Ethical decision-making dynamics: insights from professional accountants

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

Table 1. Response rate and demographic information.

Survey result	Frequency	Percent (%)
Response rate:
Returned questionnaires (initially distributed = 415)	356	85.78
Not returned questionnaires	59	14.22
Incomplete questionnaires	24	5.78
Before data cleaning	332	80.00
After data cleaning	309	74.46
Profile of participants (n = 309):
Gender
Female	35	11.33
Male	274	88.67
Age
< 29 years	68	22.01
30–39 years	177	57.28
40–49 years	61	19.74
> 50 years	3	0.97
Academic qualifications
Bachelor’s degree	232	75.08
Master’s degree	76	24.60
Doctorate	1	0.32
Work experience
< 5 years	71	22.98
6–10 years	115	37.22
11–15 years	70	22.65
16–20 years	40	12.94
> 21 years	13	4.21

Table 2. Measurement and operationalization.

Construct	Measurement indicators	Sources
Moral recognition (MRC)	Whether or not to report the case raised an ethical problem for Friew.	Moores et al. (2018) (for the other two vignettes, modified items were used)
	Friew faced with a moral dilemma.
	Friew’s action involved a moral problem.
	Friew’s decision has nothing to do with ethics.
	Friew’s decision is money, not morality.
Moral judgment (MJD)	I would consider Friew’s action in this case to be unacceptable.	Moores et al. (2018) (for the other two vignettes, modified items were used)
	I would consider Friew’s action in this case to be ethical.
	I would consider Friew’s action in this case to be good.
	I would consider Friew’s action in this case to be wise.
	I would consider Friew’s action in this case to be unjust.
Moral intent (MIT)	I would never respond the way Friew did.	Moores et al. (2018) (for the other two vignettes, modified items were used)
	I would not report the case if I felt losing my job.
	I would not be silent about Belay’s expense reports.
	Given the opportunity, I would not report the questionable expense reports.
	In this situation, I would do exactly the same thing as Friew.
Idealism (IDA)	All indicators adopted (10 items)	Forsyth (1980)
Relativism (RLV)	All indicators adopted (10 items)	Forsyth (1980)
Laws and professional codes (LPC)	All indicators adopted (4 items)	Cullen et al. (1993)
Social responsibility (SOR)	All indicators adopted (4 items)	Cullen et al. (1993)
Intrinsic religious orientation (IRO)	I regularly practice my religion.	Shariff (2015); Sulaiman et al. (2022); Tariq et al. (2019)
	My religion involves in all my life.
	When I face ethical issues, I consider the issue of whether it is permissible or not according to my religion.
	I feel a strong relationship with other people.
	I live all aspects of my life according to my religious beliefs.
Peer group pressure (PGP)	My peers talk about the importance of ethics and doing the right thing in our work.	Hull (1999); Yu et al. (2021)
	My peers support me in following standards of ethical behavior.
	I get advice from my peers when I face ethical dilemmas.
	My peers carefully consider ethical issues when making work-related decisions.
	If I am unsure about how to deal with a situation at work, the opinions of my peers act as a guide.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

Construct	Construct type	Mean	Std. deviation
IDA	Exogenous	3.747	0.757
RLV		2.301	0.792
LPC		3.586	0.873
SOR		3.803	0.728
IRO		3.640	0.696
PGP		3.626	0.741
MRC^a	Endogenous	3.639	0.829
MJD^a		3.631	0.923
MIT^a		3.799	0.877
MRC^b		3.690	0.892
MJD^b		3.722	0.973
MIT^b		3.846	0.892
MRC^c		3.584	0.875
MJD^c		3.672	0.835
MIT^c		3.636	0.842

Note: IDA: idealism, LPC: laws and professional codes, MJD: moral judgment, MIT: moral intent, MRC: moral recognition, PGP: peer group pressure, IRO: intrinsic religious orientation, RLV: relativism, SOR: social responsibility.

^a for vignette 1,^bfor vignette 2, and ^cfor vignette 3.

Table 4. Indicators loading and reliability.

Construct	Items	Vignette 1			Vignette 2			Vignette 3
		Loading	Alpha	CR	Loading	Alpha	CR	Loading	Alpha	CR
Idealism (IDA)	IDA1	0.773	0.928	0.939	0.771	0.928	0.939	0.768	0.928	0.939
	IDA2	0.799			0.801			0.802
	IDA3	0.830			0.831			0.828
	IDA4	0.816			0.818			0.822
	IDA5	0.806			0.807			0.805
	IDA6	0.781			0.783			0.786
	IDA7	0.755			0.753			0.750
	IDA8	0.775			0.777			0.775
	IDA9	0.736			0.732			0.732
	IDA10	0.713			0.710			0.715
Laws and Professional Codes (LPC)	LPC1	0.839	0.882	0.918	0.836	0.882	0.918	0.836	0.882	0.918
	LPC2	0.849			0.856			0.857
	LPC3	0.870			0.870			0.867
	LPC4	0.877			0.874			0.876
Moral Intent (MIT)	IN1	0.886	0.923	0.942	0.855	0.920	0.940	0.853	0.898	0.924
	IN2	0.879			0.871			0.809
	IN3	0.861			0.871			0.820
	IN4	0.867			0.868			0.857
	IN5	0.877			0.887			0.872
Moral Judgment (MJD)	JD1	0.888	0.935	0.950	0.858	0.918	0.939	0.836	0.893	0.921
	JD2	0.904			0.857			0.841
	JD3	0.888			0.897			0.832
	JD4	0.877			0.874			0.827
	JD5	0.897			0.854			0.850
Moral Recognition (MRC)	RC1	0.861	0.920	0.940	0.876	0.914	0.935	0.874	0.910	0.933
	RC2	0.880			0.855			0.850
	RC3	0.864			0.876			0.851
	RC4	0.866			0.86			0.853
	RC5	0.880			0.844			0.857
Peer Group Pressure (PGP)	PGP1	0.814	0.844	0.895	0.818	0.844	0.895	0.819	0.844	0.895
	PGP2	0.824			0.822			0.821
	PGP3	0.821			0.824			0.825
	PGP4	0.840			0.835			0.834
Intrinsic Religious Orientation (IRO)	REL1	0.827	0.844	0.889	0.827	0.844	0.889	0.828	0.844	0.889
	REL2	0.748			0.748			0.751
	REL3	0.775			0.775			0.774
	REL4	0.803			0.802			0.804
	REL5	0.770			0.772			0.767
Relativism (RLV)	RLV1	0.761	0.925	0.937	0.759	0.925	0.937	0.759	0.925	0.937
	RLV2	0.769			0.767			0.766
	RLV3	0.814			0.813			0.814
	RLV4	0.818			0.818			0.819
	RLV5	0.785			0.785			0.787
	RLV6	0.780			0.783			0.783
	RLV7	0.790			0.791			0.792
	RLV8	0.725			0.728			0.724
	RLV9	0.735			0.735			0.734
	RLV10	0.756			0.756			0.756
Social Responsibility (SOR)	SOR1	0.864	0.857	0.902	0.859	0.857	0.903	0.856	0.857	0.903
	SOR2	0.818			0.822			0.823
	SOR3	0.821			0.829			0.831
	SOR4	0.837			0.833			0.834

Table 5. Average variance extracted (AVE).

Construct	Vignette 1	Vignette 2	Vignette 3
IDA	0.607	0.607	0.607
LPC	0.738	0.738	0.738
MIT	0.764	0.758	0.710
MJD	0.793	0.754	0.701
MRC	0.757	0.743	0.735
PGP	0.681	0.680	0.680
IRO	0.617	0.617	0.617
RLV	0.599	0.599	0.599
SOR	0.698	0.699	0.699

Table 6. Fornell and Larcker criterion and the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio.

Construct	IDA	LPC	MIT	MJD	MRC	PGP	IRO	RLV	SOR
Vignette 1
IDA	0.779	0.213	0.604	0.507	0.706	0.324	0.584	0.487	0.546
LPC	0.200	0.859	0.390	0.545	0.282	0.679	0.412	0.245	0.211
MIT	0.560	0.356	0.874	0.779	0.824	0.326	0.817	0.591	0.580
MJD	0.472	0.500	0.724	0.891	0.694	0.446	0.749	0.506	0.554
MRC	0.654	0.260	0.759	0.644	0.870	0.252	0.771	0.677	0.601
PGP	0.289	0.591	0.289	0.398	0.222	0.825	0.436	0.293	0.329
IRO	0.518	0.359	0.722	0.667	0.682	0.370	0.785	0.597	0.661
RLV	−0.453	−0.225	−0.546	−0.471	−0.626	−0.260	−0.529	0.774	0.426
SOR	0.491	0.197	0.527	0.508	0.537	0.283	0.566	−0.383	0.835
Vignette 2
IDA	0.779	0.213	0.533	0.439	0.710	0.324	0.584	0.487	0.546
LPC	0.198	0.859	0.321	0.594	0.259	0.679	0.412	0.245	0.211
MIT	0.495	0.292	0.870	0.657	0.689	0.313	0.766	0.557	0.501
MJD	0.407	0.539	0.607	0.868	0.603	0.463	0.728	0.414	0.532
MRC	0.656	0.239	0.635	0.555	0.862	0.288	0.735	0.672	0.614
PGP	0.290	0.592	0.276	0.411	0.254	0.825	0.436	0.293	0.329
IRO	0.518	0.358	0.678	0.642	0.650	0.371	0.785	0.597	0.661
RLV	−0.452	−0.225	−0.515	−0.382	−0.621	−0.261	−0.529	0.774	0.426
SOR	0.490	0.195	0.453	0.478	0.545	0.284	0.565	−0.383	0.836
Vignette 3
IDA	0.779	0.213	0.443	0.488	0.659	0.324	0.584	0.487	0.546
LPC	0.198	0.859	0.308	0.585	0.315	0.679	0.412	0.245	0.211
MIT	0.409	0.279	0.843	0.701	0.765	0.307	0.788	0.556	0.450
MJD	0.446	0.524	0.631	0.837	0.687	0.495	0.772	0.464	0.538
MRC	0.609	0.287	0.693	0.621	0.857	0.337	0.843	0.635	0.620
PGP	0.290	0.593	0.269	0.433	0.297	0.825	0.436	0.293	0.329
IRO	0.519	0.359	0.689	0.672	0.741	0.371	0.785	0.597	0.661
RLV	−0.453	−0.225	−0.505	−0.422	−0.584	−0.261	−0.529	0.774	0.426
SOR	0.490	0.194	0.399	0.476	0.549	0.284	0.565	−0.382	0.836

Notes: The bold and italicized diagonal values are the square roots of AVE, and below the diagonal elements are the correlations between the construct values representing Fornell and Larcker criterion. Above the diagonal elements are the HTMT ratio values.

Figure 2. PLS-SEM results for vignette 1.

Table 7. Variance inflation factor (VIF).

Constructs	Vignette 1			Vignette 2			Vignette 3
	MRC	MJD	MIT	MRC	MJD	MIT	MRC	MJD	MIT
IDA	1.456			1.455			1.456
RLV	1.479			1.477			1.479
IRO	1.606	2.275	2.237	1.606	2.119	2.159	1.607	2.557	2.643
LPC		1.608			1.605			1.608
PGP		1.646			1.637			1.638
SOR		1.602			1.622			1.579
MRC		2.014	2.125		1.886	1.835		2.349	2.360
MJD			2.047			1.800			1.943

Note: IDA: idealism, RLV: relativism, IRO: intrinsic religious orientation, LPC: laws and professional codes, PGP: peer group pressure, SOR: social responsibility, MRC: moral recognition, MJD: moral judgment, MIT: moral intent.

Table 8. Results of the structural model.

Exogenous construct	Endogenous construct	Vignette 1			Vignette 2			Vignette 3
		R^2	Q^2	f^2	R^2	Q^2	f^2	R^2	Q^2	f^2
IDA	MRC	0.643	0.630	0.225	0.621	0.608	0.240	0.645	0.633	0.128
RLV				0.152			0.155			0.078
IRO				0.219			0.154			0.438
MRC	MJD	0.597	0.546	0.121	0.563	0.523	0.047	0.581	0.547	0.053
LPC				0.121			0.181			0.132
PGP				0.001			0.000			0.002
SOR				0.023			0.021			0.014
IRO				0.081			0.109			0.099
IRO	MIT	0.700	0.592	0.096	0.554	0.498	0.126	0.576	0.483	0.072
MJD				0.150			0.064			0.063
MRC				0.239			0.097			0.116

Table 9. Direct relationships (hypotheses).

	Vignette 1				Vignette 2				Vignette 3				Results
	β	SD	T stat	p values	β	SD	T stat	p values	β	SD	T stat	p values
MRC -> MJD	0.314	0.060	5.216	0.000	0.198	0.066	2.986	0.003	0.231	0.071	3.221	0.001	H1a fully supported
MJD -> MIT	0.304	0.052	5.849	0.000	0.226	0.055	4.113	0.000	0.227	0.061	3.730	0.000	H1b fully supported
MRC -> MIT	0.391	0.061	6.388	0.000	0.283	0.061	4.629	0.000	0.344	0.069	4.923	0.000	H1c fully supported
LPC -> MJD	0.276	0.058	4.839	0.000	0.353	0.056	6.416	0.000	0.295	0.062	4.793	0.000	H2 fully supported
IDA -> MRC	0.344	0.058	5.897	0.000	0.367	0.059	6.174	0.000	0.260	0.057	4.499	0.000	H3a fully supported
RLV -> MRC	−0.284	0.056	5.072	0.000	−0.293	0.059	4.947	0.000	−0.203	0.056	3.618	0.000	H3b fully supported
IRO -> MRC	0.352	0.056	6.341	0.000	0.305	0.054	5.647	0.000	0.498	0.052	9.664	0.000	H4a fully supported
IRO -> MJD	0.270	0.059	4.669	0.000	0.313	0.063	5.012	0.000	0.323	0.068	4.775	0.000	H4b fully supported
IRO -> MIT	0.252	0.050	5.020	0.000	0.347	0.068	5.130	0.000	0.281	0.076	3.739	0.000	H4c fully supported
SOR -> MJD	0.124	0.049	2.473	0.013	0.126	0.055	2.206	0.027	0.098	0.052	1.865	0.062	H5 partially supported
PGP -> MJD	0.033	0.065	0.426	0.670	0.001	0.060	0.051	0.960	0.044	0.066	0.606	0.545	H6 not supported

Note: IDA: idealism, LPC: laws and professional codes, MIT: moral intent, MJD: moral judgment, MRC: moral recognition, PGP: peer group pressure, IRO: intrinsic religious orientation, RLV: relativism, SOR: social responsibility.

Table 10. Mediation analysis.

Type of effect	Effect	β	SD	T stat	p values	95% confidence interval		Result
Vignette 1
Direct effect	MRC -> MIT	0.391	0.061	6.388	0.000	[0.271,	0.510]	H1d supported
Indirect effect	MRC -> MJD -> MIT	0.096	0.026	3.682	0.000	[0.051,	0.152]
Total effect	MRC -> MIT	0.487	0.059	8.241	0.000	[0.371,	0.599]
Vignette 2
Direct effect	MRC -> MIT	0.283	0.061	4.629	0.000	[0.166,	0.404]	H1d supported
Indirect effect	MRC -> MJD -> MIT	0.045	0.019	2.341	0.019	[0.013,	0.087]
Total effect	MRC -> MIT	0.328	0.064	5.073	0.000	[0.202,	0.456]
Vignette 3
Direct effect	MRC -> MIT	0.344	0.069	4.923	0.000	[0.208,	0.479]	H1d supported
Indirect effect	MRC -> MJD -> MIT	0.053	0.023	2.309	0.021	[0.015,	0.103]
Total effect	MRC -> MIT	0.396	0.070	5.633	0.000	[0.256,	0.529]

Moores, T. T., Smith, H. J., & Limayem, M. (2018). Putting the pieces back together: Moral intensity and its impact on the four‐component model of morality. Business and Society Review, 123(2), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12141

 Google Scholar

Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.1.175

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J. W. (1993). The ethical climate questionnaire: An assessment of its development and validity. Psychological Reports, 73(2), 667–674. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1993.73.2.667

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shariff, A. F. (2015). Does religion increase moral behavior? Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.009

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sulaiman, R., Toulson, P., Brougham, D., Lempp, F., & Haar, J. (2022). The role of religiosity in ethical decision-making: A study on Islam and the Malaysian workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 179(1), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04836-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tariq, S., Ansari, N. G., & Alvi, T. H. (2019). The impact of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on ethical decision-making in management in a non-Western and highly religious country. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 8(2), 195–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-019-00094-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hull, A. K. (1999). Influence and change: A study of the ethical decision making of trainee accountants. University of Nottingham.

 Google Scholar

Yu, H., Siegel, J. Z., Clithero, J. A., & Crockett, M. J. (2021). How peer influence shapes value computation in moral decision-making. Cognition, 211(March), 104641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104641

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Data availability

The study’s data are available at https://doi.org/10.17632/zwwf46dydh.1.