| This research examines the ethical judgments of accounting (CPA) practitioners. Its purpose is to introduce a well known theory of moral development and two methods for analyzing individuals' ethical reasoning to the domain of accounting or auditing. In the first study, fifty-two accountants at the various position levels within public firms were required to resolve a standardized hypothetical dilemma (Moral Judgment Interview) and an audit-role conflict based on a real life case study. Two salient findings are reported. First, there exists a relationship between accountants' resolution of the audit-role conflict and their position in the firm. Second, an association also exists between position level and measured stage (frame) of ethical reasoning. That is, ethical stage increases from the staff to supervisory levels and decreases in the manager and partner ranks.;In the second study, over two hundred CPAs from public accounting firms throughout the United States completed an alternative psychometric instrument--the Defining Issues Test. This sample also revealed a marked negative association between measured ethical reasoning and subjects' position within the firm. Further, variation (standard deviation) in ethical reasoning steadily decreased from staff to partner position levels. According to the author, results of both studies corroborate the existence of self-selection and the influence of social position in public accounting firms. That is, partners and managers tend to promote those subordinates that share a common and mutual notion of justice, morality and ethics. |
