Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 88, Issue 4, pp 663–678 | Cite as

Measuring Ethical Sensitivity and Evaluation



Measures of student ethical sensitivity and their increases help to answer questions such as whether accounting ethics should be taught at all. We investigate different sensitivity measures and alternatives to the well-established Defining Issues Test (DIT-2, Rest, J. R. et al. [1999, Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ]), frequently used to measure the effects of undergraduate accounting ethics education. Because the DIT measures cognitive development, which increases with age, the DIT scores for younger accounting students are typically lower, have limited range, and are not likely to vary sufficiently with corresponding choices in ethical dilemmas. Since the DIT measures only the moral judgment component of ethical decision-making, we consider the multidimensional ethical scale (MES) to allow respondents to provide explanations for their moral and other judgments. The MES has been used to measure attitudes related to justice, utility, contractualism, egoism, and relativism. Unfortunately, the MES is not comparable in one-dimension to the DIT, and unlike the DIT, the MES has no theoretical or objective base. Therefore, we construct a comparable one-dimensional relative measure, a Composite MES Score, obtained from previous research on practicing accountants. We compare the reliability of this measure to the DIT in explaining the ethical choices of 54 specially chosen, somewhat homogeneous students, whose ages range from 18 to 19, and who are taking a second semester freshman accounting course at a private, religion-affiliated university. These particular students are relatively untrained in the formal use of questionable accounting choices. These students are less likely to recognize the dilemmas of the MES and are also less likely to demonstrate sufficient variation in their DIT scores, traditionally low for freshmen students. As freshmen, they are recent graduates of high school and more likely guided by other ethical influences including friends, family, or contractual obligations (some of the MES constructs) rather than higher cognitive development. This study confirms suspicions. We find the DIT scores do not vary sufficiently to explain the moral reasoning of freshmen. For eight dilemmas and 24 choices we find the DIT score correlates with only three choices, whereas the MES regression models have at least one significant construct for 23 out of 24 ethical choices. The Composite MES Score (a relative measure) also explains 23 out of 24 choices and is statistically related to the DIT in only one of the choices. Unlike the DIT, the Composite MES permits pretest and retesting with different dilemmas to evaluate changes in ethical sensitivity. These results argue for relative rather than absolute measures of sensitivity and guides beyond cognitive development (the DIT-score) to explain undergraduate student sensitivity.


accounting ethics Defining Issues Test (DIT) Multi-dimensional Ethics Scale (MES) ethics training 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdomohammadi, A. and D. Ariail: 2007, ‹Selection-socialization and the “inverted-U” phenomenon in moral reasoning of accountants in public and industry practice,’ American Accounting Association 2007 Ethics Symposium (Chicago, IL)Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, M.: 1987, ‹Moral development and accounting education’, Journal of Accounting Education, 5 (Spring), 27–43. doi: 10.1016/0748-5751(87)90036-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, M.: 1993, ‹Ethics and professionalism in accounting education: A sample course’, Journal of Accounting Education, 11, 77–92. doi: 10.1016/0748-5751(93)90019-F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardi, R.A. and D.F. Arnold Sr.: 2004, ‹Testing the “Inverted U” phenomenon in moral development on recently promoted senior managers and partners’, Contemporary Accounting Research, 21 (2), 353–367. doi: 10.1506/L5PE-4JXY-8GTB-CEQN CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cochran, W.: 1963, Sampling Techniques, 2nd edition, (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY), p. 54Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. R., L. W. Pant, and D. J. Sharp.: 1993, ‹Culture-based ethical conflicts confronting multinational accounting firms’, Accounting Horizons, 7 (3), 1–13Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. R., L. W. Pant, and D. J. Sharp.: 1996, ‹Measuring the ethical awareness and ethical orientation of Canadian auditors’, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8 (Supp), 98–119Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. R., L. W. Pant, and D. J. Sharp.: 1998, ‹The effect of gender and academic discipline diversity on the ethical evaluations, ethical intentions, and ethical orientation of potential public accounting recruits’, Accounting Horizons, 12 (3), 250–270Google Scholar
  9. Cruz, C. A., W.E. Shafer, and J. R. Strawser.: 2000, ‹A multidimensional analysis of tax practitioner’s ethical judgments’, Journal of Business Ethics, 24 (3), 223–245. doi: 10.1023/A:1006140809998 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duncan, J. R., and J. A. Knoblett.: 2000, ‹Investigating behavioral antecedents of earnings management: Moral reasoning, earnings pressure, and likelihood of detection’, Research on Accounting Ethics, 6, 27–66Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, D. G. and J. T. Sweeney.: 1998, ‹The relationship between political attitudes and moral judgment: examining the validity of the defining issues test’, Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 905–916. doi: 10.1023/A:1005737508336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flory, S. M., T. J. Phillips, R. E. Reidenback, and D.P. Robin.: 1993, A reply to a comment on ‹A multi-dimensional analysis of selected ethical issues in accounting’, Accounting Review, 68 (2), 417–421Google Scholar
  13. Hiltebeitel, K., and S. Jones.: 1991, ‹Initial evidence on the impact of integrating ethics into accounting education’, Issues in Accounting Education, 6 (2), 262–275Google Scholar
  14. Israeli, D.: 1988, ‹Ethical beliefs and behavior among managers: A cross-cultural perspective’, Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 263–271. doi: 10.1007/BF00381831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, S. K. and L. A. Poneman.: 1993, A comment on ‹A multi-dimensional analysis of selected ethical issues in accounting’, Accounting Review, 68 (2), 411–416Google Scholar
  16. Kaplan, J.: 2005, Political Theory: The Classical Texts and Their Continuing Relevance. The Modern Scholar by Recorded Books, LLC.
  17. Kohlberg, L.: 1969, ‹Stage and sequence: The cognitive-development approach to socialization.’ In Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, (ed. D. Goslin, Rand McNally College Publishing Company, Chicago, IL)Google Scholar
  18. Medicare Carriers Manual, Part 3 (HCFA-Pub.14–3): 2000, ‹Sampling Guidelines’,, pp. 1–38. Accessed 31 August 2000
  19. Paulhus, D.L.: 1991, ‹Measurement and control of response bias’. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Ed), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (1st edition, Academic Press, San Diego, CA), pp. 17–59Google Scholar
  20. Piaget, J.: 1965, ‹The moral judgment of a child’, (Free Press, New York, NY)Google Scholar
  21. Ponemon, L. A.: 1988, A Cognitive Developmental Approach to the Analysis of Certified Public Accountants’ Ethical Judgments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Union College, Schenectady, NYGoogle Scholar
  22. Ponemon, L.A.: 1993, ‹Can ethics be taught in accounting?’, Journal of Accounting Education, 11, 185–209. doi: 10.1016/0748-5751(93)90002-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ponemon, L. A and D. Gabhart: 1993, ‹Ethical Reasoning in Accounting and Auditing’, Research Monograph Number 21 (CGA-Canada Research Foundation, Vancouver, BC)Google Scholar
  24. Reidenbach, R. and D. Robin.: 1990, ‹Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 639–653. doi: 10.1007/BF00383391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rest, J. R.: 1979, ‹Development in judging moral issues’, (University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis, MN)Google Scholar
  26. Rest, J. and D. Narvaez: 1994, ‹Moral Development in the Professions’ (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ)Google Scholar
  27. Rest, James R., D. Narvaez, M. J. Bebeau, and S. J. Thoma.: 1999, ‹Postconventional moral thinking: a Neo-Kohlbergian approach’. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ)Google Scholar
  28. Scofield, S.B., T.J. Phillips Jr, and C.D. Bailey.: 2004. ‹An empirical reanalysis of the selection-socialization hypothesis: a research note’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29 (5&6), 543–563. doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00021-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sennetti, J., Shawver, T. and P. Bancroft.: 2004, ‹The moral and cultural reasoning of IPO accountants, those assumed likely to manage earnings: A small sample study’, Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 9, 101–128Google Scholar
  30. Shaub, M.: 1994, ‹An analysis of the association of traditional demographic variables with the moral reasoning of auditing students and auditors’, Journal of Accounting Education, 12 (1),1–25. doi: 10.1016/0748-5751(94)90016-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shawver, T., and L. Clements.: 2007, ‹The intention of accounting students to whistleblow in␣situations of questionable ethical dilemmas’, Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 11, 177 – 191Google Scholar
  32. Shawver, T., J. Sennetti, and P. Bancroft.: 2006, ‹Can the ‹Clan Effect’ reduce the gender sensitivity to fraud? The case of the IPO environment’, Journal of Forensic Accounting, VII, 185–208Google Scholar
  33. Shawver, T.J. and T.A. Shawver.: 2008, ‹Will corporate governance and whistleblowing provisions improve financial responsibility?’, Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 12, 123–148Google Scholar
  34. St. Pierre, K., E. Nelson, and A.Gabbin: 1990, ‹A study of the ethical development of accounting majors in relation to other business and non-business disciplines’, The Accounting Educators’ Journal, 6 (Summer), 23–36Google Scholar
  35. Sweeney, J., & D. Fisher.: 1998, ‹An examination of the validity of a new measure of moral judgment’, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 10, 138–158Google Scholar
  36. Thornton, J. M.: 2000, ‹Challenges to the defining issues test: a new perspective on accountants’ moral development’, Research on Accounting Ethics, 7, 225–252Google Scholar
  37. Weber, J.: 1996, ‹Welcoming another CMD instrument—The MES: but don’t throw out the MJI or the DIT just yet!’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 6, 517–522. doi: 10.2307/3857502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.King’s CollegeWilkes-BarreU.S.A.
  2. 2.Nova Southeastern UniversityFort Lauderdale (Davie)U.S.A.

Personalised recommendations