IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eco/journ3/2020-01-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predictive Power of Situational Factor and Individual Factor on Misreporting Behaviour

Author

Listed:
  • Ascaryan Rafinda

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, Indonesia,)

  • Agus Suroso

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, Indonesia,)

  • Timea Gal

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, Institute of Marketing and Commerce, University of Debrecen, Hungary.)

Abstract

The aim of this research is to compare the predictive power of situational factors and individual factors on misreporting behaviour. The experiments were done to 64 undergraduate students divided into four classes. Each class got a different manipulation on situational factors such as superior’s authority and social conditions. Both of them were manipulated to determine their effects on misreporting behaviour, while individual factors were measured by DIT to classify moral reasoning level. Participants attended two sessions of the experiment. The first session was conducted to measure the level of student moral reasoning. The second session measured student misreporting behaviour. The analysis was done by comparing error prediction on both factors and t-test Independent sample was used. This research found that situational factors have smaller error prediction than individual factors. It means the situational factor is more powerful predictor than the individual factor. It’s imply that organization which wants to reduce misreporting behaviour should focusing deeper to the situational factor than individual factor.

Suggested Citation

  • Ascaryan Rafinda & Agus Suroso & Timea Gal, 2020. "Predictive Power of Situational Factor and Individual Factor on Misreporting Behaviour," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 10(1), pages 84-90.
  • Handle: RePEc:eco:journ3:2020-01-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econjournals.com/index.php/irmm/article/download/8969/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://econjournals.com/index.php/irmm/article/view/8969/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November.
    2. Jeffrey R. Cohen & Nonna Martinov Bennie, 2006. "The Applicability of a Contingent Factors Model to Accounting Ethics Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Lawrence A. Ponemon, 1992. "Auditor underreporting of time and moral reasoning: An experimental lab study," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 171-189, September.
    4. Jennifer Kisamore & Thomas Stone & I. Jawahar, 2007. "Academic Integrity: The Relationship between Individual and Situational Factors on Misconduct Contemplations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 381-394, November.
    5. Murphy, Pamela R., 2012. "Attitude, Machiavellianism and the rationalization of misreporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 242-259.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna M. Cianci & James Lloyd Bierstaker, 2009. "The effect of performance feedback and client importance on auditors' self- and public-focused ethical judgments," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(5), pages 455-474, May.
    2. Ascaryan Rafinda & Tímea Gal & Putri Purwaningtyas, 2019. "Business Ethics Course On Student Moral Reasoning," Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 4(Special), pages 60-68, May.
    3. Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2016. "Stipulated Damages as a Rent-Extraction Mechanism: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 235-273, June.
    4. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. Ralph W. Bailey & Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2005. "Ambiguity and Public Good Provision in Large Societies," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 7(5), pages 741-759, December.
    6. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    7. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence -A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,29, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    8. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    9. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David, 2019. "Using ethical dilemmas to predict antisocial choices with real payoff consequences: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 195-215.
    10. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    11. Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 495-524, June.
    12. Binglin Gong & Huibin Yan & Chun-Lei Yang, 2015. "Gender differences in the dictator experiment: evidence from the matrilineal Mosuo and the patriarchal Yi," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 302-313, June.
    13. Nadine Chlaß & Peter G. Moffatt, 2017. "Giving in Dictator Games - Experimenter Demand Effect or Preference over the Rules of the Game?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    14. Olivier Charpateau, 2011. "Ethique et indépendance interne : une nouvelle dimension de l'indépendance de l'auditeur légal," Post-Print halshs-00613297, HAL.
    15. Charness, Gary B & Haruvy, Ernan, 1999. "Self-Serving Biases: Evidence From A Simulated Labour Relationship," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt1vs8w2k7, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    16. Deck, Cary & Murphy, James J., 2019. "Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 91-106.
    17. Gary Bolton & Duncan Fong & Paul Mosquin, 2003. "Bayes Factors with an Application to Experimental Economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(3), pages 311-325, November.
    18. Christoph Bühren & Thorben C. Kundt, 2013. "Worker or Shirker – Who Evades More Taxes? A Real Effort Experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201326, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    19. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Individual Factor; Misreporting Behaviour; Situational Factor;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:eco:journ3:2020-01-11. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Ilhan Ozturk (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econjournals.com .

    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.