Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:11:51.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Investigation of Social Influence: Explaining the Effect of Group Discussion on Consensus in Auditors’ Ethical Reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Linda Thorne ,
Dawn W. Massey  and
Joanne Jones
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This study introduces Moscovici’s (1976, 1985) model of social influence to the accounting research domain, and uses an experiment to assess whether his theory explains how different types of discussion affects consensus in auditors’ ethical reasoning. Moscovici’s theory proposes three modalities of influence to describe how consensus is achieved following discussion: conformity, innovation, and normalization. Conformity describes the situation where individuals in the minority (e.g., auditors that do not accept the dominant view) accede to the majority (e.g., auditors that hold the dominant view) as a result of group discussion. Innovation describes the situation where individuals in the majority accede to the minority. Normalization describes the situation where there is reciprocal influence.

We find that conformity occurs when auditors are asked to prescriptively discuss what ideally “should” be the resolution to an ethical dilemma. Normalization occurs when auditors are asked to deliberatively discuss what realistically would be the resolution to an ethical dilemma. The results of this study suggest that prescriptive discussion of an ethical dilemma encourages auditor groups to strive to find the best response to a moral dilemma if it is represented by the majority view. In contrast, deliberative discussion of an ethical dilemma may encourage the elimination of multiple viewpoints. The results of this study have important implications for understanding the social influence process that affects auditors’ ethical reasoning.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , July 2004 , pp. 525 - 551
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdel-khalik, A., Snowball, D., and Wragge, D.. 1983. “The Effects of Certain Internal Audit Variables on the Planning of External Audit Programs.” The Accounting Review: 2 15–27.Google Scholar
Arnold, D., Bernardi, R., and Neidermeyer, P.. 1999. “The Effect of Independence on Decisions Concerning Additional Audit Work: A European Perspective.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 18:45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, V., Sutton, S., Hayne, S., and Smith, C.. 2000. “Group Decision-Making: The Impact of Opportunity Cost, Time Pressure and Group Support Systems.” Behavioral Research in Accounting: 69–96.Google Scholar
Asch, S. 1951. “Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgements.” In Groups, Leadership and Men, ed. Guetzkow, H.. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 177–90.Google Scholar
Asch, S.. 1955. “Opinions and Social Pressure.” Scientific American 193: 31–5.Google Scholar
Asch, S.. 1956. “Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority.” Psychological Monographs 70(9).Google Scholar
Ashton, A. 1985. “Does Consensus Imply Accuracy in Accounting Studies of Decision-Making?” Accounting Review 67: 173–85.Google Scholar
Bamber, E., Watson, R., and Hill, M.. 1996. “The Effects of Group Support System Technology on Audit Group Decision-Making.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (Spring): 122–34.Google Scholar
Barnlund, D. 1959. “A Comparative Study of Individual, Majority, and Group Judgment.” Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 58 (January): 55–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernardi, R., and Arnold, D.. 1997. “An Examination of Moral Development within Public Accounting by Gender, Staff Level, and Firm.” Contemporary Accounting Research 14: 653–68.Google Scholar
Clark III, R. 1999. “Effect of Number of Majority Defectors on Minority Influence.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 3(4): 303–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, M., and Robbins, S.. 1989. “The Reliability and Validity of Objective Indices of Moral Development.” Applied Psychological Measurement 2(3): 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einhorn, J. 1974. “Expert Judgment: Some Necessary Conditions and an Example.” Journal of Applied Psychology 59: 562–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erb, H., Bohner, G., Rank, S., and Einwiller, S.. 2002. “Processing Minority and Majority Communications: The Role of Conflict with Prior Attitudes.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 1172–82.Google Scholar
Francis, J. 1990. “After Virtue? Accounting as a Moral and Discursive Practice.” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 3(3): 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaa, J. 1993. The Ethical Foundations of Public Accounting. Vancouver: CGA-Canada Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Gibbins, M., and Mason, A.. 1988. Professional Judgment in Financial Reporting. Toronto: CICA Research Study.Google Scholar
Higgins, A., Power, C., and Kohlberg, L.. 1984. “The Relationship of Moral Atmosphere to Judgments of Responsibility.” In Morality, Moral Behavior and Moral Development, ed. Kurtines, W. M. and Gerwirth, J. L.. New York: Wiley, 74–106.Google Scholar
Jones, T. 1991. “Ethical Decision Making by Individual in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model.” Academy of Management Review 16(2): 366–95.Google Scholar
Keasey, K., and Watson, R.. 1989. “Consensus and Accuracy in Accounting Studies of Decision-Making: A Note on a New Measure of Consensus.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 14(4): 337–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohlberg, L. 1958. The Development of Modes of Ethical Thinking and Choice in the Years Ten to Sixteen. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lampe, J., and Finn, D.. 1992. “A Model of Auditors’ Moral Processes.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 11 (Supplement): 33–59.Google Scholar
Levine, J., and Russo, E.. 1987. “Majority and Minority Influence.” In Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Group Processes, vol. 8, ed. Hendrick, C.. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 13–54.Google Scholar
Libby, R., and Lewis, B.. 1982. “Human Information Process Research in Accounting: The State of the Art in 1982.” Accounting, Organisations and Society 7(3): 231–85.Google Scholar
Libby, T., and Thorne, L.. 2004. “The Identification and Categorization of Auditors’ Virtues.” Business Ethics Quarterly 14(3): 479–98.Google Scholar
Lord, A., and DeZoort, F.. 2001. “The Impact of Commitment and Moral Reasoning on Auditors’ Responses to Social Influence Pressure.” Accounting, Organisations and Society 26(3): 215–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louwers, T., Ponemon, L., and Radtke, R.. 1997. “Examining Accountants’ Ethical Behaviour: A Review and Implications for Future Research.” In Behavioral Accounting Research: Foundations and Frontiers, ed. Arnold, V. and Sutton, S.. Sarasota, Fla.: American Accounting Association.Google Scholar
Maas, A., and Clark, R.. 1984. “Hidden Impacts of Minorities: Fifteen Years of Minority Influence Research.” Psychological Bulletin 95: 428–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, D. 2002. “The Importance of Context in Investigating Auditors’ Moral Abilities.” Research on Accounting Ethics 8: 195–247.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. 1976. Social Influence and Change. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S.. 1980. “Toward a Theory of Conversion Behaviour.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 13, ed. Berkowitz, L.. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S.. 1985. “Social Influence and Conformity.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd edition, ed. Lindsey, G. and Aronson, E.. New York: Random House, 347–412.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S., and Faucheux, C.. 1982. “Social Influence, Conformity Bias, and the Study of Active Minorities.” In Advances In Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 6, ed. Berkowitz, L.. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nemeth, C. 1985. “Compromising Public Influence for Private Change.” In Perspectives on Minority Influence, ed. Moscovici, S., Mugney, G., and Avermaet, E. Van. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, C.. 1994. “The Value of Minority Dissent. In Minority Influence, ed. Moscovici, S.Mucchi-Faina, A., and Maas, A.. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 3–16.Google Scholar
Nemeth, C., and Chiles, C.. 1998. “Modeling Courage: The Role of Dissent in Fostering Independence.” European Journal of Social Psychology 18: 275–80.Google Scholar
Nemeth, C., Rogers, J., and Brown, K.. 2001. “Devil’s Advocate vs. Authentic Dissent: Stimulating Quantity and Quality.” European Journal of Social Psychology 31: 707–20.Google Scholar
Nemeth, C., and Wachter, J.. 1983. “Creative Problem Solving as a Result of Majority vs. Minority Influence.” European Journal of Social Psychology 7: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, J., Mugny, G., Butera, F., Kaiser, C., and Roux, P.. 1994. “Integrating Minority and Majority Influence: Conversion, Consensus, and Uniformity.” In Minority Influence, ed. Moscovici, S., Mucchi-Faina, A., and Maas, A.. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 185–208.Google Scholar
Pincus, K. 1990. “Audit Judgement Consensus: A Model for Dichotomous Decisions.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 9(2) (Spring).Google Scholar
Ponemon, L. 1990. “Ethical Judgments in Accounting: A Cognitive-Developmental Perspective.” Critical Perspectives in Accounting 1: 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponemon, L.. 1992. “Accountant Underreporting and Moral Reasoning: An Experimental Lab Study.” Contemporary Accounting Research 9(1) (Fall): 171–89.Google Scholar
Ponemon, L.. 1993. “The Influence of Ethical Reasoning on Auditors’ Perception of Management’s Integrity and Competence.” Advances in Accounting 11: 1–23.Google Scholar
Ponemon, L., and Gabhart, D.. 1993. Ethical Reasoning in Accounting and Auditing. Vancouver, B.C.: Canadian General Accountants’ Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Reckers, P., and Schultz, J.. 1982. “Individual versus Group Assisted Audit Evaluations.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 2 (Fall): 64–74.Google Scholar
Rest, J. 1979. Development in Judging Moral Issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., and Thoma, S.. 1999. Post-Conventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach. Center for the Study of Ethical Development. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rich, J., Solomon, I., and Trotman, K.. 1997. “Multi-Auditor Judgment/Decision Making Research: A Decade Later.” Journal of Accounting Literature 16: 86–126.Google Scholar
Scharf, R. 1973. Moral Atmosphere and Intervention in the Prison. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Schultz, J., and Reckers, P.. 1981. “The Impact of Group Processing on Selected Audit Disclosure Decisions.” Journal of Accounting Research 19(2): 482–501.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. 1935. “A Study of Some Human Factors in Perception. Archives of Psychology 22(187): 1–60.Google Scholar
Solomon, I. 1982. “Probability Assessment by Individual Auditors and Audit Teams: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of Accounting Research 20 (1982): 689–710.Google Scholar
Solomon, I.. 1987. “Multi-Auditor Judgment/Decision Making Research. Journal of Accounting Literature 6: 1–25.Google Scholar
Sweeney, J. 1995. “The Ethical Expertise of Accountants: An Exploratory Analysis.” Research in Accounting Ethics 1: 213–34.Google Scholar
Thorne, L., 2000. “The Development of Two Measures to Assess Accountants’ Prescriptive and Deliberative Moral Reasoning.” Behavioral Research in Accounting 12: 139–70.Google Scholar
Thorne, L., and Hartwick, J.. 2001. “The Directional Effects of Discussion on Auditors’ Moral Reasoning.” Contemporary Accounting Research 18 (Summer): 337–61.Google Scholar
Wright, W. 1988. “Audit Judgment Consensus and Experience.” In Behavioral Accounting Research: A Critical Analysis, ed. Ferris, K. R.. New York: Publishing Horizons.Google Scholar