Total subjects of this research are 82 accountants in Vietnam . Table 4.1 showed there are 38 male participants represent 46.3%, 44 female participants represent for 53.7%. The result shows the accountant in Vietnam is well-educated, around 53.7% respondants has College’s degree and 25.6% Bachelor’s degree , only 20.7 % has under College’s degree. 48.8% of the accountant are 35 years old or younger and 51.2% are senior (over 35 years old). 52.4%
respondents’ working experience is 5 years or less, 47.6 % have working experience more than 5 years.
Table 4. 1 Selected Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Characteristics Number Percentages
Gender
Male 38 46.3%.
Female 44 53.7%.
Age
Under or 35 years old 40 48.8%.
Over 35 years old 42 51.2%.
Education Background
Under College’s degree 17 20.7%.
College’s degree 44 53.7%.
Bachelor’s degree 21 25.6%.
Working experience
Under or 5 years 43 52.4%.
Over 5 years 39 47.6%.
28
The moral intensity scale reliability was assessedusing Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, a common measure used to test the consistency among scales. The moral intensity components of this study were summed to yield a global alpha score of moral intensity ( ‘α=0.812). Table 4.2 presented the means and standard deviations of moral decision making process ( Moral Recognition , Moral Judgment, Moral Intentions ) and the components of moral intentions (Magnitude of Consequences, Social Consensus, Probability of Effect, Temporal Immediacy, Concentration of Effect, Proximity) by each scenario; Scenario 1 (approving questionable expense report), Scenario 2 (manipulating company books), Scenario 3 (violating company policy), Scenarios 4 (extending questionable credit). While the accountants perceived Scenario 2 (Manipulating company books) to be the most unethical action (m =6.50) they also recognized the ethical nature in the other scenarios, where neutral ratings = 4 (Table 4.2). Overall, the perceived moral intensity seemed to vary depending on the nature of the situation within the scenario. The result supported Jones (1991) theory that individuals tend to perceive some situations more '' morally intense '' than others.
The table 4.2 showed that the respondents were overall strongly agree about the situation involves an ethical problem at all scenarios, for example, the mean of moral recognition in each scenario is above 6; Scenario 1 (6.40), Scenario 2 (6.50), Scenario 3 (6.48), and Scenario 4 (6.32). Regarding to moral intentions, most accountants were disagreed about if they were the company controller, they would make the same decision. Last, the result showed that most accountants agree about that accountants’ decision will affect their co-workers (Proximity).
29
Table 4. 2 Means and Standard Deviation.
Intensity Components Scenario1 Scenario2 Scenario3 Scenario4
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Moral Recognition 6.40 1.530 6.50 1.381 6.48 1.381 6.32 1.563 Moral Judgment 4.20 1.753 4.26 1.593 4.17 1.616 3.84 1.535 Moral Intentions 3.74 1.609 3.79 1.472 3.78 1.564 3.49 1.589 Magnitude of
Consequences 4.10 1.645 4.10 1.653 4.28 1.680 4.29 1.444 Social Consensus 4.00 1.523 4.18 1.500 3.77 1.780 4.06 1.550 Probability of Effect 4.27 1.736 4.23 1.773 4.30 1.755 4.21 1.719 Temporal Immediacy 3.90 1.810 4.00 1.648 4.32 1.770 4.18 1.693 Concentration of Effect 3.39 1.522 3.39 1.522 3.43 1.656 3.29 1.519 Proximity 4.71 1.511 4.61 1.577 4.87 1.601 4.67 1.458 Scenario1: Approving a questionable expense report
Scenario2: Manipulating company books Scenario3: Violating company policy Scenario4: Extending questionable credit SD: standard deviation
30
Null Hypothesis 1 addressed there is no significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and moral recognition of accountant under different accounting ethical issues. A MANOVA with repeated measures on scenarios was conducted on all seven dependent variables.
As the results shown on Table 4.3, the multivariate analysis revealed a significant moral recognition / moral intensity (MRMI) effect Wilks’ ()= 0.172 , F = 61,029 , p = 0,000, a accounting issue (ISSUE) main effect Wilks’ ()=0.981, F = 0.516, P = 0.672, and moral sensitivity/moral intensity (MSMI) by accounting issue interaction effect ()= 0.809, F = 0.838, P = 0.650. Therefore, this null hypothesis was rejected. The result implied that there is a significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and moral recognition of accountant under different accounting ethical issues.
Table 4. 3 Multivariate tests of moral sensitivity/moral intensity (MSMI) components for accounting issues.
Effect Multivariate Univariate F
F MR MC SC PE TI CE PR
MRMI 61.029*
Moral sensitivity 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* Magnitude of
consequences 0.000* 0.436 0.524 0.436 0.000* 0.006*
Social consensus 0.000* 0.436 0.335 0.692 0.000* 0.000* Probability of effect 0.000* 0.524 0.335 0.159 0.000* 0.020* Temporal immediacy 0.000* 0.436 0.692 0.159 0.000* 0.001* Concentration of effect 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* Proximity 0.000* 0.006* 0.000* 0.020* 0.001* 0.000*
ISSUE 0.516
MSMI * ISSUE 0.838
Design: Intercept within subjects design: MSMI + ISSUE + MSMI * ISSUE.
* Statistically significant at 0.05 level.
31
Null Hypothesis 2 addressed There is no significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and moral judgment of accountant under different accounting ethical issues. A MANOVA with repeated measures on scenarios was conducted on all seven dependent variables.
As shown on Table 4.4, the multivariate analysis revealed a significant moral sensitivity/ moral intensity (MJMI) effect Wilks’ ()= 0.499 , F = 6.319 , p = 0,000, a accounting issue (ISSUE) main effect Wilks’ ()=0.980, F = 0.546, P = 0.652, and moral sensitivity/moral intensity (MSMI) by accounting issue interaction effect Wilks’ ()= 0.755, F = 1,156, P = 0.324. Therefore, this null Hypotheses was rejected. The result implied that there is a significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and moral judgment of accountant under different accounting ethical issues.
Table 4. 4 Multivariate tests of moral judgment/moral intensity (MJMI) components for accounting issues
Design: Intercept within subjects design: MJMI + ISSUE + MJMI * ISSUE.
* Statistically significant at 0.05 level.
32
Null Hypothesis 3 addressed there is no significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and moral intention of accountant under different accounting ethical issues. A repeated measures MANOVA was also conducted on seven dependant variables. As shown on Table 4.5, the multivariate analysis revealed a significant moral intentions/components of moral intensity (MIMI) effect Wilks’ ()= 0.593, F = 8.689, P = 0.000, a accounting issue main effect (ISSUE), Wilks ()= 0.979, F = 0.566, P = 0.639, and a MIMI * ISSUE interaction effect Wilks’
()= 0.759 , F = 1.128 , P = 0.348. Therefore, this null Hypotheses was rejected. The result implied that there is a significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and moral intentions of accountant under different accounting ethical issues.
Table 4. 5 Multivariate tests of moral intentions/moral intensity (MRMI) components for accounting issues
Effect Multivariate Univariate F
F MI MC SC PE TI CE PR
Design: Intercept within subjects design: MIMI + ISSUE + MIMI*ISSUE.
* Statistically significant at 0.05 level.
33
Null Hypothesis 4 addressed there is no significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and age. A MANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relationship between age (Younger subjects under or 35 years old; Older subjects over 35 years old) and the perceived influence of the components of moral intensity (Magnitude of Consequences, Social Consensus, Probability of Effect, Temporal Immediacy, Concentration of Effect, Proximity). The independent variable was age and the dependent variable was each of the components of moral intensity by scenario. Table 4.7 showed the univariate result of magnitude of consequences for Scenario 4 (F = 5.017, p = .028) is significant. According to the means shown on Table 4.6, the result implied that the younger respondents (M=4.65) tend to disagree that the overall harm (if any) done as a result of accountants’ decision would be very small, compared to the older subjects (M=3.95). The univariate results of probability of effect for Scenario 1 (F = 5.073, p
= .027) and Scenario 4 (F = 7.661, p = .007) are significant. The results implied that the younger respondents (M=4.70 or 4.72) tend to disagree that there is a very small likelihood that accountants’ decision will actually cause any harm, compared to the older subjects (M=3.86 or 3.71). However, the rest of components of moral intensity has F < 4 and p> .05, it means that rest of components of moral intensity is no significant with age. The multivariate result (F=1.005, P=.475) suggested no significant relationship between the perception of moral intensity and age.
Therefore, this null Hypothesis was accepted.
34
Table 4. 6 Means of Age
Age Scenario1 Scenario2 Scenario3 Scenario4 Magnitude of Consequences 35 and under 4.40 4.20 4.57 4.65
over35 3.81 4.00 4.00 3.95
Social Consensus 35 and under 4.02 4.12 3.65 3.80
over35 3.98 4.24 3.88 4.31
Probability of Effect 35 and under 4.70 4.38 4.45 4.72
over35 3.86 4.10 4.17 3.71
Temporal Immediacy 35 and under 4.25 4.13 4.50 4.52
over35 3.57 3.88 4.14 3.86
Concentration of Effect 35 and under 3.42 3.27 3.15 3.53
over35 3.36 3.50 3.69 3.07
Proximity 35 and under 4.65 4.70 5.00 4.98
over35 4.76 4.52 4.74 4.38
35
Table 4. 7 MANOVA Test of Components of Moral Intensity and Age Age multivariate F1.005
(.475) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Univariate F P F P F P F P
Magnitude of
Consequences 2.695 .105 .297 .587 2.443 .122 5.017 .028*
Social Consensus .021 .886 .115 .735 .342 .560 2.247 .138 Probability of Effect 5.073 .027* .507 .478 .531 .468 7.661 .007*
Temporal Immediacy 2.951 .090 .446 .506 .832 .364 3.277 .074 Concentration of Effect .040 .841 .445 .507 2.216 .141 1.845 .178
Proximity .111 .740 .253 .616 .545 .462 3.508 .065
* Statistically significant at 0.05 level
Null Hypothesis 5 addressed there is no significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and gender. A MANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relationship between gender (Male or Female) and the perceived influence of the components of moral intensity (Magnitude of Consequences, Social Consensus, Probability of Effect, Temporal Immediacy, Concentration of Effect, and Proximity). The independent variable was gender and the dependent variable was each of the components of moral intensity by scenario. Table 4.9 showed the univariate result of temporal immediacy for Scenario 1 (F = 5.277, p = .024) is significant. According to the means shown on Table 4.8, the result suggested that the male respondents (M=3.42) tend to agree that accountants’ decision will not cause harm in the immediate future, compared to the female subjects (M=4.32). However, the rest of components of moral intensity has F < 4 and p> .05, it means that rest of components of moral intensity is no significant with gender. The multivariate result (F=.767, P=.759) suggested no significant relationship between the perception of moral intensity and gender. Therefore, this null Hypothesis was accepted.
36
Table 4. 8 Means of Gender
Gender Scenario1 Scenario2 Scenario3 Scenario4
Magnitude of Consequences Male 3.76 3.97 4.13 4.21
Female 4.39 4.20 4.41 4.36
Social Consensus Male 4.21 4.45 3.76 4.11
Female 3.82 3.95 3.77 4.02
Probability of Effect Male 3.95 3.92 4.26 4.26
Female 4.55 4.50 4.34 4.16
Temporal Immediacy Male 3.42 4.00 4.24 4.05
Female 4.32 4.00 4.39 4.30
Concentration of Effect Male 3.42 3.47 3.37 3.39
Female 3.36 3.32 3.48 3.20
Proximity Male 4.61 4.42 5.08 4.68
Female 4.80 4.77 4.68 4.66
37
Table 4. 9 MANOVA Test of Components of Moral Intensity and Gender Gender multivariate
F=.767a (.759) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Univariate F P=Sig. F P=Sig. F P=Sig. F P=Sig.
Moral Recognition 3.485 .066 1.264 .264 .394 .532 .000 .995
Moral Judgment .876 .352 1.326 .253 .229 .633 .022 .884
Moral Intentions .523 .472 .017 .896 .009 .926 .231 .632
Magnitude of
Consequences 2.998 .087 .395 .532 .553 .459 .227 .635
Social Consensus 1.358 .247 2.234 .139 .001 .981 .057 .812
Probability of
Effect 2.464 .120 2.207 .141 .040 .843 .074 .787
Temporal
Immediacy 5.277 .024* .000 1.000 .144 .705 .416 .521
Concentration of
Effect .029 .866 .211 .647 .087 .769 .317 .575
Proximity .320 .573 1.014 .317 1.259 .265 .006 .939
* Statistically significant at 0.05 level.
38
Null Hypothesis 6 addressed there is no significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and education background. A MANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relationship between education background (Under College’s degree, College’s degree and Bachelor’s degree) and the perceived influence of the components of moral intensity (Magnitude of Consequences, Social Consensus, Probability of Effect, Temporal Immediacy, Concentration of Effect, Proximity). The independent variable was education background and the dependent variable was each of the components of moral intensity by scenario. Table 4.11 showed the multivariate result (F=1.474, P=.041) suggested a significant relationship between the perception of moral intensity and education background. Therefore, this null Hypothesis was rejected and the significant differences were noted. The components of moral intensity were considered for further examination. The univariate results shown on Table 4.11 indicated that there is significant difference between the perception of moral intensity (social consensus, probability of effect) and education background. In particular, a pair wise comparison was conducted to note the significant differences between subjects with different education background found on Table 4.12.
The univariate result of social consensus for Scenario 2 (F = 4.212, P = .018) is significant.
The results of pairwise comparison shown on table 4.12 revealed there is significant difference between the subjects with under college’s degree and the subjects with college’s degree in the component of moral intensity (social consensus) (Scenario 2, P = .005). Based on the means shown on Table 4.10, the finding implied that the subjects with under college’s degree (M=5.06) tend to agree that most people would agree that accountant’s decision is wrong, compared to the subjects with college’s degree (M=3.86).
The univariate results of probability of effect for Scenario 2 ( F=3.257, p=.044), Scenario 3 ( F=3.659, =.030) and Scenario 4 (F=4.136, p=.020) are significant. The results of pairwise comparison revealed there is significant difference between the subjects with under college’s degree and the subjects with bachelor’s degree in the component of moral intensity (probability of effect) for all scenarios (Scenario 1, P = .037) (Scenario 2, P = .013) (Scenario 3, P = .011) (Scenario 4, P = .016). The results implied that the subjects with under college’s degree (M=3.53 or 3.47 or 3.65 or 3.76) tend to agree that there is a very small likelihood that accountant’s
39
decision will actually cause any harm, compared to the subjects with bachelor’s degree (M=4.71 or 4.9 or 5.10). In addition, the results of pair wise comparison also showed there is significant difference between the subjects with college’s degree and the subjects with bachelor’s degree in the component of moral intensity (probability of effect) for Scenario 3 (P = .046) and Scenario 4 (P = .011). The results implied that the subjects with college’s degree (M=4.18 or 3.59) tend to agree that there is a very small likelihood that accountant’s decision will actually cause any harm, compared to the subjects with bachelor’s degree (M= 5.10).
In particular, the results of pair wise comparison revealed there is significant difference between the subjects with under college’s degree and the subjects with bachelor’s degree in the component of moral intensity (temporal immediacy) for Scenario 2 ( P = .043) and Scenario 4 ( P
= .027). The results implied that the subjects with under college’s degree (M=3.29 or 3.59) tend to agree that accountant’s decision will not cause harm in the immediate future, compared to the subjects with bachelor’s degree (M=4.38 or 4.81).
Table 4. 10 Means of Education
Education Scenario1 Scenario2 Scenario3 Scenario4 Magnitude of Consequences Under College’s
degree 4.06 3.82 3.71 3.94
College’s degree 4.18 4.02 4.41 4.27 Bachelor’s degree 3.95 4.48 4.48 4.62 Social Consensus Under College’s
degree 4.59 5.06 4.18 4.47
College’s degree 3.86 3.86 3.93 4.16 Bachelor’s degree 3.81 4.14 3.10 3.52 Probability of Effect Under College’s
degree 3.53 3.47 3.65 3.76
College’s degree 4.34 4.20 4.18 3.95
40
Bachelor’s degree 4.71 4.90 5.10 5.10 Temporal Immediacy Under College’s
degree 3.24 3.29 3.88 3.59
College’s degree 4.16 4.09 4.32 4.11 Bachelor’s degree 3.90 4.38 4.67 4.81 Concentration of Effect Under College’s
degree 3.59 3.47 2.82 3.71
College’s degree 3.23 3.43 3.68 3.36 Bachelor’s degree 3.57 3.24 3.38 2.81
Proximity Under College’s
degree 4.35 4.53 4.53 4.59
College’s degree 4.77 4.52 4.73 4.55 Bachelor’s degree 4.86 4.86 5.43 5.00
Table 4. 11 MANOVA Test of Components of Moral Intensity and Education Education multivariate
F=1.474 (.041)* Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Univariate F P. F P F P F P
Magnitude of
Consequences .141 .869 .826 .441 1.275 .285 1.045 .357
Social Consensus 1.633 .202 4.212 .018* 2.197 .118 1.989 .144
Probability of
Effect 2.347 .102 3.257 .044* 3.659 .030* 4.136 .020*
Temporal 1.623 .204 2.255 .112 .921 .403 2.624 .079
41
Table 4. 12 Pair wise Comparisons of Components of Moral Intensity and Education
Dependent
Variable (I) Education (J) Education Scenario 1
Scenario
42
43
44
Null Hypothesis 7 addressed there is no significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and working experience. A MANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relationship between working experience (under or 5 years; over 5 years) and the perceived influence of the components of moral intensity (Magnitude of Consequences, Social Consensus, Probability of Effect, Temporal Immediacy, Concentration of Effect, Proximity). The independent variable was working experience and the dependent variable was each of the components of moral intensity by scenario. Table 4.14 showed the univariate result of magnitude of consequences for Scenario 1 (F = 4.720, p = .033), Scenario 3 ( F=10.149, p=.002) and Scenario 4 (F=4.395, p=.039) are significant. According to the means shown on Table 4.13, the result implied that the respondents with working experience under or 5 years (M=4.47 or 4.81 or 4.20) tend to disagree that the overall harm (if any) done as a result of accountants’ decision would be very small, compared to the subjects with working experience over 5 years (M=3.69 or 3.95).
In addition, the univariate results of probability of effect for Scenario 4 ( F=9.768 p=.002) is significant. The results implied that the respondents with working experience under or 5 years (M=4.74) tend to disagree that there is a very small likelihood that accountants’ decision will actually cause any harm, compared to the subjects with working experience over 5 years (M=3.62). The univariate results of proximity for Scenario 4 (F=6.410, P=.013) is significant.
The results implied that the respondents with working experience under or 5 years (M=5.05) tend to agree that accountants’ decision will affect his co-workers, compared to the subjects with working experience over 5 years (M=4.26). However, the rest of components of moral intensity has F < 4 and p> .05, it means that rest of components of moral intensity is no significant with working experience. The multivariate result (F=1.535, P=.094) suggested no significant relationship between the perception of moral intensity and working experience. Therefore, this null hypothesis was accepted.
45
Table 4. 13 Means of Working experience
Working experience Scenario1 Scenario2 Scenario3 Scenario4 Magnitude of
Consequences 5years and under 4.47 4.42 4.81 4.60
over5years 3.69 3.74 3.69 3.95
Social Consensus 5years and under 3.93 4.02 3.49 4.02
over5years 4.08 4.36 4.08 4.10
Probability of Effect 5years and under 4.58 4.51 4.51 4.74
over5years 3.92 3.92 4.08 3.62
Temporal Immediacy 5years and under 4.26 4.19 4.58 4.49
over5years 3.51 3.79 4.03 3.85
Concentration of Effect 5years and under 3.51 3.26 3.19 3.30
over5years 3.26 3.54 3.69 3.28
Proximity 5years and under 4.65 4.67 4.88 5.05
over5years 4.77 4.54 4.85 4.26
Table 4. 14 MANOVA Test of Components of Moral Intensity and Working experience
Working experience F=
1.535a (.094) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Univariate F P F P F P F P
Magnitude of
Consequences 4.720 .033* 3.518 .064 10.149 .002* 4.395 .039*
46
Social Consensus .188 .666 1.025 .314 2.271 .136 .053 .819 Probability of
Effect 3.014 .086 2.290 .134 1.259 .265 9.768 .002*
Temporal
Immediacy 3.557 .063 1.154 .286 2.042 .157 3.015 .086
Concentration of
Effect .572 .452 .703 .404 1.934 .168 .004 .952
Proximity .123 .726 .150 .699 .011 .916 6.410 .013*
* Statistically significant at 0.05 level.
Summary of the findings
The results of this study supported the finding of Leitsch (2004) that the perception of moral intensity and the specific stages of the ethical decision-making process were affected by ethical issue. In addition, the result showed significant differences in the responses to the characteristics of ethical dilemmas (probability of effect) exist with respect to demographic variables such as education background. The findings suggested that the accountant with lower education background tend to agree that there is a very small likelihood that unethical decision will actually cause any harm, compared to the accountant with higher education background.
For further examination, this study found there was a significant difference with respect to working experience in the perceptions of moral intensity (magnitude of consequences). The result implied that accountant with short term working experience tend to disagree that the overall harm (if any) done as a result of unethical decision would be very small, compared to accountant with long term working experience. Also, this study found there was a significant difference with respect to age in the perceptions of moral intensity (magnitude of consequences probability of effect). The results implied that older accountants tend to agree unethical decision in the situation like Scenario 4 (extending questionable credit), compared to the younger ones.
Finally, there was a significant difference with respect to gender in the perceptions of moral intensity (temporal immediacy). The finding suggested that the male accountants tend to agree
47
that unethical decision will not cause harm in the immediate future in the situation like Scenario 1 (approving questionable expense report), compared to the female accountants.
The results of this study suggested that the particular characteristics of ethical dilemmas influence accounting professionals’ ability to recognize, judge, and their intentions in regards to the ethical nature of accounting issues. The results also implied that accountants with higher education background tend to make ethical decision. The finding of this research that the male accountants tended to agree unethical decision is consistent with the implication of previous study (Shaub, 1994). While, the research found the younger accountants or accountants with short term working experience tended to be easier to perceive the unethical situation, which is not similar with the implication of the study of Su (2006).
Table 4. 15 Summary of the findings
Null Hypotheses The results
H10: There is no significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and moral recognition of accountant under different accounting ethical issues.
Rejected
H20: There is no significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and moral judgment of accountant under different accounting ethical issues.
Rejected
H30: There is no significant difference between the perception of moral intensity and moral intention of accountant under different accounting ethical issues.
Rejected
H40: There is no significant relationship between the perception of moral
intensity and age. Accepted
H50: There is no significant relationship between the perception of moral
intensity and gender. Accepted
48
H60: There is no significant relationship between the perception of moral
intensity and education background. Rejected
H70: There is no significant relationship between the perception of moral
intensity and working experience. Accepted
49