Exploring Perceived Accounting Ethics of University Students on Online Knowledge Sharing

Conference paper

Abstract

This study is to explore perceived ethics as a new dimension to an established online knowledge sharing model. The focus of this study is to examine how students’ perceived ethical attitude towards multiple unethical vignettes and their attachment motives influence online knowledge sharing behavior. Since university students are prospective leaders, both training and social interactions are important to implant ethical values. Using a survey questionnaire completed by 223 undergraduate students of various majors, this study found that perceived online attachment motivation had a direct, positive, and significant effect towards online knowledge sharing behavior (β = .713, p < .001). Perceived ethics, however, had an inverse relationship with online knowledge sharing behavior (β = −.227, p < .01). The proposed online knowledge sharing model explained 35 % of the observed variance. Limitations of this study were identified with suggestion on future studies.

Keywords

Perceived ethics Attachment motivation Knowledge sharing Ethics education Accounting education 

References

  1. Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 50–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 14–31.Google Scholar
  3. Brydon, D. (2010). Social media’s research potential. English Studies in Canada, 36(4), 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bunker, R. B., & Casey, K. M. (2012). Facilitating payments versus bribes: Are we sending conflicting ethical signals in accounting education? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(8), 47–50.Google Scholar
  5. Carnegie, G. D., & Napier, C. J. (2010). Traditional accountants and business professionals: Portraying the accounting profession after Enron. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(3), 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, G. M. (2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 755–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (2001). Social emotional education: Core principles and practices. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Caring classrooms/intelligent schools: The social emotional education of young children (pp. 3–29). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Conroy, S. J., Emerson, T. L. N., & Pons, F. (2010). Ethical attitudes of accounting practitioners: Are rank and ethical attitudes related? Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corpus, J., Ogle, C., & Love-Geiger, K. (2006). The effects of social-comparison versus mastery praise on children’s intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dellaportas, S. (2006). Making a difference with a discrete course on accounting ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunfee, T. W., & Warren, D. E. (2001). Is guanxi ethical? A normative analysis of doing business in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(3), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duska, R., & Duska, B. (2003). Accounting ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, J. M., Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2006). Who’s in the ethics driver’s seat? Factors influencing ethics in the MBA curriculum. Academy of Management learning and Education & Training, 5(3), 294–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaa, J. C. (2004). Accounting ethics. In R. E. Freeman & P. L. Werhane (Eds.), Encyclopedic dictionary of business ethics (2nd ed.). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research (6th ed.). White Plains: Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Hale, M. W., Huston, R., & Smith, M. L. (2005). The once and future accountants: Ethics and the future outlook of the US accounting profession. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 2(4), 426–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herron, T., & Gilbertson, D. (2004). Ethical principles vs. ethical rules: The moderating effect of moral development on audit independence judgments. Business Ethics Quarterly (Special Issue on Accounting Ethics), 14(3), 499–523.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, C. A. (1987). Affiliation motivation: People who need people, but in different ways. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 1008–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2007). Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning: The teacher’s role. In R. Gillies, A. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Roseth, C. (2010). Cooperative learning in middle schools: Interrelationship of relationships and achievement. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(1), 18.Google Scholar
  21. Keller, A. C., Smith, K. T., & Smith, L. M. (2007). Do gender, educational level, religiosity, and work experience affect the ethical decision-making of U.S. accountants? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18, 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klimek, J., & Wenell, K. (2011). Ethics in accounting: An indispensable course? Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(4), 107–118.Google Scholar
  23. Li, S. M., & Ma, W. W. K. (2012). Motivational factors for accounting learning – The development of a holistic framework. In S. K. S. Cheung et al. (Eds.), ICHL 2012, LNCS 7411 (pp. 243–252). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Ma, W. W. K., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2010). Understanding online knowledge sharing: An exploratory theoretical framework. In P. Tsang et al. (Eds.), ICHL2010, LNCS 6248 (pp. 239–248). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Ma, W. W. K., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2011). Understanding online knowledge sharing: An interpersonal relationship perspective. Computers & Education, 56(1), 210–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ma, W. W. K., Sun, K., & Ma, J. (2012). The influence of attachment styles on knowledge sharing in social media environments. In S. K. S. Cheung et al. (Eds.), ICHL 2012, LNCS 7411 (pp. 231–242). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. McPhail, K. (2001). The other objective of ethics education: Re-humanizing the accounting profession – A study of ethics education in law, engineering, medicine, and accountancy. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mintchik, N., & Farmer, T. (2009). Associations between epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning: Evidence from accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Natale, S., Sora, S., & Drumheller, M. (2012). The importance of the university in the 21st century: Ethical conflicts and moral choices. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Park, H., Twenge, J. M., & Greenfield, P. M. (2013). The great recession: Implications for adolescent values and behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 00(0), 1–9.Google Scholar
  34. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ritter, B. A. (2006). Can business ethics be trained? A study of the ethical decision-making process in business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Summers, J., & Svinicki, M. (2007). Investigating classroom community in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(1), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turkle, S. (2008). Always-on/always-on-you. The tethered self. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile communications and social change (pp. 121–138). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Valentine, S., Varca, P., Godkin, L., & Barnett, T. (2010). Positive job response and ethical job performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wang, C. C. (2004). The influence of ethical and self- interest concerns on knowledge sharing intentions among managers: An empirical study. International Journal of Management, 21, 370–381.Google Scholar
  41. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.Google Scholar
  42. Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  43. Wyatt, A. R. (2004). Accounting professionalism – They just don’t get it! Accounting Horizons, 18, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AccountingHong Kong Shue Yan UniversityHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations