IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v11y2001i03p455-479_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Purchasing Agents’ Deceptive Behavior: A Randomized Response Technique Study

Author

Listed:
  • Robertson, Diana C.
  • Rymon, Talia

Abstract

The randomized response technique (RRT) is used to study the deceptive behavior of purchasing agents. We test the proposition that purchasing agents’ perceptions of organizational expectations influence their behavior. Results indicate that perceived pressure to perform and ethical ambiguity on the part of the firm are correlated with purchasing agents’ unethical behavior, in the form of acknowledged deception of suppliers.

Suggested Citation

  • Robertson, Diana C. & Rymon, Talia, 2001. "Purchasing Agents’ Deceptive Behavior: A Randomized Response Technique Study," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 455-479, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:11:y:2001:i:03:p:455-479_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00001494/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karen Jehn & Elizabeth Scott, 2008. "Perceptions of Deception: Making Sense of Responses to Employee Deceit," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 327-347, June.
    2. Seongtae Kim & Claudia Colicchia & David Menachof, 2018. "Ethical Sourcing: An Analysis of the Literature and Implications for Future Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(4), pages 1033-1052, November.
    3. Kaptein, S.P., 2008. "The Relationship between Ethical Culture and Unethical Behavior in Work Groups: Testing the Corporate Ethical Virtues Model," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-037-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    4. Zhang, Yanming & Huo, Baofeng & Haney, Mark H. & Kang, Mingu, 2022. "The effect of buyer digital capability advantage on supplier unethical behavior: A moderated mediation model of relationship transparency and relational capital," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    5. Yi-Hui Ho & Chieh-Yu Lin, 2016. "The Moral Judgment Relationship Between Leaders and Followers: A Comparative Study Across the Taiwan Strait," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 134(2), pages 299-310, March.
    6. Timothy Hawkins & Michael Gravier & Edward Powley, 2011. "Public Versus Private Sector Procurement Ethics and Strategy: What Each Sector can Learn from the Other," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 103(4), pages 567-586, November.
    7. Ahmet Ekici & Sule Onsel, 2013. "How Ethical Behavior of Firms is Influenced by the Legal and Political Environments: A Bayesian Causal Map Analysis Based on Stages of Development," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(2), pages 271-290, June.
    8. Seung-Wan Kang, 2019. "Sustainable Influence of Ethical Leadership on Work Performance: Empirical Study of Multinational Enterprise in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    9. Martin C. Schleper & Constantin Blome & David A. Wuttke, 2017. "The Dark Side of Buyer Power: Supplier Exploitation and the Role of Ethical Climates," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 97-114, January.
    10. Lutz Preuss, 2012. "Responsibility in Paradise? The Adoption of CSR Tools by Companies Domiciled in Tax Havens," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 1-14, September.
    11. Scott Colwell & Michael Zyphur & Marshall Schminke, 2011. "When does Ethical Code Enforcement Matter in the Inter-Organizational Context? The Moderating Role of Switching Costs," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(1), pages 47-58, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:11:y:2001:i:03:p:455-479_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.