IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v14y2004i03p499-523_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical Principles vs. Ethical Rules: The Moderating Effect of Moral Development on Audit Independence Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Herron, Terri L.
  • Gilbertson, David L.

Abstract

Recent calls have been made to move professional standards to a more principles-based perspective, supposing that emphasizing broad principles would eliminate the legalistic focus that rules may encourage, and accountants’ behavior would be more ethical and uniformly so. However, this supposition has yet to be empirically tested. The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct (Code) provides guidance in both forms: principles and rules. This experiment examines how the form of the Code affects independence judgments in a client acceptance context. We also examine the potential for levels of moral development to influence the effectiveness of the Code. We find that subjects are more likely to consider their independence impaired, and are more likely to reject a questionable audit engagement, when rules-based (principles-based) reasoners are provided with Code rules (principles). Given the popularity of the view that rules-based standards are undesirable, these findings have significant implications for the profession as principles-based ethical standards are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Herron, Terri L. & Gilbertson, David L., 2004. "Ethical Principles vs. Ethical Rules: The Moderating Effect of Moral Development on Audit Independence Judgments," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 499-523, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:14:y:2004:i:03:p:499-523_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00007119/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agarwalla, Sobhesh Kumar & Desai, Naman & Tripathy, Arindam, 2017. "The impact of self-deception and professional skepticism on perceptions of ethicality," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 85-93.
    2. Ivan Bozhikin & Nikolay Dentchev, 2018. "Discovering a Wilderness of Regulatory Mechanisms for Corporate Social Responsibility: Literature Review," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 2, pages 145-174, June.
    3. Yves Mard & Christelle Chaplais & Sylvain Marsat, 2014. "De la possibilité d'accroître l'éthique de l'auditeur : Le cas d'une formation," Post-Print hal-01899102, HAL.
    4. Fatemi, Darius & Hasseldine, John & Hite, Peggy, 2014. "The impact of professional standards on accounting judgments: The role of availability and comparative information," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 26-39.
    5. Özgür Özmen Uysal, 2010. "Business Ethics Research with an Accounting Focus: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1988 to 2007," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 137-160, April.
    6. Albert D. Spalding & Gretchen R. Lawrie, 2019. "A Critical Examination of the AICPA’s New “Conceptual Framework” Ethics Protocol," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 1135-1152, April.
    7. Nonna Martinov-Bennie & Gary Pflugrath, 2009. "The Strength of an Accounting Firm’s Ethical Environment and the Quality of Auditors’ Judgments," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 237-253, June.
    8. James Weber & Elaine McGivern, 2010. "A New Methodological Approach for Studying Moral Reasoning Among Managers in Business Settings," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 149-166, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:14:y:2004:i:03:p:499-523_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.