An Exploratory Study of Counterexplanation as an Ethical Intervention Strategy

Abstract

The purpose of this exploratory study is to examine the use of an ethical intervention strategy – counterexplanation – on individuals’ ethical decision-making. As opposed to providing reasons to support a decision in the case of explanation, counterexplanation is the provision of reasons that either speak against or provide evidence against a chosen course of action. The number of explanations and/or counterexplanations provided by the participants is expected to have a significant effect on ethical evaluation and intention. The number of explanations is expected to be negatively related to ethical decision-making while the number of counterexplanations is expected to be positively related to ethical decision-making. The experiment, that made use of five ethical vignettes, manipulated four treatment groups – explanation, counterexplanation, explanation/counterexplanation, and counterexplanation/explanation. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four reatments. They performed the requirements of their treatment before recording their ethical evaluations and intentions. As expected, larger numbers of explanations led to less ethical decision-making and larger numbers of counterexplanations led to more ethical decision-making. However, when both types of explanations are required, the order of counterexplaining before explaining is more desirable as it leads to more ethical decision-making. The study also reports that individuals with high social desirability bias (a tendency to present oneself in a culturally acceptable manner) may generate less counterexplanations. Implications of the findings are explained in the paper. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007explanations, social desirability bias, ethical evaluations, ethical intentions,

The Importance of Understanding Student Learning Styles in Accounting Degree Programs

“…Many passive techniques have been used in training for accountants. These include items such as: lectures with accompanying class notes and exercises (Loeb 1988); guest lecturers (Huss and Patterson 1993); guided examination of operational codes of business (Stewart 1997); vignettes with explanatory interventions (Chung and Monroe 2007); and viewing professionally produced videos (Ziegenfuss 1996).…”

Semester‐specific ethical instruction for auditing students

“…vignettes with explanatory interventions (Chung and Monroe, 2007); and . viewing professionally produced videos (Ziegenfuss, 1996;Earley and Kelly, 2004).…”

The Effect of Implicit Moral Attitudes on Managerial Decision-Making: An Implicit Social Cognition Approach

“…Therefore, the inference from a controlled and conscious mode of evaluation to a relatively rational decision-making process seems possible. It is not surprising that in most studies that dealt with attitudes and ethical decision-making in business researchers fully relied on the construct of explicit attitudes (see Beu et al, 2003;Chung and Monroe, 2007;Cohen et al, 2001;Cole et al, 2000;Connor and Becker, 1998;Cottone and Claus, 2000;Frey, 2000;Lewin and Stephens, 1994, May and Pauli, 2002, Reidenbach and Robin, 1990.…”