Journal of Academic Ethics

, Volume 3, Issue 2–4, pp 89–111 | Cite as

Measuring the Ethical Propensities of Accounting Students: Mach IV versus DIT

  • Kelly Richmond PopeEmail author


This study responds to Bay and Greenberg's (Bay, D.D. and Greenberg, R.R. (2001). The relationship of the DIT and behavior: A replication. Issues in Accounting Education 10(3): 367–380) call to investigate alternative psychometric instruments to measure ethical behavior other than the heavily relied upon Defining Issues Test. The Mach IV scale (Christie, 1970) has been cited in more than 500 published psychological studies; however, it has not been used extensively in the accounting ethics research. This study provides some preliminary evidence on the use of the Mach IV scale in an accounting ethics context. Similar to ethics studies in other academic disciplines, results across two dependent measures indicate accounting students high in Machiavellianism are more likely to view questionable ethical behavior as acceptable. The research findings also indicate that the Machiavellian construct appears to be a better predictor of ethical propensities in comparison to the commonly used Defining Issues Test. The paper concludes with a discussion on how these reported research findings impact the accounting profession and accounting education.


Business Ethic Accounting Profession Accounting Student Ethical Choice Accounting Ethic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, M. (1987). Moral development and accounting education. Journal of Accounting Education (Spring): 27–43.Google Scholar
  3. Bay, D.D. and Greenberg, R.R. (2001). The relationship of the DIT and behavior: A replication. Issues in Accounting Education 10(3): 367–380.Google Scholar
  4. Blank, M. (1984). Socialization in Public Accounting Firms, Unpublished PhD Dissertation (Pennsylvania State University).Google Scholar
  5. Burton, S.M., Johnston, W. and Wilson, E.J. (1991). An experimental assessment of alternative teaching approaches for introducing business ethics to undergraduate business students. Journal of Business Ethics 10, 507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavanaugh, G.F. and Fritzsche, D.J. (1985). Using vignettes in business ethics research. In: Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 279–293.Google Scholar
  7. Christie, R. (1970). Scale Construction. In: R. Christie and F.I. Geis (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J.R., Pant, L.W. and Sharp, D.J. (1996). Measuring the Ethical Awareness and Ethical Orientation of Canadian Auditors. Behavioral Research in Accounting (Supplement), 98–199.Google Scholar
  9. Corzine, J.B., Buntzman, G.F. and Busch, E.T. (1999). Machiavellianism in U.S. in bankers. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 7(1): 72–83.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, J.R. and Welton, R.E. (1991). Professional ethics: Business students perception. Journal of Business Ethics 10, 451–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gable, M. and Topol, M. (1988). Machiavellianism and the department store executive. Journal of Retailing 64(1): 69–84.Google Scholar
  12. Ghosh, D. and Crain, T.L., (1996). Experimental investigation of ethical standards and perceived probability on intentional noncompliance. Behavioral Research in Accounting 8, 219–242.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, P. (2001). Commentary: Machiavelli, political marketing and reinventing government. European Journal of Marketing 35(9/10), 1136–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunt, S.D. and Chonko, L. (1984). Ethical problems of advertising agency executives. Journal of Advertising 16(4), 16–25.Google Scholar
  15. Jeffrey, C. (1993). Ethical development of accounting students, non-accounting business students, and liberal arts students, Issues in Accounting Education 8(1), 86–96.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, G.E. and Kavanagh, M.J. (1996). An experimental examination of the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics 15, 511–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaciuba, G., Hill, N., and Stevens, K. (1997). Factors that Influence the Moral Reasoning Abilities of Accountants: Implications for Universities and the Profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 16: 1297–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays in Moral Development: The Philosophy of Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  19. May, G. (1936). Twenty-five Years of Accounting Responsibility, 1911–1936, New York: Price Waterhouse, p. 173.Google Scholar
  20. Mautz, R. (1975). The case for professional education in accounting, In: A. Bizzell and K. Larson (Eds.), Schools of Accountancy: A New Look at the Issues, New York: AICPA.Google Scholar
  21. McGhee, W., Shields, M.S. and Birnberg, J.G. (1978). The effects of personality on a subject information processing. The Accounting Review (July), 681–697.Google Scholar
  22. McLean, P.A. and Jones, D.G. (1992). Machiavellianism and business education. Psychological Reports 71, 57–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McPhail, K.J. (2001). The other objective of ethics education: Re-humanizing the accounting profession a study of ethics, law, engineering, medicine and accountancy. Journal of Business Ethics 34(314): 273–298.Google Scholar
  24. Moore, S. (1995). Machiavellian characteristics among nurses. Nursing Management 26(5), 58–61.Google Scholar
  25. Ponemon, L. (1992). Ethical reasoning and selection-socialization in accounting. Accounting, Organizations, and Society 17(3/4), 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ponemon, L. and Glazer, A. (1990). Accounting education and ethical development: The influence of liberal learning on students and alumni in accounting practice, Issues in Accounting Education 5(2), 195–208.Google Scholar
  27. Rest, J.R., Narvaez, E., Thoma, S.J. and Bebeau, M.J. (1999). DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology 91(4), 644–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ricks, J. and Fraedrich, J. (1999). The paradox of machiavellianism: Machiavellianism may make for productive sales but poor management reviews. Journal of Business Ethics 20, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scofield, S.B., Phillips, T. and Bailey, C.D. (2004). An empirical reanlaysis of the selection–socialization hypothesis: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(5–6), 543–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shaub, M. (1994). An analysis of the association of traditional demographic variables with the moral reasoning of auditing students and auditors, Journal of Accounting Education, 12, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. St. Pierre, K., Nelson, E. and Gabbin, A. (1990). A study of the ethical development of accounting majors in relation to other business and nonbusiness disciplines, The Accounting Educators Journal, 23–35.Google Scholar
  32. Teal, E.J. and Carroll, A.B. (1999). Moral reasoning skills: are entrepreneurs different? Journal of Business Ethics 19, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DePaul University, College of CommerceSchool of Accountancy and Management Information SystemsChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations