reflect acceptable eth-

ical standards in every aspect of PR for desired outcomes

(Elwood 1995; Grunig 1992, 2000). PR practitioners

should value social justice above all else and rigidly adhere

to their covenant with the public (Baker 2002).

PR practitioners are referred to as boundary spanners

because they play a fiduciary role in representing the

interests of their organizations and the public interest

simultaneously. Therefore, the business environments in

which PR practitioners play their roles are too complicated

to be explained by traditional ethical frameworks in post-

Freudian studies (e.g., Kets de Vries 1980, 1989; Zaleznik

and Kets de Vries 1974), neo-Piagetian studies (e.g.,

Fritzche and Becker 1984; Snell 1990; Weber 1995), or

social psychology studies (Nicholson 1994; Schlenker and

Forsyth 1977). These studies do not take into consideration

various ethical dilemmas associated with conflicts of

interest between organizations and their stakeholders,

between individuals and organizations, or between orga-

nizations and their clients (Nicholson 1994).

A number of studies have suggested that ethics and

associated dilemmas have considerable influence on the PR

sector (e.g., Bivins 1987; Grunig 1996; Kim 2003a; Kim

and Yoon 2004; Pearson 1989; Pratt 1991). Pratt and

Rentner (1989) indicated that ethical behavior has positive

effects on the PR sector. However, because the role of PR

is to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship between

organizations and the public, it is difficult to determine

which side PR practitioners should take as they attempt to

strike a balance between the interests of their organizations

and the public interest (Es and Meijlink 2000; Grunig

1996). Thus, the term ‘‘ethical PR’’ may be an oxymoron

(Seib and Fitzpatrick 1995). In fact, the lack of ethical

principles and regulations, which have induced ethical

violations, have led to the failure of the academic com-

munity to acknowledge PR as a profession such as law,

medicine, or accounting (Kim 2003b; Wright 1989; Wylie

1994). PR practitioners occasionally focus only on the

organization’s interests, and such practitioners are likely to

lose the public’s trust and thus their reputation. This has led

the derogatory stereotype of PR practitioners as spin doc-

tors (Hutton 1999; Wright 1989). Nevertheless, it is clear

that PR practitioners experience ethical dilemmas as they

attempt to establish and maintain mutually beneficial

relationships between their organizations and the public

(McElreath 1996). Given the important role of ethics in PR

activity, this study examines the professional ethics of PR

practitioners.

Despite pressures induced by globalization, Korean

culture is deeply rooted in Confucianism. According to

Wang et al. (2005), hierarchies, harmony, and group-ori-

ented relationships are key virtues that nurture individuals’

inner character and ethical maturation. Korean society is

different from Western society, the origin of PR. Although

there are differences in business cultures between the US

and Korea, the Korean PR industry developed its code of

ethics mainly by following the Public Relations Society of

America (PRSA) and the International Business Commu-

nicators Association (IABC) (Kim 2003a).

Thus, Korean PR practitioners experience ethical

dilemmas while attempting to reconcile the decisions of

their organizations with those of independent PR practi-

tioners (Kim 2003a). An organization’s code of ethics may

not be consistent with that of its employees. Thus, in

Korea, firms and PR agencies are likely to adhere to a

Western code of ethics, whereas individual practitioners

are likely to reflect traditional Korean values and value

interpersonal relationships. Ethical congruence—the extent

to which an organization’s values and those of its

employees are consistent (Elango et al. 2010; Suar and

Khuntia 2010)—represents a difficult goal for Korean PR

practitioners because they have to consider both individual

values (e.g., Confucianism) and a code of business ethics

reflecting Western values. In this regard, this study exam-

ines the effects of individual ethical values and organiza-

tional factors on the professional ethics of PR practitioners

in Korea.

This study contributes to the business ethics literature in

several ways. This study provides a better understanding of

business ethics by analyzing individual and organizational

factors simultaneously and demonstrates the effects of both

individual and organizational factors on the professional

ethics of PR practitioners. The results have important

implications for the development of the professional ethics

of PR practitioners and can facilitate effective corporate

communication and PR governance programs. A number of

studies have examined codes of ethics for specific indus-

tries such as accounting (Neill et al. 2005; Sweeney et al.

2010) and banking (Cowton and Thompson 2000) and for

specific professionals such as financial advisors (Martin

2009), sales professionals (Valentine and Barnett 2002),

and healthcare workers (Deshpande and Joseph 2009;

Deshpande et al. 2006). However, few have addressed the

code of ethics for PR practitioners. Furthermore, few

studies have investigated Korean PR practitioners’

554 J. Y. Han et al.

123

perception of ethics. In this regard, this study suggests

some practical guidelines on the professional ethics of

Korean PR practitioners by examining the effects of indi-

vidual and organizational factors on the professionalism of

PR practitioners in Korean society.

The rest of this article is organized as follows: ‘‘Liter-

ature review’’ section provides a brief review of previous

research on the professional ethics of PR practitioners,

individual ethical values, and organizational factors.

‘‘Methods’’ section describes the data and methodology.

‘‘Results’’ section presents the empirical results, and

‘‘Discussion’’ and ‘‘Limitations’’ section concludes.

Literature Review

This study is based on Treviño’s (1986) and Treviño et al.’s

(2006) person–situation interactionist model. Ethical

behavior arises in social contexts and is a product of var-

ious situational variables (Brommer et al. 1987; Ferrell and

Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986; Jones 1991; Rest

1986). According to Treviño’s (1986) individual–situation

interactionist model, organizational factors as well as per-

sonal factors have considerable influence on the ethical

decision-making process. A decision on an ethical issue

facing an organization is a product of the interaction

between individual and organizational constructs (Elango

et al. 2010). That is, personal responses to ethical dilemmas

within organizations are said to be conditioned by the

interaction between individual and organizational variables

(Treviño 1986). For example, Jones (1991) and Rest (1986)

emphasized the importance of moral issues and organiza-

tional pressure on moral intensity. Ferrell and Grisham

(1985) suggested that not only individual factors such as

knowledge, intentions, and attitudes but also organizational

factors such as occupations, reward, and punishment can

influence individuals’ decision-making processes. A num-

ber of studies of decision-making processes involving

ethical issues facing organizations have taken organiza-

tional factors as well as individual characteristics into

consideration to examine the decision-making process

concerning ethical issues (for a review, see O’Fallon and

Butterfield 2005; Beu et al. 2003; Elango et al. 2010; Ford

and Richardson 1994; Forte 2004; Jones and Kavanagh

1996; Sweeney et al. 2010; Victor and Cullen 1988;

Wittmer 1994). Because both organizational- and individ-

ual-level variables can influence decisions on ethical

issues, the findings of studies focusing on one level to the

exclusion of the other need to be supplemented by those of

studies considering both types of variables (Elango et al.

2010). In this regard, this study examines the effects of

both individual and organizational factors on the profes-

sional ethics of PR practitioners.

Therefore, this study analyzes the effects of individual

and organizational factors on the professional ethics of PR

practitioners by considering the following two dimensions:

the individual dimension and the organizational dimension.

The study considers individual ethical values as an indi-

vidual factor. Among the individual characteristics known

to be important determinants of ethical behavior, individual

ethical values have been the most frequently examined

characteristics (e.g., Axinn et al. 2004; Barnett et al. 1998;

Beu et al. 2003; Davis et al. 2001; Hegarty and Sims 1978;

Jones and Kavanagh 1996; Lee and Sirgy 1999; McCuddy

and Peery 1996; Redfern and Crawford 2004; Reiss and

Mitra 1998; Trevino and Youngblood 1990; Winter et al.

2004).

In this study, the organizational dimension includes an

organization’s reward and punishment for ethical/unethical

behavior, the behavior of peers, and the ethical integrity of

the chief executive officer, which are well known to

influence professional ethics (e.g., Treviño 1986; Wittmer

1994).

The dependent variable, the professional ethics of PR

practitioners, refers to the standard against which PR

practitioners measure what is right or fair not only for

themselves and their organizations but also for the public.

This study classifies the professional ethics of PR practi-

tioners into the following three dimensions: professional

ethics for the public, the client, and the PR industry.

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners

Ethics represent a system of values that individuals depend

on to judge whether something is right/wrong, legitimate/

illegitimate, and righteous/unrighteous (McCraw et al.

2009; Wilcox et al. 1997). Based on this definition, this

study defines the professional ethics of PR practitioners as

a system of values that PR practitioners rely on to judge

what is right or wrong in their PR activity. Previous studies

of ethics in PR have examined issues such as the individual

ethics of PR practitioners, their awareness of the code of

ethics, and variables influencing the ethical behavior of

practitioners (Aronoff 1975; Park et al. 2000a, b; Pratt

1991; Sharmir et al. 1990; Wright 1985). However, few

have examined the professional ethics of PR practitioners,

particularly those in Asian countries such as Korea.

A code of ethics is a formalized public statement of

corporate principles and rules of conduct that govern

interorganizational and intraorganizational practices and

relations and is defined as a written, distinct, and formal

document consisting of moral standards for guiding

employee or corporate behavior (Schwarz 2002). It is also a

guide to both present and future behavior and specifies

organizations’ ethical values and employees’ responsibili-

ties to various stakeholders (Stohl et al. 2009).

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 555

123

A code of ethics can become a critical component of an

organization’s ethical infrastructure and managers can

employ it both to educate employees concerning ethical

issues and to inform employees of the management’s

expectations concerning employee conduct (McKinney

et al. 2010).

Several studies have modified the Public Relations

Society of America (PRSA) code of ethics to analyze the

ethical behavior of PR practitioners (Kim 2003a; Kim and

Yoon 2004; Wilcox et al. 2000). Kim and Yoon (2004) and

Wilcox et al. (2000) reconstructed a scale of ethics by

considering some basic factors such as integrity, compli-

ance, credibility, and trustworthiness. Ki and Kim (2010)

analyzed PR agencies’ ethics statements by following

Fisher’s (2005) classification of ethics statements, includ-

ing work environments, goals, behavior, professionalism,

fulfillment, and respect. However, this type of classification

is based on some theme-oriented content analysis, which

cannot provide a framework for examining a code of pro-

fessional ethics with respect to the public. Therefore, this

study’s public-oriented classification of the code of PR

ethics allows for an examination of the effects of individual

and organizational factors on professional ethics for dif-

ferent sectors of the public.

The PRSA, the International Association of Business

Communicators (IABC), and the International Public

Relations Association (IPRA) provide codes of ethics that

include ethical standards for the general public, clients, and

the PR industry. Specifically, for the general public, PR

practitioners are recommended to protect and advance the

free flow of accurate and truthful information, be honest

and accurate in all communication activities, and reveal

sponsors for represented causes and interests. For clients,

PR practitioners are recommended to protect confidential

and private information, act in the best interest of clients or

employers, avoid conflicts of interest, disclose their finan-

cial interests in a client’s organization, and safeguard the

privacy rights of clients and employees. For the PR

industry, PR practitioners are recommended to promote

healthy and fair competition among professionals, foster

the public’s trust in the profession, avoid conflicts between

personal and professional interests, and accurately define

what PR can accomplish.

Based on the codes of ethics from the PR associations

mentioned above, this study reclassifies professional ethics

in terms of the public interest, the client interest, and PR

industry development. The public interest dimension refers

to some ethical standards that prevent PR practitioners

from engaging in activities that are inconsistent with social

justice, trustworthiness, integrity, and openness in com-

munication. The client interest dimension refers to those

ethical standards that allow PR practitioners protect their

clients’ interest in a proper way. The PR industry

development dimension refers to those ethical standards

that encourage PR practitioners to advance the PR industry.

PR practitioners can be classified into two groups: in-

house practitioners and practitioners employed by PR

agencies (Sriramesh et al. 1999). In-house practitioners

refer to employees working in PR departments of private

firms or governments. Those PR practitioners employed by

PR agencies refer to employees of professional PR firms

such as Edelman, APCO Worldwide, and Ruder Finn,

among many others.

In-house practitioners and agency practitioners face

different work settings in terms of work practices and

organizational cultures, which may lead to ethical dilem-

mas. In terms of work practices in Korea, in-house prac-

titioners work in extremely competitive environments. As a

member of a performance-oriented large firm, in-house

practitioners are subject to annual performance evaluations.

In addition, they are most likely to be laid off during an

economic recession. As a result, they focus on demon-

strating their contributions to organizational growth by

emphasizing visible outputs such as the number of PR

events, media impressions, and advertising value equiva-

lency. They tend to emphasize junket journalism, over-

packing, and favorite publicity by providing media baits for

advertising, which is unethical because such efforts con-

taminate communication channels. In addition, they con-

sider themselves to be temporary PR professionals because

they can be reassigned to other departments by the human

resource department.

Unlike in-house practitioners, agency practitioners can

maintain their roles and positions as long as they want, and

thus, they can be considered professional communication

consultants. Agency practitioners tend to focus on building

relationships with their clients and the media and empha-

size professional standards and ethical values as commu-

nication professionals. In terms of their orientation toward

PR as a profession, agency practitioners tend to adhere to

higher professional ethical standards than their in-house

counterparts.

In terms of organizational cultures, a top-down organi-

zational culture and the CEO’s low expectations of PR tend

to confine in-house practitioners’ role to communication

technicians. If top management considers PR as a technical

function, not as a management or consulting function, then

in-house practitioners are less likely to take responsibility as

communication professionals than their agency counterparts.

PR practitioners’ affiliation (i.e., to a firm or an agency)

can influence not only their everyday business activity but

also their professional ethical values. Agency practitioners

need to take various interests and concerns into consider-

ation when making decisions or implementing communi-

cation strategies because they deal with multiple clients.

By contrast, in-house practitioners’ focus is on their

556 J. Y. Han et al.

123

organization’s interests and concerns, and thus, they may

experience fewer ethical conflicts and dilemmas than

agency practitioners (Park et al. 2000). Furthermore, in-

house practitioners are more likely to be familiar with their

organization’s culture, commitment, and regulations than

agency practitioners.

Given the above discussion, there may be differences in

professional ethics between in-house practitioners and

agency practitioners. In this regard, we propose the fol-

lowing research question:

RQ1 What are the differences in professional ethics

between in-house practitioners and agency practitioners?

Individual Ethical Values

Individual ethical values refer to the extent to which an

individual judges a certain issue or action to be morally

important (Barnett and Vaicys 2000). Several studies have

suggested the importance of personal ethical values in

ethical practices and work behavior (Elango et al. 2010;

Suar and Khuntia 2010). Individual ethical values, which

have been the subject of much debate, can be classified into

the following two perspectives: relativism and absolutism

(Barnett et al. 1994, 1998; Douglas et al. 2001; Forsyth

1980, 1992; Hamilton 1976; Hogan 1973; Kohlberg 1976;

Redfern and Crawford 2004; Schlenker and Forsyth 1977).

Relativism refers to the extent to which an individual

denies the existence of universal and absolute ethical

principles. Individuals subscribing to relativism tend to

understand and apply their ethical standards based on their

society, culture, and system. That is, ethical judgments on

the correctness of an individual’s behavior can be made

based on the individual’s society and culture (Lee and

Sirgy 1999). In some sense, individuals relying on rela-

tivism may justify their inappropriate behavior by blaming

situational factors. Therefore, relativism may hinder moral

judgments and have negative effects on corporate social

responsibility (Winter et al. 2004).

On the other hand, an absolutist prefers ideal standards

to practical standards when making moral judgments,

which are consistently applied to any situation (Lee and

Sirgy 1999). Individuals subscribing to absolutism are

more likely to emphasize others’ welfare than their own

interests and benefits (Davis et al. 2001). Absolutism is

likely to increase moral tension and emphasizes the

importance of maintaining universal ethical standards in

any situation (Winter et al. 2004).

Reviewing various definitions of ethical values, Sparks

and Pan (2010) suggested that ethical value judgments may

fall along a continuum of intensity (i.e., there is a range of

ethicality) and defined ethical values as an individual’s

personal evaluation of the degree to which some behavior

or course of action is ethical or unethical. They suggested

that this definition permits ethical values to vary according

to this degree. The degree of an individual’s relativism or

absolutism can influence his or her behavior and ethical

judgments (Redfern and Crawford 2004; Schlenker and

Forsyth 1977). Facing a controversy, individuals showing

relativism are more likely to stop resisting and accept the

situation than those showing absolutism (Schlenker and

Forsyth 1977). However, no study has examined the effects

of individual ethical values on PR practitioners’ ethical

behavior in the workplace. In this regard, we propose the

following research question:

RQ2 What is the relationship between individual ethical

values and PR practitioners’ professional ethics?

Organizational Factors

In this study, reward and punishment for ethical/unethical

behavior, the ethical behavior of peers, and the ethical

integrity of the chief ethics officer are considered as

organizational factors.

Reward and punishment for ethical/unethical behavior

are well known to influence employees’ ethical judgments in

decision making (Wittmer 1994). In addition, the level of

reward/punishment is known to influence their ethical

behavior (Gurley et al. 2007; Hegarty and Sim 1978; Treviño

and Ball 1992). Through appropriate and specific punish-

ments and rewards, employees become accustomed to the

organization’s regulations. If unethical behavior is not

punished, then it may spread throughout the organization,

becoming more salient when competition is severe (Hegarty

and Sims 1978; Treviño 1986). Similarly, reward for ethical

behavior may foster and reinforce ethical judgments.

Individuals’ perception of their peers’ ethical behavior

may influence their decisions on moral issues (Zey-Ferrell

et al. 1979). A number of studies have suggested that peers

have considerable influence on individuals’ decisions on

ethical issues (Loe et al. 2000; O’Fallon and Butterfield

2005). Furthermore, the behavior of peers has considerable

influence on the ethical behavior of professionals (Brugman

and Weisfelt 2000; Deshpande and Joseph 2009; Deshpande

et al. 2006; Elango et al. 2010; Fritzsche 2005; Jones and

Kavanagh 1996; Joseph et al. 2009; Thorne and Hartwick

2001; Zey-Ferrell and Ferrell 1982; Zey-Ferrell et al. 1979).

According to social learning theory (Bandura 1977), the

existence of a positive role model can motivate individuals

to exhibit ethical behavior (Zey-Ferrell and Ferrell 1982). In

this regard, PR practitioners are likely to be influenced by the

ethical/unethical behavior of their peers.

The abbreviation ‘‘CEO’’ has taken on a new meaning

with the creation of the title ‘‘chief ethics officer’’ (Mess-

ikomer and Cirka 2010). The integrity and morality of the

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 557

123

CEO impacts employees’ actions and moral judgments

(Petrick and Quinn 2000). Punishment and reward for

employees’ behavior are typically determined by the CEO.

Therefore, employees’ perception of their CEO’s moral

integrity and decision making has both direct and indirect

effects on their activities. According to the Business Ethics

Survey, when top management shows ethical behavior,

employees are 50 % less likely to act unethically (Ethics

Resource Center 2005). Douglas et al. (2001) stressed the

importance of the tone set by the organization’s top man-

agement, which they described as an ethical environment

created through the top management’s practices and

espoused values. Thus, an organization’s top management

may reduce ethical problems that employees perceive by

discouraging unethical behavior.

Based on these notions, we propose the following four

hypotheses:

H1 Punishing unethical behavior is positively related to

the professional ethics of PR practitioners.

H2 Rewarding ethical behavior is positively related to

the professional ethics of PR practitioners.

H3 A PR practitioner’s perception of peers’ ethical

behavior is positively related to his or her professional

ethics.

H4 A PR practitioner’s perception of the ethical integrity

of the CEO is positively related to his or her professional

ethics.

Methods

Data Collection and Participants

The participants consisted of in-house and agency practi-

tioners. For in-house practitioners, who typically work in

communication, marketing, and PR departments, we

identified the top 100 firms in terms of their market capi-

talization as of 2009 from the website of Financial

Supervisory Service in Korea (Dart.fss.or.kr). For agency

practitioners, we considered all 37 members of the Korean

PR Consultancy Association as of 2009 (KPRCA:

http://www.kprca.or.kr). A researcher visited all these 100

firms and 37 PR agencies and asked their practitioners to

participate in the survey. Only those who signed the con-

sent decree completed the survey. We conducted the face-

to-face survey from April 1, 2010 to November 30, 2010,

during which there was no major event that could influence

the external validity of this study. A total of 300 practi-

tioners completed the survey. We excluded incomplete

responses, resulting in a total of 229 practitioners (108 in-

house practitioners and 121 agency practitioners) for the

analysis. There were 174 (76 %) female practitioners and

55 (24 %) male practitioners, which reflected the ratio for

the Korean PR industry. The participants’ ages ranged from

22 to 56 (average = 28), and their PR experience ranged

from 1 to 23 years (average = 2.8).

Measures

Independent Variables

Several studies (Forsyth 1980; Kidwell et al. 1987; Lee and

Yoshihara 1997; Peterson 2002; Reiss and Mitra 1998) have

developed a set of scales (e.g., Forsyth’s Ethical Perception

Questionnaire) for measuring the degree of absolutism and

relativism exhibited by individuals, but they cannot measure

the code of professional ethics against which individuals can

judge ethical behavior. Therefore, we modified Kidwell

et al.’s 1987 and Peterson’s (2002) measures to examine the

influence of individual standards of ethical values on pro-

fessional ethics. We extracted the measures for individual

standards of ethics from previous studies (Kidwell et al.

1987; Peterson 2002; Reiss and Mitra 1998).

We obtained the items for reward and punishment for

unethical/ethical behavior from Hegarty and Sims (1978).

One’s perception of peers’ ethical behavior can influence

one’s ethical behavior (Zey-Ferrell et al. 1979). We

obtained the three items for the perception of peers’

behavior from Treviño (1986) and Zey-Ferrell et al. (1979).

The perception of the ethical integrity of the CEO refers

to the perception of the CEO’s characteristics and behavior

indicating his or her moral judgments (Petrick and Quinn

2000). We obtained a total of 10 items from Craig and

Gustafson (1998).

We measured all items for the independent variables

using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘strongly

disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5).

Dependent Variable

We classified the dependent variable, the professional

ethics of PR practitioners, into three dimensions (profes-

sional ethics for the public, the client, and the PR industry)

and measured it using items drawn from Wilcox et al.

(1989, 2000). Furthermore, we included an item reflecting

commission, which is an important factor in the Korean PR

industry, in the ‘‘client’’ dimension. We measured a total of

19 items using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from

‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5).

Data Analysis and the Factor Analysis

We conducted an exploratory factor analysis to verify the

reliability and validity of the items, and Cronbach’s alpha

558 J. Y. Han et al.

123

was determined using SPSS 16.0. ‘‘Appendices 1–6’’ pro-

vide the results of the factor analysis. We conducted a t test

to examine the differences between in-house practitioners

and agency practitioners and a multigroup path analysis

employing AMOS19 program to investigate the influence

of the independent variables for individual and organiza-

tional dimensions on the professional ethics of PR

practitioners.

Based on the results of the exploratory factor analysis,

we classified individual ethical values into two factors:

relativism and idealism (see ‘‘Appendix 1’’). Cronbach’s

alpha for relativism was .79, and that for idealism was .88.

The items for idealism included, among others, ‘‘For my

own interests, I should not harm others’’ and ‘‘One

shouldn’t harm others no matter how small it may be.’’ The

items for relativism included, among others, ‘‘Everybody

has different moral standards’’ and ‘‘Something that is

moral for one may be immoral for another.’’ ‘‘Appendix 1’’

lists the items for idealism and relativism.

Three items loaded on the reward factor, and Cron-

bach’s alpha was .86. For example, ‘‘My ethical behavior is

reflected in my annual performance evaluation’’ and ‘‘Our

company gives incentives for ethical behavior’’ loaded on

the reward factor. ‘‘Appendix 2’’ shows all the items for the

reward factor. Two items for punishment for unethical

behavior loaded on one factor, and Cronbach’s alpha was

.76 (see ‘‘Appendix 3’’). These items were ‘‘If I behave

unethically, my annual incentives will be reduced’’ and ‘‘If

I behave unethically, my annual performance assessment

will be negatively affected.’’

Three items for the ethical behavior of peers loaded on

one factor, and Cronbach’s alpha was .73. ‘‘Appendix 4’’

lists these items, including ‘‘My colleagues try to abide by

the ethical principles set by the PR industry.’’ Nine items

for the ethical integrity of the CEO loaded on one factor,

and Cronbach’s alpha was .91. ‘‘Appendix 5’’ lists these

items, including ‘‘My CEO occasionally attempts to

intentionally distort what I said’’ and ‘‘My CEO may take

advantage of my idea.’’

We extracted three factors (the public interest/the client

interest/PR industry development) from the items for the

dependent variable. Cronbach’s alpha for the public inter-

est was .82, that for the client interest was .71, and that for

PR industry development was .77 (see ‘‘Appendix 6’’).

To examine the research questions and hypotheses, we

tested a recursive model describing an integrated set of

causal relationships. The paths in the model were indi-

vidual and organizational factors as positive predictors of

each dimension of professional ethics. We tested the pro-

posed model using the SEM technique through a multi-

group path analysis. We obtained the maximum likelihood

(ML) estimates of the model’s parameters by using Amos

19. There was no multicollinearity or normality problem.

We replaced missing data with means. We allowed all

paths from the six exogenous variables (idealism, relativ-

ism, reward, punishment, peers’ ethical behavior, and the

CEO’s integrity) to the three endogenous variables (the

public interest, the client interest, and PR industry devel-

opment) to be free in the model.

Results

Research Question 1: Differences in Professional Ethics

Between In-House and Agency Practitioners

We conducted a t test to examine the differences in pro-

fessional ethics between in-house and agency practitioners.

Agency practitioners were significantly more likely than

in-house practitioners to show ethical behavior toward the

public interest and the client interest (see Table 1). How-

ever, there were no significant differences in terms of their

ethical behavior toward PR industry development.

Research Question 2: The Relationship Between PR

Practitioners’ Individual Ethical Values

and Professional Ethics

To examine the relationship between in-house and agency

practitioners’ individual ethical values and professional

ethics, we conducted a multigroup path analysis (see

Table 2). By imposing cross-group equality constraints, we

tested the significance of group differences for the set of

parameters. We then compared the v2 of the model with its

path coefficients constrained to equality with that of the

unconstrained model. Here, we expected the direct effects

to vary between the two groups if the fit of the constrained

model was poorer than that of the unconstrained model. In

terms of individual values and professional ethics, there

were significant differences between in-house and agency

practitioners.

The results indicate that in-house practitioners with

more idealistic values and less relativistic values were

more likely to show ethical behavior toward the public

Table 1 Differences in professional ethics between in-house and

agency practitioners: t test results

Professional ethics In-House

practitioners

Agency

practitioners

t p

Mean Std Mean Std

Public interest 2.879 .349 3.922 .576 -16.732 .001

Client interest 3.220 1.212 3.599 .755 -2.796 .006

PR industry

development

3.308 .609 3.310 .079 -.015 .988

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 559

123

interest and PR industry development. By contrast, in-

house practitioners with less idealistic and relativistic

values were more likely to show ethical behavior toward

the client interest.

On the other hand, agency practitioners with more ide-

alistic values were more likely to show ethical behavior

toward the public interest, whereas those with more

relativistic values were more likely to show ethical

behavior toward the client interest and less likely to show

ethical behavior toward PR industry development.

Hypotheses 1 and 2: Reward/Punishment

and the Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners

We examined the effects of reward and punishment on

professional ethics (see Table 2). For in-house practitio-

ners, punishment for unethical behavior had positive

effects on professional ethics for the public interest, the

client interest, and PR industry development, and reward

for ethical behavior had positive effects on professional

ethics for the public interest and PR industry development

but negative effects for the client interest.

For agency practitioners, reward and punishment had no

significant effect on professional ethics for the public

interest and the client interest but had positive effects on

ethical behavior toward PR industry development.

Hypothesis 3: Perception of the Ethical Behavior

of Peers and the Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners

We examined the effects of PR practitioners’ perception of

peers’ ethical behavior on their professional ethics for the

public interest, the client interest, and PR industry devel-

opment (see Table 2). For both in-house and agency

practitioners, the perception of peers’ ethical behavior had

positive effects on ethical behavior toward the public

interest and client interest. However, the results were

mixed for PR industry development.

Hypothesis 4: perception of the Ethical Integrity

of the CEO and the Professional Ethics of PR

Practitioners

As shown in Table 2, in terms of the perception of the

ethical integrity of the CEO, in-house practitioners were

more likely to show ethical behavior toward the client

interest when they perceived the moral integrity of the

CEO to be high. On the other hand, agency practitioners

were more likely to show ethical behavior toward the

public interest when they perceived their CEO to be more

ethical. However, their perception of the moral integrity of

the CEO had no significant effect on their professional

ethics for PR industry development.

Discussion

This study investigates the effects of individual ethical

values and organizational factors on the professional ethics

of PR practitioners. Research Question 1 examined the

Table 2 Effects of individual and organizational factors on profes-

sional ethical values: a multigroup path analysis

Direct effects v2 v2r Regression weight

In-House

practitioners

PR agency

practitioners

Idealism ? public

interest

505.06 0.28 .25*** .21***

Idealism ? client

interest

502.44 2.90 -.06*** .17

Idealism ? PR

development

472.82 32.52 .37*** -.11

Relativism ? public

interest

500.10 5.24 -.10*** .04

Relativism ? client

interest

439.12 66.22 -.38*** .39***

Relativism ? PR

development

453.46 51.87 .24*** -.34***

Reward ? public

interest

502.21 3.13 .12*** .02

Reward ? client

interest

492.73 12.61 -.26*** .11

Reward ? PR

development

488.58 16.76 .13*** .45***

Punishment ? public

interest

487.96 17.38 .31*** .01

Punishment ? client

interest

468.98 36.36 .69*** -.07

Punishment ? PR

development

504.44 0.9 .24*** .35***

Peers’ ethical

behavior ? public

interest

501.53 3.81 .14*** .28***

Peers’ ethical

behavior ? client

interest

504.12 1.22 .24*** .38**

Peers’ ethical

behavior ? PR

development

504.74 0.60 -.11*** -.02

CEO’s

integrity ? public

interest

501.01 4.32 .01 .17*

CEO’s

integrity ? client

interest

505.29 0.05 .15*** .18

CEO’s

integrity ? PR

development

502.90 2.44 .00 .17

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001

560 J. Y. Han et al.

123

differences in professional ethics between in-house prac-

titioners and agency practitioners. The result indicated that

agency practitioners were significantly more likely than in-

house practitioners to show ethical behavior toward the

public interest and the client’s interest. Research Question

2 investigated the differences between in-house and agency

practitioners in terms of individual values and professional

ethics. The result indicated that in-house and agency

practitioners with more idealistic values were more likely

to show ethical behavior toward the public interest. Four

hypotheses were proposed such as that punishing unethical

behavior, rewarding ethical behavior, practitioners’ per-

ception of peers’ ethical behavior, and practitioners’ per-

ception of ethical integrity of the CEO are positively

related to his/her professional ethics. For in-house practi-

tioners, punishment for unethical behavior and reward for

ethical behavior had positive effects on professional ethics,

whereas it did not work the same way for agency practi-

tioners. For both in-house and agency practitioners, the

perception of peers’ ethical behavior had positive effects

on ethical behavior toward the public interest and client’s

interest. In addition, the perception of the ethical integrity

of the CEO was found to affect in-house practitioners’

ethical behavior toward the client interest as well as agency

practitioners’ ethical behavior toward the public interest.

Based upon the results, individual factors as well as

organizational factors were important determinants of

professional ethics of PR practitioners. Agency practitio-

ners were more likely than in-house practitioners to adhere

to the code of professional ethics for the public interest and

the client’s interest. That is, agency practitioners were

more likely to be committed to their profession than to

their organization. On the other hand, in-house practitio-

ners were more likely to be committed to their organization

than to their profession. That is, in-house practitioners

showed a weak professional commitment, indicating that

they perceived themselves as employees, not as PR pro-

fessionals. This result is in line with other studies, where

agency practitioners with membership in professional

associations perceived themselves to serve the public

interest more than in-house practitioners did (e.g., Bivins

1993; McKee et al. 1975; Pratt 1992).

What is noteworthy is that organizational factors such as

reward, punishment, and peers’ ethical behavior had con-

siderable influence on the professional ethics of in-house

practitioners. By contrast, organizational factors were less

likely to influence professional ethics for agency practi-

tioners than for in-house practitioners. Organizational

factors such as reward, punishment, and the CEO’s ethical

integrity had no significant effect on the professional ethics

of agency practitioners. This result seems to reflect Con-

fucianism immersed in in-house practitioners’ perception,

which puts more emphasis on organizational

acknowledgement, harmony among employees, individual

sacrifice for organization rather than the profession itself

(Ang and Leong 2000; Kincade 1987).

These results can be interpreted in two ways. First, in-

house practitioners are more likely to be committed to their

organization than agency practitioners, which allows

organizational factors to influence in-house practitioners

more than agency practitioners but leads to lower profes-

sional ethical standards for in-house practitioners than for

agency practitioners. This indicates a need for fostering in-

house practitioners’ professional motivation and commit-

ment to encourage them to abide by the ethical standards

set by the PR industry. For this, professional ethics work-

shops and training seminars for in-house practitioners may

be beneficial.

Second, even with higher professional ethical standards,

agency practitioners are less likely to be committed to their

employers than to their clients or profession, which can

explain the high turnover rate in the PR industry. A high

turnover rate can limit the development of the PR industry

by inhibiting an efficient organizational rapport between

practitioners and by restricting consistent and high-quality

services for clients. Agency practitioners’ lack of com-

mitment to their organizations can facilitate their transfer

to their clients’ or competitors’ firms, which sometimes can

cause legal or ethical disputes between PR agencies and

clients because such a transfer is against the generally

accepted business rules. To reduce the turnover rate in the

PR industry, PR agencies should restructure their organi-

zational systems to facilitate their employees’ professional

achievement and pride as agency practitioners.

Organizational factors as well as individual ethical

values were more likely to influence professional ethics for

in-house practitioners than for agency practitioners. How-

ever, as discussed earlier, agency practitioners were more

likely to abide by ethical standards than in-house practi-

tioners. That is, the ethical behavior of in-house practitio-

ners was related to their ethical values, whereas that of

agency practitioners was not. In addition, agency practi-

tioners were more likely to abide by the ethical standards

set by the PR industry and be committed to their profession

than in-house practitioners. Thus, to foster in-house prac-

titioners’ professional ethics and commitment, professional

associations in the PR industry should make efforts to

provide in-house practitioners with more information on

the PR industry and more opportunities for interacting and

maintaining communication with their colleagues in the

industry.

As indicated by the literature review, the differences in

work practices and organizational cultures between in-

house and agency practitioners may induce organizational

and individual factors that have differential effects on their

professional ethics. To survive in competitive and profit-

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 561

123

driven work environments, in-house practitioners should

emphasize their organizations’ cultures and work practices

more than professional standards, which would make

organizational factors more likely to influence the ethical

behavior of in-house practitioners than that of agency

practitioners.

In addition, PR practitioners in Korea with idealistic

views on ethics tend to contribute to the public interest.

Meanwhile, agency practitioners with relativistic views on

ethics are more likely to focus on the client’s interest. The

result is consistent with Kim’s (2003a) study, where high

idealists believed that keeping the highest ethical stan-

dards provided added values to the profession itself rather

than to the clients’ interest in the long term, whereas for

American practitioners, relativism played a key role in

ethical judgment. Kim (2003a) attributed this ideological

difference between Korean and American practitioners to

the Confucian atmosphere where practitioners are not sure

about the benefits of ethical practices in a short term, and

then suggested that more positive confirmation on

obtaining desirable outcomes in exchange of ethical

behaviors would bring higher ethical standards among

practitioners.

These results suggest some new explanatory variables

for the professional ethics of PR practitioners. For exam-

ple, to better examine PR practitioners’ ethical dilemmas,

future research should consider the value congruence (e.g.,

Suar and Khuntia 2010) between individual and organiza-

tional values. According to Suar and Khuntia (2010), value

congruence encourages employees to engage in activities

that are congruent with the organization’s needs. Because

value congruence is likely to develop over the course of the

employment, in-house practitioners are likely to be

socialized into their organizations through various organi-

zational activities such as mentoring, interactions with

superiors, formal training, and participation in organiza-

tion-sponsored social events, among others. The results for

the professional ethics of agency practitioners were mixed,

although agency practitioners were more likely to abide by

ethical standards than in-house practitioners. This suggests

that agency practitioners may have fewer opportunities for

internalizing organizational values than in-house

practitioners.

Limitations

This study has some limitations. The sample did not reflect

a full range of PR practitioners in Korea; it excluded

those in organizations such as governments, non-profit

organizations, professional associations, and hospitals,

among others. In addition, because the sample included

only Korean PR practitioners, the generalizability of the

results to other countries may be limited. Furthermore, we

did not consider a comprehensive range of individual and

organizational factors, i.e., we selected and examined only

several variables. Therefore, there is a need for investi-

gating other unexplained variables for the professional

ethics of PR practitioners.

Future research should consider PR practitioners’ ethical

dilemmas, which are difficult to examine through a survey

(Sparks and Pan 2010). In this regard, cognitive processes

such as the cognitive dissonance of ethical judgments

should be investigated. In addition to an output-oriented

study analyzing the key factors influencing the relationship

between the professional ethics of PR practitioners and the

ability of codes of ethics to influence their conduct, for

practical codes of ethics for the PR industry, transforma-

tion-oriented studies should focus on the adoption process

for codes of ethics (Messikomer and Cirka 2010; Rodri-

guez-Dominguez et al. 2009).

Appendix 1: Factor Analysis of Individual Ethical

Values: Idealism and Relativism

Items Factor 1

(idealism)

Factor 2

(relativism)

I shouldn’t harm others psychologically .538 -.005

For my own interest, I should not harm

others

.743 .074

One shouldn’t harm others no matter

how small it may be

.893 .166

Any behavior harming others’ dignity

and peace shouldn’t be allowed

.894 .196

I shouldn’t harm others physically .852 .218

I shouldn’t pursue my own interest at the

expense of others’ welfare

.767 -.449

Everybody has different moral standards .118 .831

Something that is moral for one may be

immoral for another

.505 .663

Each situation or society requires

different ethical standards

.404 .554

Eigen value 4.742 2.182

Variance explained (%) 43.107 19.838

Cumulative explanation (%) 43.107 62.945

Mean 3.808 3.387

Standard deviation .7730 .8866

Cronbach’s alpha .882 .788

562 J. Y. Han et al.

123

Appendix 2: Factor Analysis of Reward for Ethical

Behavior

Items Factor 1

My ethical behavior is reflected in my annual

performance evaluation

.825

Ethical behavior is recognized and rewarded

by our company

.902

Our company gives incentives for ethical

behavior

.948

Eigen value 2.394

Variance explained (%) 79.809

Mean 2.710

Standard deviation .9324

Cronbach’s alpha .861

Appendix 3: Factor Analysis of Punishment for Uneth-

ical Behavior

Items Factor 1

If I behave unethically, my annual incentives

will be reduced

.892

If I behave unethically, my annual performance

assessment will be negatively affected

.814

Eigen value 1.831

Variance explained (%) 61.048

Mean 2.675

Standard deviation .7179

Cronbach’s alpha .757

Appendix 4: Factor Analysis of Peers’ Ethical Behavior

Items Factor 1

I think my colleagues generally behave ethically .877

My colleagues work as ethically as possible .865

My colleagues try to abide by the ethical principles set

by the PR industry

.671

Eigen value 1.968

Variance explained (%) 68.600

Mean 3.518

Standard deviation 1.0137

Cronbach’s alpha .727

Appendix 5: Factor Analysis of the Ethical Integrity

of the CEO

Items Factor 1

My CEO tends to intentionally exaggerate my mistakes

and convey unfavorable information on me to my

supervisor

.720

My CEO may dismiss an employee just because he/she

doesn’t like the employee

.729

My CEO intentionally undermines employees’ rapport

with one another

.780

My CEO occasionally attempts to intentionally distort

what I said

.773

My CEO may take advantage of my idea .768

My CEO hesitates to have employees trained and

educated

.765

My CEO tends to attribute his/her mistakes to me .765

My CEO intentionally turns down my requests .865

My CEO tends to dwell on my mistakes instead of

being forgiving

.784

Eigen value 5.542

Variance explained (%) 55.421

Mean 4.044

Standard deviation .6743

Cronbach’s alpha .908

Appendix 6: Factor Analysis of the Professional Ethics

of PR Practitioners

Items Factor 1

Public

interest

Factor 2

PR industry

development

Factor 3

Client

interest

I try my best not to

undermine social justice

.842 .136 -.244

I don’t provide false

information and try my best

to correct any false

information

.825 -.218 -.416

I don’t guarantee publicity or

message placements

beyond my ability

.806 .050 -.315

I don’t corrupt journalists

and media channels by

providing money or gifts

.585 .350 .100

For the development of the

PR industry, I share my

experience and knowledge

with other PR practitioners

-.276 .867 -.018

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 563

123

References

Andreoli, N., & Lefkowitz, J. (2009). Individual and organizational

antecedents of misconduct in organizations. Journal of Business

Ethics, 85, 309–332.

Ang, S. H., & Leong, S. M. (2000). Out of the mouths of babes:

Business ethics and youths in Asia. Journal of Business Ethics,

28, 129–144.

Arlow, P., & Ulrich, T. A. (1980). Business ethics social responsi-

bility and business students: An empirical comparison of Clark’s

study. Akron Business and Economic Review, 3, 17–23.

Aronoff, C. (1975). Credibility of public relations for journalists.

Public Relations Review, 1, 45–56.

Axinn, C. N., Blair, M. E., Heorhiadi, A., & Thach, S. V. (2004).

Comparing ethical ideologies across cultures. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics, 54, 103–119.

Baker, S. (2002). The theoretical ground for public relations practice

and ethics: A Koehnian analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 35,

191–205.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Barnett, T., Bass, K., & Brown, G. (1994). Ethical ideology and

ethical judgment regarding ethical issues in business. Journal of

Business Ethics, 13, 469–480.

Barnett, T., Bass, K., Brown, G., & Hebert, F. J. (1998). Ethical

ideology and the ethical judgments of marketing professionals.

Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 715–723.

Barnett, T., & Vaicys, C. (2000). The moderating effect of

individuals’ perceptions of ethical work climate on ethical

judgments and behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Ethics,

27, 351–362.

Beschorner, T. (2006). Ethical theory and business practices: The case

of discourse ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 127–139.

Beu, D. S., Buckley, R., & Harvey, M. G. (2003). Ethical decision-

making: A multidimensional construct. Business ethics. A

European Review, 12(1), 88–107.

Bivins, T. H. (1987). Applying ethical theory to public relations.

Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 195–200.

Bivins, T. H. (1993). Public relations professionalism, and the public

interest. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 117–126.

Brommer, M., Gratto, C., Gravender, J., & Tuttle, M. (1987). A

behavioral model of ethical and unethical decision making.

Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 265–280.

Brugman, D., & Weisfelt, M. (2000). Moral competence and

professional reasoning of Dutch accountants. Research on

Accounting Ethics, 7, 103–140.

Cowton, C. J., & Thompson, P. (2000). Do codes make a difference?

The case of bank lending and the environment. Journal of

Business Ethics, 24(2), 165–178.

Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived Leader Integrity

Scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of

leader integrity. Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 127–145.

Davis, M. A., Anderson, M. G., & Curtis, M. B. (2001). Measuring

ethical ideology in business ethics: A critical analysis of the

ethics position questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 32,

35–53.

Deshpande, S. P., & Joseph, J. (2009). Impact of emotional

intelligence ethical climate, and behavior of peers on ethical

behavior of nurses. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 403–410.

Deshpande, S. P., Joseph, J., & Prasad, R. (2006). Factors impacting

ethical behavior in hospitals. Journal of Business Ethics, 69,

207–216.

Douglas, P. C., Davidson, R. A., & Schwartz, B. N. (2001). The effect

of organizational culture and ethical orientation on accountants’

ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 101–121.

Dozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M. M. (2000). Liberating the intellectual

domain from the practice: Public relations activism, and the role

of the scholar. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1),

3–22.

Elango, B., Paul, K., Kundu, S. K., & Paudel, S. K. (2010).

Organizational ethics individual ethics, and ethical intentions in

international decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 97,

543–561.

Elwood, W. (1995). Public relations inquiry as rhetorical criticism:

Case studies of corporate discourse and social influence.

Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Es, R. V., & Meijlink, T. L. (2000). The dialogical turn of public

relations ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 69–77.

Ethics Resource Center. (2005). National business ethics survey: How

employees view ethics in their organizations. Washington, DC:

Ethics Resource Center.

Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework

for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal

of Marketing, 49, 87–96.

Fisher, B. (2005). The ethical foundation of PR: An analysis of public

relations firms’ codes of ethics, Paper presented to the interna-

tional communication association annual conference, New York,

NY.

Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A

review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13,

205–221.

Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 175–184.

Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The

influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business

Ethics, 11, 461–470.

Forte, A. (2004). Business ethics: A study of the moral reasoning of

selected business managers and the influence of organizational

ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(2), 167–173.

Fritzche, D. J., & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to

ethical philosophy—an empirical investigation. Academy of

Management Journal, 27(1), 166–175.

Fritzsche, D. J. (2005). Business ethics: A global and managerial

perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communi-

cation management: Contributions to effective organizations.

Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

For fostering professionalism in the

PR industry, I communicate and

build good relationships with other

PR practitioners

.156 .896 -.038

I always disclose the name of my

agency/clients

.599 .237 .675

When moving to a competitor, I don’t

make efforts to bring my previous

clients with me to the new agency

.634 -.348 .538

Eigen value 3.243 1.923 1.089

Variance explained (%) 40.538 24.038 13.611

Cumulative variance (%) 40.538 64.577 78.187

Mean 3.6275 3.3095 3.4828

Standard deviation .7598 .7997 .9329

Cronbach’s alpha .821 .774 .708

564 J. Y. Han et al.

123

Grunig, J. E. (2000). Collectivism, collaboration, and societal

corporatism as core professional values in public relations.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 23–48.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1996, May). Implications of symmetry

for a theory of ethics and social responsibility in public relations

(pp. 23–27), Paper presented to the public relations interest

group international communication association, Chicago.

Gurley, K., Wood, P., & Nijhawan, I. (2007). The effect

of punishment on ethical behavior when personal gain is

involved. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues,

19(1), 91–105.

Hamilton, V. L. (1976). Individual differences in ascriptions of

responsibility, guilt, and appropriate punishment. In G. Bermant,

C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and law (pp.

239–264). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Hegarty, W. H., & Sim, H. P. (1978). Some determinants of unethical

decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 63(4), 451–457.

Hogan, R. (1973). Moral conduct and moral character: A psycholog-

ical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 217–232.

Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics.

Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5–16.

Hutton, J. (1999). The definition, dimension, and domain of public

relations. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 199–214.

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in

organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 16(2), 366–395.

Jones, W., & Kavanagh, M. (1996). An experimental examination of

the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical

behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business

Ethics, 15(5), 511–523.

Joseph, J., Berry, K., & Deshpande, S. P. (2009). Impact of emotional

intelligence and other factors on perception of ethical behavior

of peers. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 539–546.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1980). Organizational paradoxes: Clinical

approaches to management. London: Tavistock.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1989). Alexithymia in organizational life:

The organization man revisited. Human Relations, 42,

1079–1093.

Ki, E., & Kim, S. (2010). Ethics statements of public relations firms:

What do they say? Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 223–236.

Kidwell, J. M., Stevens, R. E., & Bethke, A. L. (1987). Differences in

ethical perceptions between male and female manager: Myth or

reality? Journal of Business Ethics, 6(6), 489–493.

Kim, Y. (2003a). Ethical standards and ideology among Korean

public relations practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 42,

209–223.

Kim, Y. (2003b). Ethical standards appears to change with age and

ideology: A survey of practitioners. Public Relations Review, 29,

79–89.

Kim, Y., & Yoon, H. (2004). Perception both about private

relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists

and professional ethics of PR practitioners in Korea. Korean

Journal of Public Relations, 8(1), 302–338.

Kincade, D. L. (1987). Communication theory: Eastern and western

perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive

developmental approach. In T. Likona (Ed.), Moral development

and behavior: Theory, research and social issues. New York:

Rinehart & Winston.

L’Etang, J., & Pieczka, M. (2000). Public relations education. In J.

L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public relations: Critical debates

and contemporary practice (pp. 433–440). New York:

Routledge.

Lee, D. J., & Sirgy, M. J. (1999). The effect of moral philosophy and

ethnocentrism on quality-of-life orientation in international

marketing: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business

Ethics, 18, 73–89.

Lee, C., & Yoshihara, H. (1997). Business ethics of Korean and

Japanese managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(1), 7–21.

Loe, T., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical

studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of

Business Ethics, 25, 185–204.

Martin, W. (2009). Socially responsible investing: Is your fiduciary

duty at risk? Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 549–560.

McCraw, H., Moffeit, K. S., & O’Malley, J. R., Jr. (2009). An

analysis of the ethical codes of corporations and business

schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 1–13.

McCuddy, M. K., & Peery, B. L. (1996). Selected individual

differences and collegians’ ethical beliefs. Journal of Business

Ethics, 15, 261–272.

McElreath, M. P. (1996). Managing systematic and ethical public

relations campaigns. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McKee, B. K., Naymon, O. B., & Lattimore, D. L. (1975). How PR

people see themselves. Public Relations Journal, 31, 47–52.

McKinney, J. A., Emerson, T. L., & Neubert, M. J. (2010). The

effects of ethical codes on ethical perceptions of actions toward

stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 505–516.

Messikomer, C. M., & Cirka, C. C. (2010). Constructing a code of

ethics: An experiential case of a national professional organiza-

tion. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 55–71.

Neill, J. D., Stovall, O. S., & Jinkerson, D. L. (2005). A critical

analysis of the accounting industry’s voluntary code of conduct.

Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1), 101–108.

Nicholson, N. (1994). Ethics in organizations: A framework for

theory and research. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 581–596.

O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the ethical

decision making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business

Ethics, 59, 375–413.

Park, J., Cameron, G. T., & Cropp, F. (2000a). Developing standards

of professional performance in public relations: Korean practi-

tioners perception, Paper presented at the annual conference of

international communication association, Singapore.

Park, J., Park, J., & Sim, S. (2000b). Professionalism of Korean public

relations practitioners: Q analysis. Korean Journal of Public

Relations, 4(2), 64–100.

Pearson, R. (1989). Beyond ethical relativism in public relations:

Coorientation rules and the idea of communication symmetry.

Public Relations Research Annual, 1, 67–86.

Peterson, D. K. (2002). The relationship between unethical behavior

and the dimensions of the ethical climate questionnaire. Journal

of Business Ethics, 41, 313–326.

Petrick, J., & Quinn, J. (2000). The integrity capacity construct and

moral progress in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 3–18.

Pratt, C. B. (1991). PRSA member’s perceptions of public relations

ethics. Public Relations Review, 17(2), 145–159.

Pratt, C. B. (1992). Correlates and predictors of self reported ethics

among US public relations practitioners. Psychological Reports,

70, 259–267.

Pratt, C. B., & Rentner, T. L. (1989). What’s really being taught about

ethical behavior. Public Relations Review, 15(1), 53–66.

Premeaux, S. (2009). The link between management behavior and

ethical philosophy in the wake of the Enron convictions. Journal

of Business Ethics, 85, 13–25.

Redfern, L., & Crawford, J. (2004). An empirical investigation of the

ethical position questionnaire in the People’s Republic of China.

Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 199–210.

Reiss, M. C., & Mitra, K. (1998). The effects of individual difference

factors on the acceptability of ethical and unethical workplace

behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1581–1593.

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and

theory. New York: Praeger.

Professional Ethics of PR Practitioners 565

123

Rodriguez-Dominguez, L., Gallego-Alvarez, I., & Garcia-Sanchez, I.

M. (2009). Corporate governance and codes of ethics. Journal of

Business Ethics, 90, 187–202.

Schlenker, B. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (1977). On the ethics of

psychological research. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13,

369–396.

Schwarz, M. S. (2002). A code of ethics for corporate code of ethics.

Journal of Business Ethics, 41(1–2), 27–43.

Seib, P., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1995). Public relations ethics. Fort Worth,

PA: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Sharmir, J., Reed, D. S., & Connell, S. (1990). Individual differences

in ethical values of public relations practitioners. Journalism

Quarterly, 67(4), 956–963.

Simola, S. (2003). Ethics of justice and care in corporate crisis

management. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 351–361.

Snell, R. (1990). Managers’ development of ethical awareness and

personal morality. Personnel Review, 19(1), 13–20.

Snyder, P., Hall, M., Robertson, J., Jasinski, T., & Miller, J. S. (2006).

Ethical rationality: A strategic approach to organizational crisis.

Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 371–383.

Sparks, J. R., & Pan, Y. (2010). Ethical judgments in business ethics

research: Definition, and research agenda. Journal of Business

Ethics, 91, 405–418.

Sriramesh, K., Kim, Y., & Takasaki, M. (1999). Public relations in

three Asian cultures: An analysis. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 11(4), 271–292.

Stohl, C., Stohl, M., & Popova, L. (2009). A new generation of

corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90,

607–622.

Suar, D., & Khuntia, R. (2010). Influence of personal values and value

congruence on unethical practices and work behavior. Journal of

Business Ethics, 97, 443–460.

Sweeney, B., Arnold, D., & Pierce, B. (2010). The impact of

perceived ethical culture of the firm and demographic variables

on auditors’ ethical evaluation and intention to act decisions.

Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 531–551.

Thorne, L., & Hartwick, J. (2001). The directional effects of

discussion on accountants’ moral reasoning. Contemporary

Accounting Research, 18, 337–362.

Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations: A

person–situation interactionist model. Academy of Management

Review, 11(3), 601–617.

Treviño, L. K., & Ball, G. (1992). The social implications of

punishing unethical behavior: Observers cognitive and affective

reactions. Journal of Management, 18(4), 751–769.

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynold, S. J. (2006). Behavioral

ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management,

32(6), 951–990.

Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad

barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 378–385.

Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2002). Ethics codes and sales profes-

sionals perceptions of their organizations ethical values. Journal

of Business Ethics, 40(3), 191–200.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical

work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1),

101–125.

Wang, J., Wang, G. G., Rouna, W. E. A., & Rojewski, J. W. (2005).

Confucian values and the implications for international HRD.

Human Resource Development International, 8(3), 311–326. Weber, J. (1995). Influences upon organizational ethical climates: A

multi-departmental analysis of a single firm. Organization

Science, 6(5), 509–523.

Wilcox, D. L., Ault, P. H., & Agee, W. K. (1989). Public relations

strategies and tactics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row

Publishers.

Wilcox, D. L., Ault, P. H., & Agee, W. K. (1997). Public relations

strategies and tactics (5th ed.). New York: Harper and Row.

Wilcox, D. L., Ault, P. H., Agee, W. K., & Cameron, G. T. (2000).

Public relations strategies and tactics (6th ed.). New York:

Addison Wesley Longman.

Winter, S. J., Stylianou, A. C., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). Individual

differences in the acceptability of unethical information tech-

nology practice: The case of Machiavellianism and ethical

ideology. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 279–301.

Wittmer, D. P. (1994). Ethical decision making. In T. C. Cooper

(Ed.), Handbook of administrative ethics (pp. 349–372). New

York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Wright, D. K. (1985). Age and the moral values of practitioners.

Public Relations Review, 11(1), 51–60.

Wright, D. K. (1989). Examining ethical and moral values of public

relations people. Public Relations Review, 15(2), 19–33.

Wylie, F. (1994). Commentary: Public relations is not yet a

profession. Public Relations Review, 20, 1–3.

Yeh, Q., & Xu, X. (2010). The effect of Confucian work ethics on

learning about science and technology knowledge and morality.

Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 111–128.

Zaleznik, A., & Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1974). Power and the

corporate mind. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Zey-Ferrell, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1982). Role-set configuration and

opportunity as predictors of unethical behavior on organizations.

Human Relations, 35(7), 587–604.

Zey-Ferrell, M., Weaver, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1979). Predicting

unethical behavior among marketing practitioners. Human

Relations, 32(7), 557–569.

566 J. Y. Han et al.

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.