Auditor’s Ethical Judgments: The Influence of Moral Intensity, Ethical Orientation and Client Importance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined auditors’ ethical judgments using two theoretical perspectives; (1) Moral intensity constructs of Jones’ (1991) Model and (2) Forsyth’s (1980) framework of individual ethical orientation. The importance of the moral issues and how they affected the auditors’ ethical judgments together with the influence of individual’s ethical orientation and the client importance is discussed. A research instrument consisted of two scenarios with different level of moral intensity issues and utilized a 12-item of moral intensity measurement and a Forsyth’s (1980) scale to measure ethical orientation along two dimensions, idealism and relativism. The client importance is manipulated in this between-subjects study. The results of 152 auditors’ found that the effects of the moral intensity construct and the client importance on auditors’ ethical judgments is different based on the issues intensity level of the scenarios. Whereas, both dimensions of the individual ethical orientation (idealism and relativism) are found significant in both of the scenarios tested. The limitations of the study and recommendation for future studies are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".