Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
102
Personal values
High Idealism
High relativism
Low relativism
Situationist
Absolutist
Subjectivist
Low Idealism
103
Exceptionist
judgmoral
judginten-
104
1. Magnitude of consequences: the sum of the detriments or bene6ts done to victims or beneficiaries of
the act.
2. Social consensus: the degree of social agreement that the act is good or bad.
3. Probability of effect: the joint probability that the act will actually take place and that it will cause the
detriment or benefit predicted.
4. Temporal immediacy: the length of time between the present and the onset of the act's consequences.
5. Proximity: the "feeling of nearness (social, cultural, psychological, or physical) that the moral agent has
for victims (beneficiaries) of the . . . act" (p. 376).
6. Concentration of effect: an inverse function of the number of people affected by the act.
Figure 2. Components of moral intensity.
organized into hierarchical systems with describable and measurable properties and observable
behavioral consequences. Because personal values
are more central, or "closer to [one's] personality
than other constructs such as attitudes and
opinions" (Ravlin and Meglino, 1987, p. 156),
they resist change to an even greater degree.
Early social-psychological theories of belief
systems (e.g., Rokeach, 1972) describe value
change as a cognitive process, the result of a
basic human need for cognitive consistency.
Modification of the personal value system was
thought to result from efForts to reduce a perceived inconsistency among an individual's attitudes, values and behavior, or between his and
some significant other's attitudes, values, motives
or behavior (p. 165). More recent belief system
theory (e.g., Grube et al., 1994, p. 156) postulates that change is an affective process, the result
of a need to feel self-satisfied with one's own
competence and morality. Both the cognitive and
affective perspectives are consistent with the
many studies reviewed in Grube et al. which
demonstrate that personal values can be changed
through a process termed value self confrontation.
Individuals presented with feedback concerning
their own and significant others' values, attitudes
and behaviors are motivated to change values,
attitudes and behaviors not consistent and to
maintain those that are consistent with the
referent norm (p. 157). Both perspectives are
consistent with theories of socialization and
organizational culture.
Fogarty (1992, p. 130) defines socialization as
"the process by which individuals are molded by
the society to which they seek full membership."
105
Methodology
Participants in this study were practicing accountants employed by two large, international
accounting firms. Three hundred sixty-eight
auditors at various experience levels and positions
within the firms were tested in groups. Sixty-four
failed a manipulation check built into the
experimental task or did not provide complete
106
TABLE I
Sample demographics (w = 304*)
Age***
Gender**
125 Female
(43.7%)
161 Male
(56.3%)
Marital status**
187 Married
(66.3%)
95 Not married
(33.7%)
Position**
Professional certification**
138 Yes
(46.6%)
158 No
(53.4%)
165 Yes
(56.9%)
125 No
(43.1%)
247 Yes
(84.6%)
45 No
(15.4%)
256 Yes
(87.4%)
37 No
(12.6%)
*
Responses may not total 304 due to missing values.
** Between-firm difference significant at p < 0.01 (chi-square test).
*** Between-firm difference significant zt p < 0.001 (two-tailed f-test).
presents a series of statements with which respondents in the current study were asked to agree
or disagree on a nine point scale anchored
"1 = Completely disagree" and "9 = Completely
agree." Responses to idealism- and relativismspecific statements were suninied to produce the
two variable scores.
The EPQ instrument has been used in prior
studies of both undergraduate and graduate
college students (Forsyth, 1980; Arrington and
Reckers, 1985; Douglas and Schwartz, 1999) and
practicing auditors (Shaub et al., 1993). AU attest
to the EPQs validity and psychometric properties. Forsyth (1980), Arrington and Reckers
(1985), and Douglas and Wier (2000) demonstrate that the measures can be used to explain
differences in moral judgments. The instrument
as applied to current data again reveals that the
two dimensions are orthogonal (interscale correlation of -0.10) and that the scales have
adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha
of 0.84 for the idealism scale, 0.81 for relativism).
The idealism and relativism measures were
used to classify individuals into one of the four
ethical orientations, as indicated in Figure 1. This
was done using median splits of the idealism (five
subjects have the median score of 58) and relativism (15 subjects have the median score of 50)
scores. Because of the duplicated median scores,
the four orientations are not equal in size. The
split into high and low groups was made to make
the groups as equal in size as possible. This classification method results in 69 Exceptionists, 84
Subjectivists, 77 Absolutists, and 74 Situationists."*
107
al. (1989) document the development of the fiveitem scale used in the current study from a larger
pool of items (Hunt el al., 1984) and a sample
of over 1,200 respondents. Factor analysis and
coefficient alpha ^vere used to assess the dimensionality and reliability of the scale. The CEP was
adapted for the current study only by substitution of the word "firm" for "company" in the
original as a concession to the organizational
structure of public accounting.
The five items in the CEP scale were summed
to form an overall index of organizational ethics
in the current study. Hunt et al. (1989) used a
seven-point response scale, but participants in this
study were asked to agree or disagree with its
statements on a nine-point scale to maintain consistency with the EPQ and judgment measures.
This adjustment appears not to have affected the
scale's psychometric properties. Hunt et al.
(1989) reports Cronbach's alpha of 0.78, a unidimensional factor structure, and beta coefficients
in models of CEP score and other factors as predictors of organizational commitment ranging
from 0.17 to 0.58 {p < 0.01) across four subsamples of the data. As applied in the current
study, data reveal Cronbach's alpha of 0.71 and a
unidimensional factor structure. Consistent with
the prior findings, a statistically significant correlation (p = 0.0171) between CEP score and
response to a rough proxy, single-item measure
("intend to remain with current firm") suggests
the CEP to be a predictor of organizational commitment.
Other injluences
Measures of organizational ethical culture
108
Measures of judgment
Magnitude of consequences
Social consensus
Probability of effect
Temporal immediacy
Proximity
Concentration of effect
Overall moral intensity rating''
Vignette:
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7^
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L/H'
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
L/H
L/H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L/H
L
109
Results
Tests of hypotheses
TABLE II
Univariate tests of central tendency and association
Variables
Mean
Std. Dev.
Relativism
CEP
Idealism
5.72
1.39
Relativism
4.97*
1.36
-0.103
(0.073)
CEP
6.97**
1.26
0.198
(0.000)
-0.101
(0.079)
Firm
n/a
n/a
0.017
(0.770)
0.129
(0.024)
0.148
(0.010)
Position
n/a
n/a
-0.065
(0.255)
-0.029
(0.615)
0.140
(0.015)
Firm
0.614
(0.000)
no
Ul
112
DF
Sum of squares
Mean square
F value
Model
Error
Corrected total
7
296
303
575.12
14776.85
15351.97
82.16
49.92
1.65
0.122
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean square
F value
70.70
9.44
10.42
45.79
238.09
1.42
0.19
0.21
0.92
4.77
0.238
0.664
0.648
0.339
0.030
Ethical orientation
Emphasis on rules vs. judgment
Professional involvement
Professional code of conduct
Ethics instruction
212.09
9.44
10.42
45.79
238.09
DF
Sum of squares
Mean square
F value
Model
Error
Corrected total
7
296
303
362.91
4745.35
5108.26
51 .84
16 .03
3.23
0.003
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean square
F value
47.00
0.26
5.81
108.32
69.25
2.93
0.02
0.36
6.76
4.32
0.034
0.898
0.548
0.010
0.039
Ethical orientation
Emphasis on rules vs. judgment
Professional involvement
Professional code of conduct
Ethics instruction
3
1
1
1
1
140.99
0.26
5.81
108.32
69.25
Model 3: Dependent variable: Sum of low intensity ethical judgments (R' = 0.014)
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean square
F value
Model
Error
Corrected total
7
296
303
97.79
7114.90
7212.68
13.97
24.04
0.58
0.771
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean square
F value
5.84
12.85
0.67
13.25
50.53
0.24
0.53
0.03
0.55
2.10
0.866
0.465
0.868
0.458
0.148
Ethical orientation
Emphasis on rules vs. judgment
Professional involvement
Professional code of conduct
Ethics instruction
1
1
1
1
17.53
12.85
0.67
13.25
50.53
113
DF
Model
Error
Corrected total
5
298
303
Source
DF
Sum of squares
13.30
348.65
361.95
Type III SS
0.96
3.13
0.40
4.10
0.20
Mean square
2.66
1.17
Mean square
0.96
3.13
0.40
4.10
0.20
F value
2.27
0.047
F value
0.82
2.67
0.34
3.50
0.17
0.366
0.103
0.560
0.062
0.681
DF
Sum of squares
Model
Error
Corrected total
298
303
4199.06
55271.68
59470.73
SOURCE
DF
Type III SS
1
1
1
1
1
1863.68
1112.68
250.73
35.37
86.70
Mean square
839.82
185.48
Mean square
1863.68
1112.68
250.73
35.37
86.70
F value
4.53
<0.001
F value
10.05
6.00
1.35
0.19
0.47
0.002
0.015
0.246
0.663
0.495
DF
Sum of squares
Mean square
F value
Model
Error
Corrected total
5
298
303
1362.74
55159.25
56521.99
272.55
55159.25
1.47
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean square
F value
1
1
1
1
681.27
140.56
58.12
278.18
288.57
681.27
140.56
58.12
278.18
288.57
3.68
0.76
0.31
1.50
1.56
0.199
0.056
0.384
0.576
0.221
0.213
114
DF
Sum of squares
Mean square
F value
Model
Error
Corrected total
7
296
303
724.29
14627.68
15351.97
103.47
49.42
2.09
0.044
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean square
F value
166.07
286.97
241.29
5.15
10.46
39.32
271.88
3.36
5.81
4.88
0.10
0.21
0.80
5.50
0.068
0.017
0.028
0.747
0.646
0.373
0.020
F value
3.03
0.004
Idealism
Relativism
idealism*relativism
Emphasis on rules vs. judgment
Professional involvement
Professional code of conduct
Ethics instruction
1
1
3
1
1
1
166.07
286.97
241.29
5.15
10.46
39.32
271.88
Model 2: Dependent variable: Sum of high intensity ethical judgments (R' = 0.067)
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean square
Model
Error
Corrected total
7
296
303
341.97
4766.29
5108.26
48.85
16.10
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean square
F value
9.55
41.77
31.09
1.29
5.41
101.34
71.67
0.59
2.59
1.93
0.08
0.34
6.29
4.45
0.442
0.108
0.166
0.777
0.563
0.013
0.036
Idealism
Relativism
Idealism*relativism
Emphasis on rules vs. judgment
Professional involvement
Professional code of conduct
Ethics instruction
1
1
1
1
1
1
9.55
41.77
31.09
1.29
5.41
101.34
71.67
Model 3: Dependent variable: Sum of low intensity ethical judgments {'R' = 0.026)
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Model
Error
Corrected total
7
296
303
7021.70
7212.68
Source
DF
Type III SS
Idealism
Relativism
Idealism*relativism
Emphasis on rules vs. judgment
Professional involvement
Professional code of conduct
Ethics instruction
1
1
1
1
1
1
190.99
95.98
109.77
99.14
11.59
0.82
14.41
64.36
Mean square
value
27.28
23.72
1.15
0.332
Mean square
F value
95.98
109.77
99.14
11.59
0.82
14.41
64.36
4.05
4.63
4.18
0.49
0.03
0.61
2.71
0.045
0.032
0.042
0.485
0.852
0.436
0.101
115
CEP
Emphasis
on Rules vs.
Judement
Code of
Conduct
IDEALISM
JUDGMENTS
(in situations of
high moral
intensity)
1691-f
RELATIVISM
Professional
Involvement
Ethics
Instruction
and to different stimuli in the environment, individuals may perceive the same event, object, or
experience differently.
Of course, the fmdings of this study must be
considered in view of its hmitations. As we
previously pointed out, developing the ethics
scenarios to use was not a simple task. Despite
our conscientious effort and application of the
accepted procedures for developing vignettes to
be used in such studies (previously discussed), it
is possible that the scenarios used were not
appropriate to elicit a wide range of responses.
However, the different results between the high
and low intensity scenarios indicate that the
manipulation was successful. In fact, this study's
operationalization of Jones' (1991) moral intensity theory in an accounting setting may be its
major contribution.
It is also possible, as Lord (1992) points
out, that our subjects did not feel accountable
for the judgments required by the experimental
task, so they may not have taken it seriously.
Again, accepted survey-research techniques
were followed to minimize this possibility.
116
HQX
Variable
Variable
Direct
effect
Indirect
effect
Residual
Total
correlation
Path coefficients:
Hola
Idealism
relativism
Ho2
CEP
HO3a
CEP
Emphasis on
rules vs. judgment
Judgments
Judgments
-0.133**
0.069
-0.006
0.004
-0.139**
0.073
Idealism
relativism
0.203***
-0.098
0.003
-0.002
0.206***
-0.010
->
Judgments
-0.073
Idealism
relativism
Judgments
0.148**
-0.025
-0.022
Idealism
relativism
Judgments
Idealism
relativism
Judgments
0.113*
0.052
-0.169**
0.052
-0.066
-0.144**
>
Professional code
of conduct
>
Ethics instruction
->
-0.028
0.029
-0.021
0.003
-0.021
0.019
0.151**
-0.046
-0.024
0.024
-0.005
0.019
0.004
-0.003
0.001
0.121*
0.047
-0.166**
0.056
-0.069
-0.143**
-0.016
-0.072
;j<0.01.
p< 0.05.
117
A person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to a small degree.
Risks to another should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might be.
The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained.
One should never psychologically or physically harm another person.
One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare of another
individual.
If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not be done.
Deciding whether or not to perform an act by balancing the positive consequences of the act against the
negative consequences of the act is immoral.
The dignity and welfare of people should be the most important concern in any society.
It is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of others.
Moral actions are those which closely match ideals of the most "perfect" action.
There are no ethical principles that are so important that they should be a part of any code of ethics.
What is ethical varies from one situation and society to another.
Moral standards should be seen as being individualistic; what one person considers to be moral may be
judged to be immoral by another person.
Different types of moralities cannot be compared as to "rightness."
Questions of what is ethical for everyone can never be resolved since what is moral or immoral is up to
the individual.
Moral standards are simply personal rules which indicate how a person should behave, and are not to be
applied in making judgments of others.
Ethical considerations in interpersonal relations are so complex that individuals should be allowed to
formulate their own individual codes.
Rigidly codifying an ethical position that prevents certain types of actions could stand in the way of better
human relations and adjustment.
No rule concerning lying can be formulated; whether a lie is permissible or not permissible totally depends
upon the situation.
Whether a lie is judged to be moral or immoral depends upon the circumstances surrounding the action.
118
Appendix C: Vignettes
Vignette #t: CPA X is approached by a prospective client, a current employee ofa large existing client corporation. The employee discloses that personnel of the client organization are considering forming their own corporation which could eventually provide competition for their employer.
Action; CPA X does not reveal the scheme to his client.
Vignette #2: A chent of CPA X refers another client to X and indicates that he expects some small compensation from X for his services.
Action: X takes the client out to dinner.
Vignette U3: CPA X is developing a bid for a major new client. The client has already expressed to X what he
expects the bid to be. X knows that the fee the chent demands is significantly below the cost of rendering the
services and that the audit will lose money in the first few years. However, the expectation is that the firm will
be able to raise the audit fee a few years down the road to generate a profit.
Action: X deliberately sets the bid significantly below cost.
Vignette U4: CPA X serves as the auditor for Widget & Co., a privately held firm. Widget's market share has
declined drastically, and X knows that Widget wil! soon be bankrupt. Another of X's audit clients is Solid
Company. While auditing Solid's accounts receivable, X finds that Widget & Co. owes Solid $200,000. This
represents 10 percent of Solid's receivables.
Action: CPA X warns the client, Solid Company, about Widget's impending bankruptcy.
Vignette #5: CPA X, in addition to practicing public accounting, is heavily involved in community activities.
X has been involved in the past with fund-raising efforts for the local symphony orchestra. In preparation for
a proposal to an international funding organization, tbe president of the symphony has asked X to perform the
initial audit.
Action: CPA X accepts the audit engagement.
Vignette U6: CPA X has had several meetings with a potential client, the CEO of a very large and profitable
company. The potential client asks X to arrange a position for his son as a staff auditor in another office of the
firm. Although the son is bright, he probably would not have otherwise been given an offer.
Action: CPA X recommends making the potential chent's son an offer.
Vignette #7: While engaged in the audit of Lark Enterprises, a large client company, CPA X discovers that the
company intends to default on a major contract with another of X's client companies. Southern Company.
Southern's contract with Lark is its largest, and represents a significant share of its sales.
Action: CPA X warns Southern about Lark's impending default.
Acknowledgement
Notes
' See Sims {1992, p. 511) for a listing of studies coneluding tbat management ethics impacts employee
fh''^^- There were no significant differences
of experience in public accounting,
gender, undergraduate major, being a
tion to remain in public accounting,
in age, years
office size,
CPA, intenmanagement
119
References
Armstrong, M. B.: 1984, Internalization of the
Professional Ethic by Certified Public Accountants:
A
Multidimensional
Scaling
Approach.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Southern California.
Armstrong. M. B.: 1987, 'Moral Development and
Accounting Education', Journal of Accounting
Education 5 (Spring), 27-43.
Armstrong, M. B.: 1993, 'Ethics and Professionalism
in Accounting Education: A Sample Course',
Journal of Accounting Education 11 (Spring), 77-92.
Arrington, C. E. and P. M. J. Reckers: 1985, 'A
Social-psychological Investigation into Perceptions
of Tax Evasion', Accounting and Business Research 15
(Summer), 163-176.
Bearden, W. O., R. G. Netemeyer and M. F. Mobleyr
1993, Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-Item
Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior
Research (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA).
Blalock, D.: 1996, 'For Many Executives, Ethics
Appear To Be a Write Off', The Wall Street Journal
(March 26), C l , C3.
Brief, A. P, J. M. Dukerich and L. I. Doran: 1991,
'Resolving Ethical Dilemmas in Management:
Experimental
Investigations
of
Values,
Accountability, and Choice', Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 21 (March 1-15), 380-396.
Brief, A. P., J. M. Dukerich, P R. Brown and J. H
Brett: 1996, 'Whats Wrong with the Treadway
Commission Report? Experimental Analyses of the
Effects of Personal Values and Codes of Conduct
on Fraudulent Financial Reporting', Journal of
Business Ethics 15 (February), 183-198.
Casler, D. J.: 1964, The Evolution of CPA Ethics: A
Profile of Professionalization. Occasional Paper No.
12, Bureau of Business and Economic Research,
Graduate School of Business Administration,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Cavanagh, G. and D. Fritzsche: 1985, 'Using
Vignettes in Business Ethics Research', Research in
Corporate Social Performance and Policy 7, 279-293.
Cohen, J., L. Pant and D. Sharp: 1994, 'An
International Comparison of Moral Constructs
Underlying
Auditors'
Ethical Judgments',
Proceedings of the Ernst & Young Research on
Accounting Ethics Symposium (June 12-14), 34-45.
Dillard, J. F. and K. R. Ferris: 1989, 'Individual
Behavior in Professional Accounting Firms: A
Review and Synthesis', Journal of Accounting
Literature 8, 208-234.
Douglas, P C. and B. N. Schwartz; 1999, 'Values as
120
121