Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314

Do gender, educational level, religiosity, and work

experience affect the ethical decision-making
of U.S. accountants?
A. Craig Keller a,1 , Katherine T. Smith b , L. Murphy Smith c,∗
aSchool of Accountancy, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65804-0094, USA
b Business Writer, 5911 Wild Horse Run, College Station, TX 77845, USA
c Department of Accounting, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA

Received 14 September 2005; received in revised form 22 December 2005; accepted 20 January 2006

Abstract

Accounting plays a key role in the social and economic progress of a nation. Ethical standards are a
hallmark of the accounting profession. An important question is what factors affect the ethical choices
made by accountants. Past research suggests that factors such as gender, educational level, religiosity,
and work experience may be related to the development of a person’s ethical standards. This study
attempts to do two things. First, the study provides a short review of contemporary ethical models,
including the hermeneutical model. Second, the study examines factors affecting a person’s ethical
perspectives. Understanding the factors which shape the ethical standards of future accountants will
help educational institutions develop appropriate ethics curriculum and help firms develop appropriate
ethics training for their employees. Failure to bring appropriate ethical standards to the workplace
will most assuredly hamper the profession’s time-honored commitment to serve the public interest.
The findings suggest that there are differences in individual ethical standards based on gender, college
level (graduate versus undergraduate), religiosity, and work experience.
© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Business ethics; Ethical decision-making; Gender issues

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 979 845 3108; fax: +1 979 845 0028.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.C. Keller), [email protected] (L.M. Smith).
1 Tel.: +1 417 836 8470.

1045-2354/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2006.01.006
300 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314

1. Introduction

Accounting plays a key role in the social and economic progress of a nation. Investors,
lenders, and others rely on the integrity of accounting information, especially in corpo-
rate financial reports. Ethics is a central element of the accounting profession. How do
accountants deal with ethical dilemmas?
This study attempts to do two things. First, the study provides a short review of contem-
porary ethical models, including the hermeneutical (interpretive) model. Second, the study
examines factors affecting a person’s ethical perspectives. Data are obtained from a survey
of undergraduate and graduate accounting students. Hypotheses are developed and tested,
and results are described.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: contemporary ethical models, the
hermeneutical model of ethics, related research, hypotheses, data acquisition, analysis and
results, and conclusions.

2. Contemporary ethical models

Regarding ethical dilemmas, everyone essentially faces the following question: What
is my highest aspiration? The answer might be money, power, knowledge, popularity, or
integrity. Be on guard, if integrity is secondary to any of the alternatives, it will be sacrificed
in circumstances in which a choice must be made. Such circumstances will inevitably occur
in every person’s life (Smith, 2003). An important question is what factors affect the choice
to be made. Past research suggests that factors such as gender, educational level, religiosity,
and work experience may be related to the development of a person’s ethical standards. The
current study examines the significance of these factors on future U.S. accountants, that is,
accounting students.
Over the years, several theoretical models have emerged for explaining ethical behavior.
Viewing the accountant from an interpretive or hermeneutical perspective, one may gain
new insights into the familiar ethics models that are provided by Epstein and Spalding
(1993): utilitarian, pragmatism (egoism), religious, and deontological. A short description
of each model follows.

2.1. Utilitarian

The Utilitarian approach is defined as “. . . striving to make decisions that optimize the
greatest possible good . . . for the greatest number of people . . .” (Epstein and Spalding,
1993, p. 229). This ethical rule may be no ethical rule at all because excesses, which are
plainly immoral, can be justified. For instance, if a woman is put in jail for a crime she
did not commit, but the general public believes she committed the crime, then the general
public may believe that this is a good and may be served by feeling safer. Even the true
criminal may believe this is good, leaving only the poor innocent to stand against the weight
of utilitarian service.
In this way, as a standard for individual decisions this utilitarian method is flawed. Yet
it can serve a purpose as a standard for a general statement of societal morality. A rule may
 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314 301

be made which would say it is good to have a community feel safer. As a general rule this
is fine, but in practice, as in the example above, caution should be exercised to insure that
the broad rule is not abused at the expense of individuals.
The attractiveness of this approach is the possibility that the ethical question can be
made into a positive statement as opposed to normative. Could ethics turn into more of
a scientific discipline, thus, taking ethics out of the realm of subjectivity? The objectivity
of such an approach makes it more attractive. Utilitarianism’s use of a linear process to
describe the cause and effect relationship between the action and the greatest good would
seem to lend itself to positive analysis. The uncertainty of future consequences creates
identical problems for the objectification of ethics as it does for utility maximization under
conditions of uncertainty. The sheer numbers of people affected by the decisions of a single
accountant make prediction of the consequences for all of them impossible. Ultimately, the
individual is faced with the issue of what is the greatest good for the greatest number.

2.2. Pragmatism (egoism)

In the pragmatic view, only the good for the decision maker need be known and this is
an infinitely easier process. Thus, despite all good intentions to the contrary, pragmatism
may be the ethical approach that people ultimately employ. Egoism is a living philosophy
of action for neoclassical utility theory. Yet the egoistic idea of ethics is rather disturbing
in its implications for predictability and consistency.
In the egoistic system there is great potential for conflict. The business is assumed to
be maximizing profit by minimizing cost. The individual accountant, whose treatment of
the accounts may influence the appearance of whether this goal has been achieved or not,
has as an individual motive of the maximization of utility. That the two goals should result
in the same desired action would be coincidence. That the good of the company, or the
accountant, would always serve the needs of the larger community is improbable. In short,
egoism is not a functional basis for an ethical standard at all, but it is important to recognize
egoism as a standard for decision-making that has profound ethical implications.
The function of law is to make the consequences of immoral conduct a significant negative
utility for the individual taking the action. This is so that the enlightened individual acts
ethically out of self-need. This approach has promise for those who believe that people can
best be described as economic man.
The sheer volume of laws that must be enacted to cover every situation makes the solution
a less than total one. Respect for the law is of paramount importance, but more is needed
than just respect for the law. The problem for this basis is that the enlightened person must
find his or her self-interest in the interest of others, even when the law does not require it.
This may occur, but it would be a mere coincidence. That it would occur as a result of some
ethic takes us all the way back to Plato for an ethical basis, that reason will provide us with
the basis for ethical decisions (MacIntyre, 1966, p. 26).
At least two possibilities exist for ethical outcome on the basis of egoism. First, the
person could have an ethical standard that feeds back to the seeking of self-satisfaction, or
positive utility. That my conscience is clean does have a certain utility to the ethical person.
Second, the person could ground a belief that ego driven action is “just” action because the
system of economics supported by this self-service is the most “just” system. According to
302 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314

Everett (1946), economic competition is a force that leads to social progress and distributive
justice.
Can we assume that egoism will mean that people will consistently make unethical
decisions? No, but we could say that when faced with a choice between ethics and self-
interest, economic theory would imply that the latter should be expected. The needs of the
society economically are mirrored by the needs that such a prescription places on the society
morally. The ideal sanctions, and even encourages, a use of others as means to ends rather
than as ends in themselves. Both Adam Smith and the latter-day neoclassical theorist John
Bates Clark indicate that a strong sense of ethics is needed for capitalism to overcome the
inherent greedy tendencies associated with self-interest. Clark uses religion as the basis for
this ethic, and further prescribes the solution of a morally superior person (Everett, 1946).

2.3. Religious

In the Dickens classic, A Christmas Carol (Dickens, 1843), the book’s protagonist,
Ebenezer Scrooge, is confronted by the metaphysical consequences of unethical business
practices, that is, a visit from the ghost of his deceased business partner, Jacob Marley:
‘But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,’ faltered Scrooge, who now
began to apply this to himself.
‘Business!’ cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. ‘Mankind was my business.
The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence,
were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the
comprehensive ocean of my business!’
The religious ethic is one that relies on the guidance of a supreme being, who sets
standards of right and wrong. Thus, the source of the ethic is identified as God. God pro-
vides ethical direction via written commandments or through prayer. Major world religions
include Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Western civilization has
been most affected by the Judeo-Christian moral perspective. Religion is a meaningful eth-
ical foundation because the religious person can point to God as the source of the ethical
standard. The Judeo-Christian religious ethic offers moral imperatives such as: be honest,
respect other people’s lives, respect other people’s property, be kind to others, and so forth.
Western tradition leads to ethical assumptions based on Judeo-Christian mores, but multi-
national firms often operate in areas not subject to Western tradition. Furthermore, there
may arise unusual situations in which a businessperson has difficulty determining precisely
what ethical principle applies. Even so, religion is arguably the broadest basis that society
has for ethics and provides the internal justification for many ethical acts such as providing
safe working conditions, treating employees fairly, and protecting the environment.

2.4. Deontology

The deontological approach to ethics focuses not on the result of an action, as the stan-
dards above do, but rather on the action itself. This approach ignores the consequences
of the action. The accountant has a moral duty to present a fair and honest representation
 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314 303

of the company’s financial performance. In the deontological approach, the ethics of the
accountant is based on his or her duty to live by an accountant’s code, and the person who
hires the accountant is expecting this as a basic ethic. This approach is assumed to lead to
an honest set of books.
The problem with deontology is that it provides no basis for the continued evaluation of
what is best. It is right and good to say that the accountant should follow his or her duty
but what that duty is, is based on the service of other needs, even other ethical standards.
The basis may be the utilitarian credo or the religious, in its guise as representative of the
currently dominant institutions. The GAAP for the treatment of many accounting issues is
not universally accepted.
The difficulty with deontology is that it may present a double-edged sword. The individual
accountant is hostage to the need to follow an accounting standard that may be considered
unethical in the sense that it is inadequate and results in misleading financial reporting
regarding a particular accounting issue. Eventually, when the profession recognizes the
“inadequacy”, new GAAP is issued. On the other hand, this “inadequacy” problem may be
incorporated into the expectations of the users and the profession, so any deviation from the
standard may be even more misleading. If the standard needs revision, the deontological
method provides no mechanism for accomplishing the revision. Following his or her own
intuition, the accountant may solve the problem in many ways, but these ways leave the
total information in an incomparable state. The bottom line is that fallible human beings
will produce fallible accounting standards.
Obviously individual non-standardized accounting procedures would lead to chaos
because of a lack of comparability of statements. Ethics has a role to play in this because
ethics should provide the ultimate guidance for the individual accountant. The ethical stan-
dard is honesty; GAAP is merely procedure. When GAAP is less than honest then there is
conflict. The conflict is resolved by changing GAAP. The arguments for or against changing
existing accounting standards are often self-serving; based on egoism.

3. The hermeneutical model of ethics: accountants—the corporation’s moral

conscience

As a language, accounting plays a unique role in the life of business. The accountant
plays at least two parts in what this language says about any business. First, the accounting
profession as a body has defined what is the correct usage of the language. This is semeiotics.
Second, the accountant interprets the transactions and other events in terms of significance
and validity, and then constructs a “truth” by which interested parties can know the business.
This, and the interpretation of the end result, is hermeneutics.
The hermeneutical perspective portrays the accountant as an agent giving an account.
William Schweiker claims, “. . . a hermeneutical and ethical examination of the activity of
giving an account as basic to understanding the moral dimension of accounting practice
and research” (Schweiker, 1993, p. 231). This way of presenting the relationship between
the accountant and “the books” is useful in that it presents the accountant with an ethical
imperative that is higher than the economic imperative of profit maximization and self-
interest. In this arena, the individual accountant confronts the questions of ethics.
304 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314

The act of giving an account, according to Schweiker, is the means of giving the
corporation a “moral identity” so that the act of giving an account exposes the amoral
economic world to ethical claims. Schweiker’s position is that accounting is a discursive
act which helps us to give an identity to the “we” of the basic Socratic ethical question,
“how should we live” when the we is the corporation. The accountant gives the answers
to questions about how the corporation “can and must live in relation to others and
themselves” (Schweiker, 1993, p. 232).
Current economic theory rejects the corporation as an agent in a moral sense because it
is a legal agent that has no “self-identical center of consciousness and valuation,” that is,
no soul (Schweiker, 1993, p. 235). Economic theory further asserts that agents are moti-
vated by self-interest, and that it is hard to identify the self-realizing soul in a corporation.
Furthermore, the profit motive is the prime motive of the corporation and moral acts are
extensions of this profit motive (that is, in the long run, if not the short run, moral behavior is
rewarded).
Giving an account gives identity. The corporation as a separate identity, known to others,
and itself for that matter, through the financial statements, is establishing itself as an agent.
The corporate agent is a member of a moral community similar to the human being. It is in
the act of giving an account that this moral agency can be found. In giving an account the
corporation bows to a universal form of discourse to examine itself, and to be examined,
through the fiduciary agent, the accountant. The accountant becomes the soul, in a sense,
by feeling the tension of consciousness for the corporation. This tension, however, is not
really the crucial point. The crucial point is the connection of language, action, and time in
decision-making that has ethical implications.
The giving of an account provides the temporal identity, a snapshot of sorts, of the
corporation’s actions and makes them accountable for those actions to the larger community.
The fiduciary relationship between accountant and corporation formalizes the trust of the
corporation that its identity will be faithfully rendered. In a sense, the accountant is placed
in the role of the corporation’s moral conscience.

4. Integrating ethical standards and related research

A solution to this dilemma, or at least a starting point of a solution, may be to focus

attention on an ethical imperative. The function of this imperative, according to Immanuel
Kant, “must be to produce a will which is good, not as a means to some further end,
but in itself” (Kant, 1958, p. 64) (author’s italics). The attempt here is to move beyond a
situational ethics and find a universal that will guide us in all situations where there is an
ethical question. Kant’s imperative is that, “. . . I ought never to act except in such a way
that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant, 1958, p. 70).
GAAP provides a code for given situations but, as with the law, no set of codes can cover
all situations.
Accountants should not be merely reporters of data provided to them; rather they are to
seek to provide information in a way that connotes how they would have all accountants
give an account, as if each financial statement sets a universal accounting ethic for the rest
of the profession. This “account that I would give” is what William Schweiker refers to as
 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314 305

“giving an account.” That the corporation gives an account is what provides it with a moral
identity, and what makes the accountant a moral agent of this corporation.
The accountant, in giving an account, should do so bearing in mind that the standard for
giving an account should enable the user to reconstruct, within reason, the social and eco-
nomic conditions that shaped, and have the potential to shape the business in the foreseeable
future. This is actually very close to the standard of significance: that a user would make
the same decision based on information provided in the financial statements as if first-hand
information was available.
From the view of the accountant and the user, we can try and know the standards by
which each views the activities of the company. Knowing this we can hope to make the
books understandable. Understanding the ethical beliefs of the accountant, we can better
judge the validity of the information.
A great deal of prior research has examined how a person’s ethical perspectives are related
to gender, level of education, religious convictions, and work experience. A recent study
of business managers found differences based on gender and work experience (Deshpande,
1997). A study of securities analysts revealed differences in ethical behavior associated with
education level, gender, and work experience (Veit and Murphy, 1996). In a study of under-
graduate and graduate business students, Borkowski and Ugras (1992) found significant
differences associated with gender but not for work experience. Other past studies identi-
fying gender differences include Ones and Viswesvaran (1998), Smith and Oakley (1997),
Dawson (1997), Franke et al. (1997), Ameen et al. (1996), and Mason and Mudrack (1996).
Recent studies not supporting gender differences include Jones and Kavanagh (1996) and
Davis and Welton (1991).
With regard to the impact of religion (religiosity) on ethical decision-making, there have
been a number of prior studies. Cunningham (1998) and Fort (1997) take the position that
religious beliefs are an appropriate grounding for business ethics. Studies have found that
higher levels of religiosity were positively associated with ethical behavior; that is, lower
levels of religiosity were associated with a willingness to engage in unethical behavior (e.g.
Barnett et al., 1996; Clark and Dawson, 1996; Kennedy and Lawton, 1996). Some practical
illustrations of how religious views affect the daily work of business managers is provided
in a study by Maglitta (1996).

5. Hypotheses

Based on prior research and interviews conducted with undergraduate and gradu-
ate accounting students, the following hypotheses were developed. Some past research
shows that ethical perceptions are affected by gender (e.g. Franke et al., 1997; Ones and
Viswesvaran, 1998; Smith and Oakley, 1997; Veit and Murphy, 1996). Therefore:

H1. There are significant differences in ethical standards between males and females.

With regard to education, much has been written about whether ethics can be taught
(Smith, 2003). At a minimum, additional education potentially exposes students to more
306 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314

lectures and readings on ethical issues. Educational level has been examined as a factor in
the development of ethical perspectives (Veit and Murphy, 1996). Therefore:

H2. There are significant differences in ethical standards between graduate (PPA) and
undergraduate (non-PPA) students.

Ethics is a very personal issue that is grounded in learned behavior and learned attitudes.
These attitudes are the result of upbringing, experience, and education. Most explicit ethics
instruction occurs on a day-to-day basis from a young person’s interaction with his or her
parents. In addition, most religious teachings are grounded in a posited ethical standard.
Based on prior research (e.g. Clark and Dawson, 1996; Fort, 1997; Kennedy and Lawton,
1996) and student interviews, many students appear to use a religious standard for making
ethical decisions. This seems reasonable, as religion is usually the first and most consistent
standard with which young people are equipped. When ethical standards were discussed
in the interviews the religious standard was the one most often mentioned as the basis the
student had used to date and would use later in the business world. Therefore:

H3. The strength of the religious ethic will be significantly different from other models
by which students make ethical decisions.

In interviews with students, those who had some work experience were more worried
about a conflict between their ethical standards and the standards in the work place. Dif-
ferences in ethical perspectives were found to be associated with work experience in prior
research (e.g. Deshpande, 1997). In the egoistic (pragmatic) view, the decision maker acts
out of self-interest alone. Yet, the egoistic view does not provide a workable model of ethics.
This is perhaps more apparent to those with work experience than those without. Those with
work experience sometimes consider persons without work experience naive or idealistic.
Therefore:

H4. Students with work experience will have significantly different ethical standards from
those without work experience.

6. Data acquisition

To test the hypotheses above and to better understand the standard of ethics that accoun-
tants bring to the workplace we conducted a survey among students at a major U.S.
university. This survey asked students to respond to a series of statements concerning ethics.
The statements were designed to allow the researchers to judge the standards by which the
students made ethical judgments and included statements which could be placed under the
categories of utilitarian, egoistic, religious, deontological, hermeneutics, and amoral. The
amoral category posits that accounting decisions and ethics are not related.
A five-point Likert scale is used which ranges from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
The survey instrument is attached in an appendix at the end of this paper. In addition,
students volunteered to be interviewed on the subjects of work value and ethics.
 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314 307

Table 1
Variable names and descriptions
Variable name Description (survey question numbers)
MF Male = 1, female = 0
PPA PPA = 1, non-PPA = 0
WORK With work experience = 1, without = 0
RELG Religious (4 + 7)
DEON Deontological (6 + 9)
UTIL Utilitarian (1 + 10)
EGO Egocentric (11 + 12)
NONE Amoral (3 + 5)
HERM Hermeneutical (2 + 8)

Students surveyed were attending one of five sections of auditing in the fall semester.
These sections are divided between graduate (PPA) and undergraduate (non-PPA) sections.
PPA students are those who have been accepted into the Professional Program in Account-
ing, Financial Management, and Information Systems. Students accepted to this program
complete a bachelor’s degree in accounting with a choice of a master’s degree in account-
ing, finance, or management information systems. Four different tracks are available to the
students, financial management, assurance services/information management, information
systems, or tax. Students choose a track at the end of their junior year. Internships follow
with an emphasis on experience in a Big Four firm. In effect, the students accepted into
the PPA program have been accepted into a graduate program and so are categorized as
graduate students for purposes of this paper. Of the 171 students responding to the survey,
138 identified themselves as PPA students. Variable names, mean responses to questions,
and descriptive statistics are provided in Tables 1–3.

7. Analysis and results

Analysis of the results focused on differences in ethical criteria according to gender,

membership in the graduate program, religiosity, and work experience. Logistic regres-
sion was used with dummy variables for gender (MF), graduate program (PPA), and work
experience (WORK). Regarding the survey, statements could be answered on a range
from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Two survey statements were used for
each of the six ethical categories (UTIL, HERM, RELG, DEON, EGO, NONE) with the
results being summed. For the ethics variables some results stand out. It is encouraging
but not surprising that students in no way subscribe to the idea that accounting is amoral
(NONE). The range of values for the NONE variable indicates that no student agreed or
strongly agreed with either of the statements that would indicate an acceptance of this
view.
DEON and EGO also showed attenuated ranges with lows of 4 each. This indicates that
no student strongly agreed with both statements. UTIL is also attenuated slightly with a
low of three. The remaining standards HERM and RELG show a full range of responses, 2
through 10.
 308
A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314
Table 2
Mean responses to individual statements by gender, educational level, and work experience
Category Question Overall mean Male Female Graduate (PPA) Under-graduate Work experience No work experience
(N = 171) (N = 72) (N = 99) (N = 138) (N = 33) (N = 77) (N = 94)
UTIL 1 2.088 2.264 1.960 2.123 1.939 2.143 2.043
HERM 2 2.275 2.292 2.263 2.290 2.212 2.312 2.245
NONE 3 4.813 4.764 4.848 4.826 4.758 4.818 4.809
RELG 4 2.386 2.708 2.152 2.239 3.000 2.455 2.330
NONE 5 4.649 4.611 4.677 4.667 4.576 4.688 4.617
DEON 6 4.023 4.069 3.990 4.036 3.970 4.026 4.021
RELG 7 2.300 3.194 2.737 2.826 3.364 2.844 3.000
HERM 8 3.749 3.611 3.848 3.826 3.424 3.675 3.809
DEON 9 3.228 3.236 3.222 3.232 3.212 3.143 3.298
UTIL 10 4.041 3.944 4.111 4.014 4.152 3.974 4.096
EGO 11 4.228 4.222 4.232 4.210 4.303 4.143 4.298
EGO 12 4.281 4.236 4.313 4.283 4.273 4.208 4.340
 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314 309

Table 3
Descriptive statistics
Variable N Mean S.D. Minimum Maximum
PPA 171 0.8070175 0.3957984 0 1.0
MF 171 0.4210526 0.4951780 0 1.0
WORK 171 0.4502924 0.4989842 0 1.0
UTIL 171 6.1286550 1.2583126 3.0 10.0
HERM 171 6.0233918 1.4590618 2.0 10.0
RELG 171 5.3157895 2.2451875 2.0 10.0
DEON 171 7.2514620 1.3766693 4.0 10.0
EGO 171 8.5087719 1.2047378 4.0 10.0
NONE 171 9.4619883 0.7534350 7.0 10.0

Table 4
Results of logistic regression on the variable male/female
Variable DF Parameter Standard Wald Chi- Pr > Chi- Standardized Odds
estimate error square square estimate ratio
Analysis of Maximum Likelihood estimates
INTERCPT 1 −0.7329 2.3433 0.0978 0.7545 – –
DEON 1 −0.0316 0.1234 0.0656 0.7979 −0.023976 0.969
UTIL 1 −0.1374 0.1336 1.0571 0.3039 −0.095307 0.872
EGO 1 0.0213 0.1400 0.0232 0.8789 0.014169 1.022
NONE 1 0.2384 0.2210 1.1633 0.2808 0.099024 1.269
HERM 1 0.1380 0.1136 1.4745 0.2246 0.110999 1.148
RELG 1 −0.2118 0.0750 7.9768 0.0047 −0.262178 0.809
Note: Response variable: MF; response levels: 2; number of observations: 171.

For Hypotheses 1, 2, and 4, analysis was conducted by using logistic regression using
the Maximum Likelihood method. A t-test was used to evaluate Hypothesis 3. Tables 4–6
show the regression results. Hypothesis H1 was generally not supported by the results of the
regression on the gender dichotomy. Only for the religious variable was any significance
found.
Religiosity was the strongest influence on ethical decision-making for both genders. The
overall means for the two religiosity statements, survey statements 4 and 7, were 2.38 and

Table 5
Results of logistic regression on the variable graduate (PPA)/undergraduate (non-PPA)
Variable DF Parameter Standard Wald Pr > Chi- Standardized Odds
estimate error Chi-square square estimate ratio
Analysis of Maximum Likelihood estimates
INTERCPT 1 0.0189 2.8736 0.0000 0.9948 – –
DEON 1 −0.0705 0.1510 0.2182 0.6404 −0.053523 0.932
UTIL 1 0.0151 0.1728 0.0077 0.9303 0.010489 1.015
EGO 1 0.1487 0.1824 0.6652 0.4147 0.098801 1.160
NONE 1 −0.2603 0.2687 0.9386 0.3326 −0.108121 0.771
HERM 1 −0.2492 0.1413 3.1083 0.0779 −0.200424 0.779
RELG 1 0.2829 0.0922 9.4035 0.0022 0.350151 1.327
Note: Response variable: PPA; response levels: 2; number of observations: 171.
310 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314

Table 6
Results of logistic regression on the variable work experience
Variable DF Parameter Standard Wald Pr > Chi- Standardized Odds
estimate error Chi-square square estimate ratio
Analysis of Maximum Likelihood estimates
INTERCPT 1 −0.1029 2.3190 0.0020 0.9646 – –
DEON 1 0.0754 0.1194 0.3985 0.5279 0.057229 1.078
UTIL 1 −0.0290 0.1291 0.0506 0.8221 −0.020141 0.971
EGO 1 0.2417 0.1393 3.0100 0.0828 0.160518 1.273
NONE 1 −0.2531 0.2205 1.3175 0.2511 −0.105153 0.776
HERM 1 0.0406 0.1095 0.1374 0.7109 0.032640 1.041
RELG 1 0.00619 0.0714 0.0075 0.9309 0.007666 1.006
Note: Response variable: WORK; response levels: 2; number of observations: 171.

2.30, respectively (1 = strongly agree). Analysis indicates that females are somewhat more
likely than males to make ethical decisions based on religious standards.
Overall, results do not support the idea that gender is associated with differences in
ethical decision-making. This is contrary to some past studies. The explanation might be
that the increasing participation by women in accounting educational programs and the
workforce has led to similarities in ethical perspectives.
For the second hypothesis concerning the impact of graduate education, two variables
showed significance for the graduate (PPA) and undergraduate (non-PPA) dichotomy,
HERM and RELG. Graduate students are distinguished from undergraduate students in that
they are less likely to agree with the hermeneutical standard. Graduate students are more
religious than undergraduate students, although many students in both groups base their eth-
ical decision-making on religious principles. This finding suggests that the hermeneutical
approach is not consistent with the religious approach.
Why are graduate students more religious on average than undergraduates? The answer
might be associated with religious motivations, such as, that God expects people to maximize
use of their gifts and abilities, including use of academic abilities to attain higher levels of
education. For example, Jesus said: “From everyone who has been given much, much will
be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be
asked” (NIV, 1996, p. 880).
Regarding religiosity, Hypothesis 3 was accepted. Responses to the religiosity statements
were significantly stronger than responses to other survey statements (t = −7.12, probability
of significance > 0.000). Religion provides a strong foundation for the behaviors that people
choose in cases where ethical judgment is needed.
Regarding Hypothesis 4, in a related work values study, a notable finding was that students
with work experience tend to have a less egocentric attitude toward ethics than those without
work experience. Table 3 reveals that the ego variable is skewed to the disagree-side; thus,
the results seem to indicate that the people with work experience tend to have more disdain
for this ethic (which is really no ethic at all). Having heard egoism praised for so long for its
positive impact on economic efficiency, it may become the scapegoat for many an unethical
act in the workplace.
This research area is still in its infancy stage but hold much promise. There are some
notable limitations. This study is based on a student population that may not represent
 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314 311

practicing accountants. An expansion of this study could be useful. The users of financial
statements and practicing accountants would be appropriate populations for future research.
A longitudinal study is planned to follow these students into their careers.

8. Conclusions

This paper has examined the ethical standards of future accountants not based on
a situational decision; rather, the study sought to better understand the ethical models
that best describe individual judgments. This study was an attempt to extend research
beyond the case study basis for analysis of ethical decision-making. The findings sug-
gest that there are differences in individual ethical standards based on gender, educational
level (graduate versus undergraduate), religiosity, and work experience. Work experience
and graduate education appear to have some impact on the ethical decision-making pro-
cess. For many students, religious principles play a foundational role in shaping ethical
standards.
Ethics is an understanding of the impact of an individual action on others and the acting
of an individual in such a way as to recognize this impact. Thus, from an ethical perspective,
a primary consideration is what is best for others. In Arthur Schopenhauer’s ethical system
we see the distinction of the “good” from the “bad” person being almost wholly based on the
idea that the good person draws less distinction between himself and others than is usually
done (Schopenhauer, 1965).
Ethics is seldom a matter of written codes; rather, it is a function of personal choice.
In other words, ethical decision-making is more than merely observing the law. Our view
of ethics may make us agree or disagree with a particular law, but the act of obeying the
law is not necessarily an ethical act. A person who treats his fellow human beings well is
a good person in that respect, but there is a difference between the person who is good in
an altruistic sense, and the person who does good in order to reach some other goal, or to
avoid some negative consequence. From this perspective ethics is the difference between
treating people well as a means to an end, and treating people well as an end in itself.
Basic to this paper is the premise that the corporation, as an institution with rights much
like an individual’s rights, and with much more power than most individuals, has the same
or even more responsibility to be ethical as any individual. To not recognize this is to deny
that the corporation is a collection of individual owners. The corporation is largely known
through its economic activities, and accountants generally accomplish the recording of these
activities.
Future research in this area might do well to use the situational based methods of other
papers (cf., Flory et al., 1992) but present the acts in such a way that they highlight a particular
ethical standard as a solution. The reactions to these solutions would provide clues to the
standards used by the students or professionals. Other categories could also be included in
education-oriented studies (cf., Mintz, 1995). Future research regarding ethical perspectives
of future accountants (i.e. students) is critical for educators and practitioners, that they might
understand the ethical perspectives held by the next generation of the accounting profession.
Failure to bring appropriate ethical standards to the workplace will most assuredly hamper
the profession’s time-honored commitment to serve the public interest.
312 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314

Appendix A. Survey instrument

 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314 313

References

Ameen EC, Guffey DM, McMillan JJ. Gender differences in determining ethical sensitivity of future accounting
professionals. Journal of Business Ethics 1996;15(May (5)):591–7.
Barnett T, Bass K, Brown G. Religiosity, ethical ideology, and intentions to report a peer’s wrongdoing. Journal
of Business Ethics 1996;15(November (11)):1161–74.
Borkowski SC, Ugras YJ. The ethical attitudes of students as a function of age, sex, and experience. Journal of
Business Ethics 1992;11(December (12)):961–79.
Clark JW, Dawson LE. Personal religiousness and ethical judgments: an empirical analysis. Journal of Business
Ethics 1996;15(March (3)):359–72.
Cunningham WP. The golden rule as universal ethical norm. Journal of Business Ethics 1998;17(January
(1)):105–9.
Davis JR, Welton RE. Professional ethics: business students’ perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics 1991;10(June
(6)):451–63.
Dawson LM. Ethical differences between men and women in the sales profession. Journal of Business Ethics
1997;16(August (11)):1143–52.
314 A.C. Keller et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18 (2007) 299–314

Deshpande SP. Managers’ perception of proper ethical conduct: the effect of sex, age, and level of education.
Journal of Business Ethics 1997;16(January (1)):79–85.
Dickens C. A Christmas carol; 1843 [available on the web December 25, 2005: of literature:
http://www.literature.org/authors/dickens-charles/christmas-carol/].
Epstein MJ, Spalding AD. The accountant’s guide to legal liability and ethics. Homewood, IL: Irwin; 1993.
Everett JR. Religion in economics. Philadelphia: Porcupine Press; 1946 (1982 reprint).
Flory SM, Phillips TJ, Reidenbach RE, Robin DP. A multidimensional analysis of selected ethical issues in
accounting. The Accounting Review 1992;67(2):284–302.
Fort TL. Religion and business ethics: the lessons from political morality. Journal of Business Ethics
1997;16(February (3)):263–73.
Franke GR, Crown DF, Spake DF. Gender differences in ethical perceptions of business practices: a social role
theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 1997;82(December (6)):920–34.
Jones GE, Kavanagh MJ. An experimental examination of the effects of individual and situational factors on
unethical behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics 1996;15(May (5)):511–23.
Kant I. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. New York: Harper & Row; 1958.
Kennedy EJ, Lawton L. The effects of social and moral integration on ethical standards: a comparison of American
and Ukranian Business students. Journal of Business Ethics 1996;15(August (8)):901–11.
MacIntyre A. A short history of ethics. New York: Macmillan; 1966.
Maglitta J. For God and company. Computerworld. April 8; 1996. p. 30, 15, 73 and 75.
Mason ES, Mudrack PE. Gender and ethical orientation: a test of gender and occupational socialization theories.
Journal of Business Ethics 1996;15(June (6)):599–604.
Mintz SM. Virtue ethics and accounting education. Accounting Education 1995;10(2):247–68.
NIV (New International Version). The Holy Bible. Luke 1996;12(48b):880.
Ones DS, Viswesvaran C. Gender, age, and race differences on overt integrity tests: results across four large-scale
job applicant data sets. Journal of Applied Psychology 1998;83(February (1)):35–42.
Schopenhauer A. On the basis of morality. New York: Bobbs-Merrill; 1965.
Schweiker W. Accounting for ourselves: accounting practice and the discourse of ethics. Accounting, Organizations
and Society 1993;18(2–3):231–52.
Smith LM. A fresh look at accounting ethics. Accounting Horizons 2003;17(March (1)):47–9.
Smith PL, Oakley EF. Gender related differences in ethical and social values of business students: implications
for management. Journal of Business Ethics 1997;16(January (1)):37–45.
Veit ET, Murphy MR. Ethics violations: a survey of investment analysts. Journal of Business Ethics
1996;15(December (12)):1287–97.