IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v14y2004i03p525-551_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Thorne, Linda
  • Massey, Dawn W.
  • Jones, Joanne

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Thorne, Linda & Massey, Dawn W. & Jones, Joanne, 2004. "An Investigation of Social Influence: Explaining the Effect of Group Discussion on Consensus in Auditors’ Ethical Reasoning," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 525-551, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:14:y:2004:i:03:p:525-551_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00007120/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. Mouna Hazgui & Marion Brivot, 2022. "Debating Ethics or Risks? An Exploratory Study of Audit Partners’ Peer Consultations About Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(4), pages 741-758, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Peter E. Mudrack & E. Sharon Mason, 2022. "Vignette Themes and Moral Reasoning in Business Contexts: The Case for the Defining Issues Test," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 979-995, December.
    4. Seemantini Pathak & Codou Samba & Mengge Li, 2021. "Audit committee diversity and financial restatements," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(3), pages 899-931, September.
    5. Christelle Chaplais & Yves Mard & Sylvain Marsat, 2016. "The auditor facing ethical dilemnas: the impact of an ethical training on the compliance with deontological code [L'auditeur face aux dilemmes éthiques : L'impact d'une formation à l'éthique sur la," Post-Print hal-02156617, HAL.
    6. Christelle Chaplais, 2018. "Révélation de faits délictueux et formation à l'éthique : perception des auditeurs," Post-Print hal-01907886, HAL.

    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:525-551_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.