The Effects of Gender and Setting on Accountants' Ethically Sensitive Decisions

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Impact of Perceived Ethical Culture of the Firm and Demographic Variables on Auditors’ Ethical Evaluation and Intention to Act Decisions (2010, background): “, 1998) and others showing no difference between males and females (Browning and Zabriskie, 1983; Dubinsky and Levy, 1985; Radtke, 2000).”
An Examination of the Association Between Gender and Reporting Intentions for Fraudulent Financial Reporting (2009, background): “However, other studies do not find an association between ethical judgments and gender (Barnett and Karson, 1989; Coate and Frey, 2000; Hegarty and Sims, 1979; Radtke, 2000; Stanga and Turpen, 1991; Van Kenhove et al., 2001; West et al, 2004).”
Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. (2010, background): “*Radtke, R. R. (2000). The effects of gender and setting on accountants’”
The Influence of Nationality and Gender on Ethical Sensitivity: An Application of the Issue-Contingent Model (2005, background): “…report no significant gender differences in ethical judgments on social or business issues (e.g., Barnett and Karson, 1989; Davis and Welton, 1991; Dubinsky and Levy, 1985; Harris, 1989; Hegarty and Sims, 1978, 1979; McNichols and Zimmerer, 1985; Radtke, 2000; Tsalikis and Ortiz-Buonafina, 1990).”