Research On Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting

Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in
Accounting
How Does Moral Intensity Impact the Moral Judgments and Whistleblowing Intentions
of Professional Accountants?
Tara J. Shawver Lynn H. Clements John T. Sennetti
Article information:
To cite this document: Tara J. Shawver Lynn H. Clements John T. Sennetti . "How
Does Moral Intensity Impact the Moral Judgments and Whistleblowing Intentions of
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 02:10 14 February 2016 (PT)
Professional Accountants?" In Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in

Accounting. Published online: 16 Oct 2015; 27-60.
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1574-076520150000019002
Downloaded on: 14 February 2016, At: 02:10 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 26 times since NaN*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Pam Green, John A. Bowden, (2015),"Moral compass framework: Individual
and collective decision-making in some complex doctoral education scenarios",
International Journal for Researcher Development, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 9-23 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-07-2014-0016
Dominic F. Wilson, (2000),"Why divide consumer and organizational buyer
behaviour?", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Iss 7 pp. 780-796 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560010331207
C. Muralidharan, N. Anantharaman, S.G. Deshmukh, (2001),"Vendor rating in
purchasing scenario: a confidence interval approach", International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Iss 10 pp. 1305-1326 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570110404736
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

emerald-srm:380560 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books
and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products
and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner
of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

HOW DOES MORAL INTENSITY
IMPACT THE MORAL JUDGMENTS
AND WHISTLEBLOWING
INTENTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNTANTS?
Tara J. Shawver, Lynn H. Clements and

John T. Sennetti
ABSTRACT
Moral intensity is the degree of feeling we have about the consequences

of moral choices, similar, for example, to those perceived for crimes,
from petty larceny to murder. Moral intensity is thought to increase
moral sensitivity and judgment. Because the accounting professions
require members to respond to accounting fraud with more sensitivity
and intensity, we examine this response in 220 professional accountants
(mostly Certified Public Accountants) under a controlled experiment
using two different cases. We examine the first three parts of the Rest
(1986) model including ethical evaluation, judgment, and intention
to act. We measure moral intensity in the accountant’s perception of
overall harm and societal pressure. As in prior research, we find that
the degree of moral intensity may be contextual. We find that the
Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, Volume 19, 27 60

Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1574-0765/doi:10.1108/S1574-076520150000019002
27
28 TARA J. SHAWVER ET AL.
ethical evaluations may become affected by perceived overall harm, and

whistleblowing intentions by perceived societal pressure. However, in
both cases, the professional’s judgments are most affected by moral
intensity. Consistent with prior research, whistleblowing intentions may
involve many other mitigating variables, such as audit reporting or
non-audit reporting limited by codes of conduct. These findings relate
to the increasing attention paid by the SEC to finding accounting fraud.
This manuscript makes three important contributions to the existing lit-
erature. First, there are few studies in this area and Jones (1991) identi-
fies that moral intensity is issue contingent; therefore, replication studies
using different scenarios are needed. Second, Bailey, Scott, and Thoma
(2010) have suggested that accounting ethics research has focused too
narrowly on Component II of Rest’s Four-Component Model. None of
the previous studies looked at all three steps in Rest’s Model; therefore,
our manuscript provides an important contribution over the other pre-
vious studies. Third, our sample uses professionals and not students as
surrogates for professionals.
Keywords: Accounting decisions; earnings management; ethical
evaluation; financial statement fraud; harm and pressure; moral
intensity
Accounting numbers are expected to account for, and in the moral sense to
be responsible for, the information they provide. In this way, accounting
numbers are expected to have integrity. Professional accountants, like the
numbers they represent, are expected to have the same integrity (AICPA,
Rule 102, 2013). Public accountants hold themselves out to the public to be
considered exemplary, because they “serve the public interest” and “honor
the public trust” (AICPA, ET Section 53, Article II, 2013). Because of this,
they are expected to have a higher moral sensitivity on matters relating
to the public, such as publicly released financial statements. However,
accountants often experience a variety of pressures to manage or to permit
the management of these statements in meeting analysts’ expectations, in
improving results preceding initial public offerings, in managing stock-
financed acquisitions, and in many other cases. Not all forms of earnings
management are unacceptable. For example, it is natural to delay expenses
during lower revenue periods. But it is easy to manage accounting choices
Moral Judgments and Whistleblowing Intentions 29
to create numbers that clearly lack integrity, lead to accounting scandals

and shocked investors, who then may question how accountants or their
auditors evaluate ethical dilemmas and fraud.
Financial statement fraud adversely affects many different types of stake-
holders including corporate employees, auditors, creditors, shareholders,
and individual investors. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
(ACFE) reports that annual worldwide fraud losses may total more than
$3.6 trillion (ACFE, 2012, p. 5). The many corporate ethical failures,
from the Enron audit failure in 2001 to the recent unacceptable expense pre-
sentations of Oracle’s bribes (Jones & Rubin, 2012), all question the sensi-
tivities of accountants or their auditors in making ethical evaluations on
fraud. Recently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
announced that “a broad shuffling of resources in the agency’s enforcement
division will include an increased focus on accounting fraud” and on the
ethical decision making of management and professional accountants
(Eaglesham, 2013). Furthermore, Bailey, Scott, and Thoma (2010) have sug-
gested that accounting ethics research has focused too narrowly on
Component II of Rest’s Four-Component Model. They suggest that if the
ultimate goal of ethics research in accounting is to improve the ethical per-
formance of accountants, then research must consider all four components
(Bailey et al., 2010, p. 18). Therefore, we attempt to understand the moral
judgments and whistleblowing intentions of accounting professionals for
two types of financial statement fraud and address gaps in the literature by
connecting links among moral intensity and three of the four components in
Rest’s model (ethical evaluations, moral judgments, and the intentions to
whistleblow).
There are several studies that attempt to explore determinants of whistle-
blowing intentions; however, none of the following studies examine the
effect of perceived moral intensity. Bernardi, Banzhoff, Martino, and
Savasta (2011) find that students who have whistleblown in the past indi-
cate a higher intention to whistleblow for cheating behaviors even after
controlling for social responsibility response bias. Bernardi, Larkin,
LaBontee, Lapierre, and Morse (2012) find that as the number of reasons a
student provides to not whistleblow increases, the probability of whistle-
blowing decreases. Furthermore, knowing a student who regularly cheats
reduces the probability of whistleblowing. Shawver and Clements (2007)
examine philosophical constructs and find that accounting students use jus-
tice as reasons to whistleblow for situations involving product safety, unfair
loans, early shipments, and reducing bad debts to increase reported income,
while relativism was significant for issues of product safety and unfair loans
and utilitarianism was significant for early shipments. Clements and

Shawver (2011) extend this research with a small sample of accounting pro-
fessionals and find that the professionals did not use any of the philosophi-
cal constructs as reasons for whistleblowing for early shipments, while
reasons of justice and relativism are moderately significant for reducing
bad debts.
A significant stream of research examines the ethical decision making of
accountants using the Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1986) to explore the
impact of moral reasoning on ethical evaluations. Jones (1991) extends
Rest’s (1986) work suggesting that perceived consequences of moral choice,

that is, moral intensity, impacts moral awareness and that the level of these
perceptions varies from issue to issue. Leitsch (2004, 2006) connects this
research on the six individual items of moral intensity to the field of
accounting with a sample of students and scenarios involving approving
questionable expense reports, manipulating company books, violating com-
pany policy, and extending questionable credit. Shawver and Shawver
(2013) examine the effect of moral intensity on three situations involving
product safety, sharing software, and reducing bad debt expense to increase
reported income. They find that the factors of perceived overall harm and
perceived societal pressure are significant to ethical evaluations and moral
judgments, but they did not examine whistleblowing judgment or whistle-
blowing intentions. Clements and Shawver (2011) find that overall harm
and societal pressure were significant for moral judgment, but only societal
pressure was significant for whistleblowing intention when evaluating a
situation involving reducing bad debts. Shawver (2011) finds that perceived
overall harm and societal pressure are significant when evaluating whistle-
blowing intentions for situations involving reducing bad debts. Both
Clements and Shawver (2011) and Shawver (2011) use univariate models to
explore relationships between these variables. We extend this to a multi-
variate approach in understanding the moral sensitivities exhibited by 220
practicing accountants. In doing this, we follow Rest’s (1986) framework in
asking respondents to first evaluate the ethical dilemma, then to (morally)
judge whether the staff accountant in the situation should whistleblow, and
then to determine whether the staff accountant in the situation would whis-
tleblow (a moral intention). Research correlates this decision on the staff
accountant with actions of the respondent (Israeli, 1988).
To summarize, this study contributes to the literature in three important
respects. First, there are few studies that examine the impact of moral
intensity on ethical decision making. Jones (1991) identifies that moral
intensity is issue contingent; therefore, replication studies using various
scenarios and different moral problems are needed. Second, Bailey et al.
(2010) have suggested that accounting ethics research has focused too nar-
rowly on Component II of Rest’s Four-Component Model. Prior research
has not examined the first three steps in Rest’s Model within the same
study to predict whistleblowing intentions; therefore, our manuscript pro-
vides an important contribution over previous studies. Third, our sample
uses professional practicing accountants rather than surrogates (students)
as professional accountants, and we test these relationships using both uni-
variate and multivariate models.
Consistent with the moral intensity literature, we find that the compo-
nents of moral intensity can be factored into forces of perceived overall
harm and societal pressure and these in turn correlate with ethical evalua-
tions, which vary by level of materiality. Second, we find as in prior
research, the degree of moral intensity may be dependent upon the context.
Third, the ethical evaluations may become affected by perceived overall
harm and whistleblowing intentions may respond more to perceived socie-
tal pressure. Finally, in both cases examined, the professional’s judgments
are most affected by moral intensity, consistent with expectations, since
whistleblowing intentions involve many other mitigating variables, such as
audit reporting or non-audit reporting limited by codes of conduct.
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Ethical Decision Making and Moral Intensity
Jones (1991) offers a synthesis of several models of ethical decision making.

Rest’s Four-Component Model is the foundation for integrating these
models. Therefore, we chose to use Rest’s (1986) Four-Component Model
in this study. Rest (1986) describes psychological processes as steps that
must have occurred in order for moral behavior to occur.
In step 1, moral sensitivity, a person must make “some sort of interpre-
tation of the particular situation in terms of what actions were possible,
who (including oneself) would be affected by each course of action, and
how the interested parties would regard such effects on their welfare”
(Rest, 1986, p. 3).
In step 2, moral judgment, a person must make a judgment about what
a person ought to do in that situation. Prior research has suggested that
moral judgment is determined in part by an individual’s level of moral
reasoning. Kohlberg (1969) describes the six stages of moral reasoning as a

progression of stages where lower levels focus on an individuals’ environ-
ment (pre-conventional), progressing to higher levels of focusing on what is
best for society (post-conventional). A significant amount of research exists
surrounding the effects of moral reasoning and the application/interpreta-
tion of Kohlberg’s model.
In step 3, moral intention, a person indicates an intention to act. “The
person must give priority to moral values above other personal values such
that a decision is made to intend to do what is morally right” (Rest, 1986,
p. 3). Ethical intentions can be an important determinant of ethical beha-

vior and reflect motivation.
In step 4, engaging in moral behavior, a person must have sufficient ego
strength to follow through on the intention to engage in a moral behavior
(Rest, 1986). This paper examines the interpretation made by practicing
accountants in evaluating each action, in making a moral judgment that
whistleblowing should occur, and in evaluating an intention to
whistleblow.
Jones (1991) offers a synthesis of several models of ethical decision mak-
ing. Jones (1991) identifies that “despite the fact that collectively these
models are reasonably comprehensive, this synthesized model clearly shows
that none of previous models of ethical decision making explicitly includes
characteristics of the moral issue itself as either an independent variable or
a moderating variable. If the models making up this synthesized model are
taken at face value, the moral decision making and behavior process of
individuals is identical for all moral issues … ethical decision making is
issue contingent; that is, characteristics of the moral issue itself, collectively
called moral intensity, are important determinants of ethical decision mak-
ing and behavior” (Jones, 1991, p. 371).
Jones (1991) extends Rest’s (1986) work to include variables of moral
intensity that may impact moral sensitivity, moral judgment, and moral
behavior. Jones (1991) derives the concept of moral intensity from norma-
tive theories of philosophers who differentiate moral responsibility based
on proportionality. Furthermore, Jones (1991) identifies that penalties in
criminal law vary based on intensity; for example, penalties for murder are
more severe than penalties for petty larceny. Jones (1991) identifies six
moral intensity measures affecting the feelings of a person undergoing the
decision-making process:
1. Magnitude of consequences,
2. Societal consensus,
3. Probability of effect,
4. Temporal immediacy,
5. Concentration of effect, and
6. Proximity.
Magnitude of consequences is described as the sum of the harms or ben-

efits felt by individuals affected by a moral decision. For example, an action
that results in the loss of life will have a greater magnitude of consequences
than an action causing minor injury; furthermore, an action that results in
harming thousands of people will have a greater magnitude of conse-

quences than an action harming a few individuals.
Societal consensus refers to the level of social agreement of the ethicality
of a proposed action. For example, offering an official a bribe in the
United States may have a greater perception that the bribe is unethical in
comparison to offering a bribe to an official in another country where
bribes are encouraged and expected.
Probability of effect is the likelihood that the act will take place and
cause benefits or harm. For example, selling a gun to someone who has
committed several crimes has greater probability of harm than selling a gun
to a person who has never committed a crime.
Temporal immediacy is defined as the length of time between the act
and its consequences. For example, promoting a drug that has immediate
side effects will have greater temporal immediacy than a drug that will
cause potential harm later in life.
Concentration of effect relates to the inverse function of the number of
people affected by an action. For example, cheating someone out of his
retirement savings has a higher perceived concentration of effect than
cheating the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) out of taxes owed.
Proximity refers to how close (socially, culturally, and/or physically) the
victim is to the decision maker. For example, layoffs that affect your own
family would have a greater proximity effect than layoffs that affect people
whom you have not met. The close proximity of various people including
managers, peers, customers, employees, and stockholders can effect ethical
evaluations and decisions. Jones (1991) identifies that an attorney can
develop close proximate relationships with a client, which can clearly be
separate from those who are harmed by the client. Cohen and Bennie
(2006) describe that high proximity between auditors and clients may result
in the auditor acting in the client’s best interest at the expense of the other
users (Cohen & Bennie, 2006).
In summary, a situation will have high moral intensity if most people

agree that the action is unethical, the outcome has severe consequences that
are likely to occur in the immediate future, and involves large dollar values
with a concentrated effect on a significant number of individuals that are
well known by the decision maker. A situation will not be viewed as having
an ethical element if the moral intensity of that situation is viewed as weak
in terms of the moral intensity components (Singhapakdi, Vitell, & Kraft,
1996). Furthermore, according to Jones (1991, p. 373), “moral intensity is
likely to vary substantially from issue to issue, with a few issues achieving
high levels and many issues achieving low levels.”
Ethical Decision Making and Moral Intensity
Many empirical studies suggest that moral intensity directly affects the
steps in Rest’s model of ethical decision making. Fleischman, Valentine,
and Finn (2010, p. 29) find “… perceived moral intensity is … associated
with increased ethical issue recognition, ethical judgment, and relief judg-
ment across two scenarios … that require extensive moral evaluations.”
Butterfield, Trevino, and Weaver (2000) suggest that perceptions of social
consensus should enhance recognition of an ethical issue (moral sensitivity).
Prior research has explored the effects of the six components of moral
intensity on moral sensitivity with varying results (Chia & Mee, 2000; Frey,
2000; Kelley & Elm, 2003; Leitsch, 2004; May & Pauli, 2002; Singhapakdi
et al., 1996). Singhapakdi et al. (1996) found that all six dimensions of
moral intensity affect ethical perceptions of marketing professionals. Chia
and Mee (2000) found that social consensus and magnitude of conse-
quences influence the moral sensitivity for business professionals, but found
limited support for the effects of temporal immediacy, proximity, and prob-
ability of effect, and found no support that concentration of effect influ-
enced recognition of moral issues. May and Pauli (2002) did not find a
relationship between these moral intensity characteristics in a situation
involving product safety; however, they found that magnitude of conse-
quences is significant when evaluating environmental issues. Frey (2000)
found that moral sensitivity is related to societal consensus and magnitude
of consequences for New Zealand managers. Kelley and Elm (2003) found
that the nature of client relationships influences the moral intensity of the
issue. Leitsch (2004) found that students’ perceptions of the components of
moral intensity were influenced by the type and intensity of the moral issue.
Valentine and Hollingworth (2012) explored only four of the six items of
moral intensity and found that magnitude of consequences is the most sig-
nificant factor in a scenario related to poor efficiency and staff reduction,
while temporal immediacy is the most significant factor in a scenario
related to routine maintenance and a replacement of a part that contains
hazardous chemicals.
Moral Judgment and Moral Intensity

Jones (1991) suggests that moral intensity influences moral judgment.

Moral judgment describes the morally right thing to do. Prior researchers
have explored the influence of the components of moral intensity on moral
judgment (Barnett & Valentine, 2004; Carlson, Kacmar, & Wadsworth,
2002; Harrington, 1997; Morris & McDonald, 1995; Shafer, Morris, &
Ketchand, 1999). Barnett and Valentine (2004) found magnitude of conse-
quences to be the most significant factor for marketing scenarios, followed
by societal consensus (significant in one scenario). Carlson et al. (2002)
found support for proximity in a situation involving consumer safety and
another in paying less than market value for a piece of land. However, no
support was found for concentration of effect or probability of effect (the
study did not examine magnitude of consequences, societal consensus, or
temporal immediacy).
Harrington (1997) found support that societal consensus impacts moral
judgment for a situation involving computer viruses. Morris and
McDonald (1995) found support for magnitude of consequences and socie-
tal consensus for situations of bribery, pollution, and overpromising deliv-
eries. Furthermore, probability of effect was significant for the bribery
situation, concentration of effect and proximity were significant for the pol-
lution situation, and temporal immediacy was significant for the overpro-
mising situation.
Shafer et al. (1999) found that auditors consider the materiality and
intended use of financial statements when evaluating moral judgments
about the perceived acceptability of aggressive financial reporting.
Fleischman et al. (2010) found that moral intensity is positively related to
ethical issue recognition, ethical judgment, and tax-based equitable relief
judgment. Wright, Cullinan, and Bline (1997) suggest that accountants’
personal values impact perceptions of moral intensity. Our study extends
prior moral intensity research by examining moral judgments of accounting
professionals on different types of earnings management and materiality
levels.
Moral Intentions and Moral Intensity
Prior researchers have explored the influence of the components of moral

intensity on moral intentions with varying results. Singhapakdi et al. (1996)
found five of the six dimensions of moral intensity significant for situations
involving misleading appraisers, overeager salespersons, failure to honor a
warranty, and withholding information; however, proximity was significant
in only one of those situations. Harrington (1997) found support that socie-
tal consensus impacts moral intention when evaluating situations involving
computer viruses.
Cohen and Bennie (2006) found that magnitude of consequences is con-
sidered the most important factor in three audit-related situations exam-
ined in the study, followed by societal consensus and probability of effect.
Coram, Glavovic, Ng, and Woodliff (2008) found auditors interpret vary-
ing levels of moral intensity for seven situations involving audit quality.
Johnson, Fleischman, Valentine, and Walker (2012) examined the factors
of societal consensus and magnitude of consequences and found that man-
agers may rationalize unethical behaviors when the organization experi-
ences favorable consequences that offset the questionable behavior of
earnings management. The findings may suggest that minor ethical lapses
gradually undermine the ethical climate of the organization. Although not
specifically examining the items suggested by Jones (1991), McDevitt and
Van Hise (2002) found varying effects of moral intensity items on possible
embezzlement and expensing personal items (software and a laptop) as
business expenses.
Two Dimensions of Moral Intensity
Prior research suggests that the six moral intensity items represent two
dimensions of “perceived overall harm” and “perceived societal pressure”
that one may face when evaluating ethical decisions. The first dimension,
perceived overall harm, is composed of the four measures: magnitude of
consequences, probability of effect, temporal immediacy, and concentration
of effect. The second dimension, perceived societal pressure, is composed of
the other two measures in the Jones (1991) model: proximity and societal
consensus. Prior research has found that the perceived overall harm and
perceived societal pressure of an action do affect moral judgment
(Clements & Shawver, 2011; Shawver, 2011; Shawver & Shawver, 2013;
Singhapakdi et al., 1996; Sweeney & Costello, 2009; Yang & Wu, 2009).
There are few studies that examine the impact of moral intensity on moral
judgment in an accounting context, even fewer examining the impact of
moral intensity on moral intentions, and none that examine moral intensity
and actual behavior.
This study explores the two dimensions of “perceived potential harm”
and “perceived societal pressure” that one may face when evaluating ethical
decisions. Therefore, based on prior literature, we present the following
hypotheses:
H1. The greater perceived overall harm when evaluating an accounting

issue of earnings management, the more likely a professional accountant
will identify the action as unethical.
H2. The greater perceived societal pressure when evaluating an account-

ing issue of earnings management, the more likely a professional accoun-
tant will identify the action as unethical.
Ethical Evaluations and Whistleblowing by Accountants
After an individual makes an ethical evaluation and a moral judgment, an

accountant may then become a whistleblower. Whistleblowers are those
individuals who “sound an alarm from within the very organization in
which they work, aiming to spotlight neglect or abuses that threaten the
public interests” (Bok, 1980, p. 277). “Whistleblowing involves the deliber-
ate disclosure of information about nontrivial activities which are believed
to be dangerous, illegal, unethical, discriminatory or to otherwise involve
wrongdoing, generally by current or former organisation members”
(Hersch, 2002, p. 243). Miceli and Near identify whistleblowing as “the dis-
closure by organizational members of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate orga-
nizational acts or omissions to parties who can take action to correct the
wrongdoing” (Miceli & Near, 1992, p. xv). Even though most definitions
are not limited to illegality, most include some type of reporting of ques-
tionable morality or wrongdoing.
Prior research has attempted to determine who blows the whistle. Past
studies report personal characteristics (Miceli & Near, 1984; Miceli,
Roach, & Near, 1988) and organizational variables (Miceli & Near, 1991) as
contributing whistleblowing factors of employees. Near and Miceli (1995)
propose a model linking five factors that influence the termination of wrong-
doing with five sets of moderating variables. The five factors influencing
termination of wrongdoing include: “(a) characteristics of the whistleblower,

(b) characteristics of the complaint recipient, (c) characteristics of the wrong-
doer, (d) characteristics of the wrongdoing, and (e) characteristics of the
organization” (Near & Miceli, 1995, p. 681). This paper explores potential
wrongdoing based on the situation (in the use of two vignettes) as well as on
the individual (specifically, in the proximity measure of moral intensity).
Another area of prior research focuses on why whistleblowers blow the
whistle. Certain self-regulating professions, such as the medical profession
and the engineering profession, implicitly encourage whistleblowing
through ethical codes of conduct. Alpern (1982) suggests that engineers are
ethically entitled to encourage ethical behavior. Pletta (1986) suggests that
legislation acts too slowly to protect the public and that engineers should
hold their peers responsible for professional and ethical codes rather than
waiting for legislation to right the wrongs. A study by Ahern and
McDonald (2002) attempts to identify beliefs that could be motivational
factors for whistleblowers in an attempt to explain why some people report
misconduct while others do not. Their study of registered nurses indicates
that whistleblowers believe that nurses are primarily responsible to the
patient and should protect the patient, while non-whistleblowers believe
that nurses have an obligation to follow a physician’s order at all times and
are equally responsible to the patient, the physician, and the employer.
A third area of prior research on whistleblowing is focused on the conse-
quences of not blowing the whistle. Engineering and nursing professions
demand the reporting of wrongdoing because the wrongdoing often
involves life and death issues. Although accounting fraud usually does not
involve life or death, the economic losses can be astounding and may have
disastrous effects on the financial and emotional health of the general pub-
lic. Public outcry has demanded an increased level of integrity, and a
responsibility to report fraudulent accounting practices. Certified Public
Accountants (CPAs) and Certified Management Accountants (CMAs) are
expected to adhere to codes of conduct. According to Section 52 of the
AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, AICPA members “have a continu-
ing responsibility to cooperate with each other to improve the art of
accounting, maintain the public’s confidence, and carry out the profession’s
special responsibilities for self-governance” (AICPA, 1997). Members of
IMA are expected to behave ethically and to commit to ethical professional
practice. If one is aware of unethical situations, the IMA Statement of
Ethical Professional Practice states that an individual should “discuss the
issue with your immediate supervisor except when it appears that the super-
visor is involved. In that case, present the issue to the next level. If you
cannot achieve a satisfactory resolution, submit the issue to the next man-
agement level. If your immediate superior is the chief executive officer or
equivalent, the acceptable reviewing authority may be a group such as the
audit committee, executive committee, board of directors, board of trustees,
or owners” (IMA Statement of Ethical Professional Practice, 2005).
Public accountants are somewhat limited from whistleblowing by Rule
301 of The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, which limits revealing
client information. However, this “shall not restrict (a CPA’s) exchange of
information in connection with the investigative or disciplinary
proceedings.”
A fourth area of whistleblowing research focuses on the consequences of
whistleblowing. Xu and Ziegenfuss (2003) investigated the issue of whistle-
blowing in the preparation of financial information. Their experiment
examined whether reward systems impact auditors’ whistleblowing beha-
vior. Based on their results, internal auditors are more likely to blow the
whistle for a reward (i.e., cash or a continuing employment contract).
Kaplan, Pany, Samuels, and Zhang (2009) suggest that females’ reporting
intentions are higher than males’ reporting intentions for an anonymous
reporting channel. Kaplan and Schultz (2007) identify that the existence of
an anonymous reporting channel reduces the likelihood of reporting to
non-anonymous channels and that internal audit department quality does
not affect reporting to non-anonymous reporting channels in an experiment
using MBA students. Kaplan, Richmond Pope, and Samuels (2011) suggest
that reporting intentions to an internal auditor are stronger than reporting
intentions to an external auditor in an experiment using MBA students.
Our study involved few internal auditors and mostly public accountants
whose intentions may not be as strong,
Once an action has been evaluated as unethical, an individual is faced
with evaluating whether to report the questionable behavior or do nothing.
Given that perceived overall harm and societal pressure do have an effect
on the evaluation to report actions, we may then expect this to extend to
whistleblowing moral judgments. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H3. The greater the perceived overall harm caused by an accounting

will make a moral judgment that the accountant should report the
action.
H4. The greater the perceived societal pressure when evaluating an

accounting issue of earnings management, the more likely a professional
accountant will make a moral judgment that the accountant should

report the action.
After an individual makes a moral judgment, he or she formulates an
intention to act or not to act. Given that perceived overall harm and socie-
tal pressure do have an effect on moral judgments, we expect this to extend
to whistleblowing intentions. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H5. The greater the perceived overall harm caused by an accounting
will indicate an intention to report the action.
H6. The greater the perceived societal pressure when evaluating an

accounting issue of earnings management, the more likely a professional
accountant will indicate an intention to report the action.
RESEARCH METHOD
Stice and Stice (2006) provide a discussion of different types of earnings
management and fraud. The two types of accounting manipulations used
in this study are classified by Stice and Stice (2006) as fraudulent reporting
(non-GAAP reporting by improperly capitalizing routine maintenance
expenses) and fraud (ignoring customer returns). The scenarios used in this
study were created uniquely here; however, many of the survey questions
measuring the individual items in the moral intensity scale were adapted
from prior research (Clements & Shawver, 2011; Shawver, 2011; Shawver &
Shawver, 2013; Singhapakdi et al., 1996). A pretest of the instrument was
completed using accounting students prior to collecting the data reported
in this study using accounting professionals. Minor modifications were
made to the instructions and the instrument as a result of the pretest.
Accounting professionals attending (CPA-related) state society-sponsored
continuing education classes were invited to participate in this controlled
experiment and thereby enter a lottery to win a small financial prize valued
at $25. Of the 1,127 attendees, 220 agreed to participate, providing a 20%
response rate. Table 1 provides additional selected demographic informa-
tion about the participants of this study. Of the 220 participants, most
(82%) identified themselves as accountants and not “management” or
“other” positions, most (71%) identified themselves as male, and most
(74%) as older than 50.
Table 1. Demographics.
Panel A: Gender of Participants
Gender Number of Participants Percent of Total
Female 62 28.18
Male 157 71.36
Prefer not to answer 1 0.06
Total 220
Panel B: Age of Participants
Age Age of Participants Percent of Total
20 29 4 1.82
30 39 12 5.45
40 49 41 18.64
50 59 89 40.45
60 69 74 33.64
Total 220
Panel C: Occupation
Occupation Occupation of Participants Percent of Total
Accountant 165 75.00

External auditor 8 3.64
Internal auditor 7 3.18
Management 29 13.18
Others 11 5.00
Total 220
Measuring the Variables
Appendix A presents a number of statements about each vignette, utilizing

a 7-point Likert scale rated from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 7, “strongly
agree.” Each participant was asked to evaluate whether they feel the action
in the scenario is ethical by responding to, “The adjustment made by the
staff accountant is ethical,” whether the accountant in the scenario should
whistleblow by responding to the statement, “The staff accountant in the
scenario should report this request,” and whether most accountants would
whistleblow by responding to, “Most staff accountants would report the
request made by the controller.” Since social desirability response bias
(SDRB) is a concern when evaluating ethical dilemmas, these statements
were worded in the third person asking for an ethical evaluation, whether
the accountant in the scenario should whistleblow and whether most
accountants would whistleblow for each of the three dependent variables in

the study. As the severity of the earnings management level increases, the
evaluation of the ethicality of the action decreases and the moral judgment
and intention to whistleblow increases.
Participants rated the magnitude of consequences by responding to,
“The overall harm (if any) in completing this action would be small”
(reverse coded). Societal consensus is measured by responding to, “Most
people would agree that completing this action is wrong.” Probability of
effect is measured by responding to, “There is a very small likelihood that
this action will cause any harm” (reverse coded). Temporal immediacy is
measured by responding to, “This action will not cause any harm in the
immediate future” (reverse coded). Proximity is measured by responding
to, “If the controller is a personal friend, the action is wrong.”
Concentration of effect is measured by responding to, “The action will
harm very few people, if any” (reverse coded). The magnitude of conse-
quences, probability of effect, temporal immediacy, and concentration of
effect variables were reverse coded so that all moral intensity items are eval-
uated on a 7-point scale with the high end of the scale indicating more
moral intensity and the opposite indicating low moral intensity.
Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the variables in
this study. Appendix B presents the two scenarios. Each participant
received one of two possible sets, and each set, I or II, contained two of the
Table 2. Analysis of Moral Intensity Components and Variables for Each

Situation.
Variable Capitalizing Expenses Ignoring Returns (n = 115)
(n = 84)
Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation
Ethical evaluation 2.105 1.519 1.670 1.303

Whistleblowing moral judgment 5.705 1.525 5.649 1.667
Whistleblowing intention 3.814 1.649 4.174 1.168
Magnitude of consequences 5.466 1.397 5.422 1.583
Societal consensus 5.552 1.634 5.483 1.806
Probability of effect 4.807 1.667 4.765 1.724
Temporal immediacy 4.602 1.459 4.922 1.562
Proximity 5.750 1.676 5.887 1.674
Concentration of effect 4.770 1.696 5.017 1.660
Perceived societal pressure 5.640 1.221 5.700 1.389
Perceived overall harm 4.898 1.491 5.033 1.273
Variables are measured on a 7-point Likert scale, 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.
four scenarios used in this study. For set I, participants answered questions
about capitalization of expenses. For set II, participants answered ques-
tions about ignoring customer returns. Appendix C presents the questions
used in this study and identifies how the study variables relate to Rest’s
and Jones’ models.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

An Analysis on the Six Items of Moral Intensity
Contradictory findings exist on whether moral intensity is multidimensional

or unidimensional (Valentine & Silver, 2001). Several studies found that the
six individual components of moral intensity can be factored into two
forces, identified as perceived overall harm and perceived societal pressure
(Clements & Shawver, 2011; Shawver, 2011; Shawver & Shawver, 2013;
Singhapakdi et al., 1996; Sweeney & Costello, 2009; Yang & Wu, 2009);
however, even some of these studies using multiple scenarios report at least
one scenario where the six individual components of moral intensity fac-
tored into one force, depending on the scenario. Following prior research,
Table 3 presents a factor analysis of the six items of moral intensity for the
scenarios studied here. Consistent with prior research, the six items of
moral intensity factor into the previously defined forces: perceived overall
harm and perceived societal pressure. The coding of perceived overall harm
and perceived societal pressure are measured on a 7-point scale with the
high end of the scale indicating high perceived harm and societal pressure
and the opposite indicating low perceived harm and societal pressure.
The six components that comprise the two forces (perceived overall
harm and perceived societal pressure) are used for subsequent testing of
moral intensity. Table 3 reports the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of each
factor. Nunnally (1967) suggests that a coefficient alpha of between 0.5 and
0.6 is acceptable for measures in the preliminary stages of development and
Van de Ven and Ferry (1980) suggest that alpha values of between 0.35
and 0.55 are acceptable for broad constructs. All of the alpha values are
greater than these minimums. The alpha values for the questions that mea-
sure perceived overall harm are 0.800 for the situation involving capitaliz-
ing expenses and 0.783 for the situation involving ignoring customer
returns (Table 3). The alpha values for the questions that measure per-
ceived societal pressure are 0.750 for the situation involving capitalizing
expenses and 0.449 for the situation involving ignoring customer returns.
Table 3. Factor Analysis of Six Items of Moral Intensity into Two

Dimensions of Perceived Overall Harm and Perceived Societal Pressure.
Item of Moral Intensity Perceived Overall Perceived Societal
Harm Pressure
Panel A: Principle components factor loadings for capitalizing expenses

Magnitude of consequences 0.697 (0.365)
Societal consensus 0.678 0.548
Probability of effect 0.807 (0.046)
Temporal immediacy 0.706 (0.179)

Proximity 0.594 0.671
Concentration of effect 0.736 (0.478)
Panel B: Principle components factor loadings for ignoring customer returns
Magnitude of consequences 0.764 0.119
Panel C: Varimax rotation factor loadings for capitalizing expenses
Probability of effect 0.685 0.429
Temporal immediacy 0.679 0.263
Concentration of effect 0.877 0.036
Additional statistics
Cronbach’s alpha 0.800 0.750
Eigenvalues 2.989 1.147
% of variance 49.815 19.120
Cumulative % 49.815 68.936
Panel D: Varimax rotation factor loadings for vignette ignoring customer returns
Societal consensus (0.031) 0.776
Additional statistics
Cronbach’s alpha 0.783 0.449
Eigenvalues 2.434 1.303
% of variance 40.560 21.716
Cumulative % 40.560 62.276
In Table 4, we report the correlation matrix for the three dependent vari-
ables (ethical evaluation, whistleblowing moral judgment, and whistleblow-
ing intention) and two independent variables (perceived overall harm and
perceived societal pressure) used in this study. An increase in the perceived
overall harm variable correlates to a decrease in the ethical evaluation vari-
able (closer to unethical), and hence negative correlations of perceived
overall harm and ethical evaluation, whereas an increase in perceived socie-
tal pressure corresponds to an increase in whistleblowing, as shown in the
positive correlations.
In both situations, ethical evaluations are more correlated to harm and

whistleblowing judgments are more correlated to perceived societal pres-
sure. In the situation involving ignoring customer returns, all relationships
to ethical evaluations decrease, although harm is still statistically related,
and only perceived societal pressure is related to whistleblowing judgments.
These correlations of ethical evaluation, perceived overall harm and per-
ceived societal pressure, are consistent with relationships found by Sweeney
and Costello (2009) and Shawver (2011) using different situations.
The participants in this study are older and mostly male, so we explored
the impact of gender and age in the responses to each statement in Table 4.
The participants were grouped into two groups, those older than 50 years
of age and those younger than 50 years of age. Gender and age were not
correlated with any of the investigated variables of this study but are
slightly correlated with each other (with coefficient, −0.135). Gender is not
a surrogate for Social Desirability Response Bias (SDRB), and this study
did not attempt to directly measure the impact of SDRB.
H1 through H4
To examine the steps in Rest’s model, Table 5 shows the results of sev-
eral univariate analyses that are consistent with Rest’s Four-Component
Model of ethical decision making. For both situations, moral judgments
(Rest’s model, step 2) are dependent upon ethical evaluations (Rest’s
model, step 1).
In Table 6, the hierarchical regression (Rest’s model and steps 1, 2,
and 3) confirms that whistleblowing intentions are dependent upon whis-
tleblowing moral judgment. The dependent variable in each model is
whistleblowing intention. In the hierarchical regression, the variable iden-
tifying ethical evaluation is entered first, followed by whistleblowing
moral judgment. For both situations, whistleblowing intention (Rest’s
model, step 3) is dependent upon moral judgment (Rest’s model, step 2).
Table 4. Simple Linear Correlation Coefficients.
46
Variable Ethical Whistleblowing Whistleblowing Perceived Perceived Gender Age
Evaluation Moral Judgment Intention Overall Harm Societal Pressure
Panel A: Correlation coefficients for perceived overall harm and perceived societal pressure on evaluation in the vignette capitalizing expenses
Ethical evaluation 1.000

Whistleblowing moral judgment −0.355** 1.000
Whistleblowing intention 0.072 0.178 1.000
Perceived overall harm −0.432** 0.401** 0.045 1.000
Perceived societal pressure −0.241* 0.670** 0.218* 0.422** 1.000
Gender −0.058 0.165 0.012 0.082 −0.033 1.000
Age −0.103 −0.034 0.168 0.084 0.049 −0.135* 1.000
Panel B: Correlation coefficients for perceived overall harm and perceived societal pressure on evaluation in the vignette ignoring customer
returns
Ethical evaluation 1.000

Whistleblowing moral judgment −0.118 1.000
Whistleblowing intention (0.018) 0.505** 1.000
Perceived overall harm −0.197* 0.163 (0.051) 1.000
Perceived societal pressure −0.048 0.585** 0.322** 0.038 1.000
TARA J. SHAWVER ET AL.

Gender −0.089 0.098 0.053 −0.141 −0.081 1.000
Age −0.170 0.070 −0.013 −0.081 0.017 −0.135* 1.000
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Table 5. Univariate Regression.

Dependent Variable: Whistleblowing Moral Judgment
Variable t Significance
Panel A: Vignette capitalizing expenses
Ethical evaluation (3.755) (0.000)*

n = 84 Adjusted R2 = 0.134
Panel B: Vignette ignoring customer returns

Ethical evaluation (1.255) (0.212)

n = 115 Adjusted R2 = 0.005
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Table 6. Hierarchical Regression.

Dependent Variable: Whistleblowing Intention
Model Variable t Significance Adjusted F Significance Significant

R2 F change
Panel A: Vignette with capitalizing expenses
One Ethical 0.633 (0.528)

evaluation
Constant 11.947 (0.000)* (0.007) 0.401 (0.528)
Two Ethical 1.316 (0.192)
evaluation
Whistleblowing 1.902 (0.061)*
moral
judgment
Constant 1.783 (0.078) 0.023 2.015 (0.140) 0.061
One Ethical (0.229) (0.819)

evaluation
Constant 17.008 (0.000)* (0.008) 0.053 (0.819)
Two Ethical 0.466 (0.642)
evaluation
Whistleblowing 6.189 (0.000)*
moral
judgment
Constant 2.505 (0.013)* 0.244 19.186 (0.000)* 0.000*

Table 7 presents the results of univariate analyses, consistent with Jones’

beliefs: moral intensity affects the steps in Rest’s model of ethical decision
making. Perceived overall harm is conditionally statistically significant and
more so than perceived societal pressure in both situations, further support-
ing H1 which states that the greater perceived overall harm when evaluat-
ing an accounting issue of earnings management, the more likely a
Table 7. Univariate Multiple Regression.

Dependent Variable: Ethical Evaluation

Perceived overall harm (3.510) (0.001)*
Perceived societal pressure (0.941) (0.350)
n = 84 Adjusted R2 = 0.170
Perceived overall harm (2.112) (0.037)*
Perceived societal pressure (0.438) (0.662)
n = 115 Adjusted R2 = 0.023
Dependent Variable: Whistleblowing Moral Judgment

Perceived overall harm 1.51 (0.136)
Perceived societal pressure 4.85 (0.000)*
n = 84 Adjusted R2 = 0.45
Perceived overall harm 1.86 (0.065)*
n = 115 Adjusted R2 = 0.35
Dependent Variable: Whistleblowing Intention

Perceived societal pressure (2.204) (0.030)*
n = 84 Adjusted R2 = 0.033
Perceived societal pressure (3.631) (0.000)*
n = 115 Adjusted R2 = 0.092

professional accountant will identify the action as unethical. This result is

logical since the overall harm and materiality concepts are very similar.
The accounting professional evaluates many decisions using materiality
levels, and this sample of practicing accountants has indicated that increas-
ing the materiality of harm increases the likelihood that the action is evalu-
ated as unethical.
H2 is also supported; the greater perceived societal pressure when evalu-
ating an accounting issue of earnings management, the more likely a pro-
fessional accountant will identify the action as unethical. The perceived
societal pressure variable is from perceptions of how one interprets the

importance of the controller as a personal friend and the impact of a gen-
eral understanding, an action is either ethical or unethical across the profes-
sion. Responses may indicate that even if the controller is a personal
friend, the action is still wrong. This finding is promising for deterring
frauds in the future. Personal relationships can be used to encourage some-
one to support one’s position or viewpoint when presented with a question-
able ethical dilemma. Many accounting frauds may have been avoided if
those aware of unethical accounting practices had exhibited the courage to
disagree with management.
H3 and H4
The evidence from Tables 4 and 7 supports H3 and H4 that the two dimen-
sions of moral intensity (specifically, perceived overall harm and societal pres-
sure, respectively) affect the moral judgment to whistleblow (i.e., the staff
accountant should blow the whistle). Similar to the ethical evaluations in
Table 7, whistleblowing judgment is conditionally affected by both dimen-
sions of moral intensity and whistleblowing intention is more affected by per-
ceived societal pressure than perceived overall harm. Perceived societal
pressure is significant in both situations, supporting H4. Similar to findings in
H2, the results may suggest that this sample of accountants may seek gui-
dance from colleagues or agree with the sentiments of a majority of the pro-
fession when considering evaluating whether someone should whistleblow.
H5 and H6
The evidence from Tables 4 and 7 does not support H5, that the greater the
perceived harm, the greater the likelihood of the intention to whistleblow,
but Table 7 does conditionally support H6, that the greater the perceived
social pressure, the greater this intention. We asked the participants in this
study to evaluate whether most staff accountants would report the requests
made by the controller (the dependent variable) in each scenario, with the
factors of perceived overall harm and perceived societal pressure as the
independent variables, respectively, in the analyses.
Table 8 finishes Tables 4 7 and provides a unique simultaneous equa-
tions approach to Rest’s model and steps 1, 2, and 3. All three of these
multivariate equations are intercorrelated, as shown in Table 8. In much
the same way that multicollinear variables become less significant in the
presence of more dominant ones in univariate models, so do the moral
intensity variables become less statistically significant for steps 1 and 3, in
the presence of the more dominant step 2 (Dependent variable: moral judg-
ment) which shows the strongest impact from moral intensity in both panels.
Only in Panel B, Table 8, the case of clear fraud, do the moral intensity
forces combine for an interaction effect. So, even though whistleblowing
intention can be modeled in the univariate form by perceived social pressure
and not perceived overall harm in Table 7, Panel D, that Table 7 model is
due to the degree of moral judgments made, as shown by Table 8.
We know from prior research that other factors may become more
important when considering whistleblowing intentions after judgments are
made (and we see this in the changing R2 values in Panel A, from 0.509 to
0.159 and Panel B, from 0.604 to 0.025, Table 8). These factors may include
the fear of retaliation (Keenan, 1990), the reward systems (Xu &
Ziegenfuss, 2003), the role prescription (Miceli & Near, 1991), the personal
costs (Ayers & Kaplan, 2005), the reporting channels (Kaplan & Schultz,
2007), and the encouragement from ethical leaders (Bhal & Dadhich, 2011).
Professional accountants responding to this study are mostly public (but
non-auditor) accountants following their state’s version of the AICPA
Code of Professional Conduct Rule 301, Client Confidentiality, and Rule
501, Acts Discreditable (a rule often enhanced by each state). These rules
suggest personal costs to CPAs who may know of wrongdoings but do not
report them, such as in cases A and B studied here, or actions not permitted
for CPAs (e.g., convictions of drunk driving in Texas). The Texas State
Board Report lists individuals who submit their licenses back to the state
(and who may be reinstated later), in order to limit their liability exposure.
CONCLUSIONS
This study explores the effects of moral intensity (Jones, 1991) on ethical sen-
sitivity using a sample of professional accountants to examine two situations
Table 8. Multivariate Regression with Interaction.

F Significance
Dependent variable: ethical evaluation

Perceived societal pressure 1.348 (0.256)
Perceived overall harm × perceived societal pressure 1.324 (0.233)
Adjusted R2 = 0.306
Dependent variable: moral judgment

Adjusted R2 = 0.509
Dependent variable: whistleblowing intention
Adjusted R2 = 0.159
n = 84
Dependent variable: ethical evaluation

Adjusted R2 = −0.049
Dependent variable: moral judgment
Perceived overall harm 2.145 (0.019)*
Perceived overall harm × perceived societal pressure 1.862 (0.024)*
Adjusted R2 = 0.604
Dependent variable: whistleblowing intention
Adjusted R2 = 0.025
n = 115
involving financial statement fraud. It expands the moral intensity research of

Morris and McDonald (1995), Singhapakdi et al. (1996), Butterfield et al.
(2000), Frey (2000), May and Pauli (2002), Kelley and Elm (2003), Leitsch
(2004), Cohen and Bennie (2006), Coram et al. (2008), Fleischman et al.
(2010), and Johnson et al. (2012), Shawver (2011), Clements and Shawver
(2011), and Shawver and Shawver (2013). Furthermore, this study addresses
gaps in the literature by examining the important issues facing accounting
professionals and the connecting links among ethical evaluations, moral judg-
ments, and the intentions to whistleblow.
We asked accounting professionals to evaluate several situations to inves-
tigate the factors most important when evaluating accounting situations
involving earnings manipulations, and to determine whether an accountant
should and would report questionable actions. This study provides evidence
that perceived overall harm is significant when evaluating the ethicality of

an action. However, perceived overall harm is found to be less significant
when one evaluates whether to whistleblow for situations involving financial
statement fraud. Perceived societal pressure is found to become more impor-
tant when evaluating whistleblowing intentions for financial statement fraud
and these intentions are due to the moral judgments made, where the moral
intensity is found to be the strongest. We also found this intensity to be con-
text dependent, consistent with prior research.
These findings have a number of practical implications for the non-
auditing part of the accounting profession, employers, and educators. This
study shows that certain professional accountants are likely to vary their
moral judgments and intention to whistleblow based on the perceived socie-
tal pressure factor of moral intensity, particularly in the case of financial
statement fraud. If this finding is pervasive among the entire profession, it
is particularly important that organizations conduct training sessions to
expose employees to ethical issues involving earnings management and
financial statement fraud. Encouragement of whistleblowing by members
within an organization may increase the likelihood that an employee would
make a moral judgment that whistleblowing is a viable alternative when
confronted with unethical behaviors, such as financial statement fraud.
Sims and Keenan (1998) found “that supervisor support for external whis-
tleblowing and informal policies which encourage external whistleblowing
are significant predictors of the tendency to choose external whistleblowing
when faced with an ethical dilemma.” They also noted that “these are fac-
tors directly influenced by managers.” Sims and Keenan further suggest
that “managers who provide a supportive climate characterized by empathy
and who attempt to understand, listen, and maintain feelings of mutual
respect between themselves and their staff can expect to encourage more
openness with respect to staff raising issues of ethical concern” (1998,
p. 419). Sims and Keenan (1998) encourage training, development, and
coaching in communications for those in supervisory roles. During an
external audit, CPAs must brainstorm, inquire about, and document their
inquiries on fraud. The cases examined here were not explicitly stated as
audit clients and the respondents included only eight external and seven
internal auditors, so we must presume that the moral intensity on whistle-
blowing fraud from the rest of the respondents was not as impacted as was
their judgments. When fraudulent financial reporting is not reported but
later discovered, investor confidence decreases and the efficiencies of invest-
ment markets are impaired. This becomes particularly relevant now that
the SEC has increased its software capabilities to identify financial state-
ment fraud (Eaglesham, 2013).
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations that should be noted. Accounting profes-

sionals here were limited to mostly public accountants. Even CPAs may
not actually respond in a manner similar to the way in which they
responded in this controlled experiment when confronted with similar pro-
blems in a business environment. Therefore, this sample of professional
accountants may not represent the way all accountants evaluate ethical
dilemmas or make moral judgments.
In addition, future research may wish to attempt to increase the variation
in sample demographics, as these accountants were mostly older men seeking
continuing professional education in the southeastern United States. Future
studies could include other variables, including organizational culture and
job satisfaction. Furthermore, it may be critical to determine how different
organizations evaluate and interpret the components of moral intensity and
thereby create the societal pressure environment that would encourage whis-
tleblowing intentions. Another area of exploration could include other fac-
tors such as fear of retaliation, the effects of reward systems, role
prescription, personal costs of whistleblowing, and the channels for reporting
unethical behavior. Finally, Rest (1986) suggests that individuals must give
priority to moral values above other personal values when intending to do
what is morally right. Future research should explore the effects of values on
evaluations of moral intensity, moral judgment, and behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Cynthia Jeffrey and
two anonymous reviewers, whose feedback greatly improved this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Ahern, K., & McDonald, S. (2002). The beliefs of nurses who were involved in a whistleblow-
ing event. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 38(3), 303 309.
Alpern, K. D. (1982). Engineers as moral heroes. In V. Weil (Ed.), Beyond whistleblowing
(pp. 400 451). Chicago: Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois
Institute of Technology.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1997). Code of Professional Conduct as
Adopted January 12, 1988, amended January 14, 1992 and October 28, 1997. ET
Section 52.01 53.04.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2013). Code of Professional
Conduct. Retrieved from http://www.aicpa.org/research/standards/codeofconduct/
downloadabledocuments/2010june1codeofprofessionalconduct.pdf
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE). (2012). Report to the nations on occupa-
tional fraud and abuse. Austin, TX: ACFE.
Ayers, S., & Kaplan, S. (2005). Wrongdoing by consultants: An examination of employee’s
reporting intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 121 137.
Bailey, C., Scott, I., & Thoma, S. (2010). Revitalizing accounting ethics research in the
neo-Kohlbergian framework: Putting the DIT into perspective. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 22(2), 1 26.
Barnett, T., & Valentine, S. (2004). Issue contingencies and marketers’ recognition of ethical
issues, ethical judgments and behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Research, 57(4),
338 346.
Bernardi, R. A., Banzhoff, C. A., Martino, A. M., & Savasta, K. J. (2011). Cheating and whis-
tle blowing in the classroom. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in
Accounting, 15, 165 191.
Bernardi, R. A., Larkin, M. B., LaBontee, L. A., Lapierre, R. A., & Morse, N. C. (2012).
Classroom cheating: Reasons not to whistle-blow and the probability of whistle-
blowing. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 16, 203 233.
Bhal, K., & Dadhich, A. (2011). Impact of ethical leadership and leader member exchange on
whistle blowing: The moderating impact of the moral intensity of the issue. Journal of
Business Ethics, 103, 485 496.
Bok, S. (1980). Whistleblowing and professional responsibilities. In D. Callahan & S. Bok
(Eds.), Ethics teaching in higher education. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Butterfield, K. D., Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2000). Moral awareness in business orga-
nizations: Influences of issue-related and social context factors. Human Relations, 53(7),
981 1018.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Wadsworth, L. L. (2002). The impact of moral intensity
dimensions on ethical decision making: Assessing the relevance of orientation. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 14(1), 15 30.
Chia, A., & Mee, L. S. (2000). The effects of issue characteristics on the recognition of moral
issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(3), 255 269.
Clements, L., & Shawver, T. (2011). Moral intensity and intentions of accounting professionals
to whistleblow externally. Advances in Management, 4(5), 34 40.
Cohen, J. R., & Bennie, N. M. (2006). The applicability of a contingent factors model to
accounting ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 1 18.
Coram, P., Glavovic, A., Ng, J., & Woodliff, D. (2008). The moral intensity of reduced audit
quality acts. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 27(1), 127 149.
Eaglesham, J. (2013). Accounting fraud targeted. The Wall Street Journal, 261(124), C1 C6.
Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324125504578509241
215284044.html. Accessed on May 27, 2013.
Fleischman, G., Valentine, S., & Finn, D. (2010). Moral intensity, ethical reasoning, and
equitable relief judgments. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in
Frey, B. F. (2000). The impact of moral intensity on decision making in a business context.
Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 181 195.
Harrington, S. J. (1997). A test of a person-issue contingent model of ethical decision-making

in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 363 375.
Hersch, M. A. (2002). Whistleblowers Heroes or traitors?: Individual and collective respon-
sibility for ethical behaviour. Annual Reviews in Control, 26(2), 243 262.
IMA Statement of Ethical Professional Practice. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.imanet.
org/PDFs/Statement%20of%20Ethics_web.pdf
Israeli, D. (1988). Ethical beliefs and behavior among managers: A cross-cultural perspective.
Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 263 271.
Johnson, E., Fleischman, G., Valentine, S., & Walker, K. (2012). Managers’ ethical evalua-
tions of earnings management and its consequences. Contemporary Accounting
Research, 29(3), 910 927.
Jones, S. D., & Rubin, B. F. (2012). Oracle pays $2 million in settlement with SEC. Wall
Street Journal, 259(40), B4 B4.
Jones, T. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent
model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 231 248.
Kaplan, S., Pany, K., Samuels, J., & Zhang, J. (2009). An examination of the association
between gender and reporting intentions for fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of
Business Ethics, 87, 15 30.
Kaplan, S., Richmond Pope, K., & Samuels, J. (2011). An examination of the effect of inquiry
and auditor type on reporting intentions for fraud. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &
Theory, 30(4), 29 49.
Kaplan, S., & Schultz, J. (2007). Intentions to report questionable acts: An examination of the
influence of anonymous reporting channel, internal audit quality, and setting. Journal
of Business Ethics, 71, 109 124.
Keenan, J. P. (1990). Upper-level managers and whistleblowing: Determinants of perceptions
of company encouragement and information about where to blow the whistle. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 5(2), 223 235.
Kelley, P. C., & Elm, D. R. (2003). The effect of context on moral intensity of ethical issues:
Revising Jones’s issue-contingent model. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(2), 139 154.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socializa-
tion. In D. Goslin & R. McNally (Eds.), Handbook of socialization theory and research
(pp. 347 480). Chicago.
Leitsch, D. L. (2004). Differences in the perceptions of moral intensity in the moral decision
process: An empirical examination of accounting students. Journal of Business Ethics,
53, 313 324.
Leitsch, D. L. (2006). Using dimensions of moral intensity to predict ethical decision-making
in accounting. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 15(2), 135 149.
May, D. R., & Pauli, K. P. (2002). The role of moral intensity in ethical decision making.
Business and Society, 41(1), 84 117.
McDevitt, R., & Van Hise, J. (2002). Influences in ethical dilemmas of increasing intensity.
Journal of Business Ethics, 40(3), 261 274.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1984). The relationships among beliefs, organizational position,
and whistleblowing status: A discriminant analysis. Academy of Management Journal,
27, 687 705.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1991). Whistleblowing as an organizational process. Research in
the Sociology of Organizations, 9, 139 200.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1992). Blowing the whistle: The legal implications for companies
and employees. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Miceli, M. P., Roach, B. L., & Near, J. P. (1988). The motivations of anonymous whistle-
blowers: The case of federal employees. Public Personnel Management, 17, 281 296.
Morris, S. A., & McDonald, R. A. (1995). The role of moral intensity in moral judgments: An
empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 715 726.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management
Review, 20(3), 679 709.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pletta, D. H. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY:
Praeger.
Shafer, W. E., Morris, R. E., & Ketchand, A. A. (1999). The effects of formal sanctions on
auditor independence. Auditing, 18, 85 102.
Shawver, T. J. (2011). The effects of moral intensity on whistleblowing behaviors for account-
ing professionals. Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting, 3(2), 162 190.
Shawver, T. J., & Clements, L. H. (2007). The intention of accounting students to whistle-blow
in situations of questionable ethical dilemmas. Research on Professional Responsibility
and Ethics in Accounting, 11, 177 191.
Shawver, T. J., & Shawver, T. A. (2013). Accounting students’ ethical sensitivity and moral
judgments for business dilemmas. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in
Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1998). Predictors of external whistleblowing: Organizational and
intrapersonal variables. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(4), 411 421.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). Moral intensity and ethical decision-
making of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Research, 36, 245 255.
Stice, E. K., & Stice, J. D. (2006). Financial accounting reporting & analysis. Mason, OH:
Thomson South-Western.
Sweeney, B., & Costello, F. (2009). Moral intensity and ethical decision-making: An empirical
examination of undergraduate accounting and business students. Accounting Education:
An International Journal, 18(1), 75 97.
Valentine, S., & Hollingworth, D. (2012). Moral intensity, issue importance, and ethical rea-
soning in operations situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 509 523.
Valentine, S. L., & Silver, L. (2001). Assessing the dimensionality of the Singhapakdi, Vitell
and Kraft measure of moral intensity. Psychological Reports, 88(1), 291 294.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Wright, G., Cullinan, C., & Bline, D. (1997). Recognizing ethical issues: The joint influence of
ethical sensitivity and moral intensity. Research on Accounting Ethics, 4, 29 52.
Xu, Y., & Ziegenfuss, D. E. (2003). Reward systems, moral reasoning, and internal auditors’
reporting wrongdoing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(4), 323 331.
Yang, H., & Wu, W. (2009). The effect of moral intensity on ethical decision making in
accounting. Journal of Moral Education, 38(3), 335 351.
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT

QUESTIONS
Vignette
A staff accountant prepared the preliminary financial statements for the

fourth quarter and sent it to the controller for approval. After review, the
controller asked the staff accountant to capitalize expenses for routine
maintenance of production machinery. In the past, these costs were

expensed. The adjustment would increase net income by 4% for this pub-
licly traded company. The accountant agreed to make the adjustment.
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following state-
ments by circling one answer for each of the following statements using the
following scale:
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
The adjustment made by the staff accountant is ethical. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The overall harm (if any) in completing this action would be small.
(reverse coded) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Most people would agree that completing this action is wrong. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
There is a very small likelihood that this action will cause any harm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(reverse coded)
This action will not cause any harm in the immediate future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(reverse coded)
If the controller is a personal friend, the action is wrong. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The action will harm very few people, if any. (reverse coded) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The staff accountant in the scenario should report this request. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Most staff accountants would report the request made by the controller. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
APPENDIX B: VIGNETTES
Capitalization of Expenses

controller asked the staff accountant to capitalize expenses for routine
maintenance of production machinery. In the past, these costs were
expensed. The adjustment would increase net income by 4% for this pub-
licly traded company. The accountant agreed to make the adjustment.
Ignoring Customer Returns

controller asked that the accountant ignore all customer returns received
during the last week of the fourth quarter in order to increase reported net
income by 5% for this publicly traded company. The accountant agreed to
make adjustments to the financial statements and record these transactions
in the first quarter of the next year.
APPENDIX C: QUESTION MAPPING AND STUDY

VARIABLES
Question Variable
The adjustment made by the staff accountant is ethical. Ethical evaluation, Rest’s model
step 1
The staff accountant in the scenario should report this Whistleblowing moral judgment,
request. Rest’s model step 2

Most staff accountants would report the request made Whistleblowing intention, Rest’s
by the controller. model step 3
The overall harm (if any) in completing this action Magnitude of consequences,
would be small. (reverse coded) Perceived overall harm
There is a very small likelihood that this action will Probability of effect, Perceived
cause any harm. (reverse coded) overall harm
This action will not cause any harm in the immediate Temporal immediacy, Perceived
future. (reverse coded) overall harm
The action will harm very few people, if any. Concentration of effect, Perceived
(reverse coded) overall harm
Most people would agree that completing this action is Societal consensus, Perceived
wrong. societal pressure
If the controller is a personal friend, the action is wrong. Proximity, Perceived societal
pressure

Research On Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationJurnal

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research On Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research On Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in

Professional Accountants?" In Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Tara J. Shawver, Lynn H. Clements and

Moral intensity is the degree of feeling we have about the consequences

Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, Volume 19, 27 60

ethical evaluations may become affected by perceived overall harm, and

to create numbers that clearly lack integrity, lead to accounting scandals

and utilitarianism was significant for early shipments. Clements and

Rest’s (1986) work suggesting that perceived consequences of moral choice,

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Ethical Decision Making and Moral Intensity

Jones (1991) offers a synthesis of several models of ethical decision making.

reasoning. Kohlberg (1969) describes the six stages of moral reasoning as a

p. 3). Ethical intentions can be an important determinant of ethical beha-

Magnitude of consequences is described as the sum of the harms or ben-

harming thousands of people will have a greater magnitude of conse-

In summary, a situation will have high moral intensity if most people

high levels and many issues achieving low levels.”

Ethical Decision Making and Moral Intensity

Moral Judgment and Moral Intensity

Jones (1991) suggests that moral intensity influences moral judgment.

Moral Intentions and Moral Intensity

Prior researchers have explored the influence of the components of moral

Two Dimensions of Moral Intensity

H1. The greater perceived overall harm when evaluating an accounting

H2. The greater perceived societal pressure when evaluating an account-

Ethical Evaluations and Whistleblowing by Accountants

After an individual makes an ethical evaluation and a moral judgment, an

termination of wrongdoing include: “(a) characteristics of the whistleblower,

H3. The greater the perceived overall harm caused by an accounting

H4. The greater the perceived societal pressure when evaluating an

accountant will make a moral judgment that the accountant should

will indicate an intention to report the action.

H6. The greater the perceived societal pressure when evaluating an

Gender Number of Participants Percent of Total

Panel B: Age of Participants

Age Age of Participants Percent of Total

Occupation Occupation of Participants Percent of Total

Accountant 165 75.00

Measuring the Variables

Appendix A presents a number of statements about each vignette, utilizing

accountants would whistleblow for each of the three dependent variables in

Table 2. Analysis of Moral Intensity Components and Variables for Each

Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation

Ethical evaluation 2.105 1.519 1.670 1.303

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

An Analysis on the Six Items of Moral Intensity

Contradictory findings exist on whether moral intensity is multidimensional

Table 3. Factor Analysis of Six Items of Moral Intensity into Two

Panel A: Principle components factor loadings for capitalizing expenses

Temporal immediacy 0.706 (0.179)

In both situations, ethical evaluations are more correlated to harm and

Ethical evaluation 1.000

Ethical evaluation 1.000

TARA J. SHAWVER ET AL.