The Effect of Group Dynamics on Individual Ethical Decision Making

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE Behavioral Research in Accounting Pub Date : 2023-08-18 DOI:10.2308/bria-2022-008
Rachel Daniel, A. Douglass, Abagail Kluetz, Julie S. Persellin
{"title":"The Effect of Group Dynamics on Individual Ethical Decision Making","authors":"Rachel Daniel, A. Douglass, Abagail Kluetz, Julie S. Persellin","doi":"10.2308/bria-2022-008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Given that many significant decisions in accounting are made by groups of professionals, it is important to understand the impact of group interactions on ethical decision making. We examine how group dynamics can influence an individual’s ethical evaluations and intentions and whether the effect of these group interactions persists in the future. We also explore the ethical orientations used by participants to inform their ethical judgments. Our results indicate that individual initial assessments of ethical scenarios are consistently more ethical than group assessments of the same ethical scenarios. Groups consistently viewed questionable actions as more acceptable than individuals and were more likely to say that they or their peers would perform the action. This less ethical perspective persists in future individual ethical assessments, demonstrating a contagion effect on ethical judgments. Furthermore, our results show that justice and relativism are the moral constructs utilized by most participants to form ethical evaluations.\n Data Availability: Data are available from the authors.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2022-008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given that many significant decisions in accounting are made by groups of professionals, it is important to understand the impact of group interactions on ethical decision making. We examine how group dynamics can influence an individual’s ethical evaluations and intentions and whether the effect of these group interactions persists in the future. We also explore the ethical orientations used by participants to inform their ethical judgments. Our results indicate that individual initial assessments of ethical scenarios are consistently more ethical than group assessments of the same ethical scenarios. Groups consistently viewed questionable actions as more acceptable than individuals and were more likely to say that they or their peers would perform the action. This less ethical perspective persists in future individual ethical assessments, demonstrating a contagion effect on ethical judgments. Furthermore, our results show that justice and relativism are the moral constructs utilized by most participants to form ethical evaluations. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
群体动力学对个体伦理决策的影响
鉴于会计中的许多重大决策是由专业人员群体做出的,了解群体互动对道德决策的影响非常重要。我们研究群体动态如何影响个人的道德评价和意图,以及这些群体互动的影响是否会在未来持续存在。我们还探讨了参与者用来进行道德判断的道德取向。我们的研究结果表明,个体对道德情景的初步评估始终比相同道德情景的群体评估更合乎道德。群体始终认为有问题的行为比个人更容易被接受,并且更有可能说他们或他们的同伴会执行这些行为。这种不那么道德的观点在未来的个人道德评估中持续存在,证明了道德判断的传染效应。此外,我们的研究结果表明,正义和相对主义是大多数参与者用来形成道德评价的道德结构。数据可用性:数据可从作者处获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Relative Performance Information and Rule-Breaking: The Moderating Effect of Group Identity In All Fairness: A Meta-Analysis of the Tax Fairness–Tax Compliance Literature I’m Working Hard, but It’s Hardly Working: The Consequences of Motivating Employee Effort That Fails to Achieve Performance Targets Auditor Materiality Disclosures and Investor Trust: How to Address Conditional Risks of Disclosure Mandates The Conservatism Principle and Asymmetric Preferences over Reporting Errors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1