“…These have included "whistle blowing" where respondents evaluate the appropriateness of a vignette protagonist disclosing others' questionable activities (e.g., Ayers and Kaplan, 2005;Barnett et al, 1994, Vignette 19;Barnett et al, 1996;Chiu, 2003;Chiu and Erdener, 2003;Hansen, 1992, Vignettes 2 and 3;Jung, 2009, Vignette 3;Radtke, 2000;Zhang et al, 2009a,b), laying off an employee (e.g., Cohen et al, 1998, Vignette 5;Shawver and Sennetti, 2009;Valentine and Hollingsworth, 2012), paying for inside information (e.g., Valentine and Rittenburg, 1994), bribery (e.g., , software piracy (e.g., Wagner and Sanders, 2001), and behavior in the face of threats or pressure from superiors or clients (e.g., managers explicitly ordering vignette protagonists to engage in bribery and price-fixing, Smith et al, 2007; see also Barnett et al, 1994, Vignettes 3 and 18;Cohen et al, 1998, Vignette 4;Cruz, Shafer, and Strauser, 2000;Flory et al, 1992;Loo, 2004;Marques and AzevedoPereira, 2009, Vignettes 1 and 5;Patel, 1993, Vignettes 1 and 2;Shawver and Sennetti, 2009). Some vignettes involve activities that create no apparent harms of any kind and thus seem not to be ethically questionable at all, such as consumers bringing their own shopping bags to stores (Chan et al, 2008), customers applying for credit cards but rarely using them (Ding et al, 2009), refunding money to customers (Dornoff and Tankersley, 1975), extending credit or loans that violate only the lenders' "normal (internal) lending criteria" (e.g., Flory et al, 1992;Cohen et al, 1998, Vignette 2;Shawver and Sennetti, 2009), and hiring Hispanic persons for a Mexican restaurant (Schepers, 2003).…”