Effect of <i>guanxi</i> and ethical orientations on Chinese auditors' ethical reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of Chinese auditors' personal values (guanxi and ethical orientations) on their ethical reasoning (ethical judgments and behavioral intentions). In addition, this study aims to explore the joint effect of guanxi and ethical orientation on auditors' ethical reasoning. Design/methodology/approach – This study is based on a field survey of 191 auditors working in Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firms that operate in the People's Republic of China (China). Findings – The main findings indicate that guanxi and relativism orientations negatively associate with, while idealism orientation positively associates with, auditors' ethical judgments and behavioral intentions. However, when decomposing the overall ethical judgment into three judgment groups, the main effects of guanxi and ethical orientations on auditors' ethical judgments become marginal and those effects fully hold only when using acceptability as criteria to judge questionable behavior in the vignettes. In addition, the results of the joint effect of guanxi and ethical orientations indicate that guanxi orientation weakens both the positive effect of idealism and the negative effect of relativism orientations on auditors' ethical reasoning. Originality/value – This study contributes the literature by investigating the ethical reasoning of auditors in a country with a relatively weak legal system that relies on guanxi (literally, interpersonal relationships and connections) culture to operate business. Furthermore, this study extends the literature by documenting the moderating effect of guanxi orientation on the relation between auditors' ethical orientation and their ethical reasoning.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".