Investigating “head” and “heart”value traits of tertiary students

studying in CyprusMaria Krambia-Kapardis and Anastasios Zopiatis

Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate, for the first time in Cyprus, tertiary educationstudents’ personal values. In particular the study seeks to examine: the most important personalvalues for tertiary education students in two institutions in Cyprus; whether there are any differencesbetween the individual’s values as a function of variables such as gender, ethnic origin, year of study,type of academic discipline and religion; and whether there is a balance between “head” and “heart”traits amongst tertiary students.

Design/methodology/approach – Following a comprehensive literature review the paper developsa quantitative questionnaire whereby tertiary students, currently pursuing accredited degrees in twotertiary institutions (one private and one public) were surveyed in order to identify their perceivedlevel of importance from a list of 20 values with the utilization of a five-point Likert scale. A purposive(judgmental) sampling technique was utilized to select 1,000 cases from the population that would bestmeet the research purpose and address the study’s research questions. The data were analyzedutilizing both descriptive and inferential statistics.

Findings – Honesty, loyalty to family and friends, friendliness, self-confidence and world peace areranked as the five most important personal values for college students in Cyprus. Surprisingly,traditionally important values such as patriotism and religion were ranked last by the respondents,both Cypriot and non-Cypriot.

Originality/value – This would appear to be the first time that an investigation of this type has beenundertaken in Cyprus.

Keywords Students, Social values, Cyprus, Individual behaviour

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThere has been an avalanche of studies relating to student ethics in recent years thereason being due to the increase in corporate collapses, scandals, corruption, briberyand corporate as well as individual misconduct. As claimed by researchers (e.g.Zuckerman, 1994; Sommers, 1996; Jennings, 1999; Etzioni, 2002), there has been aserious decline in ethical and moral standards over the last three decades. There is aneed, therefore, to assess tertiary students’ values and, more specifically, businessstudents’ values since they will be the future generation of business leaders. AsMurphy et al. (2006, p. 400) state, “if employee, manager and customer value changesare not understood it could negatively impact the ability of companies to meet theneeds of their current and future employees and customers”. Whilst there has been a lotof work in the field of college students and ethics in developed countries (Arlow, 1991;Milner et al., 1999), limited work has been done in developing countries or countriesthat have been subject to political turmoil.

For this reason the researchers selected to study Cyprus since it is one of the newestmembers of the European Union, is a member of the Euro Zone, has one of the highest

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1450-2194.htm

“Head” and“heart” value

traits

163

EuroMed Journal of BusinessVol. 3 No. 2, 2008

pp. 163-178q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1450-2194DOI 10.1108/14502190810891218

proportions of students in Europe registering in tertiary education (according to theMinistry of Education and Culture 34,062 Cypriots were studying in tertiary educationinstitutions in the academic year 2004-2005) and has experienced significant socialchanges the last thirty years, including invasion, occupation, and large-scale shifting ofcommunities along ethnic lines. The research is partially testing Maccoby’s model(1976a) of character traits to identify if a balance exists between “head” and “heart”values among tertiary students of two tertiary institutions.

Literature reviewThe issue of decline in ethical and moral standards is not only faced in Cyprus but alsoelsewhere in the world (Etzioni, 2002; Allen et al., 2005). As Allen et al. points out, the“questionable behavior in both religious and secular environments have fosteredconsiderable distrust, cynicism, and antagonism . . . toward the leadership of virtuallyall social institutions, especially business organizations” (Allen et al., 2005, p. 170).Felton and Sims (2005) have stated that former students have been at the “center of thebusiness scandals of the past few years” (p. 377). Weisul and Merritt (2002) have goneas far as to say that it is important young people “stop and think about ethics and thedecisions they’re making, otherwise, today’s students may be tomorrow’s criminals” (p.8). Supporting their argument, the authors quote recent opinion polls which placebusinesspeople in lower esteem than politicians. The decline in moral standards amonguniversity students is also debated by a number of scholars (Yeung et al., 2002; Casadoet al., 1994).

As Sweeney has put it, “a primary focus of colleges and universities is to provide anenvironment for intellectual, cultural, and ethical development” (cited by Maddockset al., 1994, p. 68). As stated by Howard (1986) one of the goals of tertiary education is to“produce a virtuous populace, one that is morally mature and spiritually grounded”(Howard, 1986, p. 318). Brymer et al. (2006) found that “industry and collegeexperiences can influence ethical principles that may be carried into future leadershipcareers” (p. 552).

Studies of students’ ethics have examined, for example, the importance of gender,age, discipline studied and personal values. It has been reported that:

. male hospitality management students have a significantly lower personalbusiness ethics score than their female counterparts (Freedman andBartholomew, 1990);

. female students have a higher level of tolerance towards “violation of schoolrules” and lower level of tolerance towards “selfishness” and “unfair advantage”than their male counterparts (Yeung et al., 2002), and are more sensitive to ethicalissues than males particularly regarding environmental issues (Hudson andMiller, 2005, p. 391); and

. female business students prefer a utilitarian decision rule while male businessstudents prefer an egoist approach to evaluating ethical dilemmas (Galbraith andStephenson, 1993).

Other studies, however, found no gender differences (Betz et al., 1989; Tsalikis andOrtiz-Buonafina, 1990). Researchers have explained the fact that business students aremore unethical than non-business students by claiming that business students aredriven by “egoism and individualism” (Wood et al., 1988, p. 256) while others have

EMJB3,2

164

blamed the type of education business students receive (Pichler, 1983). Finally, as far asage is concerned, a number of studies have documented that moral development cancontinue into adulthood (Rest, 1988; Parks, 1993).

Upchurch and Ruhland (1996) found that managers based their ethical decision onthree main ethical precepts of:

(1) egoism (e.g. self-interest);

(2) benevolence (e.g. care and concern for others); and

(3) principle (e.g. adhering to internalized or external rules and regulations).

The early work on values by Rokeach (1973) and Maccoby (1976a) is very relevant inthis context. As Murphy et al. (2006, p. 401) have put it, “values are the software thatoperates people’s mind”. Young people entering the school work transition phase oftenhave developed both beliefs and intentions with “respect to the world of work” (Ross,2004, p. 211) and these personal values influence both career choice and direction(Argyle, 1989). Emler (1995) argued that these personal values are likely to accompanythe individual into the various stages of work life.

The Rokeach (1973) value survey addresses the following values: a comfortable life,equality, an exciting life, family security, freedom, health, inner harmony, mature love,national security, pleasure, salvation, self-respect, a sense of accomplishment, socialrecognition, true friendship, wisdom, a world of peace, a world of beauty, ambitious,broad-minded, capable, clean, courageous, forgiving, helpful, honest, imaginative,independent, intellectual, logical, loving, loyal, obedient, polite, responsible,self-controlled (self-disciplined).

Maccoby’s 19 character traits consist of nine “qualities of the head” and ten“qualities of the heart”, the former associated with thinking and the latter with feeling.The “head values” identified were self-confidence, open-mindedness, cooperativeness,ability to take the initiative, flexibility, pride in performance, coolness under stress,pleasure in learning something new, and satisfaction in creating something new. The“heart values” identified were honesty, friendliness, loyalty, openness/spontaneity, andsense of humor, independence, compassion, generosity, idealism, and a critical andquestioning attitude toward authority. Maccoby also suggested “it takes awell-developed heart to make difficult judgments in terms of the human valuesinvolved” (Maccoby, 1976b, p. 100). Morality is associated with the qualities of theheart and a developed heart prevents egocentrism and helps to develop a sense ofjustice (Maccoby, 1976a). As Allen et al. (2005) stated, the classifications of Rokeach’svalues are in “line with Maccoby’s character traits” (Maccoby, 1976a, p. 171). Thesevalues, therefore, are a useful toolkit in understanding a person’s ethical attitude andbehavioral practices, they “teach us how to interact with others in our cultures andenvironment . . . help us to answer questions about our lives” (Murphy et al., 2006, p.401).

Maccoby (1976a) asserted that “head” traits, unlike “heart” qualities, are consideredmore important and hence rewarded more often. With the exception of Ruhe (1991), asfar as it has been able to ascertain, the available literature has reported findings thatbusiness students, managers, and marketing professionals value “head” traitssignificantly more than “heart” ones, (see Kreitner and Reif, 1980; Stevens, 1984;Patten, 1990; Kochunny and Rogers, 1994; Booth et al., 1995; Kochunny et al., 1996).

“Head” and“heart” value

traits

165

Interestingly, Allen et al. (2005) found no gender differences in business students’preference for instrumental values.

The integrity of a company is its most valuable asset. Industry leaders mustdemonstrate character, courage, and integrity and condemn legal practices that areunethical (Jaszay, 2005). Furthermore, a person’s attitudes and values are shaped byculture (Wong and Chung, 2003). Therefore, it was considered appropriate to identifywhat are the ethical traits of the prospective professionals studying in Cyprus.According to an annual barometer study carried out in Cyprus (Laiki, 2005), 82 percentof the respondents believed that the country is facing a crisis of values. The valuesconsidered important but appear to be facing a crisis are religion, family, andgovernmental authorities. Personal ethical traits considered important were family,honesty, hard work, meritocracy, comfortable life, environment conscious, integrity,and behavior consistency. The reason Cyprus was selected was because:

. it is a small country and limited work has been carried out in this field inemerging economies;

. it has a multicultural student population studying at the various private andpublic tertiary institutions;

. its inhabitants have experienced many political uncertainties;

. it has recently become a full European Union member; and

. in January 2008 it entered the Euro zone.

Maccoby (1976a) identified an imbalance between and “head” values which reflects theimportance of getting ahead in schools and organizations, instead of caring about theothers. This imbalance, according to Ruhe (1991), indicates a “strong concern foradvancement” a “constant anxiety” and an “undeveloped heart” (p. 15). These values,however, were determined thirty years ago and people’s ethics have changed due topolitical unrest, financial difficulties, recessions, globalization and education. Toillustrate, Murphy et al. (2006) tested the impact of 9/11 on teenage values and foundthat “teenage survival, safety and security values increased in importance while theirself-esteem and self-actualization values decreased in importance” (p. 399).

Kreitner and Reif (1980) found that business students are prepared to survive inbusinesses in terms of intellectual qualities but “heart” qualities are ignored, hence acontinued imbalance continued to exist post Maccoby (1976a) work. Their resultsshowed that eight of the nine “head” traits were more valued than any one of the“heart” traits. This study reinforces the view that students receive inadequatepreparation with respect to the development of emotional or “heart qualities”. Stevens(1984) found that managers and students deem “head” traits as being more importantthan “heart” traits also reinforcing Maccoby’s work. Given the low level ofreinforcement of “heart” traits, Stevens suggests that business schools do not valuecreativity and do not enforce it in their curriculum. Patten (1990) investigatedaccountants’ perceptions also using Maccoby’s model to find that “head” traitsdominated in terms of relative importance but, at the same time, “heart” traits wereperceived to be more important to accountants than managers and business students.The accountants rated higher “than managers, traits such as friendliness,cooperativeness, coolness under stress, and flexibility” (p. 796). As Patten notes,however, he has surveyed young accounting graduates and this is a limitation in his

EMJB3,2

166

study since as he states “it is not known if the results can be generalized to apply toaccountants at all levels of their firms” (p. 796). Ruhe (1991) surveyed freshmen and infour years he sent the questionnaire to the seniors of the all women’s liberal artscollege. The students surveyed were from liberal arts and professional programs ofbusiness and nursing. Ruhe found “no significant differences between business andnon business freshmen in traits valued” (p. 12). However it was proven that the “collegeenvironment did change the values of the students . . . depending on the reinforcementin their major studies” (p. 12). The same author found that all “seniors regardless oftheir major, valued self-confidence, ability to initiate, flexibility, pride in performance,independence and critical of authority more after their four years of college” (p. 14).Business seniors valued satisfaction with creating something new, independence,compassion, and critical of authority less important than non-business, this willpotentially mean that business students will be vulnerable to an unethical corporateculture. Ruhe asserts that business studies do not reinforce the values that might makestudents more ethical managers such as open-mindedness, independence, friendliness,humor, idealism and critical of authority.

Kochunny and Rogers’s (1994) study focuses on the perceptions among businessstudents as to the importance of Maccoby’s “head/heart” traits. The researcherssurveyed business and non-business students and found that business studentsgenerally valued “head” traits more highly than “heart” traits. Honesty being a “heart”trait was ranked 4th by business students, whilst the ability to take initiative,flexibility, coolness under stress and cooperativeness ranked below honesty. Thus,once again the imbalance was reinforced. However, the “head” traits dominated in mostinstances and interestingly enough, “heart” traits by business students were ratedhigher than that found by Kreitner and Reif (1980) and Kochunny and Rogers, 1994.These authors conclude that “present day business students stack up very well, andsometimes better, in comparison to managers, general business students, andaccountants in previous studies” (p. 725). They also argue that honesty andfriendliness were ranked at a higher position than previous studies indicating thatearlier claims by researchers “that present day business students tend to be unethical”(p. 725) are no longer correct. Kochunny et al. (1996) surveyed marketing professionalsand tested Maccoby’s “heart” and “head” traits. They too found an imbalance between“head” and “heart” traits but they also found that 95 percent of the “respondents fromcompanies with a code of ethics perceived “honesty” the most important trait and thosefrom companies that do not have a codes of ethics ranked “self confidence” at the topand honesty was ranked sixth” (p. 109). Allen et al. (2005) found:

. that there were no important significance differences between senior andfreshman students, who perceived the instrumental values as very important inhelping them achieve success in a career; and

. no difference between men and women business students in their perceptionsthat the instrumental values assesses will be very important to help them achievesuccess in a career.

The same authors stated that “head” traits have been reinforced in the curriculum ofbusiness students over the years and it is therefore understandable that the samestudents have relative lack of “heart” traits but freshmen students appear to perceive“heart” traits of more importance than seniors.

“Head” and“heart” value

traits

167

Given that Maccoby’s model was prepared thirty years ago and has not been testedin Europe or in developing countries, the present researchers decided to adaptMaccoby’s model to the local culture and to issues that are considered of primaryimportance in the 21st century such as environment and world peace. The additionaltraits included are discussed in the next section and a justification is provided for thetraits replaced.

Research methodologyThe primary purpose of our research was to investigate college students’ value systemwithin two tertiary institutions in Cyprus. In addition, the authors investigated therelationship of gender, ethnic origin, year of study, field of study, and degree ofreligious beliefs on to college students’ personal “head” and “heart” values.

The following research questions, reflecting the study’s primary purpose wereformulated:

RQ1. Which are the most important personal values for the tertiary studentsstudying in Cyprus?

RQ2. Are there any differences between the individual’s values as a function ofvariables such as gender, ethnic origin, year of study, type of academicdiscipline and religion?

RQ3. Is there a balance between “head” and “heart” traits amongst tertiary studentsin Cyprus?

First, the authors conducted a comprehensive literature review and established thatthere had been no prior research investigating this topic in Cyprus. Reflecting on boththe issues revealed from the literature review and the authors’ subjective experienceworking at an academic environment, a quantitative questionnaire was developed. Thequestionnaire was separated into four sections. In this paper the authors address onlythe part which measured college students’ individual values. The present researchersprepared a list of all the ethical traits listed above by the various researchers as well asby the Laiki (2005) Cyprus barometer survey and asked academics working in the twoinstitutions to rank the 20 traits they consider important. The values ranked as thehighest were: compassion, cooperativeness, critical and questioning attitude towardsauthority, flexibility, friendliness, generosity, honesty, idealism, loyalty to family andfriends, money (comfortable life), open minded, patriotism (national security), pride inperformance, protecting the environment, religion, self-confidence, self-discipline,social justice, initiative, and world peace. Thirteen of those were adapted fromMaccoby’s (1976a) “head/heard” research instrument while the remaining sevenpatriotism (i.e. national security), environmental issues, religion, self-discipline, socialjustice, world peace and money (comfortable life) are from Rokeach (1973), Enghagenand Hott (1992) and Laiki (2005). Student respondents were asked to indicate theirperceived level of importance from a list of 20 values with the utilization of a 5-pointLikert scale

The research population included students who were pursing accredited degrees intwo Cypriot tertiary institutions, one private and one public. According to recentfigures published by the Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture (2005), close to10,000 individuals, both Cypriot and international, are studying in both institutions. A

EMJB3,2

168

purposive (judgmental) sampling technique was utilized to select 1000 cases thatwould best meet the research purpose and address the study’s research questions. Inorder to avoid the danger of under or over-representing some members of thepopulation, with the use of official class lists provided by both institutions, the authorsselected classes to group administer the questionnaires according to the level (year)and discipline (Business or Non-Business) of studies. Group administration waspreferred since it is a convenient and low cost technique for administeringquestionnaires with enhanced response rates, especially to groups like students. Thismethod of questionnaire administration has been used by many researchers in the past(Booth et al., 1995; Chan and Leung, 2006; and Emerson et al., 2006).

Prior to administration, the questionnaires were pilot-tested for reliability with theutilization of the test re-test method and for validity with a panel of experts. Thecollected data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).Descriptive and inferential statistics, namely independent sample t-test and one-wayANOVA with Post Hoc Multiple Comparison Test (Tukey HSD), were utilized toanalyze the collected data and answer the formulated research questions.

The authors would like to acknowledge two limitations of the conducted researchactivity. The first one relates to the issue of “social desirability” where subjects mayrespond to what they think is socially desirable, and the second relates to the fact thatthe study cannot argue to be representative as it relates to findings from only twotertiary accredited tertiary institutions and not all accredited tertiary institutions of thecountry.

Research findingsThe questionnaires were group-administered to 1,000 individuals currently pursuingaccredited degrees at two tertiary institutions. A total of 675 questionnaires werecompleted and returned to the researchers. Of these, 16 were incomplete, and thusexcluded from the study, reducing the number of usable surveys to 659. The overallresponse rate of 66 percent is viewed as satisfactory considering the low response ratesexperienced by a number of research studies conducted in Cyprus.

In reference to the demographic profile of the respondents 43 percent of therespondents are male while 73 percent are Cypriots. The overseas students arepredominantly Asian and Russian. Slightly more than half of the respondents (54percent) were pursuing a business related program of studies, while 28 percent werefirst-year students, 17 percent second year, 16 percent third year, 22 percent fourthyear, and 17 percent are studying towards a graduate level degree.

As illustrated in Table I, and in answering the first research question it appears thathonesty, loyalty to family and friends, friendliness, self confidence and world peace areranked as the five most important personal values for the respondents. As found by theLaiki (2005) Cyprobarometer traditionally important values such as patriotism andreligion were ranked last by the respondents, both Cypriots and internationals. Thisfinding is consistent with Brymer et al. (2005) who also found that European and Asianstudents do not value religion as one of the highest source of influence on beliefs.Whilst it cannot be explained why overseas students have this particular view, theresearchers are surprised for the local students’ behavior. For many years the Cypriotsocial value system was based on the three pillars: of family, country and religion. Thetragic events of 1974 in association with the key role of the church in the country’s

“Head” and“heart” value

traits

169

political and social happenings established a system based on these three values. Ourfindings suggest a significant shift from this system, since the only value that stillcaptures the importance of tertiary students is family and friends. Future researchshould investigate the impact of this shift and implications on future generations’behaviour.

Regarding the third research question, there seems to be a balance between “head”and “heart” values amongst our respondents. The top three positions were captured bythe “heart” or feeling values of honesty, loyalty and friendliness followed by five“head” or thinking values. Our findings are aligned with Kochunny and Rogers’ (1994)study who found that honesty was ranked in the top echelon of the list of traits.Reinforcing the overall balance between the two value categories, the mean for all ten“heart” values was 3.94 (standard deviation ¼ 0.510; Cronbach’s Alpha ¼ 0.674)while the mean for the ten “head” values was slightly higher at 4.02 (standarddeviation ¼ 0.509; Cronbach’s Alpha ¼ 0.727).

When comparing the “heart” with the “head” values (see Table II), a number offindings emerged. Differences exist between male and female respondents, sincefemales attribute more importance to both “heart” and “head” values. No significantdifference was found between business and non-business students; nevertheless, it isworth mentioning that “heart” values are more important to non-business students and“head” values to business students. The local students appear to attribute moreimportance to the “heart” values while no difference exist in regards to the “head”values. Finally, and as expected, respondents with strong religious beliefs attributemore importance to the “heart” values.

Influencing factor SD Mean Ranking

Honestya 0.815 4.49 1Loyalty to family and friendsa 0.819 4.46 2Friendlinessa 0.823 4.42 3Self-confidenceb 0.848 4.40 4World peaceb 0.952 4.31 5Open-mindednessb 0.879 4.28 6Self-disciplineb 0.930 4.13 7Cooperativenessb 0.891 4.04 8Social justicea 0.917 4.04 9Generositya 0.927 3.98 10Protecting the environmentb 1.009 3.93 11Flexibilityb 0.960 3.89 12Compassiona 0.936 3.81 13Pride in performanceb 0.959 3.77 14Ability to take the initiativeb 0.881 3.76 15Critical and questioning attitude towards authoritya 0.959 3.71 16Money (personal wealth)b 1.120 3.70 17Idealism (pursue and live your life according toideals)a

1.107 3.66 18

Patriotisma 1.167 3.49 19Religiona 1.311 3.40 20

Notes: aHeart values; bhead (conceptualization) values; scale: 1 ¼ no importance, 3 ¼ noopinion/neutral, 5 ¼ extremely important

Table I.Individual (personal)values and collegestudents (n ¼ 659)

EMJB3,2

170

Having found that there is a balance between the two traits it is worth now identifyingif there are differences between the respondents’ values as a function of gender, ethnicorigin, year of study, type of academic discipline and religion, thus to answer researchquestion two. Differences between the genders (see Table III) were revealed in thefollowing 11 (out of the 20) value traits: honesty, loyalty to friends and family,friendliness, self-confidence, world peace, self discipline, social justice, generosity,protecting the environment, compassion and religion. Research findings suggest thatwomen attribute more importance in all of the eleven value statements, seven of whichare heart traits. This is best explained by Betz et al. (1989, p. 321) who maintained that,“women conceptualize moral questions as problems involving empathy andcompassion, men conceptualize them as problems of rights” since women base theirdecision on “feelings” rather than “thinking” factors. It is important to note that menattribute more importance in only three values, pride in performance, critical andquestioning attitude towards authority, and patriotism; but all without any significantstatistical difference.

One of the issues addressed in the second research question is to investigate if thereis a difference between Cypriot and International students’ individual (personal)values. Differences were revealed in the values of critical and questioning attitudetowards authority (t ¼ 22:886; p ¼ 0:004), patriotism (t ¼ 22:320; p ¼ 0:021),religion (t ¼ 23:567; p ¼ 0:000) and social justice (t ¼ 22:853; p ¼ 0:004). Cypriotparticipants seem to attribute more importance to all four values. The researchers hadexpected this finding since politics and religion are an integral part of the local’s beliefsand daily discussions. One can argue that following the 1974 invasion the social classeswere changed, and people’s sense of justice and fairness has been shaken. Asmentioned above, this finding is consistent with Brymer et al. (2005) who also foundthat religion is no longer a significant influence in ethical behavior.

Values Group n Mean SD T Sig. (two-tailed)

Heart valuesa Business 346 3.91 0.502 21.574 0.116Non-business 295 3.98 0.522

Head valuesb Business 346 4.03 0.517 0.730 0.466Non-business 295 4.00 0.506

Heart valuesa Male 279 3.85 0.566 24.387 0.000Female 366 4.02 0.446

Head valuesb Male 279 3.93 0.563 23.839 0.000Female 366 4.09 0.447

Heart valuesa International 171 3.82 0.555 23.876 0.000Cypriots 473 3.99 0.484

Head valuesb International 171 4.03 0.558 0.288 0.773Cypriots 473 4.02 0.487

Heart valuesa Strong religious beliefs 327 4.05 0.527 5.544 0.000No religious beliefs 305 3.83 0.462

Head valuesb Strong religious beliefs 327 4.05 0.509 1.751 0.080No religious beliefs 305 3.98 0.507

Notes: Equal variances assumed (Scale: 1 ¼ not important, 3 ¼ no opinion/neutral, 5 ¼ extremelyimportant); aheart (feeling) values; bhead (conceptualization) values; significance level (p , 0:05)

Table II.Independent sample

t-test – heart vs headvalues

“Head” and“heart” value

traits

171

A number of differences were revealed between college students with strong religiousbeliefs (n ¼ 327) and those with moderate or no religious beliefs (n ¼ 305). Studentswith strong religious beliefs attributed more importance to values such as generosity(t ¼ 2:362; p ¼ 0:018), patriotism (t ¼ 5:482; p ¼ 0:000), pride in performance(t ¼ 2:102; p ¼ 0:036), protecting the environment (t ¼ 2:725; p ¼ 0:007), religion

Values Group n Mean SD tSig.

(two-tailed)

Honestya Male 275 4.32 0.944 24.945 0.000Female 364 4.63 0.644

Loyalty to family and friendsa Male 275 4.28 0.940 24.501 0.000Female 361 4.58 0.700

Friendlinessa Male 273 4.30 0.893 23.374 0.001Female 365 4.52 0.740

Self-confidenceb Male 279 4.24 0.990 24.249 0.000Female 365 4.52 0.705

World peaceb Male 279 4.10 1.076 24.884 0.000Female 366 4.47 0.813

Open-mindednessb Male 276 4.21 0.909 21.887 0.060Female 362 4.34 0.830

Self-disciplineb Male 276 3.99 1.050 23.279 0.001Female 360 4.23 0.818

Cooperativenessb Male 278 3.97 0.967 21.632 0.103Female 363 4.09 0.831

Social justiceb Male 278 3.90 0.984 23.319 0.001Female 359 4.14 0.853

Generositya Male 272 3.81 0.963 23.994 0.000Female 365 4.10 0.871

Protecting the environmentb Male 276 3.77 1.066 23.229 0.001Female 365 4.03 0.953

Flexibilitya Male 273 4.30 0.893 0.203 0.839Female 365 4.52 0.740

Compassiona Male 276 3.68 0.983 23.044 0.002Female 359 3.91 0.883

Pride in performanceb Male 274 3.79 1.048 0.411 0.682Female 358 3.76 0.869

Take the initiativeb Male 272 3.74 0.927 20.667 0.505Female 359 3.78 0.851

Critical and questioning attitude towards Male 273 3.75 1.017 0.770 0.442authoritya Female 360 3.69 0.912Money (personal wealth)b Male 277 3.62 1.220 21.320 0.187

Female 364 3.74 1.025Idealism (pursue and live you life according Male 275 3.63 1.166 20.717 0.474to ideals)a Female 363 3.69 1.054Patriotisma Male 277 3.57 1.225 1.479 0.140

Female 363 3.43 1.124Religiona Male 277 3.27 1.394 22.389 0.017

Female 364 3.52 1.232

Notes: Equal variances assumed (Scale: 1 ¼ not important, 3 ¼ no opinion/neutral, 5 ¼ extremelyimportant); aheart values; bhead (conceptualization) values; significance level (p , 0:05)

Table III.Independent samplet-test – individual valuesand gender differences

EMJB3,2

172

(t ¼ 13:906; p ¼ 0:000), self confidence (t ¼ 2:603; p ¼ 0:009) and world peace(t ¼ 2:007; p ¼ 0:045). Respondents with stated strong religious beliefs attribute moreimportance to all of the seven value statements.

Six differences were revealed between business and non-business students.Non-business students attribute more importance to the “heart” values of compassion(t ¼ 22:151; p ¼ 0:032), generosity (t ¼ 22:397; p ¼ 0:017), critical and questioningattitude towards authority (t ¼ 22:188; p ¼ 0:029) and flexibility (t ¼ 2:118;p ¼ 0:035), while business students consider more important values such as pride inperformance (t ¼ 3:239; p ¼ 0:001) and money (t ¼ 2:039; p ¼ 0:042). This isunderstandable given that business students are driven by their quest for monetarygains and best explained by Wood et al. (1988) who claimed that business students aredriven by “egoism and individualism . . . . A substantial number are willing to resort toany means to achieve their interests” (p. 256).

Another objective of the study was to identify the impact of formal tertiaryeducation on an individual’s value system. In order to ascertain this impact, theauthors investigated the differences in the responses of college students according totheir year of studies. Theoretically, and as asserted by Ruhe (1991), differences shouldexist between individuals who have just entered the academic environment and thosewho are ready to graduate and commence their professional careers. Findings revealeddifferences in the values of compassion (f ¼ 2:444; p ¼ 0:045), cooperativeness(f ¼ 3:110; p ¼ 0:015), flexibility (f ¼ 2:467; p ¼ 0:044), generosity (f ¼ 2:475;p ¼ 0:043), religion (f ¼ 3:747; p ¼ 0:005), ability to take the initiative (f ¼ 3:650;p ¼ 0:006) and world peace (f ¼ 2:551; p ¼ 0:038). In an effort to further clarify thedifferences, Post Hoc Multiple Comparison Tests (Tukey HSD), a very conservativepair-wise comparison test that minimizes the possibility for Type I errors (Type I erroroccurs when a true null hypothesis is rejected), were utilized. The findings obtainedindicate that most differences exist between graduate students and their first-or-secondyear counterparts. Graduate students seem to attribute more importance to values suchas cooperativeness, flexibility and ability to take the initiative, all of which are “head”values and are nurtured throughout their academic experience, and less importance tothe “heart” values of compassion, religion, generosity and the “head” value of worldpeace.

DiscussionThe study reported the value system of students, both local and international,currently pursuing accredited degrees in two Cypriot tertiary institutions. Amongothers, and in response to the first research question, our findings suggest thathonesty, loyalty to family and friends, and friendliness, all of which are described as“heart” or feeling values, are the three most important values to our respondents.

It is worth pointing out that the present research has found a balance of “heart” and“head” values amongst the respondents, hence answering the third research question.Following further investigation of our findings, and in responding to research questiontwo, it was found that there are significant differences between gender, religion andethnic origin. Significant differences were found between business and non-businessstudents and six of the traits investigated. A plausible explanation for the differencesfound could be that: females may be more biased towards “heart” values due to theiremotional make up; the people with strong religion beliefs are likely to care more about

“Head” and“heart” value

traits

173

others hence the “heart” bias; and finally, the local students appear to attribute moreimportance to the “heart” values while no difference exist in regards to the “head”values.

Local business students as stated above, value pride in performance and money asmore important than non-business students who value generosity, critical questioningattitude towards authority and flexibility as more important. These are but two out often “head” values. One can perhaps argue that covering issues of corporate socialresponsibility, ethics and corporate culture in their curriculum are not enough for thesestudents, thus revealing the need for formal business ethics courses which will focus onimproving the individual’s “heart” values such as generosity, flexibility, compassion.The operational imperatives of today’s competitive business environment requireprofit-oriented individuals with enhanced conceptualization skills as well asstimulation and reinforcement of “heart” traits such as honesty, loyalty to familyand friends, friendliness, social justice, generosity.

Another finding that captured our attention is the moderate level of importanceattributed to the values of patriotism and religion, especially amongst Cypriotstudents. Whilst Cypriot students consider patriotism and religion as important and toa greater degree than overseas students yet they rank both traits last. Our findingsconfirm: that Cypriot youths distance themselves from religion; and the prolongedpolitical situation in the country has mentally exhausted the young people, thussignificantly diminishing their patriotic ideals and the religion beliefs have beenquestioned. This, of course, does not only hold true for local students but for USstudents. As Allen et al. (2005, p. 170) states “highly questionable behavior in bothreligious and secular environments has fostered considerable distrust, cynicism, andantagonism among the American populace”. Students seem to disengage themselvesfrom two out of the three major values, which constitute the traditional Cypriottriangular value system. Family is the only remaining value that still captures theattention of the respondents.

Another finding that emerged from this study is the low importance placed onmoney (personal wealth) by the respondents (mean ¼ 3:70; ranked 17th). This rejects along-term assumption, widely accepted by the Cyprus society, that money andpersonal wealth, especially in terms of instant gratification, is the only thing the younggeneration cares about. While the issue of “social desirability” where subjects mayrespond to what they think is socially desirable or acceptable should be taken intoconsideration, the authors argue that the extremely low placement of this value leavesno room for doubt.

The respondents’ year of study as a correlation to the value traits is another issuethat merits our attention. As stated earlier, respondents that pursue graduate degreesattribute more importance to a number of “head” or conceptualization values such ascooperativeness and flexibility and less to “heart” values such as compassion andgenerosity. Our findings are similar to Allen et al. (2005) that also could not confirmthat “heart” values are more important to seniors than freshmen. It is obvious thatformal education, especially the one with a business related path, enhances some of theindividual’s “head” or conceptualization values at the expense of important “heart”values which are closely related with the individual’s ethical judgment.

The important gender differences revealed by our study are also worth mentioning.One cannot ignore that an increased number of women both locally and overseas are

EMJB3,2

174

entering the workforce are also in key positions. As stated by Krambia-Kapardis(2007), there is a gender gap and a glass ceiling in the number of local women in topexecutive positions but as the same author postulates women are better in teambuilding and communications and they have a unique contribution to make in runningmodern firms. This view is confirmed by the present study where females rankedhonesty, loyalty to friends and family, friendliness, self-confidence, world peace, selfdiscipline, social justice, generosity, protecting the environment, compassion andreligion as more important than the male students. This confirms Chonko and Hunt’s(1985) suggestion that female managers may utilize different ethical framework thanmales despite the fact that “both male and female students receive similar educations”(Allen et al., 2005, p. 172).

ConclusionIn order for students to have the required balance of head and heart traits it issuggested that academics and teachers need to look deep into the ethical traits theyreinforce in their syllabus and where necessary make the changes with moreemphasize on consciousness and less on conceptualization. Therefore, it is imperativethat academics monitor the “head” and “heart” traits to ensure there is balance of thosein their curriculum and that they nurture this balance.

Reflecting on the research findings, it is recommend that educational institutions ofthe country may wish to redefine their policies and procedures regarding ethics withintheir academic environment and adopt a number of practical real-world measures.Firstly, educational institutions should revisit the way ethics courses are structuredand delivered to students. Secondly, ethical awareness should begin from schoolingyears and authorities ought to rethink the demise of the traditional triangular valuesystem, especially amongst the younger generation. Whilst the purpose of the study isnot to justify the behavior of the respondents, nevertheless it is felt that there is a needto point out a number of revealed paradoxes of the local students. In particular, theCyprus Church, one of the strongest Greek-Orthodox Churches both in terms ofpolitical and financial power, fails to fulfill its role of inspiring the young generation ofthe country. Recently, the image of the Church was furthered tarnished by a number offinancially related scandals and allegations against its prominent leaders. While anumber of attempts were made to restate and/or reinvent the role of the Church in theCyprus society, the fact remains that the young generation is neither convinced norwilling to change their current positioning.

Finally, future research should investigate students at secondary schools todetermine if there is a balance of “head” and “heart” values so as to be able to not onlyimplement changes in the curriculum of tertiary students but also at high school aswell. Furthermore, surveying instructors and high school teachers as well as thestudents would also be recommended as this survey could prove that instructors’values may influence the development of the students’ value traits.

References

Allen, W.R., Bacdayan, P., Kowalski, K.B. and Roy, M. (2005), “Examining the impact of ethicstraining on business student values”, Education þ Training, Vol. 47 Nos 2/3, pp. 170-82.

Argyle, M. (1989), The Social Psychology of Work, Penguin, London.

“Head” and“heart” value

traits

175

Arlow, P. (1991), “Personal characteristics in college students’ evaluation of business ethics andcorporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 63-9.

Betz, M., O’Connell, L. and Shepard, J.M. (1989), “Gender differences in proclivity for unethicalbehaviour”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 321-4.

Booth, R., Corriher, S.E. and Geurin, V.S. (1995), “The head rules the heart in business education”,S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 40-7.

Brymer, R.A., Wilborn, L.R. and Schmidgall, R.S. (2006), “Future global hospitality leaders:a comparison of European and US ethics”, International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 546-53.

Brymer, R., March, L., Michael, P. and Schmidgall, R.S. (2005), “Cultural influences on ethicaldecisions of students enrolled in European hospitality programmes”, Tourism andHospitality Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 346-57.

Casado, M., Miller, W. and Vallen, G. (1994), “Ethical challenges of the industry: are graduatesprepared?”, FIU Hospitality Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-7.

Chan, S.Y.S. and Leung, P. (2006), “The effects of accounting students’ ethical reasoning andpersonal factors on their ethical sensitivity”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 21,pp. 436-57.

Chonko, L.B. and Hunt, S.D. (1985), “Ethics and marketing management: an empiricalexamination”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 333-59.

Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture (2005), Annual Report 2005, available at: www.moec.gov.cy/etisia-ekthesi/pdf/Annual-Report-2005-EN.pdf

Emerson, T.L.N., Conroy, S.J. and Stanley, C.W. (2006), “Ethical attitudes of accountants: recentevidence from a practitioners’ survey”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 71, pp. 73-87.

Emler, N. (1995), “Socialization for work”, in Collett, P. and Furnham, A. (Eds), Social Psychologyat Work: Essays in Honour of Michael Argyle, Routledge, London.

Enghagen, L.K. and Hott, D. (1992), “Students’ perceptions of ethical issues in the hospitality andtourism industry”, Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 41-50.

Etzioni, A. (2002), “When it comes to ethics, B-Schools get an F”, The Washington Post, Vol. 4,August, p. B4.

Felton, E.L. and Sims, R.R. (2005), “Teaching business ethics: targeted outputs”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 377-91.

Freedman, A.M. and Bartholomew, P.S. (1990), “Age/experience and gender as factors in ethicaldevelopment of hospitality managers and students”, Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 14No. 2, pp. 1-10.

Galbraith, S. and Stephenson, H.B. (1993), “Decision rules used by male and female businessstudents in making ethical judgments: another look”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12No. 3, pp. 227-33.

Howard, J.A. (1986), “Higher education and a civilization in trouble: producing a virtuouspopulace”, Vital Speeches, Vol. 55, pp. 314-18.

Hudson, S. and Miller, G. (2005), “The responsible marketing of tourism: the case of Canadianmountain holidays”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 133-42.

Jaszay, C. (2005), “Review of hospitality ethics research in 2002 and 2003”, Isbell HospitalityEthics, School of Hotel and Restaurant Management, Northern Arizona University,Flagstaff, AZ, available at: www2.nau.edu/,clj5/Ethics/articles/Isbell.pdf

Jennings, M.M. (1999), “What’s happening in business schools?”, The Public Interest, Vol. 137,Fall, pp. 25-32.

EMJB3,2

176

Kochunny, C.M. and Rogers, H. (1994), “Head-heart disparity among future managers:implications for ethical conduct”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13 No. 9, pp. 719-29.

Kochunny, C.M., Hudson, R. and Ogbuehi, A. (1996), “Head and heart orientation: a measure ofmarketers’ predisposition for ethical conduct”, Journal of Applied Business Research,Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 105-13.

Krambia-Kapardis, M. (2007), “Women on boards: dichotimising the glass ceiling”, CorporateBoard Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 34-43.

Kreitner, R. and Reif, W.E. (1980), “Ethical inclinations of tomorrow’s managers: cause foralarm?”, Journal of Business Education, Vol. 56, pp. 25-9.

Laiki (2005), “Cyprobarometer”, available at www.laiki.com/web/w3cy.nsf/WebContentDoc

Maccoby, M. (1976a), The Gamesman, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Maccoby, M. (1976b), “The corporate climber has to find his heart”, Fortune, December,pp. 98-108.

Maddocks, P.M., Michelini, S.H. and Porter, G.L. (1994), “Ethics cases from academe”,Management Accounting, Vol. 76 No. 4, p. 68.

Milner, D., Mahaffey, T., Macaulay, K. and Hynes, T. (1999), “The effect of business education onthe ethics of students: an empirical assessment controlling for maturation”, TeachingBusiness Ethics, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 255-67.

Murphy, E.F., Woodhull, M.D., Post, B., Murphy-Post, C., Teeple, W. and Anderson, K. (2006),“9/11 impact on teenage values”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 399-421.

Parks, S.D. (1993), “Is it too late? Young adults and the formation of professional ethics”,in Piper, T.R., Gentile, M.C. and Parks, S.D. (Eds), Can Ethics Be Taught? Perspectives,Challenges and Approaches at Harvard Business School, Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA.

Patten, D.M. (1990), “The differential perception of accountants to Maccoby’s head/heart traits”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9 No. 10, pp. 791-8.

Pichler, J.A. (1983), “Executive values, executive functions and humanities”, paper presented atthe Conference on the Humanities and Careers in Business sponsored by the Association ofAmerican Colleges and the National Endowment for the Humanities, Princeton, NJ, April.

Rest, J.R. (1988), “Can ethics be taught in professional schools? The psychological research”,Ethics: Easier Said than Done, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 22-6.

Rokeach, J.A. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Ross, G.F. (2004), “Ethical ideals and expectations regarding visitor, staff management amongpotential tourist industry needs”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 8, pp. 211-15.

Ruhe, J.A. (1991), “Value importance for success: a longitudinal study”, SAM AdvancedManagement Journal, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 10-15.

Sommers, C.H. (1996), “Teaching the virtues: a blueprint for moral education”, Chicago TribuneMagazine, September 12, pp. 14-18.

Stevens, G. (1984), “Ethical inclinations of tomorrow’s citizens: actions speak louder?”, Journal ofBusiness Education, Vol. 59, pp. 147-52.

Tsalikis, J. and Ortiz-Buonafina, M. (1990), “Ethical beliefs: differences of males and females”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 509-17.

Upchurch, R.S. and Ruhland, S.K. (1996), “The organizational bases of ethical work climates inlodging operations as perceived by general managers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15No. 10, pp. 1083-93.

“Head” and“heart” value

traits

177

Weisul, K. and Merritt, J. (2002), “You mean cheating is wrong?”, BusinessWeek, Vol. 9,December, p. 8.

Wong, C.K. and Chung, K.H.M. (2003), “Work values of Chinese food service managers”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 66-75.

Wood, J.A., Longnecker, J.G., McKinney, J.A. and Moore, C.W. (1988), “Ethical attitudes ofstudents and business professionals: a study of moral reasoning”, Journal of BusinessEthics, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 249-57.

Yeung, S.Y.C., Wong, S.C. and Chan, B.M. (2002), “Ethical beliefs of hospitality and tourismstudents towards their school life”, International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 183-92.

Zuckerman, M.B. (1994), “Where have our values gone?”, US News & World Report, August 8,p. 88.

Further reading

Allen, W.R., Davis, J.H., Ruhe, J.A. and Geurin, V.T. (1998), “Character trait importance andreinforcement for future business leaders; a longitudinal assessment”, Journal ofContemporary Business Issues, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 5-22.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York,NY.

Martin, L.J. (1998), “Integrating ethics into the hospitality curriculum”, Journal of Hospitality andTourism Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 22-5.

About the authorsMaria Krambia-Kapardis is Associate Professor in Accounting at Cyprus University ofTechnology, Limassol, Cyprus. She studied in Australia where she obtained: B.Ec. (La TrobeUniversity), M.Bus (R.M.I.T), PhD (Edith Cowan), Certificate in Fraud Investigation (La TrobeUniversity and Victoria Police) and is a Chartered Accountant of Australia. She was a memberand vice president of the education committee of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants ofCyprus (ICPAC) and a member of the Disciplinary Committee for ICPAC. Her current researchinterests include: corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, triple bottom linereporting, business ethics, forensic accounting, fraud investigation and auditing. She is also veryactive in both professional and community work.

Anastasios Zopiatis holds a BSc degree in Hotel, Restaurant and Travel Administration fromthe University of Southern Illinois at Carbondale, an MSc degree in Hotel Administration fromthe University of Nevada at Las Vegas, and a Doctorate in Professional Studies from MiddlesexUniversity, United Kingdom. He is currently a lecturer of the Department of Hotel and TourismManagement of the Cyprus University of Technology. He teaches in the fields of food andbeverage management and hospitality human resources. His research interests include topicssuch as hospitality internship practices, hospitality human resources and ethics in the academicenvironment.

EMJB3,2

178

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints