The Effects of Exposing CPAs to Rationalizations: Conscious and Unconscious Outcomes
实验研究显示，向注册会计师展示决策前的合理化说辞（中立化）会增加其不道德意图，且这种影响是无意识的，对千禧一代和X世代显著，对婴儿潮一代不显著。
SYNOPSIS This article reports on an experimental examination of rationalizations among CPAs. Rationalizations represent the cognitive justifications that individuals use to morally disengage their internal norms. While related research in accounting is scant, there is extensive, relevant, non-accounting research. That research distinguishes between “before-the-decision” and “after-the-decision” rationalizing, labeling the former “neutralizations” and the latter “rationalizations.” Unfortunately, confusion exists because the professional accounting literature related to the Fraud Triangle does not reflect the neutralization versus rationalization distinction. We find that neutralizations exposure increases CPAs' unethical intentions despite cautions against doing so. This result is robust to two different morally intense and practically relevant ethical cases. We also find that the influence of neutralizations exposure is unconscious and robust among Millennials and Gen Xers, but not among Baby Boomers.