Ethical issues in accounting and economics experimental research: Inducing strategic misrepresentation
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Behavior 19 (1):51 – 59 (2009)
Numerous accounting and economics research studies employ an experimental research method requiring student participants to make representations about an individual characteristic (e.g., ability, cost) that provides a basis for payment of cash rewards. In response, many participants intentionally misrepresent the nature of that characteristic to receive a greater reward. Typically, such studies are deemed to be either exempt from review by institutional review boards (IRBs) or subject only to an expedited review. Moreover, investigators seldom debrief participants, purportedly to avoid contamination of the participant pool. The authors question the ethics of inducing strategic misrepresentation and rewarding fraudulent behavior without appropriate debriefing. A theoretical framework of cognitive ethical development indicates that such research methods can be harmful to student participants. Furthermore, principles of operant conditioning suggest that the rewards reinforce fraudulent behavior. It is recommended that research studies inducing strategic misrepresentation should not be exempt from IRB review and should be required to include desensitization procedures for debriefing participants.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
William E. Smythe & Maureen J. Murray (2000). Owning the Story: Ethical Considerations in Narrative Research. Ethics and Behavior 10 (4):311 – 336.
Kelly Richmond Pope (2005). Measuring the Ethical Propensities of Accounting Students: Mach IV Versus DIT. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 3 (2-4):89-111.
Eric R. Pedersen, Clayton Neighbors, Judy Tidwell & Ty W. Lostutter (2011). Do Undergraduate Student Research Participants Read Psychological Research Consent Forms? Examining Memory Effects, Condition Effects, and Individual Differences. Ethics and Behavior 21 (4):332 - 350.
Nonna Martinov-Bennie & Gary Pflugrath (2009). The Strength of an Accounting Firm's Ethical Environment and the Quality of Auditors' Judgments. Journal of Business Ethics 87 (2):237 - 253.
Lisa Eckenwiler (2001). Moral Reasoning and the Review of Research Involving Human Subjects. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11 (1):37-69.
Heidi E. Keller & Sandra Lee (2003). Ethical Issues Surrounding Human Participants Research Using the Internet. Ethics and Behavior 13 (3):211 – 219.
Joan E. Sieber (2004). Empirical Research on Research Ethics. Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):397 – 412.
Dennis John Mazur (2007). Evaluating the Science and Ethics of Research on Humans: A Guide for Irb Members. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Janet L. Brody, John P. Gluck & Alfredo S. Aragon (2000). Participants' Understanding of the Process of Psychological Research: Debriefing. Ethics and Behavior 10 (1):13 – 25.
Thomas Hadjistavropoulos & William E. Smythe (2001). Elements of Risk in Qualitative Research. Ethics and Behavior 11 (2):163 – 174.
Added to index2009-02-01
Total downloads21 ( #77,366 of 1,096,519 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #93,642 of 1,096,519 )
How can I increase my downloads?