Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp 35–52 | Cite as

Research Methods in Taxation Ethics: Developing the Defining Issues Test (DIT) for a Tax-Specific Scenario

  • Elaine Doyle
  • Jane Frecknall-Hughes
  • Barbara Summers


This paper reports on the development of a research instrument designed to explore ethical reasoning in a tax context. This research instrument is a version of the Defining Issues Test (DIT) originally developed by Rest [1979a, Development in Judging Moral Issues (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN); 1979b, Defining Issues Test (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)], but adapted to focus specifically on the environment encountered by tax practitioners. The paper explores reasons for developing a context- (and profession-) specific test, and details the manner in which this was undertaken. The study on which it is based aims to compare the reasoning of tax practitioners in the tax-specific context and in the general social context covered by the original DIT, and to compare this with the reasoning of non-specialists in these two contexts. The paper therefore also considers the issues that arise when using such tests to compare reasoning in different domains or to compare groups. The focus on instrument development to measure ethical reasoning in a specific domain will contribute to the literature on research methods in the area of the DIT and will facilitate cross-study comparisons.


Defining Issues Test context-specific scenario ethical reasoning research methods tax practitioners 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, C. and H. J. Becker: 1978, ‹The Use of Vignettes in Survey Research’, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(1), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bebeau, M., J. Rest, J. and C. Yamoor: 1985, ‹Measuring the Ethical Sensitivity of Dental Students’, Journal of Dental Education, 49(4), 225–235.Google Scholar
  3. Bebeau, M. and S. Thoma: 2003. Guide for DIT-2, 3rd edition (Center for the Study of Ethical Development, Minnesota).Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, J. and J. Rest: 1981, ‹Development in Moral Judgment as Initiated by Rejection of Lower-Stage Statements’, Journal of Research in Personality, 15(4), 538–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavanagh, S. and D. Fritzsche: 1985, ‹Using Vignettes in Business Ethics Research’, in L. Preston (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, (JAI Press Greenwich, CT.), pp. 279–293.Google Scholar
  6. Dellaportas, S., B. J. Cooper and P. Leung: 2006, ‹Measuring Moral Judgement and the Implications of Cooperative Education and Rule-Based Learning’, Accounting and Finance, 46(1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dennis-Escoffier, S. and K. A. Fortin: 1991, Testing Moral Development in the Tax Curriculum. Paper Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Southeast Region American Accounting Association, Birmingham.Google Scholar
  8. Elm, D. R. and M. L. Nichols: 1993, ‹An Investigation of the Moral Reasoning of Managers’, Journal of Business Ethics, 12(11), 817–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elm, D. R. and J. Weber: 1994, ‹Measuring Moral Judgment: The Moral Judgment Interview or the Defining Issues Test?’, Journal of Business Ethics, 13(5), 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, D.: 1997, ‹Assessing Taxpayer Moral Reasoning: The Development of an Objective Measure’, Research on Accounting Ethics, 3, 141–171.Google Scholar
  11. Fraedrich, J., D. M. Thorne and O. C. Ferrell: 1994, ‹Assessing the Application of Cognitive Moral Development Theory to Business Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics, 13(10), 829–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fredrickson, J. W.: 1986, ‹An Exploratory Approach to Measuring Perceptions of Strategic Decision Process Constructs’, Strategic Management Journal, 7(5), 473–483.Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, S. J. M. and J. W. Giebink: 1979, ‹Moral Judgment as a Function of Age, Sex and Stimulus’, The Journal of Psychology, 102(1), 43–47.Google Scholar
  14. Heiman, G. W.: 1999, Research Methods in Psychology, 2nd edition (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston MA).Google Scholar
  15. Jackall, R.: 1988, Moral Mazes (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  16. Kaplan, S. E., K. J. Newberry and P. M. J. Reckers: 1997, ‹The Effect of Moral Reasoning and Educational Communications on Tax Evasion Intentions’, Journal of the American Taxation Association, 19(2), 38–54.Google Scholar
  17. Kenny, S. Y. and M. M. Eining: 1996, ‹Integrating Ethics into Intermediate Accounting: An Experimental Investigation Incorporating Attribution Theory’, Research on Accounting Ethics, 2, 159–186.Google Scholar
  18. Kohlberg, L.: 1973, Collected Papers on Moral Development and Moral Education (Laboratory of Human Development, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.).Google Scholar
  19. Lawrence, J.: 1987, ‹Verbal Processing of the Defining Issues Test by Principled and Non-Principled Moral Reasoners’, Journal of Moral Education, 16(2), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loviscky, G. E., L. K. Trevino and R. R. Jacobs: 2007, ‹Assessing Managers’ Ethical Decision-making: An Objective Measure of Managerial Moral Judgment’, Journal of Business Ethics, 73(3), 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Magowen, S. A. and T. Lee: 1970, ‹Some Sources of Error in the Use of the Projective Method for the Assessment of Moral Judgment’, British Journal of Psychology, 61(4), 535–543.Google Scholar
  22. Marshall, R. L., R. W. Armstrong and M. Smith: 1998, ‹The Ethical Environment of Tax Practitioners: Western Australian Evidence’, Journal of Business Ethics, 17(12), 1265–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, M., M. Shafto and W. Van Deinse: 1977, ‹Reliability, Validity and Design of the Defining Issues Test’, Development Psychology, 13(5), 460–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Massey, D. W.: 2002, ‹The Importance of Context in Investigating Auditors’ Moral Abilities’. in: B. M. Schwartz (ed.), Research on Accounting Ethics Volume 8. (JAI Press, CT), pp. 195–247.Google Scholar
  25. McGeorge, C.: 1975. ‹The Susceptibility to Faking of the Defining Issues Test of Moral Development’. Developmental Psychology, 11(1), 108–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newell, K., L. Young, L and C. Yamoor: 1985, ‹Moral Reasoning in Dental Hygiene Students’, Journal of Dental Education, 49(4), 79–84.Google Scholar
  27. Parducci, A.: 1968, ‹The Relativism of Absolute Judgements’, Scientific American, 219, 84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ponemon, L. A.: 1990, ‹Ethical Judgment in Accounting: A Cognitive-Developmental Perspective’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ponemon, L. A.: 1993, ‹The Influence of Ethical Reasoning on Auditors’ Perceptions of Management’s Competence and Integrity’, Advances in Accounting, 11, 1–29.Google Scholar
  30. Reckers, P., D. Sanders, and S. Roark: 1994, ‹The Influence of Ethical Attitudes on Taxpayer Compliance’, National Tax Journal, 47(4), 825–836.Google Scholar
  31. Rest, J.: 1979a, Development in Judging Moral Issues, Minneapolis (University of Minnesota Press, Minn.).Google Scholar
  32. Rest, J.: 1979b, Defining Issues Test (University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis, Minn.).Google Scholar
  33. Rest, J.: 1986, DIT Manual, 3rd edition (University of Minnesota Centre for the Study of Ethical Development, Minneapolis).Google Scholar
  34. Rest, J.: 1987, Guide for the Defining Issues Test: How to Use the Optical Scan Forms and the Center’s Scoring Service (Center for the Study of Ethical Development, Minneapolis, MN.).Google Scholar
  35. Rest, J.: 1990a, DIT Manual, 3rd edition (Minneapolis, University of Minneapolis Press MN.).Google Scholar
  36. Rest, J.: 1990b. Guide for the Defining Issues Test. (Centre for the Study of Ethical Development, Minneapolis).Google Scholar
  37. Rest, J.: 1994, ‹Background: Theory and Research’. in: J. R. Rest and D. Narvaez (eds.), Moral Development in the Professions. (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  38. Rest, J., M. Bebeau and S. Thoma: 1999, Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ).Google Scholar
  39. Sims, R.: 1999, ‹The Development of Six Ethical Business Dilemmas’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(4), 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singer, P.: 1994. ‹Introduction’, in P. Singer (ed.), Ethics (Oxford University Press, Oxford), 4–13.Google Scholar
  41. Straughan, R.: 1985, ‹Why Act on Kohlberg’s Moral Judgments?’, in S. Modgil and C. Modgil (eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and Controversy (Falmer Press, Philadelphia), pp. 149 –161.Google Scholar
  42. Thoma, S.: 1994, ‹Moral Judgments and Moral Action’. in: J. R. Rest & D. Narvaez (eds.), Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale, New Jersey), pp. 199–211.Google Scholar
  43. Thoma, S., J. Rest and M. L. Davison: 1991, ‹Describing and Testing a Moderator of the Moral Judgment and Action Relationship’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 659–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thorne, L.: 2000, The Development of Two Measures to Assess Accountants’ Prescriptive and Deliberative Moral Reasoning’, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 12(1), 139–169.Google Scholar
  45. Thorne, L.: 2001, ‹Refocusing Ethics Education in Accounting: An Examination of Accounting Students’ Tendency to Use their Cognitive Moral Capability’, Journal of Accounting Education, 19(2), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tolleson, T., B. D. Merino and A.G. Mayper: 1996, ‹Applying Behavioral Models as Prescriptions for Ethics in Accounting Practice and Education’, Research on Accounting Ethics, 2, 21–49.Google Scholar
  47. Trevino, L. K.: 1986, ‹Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model’, Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trevino, L. K.: 1992, ‹Moral Reasoning and Business Ethics: Implications for Research, Education, and Management’, Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5–6), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Volker, J.: 1984, Counseling Experience, Moral Judgment, Awareness of Consequences and Moral Sensitivity in Counseling Practice. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  50. Waithe, M., L. Duckett, K. Schmitz, P. Crisham and M. Ryden: 1989, ‹Developing Case Situations for Ethics Education in Nursing’, Journal of Nursing Education, 28(4), 175–180.Google Scholar
  51. Weber, J.: 1990, ‹Managers’ Moral Reasoning: Assessing their Responses to Three Moral Dilemmas’, Human Relations, 43(7), 687–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weber, J.: 1991, ‹Adapting Kohlberg to Enhance the Assessment of Managers’ Moral Reasoning’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(3), 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weber, J.: 1992, ‹Scenarios in Business Ethics Research: Review, Critical Assessment, and Recommendations’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2), 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Welton, R. E., R. M. Lagrone and J. R. Davis: 1994, ‹Promoting the Moral Development of Accounting Graduate Students: An Instructional Design and Assessment’, Accounting Education, 3(1), 35–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elaine Doyle
    • 1
  • Jane Frecknall-Hughes
    • 2
  • Barbara Summers
    • 3
  1. 1.Kemmy Business SchoolUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  2. 2.The Open University Business SchoolMilton KeynesU.K.
  3. 3.Leeds University Business SchoolUniversity of LeedsLeedsU.K.

Personalised recommendations