[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 2, Issue 4 (1-2018) ::
aapc 2018, 2(4): 123-152 Back to browse issues page
Slippery Slope or Compensatory Behavior: The Role of Locas of Control and Negative Affect on Ethical Accounting Decision Making
Farshid Eimer 1, Mansour Garkeaz 2
1- Accounting Department, Gorgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran
2- Accounting Department, Hakim Jorjani Higher Education Institution, Gorgan, Iran. , M.garkaz@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (957 Views)
Individuals with different personal attributes perform immoral acts for the first time. For later times, they are based on their behavior, and their immoral behavior becomes bigger and larger. This operation is referred to as slippery slope argument. In contrast, there are also people who are when wanted or unwanted in An unusual, small, and unhealthy behavior is faced with negative emotions, and in future decisions seek to compensate for this. That behavior is also referred to as a Licensing or compensatory behavior. On the contrary, the slippery slope. Both theories can exist in accounting, which depends on individual and environmental differences. In this research, individual differences, such as the source of internal locus control and fear as negative effect, have been investigated, that could provide important insights in escalating ethical situations regarding what types of individuals are more likely to engage in a slippery slope (consistent) pattern of behavior compared to compensatory (or licensing) behavior in accounting related scenarios. The research method is semi-experimental, applied and of a cross-sectional type. The time of research is cross-sectional in 2017. The statistical population of this study is graduate accounting (PhD) students of all universities of Iran. Using Cochran formula, 325 people were selected. In the next step, a structure for slippery slope behavior was created and using variance analysis by designing a general linear model after proving a significant effect between the variables, the comparison of the mean of different groups after their placement in the slippery slope structure was dealt. The results of this research show that individual characteristics including high levels of fear as a negative affective state indicate behavior that results in a slippery slope. In contrast, negative affliction (fear) leads less to compensatory behavior. On the other hand, people with a high internal locas of control, when negative affect (fear) is low, show compensatory behavior.
Keywords: Compensatory behavior, Slippery slope, Negative affect, Locus of control, Ethical accounting decision making
Full-Text [PDF 297 kb]   (618 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2017/08/29 | Accepted: 2017/10/3 | Published: 2018/01/5
References
1. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review. [Special Issue on Evil and Violence],(3) : 193-209.
2. Brown, T. J. (2014). Advantageous comparison and rationalization of earnings management. Journal of Accounting Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2127423 : 849–876.
3. Brown, T., Rennekamp, K. M., Seybert, N., and Zhu,W. (2014). Who stands at the top and bottom of the slippery slope? (Available at SSRN:http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1810833).
4. Crawford, J. R., and Henry, J. D. (2004). The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large nonclinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(3) : 245–265.
5. Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., and Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2) : 374–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374.
6. Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row,Peterson.
7. Forgas, J. P., and George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1): 3–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2971. Or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222970017.
8. Gino, F., and Bazerman, M. H. (2009). When misconduct goes unnoticed: The acceptability of gradual erosion in others' unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4): 708–719. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.013.
9. Gino, F., Ayal, S., and Ariely, D. (2013). Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 93: 285–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.04.005.
10. Johnson, E. N., Lowe, D. J., and Reckers, P.M. J. (2016). The influence ofmood on subordinates' ability to resist coercive pressure in public accounting. Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(1): 261–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12141.
11. Joosten, A., Dijke, M. v., Hiel, A. V., and Cremer, D. D. (2014). Feel good, do-good!? On consistency and compensation in moral self-regulation. Journal of Business Ethics,123(1) : 71–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551–013-1794-z.
12. Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal–external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38(4) : 377–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891. 1974.10119988.
13. Lowe, D. J., and Reckers, P. M. J. (2012). An examination of the contribution of dispositional affect on ethical lapses. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2) : 179–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1200-7.
14. Mayhew, B. W., and Murphy, P. R. (2013). The impact of authority on reporting behavior, rationalization and affect. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(2) : 420–443. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/1911-3846.12037. or Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2026449.
15. Murphy, P. R. (2012). Attitude, Machiavellianism and the rationalization of misreporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(4) : 242–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. aos. 2012.04.002.
16. Murphy, P. R., and Dacin, M. T. (2011). Psychological pathways to fraud: Understanding and preventing fraud in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4): 601–618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0741-0.
17. Padilla, A., Hogan, R., and Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3):176–194.
18. Reckers, P., and Samuelson, M. (2016). Toward resolving the debate surrounding slippery slope versus licensing behavior: The importance of..., Advances in Accounting, incorporating Advances in International Accounting http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac. 2016.07.003 : 1-16.
19. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1) : 1–28.
20. Sheehan, N. T., and Schmidt, J.A. (2015). Preparing accounting students for ethical decision making: Developing individual codes of conduct based on personal values, J. of Acc. Ed. doi: 10.1016/ j.jaccedu.2015.06.001: 183-197.
21. Stuart, I., Stuart, B., and Pedersen, L.(2014). Accounting Ethics, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester, West Sussex, UK, 312 pages, ISBN: 978-1-118-54240-8.
22. Tavris, C., and Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me):Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts (1st ed.). Orlando, Fla: Harcourt. ISBN 978-{}..15-101098-1.
23. Trevino, L. K., and Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4) : 378–385. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/0021-9010.75.4.378.
24. Watson. D, Clark. L, and Tellegen. A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1988. Vol. 54. No. 6: 1063-1070.
25. Zhong, C., Ku, G., Lount, R. B., and Murnighan, J. K. (2010). Compensatory ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(3): 323–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0161-6.
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA code


XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Eimer F, Garkeaz M. Slippery Slope or Compensatory Behavior: The Role of Locas of Control and Negative Affect on Ethical Accounting Decision Making. aapc. 2018; 2 (4) :123-152
URL: http://aapc.khu.ac.ir/article-1-339-en.html


Volume 2, Issue 4 (1-2018) Back to browse issues page
فصلنامه دستاوردهای حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری Valued and Behavioral Accountings Achievements
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.15 seconds with 31 queries by YEKTAWEB 3731