








































 
 

48 
 

 
 
 
 
Mired in Myth: Students’ Misguided Expectations 

of Marketplace Behavior 
 
 

Nathanael Peach 
Fort Lewis College 

 
Joshua Sauerwein 

Lubbock Christian University 
 

Seth Sikkema 
George Fox University 

 
 
 
This study evaluates whether business and non-business students have different impressions of the 
attitudes and behaviors that lead to success in business. The extent to which business and non-business 
students are similar, or dissimilar, has important implications for the business curriculum. To teach 
business ethics effectively, professors ought to understand students’ beliefs before entering the 
classroom. This study focuses on the degree to which selfish, self-interested, and self-sacrificing 
attitudes impact behavior in commercial settings. The data analyzed are from a survey administered at 
14 colleges and universities across the country. The final data set contains 665 responses. Results from 
this study suggest that both business and non-business students believe that selfish and self-interested 
behavior is common in business. Students believe that to be successful, business decisions need to be 
motivated by these antisocial attitudes. This finding reveals a level of ignorance regarding the role of 
prosocial attitudes and behaviors in commerce. It also reveals that societal metanarratives, rather than 
business education alone, are likely fueling student perceptions. This provides an opportunity to move 
the business curriculum towards highlighting the prosocial attitudes that contribute to success in 
business. Antisocial attitudes and behaviors should not be ignored, but they need to be put alongside 
examples of businesspeople contributing to the common good.  
 
Keywords: business education, economics education, social norms 
 

Introduction 
The first few weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic provided ample opportunity for businesses 

to take advantage of a frenzied public. As the demand for products like toilet paper, hand sanitizer, 

http://journals.sfu.ca/abr 
2023, Volume 13, pages 48-60 

http://journals.sfu.ca/abr


 
 

49 
 

and disinfectant wipes skyrocketed, some businesses marked up their prices. The Office of the New 
York City Public Advocate (2020) found instances where a dozen 8-ounce packs of hand sanitizer 
sold for nearly $160, a box of 10 masks sold for almost $200, and a 320-count package of disinfectant 
wipes sold for $220. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (2020) found that 1 in 6 products sold 
directly by Amazon had price spikes (for similar products) of 50% or more during the initial weeks of 
the pandemic.   

While a certain amount of price increases may be warranted and expected, the public’s reaction 
was one of frustration and anger. Formal complaints of price gouging to State Attorney Generals rose 
dramatically in Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan, and Washington (Office of Attorney General, 2020). 
Even though it is logical to assume that prices will increase during an emergency period, consumer 
sentiment toward these practices was largely negative. Instances of price gouging and dramatic 
increases in prices fed into narratives that emphasize the role of selfishness and greed in business.  

More compelling than the evidence of drastic price increases is the fact that five out of six 
retailers in New York City did not engage in these extreme practices. For every story of predatory 
pricing, there are also stories of business owners who chose a different path. For instance, an owner 
of a chain of grocery stores in Alaska chose to not increase prices, sometimes selling items at a loss. 
He even chose to give employees a raise, during the initial months of the pandemic, because he knew 
they were bearing an extra burden of the effects. When asked why he chose this path, he compellingly 
states, “Everybody is your friend or neighbor” (USA Today, 2020). For one reason or another, stories 
like this are not nearly as prevalent as those of greed and corruption.     

Students who are exposed to these callous business practices may enter the classroom 
believing that the marketplace is filled with similar personalities, each eager to seek the next profit-
maximizing opportunity. These beliefs may be reinforced by the normalization of self-interest in 
business education, particularly via economic courses (Ghoshal, 2005; Miller, 1999). As a result, 
students could erroneously conclude that business is simply about the relentless pursuit of self-interest. 
Miller (1999) argues that this process is self-reinforcing. When individuals believe a particular norm 
ought to guide behavior, they fear deviating from this expectation to avoid negative social 
consequences.  

A particular problem arises when the norm of self-interest impacts student perception and 
behavior.  For example, Ifcher and Zarghamee (2018) show that even a brief instructional encounter 
with the norm of self-interest increases self-interested behavior. As a result, when business education 
focuses exclusively on self-interest, other motivations and behaviors are ignored. By ignoring them, 
the signal is sent to students that they are irrelevant. Students then are left to conclude that self-interest 
is the only relevant norm in commercial life.   

An open question remains: are business students’ perceptions impacted by their business 
education as compared to non-business students in other programs? As a result, this study examines 
attitudinal differences among business and non-business students as it relates to self-interest. To 
further understand the role of these attitudes, survey questions and prompts were placed in the context 
of various business scenarios. By doing so the individual’s attitude, what they believe an anonymous 
businessperson would do, and whether the action is acceptable is evaluated. The study creates a robust 
picture of self-perception, perception of others, and the extent to which individuals believe certain 
marketplace behavior is acceptable. The results of this study provide evidence that students have a 
dim view of the marketplace which may lead them to pursue antisocial behavior. The results of this 
study also help place business education in a broader social context and highlight how business 
professors are in a position to emphasize the prosocial aspects of business.  

The study proceeds as follows. A literature review presents a sample of studies that have 
explored the relationship between attitudes and behaviors in business. In this section, three hypotheses 
that are evaluated in the study are presented. In the methods, the survey used is presented. The survey’s 



 
 

50 
 

descriptive statistics are also provided in the appendix. The full data set is available upon request. 
Results are then considered. In this section, the extent to which there is agreement between business 
and non-business majors is evaluated. The paper concludes with reflections on the study’s limitations 
and implications.   

 
Literature Review 

Merriam-Webster (2021b) defines “self-interest” as “a concern for one’s own advantage and 
well-being”. There is no inherent disregard for others contained in this definition. Rather, it leaves the 
door open to Smith’s “invisible hand” in which the pursuit of self-interest leads to the common good. 
Therefore, this study defines self-interested attitude as the perception of self-enrichment achieved 
through socially acceptable means such as cooperation and fairness. To this end, a self-interested 
attitude can manifest itself as a perception that one is contributing to public goods, giving blood, and 
other altruistic activities. The individual benefits because these activities contribute to their well-being.       

This is contrasted with a marketplace participant who pursues their goals through selfish, 
illegitimate, or anti-social means. Merriam-Webster (2021a) defines “selfishness” as “having or 
showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people”. This attitude 
often closes the door to cooperation and fairness and opens the door to dishonest, exploitative, and 
greedy behaviors. In this study, selfish attitudes are defined as self-maximizing choices that lack 
honesty and achieve gain at someone else’s expense.   

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the marketplace participant who exhibits a self-
sacrificing attitude. They have a high concern for others and display empathy and care for others.  
Those who enact these attitudes often do so at their own expense. These attitudes pursue service over 
self-interest and place profit in service to people rather than vice versa (Karns, 2016). When met with 
marketplace decisions these participants often choose to put others ahead of themselves. In this study, 
self-sacrificing attitudes are defined as the perception of self-limiting acts born out of concern for 
others.   
 Overtly self-interested and selfish attitudes and behaviors have been well-documented in 
economics students (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Frank et al., 1993; Frank & Schulze, 2000). Frank et 
al. (1993), offer two rationales for this finding. First, given a student’s personality, background, and 
prior learning set, students high in self-interest may choose to major in economics. Second, the effects 
of university training indoctrinate students into this worldview that relies exclusively on self-interest. 
In this study, we focus on the self-selection rationale while expanding the literature to a broader 
student set as we explore differences between business and non-business students. Respondents were 
considered a business major if their declared major was in their institution’s college, school, or 
department of business. All other respondents were considered non-business majors. 
 In prior studies, differences in self-interested behavior among economics majors and non-
economic majors were investigated and found that the former displayed significantly higher levels of 
self-interested behavior (Frank et al., 1993). Further, non-economics majors appeared to become more 
cooperative during their university years. Thus, business education could be reinforcing self-interested 
behaviors.  
 Male economics students have also been found to be more corruptible than their female or 
non-economics counterparts. This result held for all four years of undergraduate students, leading the 
researchers to suggest that self-selection into the economics major might be a larger determinant of 
behavior than university instruction (Frank & Schulze, 2000). This within-major difference is 
intriguing as it is suggestive of differences within and across majors. Additionally, in a study of 
Midwestern students, researchers found that economics majors kept more money for themselves and 
were less concerned with fairness than education students (Wang et al., 2011). In a follow-up study, 



 
 

51 
 

they found that students who had completed three or more economics classes had significantly more 
positive attitudes towards greedy behaviors, even to the point of classifying greed as moral.  
 These findings are in contradiction to other studies. Researchers at George Washington 
University found interesting evidence to suggest that economics students were more honest and less 
willing to benefit at another’s expense (Yezer et al., 1996). Additionally, other researchers have found 
no self-selection effect among economics students (Hummel, 2018). While studies between economics 
majors and non-economics majors have been studied extensively and appear conflicting, the difference 
between perceptions of selfish behavior among business and non-business students has not been 
studied. Therefore, this study hypothesizes the following: 
 

H1:  There is no difference between business students and non-business students regarding the 
acceptance of selfish behaviors. 

 
Seminal research in this area focuses on constructs of fairness, trust, and loyalty. In their 

ground-breaking study, Kahneman et al. (1986) found that 82% of participants thought it was unfair 
for a business owner to increase the price of a snow shovel after a snowstorm. Extending this study, 
Frey and Pommerehne (1993) found that 82% of the general public thought the price increase was 
unfair, but only 38% of advanced economics students and 41% of beginning economics students 
found the increase unfair. In a similar study, 71% of business executives thought increasing the price 
constituted unfair business practices (Gorman, 1992). In further studies investigating differences 
among students pursuing business majors, researchers found that only 29% of third-year business and 
economics students, 44% of third-year accounting students, 61% of third-year management and 
marketing students, and 78% of tourism students thought the price increase was unfair. They also 
found further evidence to suggest that students who seek profit maximization tend to self-select into 
the economics major (Cipriani et al., 2009). In a study of university students and staff, Maxwell and 
Comer (2010) found that 55% viewed the price increase due to a snowstorm as unfair. Based on these 
research findings, it appears that economics and business students have different conceptions of 
fairness than the general public, as they are more apt to view price setting that borders on predatory 
pricing as fair. Prior research does not address whether the views on fairness (the proxy for selfish 
and self-interested behavior) differ significantly among business and non-business students. 
Therefore, this study hypothesizes the following: 

 
H2:  There is no difference between business students and non-business students regarding the 

acceptance of self-interested behaviors. 
 
 Self-sacrificing behaviors are the hallmark of many professions. Nowhere was this more 
noticeable than in healthcare and other essential services during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
They are also espoused in business professions, like accounting. The American Institute of Certified 
Public Accountants (AICPA) Code of Professional Conduct states a professional must have “an 
unswerving commitment to honorable behavior, even at the sacrifice of personal advantage” (AICPA, 
2014, p. 6).  However, given the misperceptions of common marketplace activity, behaviors can be 
quite inconsistent with professional codes of conduct. Consistent with the aforementioned evidence, 
Rubinstein (2009) finds evidence that economics students are more willing to lay off employees to 
achieve higher levels of profit than other students. Further, others have shown that economics 
students are less likely to make charitable donations than arts and science majors (Bauman & Rose, 
2011). These results seem to indicate that the self-selection effect persists and even mitigates prosocial 
behaviors. Using these insights, this study seeks to investigate the prevalence of self-sacrificing 



 
 

52 
 

behaviors in business students as compared to non-business students. Therefore, this study 
hypothesizes the following: 
 

H3:  There is no difference between business students and non-business students regarding self-
sacrificing behaviors. 

 
 

Methods 
The survey was designed to elicit possible differences in how business and non-business 

students view commerce and behavior in the economy. The survey was composed of hypothetical 
scenarios, attitudinal questions, and demographics, in that order. In a pilot study, 51 undergraduate 
students, in two different sections of a business ethics course, participated in a focus group. Feedback 
from the focus group resulted in editing the survey to ensure its wording was understandable and 
focused, and that questions prompted the considerations intended. The authors administered the 
survey to a purposive sample of students. The survey was administered at 14 institutions, both public 
and private, across the country during the spring of 2017.  

Once the survey was completed the data were cleaned in several ways. First, incomplete 
surveys were removed from the sample. Next, responses by graduate students and non-U.S. citizens 
were removed. The few responses obtained from graduate students were from prospective MBA 
students enrolled in undergraduate courses. As there was not an appropriate comparison group, these 
responses were removed. Additionally, their removal allowed us to focus on undergraduate students. 
To minimize the impact of cross-cultural differences on the results, non-U.S. citizens were removed 
from the sample. Of the 783 surveys received, 665 were kept, 85% of the initial sample.  

Before presenting our results, it is worthwhile to make the reader aware of groups that ended 
up being oversampled. Seniors, business majors, and white males are oversampled relative to their 
proportion of the population of college students. Oversampling tempers the applicability of results to 
the undergraduate population at large, but it does not negate them. Key demographics related to this 
study are presented in Tables A1 – A4 of the Appendix. The full data set is available upon request.  
 

Results and Analysis 
The survey began with three scenarios in which respondents predicted the behavior of others, 

stated how they would behave, and then offered an ethical interpretation of their responses. Scenarios 
were chosen that allowed us to consider self-interested, selfish, and self-sacrificing behavior. To 
evaluate whether business and non-business students are different in these regards, tests were 
conducted to determine if there are statistically significant differences in the responses provided by 
each group. The first scenario posed in the survey was by Frank et al. (1993): “A business had been 
shipped 10 microcomputers but charged for 9” (p. 168). The prompt was edited to refer to “iPad” 
instead of “microcomputer.”). Respondents were asked about the likelihood that the owner of the 
business would report the error as well as the likelihood that they would. Descriptive statistics are 
presented in Table 1.  

 
Table 1 - Likelihood that a Shipping Error is Reported  
 

 Owner Likelihood Personal Likelihood 
Mean 54.4% 76.7% 
Median 50% 90% 
Standard Deviation  29.9 29.9 



 
 

53 
 

Note: N = 665. Results are for the entire sample. 
 

The iPad scenario was applied to Hypothesis 1 regarding selfish behaviors.  In absolute terms, 
there is not a marked difference between business and non-business majors; 77.3% of business 
majors and 75.7% of non-business majors stated they would report the error. Not surprisingly, this 
difference is not statistically significant (t-statistic = 0.701, p-value = 0.484). The test fails to reject the 
null hypothesis, that business and non-business students do not differ in their self-reported honesty.  

The second way the iPad scenario was evaluated was by asking respondents what an 
anonymous business owner would do. This question determines if business and non-business students 
differ in their perceptions of others. The difference between the respondent’s stated course of action 
and the hypothetical business owner was significantly different (t-statistic = -13.644, p-value = 0.000). 
Individuals view themselves as more honest than business owners. There was not a significant 
difference between the impression of others by business and non-business students (t-statistic = 1.393, 
p-value = 0.164).  

The second scenario analyzed is from Kahneman et al. (1986): “A hardware store has been 
selling snow shovels for $15. The morning after a large snowstorm, it believes it can raise the price to 
$20” (p. 729). Respondents were asked about the probability the hardware store would raise the price, 
the price they would charge for a snow shovel if they owned the hardware store, and whether raising 
the price would be fair. Descriptive statistics for this scenario are presented in Table 2.  

 
Table 2 - Responses to Increase in Demand for Snow Shovels 
  

 Likelihood Store 
Raises Price 

Personal Price 
Charged 

Raising the Price 
is Fair 

Mean 71.0% $16.58 74.1% 
Median 75.0% $17.00 - 
Standard Deviation  24.8 5.4 0.71 

 
Note: n = 567. Ninety-eight respondents indicated they would charge a price greater than $40. Given the possibility 

that the question was misread, these responses have been removed for this question. Raising the Price is Fair is 
coded as = 1 if Fair, = 0 if Unfair. 

 
 

Standard economic theory justifies raising the price; the snowstorm has increased demand. If 
firms are solely profit maximizers, they ought to charge more for this product. But as Kahneman et 
al. (1986) point out, the nature of the market shock leads many to conclude it would be unfair to do 
so. As a shock beyond anyone’s control, it is unfair to take advantage of consumers. As such, the 
profit motive is pitted against one’s sense of fairness.  
 The snow shovel scenario was applied to Hypothesis 2 regarding self-interested behaviors. 
Analysis of this scenario was limited to respondents that would raise the price by less than $25. Ninety-
eight respondents indicated they would charge a price over $40. While this is plausible, it is also likely 
that these respondents did not read the prompt accurately. Dropping these responses lowers the 
number of observations considered to 567. In this sub-sample, 25.9% said that increasing the price of 
the snow shovel was unfair.  

There is a statistically significant difference, at the 1% level, in the perception of fairness 
between business and non-business students (t-statistic = -2.591, p-value = 0.010). Business students 
believe a price increase is more permissible than non-business students. Participants were also asked 
what they would charge for the snow shovel if they were the business owner. Overall, 55.9% reported 



 
 

54 
 

they would raise the price. The average price charged by business majors is $16.84, while for non-
business students it is $16.20. This difference is not statistically significant (t-statistic = 1.398, p-value 
= 0.163). It is interesting that while the majority of respondents do not view the price increase as 
unfair, they are only willing to modestly raise the price. In the scenario, the owner believes they can 
raise the price from $15 to $20. A motivation other than fairness seems to be constraining students’ 
willingness to raise the price. Perhaps the price increase is justified because they are not raising it by 
as much as the owner does.   

Participants were then asked about the likelihood of an anonymous business owner increasing 
the price. On average, 72.5% of respondents believed the owner would increase the price; 72.1% of 
business majors, and 69.3% of non-business students. The difference is not statistically significant at 
the 5% level (t-statistic = 1.35, p-value = 0.177). Business and non-business majors view business 
owners as self-interested, both groups expect the price to increase. In many states, a price increase of 
this magnitude would constitute price gouging. In light of the discussion on price gouging in the 
Introduction, this finding is intriguing. Both groups expect price gouging to occur. While price gouging 
does occur, if the anecdotes from the Introduction serve as a guide, it is not nearly as widespread as 
students believe. Another explanation is that the students are correct, price gouging would be more 
widespread were laws against it not in place.  

Before turning to Hypothesis 3 it is worth noting that these results are sensitive to the sample 
being analyzed. When the full sample is considered, meaning individuals that would charge more than 
$40 are included, business students are much more likely to view the price increase as fair and charge 
a much price higher than non-business students. A higher percentage also expects the business owner 
to increase the price. It is possible that what is perceived as outliers in the sample are the future 
business leaders who grab headlines with their provocative behavior.  

The third scenario on the survey was original. It posed a trade-off between sending an 
employee to a training seminar and a business owner’s income. Sending the employee to the seminar 
would mean the owner would lose a portion of their year-end bonus. Descriptive statistics for this 
scenario can be found in Tables 3 and 4. As this is a novel scenario, two sets of responses are 
considered to evaluate its nuance. After the respondents reported the probability, that the manager 
would send the employee to the training event; they chose how much income they would be willing 
to forego in the same situation.  

 
Table 3 - Responses to Employee Training Scenario 
 

 
Likelihood Owner Sends 
Employee to a Training 

Seminar  
Mean 33.5% 
Median 30.0% 
Standard Deviation  25.9 

 
 
Table 4 - Amount of Income Willing to Forego to Send an Employee to a Training Event 
 

Amount Percent of Sample 
$0 5.7% 

$1 to $500 19.3% 
$501 to $1,000 31.4% 



 
 

55 
 

$1,001 to $1,500 22.6% 
More than $1,500 21.1% 

 
This scenario is applied to Hypothesis 3 to evaluate self-sacrificing behaviors. Concerning 

what respondents believe the owner will do, the difference between business and non-business 
students was not significant (t-statistic = 0.245, p-value = 0.806). While this confirms findings from 
Hypotheses 1 and 2, it extends them by including an opportunity cost. In the scenario, the amount 
the owner would forego if the employee attended the seminar is $10,000. This amount of money is 
not trivial, and it should be highlighted that 33.5% of respondents believe the owner would send the 
employee to the training, while the remaining 66.5% do not believe the opposite.    
 Respondents were then asked how much of an annual bonus they would forgo to send the 
employee to the seminar. Options were on a five-point scale from $0 to more than $1,500 in $500 
increments. The mean response for business students was 3.41 and non-business was 3.23. A value of 
three corresponds to $501 to $1,000 and four $1,001 to $1,500. The difference between business and 
non-business students was significant at the 10% level (t-statistic = 1.925, p-value = 0.055). This 
suggests that business majors are willing to sacrifice more of their income to facilitate an employee’s 
personal development. This could be due to business students having a deeper appreciation for 
business education, presumably due to their experiences in the classroom. It is interesting to note that 
it does not extend to student’s impressions of business professionals.  
 
Results Compared to Prior Research 

The first scenario posed in the survey was from Frank et al. (1993). The researchers are 
interested in whether respondents will change their answers after taking an economics course. They 
report a 40.0% increase in the number of students who expect the owner to not report the error and 
a 38.3% increase in respondents saying they would not report the error. Additionally, the mean for 
the individual reporting the error is consistently larger, typically by a magnitude of approximately 20 
percentage points, than for the owner. Individuals view themselves as considerably more honest than 
others. Our findings exceed this difference.     

These findings are in line with other studies that have applied the first scenario (Iida & Oda, 
2011; Yezer, 1996). What this study adds to the literature is the insight that business students are not 
unique in perceiving themselves as honest and business owners as dishonest. Although this study 
measured perception and not behavior, the results indicate that arguments that claim business students 
are more dishonest and more selfish than other students because of the business curriculum are not 
justified. The cause of the divergent impressions of self and others lies outside of business education. 

The second scenario posed in the survey was from Kahneman et al. (1986). The researchers 
found that 82% of the public viewed a price increase as unfair. Since then, the scenario has been 
applied in studies of different groups (e.g., students versus non-students) and different nations 
(Cipriani et al., 2009; Frey & Pommerehne, 1993; Gorman & Kehr, 1992; Gao, 2009; Maxwell & 
Comer, 2010; Thaler, 2015). Across these studies, the perception of whether a price increase is fair is 
quite large. The lowest value is found in Thaler (2015): 24% of MBA students reported the price 
increase as unfair, a value close to what is found in this study.    
 

Discussion 
A few themes emerge from the study’s results. Student definitions of fairness (as it relates to 

the pricing of goods) continue to change dramatically, and not in favorable directions. The snow 
shovel scenario (H2) found that 74% of students said that increasing the price of the snow shovel was 
fair. This is a marked contrast from the original survey conducted in 1986 that found 18% of the 
general public viewed the increase as fair.   



 
 

56 
 

While some have contended that business education is to blame, others have surmised that 
economics and business students are more self-interested than other students. However, this study 
suggests a different reality. In two of the three hypotheses, the differences between business and non-
business students are not significant, which suggests conflicting evidence for both the self-selection 
and indoctrination hypotheses.  

There is a larger metanarrative taking place, causing all students to have an increasingly dim 
view of business professionals, which in turn affects their perceptions, attitudes, and possibly behavior. 
Students believe 46% of business owners would, in effect, steal an iPad, 72.5% believe business owners 
would engage in price gouging, and 66.5% believe owners would not choose to forego a bonus to 
further an employee’s training. These findings are concerning. Students’ acceptance of less-than-
admirable behaviors can be a response to their perceptions of others in the marketplace. These 
perceptions may result in taking advantage of customers and employees because of the myth that this 
is “how business is done.” Researchers have found evidence to support the notion that people believe 
greater profits are produced through harmful business practices. Even though there was little to no 
evidence to support this link, consumers believed that businesses with higher profits were engaging in 
actions like overcharging customers and exploiting legal loopholes (Bhattacharjee & Dana, 2017). In 
the study’s sample, neither group had a particularly noble view of behavior in business. The 
expectations of lying and price gouging were quite high. These erroneous anti-profit beliefs could alter 
individual behaviors and encourage selfish actions that conflict with internal belief structures.   

 
Limitations 
 It should be noted that the authors highlighted the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding 
business practices to illustrate the ongoing issue of predatory, unethical, and selfish behavior among 
marketplace participants.  This type of behavior is not unique to a single era – indeed we could refer 
to marketplace misbehavior resulting from the collapse of Enron or WorldCom, or the banking crisis 
of 2007, for example.  However, because this study collected data from 2017, student attitudes may 
have already shifted post-pandemic. 
 This study also excluded non-US citizen responses to minimize cross-cultural differences.  
However, cross-cultural differences have been shown to play an important role in self-interested 
behavior (Wildavsky, 1994).  As a result, our results may have limited generalizability. 
  

Conclusion 
 In this study, undergraduate students’ perceptions of ethical behavior in the marketplace are 
considered. The motivating impulse is the degree to which business and non-business students differ 
from one another. Both business and non-business students have a dim view of business and business 
professionals. They believe that selfish and self-interested behavior is quite common. In most 
instances, business and non-business students hold similar views. Thus, something other than business 
education, possibly media or even campus attitudes toward business, is instilling these beliefs and 
attitudes. These misguided beliefs quite possibly are in contrast to prevailing marketplace behaviors. 

In a follow-up question, students were given the following statement: It is more important for a 
business to seek the welfare of its community than it is to seek the welfare of its owners. Interestingly, over 50% of 
all students agreed with the statement. This is an encouraging finding that illuminates a grand 
opportunity for business education. While this may be little more than aspirational or wishful thinking, 
it is also an opportunity for business professors to help students construct a meaningful framework 
of good business and its positive outcomes. This could be done by nudging the business curriculum 
towards highlighting the role of business in human flourishing and telling the stories of leaders who 
have done so. Bringing these leaders into the classroom (through interviews, lectures, or case studies) 
might help students reimagine the marketplace in a more positive light.   



 
 

57 
 

Further, studies of ethics should move well beyond codes of conduct and case studies of 
egregious behavior into values, belief structures, and character development. Directing students 
towards these ends, instead of toeing the ethical line, would help prepare them for the realities of the 
marketplace, while concurrently helping them articulate a vision for good business. As future business 
leaders, the business students of today ought to stand above their peers in understanding the selfless, 
altruistic, and self-sacrificing elements of commerce. Not just because these types of behavior may 
improve the bottom line, but because they are more representative of the vast number of business 
owners who understand the inherent fallacy in pursuing profit at another’s expense. 
  



 
 

58 
 

References 
 
AICPA. (2014). AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. Retrieved from 

https://pub.aicpa.org/codeofconduct/Ethics/ 
 
Bauman, Y., Rose, E. (2011). Selection or Indoctrination: Why do economics students donate  

less than the rest? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 79: 318-327. 
 
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable  

giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialization. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337-
365. 

 
Bhattacharjee, A., Dana, J. (2017). People Think Companies Can't Do Good and Make Money.   

Can Companies Prove Them Wrong? Harvard Business Review.   
 
Cipriani, G. P., Lubian, D., & Zago, A. (2009). Natural Born Economists? Journal of Economic  

Psychology, 30(3): 455-468. 
 
Frank, B., & Schulze, G. G. (2000). Does economics make citizens corrupt? Journal of Economic 

Behavior and Organizations, 43, 101-113. 
 
Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation? 

The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159-171. 
 
Frey, B. S., & Pommerehne, W. W. (1993). On the Fairness of Pricing: An Empirical Survey  

Among the General Population. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 20(3): 295-307. 
 
Gao, Y. 2009. “A study of Fairness Judgments in China, Switzerland and Canada: Do Culture,  

Being a Student, and Gender Matter?.” Judgment and Decision Making, 4(3): 214–226. 
 

Ghoshal, S. 2005. “Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices.” 
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1): 75-91. 

 
Gorman, R. K., & Kehr, J. B. (1992). Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Comment. The 

American Economic Review, 82(1), 355-358. 
 
Hummel, K. P. (2018). Does Economics and Business Education Wash Away Moral Judgment 

Competence? Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 559-577. 
 
Iida, Y. O., & Oda, S. H. (2011). Does Economics Education Make Bad Citizens? The Effect of  

Economics Education in Japan. Journal of Education for Business, 86, 234-239. 
 
Ifcher, J., & Zarghamee, H. (2018). The rapid evolution of homo economicus: Brief exposure to 

neoclassical assumptions increases self-interested behavior. Journal of Behavioral and 
Experimental Economics, 75, 55–65.  

 
Karns, G. L. (2016). Assessing Market Attractiveness under the Stewardship Model of Business. 

Social Business, 6(2), 175-193. 



 
 

59 
 

 
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: 
 Entitlements in the Market. The American Economic Review, 76(4): 728-741. 
 
Maxwell, S., & Comer, L. (2010). The Two Components of a Fair Price: Social and Personal.  

Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(5): 375-380. 
 
Merriam-Webster. (2021a, December). Retrieved from Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/selfish 
 
Merriam-Webster. (2021b, December). Retrieved from Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/self-interest 
 
Miller, D. T. (1999). The Norm of Self-Interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053-1060. 
 
Office of Attorney General. (2020, June 5). www.attorneygeneral.gov. Retrieved from 

https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/covid-19/ag-shapiro-price-gouging-
complaints-top-5000-tips/ 

 
Office of the New York City Public Advocate. (2020). Price Gouging Amid the COVID-19  

Pandemic: Policy Brief. Retrieved from https://advocate.nyc.gov/reports/price-gouging-amid-
covid-19-pandemic 
 

Rubinstein, A. (2009). A Sceptic's Comment on the Study of Economics. The Economic Journal,  
116. 

 
Thaler, R. (2015). Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. New York: W. W.  

Norton & Company.  
 
U.S. PIRG. (2020, March 11). www.uspirg.org. Retrieved from 

https://uspirg.org/news/usp/coronavirus-worry-triggers-most-surgical-mask-sanitizer-
prices-spike-least-50-amazon 

 
USA Today. (2020, May 31). USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/in-

depth/news/2020/05/31/coronavirus-grocery-store-prices-even-raised-pay-alaska-sea-mart-
covid-shopping-food/5247283002/ 

 
Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnigham, J. K. (2011). Economics Education and Greed. Academy of 

Management Learning and Education, 10(4), 643-660. 
 
Wildavsky, A. (1994). Why Self-Interest Means Less Outside of a Social Context: Cultural 

Contributions to a Theory of Rational Choices. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(2), 131-159. 
 

Yezer, A. M., Goldfarb, R. S., & Poppen, P. J. (1996). Does Studying Economics Discourage 
Cooperation? Watch What We Do, Not What We Say or How We Play. Journal of Economic 
Perspectives, 10(1), 177-186. 

 



 
 

60 
 

Appendix 

 
Survey Demographics 

 
Table A1 - Academic Standing 
 

Freshman 12.3% 
Sophomore 26.9% 

Junior 24.1% 
Senior 36.7% 

 
 
Table A2 - Gender 
 

Male 51.1% 
Female 48.9% 

 
 
Table A3 - Racial Composition  
 

African American 2.1% 
Asian/Pacific 11.7% 

Hispanic 16.4% 
White 75.2% 

Other/Mixed 6.0% 
Refuse to Answer 2.4% 

 
 
Table A4 - Business Majors 
 

Business Major 60.8% 
Non-Business Major 39.2% 

 
Note: Respondents were considered a business major if their declared major was in their institution’s college, 
school, or department of business 
 
 

 
 
 


