Accounting Ethics Education

Making Ethics Real

Alberto Costa, Margarida Pinheiro, Alberto J. Costa, Margarida M. Pinheiro, Alberto Costa, Margarida Pinheiro, Alberto J. Costa, Margarida M. Pinheiro

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780367857974
• eBook ISBN: 9781000399868
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Accounting
• Index: Business

Accounting education ought to prepare future professionals to enter a principles-based, rules-oriented field of activity wherein technical knowledge of accounting standards (principles, rules and decision procedures) and ethical awareness (the capacity to discern moral issues and resolve ethical dilemmas) are crucial. Accounting education is best performed by the accountant's adherence to the principles of the accounting profession and by individuals and firms following the appropriate rules, act according to the codes of conduct adopted by their profession, exercise clear judgment whenever they address financial transactions and consider/assess the state of a given business.

Accounting Ethics Education: Making Ethics Real gathers a diversity of contributions from invited well-known experts and other specialists. It promotes comprehensive reflection around key trends, discussing and highlighting the most updated research on accounting ethics education, being an essential and useful reference in the field. In the performance of accounting tasks, the accountant should be educated and supported in the skills development and habit formation to solve accounting problems, recognize moral issues and resolve ethical dilemmas that will be encountered in their special tasks. Also, this book provides a moral map for identifying and acting on values when difficult situations arise.

Examining multiple perspectives, the book improves the scholarly debate by providing cutting-edge and insightful research vital for all those interested and immersed in these matters. It will be of great value to academics, students, researchers and professionals in the fields of accounting, accounting education and ethics.

Part 1
Ethical Training

Preparing From the Inside

1
Decreasing Cheating and Increasing Whistle-Blowing in the Classroom

A Replication Study

Richard A. Bernardi, Samantha A. Bilinsky, Callie H. Chase, Lisa D. Giannini & Samantha A. MacWhinnie

1. Introduction

Ameen, Guffey and McMillan (1996) and Bernardi, Baca, Landers and Witek (2008) found that over 60% of the students sampled feel that cheating has a direct relationship with the intense competition for grades. Ameen et al. (1996) also found that an increased emphasis on comprehending material, instead of focusing on getting an ‘A’, would create an environment where students would be less likely to cheat. Students who work hard to earn their grades do not want to see others get away with cheating (Malgwi & Rakovski, 2009). However, many students are hesitant to whistle-blow on classmates due to concerns about anonymity and that whistle-blowing is pointless as nothing is done about cheating (Burton & Near, 1995). Bernardi, Larkin, LaBontee, Lapierre and Morse (2012a) found that other reasons for not whistle-blowing included concerns about losing a friend, their reputation at school, and the belief that cheating does not affect them or that reporting cheating is not their responsibility. Given the increased level of cheating in college, it is not surprising that Bernardi et al. (2012a) also found that students did not whistle-blow because they too had cheated (i.e., a feeling of being a hypercritic).¹

The current research is a continuation and replication of Bernardi, Landry, Landry, Buonafede and Berardi’s (2016) and an extension of Bernardi et al.’s (2008). Lindsay (1995, p. 35) suggests that replication studies are a “crucial test of the reliability and validity … [which] leads, when successful, to generalizable” results; Burman, Reed and Alm (2010, p. 789) support Lindsay’s suggestion adding that replication “shows the original article’s findings are robust and substantial extensions over time”.² Of the 187 students surveyed in this research, 78 students provided suggestions for reducing cheating and 122 1 for increasing whistle-blowing in the classroom. However, five of the students’ suggestions for reducing cheating and three of the suggestions for increasing whistle-blowing in the classroom had significant differences in response rates by students’ cheating category.

2. Literature Review

Our literature review examines the findings associated with cheating and whistle-blowing in the classroom. We formatted our literature review on cheating using Little and Handel’s (2016) adaptations of Albrecht, Albrecht, Albrecht and Zimbelman’s (2020) fraud triangle. Little and Handel (2016) indicate that their cheating triangle’s three conditions are similar to those present when fraud exists (Albrecht et al., 2020). They further adapt their cheating triangle into a solutions triangle to combat student cheating. We follow this section with a second section that reviews the literature associated with whistle-blowing.

2.1. Classroom Cheating

2.1.1. The Cheating Triangle

When fraud occurs, the Auditing Standards Board (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 2003, p. 1722) indicates that three conditions are typically present:

First, management or other employees have an incentive or are under pressure, which provides a reason to commit fraud. Second, circumstances exist – for example, the absence of controls, ineffective controls, or the ability of management to override controls – that provide an opportunity for a fraud to be perpetrated. Third, those involved are able to rationalize committing a fraudulent act.

These conditions are referred to as the fraud triangle (Albrecht et al., 2020). Several studies (e.g., Becker, Connolly, Lentz & Morrison, 2006; Burke & Sanney, 2018; Choo & Tan, 2008; Little & Handel, 2016) have used the fraud triangle to examine students’ cheating behavior.³ For example, whereas Choo and Tan (2008) and Becker et al. (2006) found that each of the three conditions in the fraud triangle influenced students’ cheating behavior, Choo and Tan (2008) found that all three conditions acted jointly when predicting cheating.

Little and Handel (2016) indicate that the fraud triangle’s three conditions are similar to the conditions present when students cheat. They refer to the cheating triangle’s conditions as the pressure for grades, poor control over the testing environment and students’ belief that ‘everyone cheats’ (i.e., cynical attitude (Ameen et al., 1996; Bernardi & Adamaitis, 2007; Salter, Guffey & McMillan, 2001)). Wells (2005) suggests a fraud scale that adapts the conditions of the fraud triangle. This scale predicts the highest probability of cheating when situational pressures (i.e., pressure for high grades) and opportunities (i.e., lack of control of the testing environment) are high, whereas concurrently personal integrity is low.

Day, Hudson, Dobies and Waris (2011) and Van Yperen, Melvyn, van der Klauw and van der Klauw (2011) report that grade-oriented students (i.e., satisficing (Schwartz et al., 2002)) are more likely to cheat than students who focus on mastering the subject material (i.e., maximizing (Schwartz et al., 2002). Ballantine, Guo and Larres (2018, p. 247) define mastering the subject matter as “relating and structuring ideas, thinking creatively, weighing relevant evidence and critically evaluating knowledge”. Schwartz et al. (2002) indicate that maximizing occurs when students are willing to put forth a significant effort to attain ‘high-standard goals’; however, these authors indicate that satisficing occurs when students put in only a minimum effort to attain ‘good-enough goals’. Elias (2019) found that students who scored higher on a measure of maximizing tendencies (Lai, 2010) perceived cheating (Simha, Armstrong & Albert, 2012) as being more unethical.

Tyson (1989) found that, whereas male students had higher attitudes related to questions pertaining to competition, female students had higher attitudes related to self-satisfaction and hard work (Gneezy, Niederle & Rustichini, 2003). In a replication study of Tyson (1989), Landry and Bernardi’s (2015) students reported lower averages on questions dealing with work attitudes than those in Tyson’s (1989) sample. However, whereas not wanting to work as hard as the students in Tyson’s (1989) sample, Landry and Bernardi (2015) also found that their students expected higher grades than the students in Tyson’s (1989) sample.

Maeda (2019), McCabe, Treviño and Butterfield (1999) and Rettinger and Jordan (2005) noted that cheating on examinations resulted from the desire to excel, parental pressure for higher grades and the need to get a job. Faulkender et al. (1994) indicated that students cheat when they believe the material is too difficult, did not attend class or were too busy to study. Additionally, when students observe unethical business behavior on the nightly news (i.e., negative reinforcement), they are more likely to feel that unethical behavior in an academic setting is acceptable. Examples of negative reinforcement that students are exposed to include the “misuse of … funds, insider trading, and accusations of plagiarism and other forms of dishonesty by national leaders” (Welsh, 1993, p. 6). Recent corporate scandals include Volkswagen’s tampering with emission testing and Valeant Pharmaceuticals’ significant price increase of prescription drugs (IG, 2018).

In an international study of cheating in Australia, China, Ireland and the United States of America, Bernardi et al. (2008) found that the ways students cheated could be grouped into three methods: writing, visual/oral communication and other methods. Whereas the writing methods included crib notes and writing on one’s body/cloths, visual/oral methods included copying another student’s exam, asking for answers and having another student take your exam. The other methods included using programmable calculators and cell phone and hiding notes in a bathroom, many of which were also reported by Smith, Davy, Rosenberg and Haight (2002). Finally, Bernardi et al. (2008) noted that students from all four countries provided similar responses.

Peer behavior influenced student cheating (Bernardi et al., 2016; Cicognani, 2019; Bernardi & LaCross, 2004). MacGregor and Stuebs (2012) found that students rationalize their cheating when there is some doubt about whether cheating is permitted or when they believe their peers have an unfair advantage over them by cheating (i.e., a cynical attitude – everyone cheats) (Ameen et al., 1996; Bernardi & Adamaitis, 2007; Salter et al., 2001). Ameen et al. (1996) found that, whereas 88% of students had witnessed a peer cheating, less than 16% of students believed that cheating was a serious problem. In a large European sample, over half the sample reported having cheated in college and that cheaters were more likely to know another student who cheated (Cicognani, 2019). Not only is academic dishonesty learned from observing peers but such peer behavior may create an attitude that cheating is an acceptable way of competing in an academic environment (McCabe, Treviño & Butterfield, 2001). Smyth and Davis (2003) found that 54% of students believed that cheating was acceptable behavior. Bernardi, Banzhoff, Martino and Savasta (2012b) found that students who observed other students cheating in college were more likely to cheat, which suggests the need to emphasize ethical behavior throughout a student’s academic experience in college. Lawson (2004) noted that students’ propensity to cheat in college associates with attitudes toward unethical behavior in the business.

2.1.2. The Solutions Triangle

Little and Handel (2016) also suggested a solutions triangle that parallels the three conditions of their cheating triangle. The solutions triangle proposes three methods that address cheating on examinations by suggesting an effective institutional integrity policy, closely controlling the testing environment, and effectively investigating and addressing cheating incidents. In another adaptation of Albrecht et al.’s (2020) fraud triangle, Bujaki, Lento and Sayed’s (2019) components of their opportunity-and-prevention triangle clos...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Exhibits
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• Preface
• Part 1 Ethical Training: Preparing From the Inside
• Part 2 Giving Voice to Values: Making Ethics Real
• Index