Bailey (2015) - Psychopathy, Academic Accountants' Attitudes Toward Unethical Research Practices, and Publication Success

THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW American Accounting Association
Vol. 90, No. 4 DOI: 10.2308/accr-50970

2015
pp. 1307–1332
Psychopathy, Academic Accountants’

Attitudes toward Unethical Research
Practices, and Publication Success
Charles D. Bailey
The University of Memphis
ABSTRACT: Psychopathy is characterized by deficits of conscience and empathy, and

is measurable in nonclinical populations. It is one of the ‘‘Dark Triad’’ of personality
variables, but has received minimal attention in accounting literature, despite obvious
implications for fraud. In the practice of empirical research, two sides of the ‘‘Fraud
Triangle,’’ motive and opportunity, are in place, awaiting only rationalization. For one
high on the psychopathy scale, rationalization of fraud is easy or moot. Widespread fraud
exists in scientific research, and studies indicate that accounting is not exempt. I
hypothesize and find a positive effect of psychopathy on article publication count in
leading accounting journals, mediated by individuals’ greater acceptance of unethical
acts in research and publication. Participants are 546 North American accounting faculty
who have published in accounting research journals, who are lower on the psychopathy
scale than previous samples from other populations. Policy and research implications
are discussed.
Keywords: research misconduct; fraud; psychopathy; dark triad; accounting; research

publication.
I. INTRODUCTION
T
here is no reason to expect that accounting research would be tainted more by fraud than
other disciplines, but to claim that accounting researchers are exempt would be foolish. The
existence of some fraud is all but certain. Bailey, Hasselback, and Karcher (2001), using a
randomized-response survey of highly published researchers, reported self-confessed fraud
affecting about 4 percent of respondents’ work. This paper reports a study of psychopathy, one
potentially important underlying cause of research fraud. In light of the empirical findings, the paper
suggests policy implications and further research opportunities.
For many constructive comments, I thank John Harry Evans III (editor), two anonymous reviewers, Tim Fogarty, Dana
Hermanson, Cynthia Jeffrey, Bob Jensen, Brian Laird, Tim Louwers, Robert Steinbauer, John Thornton, and reviewers
and participants at the 2013 CAAA Conference, 2013 AAA Annual Meeting, 2013 18th Annual Ethics Symposium, and
the 2013 joint meeting of the AAA FIA/PI sections in New Orleans. Thanks to Aaron Beam for prompting my interest in
psychopathy.
Editor’s note: Accepted by John Harry Evans III.
Submitted: November 2013
Accepted: October 2014
Published Online: October 2014
1307
1308 Bailey
To my knowledge, the effects of psychopathy in a professional population have not been

statistically studied, and this is the first empirical evidence of a connection between psychoticism
and fraud or professional misconduct. Although the connection between psychopathy and unethical
attitudes has been established (e.g., Chiaburu, Muñoz, and Gardner 2013; Stevens, Deuling, and
Armenakis 2012), I extend this connection to the objective, empirical phenomenon of publication
count. More importantly, although the existence of a nontrivial amount of research fraud may be
assumed, the proposition that acceptance of unethical practices leads to a higher publication count
in top journals has not previously been tested. Thus, the test of an overall causal model—
psychopathy increasing acceptance of unethical practices, which, in turn, increases publication
count—is the essential contribution of this paper. The causal connection with psychopathy helps to
complete a picture. I wish to emphasize, however, that although I chose psychopathy as a
potentially powerful cause for acceptance of fraud, it is just one among many factors, both personal
and situational, that exist within a normal population.
Psychopaths are individuals who lack a conscience and lack empathy for others and, therefore,
will use any means to satisfy their desires (Hare 1993). However, nonclinical psychopathy is
measurable on a scale that is relevant to the general population—and the participants in the current
study prove to be low on that scale. Although the image of the murderous psychopath is familiar,
most (even extreme) psychopaths pursue more mundane activities. Many are successful in
business careers (Babiak and Hare 2006; Babiak, Neumann, and Hare 2010). As discussed below,
the factor called ‘‘primary’’ psychopathy is highly conducive to ill-gotten ‘‘success’’ and is relevant
to this study, while it is ‘‘secondary’’ psychopathy that predisposes one toward violence and
incarceration.
Except for Cook, Bay, Visser, Myburgh, and Njoroge (2011), who employ psychopathy as a
control variable in a study of emotional intelligence, I find no accounting research that addresses the
potential effects of psychopathy. Stevens et al. (2012) note that business researchers are taking more
interest, partly because of the recognition of ‘‘successful psychopaths.’’ Babiak (2007) discusses the
growing interest in psychopathy by industrial-organizational psychologists, and why business
disciplines have been slow in addressing this issue. A growing popular awareness of psychopathy
enhances the potential interest in research in the area. Chiaburu et al. (2013) find that primary
psychopathy scores help to explain careerism, which is a propensity to achieve career goals by
means other than actual performance.
Although the current study concerns nonclinical levels of psychopathy, it is possible that
outlier ‘‘true psychopaths’’ may account for a substantial amount of fraudulent activity in business
and academia. Such individuals represent only about 1 percent of the general population, but an
estimated 4 percent of CEOs (Babiak et al. 2010). The nature of psychopaths renders them adept at
rising to levels of power, where they can cause great harm (Babiak 1996, 2007; Babiak and Hare
2006). Babiak (2007, 412) says that ‘‘Certainly, if headlines of major newspapers are to be
believed, psychopaths, or at least people acting like them, abound in business, in academia, in
medicine, [etc.].’’ Thus, the topic deserves the attention of researchers in many business realms,
including financial fraud. Secondary benefits of this study are to benchmark the level of
psychopathy within an important professional population and to demonstrate the construct’s
usefulness in fraud research.
The current study concerns the domain of empirical accounting research. Given the nature of
that research activity, the likelihood is high that, if one can ‘‘speak the language’’ of research by
articulating a sound theoretical basis, then cheating in the execution and reporting of a study will
produce publishable results. Empirical results from the laboratory or archival sources are subject
to fabrication or manipulation, and the publishability of most studies is results-driven (Simmons,
Nelson, and Simonsohn 2011). Chubin (1985, 177) mentions psychopathy as a cause of research
misconduct.
The Accounting Review

July 2015
Psychopathy, Academic Accountants’ Attitudes on Unethical Research, and Publication Success 1309
Next, Section II reviews the literature concerning research fraud, psychopathy, and the
potential of psychopathy to engender fraud, leading to a key hypothesis in the form of a mediation
model. Section III provides a description of the design and execution of the study, and Sections IV
and V report the results and limitations, as well as discussing implications and future research
opportunities.
II. BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

This section discusses the limited work attempting to measure the degree and types of research
misconduct in accounting, and the psychology literature on the individual-difference variable called
psychopathy.
Bailey et al. (2001, 26) introduce their study of accounting research fraud by citing several
recent, dramatic examples from the hard sciences and medicine indicating ‘‘that fraud permeates all
areas of academia and has become a worldwide epidemic.’’ Reports of misconduct1 have increased
substantially since that time. Fang, Steen, and Casadevall (2012) report that a ‘‘detailed review of all
2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted [as of] May 3,
2012, revealed that only 21.3 percent of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4
percent of retractions were attributable to misconduct . . . The percentage of scientific articles
retracted because of fraud has increased ;10-fold since 1975.’’ The blog Retraction Watch
documents retractions in science literature, including recent stunning examples. Dutch investigators
have released a final report on Diederik Stapel, a social scientist and former faculty member at
Tilburg University. Fifty-four of Stapel’s published papers have been retracted because of
fabricated data. In addition, ten dissertations by his students were found to contain fraudulent data,
although those students were cleared of wrongdoing. It seems that administrators did not question
Stapel’s results, and his high-profile faculty position protected him (see: http://www.
retractionwatch.wordpress.com/category/by-author/diederik-stapel/). Stapel is far from holding
the record for retractions reported by Retraction Watch. Anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii is accused
of having approximately 180 tainted articles (cf. Brooks 2012).
Surveys of academic accountants consistently reveal concerns about suspected unethical
research practices of a minority of their colleagues (Engle and Smith 1990; Borkowski and Welsh
2000; Davis and Ketz 1995; Meyer and McMahon 2004). In a meta-analysis of studies that have
surveyed research scientists, Fanelli (2009) estimated a 95 percent confidence interval of scientists
admitting to having fabricated, falsified, or modified data between 0.86 percent and 3.45 percent.
Consistent with Bailey et al. (2001), List, Bailey, Euzent, and Martin (2001), using a
randomized-response method, found a self-confessed fraud rate of about 4 percent among academic
economists. These self-confessed rates are likely to be understated. John, Loewenstein, and Prelec
(2012) conducted a study of academic psychologists in which they used a recently developed
scoring algorithm and truth-telling incentive, deriving an estimate of 9 percent having engaged in
‘‘falsifying data.’’
The existence of research fraud points to important research questions, which I discuss
further below. One concern in particular is that the behavior is likely to be addictive, rather than
self-correcting through guilt or regret. Although the expectation of guilt generally deters cheating,
Ruedy, Moore, Gino, and Schweitzer (2013) find that cheaters often experience a ‘‘cheater’s
high.’’ This addictive force supports the likelihood that ‘‘big time’’ fraud-perpetrating researchers
exist.
1
No generally accepted definition of research misconduct exists. The U.S. federal government’s definition of research
misconduct is ‘‘fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting
research results’’ (Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS] 2005).

July 2015
1310 Bailey
Psychopathy
At least since the classic description by Cleckley (1976), clinical psychopathy has been
recognized as a personality disorder characterized by deficits of conscience and empathy. Other
characteristics include high stress tolerance, cold-heartedness, superficial charm, egocentricity,
manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, criminality, and antisocial behaviors such as
parasitic lifestyle (Hare 1993). Psychopathy is not amenable to known treatment, and is an
enduring aspect of personality. Indeed, recent neuropsychology research supports the theory
that actual neurological deficits (Decety, Chen, Harenski, and Kiehl 2013) underlie the
disorder.
Rather than being a form of insanity, psychopathy reflects radical rationality; psychopaths
know right from wrong, but do not care. Glenn, Koleva, Iyer, Graham, and Ditto (2010) propose
that psychopathic individuals do not see morality as an important part of their identity. ‘‘[T]hey do
not construe personal identities in moral terms’’ (Glenn et al. 2010, 497) and lack the motivation to
be, or be seen as, moral individuals. Glenn et al.’s (2010) experimental findings with adults support
this link. They find that psychopathy undermines moral identity even though moral judgment of
‘‘right’’ and ‘‘wrong’’ may be unimpaired. Similarly, Tassy, Deruelle, Mancini, Leistedt, and Wicker
(2013) found a correlation between a high level of psychopathic traits and increased utilitarianism
in choice of action, but not between psychopathic traits and moral judgment. In addition to the
economic reasons usually cited, this helps to explain why one may judge an act to be unethical, but
form no intention to behave accordingly (Jones 1991).
Robert Hare developed the gold-standard clinical test of psychopathy, the Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Psychopathy is a personality disorder with at least two dimensions or
factors: Factor 1, or ‘‘primary,’’ psychopathy includes an inclination to lie, lack of remorse,
callousness, and manipulativeness. These tendencies usually are facilitated by superficial charm.
Factor 2, or ‘‘secondary,’’ psychopathy includes impulsivity, intolerance of frustration, quick-
temperedness, and lack of long-term goals.
Factor 1 is of interest in this study, as it encompasses the characteristics predictive of fraud in
business or academia. Factor 2 is more likely to lead to trouble with authorities and incarceration
(Levenson, Kiehl, and Fitzpatrick 1995), although it has been seen to flare up in business
executives (Babiak and Hare 2006). Primary psychopathy is ‘‘generally viewed as the core of the
psychopathy construct’’ (Lee and Ashton 2005, 1576). It also is quite stable across the lifespan,
more so than secondary psychopathy (Harpur and Hare 1994).
Successful Psychopaths
Psychology literature refers to ‘‘successful psychopaths,’’ who tend to be high on primary
psychopathy and low on secondary psychopathy (Lykken 1995). Stevens et al. (2012) examine the
way in which such individuals react to ethical dilemmas, providing what they claim to be the first
empirical test of the relationship to unethical behavior. In their extensive review of the theoretical
background, the authors observe that ‘‘Cleckley (1941) noted a type of psychopath who may pursue
formal education, particularly in terms of professional degrees in business, the law, or medicine, as
a means to achieve status and power’’ (Stevens et al. 2012, 141).2 This is particularly enlightening
given our natural reluctance to believe that a psychopath could survive the rigors of doctoral
education and enter our profession.
2
Cleckley (1976, 202–221) describes several such cases, including a psychopath who has earned a Ph.D. in his late 20s
and gained some scholarly credibility, a physician beloved by his patients and generally regarded as brilliant, and a
psychiatrist respected as an expert by many physicians.

July 2015
Although the PCL-R can be used only by trained clinicians, self-report tests have been
developed and validated as reflecting the same factors. One established instrument is Levenson’s
Self-Reported Psychopathy Scale (Levenson et al. 1995; hereafter, LSRP), which was validated on
white-collar prisoners and student populations. Subsequent validation studies by Lynam, Whiteside,
and Jones (1999) and Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, and Newman (2001) support the instrument, and
Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996, 519) comment favorably on its measure of primary psychopathy.
Notably, Ray et al. (2013) support its validity in a context similar to the current study, indicating
relative freedom from social desirability bias (cf. Fowler and Lilienfeld 2013). An alternative
instrument, Hare’s Self-Report Psychopathy-III (SRP-III), has only recently been released and lacks
published norms (Neal and Sellbom 2012; Fowler and Lilienfeld 2013). Lynam et al. (1999, 112)
concluded that the earlier version (SRP-II) was ‘‘unidimensional rather than two-dimensional and
more correlated with Factor 2 (deviant lifestyle) than with Factor 1,’’ contrary to the measure I focus
on.
Relationships to Other Personality Variables

The other ‘‘Dark Triad’’ personality variables are narcissism and Machiavellianism. Lee and
Ashton (2005) find a correlation of 0.66 between primary psychopathy (using the LSRP) and the
Mach-IV scale of Machiavellianism, and 0.37 between primary psychopathy and the Narcissistic
Personality Index. Paulhus and Williams (2002) examine the relationships between narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, and find that the constructs are distinct, if overlapping. In
particular, in terms of the Big Five personality factors (John and Srivastava 1999), individuals
higher on psychopathy are distinguished from Machiavellians by being more Extraverted, less
Neurotic (nervous), and higher on Openness (openness to experience versus closed-mindedness). A
commonality they find between the two groups is that both are low on Agreeableness (likeableness)
and Conscientiousness, which is striving to do the right thing, follow through, etc. In terms of
behavior, Nathanson, Paulhus, and Williams (2006) find cheating on classroom exams to be
significantly correlated with subclinical psychopathy, but not with Machiavellianism (cf. Babiak
and Hare 2006, 124; Williams, Nathanson, and Paulhus 2010). In a financial experiment, Jones
(2014) finds that a willingness to gamble with other people’s money is related to all of the Dark
Triad, but that only psychopathy predicts a willingness to take a high risk of losing someone else’s
money even under the threat of punishment.
Narcissism includes factors of grandiosity, entitlement, dominance, and superiority. Given
these characteristics, narcissists clearly have the potential to damage individuals and institutions, yet
the forces driving narcissists seem less pernicious and calculating than the forces driving
psychopaths. Rauthmann and Kolar (2012) had laypersons evaluate the traits of each of the Dark
Triad, and found that narcissism was perceived as less dark than the others. Paulhus and Williams
(2002) find that narcissism scores, in contrast to psychopathy scores, do not correlate negatively
with Conscientiousness and Neuroticism.
In summary, I adopt psychopathy for this study because it seems to best represent a core
characteristic relevant to fraud. However, as described above, the Dark Triad share moderate
commonality, with the distinction apparently concerning the source of the characteristics. Research
indicates that psychopathy, with its essential features of diminished empathy and conscience, is
innate and possibly physiological in nature (Decety et al. 2013), while narcissism and
Machiavellianism seem more likely to be learned traits.
Hypothesis Development
All three elements of the ‘‘fraud triangle’’ (Cressey 1973; Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board [PCAOB] 2005)—incentive, opportunity, and rationalization—are present in the

July 2015
1312 Bailey
accounting research arena. Incentives and pressures to achieve tenure, promotion, and market value
are high. A faculty member’s human capital, especially at Ph.D.-granting institutions, is closely tied
with his or her publication record, and the critical tenure decision is heavily biased toward the
research portfolio. Moreover, the performance expectations are escalating (Glover, Prawitt,
Summers, and Wood 2012). Research success is the main determinant of tenure and promotion in
accounting academia, and the research process in the accounting domain is essentially a private
activity in which honesty is assumed.
Preventive controls and detection of fraud are weak in accounting research. Peer reviews are
not designed to detect misconduct, and replications to challenge ‘‘successful’’ experimental and
observational studies are seldom seen. Accounting research is not often replicated, and there
exist no requirements for research diaries or documentation.3 It is hard to imagine a more fertile
area in which a successful psychopath could prosper. Moreover, the threshold to rationalize
fraud in accounting research is surely lower than in medical research, where lives are in the
balance. Thus, nonclinical psychopathic tendencies may be more than sufficient for such
rationalization.
If psychopathy is a factor that influences ‘‘success’’ in terms of research publications, then the
mechanism should be consistent with the mediation model in Figure 1, based on the most current
conceptualization of mediated effects (Hayes 2013). The effect of psychopathy on publication
success is expected to be mediated by its impact upon an individual’s relative acceptance of and
implied willingness to participate in illicit research practices.
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how else psychopathic tendencies could produce
publications. Whether an individual acts directly to falsify data, manipulates colleagues to
perform most of the research work, or gains unearned credit as a coauthor, these acts appear to be
mediated by an acceptance of unethical practices. Thus, no direct effect of X on Y, as reflected in
coefficient c 0 below the diagram in Figure 1, is hypothesized.4 The indirect effect of X on Y
through M, as represented by ab in the model, is the effect of interest. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H1: Psychopathy increases publication success in academic accounting journals, with the
effect being mediated by acceptance of unethical practices.
While the other links in the mediation model in Figure 1 are of interest in a descriptive sense,
they are not necessary to substantiate H1 (Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010, 204; Hayes 2013, 169).
The key purpose of the mediation model is to determine whether individual differences,
psychopathy in particular, influence attitudes toward unethical practices, which, in turn, lead to an
increased, and presumably tainted, publication count. For completeness, however, hypotheses about
the three links in the mediation model are stated as follows:
H2a: Psychopathy increases the acceptance of unethical research practices.
Given the nature of these two constructs, nonsignificance of link a almost certainly would be
the result of mismeasuring one or both constructs.
H2b: Acceptance of unethical research practices increases publication count.
This effect is inferred because such acceptance increases the ability to rationalize unethical
acts, in the presence of both opportunity and incentive.
3
But see below concerning the emerging pronouncements of the Publication Ethics Task Force.
4
Note that c 0 is the effect of X on Y after accounting for the indirect effect, not the total effect of X on Y. For a
discussion of why a direct X-Y correlation is not a necessary condition for an indirect effect, including illustrative
examples, see Hayes (2013, 169).

July 2015
FIGURE 1
Mediation Model from Hayes (2013, 445)
X is the causal variable, M is the mediator, and Y is the outcome.

a, b, and c 0 are the regression coefficients in the estimation models of M and Y; and eM and eY are errors in the
estimates of M and Y, respectively.
The indirect effect of X on Y through M is ab.
The direct effect of X on Y after considering ab is c 0 .
The names of the constructs and variables in the current study are inserted in italics. The figure is modified
from Hayes (2013, 445) by the deletion of subscripts that account for multiple mediators.
H2c: Psychopathy has no direct effect on publication count, independent of the effect
mediated by acceptance of unethical research practices.
As argued above, it is difficult to hypothesize a mechanism by which psychopathy could
increase publication success except through the acceptance of unethical practice.

July 2015
1314 Bailey
III. DESIGN AND EXECUTION OF THE STUDY

The study was conducted online during late September and early October 2012.5 Care was
taken to ensure anonymity and to collect a representative sample of all North American tenure-track
faculty members who have published in the main academic accounting journals during the last two
decades. I conducted the survey, designed to require only about five minutes to complete, on my
website.
Participants and Procedures

I attempted to invite, via personally addressed email, with two reminders spaced about a week
apart, all tenure-track accounting faculty in the U.S. and Canada6 who had published in the ‘‘top
11’’ accounting journals7 (Glover et al. 2012) since 1990, excluding members of my own faculty. I
obtained the list from http://www.byuaccounting.net/rankings/univrank/rankings.php/ by specify-
ing the following custom ranking:
Topic: All.
Method: All.
Publication Years Included: 1990 through 2011.
Publication credit not diluted by number of coauthors.
The listing included 3,831 names, along with their current affiliation. Of these, I identified
1,709 on the accounting faculty of U.S. or Canadian universities and colleges as of September
2012, obtaining their email addresses from university websites or Hasselback’s (2012) Directory.
To categorize respondents according to their publishing success, I grouped them into homogeneous
sets of at least 50 to protect anonymity, and sent each group to a different URL on the website, thus
unobtrusively associating each respondent with their number of publications.8 This procedure was
intended to eliminate the demand placed on participants to report a publication count, ensure
objective data, and avoid hypothesis-guessing by participants.
Independent and Mediating Variables

As discussed above, I chose the LSRP (Levenson et al. 1995) because of its factor specifically
measuring primary psychopathy, and because it is well established and permits benchmarks from
several studies. The last 16 items of the questionnaire comprised the primary psychopathy factor of
the LSRP.
As expressed in H1, the mediating variable is ‘‘acceptance of unethical practices.’’ Such
acceptance is different from judgments of ethicality; as noted above, psychopaths know right from
wrong, and psychopathy does not impair the ability to label practices as ethical or unethical (Tassy et
al. 2013). The problem is that psychopaths do not care, because they do not see ethics as important or
relevant to their identities (Glenn et al. 2010). Accordingly, the scale used by Bailey et al. (2008),
5
The author was completely unaware of any investigations of research misconduct that may have been underway in the
accounting academy at that time.
6
This choice is consistent with Bailey et al. (2001) and Bailey, Hermanson, and Louwers (2008), from whom I draw
questionnaire items.
7
Clearly, any such categorization is subjective, but the list, in alphabetical order, is: Accounting, Organizations and
Society; The Accounting Review; Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory; Behavioral Research in Accounting;
Contemporary Accounting Research; Journal of Accounting and Economics; Journal of Accounting Research;
Journal of Information Systems; Journal of Management Accounting Research; Journal of the American Tax
Association; and Review of Accounting Studies.
8
When individuals with different publication counts were combined to achieve the minimum group size, the group was
assigned the median count.

July 2015
asking how serious an ethical concern certain editorial and review practices pose, seems appropriate;
and since seven of the 11 scale items came from that article, I adopted the same scale.9 The remaining
four items are taken from Bailey et al. (2001), representing serious malpractice that their respondents
were asked to self-report, rather than rate. The same five-point response scale was applied to those
four items, for a total of 11 items (see Appendix A).10 In the raw data, a higher score represents more
severe condemnation of the practices. To facilitate analysis and discussion, the scale is inverted and
renamed ACCEPTABILITY, where 0 is the lowest and 4 is the highest acceptability rating.
Given the sensitivity of the questions asked, anonymity was a concern, but some demographic
data were necessary. Both age and gender were optional responses, to mitigate concerns about self-
identification. Age was not expected to be important beyond the effect of experience and, as noted
below, including it would not affect the results. However, gender is often significant in ethics-
related studies, and Fang, Bennett, and Casadevall (2013) show that, among life science researchers
who commit fraud, males are overrepresented. I also collected years of full-time academic
experience after earning the doctorate, and employment at a doctoral-granting institution, because
of their clear association with number of publications. Finally, other descriptive statistics included
the respondent’s rank and the institution’s accreditation, public/private sponsorship, and number of
students.
IV. RESULTS
The overall response rate was 34 percent, similar to the survey of academic psychologists by
John et al. (2012). Table 1 shows the number of individuals in each of the publication-count groups,
the number of responses, and the response percentages. No anomalies are apparent, with rates
ranging from 46 percent to 27 percent. Of the 588 total responses, seven were eliminated prior to
analysis because of gross response errors and, as explained below, another 26 failed data validation
checks, leaving 555 valid observations.
Response Validation
The study includes two potential threats to response validity, one inherent to the design and the
other identified during execution. First, because both PSYCHOPATHY and attitude toward
unethical behavior (ACCEPTABILITY) were collected via the same instrument, common method
bias (P. Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, and N. Podsakoff 2003) is an internal validity concern, as
correlations between variables may be artificially inflated. However, Harman’s single-factor test
indicates that no such problem exists here; a factor analysis specifying a single factor explains only
21 percent of the variance (versus the 50 percent threshold of danger), and a confirmatory two-
factor solution with varimax rotation clearly aligns with items 1–11 (ACCEPTABILITY) and 12–27
(PSYCHOPATHY). Cronbach’s alphas are 0.85 for ACCEPTABILITY and 0.75 for PSYCHOPA-
THY.
9
I considered asking directly whether the respondent would be willing to commit the act, but this approach seemed too
blunt, and perhaps offensive. At the other extreme, a Likert scale anchored by ‘‘ethical’’ and ‘‘unethical’’ seemed so
standardized as to elicit the kind of practiced, synthetic response typical of psychopaths (Hare 1993, 129).
10
A reviewer suggested that the four acts of a reviewer might not be as relevant as the four acts of a researcher. Note,
however, that one could increase their relative position on the publication count scale in either way—by increasing
their own publication count or decreasing the publication count of others through unfair peer reviewing (and item 1
has both objectives). In fact, the latter strategy makes more economic sense: it requires less effort, is hard to prove,
carries no formal penalties, and seems easy to rationalize as being a ‘‘tough critic.’’ Publishing even fraudulent articles
in a good journal would require hard work, but one could inhibit multiple competing papers, while simultaneously
stealing their ideas, with less effort. Thus, all of the categories of acts—as a researcher, a reviewer, and, potentially, an
editor—are part of a coherent scale, as the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85 reported below indicates.

July 2015
1316 Bailey
TABLE 1
Requests and Responses by Publication Count Group
Total Total Valid
PUBCOUNT Requests Responses Percent Responses
20 60 20 33% 20
13 59 18 31% 18
11 55 15 27% 15
9 56 20 36% 19
8 66 28 42% 27
7 72 33 46% 31
6 76 28 37% 26
5 90 30 33% 26
4 127 58 46% 57
3 184 57 31% 51
2 311 108 35% 99
1 553 173 31% 166
Total 1,709 588 34% 555
For the top three groups, which require aggregation to achieve the minimum of 50 promised for anonymity, PUBCOUNT
represents the median publication count. In the top group, for example, one author has 36, the second has 32, etc. For that
group, a cutoff at the 50th individual would split the authors having 16 publications, so all of those are included, and the
median is 20. Similarly, the second and third groups are aggregates, but all others represent exact counts. The invalid
responses consist of seven eliminated upon receipt because of gross errors and 26 that fail the validity screening
described under Response Validation.
Second, based on questions and comments from some participants, a few respondents believed
the questions referred to prevalence, which is frequency of occurrence, instead of seriousness as an
ethical concern. To identify these invalid responses, as well as response errors such as reversing the
scale anchors, I applied three screening criteria that reflect anomalous relationships between
response variables.11 This resulted in the deletion of 26 observations.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for the variables considered in the model and supplemental
analyses. The average number of publications is 4.39, with SD 4.35 and a range from 1 to 20.12
Fifty-three percent of respondents are from Ph.D.-granting schools, their mean academic experience
11
These are (1) rating fabrication of data as more acceptable than reporting inappropriate statistical tests or concealing
validity problems, or both; (2) rating a reviewer’s rejecting a paper to ‘‘get even’’ as more acceptable than an editor’s
appointing biased reviewers or favoring people from their own institution; and (3) expressing ACCEPTABILITY two
SD above the mean, while scoring average or lower on PSYCHOPATHY. The first two reflect patterns that are
incoherent with normal perceptions based on past surveys (Bailey et al. 2001, 2008), as well as the current data,
indicating that a respondent either was thinking of prevalence of the acts or was reversing the response scale. The
third criterion identifies extreme outliers, because a person low on psychopathy does not normally embrace unethical
practices. I deleted observations violating more than one of the criteria. The screening results closely agree with a
discriminant function developed from data of Bailey et al. (2008), based on respondents’ ratings of both prevalence
and ethical severity. A number of participants clearly were (and sometimes stated that they were) responding about
perceived prevalence instead of ethicality. Because the most serious ethical infractions tend to be perceived as the
least prevalent, these confused responses represent severe outliers that obscure the results, and the tests are not
significant when including them.
12
As explained above, the publication count refers to the median of the cohort group when fewer than the minimum of
50 persons have identical counts.

July 2015
TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics
n Min. Max. Mean SD
PUBCOUNT 555 1 20 4.39 4.351
PSYCHOPATHY 555 16 40 22.52 4.489
ACCEPTABILITY 555 0.000 3.909 0.542 0.559
DOCTORAL 555 0 1 0.53 0.500
EXPERIENCE 555 1 4 3.25 1.024
AGE 496 30 79 51.56 9.429
GENDER 546 0 1 0.67 0.469
Variable Definitions:
PUBCOUNT ¼ number of Publications based on http://www.byuaccounting.net (actual count, or median of group if
ranks are combined; see the discussion under Participants and Procedures, as well as Table 1);
PSYCHOPATHY ¼ score on primary psychopathy factor of Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale;
ACCEPTABILITY ¼ average acceptability rating assigned to 11 questionable research-related acts. Range 0–4 after
reverse-coding from responses about perceived seriousness of the behaviors; see discussion under Independent and
Mediating Variables and Appendix A;
DOCTORAL ¼ 1 if employing institution offers a Ph.D. with a concentration in accounting, and 0 otherwise;
EXPERIENCE ¼ years of full-time academic experience after earning a doctorate, in intervals of five to protect
anonymity (1 is 0–5, 2 is 6–10, 3 is 11–15, 4 is .15);
AGE ¼ stated age in years (optional to protect anonymity); and
GENDER ¼ stated gender: 1 ¼ M, 0 ¼ F (optional to protect anonymity).
since earning the Ph.D. is in the 11–15 year range, their average age is 52 years with a wide range,
and 67 percent are male. Additional, untabulated demographic data indicate that all ranks are well
represented, with 19 percent endowed-chair holders, another 28 percent full professors, and 34
percent associates. Only 22 percent are untenured, and 97 percent are at Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accredited colleges. Seventy-five percent are at public
universities.
From the perspective of the accounting academy, it is encouraging to see in Table 2 that the
mean PSYCHOPATHY score of 22.52 is lower than other published samples I have identified.
Levenson et al. (1995) find a mean of 29.13 in a sample of 487 university students; Glenn et al.
(2010) report a mean of 26.6 for 2,157 adult volunteers at http://www.yourmorals.com; McHoskey,
Worzel, and Szyarto (1998) report 33.9 for 125 university students; Brinkley et al. (2001) report
32.99 for 549 minimum-security state prisoners; and Walters, Brinkley, Magaletta, and Diamond
(2008) report 28.7 for 1,972 federal prison inmates. Bailey (2013) reports a relatively low mean of
28.05 for a sample of 253 U.S. accounting majors.
Table 3 shows the Pearson correlations between the variables. Moderate, but highly significant,
correlations exist between publication count (PUBCOUNT) and academic experience since
receiving the Ph.D. (EXPERIENCE), employment at an institution offering a Ph.D. with a
concentration in accounting (DOCTORAL), and age. As expected, age also is strongly correlated
with EXPERIENCE. GENDER (F ¼ 0, M ¼ 1) shows a small, but significant, correlation with
PUBCOUNT, although the significance will be seen to disappear after accounting for experience
and institutional factors in the main analysis. PSYCHOPATHY is positively correlated with
ACCEPTABILITY, reflecting more relaxed views toward unethical practices by individuals higher
on PSYCHOPATHY. Male GENDER also is positively correlated with PSYCHOPATHY, consistent
with prior studies (Lee and Ashton 2005, 1577). The correlation between GENDER and AGE is
consistent with the influx of female faculty in recent decades.

July 2015
1318 Bailey
TABLE 3
Pearson Correlation Coefficients
PSYCHO- ACCEPT- EXPER-
PUBCOUNT PATHY ABILITY DOCTORAL IENCE AGE
PSYCHOPATHY 0.019
ACCEPTABILITY 0.093** 0.254****
DOCTORAL 0.325**** 0.038 0.025
EXPERIENCE 0.316**** 0.001 0.013 0.056
AGE 0.250**** 0.031 0.049 0.043 0.731****
GENDER 0.142*** 0.128*** 0.071* 0.103** 0.138*** 0.164****
****, ***, **, * Denote significance at the 0.001, 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 levels, respectively, two-tailed. Because of
nonresponse to optional items, n ¼ 546 for GENDER and 496 for AGE. For other variables, n ¼ 555.
For variable definitions, see Table 2.
Statistical Analysis of the Mediation Model

The mediation model in Figure 1 was tested using the methods explained by Zhao et al. (2010)
and the SPSS PROCESS script (Hayes 2013; Preacher and Hayes 2004). Variables in the analysis
include the dependent variable PUBCOUNT, the independent variable PSYCHOPATHY, the mediator
ACCEPTABILITY, and covariates EXPERIENCE, DOCTORAL, and GENDER. Observations
available are 546 (555 9 missing GENDER data). Age is omitted because of its correlation with
experience and the lack of a causal theory for any effect beyond experience. Tenure status and rank
seem to be outcome variables, rather than causal variables, which would create endogeneity concerns,
and public/private sponsorship lacks a theoretical basis for inclusion. Supplemental analyses reported
below show that inclusion of these covariates would not change the results.
Table 4 shows the results of the mediation analysis. The analysis includes two regressions and
a test of the key indirect effect of interest. The first regression, in Panel A, shows that
PSYCHOPATHY is significantly related to the attitudinal mediator, ACCEPTABILITY (p , 0.001),
with none of the covariates significant, and R2 ¼ 0.066. The positive coefficient is consistent with
H2a, which predicts that higher PSYCHOPATHY leads to greater acceptance of questionable
research practices, as shown in link a of the model. The nonsignificance of the covariates is
expected, and gives some assurance that ACCEPTABILITY is driven by PSYCHOPATHY and is not
a function of professional experience.
The second regression, in Panel B of Table 4, shows that PUBCOUNT is a function of
EXPERIENCE and DOCTORAL, and positively related to ACCEPTABILITY (p , 0.05), with R2 ¼
0.223. The estimated coefficient of ACCEPTABILITY is link b of the model, and indicates that
greater acceptance of questionable research practices is associated with having more publications,
consistent with H2b. In this same regression, the estimated coefficient on PSYCHOPATHY provides
a test of H2c, concerning the direct effect of PSYCHOPATHY on publication count independent of
the effect mediated by acceptance of unethical research practices. As hypothesized, this effect,
denoted by c 0 in Figure 1, is not significant (p ¼ 0.61).
Finally, with respect to the key hypothesis, H1, the indirect effect of PSYCHOPATHY on
PUBCOUNT (Table 4, Panel C) is positive and significant (p , 0.02), based on a 98 percent
bootstrapped confidence interval using 10,000 iterations. Thus, H1 is supported. The normal-theory
(Sobel) test is less powerful, because it makes inaccurate assumptions about the probability
distribution of ab, but it also is significant (p , 0.05).

July 2015
TABLE 4
Mediation Analysis Using PROCESS Procedure (Hayes 2013)
Panel A: Regression of ACCEPTABILITY on PSYCHOPATHY and Demographic Covariates

Predicted Coefficient
Variable Sign Estimate t-statistic p-value
Intercept 0.2032 1.4334 0.1523
PSYCHOPATHY þ (path a) 0.0310 0.9191 0.0000
EXPERIENCE 0.0046 0.2014 0.8404
DOCTORAL 0.0176 0.3751 0.7078
GENDER 0.0439 0.8627 0.3887
R2 6.62%
n 546
Panel B: Regression of PUBCOUNT on ACCEPTABILITY and Demographic Covariates

Predicted Coefficient
Variable Sign Estimate t-statistic p-value
Intercept 1.8846 1.8691 0.0621
ACCEPTABILITY þ (path b) 0.6565 2.1507 0.0319
PSYCHOPATHY Null (path c 0 ) 0.0197 0.5136 0.6077
EXPERIENCE þ 1.3690 8.3569 0.0000
DOCTORAL þ 2.8929 8.6663 0.0000
GENDER þ 0.5603 1.5497 0.1218
R2 22.28%
n 546
Panel C: Indirect effect of PSYCHOPATHY on PUBCOUNT

Bootstrapped 98% Confidence
Interval (10,000 iterations)
Indirect effect, a b ¼ 0.0310 0.6565 Boot SE Lower Limit Upper Limit
0.0203 0.0109 0.0006 0.0530
Normal-theory (Sobel) test for indirect effect: SE ¼ 0.0102; Z ¼ 1.996; p ¼ 0.0459.

For a discussion of this method of mediation analysis and the related tests, see Hayes (2013, Chapter 4).
The total effect of PSYCHOPATHY on PUBCOUNT is the sum of the direct and indirect
effects, or c 0 þ ab ¼0.0197 þ 0.0310 0.6565 ¼ 0.0006. The negative direct effect, although not
significant, is consistent with the notion that any effect not mediated by acceptance of unethical
attitudes would tend to decrease publications, for example, through lowered conscientiousness.13
13
Zhao et al. (2010) call this condition, with opposite signs, competitive mediation. Where the signs are consistent,
complementary mediation exists. The fact that other factors may operate to reduce the overall effect on publication
count does not diminish the concern posed by the mediated effect, ab. The concern motivating this study is not
whether psychopaths may publish more articles than their peers, but whether they may contribute fraudulent research
articles because of their attitudes. Zhao et al. (2010, 199) observe that competitive mediations are of no less interest,
and note that ‘‘It is nonsensical that only complementary mediations should be judged to be publishable, yet this is the
consequence of . . . researchers’ reliance on Baron and Kenny’s [1986] X-Y test.’’

July 2015
1320 Bailey
Supplemental Analyses
Because gender frequently is a factor in ethical behavior, it is included in the main analysis, but
it is not significant in either regression. An untabulated analysis excluding GENDER gives almost
identical results. An analysis adding age, tenure status, and institutional sponsorship as covariates
also leaves the significance levels of the hypothesis tests intact. Given the possibility that
PSYCHOPATHY might proxy for phenomena associated with rank, such as increased self-
confidence, I performed an ANOVA on PSYCHOPATHY across ranks. It is not significant (p ¼
0.71), offering assurance against that concern.
Several participants commented that the acts by editors in items 5, 6, and 7 of the instrument
are ethically debatable, an observation supported by the data in this study, as well as in Bailey et al.
(2008). Thus, I recomputed ACCEPTABILITY after omitting items 5, 6, and 7 and reran the
analysis. The results were highly consistent with the main analysis, with the significance levels of
the hypothesis tests intact.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Based on a sample of 546 faculty members who have published in the ‘‘top 11’’ accounting
journals, I find that primary psychopathy acts through its effect on unethical attitudes to increase
an individual’s publication count. This finding implies that some individuals use unethical or
fraudulent means to generate publications, and that the attitudes that allow accounting researchers
to rationalize such conduct are driven partially by psychopathy. The positive effect on the number
of publications through acceptance of unethical practices may be offset by negative effects such
as lower effort and conscientiousness, so that psychopathy may not offer an overall ‘‘competitive
advantage’’ in publication success. Stated simply, psychopaths will tend to produce fraudulent
research, but, on average, reduced effort may also be a mediator decreasing their publication
count. Importantly, the statistical effect is small, and most researchers are presumed to be ethical
and honest. The results do not indicate that researchers with many publications are more likely to
be unethical or harbor psychopathic tendencies, nor that those with few publications are less
likely.
The very limited accounting research on psychopathy may stem from a perception that it is an
extreme or unusual phenomenon, too difficult to capture statistically. Nonetheless, this study
demonstrates that psychopathy, as measured with an established self-report instrument in the
general population, can affect an important outcome, publication count. By extension, it is
reasonable to expect that a motivated individual very high on the scale could cause considerable
damage to the profession, their institution, and coauthors. The theory explains a mechanism by
which psychopathy can affect the body of accounting research. Similar mechanisms exist within
other domains of fraud, such as financial reporting, so research in those areas seems warranted.
This study interprets the results in terms of causality, which cannot be established by
correlation alone. Ruling out plausible additional influences is necessary, and I include the
covariates of experience, doctoral-institution status, and gender to address this concern. Temporal
precedence of the proposed cause is also a necessary condition. Research fraud might actually be
caused by environmental pressures, not by relaxed ethical attitudes. After succumbing to pressure
and acting unethically, individuals could then adjust their attitudes to achieve cognitive consistency
(Tavris and Aronson 2007). While such a phenomenon is plausible, it applies only to the subset
who actually commit the serious misconduct under consideration. If most researchers are
conscientious and honest, resist temptations, and achieve their publications through hard work, then
they will likely grow less tolerant of those who take unethical shortcuts. Shu, Gino, and Bazerman
(2011) observed such a tightening of moral standards by experimental participants who rejected an
opportunity to cheat. Thus, either the causality is in the assumed direction, or the effect in the

July 2015
opposite direction (from PUBCOUNT to ACCEPTABILITY) occurs despite strong forces operating
against it.
Limitations
The publication count in this study is an inherently noisy measure. Researchers publish in other
important journals, both within and outside accounting. While an inflated publication count that is
correlated with lax attitudes toward ethical behavior and indirectly affected by psychopathy is a
concern, it is not proof that any literature is fraudulent. For example, unearned or ‘‘gift’’
coauthorship is unethical, but may not affect the validity of the research. Nonetheless, considering
past accounting research (Bailey et al. 2001; Engle and Smith 1990; Meyer and McMahon 2004)
and the proliferation of fraud in other disciplines, it is reasonable to assume that fraud is partly
responsible.
Another limitation of this study is the difficulty of distinguishing psychopathy from
Machiavellianism by a self-report instrument. Even for trained clinicians, diagnosis is difficult.
But the results of this study would likely have been the same had I chosen to study
Machiavellianism using the Mach-IV instrument, and this limitation would have been the same.14
Likewise, the mediator in this study, the ACCEPTABILITY of questionable practices, is not the
only mindset that could allow rationalization of such practices (Murphy and Dacin 2011). The
omitted variables driving publication count also include many important personal and motivational
factors, such as conscientiousness, need for achievement, desire to contribute to the profession, and
intrinsic enjoyment.
Implications for Further Research

This study may stimulate two incipient strains of research in the accounting and business
literature. First, the topic of research misconduct is of great importance to the accounting
academy. Second, this study foreshadows the explanatory power of nonclinical psychopathy in
fraud research. Attention to the effects of psychopathy on other aspects of fraud has lagged even
its Dark Triad siblings, narcissism and Machiavellianism, and all three are relevant. The reasons
for neglecting psychopathy include its low base rate in contrast to the ‘‘normal’’ personality
factors, the sensationalist connotations, and the similarities to the other dark-side variables, but
research interest clearly is expanding (see Babiak [2007] and numerous other recent articles
cited in this paper). Babiak and others (e.g., Babiak 1996; Babiak and Hare 2006) have
developed case studies of psychopaths in the workplace and documented their strategies and
traits.
Exploring the Nature of Research Fraud

Regarding research fraud, the current study indicates that the body of literature is potentially
distorted because researchers with less ethical attitudes have more publications—and that one
underlying cause is psychopathy. Little else is currently known about the nature and extent of this
problem. The randomized-response technique used by Bailey et al. (2001), with its self-reports,
cannot distinguish whether a few individuals are admitting that most of their work is fraudulent or
whether the cheating is spread generally across the population; nor did the authors ask which of the
unethical practices respondents had committed. That research could be extended, and the
14
Similarly, I believe that the results of Murphy (2012) would have been largely unchanged had she chosen to study
psychopathy instead of Machiavellianism.

July 2015
1322 Bailey
techniques could include additional randomized-response studies, studies using the truth-telling
incentive (John et al. 2012), or direct questions with assured anonymity.
The distribution or concentration of unethical activity is of interest because a major scandal
could have a substantial impact on the academy’s credibility among academic peers and
professional constituencies, and would likely involve numerous coauthors.15 Several reasons exist
to predict the existence of such concentration. In Bailey et al. (2001), the estimated self-reported
cheating by respondents with eight or more publications was 5.08 percent, while for those with five
to seven publications, it was 2.73 percent, a significant difference (p , 0.001).16 A lack of effective
safeguards, combined with substantial rewards for publication, should motivate individuals to
continue their illicit activity. The behavior should accelerate after they have ‘‘gone over to the dark
side,’’ experienced the rewards, and rationalized their action or fully adapted to a self-perception as
a cheater (Bem 1967). Ariely (2012) describes this ‘‘what-the-hell’’ effect in several contexts.
Finally, as noted above, a ‘‘cheater’s high’’ may lead to addiction, contrary to the expected effects of
a guilty conscience (Ruedy et al. 2013)
The Review Process: Effects and Effectiveness

The effects of the review process itself are of interest. The process at accounting journals is
known for lower acceptance rates than some other business fields (Swanson 2004), implying
greater rigor. This bodes well for the quality of screening with respect to the theory, design,
execution, and analysis, which the reviewers traditionally assess, but gives little added assurance for
the detection of fraud. The lower acceptance rate also suggests more intense pressures and
incentives for unethical practices, so that the net effect on quality of publications is unknown.
Perceptions that the journal review process is unfair could facilitate the rationalization of fraud,
under such categories as ‘‘leveling the playing field’’ or ‘‘diffusing responsibility’’ (Murphy and
Dacin 2011, 611).17
Simonsohn (2013) has shown that it is feasible to detect fraudulent research results by
statistical examination of reported means and standard deviations. Just as AAA journals have begun
to screen actively for plagiarism, screening for data anomalies is a possibility. Similarly, auditors
have used Benford’s Law (Nigrini 2012) to identify fabricated financial data. Research on the
viability of methods such as these would be of interest.
Murphy and Dacin’s (2011) ‘‘Psychological Pathways to Fraud’’ Model

The model developed by Murphy and Dacin (2011) offers some insights concerning
rationalization. In the Psychological Pathways to Fraud model (see Murphy and Dacin [2011, 603,
Figure 1] and Figure 2 in this paper), an individual not predisposed to commit fraud18 progresses
through four possible steps or stages to reach an end-state of either not committing fraud, or
committing fraud with various likelihoods of continuing the practice.
In the model’s first stage (Figure 2, Box 1), one must be aware that the behavior is fraud
because, otherwise, he or she will commit the act unhesitatingly and continually. An empirical
question is whether emerging scholars recognize the unethicality of a variety of practices (e.g.,
15
Foo and Tan (2014) examined the work of five selected researchers who had at least 15 fraudulent publications
retracted, and found an average of 6.4 coauthors per publication.
16
Although not reported as significant in the article, based on the means and SD of means for the two groups, t ¼ 10.0.
17
For perceptions of the relative fairness of ‘‘top tier,’’ ‘‘high level,’’ and ‘‘other’’ accounting journals, see Bailey et al.
(2008).
18
The model explicitly excludes psychopaths and others predisposed to fraud. As emphasized above, however, the
participants in the current study represent the general population of researchers, with few, if any, clinical psychopaths,
so their model is relevant to all but extreme cases.

July 2015
FIGURE 2
Murphy and Dacin’s (2011, 603) Psychological Pathways to Fraud
The grayed boxes indicate key decisions or process points. Interventions can be designed to prevent fraud at each of these
points.

July 2015
1324 Bailey
Borkowski and Welsh 1998; Meyer and McMahon 2004). If one does recognize the act as fraud,
then the second stage (Box 2) is to use affect-laden moral intuition.19 This might lead an individual
to anticipate guilt (or not) and decide against (or for) the act. If the choice is unclear, then the third
stage (Box 3) is to undertake a rational cost-benefit analysis and consider ways to rationalize the act
(Box 4) if benefits exceed costs.
The stages in Murphy and Dacin’s (2011) model suggest research questions. At both the first
and second stages, situational/contextual factors are influential. Certain organizational climates can
blind researchers to unethical behaviors at the first stage or lead them to find the behaviors
acceptable at the second stage. Little is known about the specific climates or pressures that
researchers may have experienced from administrators or peers—or how the environment may
differ across institutions, throughout one’s career, by gender, etc. With respect to the third stage,
research questions concern the nature of reasoning used to assess the costs and benefits while
contemplating intentional fraud. These questions could concern the reasoning actually used by
those who have committed (or decided not to commit) fraud, as well as the reasoning that emerging
scholars find acceptable or plausible.
The four end-state categories in Figure 2 raise interesting questions about how existing faculty
are categorized. Paraphrasing the descriptions of end-states, one might never have committed fraud;
have done it, but be unlikely to continue; be likely to continue with some discomfort; or continue
quite comfortably. Murphy and Dacin (2011, 611) conclude that the condition designated as
‘‘END4 is arguably the worst because the individual commits fraud with moral values intact.’’ This
condition occurs when a person either fails to recognize the act as fraud (at the first stage) or
ultimately decides to proceed and rationalize (after the second or third stage). Thus, the individual
would have reached essentially the same position that a psychopath or Machiavellian would
immediately reach, with a similar incentive to continue or accelerate. However, the individual who
had failed to recognize fraud (rather than rationalizing) might be corrected through education.
Policy Considerations
The accounting academy might consider a number of policy questions in light of the limited
state of knowledge about research misconduct. These questions include issues of the scholarly
environment, as well as institutional oversight and verification to ensure credibility of the body of
accounting research. Most of the discussion below applies to all research methodologies, with the
exception that data-related issues do not apply to analytical studies.
The Role of Ethics Research

Research on ethics has not been prominent in accounting academia or in the mainstream
accounting research journals (Bernardi 2004). Bernardi, Bean, and Williams (2005, 169) observed
that ‘‘Given the current emphasis on ethics in the accounting profession, the dearth of ethics
publications by accounting faculty is a concern . . . [O]nly 2.7 percent of accounting faculty declare
ethics as a research interest.’’ Bonner’s (2008) textbook, Judgment and Decision-Making in
Accounting, makes no mention of ethical judgment or decision-making as a research topic, and no
ethics-related terms appear in the index. Bernardi et al. (2005, 188) argue that ‘‘Unlike economics
based research, which is systematically developed and encouraged, ethics scholarship is
idiosyncratic to individual scholars. Thus, there is no collective focus on either the profession’s
ethical problems or any systematic, rationally managed effort to understand them.’’ Williams (1992)
19
In recent years, research on ethical decision-making has examined the intuitive-rational dichotomy. Like most
judgments, ethical judgments may be driven by emotion (affect), rational thought, or a combination of such factors.
For a discussion, see Bucciarelli, Khemlani, and Johnson-Laird (2008).

July 2015
argues that the prominence of classical economics and positive science serves as a barrier to
addressing ethical questions.
Thus, the status of ethics and the place of ethics research in the academy appear to warrant
attention. Loeb (1994b) discusses the goals for teaching ethics in accounting doctoral programs, and
points out some resources. The academy could consider a specific effort to accommodate and
encourage ethics-related research, given that the accounting profession should be particularly
concerned with understanding the ethical judgment processes and behaviors of its members.
Research Code of Ethics

The debate over a code of ethics has a long history among accounting academics (e.g.,
Borkowski and Gaffney 1995; Crain and Carruth 1992; Keys and Hendricks 1984; Loeb 1990,
1994a; Schick, Ponemon, Fettus, and Nagoda 1998; Styles and McKee 2007). The American
Accounting Association’s (AAA) Committee on Academic Independence rejected the establish-
ment of a code in 1981. A lengthy discussion conducted by the Professionalism and Ethics
Committee culminated in 2002 with the acceptance of a ‘‘Statement of Responsibilities’’ (SOR)
(AAA 2002). Although the Preamble says ‘‘This Statement is a living document, and is subject to
critique and revision to assure the shared values of the Association’s members are clearly
expressed’’ (AAA 2002), no changes have since been made,20 and no official discussions
concerning such a code have occurred in the last dozen years. Clearly, strong resistance to a code
existed as of 2002.21
The section of the SOR headed ‘‘Pursuit and Advancement of Knowledge’’ includes
aspirational values of maintaining a research agenda, maintaining and strengthening scholarly
competence, accepting and providing constructive criticism, making results available, and
encouraging a variety of scholarship approaches. Thus, the SOR lacks operational content and,
as stated in the Preamble, is ‘‘not intended to be enforceable’’ (AAA 2002).
Despite resistance to specific, enforceable rules in the SOR, the AAA recently established a
Publication Ethics Task Force (hereafter, PETF) that is formulating specific rules with respect to the
conduct and dissemination of research. Thus far, it has promulgated policies on ‘‘Plagiarism’’ and
‘‘Authorship,’’ which the Board of Directors approved, and drafted a policy on ‘‘Data’’ (see: http://
commons.aaahq.org/groups/2371c0896a/summary). As this effort continues, the SOR could refer to
these policies. While there can be disagreement as to the nature and severity of acts such as self-
plagiarism, there is strong agreement that plagiarism is wrong, and the Plagiarism policy focuses
attention on the issue and facilitates enforcement. Specifically, the AAA journals have begun to
actively screen manuscripts for plagiarism.
The debate over a code of ethics likely will resurface. One implication of the current study is that the
effectiveness of a code will depend upon individual characteristics. For moral individuals not
predisposed to fraud, Murphy and Dacin’s (2011) model applies, and a code would be useful in
reminding them of their existing ethical values. For individuals high on the psychopathy scale, however,
such a code is moot, and other means of prevention and detection of research fraud are necessary.
Replications
Should replications become a normal part of accounting research—and if so, how? Based on
perennial comments at editorial panel discussions, general agreement seems to exist that
20
As of June 2, 2014, the file properties show that it was created on June 15, 2002 and modified September 6, 2002.
21
The author was a member of the Committee at that time, and can provide a long list of comments that the
Professionalism and Ethics Committee received and considered.

July 2015
1326 Bailey
replications should be encouraged and published. Nonetheless, institutional factors, such as a lack
of rewards, appear to militate against replications. In February 2014, however, in the draft of ‘‘AAA
Publications Ethics Policy Part A: Authorship,’’ the PETF included the following in the list of
Cultural Norms: ‘‘We recognize that replicability is critical to scholarship. Accordingly, we will be
transparent about the design, implementation, data analysis, and results of each study’’ (AAA
2014a). Similarly, the ‘‘Data’’ policy draft explicitly recognizes the importance of replicability. The
incoming editor of Behavioral Research in Accounting has invited ‘‘Research Notes,’’ starting with
2016 issues, to publish replications, as well as ‘‘no-result’’ studies meeting rigorous standards (see:
http://aaapubs.org/loi/bria).
Exemplars of replication are appearing in other social science fields. In psychology, a project is
underway to replicate all of the research published in 2008 in three key journals—not just to look
for fraud, but to determine what really is credible among the research that has been recognized.
Called the Reproducibility Project, it is ‘‘part of Open Science Framework, a group interested in
scientific values, and its stated mission is to ‘estimate the reproducibility of a sample of studies from
the scientific literature’’’ (Bartlett 2012). Thus far, ten of 13 effects having been successfully
reproduced (Yong 2013). The objectives of Open Science Framework are to document and archive
studies, share and find materials, detail individual contributions, increase transparency, time-stamp
materials (e.g., certifying what was hypothesized and done in advance of data collection or
analysis), and manage scientific workflow (see: http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/
4znZP/wiki/home).
Dealing with Research Errors and Irregularities

Recognizing that a clear and transparent protocol is needed for addressing questions of errors
or charges of irregularities in AAA journals, the PETF has just released a proposed policy on
‘‘Data’’ (see: http://www.commons.aaahq.org/groups/2371c0896a/summary). The proposed state-
ment covers the responsibilities of coauthors for data integrity (collecting and maintaining data),
along with detailed processes and procedures, should fraud or falsification be suspected at either the
review stage or after publication.
Data Availability and Research Logs

Should the AAA’s data availability policy be revised? The current policy, established in 1989,
simply requires a footnote about data availability, but has been under review by the PETF (see:
http://commons.aaahq.org/groups/2371c0896a/summary). Arguably, data routinely should be
available for audit, but researchers may have concerns about misuse of their data or compromising
their additional work in progress. Conversely, as Choo, Huang, Leung, and Wagner (1993) assume,
refusal to share data may raise questions of legitimacy. Using the data of published studies and
statistical analysis alone to demonstrate anomalies, Uri Simonsohn has prompted retractions of
multiple articles, by two or more psychology researchers (Shea 2012; Simonsohn 2013). The
potential for such secondary analyses in accounting offers both an argument for full data availability
and a reason for researchers to fear attacks on their work. Simonsohn (2013) argues that it is quite
difficult to undetectably fabricate data, and that a standard requirement for posting data (with
reasonable allowances for exceptions) would be a powerful deterrent to fraud.
A recent review of policies of the 50 science journals with the highest impact factor (Alsheikh-
Ali, Qureshi, Al-Mallah, and Ioannidis 2011) reveals a wide variation in policies among journals,
but 44 percent explicitly required that the data and research materials be made available, with
qualifiers such as ‘‘with minimal restrictions.’’ Notably, they found that ‘‘Journals where provision
of materials and protocols was a condition of publication had higher impact factors compared to
journals with non-binding instructions or no instructions at all’’ (Alsheikh-Ali et al. 2011, 2).

July 2015
Compared to this sample of high-impact science journals, the AAA policy is relaxed, and the
recently released ‘‘Data’’ policy draft does not change the policy drafted in 1989.
Regarding research materials, however, the AAA (2014b) ‘‘Data’’ policy draft says, ‘‘We
recognize that developing an audit trail (research log) is necessary to ensure the replicability of
research, and that the log should identify the sources of data, the instrument(s) used to collect data,
and provide a description of decisions made in processing the data.’’ Such a research log would
serve as a reminder of ethical practices for an individual or team concerned with ethical behavior.
Once the hypotheses have been logged, the data-collection procedures have been recorded, the tests
have been run, etc., fundamentally ethical individuals will feel cognitive dissonance or guilt from
misreporting in a research paper. On a related note, the signing of an ethical pledge at the beginning
of the log could be a powerful force in maintaining honesty, based on the norm of promise-keeping
(Shu et al. 2011; Stevens and Thevaranjan 2010).
Concluding Comments
Although this is a study of the general population of accounting researchers, not of clinical
psychopaths, it offers a caveat about the potential threat posed by individuals higher in
psychopathic traits—as well as Machiavellianism or narcissism. While the paper has raised the
specter of major fraud perpetrators, the literature on rationalization clearly indicates that, on a lesser
scale, ordinary people can engage in a wide range of unethical practices. The proliferation of
research misconduct in other disciplines, combined with the infamous financial frauds of recent
decades, serve to heighten our awareness. The current study should contribute to the academy’s
ongoing efforts to discourage fraudulent activity and encourage ethical understanding and conduct.
REFERENCES
Alsheikh-Ali, A. A., W. Qureshi, M. H. Al-Mallah, and J. P. A. Ioannidis. 2011. Public availability of
published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS ONE 6 (9). Available at: http://www.plosone.
org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024357
American Accounting Association (AAA). 2002. Statement of Responsibilities. Available at: http://aaahq.
org/Portals/0/documents/about/SOR.pdf
American Accounting Association (AAA). 2014a. AAA Publications Ethics Policy Part A: Authorship.
Available at: https://www2.aaahq.org/about/manual/current/publications/AAAPublicationsEthicsPolicy-
Authorship.pdf
American Accounting Association (AAA). 2014b. Data. (Policy draft). Available at: http://commons.aaahq.
org/posts/27a0cca01e
Ariely, D. 2012. The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Babiak, P. 1996. Industrial psychopaths: Organizational manipulation and career success. In Shining Light
on the Dark Side: Psychopaths in Organizations. Symposium conducted at the 11th Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA, P. Babiak
(Chair).
Babiak, P., and R. D. Hare. 2006. Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. New York, NY: Collins
Business.
Babiak, P. 2007. From darkness into the light: Psychopathy in industrial and organizational psychology. In
The Psychopath: Theory, Research, and Practice, edited by Hervé, H., and J. C. Yuille, 411–428.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Babiak, P., C. S. Neumann, and R. D. Hare. 2010. Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law 28: 174–193.
Bailey, C. D., J. R. Hasselback, and J. Karcher. 2001. Research misconduct in accounting literature: A
survey of the most prolific researchers’ actions and beliefs. Abacus 37 (1): 26–54.

July 2015
1328 Bailey
Bailey, C. D., D. Hermanson, and T. Louwers. 2008. An examination of the peer review process in
accounting journals. Journal of Accounting Education 26: 55–72.
Bailey, C. D. 2013. Psychopathy and accounting students’ attitudes towards unethical behaviors. Available
at: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract¼2279976
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. Moderator-mediator variables distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 51 (6): 1173–1182.
Bartlett, T. 2012. Is psychology about to come undone? Chronicle of Higher Education (April 17).
Available at: http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/is-psychology-about-to-come-undone/
29045
Bem, D. J. 1967. Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena.
Psychological Review 74: 183–200.
Bernardi, R. A. 2004. Suggestions for providing legitimacy to ethics research in accounting education.
Issues in Accounting Education 19 (1): 145–146.
Bernardi, R. A., D. F. Bean, and P. F. Williams. 2005. The place of ethics scholarship in the U.S.
accounting academy: Accounting doctorates’ research productivity in ethics journals. Research on
Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting 10: 167–194.
Bonner, S. E. 2008. Judgment and Decision Making in Accounting. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Borkowski, S. C., and M. A. Gaffney. 1995. A code of ethics for accounting faculty: Some empirical
evidence. Accounting Educators’ Journal 7 (2): 1–15.
Borkowski, S. C., and M. J. Welsh. 1998. Ethics and the accounting publishing process: Author, reviewer,
and editor issues. Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1785–1803.
Borkowski, S. C., and M. J. Welsh. 2000. Ethical practice in the accounting publishing process: Contrasting
opinions of authors and editors. Journal of Business Ethics 25 (1): 15–31.
Brinkley, C. A., W. A. Schmitt, S. S. Smith, and J. P. Newman. 2001. Construct validation of a self-report
psychopathy scale: Does Levenson’s self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as
Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised? Personality and Individual Differences 31 (7): 1021–1038.
Brooks, M. 2012. A year of anarchy in science. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
science/blog/2012/jul/24/year-anarchy-science?newsfeed¼true
Bucciarelli, M., S. Khemlani, and P. N. Johnson-Laird. 2008. The psychology of moral reasoning.
Judgment and Decision Making 3 (2): 121–139.
Chiaburu, D. S., G. J. Muñoz, and R. G. Gardner. 2013. How to spot a careerist early on: Psychopathy and
exchange ideology as predictors of careerism. Journal of Business Ethics 118 (3): 473–486.
Choo, F., J. Huang, K. Leung, and R. Wagner. 1993. Data availability in accounting research: Some
evidence. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 2: 287–295.
Chubin, D. E. 1985. Misconduct in research: An issue of science policy and practice. Minerva 23: 175–202.
Cleckley, H. 1976. The Mask of Sanity. Fifth edition. (Originally published in 1941). St. Louis, MO:
Mosby.
Cook, L. G., D. Bay, B. Visser, J. E. Myburgh, and J. Njoroge. 2011. Emotional intelligence: The role of
accounting education and work experience. Issues in Accounting Education 26 (2): 267–286.
Crain, J. L., and P. J. Carruth. 1992. Academic accounting research: Opinions of academicians on
recommendations for improving ethical behavior. The Accounting Educators’ Journal 4 (Fall): 27–
46.
Cressey, D. R. 1973. Other People’s Money. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.
Davis, S. W., and J. E. Ketz. 1995. An examination of the possible occurrence of fraud in accounting
research. Advances in Public Interest Accounting 6: 317–328.
Decety, J., C. Chen, C. Harenski, and K. A. Kiehl. 2013. An fMRI study of affective perspective taking in
individuals with psychopathy: Imagining another in pain does not evoke empathy. Frontiers of
Human Neuroscience. Article 489. Available at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.
2013.00489/abstract
Department of Health and Human Services. 2005. Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct.
42 CFR 93. Available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf

July 2015
Engle, T. J., and J. L. Smith. 1990. The ethical standards of accounting academics. Issues in Accounting
Education 5 (1): 7–29.
Fanelli, D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis
of survey data. PLoS ONE 4 (5). Available at: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.
1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738
Fang, F. C., R. G. Steen, and A. Casadevall. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted
scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Available at: http://
www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109.abstract?sid¼d8f0578f-2b59-480c-9f4d-
2736c640c2b5
Fang, F. C., J. W. Bennett, and A. Casadevall. 2013. Males are overrepresented among life science
researchers committing scientific misconduct. Mbio 4 (1). Available at: http://mbio.asm.org/content/
4/1/e00640-12.full
Foo, J. Y. A., and X. J. A. Tan. 2014. Analysis and implications of retraction period and coauthorship of
fraudulent publications. Accountability in Research 21: 198–210.
Fowler, K. A., and S. O. Lilienfeld. 2013. Alternatives to the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. In Handbook
on Psychopathy and Law, edited by Kiehl, K. A., and W. P. Sinnott-Armstrong. Oxford, U.K.:
Oxford University Press.
Glenn, A. L., S. Koleva, R. Iyer, J. Graham, and P. H. Ditto. 2010. Moral identity in psychopathy. Judgment
and Decision Making 5 (7): 497–505.
Glover, S. M., D. F. Prawitt, S. L. Summers, and D. A. Wood. 2012. Publication benchmarking data based
on faculty promoted at the top 75 U.S. accounting research institutions. Issues in Accounting
Education 27 (3): 647–670.
Hare, R. D. 1993. Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Harpur, T. J., and R. D. Hare. 1994. Assessment of psychopathy as a function of age. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 103 (4): 604–609.
Hasselback, J. R. 2012. Hasselback Directory of Accounting Faculty. Available at: http://www.hasselback.
org/
Hayes, A. F. 2013. Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based
Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
John, L. K., G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec. 2012. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research
practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science 23 (5): 524–532.
John, O. P., and S. Srivastava. 1999. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical
perspectives. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Second edition, edited by Pervin, L.
A., and O. P. John, 102–138. New York, NY: Guilford.
Jones, D. N. 2014. Risk in the face of retribution: Psychopathic individuals persist in financial misbehavior
among the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences 67 (September): 109–113.
Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model.
Academy of Management Review 16 (2): 231–248.
Keys, D. E., and J. A. Hendricks. 1984. The ethics of accounting research. Journal of Accounting Education
2 (2): 77–88.
Lee, K., and M. C. Ashton. 2005. Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the five-factor model
and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences 38: 1571–
1582.
Levenson, M. R., K. A. Kiehl, and C. M. Fitzpatrick. 1995. Assessing psychopathic attributes in a
noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (1): 151–158.
Lilienfeld, S. O., and B. P. Andrews. 1996. Development and preliminary validation of a self-report
measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal population. Journal of Personality
Assessment 66 (3): 488–524.
List, J. L., C. D. Bailey, P. Euzent, and T. Martin. 2001. Academic economists behaving badly? A survey
on three areas of ethical behavior. Economic Inquiry 39 (1): 162–170.

July 2015
1330 Bailey
Loeb, S. E. 1990. A code of ethics for academic accountants? Issues in Accounting Education 5 (1): 123–
128.
Loeb, S. E. 1994a. Accounting academic ethics: A code is needed. Issues in Accounting Education 9 (1):
191–200.
Loeb, S. E. 1994b. Ethics and accounting doctoral education. Journal of Business Ethics 13 (October): 817–
828.
Lykken, D. T. 1995. The Antisocial Personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lynam, D. R., S. Whiteside, and S. Jones. 1999. Self-report psychopathy: A validation study. Journal of
Personality Assessment 73 (1): 110–132.
McHoskey, J. W., W. Worzel, and C. Szyarto. 1998. Machiavellianism and psychopathology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 74: 192–210.
Meyer, M. J., and D. McMahon. 2004. An examination of ethical research conduct by experienced and
novice accounting academics. Issues in Accounting Education 19 (4): 413–442.
Murphy, P. R., and M. T. Dacin. 2011. Psychological pathways to fraud: Understanding and preventing
fraud in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 101 (4): 601–618.
Murphy, P. R. 2012. Attitude, Machiavellianism and the rationalization of misreporting. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 37 (4): 242–259.
Nathanson, C., D. L. Paulhus, and K. M. Williams. 2006. Predictors of a behavioral measure of scholastic
cheating: Personality and competence but not demographics. Contemporary Educational Psychology
31: 97–122.
Neal, M. S., and M. Sellbom. 2012. Examining the factor structure of the Hare self-report psychopathy
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 94 (3): 244–253.
Nigrini, M. J. 2012. Benford’s Law: Applications for Forensic Accounting, Auditing, and Fraud Detection.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Paulhus, D. L., and K. M. Williams. 2002. The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and
psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality 36: 556–563.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology 88: 879–903.
Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 36: 717–731.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2005. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial
Statement Audit. AU Section 316. Available at: http://pcaobus.org/Standards/Auditing/pages/au316.
aspx
Rauthmann, J. F., and G. P. Kolar. 2012. How ‘‘dark’’ are the Dark Triad traits? Examining the perceived
darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences
53 (7): 884–889.
Ray, J. V., J. Hall, N. Rivera-Hudson, N. G. Poythress, S. O. Lilienfeld, and M. Morano. 2013. The relation
between self-reported psychopathic traits and distorted response styles: A meta-analytic review.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 4 (1): 1–14.
Ruedy, N. E., C. Moore, F. Gino, and M. E. Schweitzer. 2013. The cheater’s high: The unexpected affective
benefits of unethical behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105 (4): 531–548.
Schick, A. G., L. A. Ponemon, S. H. Fettus, and R. J. Nagoda. 1998. Academic accounting ethics: A code is
not needed. Research on Accounting Ethics 4: 275–290.
Shea, C. 2012. The data vigilante. The Atlantic (December). Available at http://www.theatlantic.com/
magazine/archive/2012/12/the-data-vigilante/309172/
Shu, L. L., F. Gino, and M. H. Bazerman. 2011. Dishonest deed, clear conscience: When cheating leads to
moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37 (3):
330–349.
Simmons, J. P., L. D. Nelson, and U. Simonsohn. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility
in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22
(11): 1359–1366.

July 2015
Simonsohn, U. 2013. Just post it: The lesson from two cases of fabricated data detected by statistics alone.
Psychological Science 24 (10): 1875–1888.
Stevens, D., and A. Thevaranjan. 2010. A moral solution to the moral hazard problem. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 35 (1): 125–139.
Stevens, G. W., J. K. Deuling, and A. A. Armenakis. 2012. Successful psychopaths: Are they unethical
decision-makers and why? Journal of Business Ethics 105 (2): 139–149.
Styles, A. K., and T. E. McKee. 2007. Faculty ethics code expectations: An empirical survey of U.S.
accounting doctoral programs. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting 11:
101–126.
Swanson, E. P. 2004. Publishing in the majors: A comparison of accounting, finance, management, and
marketing. Contemporary Accounting Research 21 (1): 223–255.
Tassy, S., C. Deruelle, J. Mancini, S. Leistedt, and B. Wicker. 2013. High levels of psychopathic traits alters
moral choice but not moral judgment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7 (June 4). Article 229.
Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23761743
Tavris, C., and E. Aronson. 2007. Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs,
Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. New York, NY: Harcourt, Inc.
Walters, G. D., C. A. Brinkley, P. R. Magaletta, and P. M. Diamond. 2008. Taxometric analysis of the
Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 90 (5): 491–498.
Williams, K. M., C. Nathanson, and D. L. Paulhus. 2010. Identifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: Their
personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 16: 293–
307.
Williams, P. F. 1992. Prediction and control in accounting ‘‘science.’’ Critical Perspectives on Accounting
3: 99–107.
Yong, E. 2013. Psychologists strike a blow for reproducibility: Thirty-six labs collaborate to check 13
earlier findings. Nature (November 26). Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/psychologists-
strike-a-blow-for-reproducibility-1.14232
Zhao, X., J. G. Lynch, Jr., and O. Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37 (August): 197–206.
APPENDIX A
Questionnaire Items Concerning Unethical or Dubious Acts
Participants evaluated 11 acts, with the following instructions: ‘‘How serious an ethical concern
(how wrong, not how prevalent) do you consider the behavior to be?’’ The five-point Likert scale
was Trivial, Little, Moderate, Much, Severe.
Acts by a Journal Reviewer (from Bailey et al. 2008)
1. Intentionally dragging out the review process so as to allow his or her own paper on the
same topic a better chance of acceptance.
2. Reviewing a manuscript when there is a vested interest in the paper getting rejected (e.g.,
the paper contradicts the reviewer’s earlier published findings).
3. Negatively reviewing a manuscript to discourage research in the reviewer’s area.
4. Rejecting a paper to ‘‘get even’’ with an apparent author who is believed to have previously
caused one of the reviewer’s papers to be rejected.
Acts by a Journal Editor (from Bailey et al. 2008)
5. Sending a paper to ‘‘friendly’’ or ‘‘unfriendly’’ reviewers to influence the outcome of the
review process.
6. Succumbing to pressure from a prominent author to accept a paper despite unfavorable
reviews.

July 2015
1332 Bailey
7. Favoring people from his or her own institution (current faculty or graduates) in making
acceptance decisions.
Acts by a Researcher (from Bailey et al. 2001)
8. Manipulation of data by fabricating it or inappropriately deleting/modifying observations.
9. Purposely reporting the results of an inappropriate statistical test because it gave the
desired result, while ignoring the results of an appropriate test that gave different results.
10. Concealing an important validity problem (for example, an extraneous variable that you
really believe drove your results).
11. Reporting that key procedures, such as randomization, were performed when they were
not.
Items 1 through 11 comprise the ACCEPTABILITY scale, after inverting the original scores so
that 0 is the lowest and 4 is the highest rating (see the discussion above under Independent and
Mediating Variables). Items 12 through 27 comprise the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale
(Levenson et al. 1995).

July 2015
Copyright of Accounting Review is the property of American Accounting Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Bailey (2015) - Psychopathy, Academic Accountants' Attitudes Toward Unethical Research Practices, and Publication Success

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bailey (2015) - Psychopathy, Academic Accountants' Attitudes Toward Unethical Research Practices, and Publication Success

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW American Accounting Association

Vol. 90, No. 4 DOI: 10.2308/accr-50970

Psychopathy, Academic Accountants’

ABSTRACT: Psychopathy is characterized by deficits of conscience and empathy, and

Keywords: research misconduct; fraud; psychopathy; dark triad; accounting; research

To my knowledge, the effects of psychopathy in a professional population have not been

The Accounting Review

II. BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

The Accounting Review

The Accounting Review

Relationships to Other Personality Variables

The Accounting Review

The Accounting Review

X is the causal variable, M is the mediator, and Y is the outcome.

The Accounting Review

III. DESIGN AND EXECUTION OF THE STUDY

Participants and Procedures

Independent and Mediating Variables

The Accounting Review

The Accounting Review

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix

The Accounting Review

The Accounting Review

Statistical Analysis of the Mediation Model

The Accounting Review

Panel A: Regression of ACCEPTABILITY on PSYCHOPATHY and Demographic Covariates

Panel B: Regression of PUBCOUNT on ACCEPTABILITY and Demographic Covariates

Panel C: Indirect effect of PSYCHOPATHY on PUBCOUNT

Normal-theory (Sobel) test for indirect effect: SE ¼ 0.0102; Z ¼ 1.996; p ¼ 0.0459.

The Accounting Review

V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The Accounting Review

Implications for Further Research

Exploring the Nature of Research Fraud

The Accounting Review

The Review Process: Effects and Effectiveness

Murphy and Dacin’s (2011) ‘‘Psychological Pathways to Fraud’’ Model

The Accounting Review

The Accounting Review

The Role of Ethics Research

The Accounting Review

Research Code of Ethics

The Accounting Review

Dealing with Research Errors and Irregularities

Data Availability and Research Logs

The Accounting Review

The Accounting Review

The Accounting Review

The Accounting Review

The Accounting Review

The Accounting Review

The Accounting Review

You might also like