Measuring Ethical Sensitivity and Evaluation |
| |
Authors: | Tara J Shawver John T Sennetti |
| |
Institution: | 1.King’s College,Wilkes-Barre,U.S.A.;2.Nova Southeastern University,Fort Lauderdale (Davie),U.S.A. |
| |
Abstract: | 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. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|