Cognitive Moral Development, Organizational Situation and Ethical Decision Making in Business and Accounting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the effect of the interaction between cognitive moral development (pragmatic, accommodating, and autonomous) and an organizational situation (agency and stewardship) in business ethical decision making (earnings management and expropriation). This research employed a laboratory experiment design of full factorial factor 3x2 between-within subjects.There were 97 postgraduate students of Hasanuddin University that acted as participants. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and t-test. The results showed that the level of cognitive moral development is positively related to the degree of ethical decisions in accounting and expropriation. The higher the level of cognitive moral development, the more managers act ethically in decisions relating to accounting and expropriation. Meanwhile, the agency and stewardship situation have no effect on the differences in ethical decision making both in accounting and expropriation. Similarly, the exposure to an organizational situation has no impact on the relationship between levels of cognitive moral development and ethical decision making.The assumption stating that cognitive moral development of each participant has been an anchor and not easily changed to the different or the opposite situations is empirically proven.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".