Forsyth (1980) 提出理想主義 (idealism) 與相對主義 (relativism) 用以解釋個人之道德判斷，而架構效應 (framing effect) 與順序效應 order effect) 係心理學家提出個人處理資訊之兩個重要認知特性。本研究由兩實驗組成，分別以學生考試作弊與企業盈餘管理為道德判斷之實驗情境，實驗一與實驗二分別以119位、142位學生為受試者，探討個人道德意識與認知特性對道德判斷之影響。
本研究以問卷調查方式進行，各實驗之研究結果如下：
一、實驗一之研究結果發現，在不同道德判斷情境下，均證實道德意識對道德判斷具有顯著之影響，且高理想主義者（低相對主義者）對道德議題之判斷較低理想主義者（高相對主義者）為嚴格。對於相同經濟意義之資訊，以不同之陳述方式對道德判斷呈現顯著之影響，而在不同資訊陳述順序方面，受試者對舉發作弊意願（贊同盈餘管理程度）呈現顯著之時近效應，即採先有利後不利之陳述順序者，其舉發作弊意願（贊同盈餘管理程度）會顯著高（低）於採先不利後有利之陳述順序者。架構效應與順序效應在實驗一獲得證實，本實驗結果發現個人進行道德判斷時，確實會受到個人道德意識、資訊陳述方式與陳述順序不同所影響。
二、實驗二之研究結果發現，高理想主義者（低相對主義者）對道德議題之判斷較低理想主義者（高相對主義者）為嚴格。對於相同經濟意義之資訊，以不同之資訊陳述方式雖未對道德判斷呈現顯著之影響，但受試者在不同資訊陳述方式下，其信念調整之方向與幅度，均符合本研究預期，而不同之資訊陳述順序亦對道德判斷呈現顯著之影響。
本研究以道德意識出發，並結合心理學家提出人類處理資訊之兩個重要認知特性，提出更接近真實世界情境之研究貢獻。

Recent research has supported Forsyth’s study conclusions about the taxonomy of ethical ideology: (a) Relativism, (b) Idealism in 1980. The typology of ethical ideologies explains this variation by suggesting that in general people take particular stances regarding ethics and that the position taken will influence the judgment reached. Psychologist suggested that framing effect and order effect can explain the cognitive bias on decisions. Experiment one and two respectively have 119 and 142 students as experimenters, which discuss the influence of ethical ideology and cognitive bias on moral judgment. Results indicate that:
1. Experiment one finds that ethical ideology have significantly different from moral judgments. Idealist (non-relativist) exhibits higher ethical standards for moral judgments than non-idealist (relativist). It also demonstrated that the moral judgments were influenced by framing effect and order effect.
2. Experiment two finds that idealist, non-idealist, relativist and non-relativist have different moral judgments. The order in which information is received that it is a recency effect occurs. Although these observation do not imply that the moral judgments were influenced by framing effect, but the belief-adjustments of experimenters were consistent with our anticipation.
The study outlines the possible explanations for the moral judgments that influenced by cognitive bias and contribute to the empirical evidences were more complied with reality.

目錄
第壹章	緒論	1
第一節	研究動機	1
第二節	研究目的	4
第三節	研究流程	5
第貳章	文獻回顧與研究假說	7
第一節	道德哲理與道德意識	7
第二節	架構效應	13
第三節	順序效應	19
第參章	研究方法	26
第一節	研究設計	26
第二節	研究對象及施測程序	33
第三節	統計分析方法	36
第肆章	實證結果與討論	37
第一節	實驗一	37
第二節	實驗二	57
第三節	研究假說之驗證結果與討論	70
第伍章	結論、研究限制與建議	74
第一節	結論	74
第二節	管理意涵之建議	75
第三節	未來研究之建議與研究限制	77
參考文獻	78
附錄A-1	85
附錄A-2	94
附錄B-1	103
附錄B-2	111

表目錄
表2-1	Forsyth個人道德哲學觀分類	10
表2-2	逐步反應與最終反應之程序與反應模式	21
表3-1	實驗一資訊陳述方法之操弄	31
表3-2	實驗二資訊陳述方法之操弄	32
表3-3	本研究之問卷回收情形	33
表3-4	本研究問卷之清晰度、困難度與真實性之平均值	34
表3-5	實驗一之有效樣本基本資料（N=119）	35
表3-6	實驗二之有效樣本基本資料（N=142）	35
表4-1	道德哲理相關文獻之問卷信度比較表	37
表4-2	道德哲理之主成分因素分析（實驗一）	38
表4-3	道德哲理構面之敘述性統計分析表（實驗一）	38
表4-4	道德哲理相關文獻之各構面平均數比較表	39
表4-5	道德哲理對道德判斷之t檢定分析表（實驗一）	41
表4-6	實驗一架構效應與順序效應交互作用敘述性統計表－平均數（標準差）	42
表4-7	架構效應與順序效應對道德判斷之二因子變異數分析表（實驗一）	42
表4-8	架構效應對道德判斷之t檢定分析表（實驗一）	44
表4-9	架構效應與相對主義高低對道德判斷之敘述性統計表（實驗一）	45
表4-10	架構效應與相對主義高低對道德判斷之二因子變異數分析表（實驗一）	46
表4-11	架構效應與理想主義高低對道德判斷之敘述性統計表（實驗一）	47
表4-12	架構效應與理想主義高低對道德判斷之二因子變異數分析表（實驗一）	48
表4-13	順序效應之敘述性統計分析表（實驗一）	49
表4-14	陳述順序對道德判斷之t檢定分析表（實驗一）	50
表4-15	順序效應與相對主義高低對道德判斷之敘述性統計表（實驗一）	52
表4-16	順序效應與相對主義高低對道德判斷之二因子變異數分析表（實驗一）	53
表4-17	順序效應與理想主義高低對道德判斷之敘述性統計表（實驗一）	54
表4-18	順序效應與理想主義高低對道德判斷之二因子變異數分析表（實驗一）	55
表4-19	實驗一中兩個案之相關分析	56
表4-20	道德哲理之主成分因素分析（實驗二）	57
表4-21	道德哲理構面之敘述性統計分析表（實驗二）	58
表4-22	道德哲理對道德判斷之t檢定分析表（實驗二）	60
表4-23	實驗二架構效應與順序效應交互作用敘述性統計表－平均數（標準差）	60
表4-24	架構效應與順序效應對道德判斷之二因子變異數分析表（實驗二）	61
表4-25	架構效應對道德判斷之t檢定分析表（實驗二）	62
表4-26	架構效應與相對主義高低對道德判斷之敘述性統計表（實驗二）	63
表4-27	架構效應與相對主義高低對道德判斷之二因子變異數分析表（實驗二）	63
表4-28	架構效應與理想主義高低對道德判斷之敘述性統計表（實驗二）	64
表4-29	架構效應與理想主義高低對道德判斷之二因子變異數分析表（實驗二）	64
表4-30	順序效應之敘述性統計分析表（實驗二）	65
表4-31	陳述順序對道德判斷之t檢定分析表（實驗二）	65
表4-32	順序效應與相對主義高低對道德判斷之敘述性統計表（實驗二）	67
表4-33	順序效應與相對主義高低對道德判斷之二因子變異數分析表（實驗二）	67
表4-34	順序效應與理想主義高低對道德判斷之敘述性統計表（實驗二）	68
表4-35	順序效應與理想主義高低對道德判斷之二因子變異數分析表（實驗二）	68
表4-36	研究假說檢定結果彙總表	73

圖目錄
圖1-1	研究流程圖	5
圖2-1	展望理論以編輯程序解釋產生架構效應之心理歷程	15
圖2-2	價值函數曲線	15
圖2-3	信念修正過程	20
圖2-4	不一致資訊下時近效應之信念修正過程	22
圖4-1	架構效應與順序效應交互作用圖（實驗一之個案一）	43
圖4-2	架構效應與順序效應交互作用圖（實驗一之個案二）	43
圖4-3	架構效應與相對主義交互作用圖（實驗一之個案一）	46
圖4-4	架構效應與相對主義交互作用圖（實驗一之個案二）	46
圖4-5	架構效應與理想主義交互作用圖（實驗一之個案一）	48
圖4-6	架構效應與理想主義交互作用圖（實驗一之個案二）	49
圖4-7	混合資訊之信念調整（實驗一之個案一）	51
圖4-8	混合資訊之信念調整（實驗一之個案二）	51
圖4-9	順序效應與相對主義交互作用圖（實驗一之個案一）	53
圖4-10	順序效應與相對主義交互作用圖（實驗一之個案二）	53
圖4-11	順序效應與理想主義交互作用圖（實驗一之個案一）	55
圖4-12	順序效應與理想主義交互作用圖（實驗一之個案二）	56
圖4-13	架構效應與順序效應交互作用圖（實驗二）	61
圖4-14	架構效應與相對主義交互作用圖（實驗二）	63
圖4-15	架構效應與理想主義交互作用圖（實驗二）	64
圖4-16	混合資訊之信念調整（實驗二）	66
圖4-17	順序效應與相對主義交互作用圖（實驗二）	67
圖4-18	順序效應與理想主義交互作用圖（實驗二）	69

一、中文部分
吳鈴甄 (2004)，盈餘管理道德判斷心理因素之研究，淡江大學會計學系碩士未出版碩士論文。
林憲宏 (2000)，多重錨點的呈現順序對定錨效果的影響，國立中正大學心理研究所未出版碩士論文。
林尚賢 (2001)，顧客特性與銷售人員道德哲學觀對銷售人員道德判斷之影響：以台灣地區壽險業為例，國立中正大學企業管理碩士未出版碩士論文。
袁世樽 (1997)，行銷人員行銷道德決策過程之研究，國立中山大學企業管理學系研究所未出版碩士論文。
張寶光、黃振豊 (2006)，代理問題下經理人個人道德哲理對專案評估決策之影響，2006年會計理論與實務研討會。
彭炎祺 (2005)，「心智組態」與「框架效應」對衝突協商之影響－實驗設計取向，國立東華大學企業管理學系碩士在職專班未出版碩士論文。
楊惠敏 (2004)，影響內線交易道德判斷心理因素之研究，淡江大學會計學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
顏信輝 (1999)，會計資訊之架構效應－決策類型、心理機制與除誤方法，國立臺灣大學會計學研究所未出版博士論文。
顏信輝、丁緯 (2005)，架構效應與順序效應對股票投資判斷之影響，證券市場發展季刊第十七卷第一期：41-77。
 
二、英文部分
Ahlering, R. F. and Parker, L. D. (1989). Need for cognition as a moderator of the primacy effect. Journal of Research in Personality 23: 313-317.
Andres, G, and Francisco, E. (2006). Are spanish auditors skeptical in going concern evaluations. Managerial Auditing Journal. 21(6): 598-620.
Asare, S. K. (1992). The auditor’s going-concern opinion decision: Interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence. The Accounting Review 67: 379-393.
Ashton, A., and R. Ashton. (1988). Sequential belief revision in auditing. The Accounting Review 63: 623-641.
Barnett, T., K. Bass and G. Brown. (1994). Ethical ideology and ethical judgment regarding ethical issues in business. Journal of Business Ethics 13: 469-480.
Boyle, B. A. (2000). The impact of customer characteristics and moral philosophies on ethical judgments of salespeople. Journal of Business Ethics 23 (Aug): 249-267.
Chang, C. J., S. H. Yen and R. R. Duh. (2002). An empirical examination of competing theories to explain the framing effect in accounting-related decision. Behavioral Research In Accounting 14: 35-64.
Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., and Sharp, D. J. (1996). Measuring the ethical awareness and ethical orientation of Canadian auditors. Behavioral Research in Accounting 15 (Supp. 8): 98-119.
Davis, J. (1984). Order in the courtroom. Perspectives in Psychology and Law, Wiley：New York.
Dillard, J., N. Kauffman., and E. Spires. (1991). Evidence order and belief revision in management accounting decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 16: 619-633.
Duchon, D., K. J. Dunegan and S. L. Barton. (1989). Framing the problem and making decisions: The facts are not enough. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 36: 25-27.
Elias, R. Z. (2002). Determinants of earnings management ethics among accountants. Journal of Business Ethics 40(1):33-45.
Fagley, N. S., and Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 71: 355-373.
Fischer, M., and K. Rosenzweig. (1995). Attitudes of students and accounting practitioners concerning the ethical acceptability of earnings management. Journal of Business Ethics 14(6): 433-444.
Fishara, F., Habib, A., and Simyar, F. (1993). Framing effects and confidence in judgment. Managerial Finance 19: 55-59.
Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 175-184.
Forsyth, D. R. (1981). Moral judgment: The influence of ethical ideology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 7: 218-223.
Forsyth, D. R. (1985). Individual differences in information processing during moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49: 264-272.
Forsyth, D. R. and R. E. Berger. (1982). The effects of ethical ideology on moral behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology 117:53-56.
Forsyth, D. R. and W. R. Pope. (1984). Ethical ideology and judgments of social psychology research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 1364-1375.
Forsyth, D. R., J. L. Nye. (1990). Personal moral philosophies and moral choice. Journal of Research in Personality 24: 398-414.
Forsyth, D. R., J. L. Nye, and K. Kelley. (1988). Idealism, relativism, and the ethic of caring. The Journal of Psychology 122(3): 243-248.
Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54: 399-429
Gamson, W. A., and Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A construction approach. American Journal of Sociology 95: 1-37.
Guyatt, G. H., D. J. Cook, D. King, G. R. Norman, S. C. Kane and C. Van Ineveld. (1999). Effect of framing of questionnaire items regarding satisfaction with trading on residents. Academic Medicine 74: 192-194.
Hogarth, R. M. and H. J. Einhorn. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: the belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology 24: 1-55
Huang, I. N., J. Tomasini, and L. Nikl. (1977). The primacy and recency effects in successive single-trial immediate free recall. Journal of General Psychology 97: 157-165.
Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing 6 (Spring): 5-16. 
Johnson, E. N. (1995). Effects of information order, group assistance, and experience on auditor’s sequential belief revision. Journal of Economic Psychology 16: 137-160.
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47: 263-291.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39(1):31-36.
Kerstholt, J. H., and J. L. Jackson. (1998). Judicial decision making: Order of evidence presentation and availability of background information. Applied Cognitive Psychology 12: 445-454.
Kohlberg, L. (1967). Moral and religious education in the public schools: A developmental view. Religion and Public Education, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
LaSalle, R. E. (1997). Presentation order effects on accounting students’ ethical judgments. Journal of Accounting Education 15: 19-38.
Levin, I. P., R. D. Johnson, P. J. Deldin, L. M. Carstens, L. J. Cressey and C. R. Davis. (1986). Framing effect in decisions with completely and incompletely described alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 38: 48-64.
Levin, I. P., S. K. Schnittjer and S. L. Thee. (1988). Information framing effects in social and personal decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 24 520-529. 
Lord, A. T., and F. T. DeZoort. (2001). The impact of commitment and moral reasoning on auditors’ responses to social influence pressure. Accounting, Organizations and Society 26(3): 215-235.
Marteau, T.M. (1989). Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. British Journal of Social Psychology 28: 89-94.
Merchant, K. A. and J. Rockness. (1994). The ethics of managing earnings: An empirical investigation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 13: 79-95.
Meyerowitz, B. E., and Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 500-510.
Michael, F.M. (2006). “Order effects” revisited: The importance of chronology. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 25(1): 69-83.
Monroe, G. S., and J. Ng. (2000). An examination of order effects in auditors’ inherent risk assessments.  Accounting and Finance 40: 151-166.
Moser, D. V. (1989). The effects of output inference, availability, and accounting information on investors’ predictive judgments. The Accounting Review 64: 433-448.
Mowen, M. M., and Mowen, J. C. (1986). An empirical examination of the biasing effects of framing on business decisions. Decision Sciences 7: 596-602.
Neale, M.A., and Bazerman, M.H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 28 (1): 34-49.
Nisbett, R., and L. Ross. (1980). Human inference: strategies and shortcomings of human judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ：Prentice-Hall.
O’Clock, P. and K. Devine. (1995). An investigation of framing and firm size on the auditor’s going concern decision. Accounting and Business Research 25: 197-207.
Pei, B. K. W., P. M. J. Reckers and R. W. Wyndelts. (1990). The influence of information presentation order on professional tax judgment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11: 119-146.
Pei, B. K. W., P. M. J. Reckers and R. W. Wyndelts. (1992). Tax professionals belief revision: the effects of information presentation sequence, client preference , and domain experience. Decision Sciences 23: 175-199.
Pei, B. K. W., S. Reed, and B. Koch. (1992). Auditor belief revision in a performance auditing setting: an application of the belief adjustment model. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17: 169-183.
Ponemon, L. A. (1992). Ethical reasoning and selection-socialization in accounting. Accounting, Organizations, and Society 17(3): 235-258.
Reckers, P. M. J., and J. J. Schultz, Jr. (1993). The effects of fraud signals, evidence order, and group-assisted counsel on independent auditor judgment. Behavioral Research in Accounting 5: 124-144.
Reidenbach, E. R., and D. P. Robin. (1990). Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 9(7): 639-653.
Remus, W., (1986). Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making. Journal of Business Research 14(1): 19-25.
Roth, J., and B. H. Sheppard. (1989). The framing of disputes: an empirical est. Paper presented at the European Congress of Psychology, Amsterdam.
Rutledge, R. W. (1995). The ability to moderate recency effects through framing of management accounting information. Journal of Managerial Issues 7: 27-40.
Schepanski, A. and T. Shearer. (1995). A prospect theory account of the income tax withholding phenomenon. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63: 174-186.
Schlenker, B. R. and D. R. Forsyth. (1977). On the ethics of psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13: 369-396.
Singhapakdi, A. and S. Vitell. （1993）. Marketing ethics: factors influencing perceptions of ethical problems and alternatives. Journal of Macromarketing 12: 4-18.
Singhapakdi, A., K. L. Kraft, S. J. Vitell and K. C. Rallapalli.（1995）. The perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility on organizational effectiveness: A survey of marketers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23(1): 49-56.
Sparks, J. R. and S. D. Hunt. (1998). Marketing researcher ethical sensitivity: conceptualization, measurement, and exploratory investigation. Journal of Marketing 62(April): 92-109.
Tansey, R., G. Brown, M. Hyman, and L. E. Dawson. (1994). Personal moral philosophies and the moral Judgment of salespeople. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 14(winter): 59-76.
Trotman, K. T., and A. Wright. (1996). Recency effect: task complexity, decision mode, and task-specific experience. Behavioral Research in Accounting 8: 175-193.
Tubbs, R. M., W. F. Messier, Jr., and W. R. Knechel. (1990). Recency effects in the auditor’s belief-revision process. The Accounting Review 65: 452-460.
Tuttle, B. and M. Coller, and F. G. Burton. (1997). An examination of market efficiency: information order effects in a laboratory market. Accounting Organizations and Society 22: 89-106.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124-1131.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453-458.
Wilson, D. K., R. M. Kaplan and L. J. Schneiderman. (1987). Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care. Social Behavior 2: 51-59.
Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M. and Brekke, N. (1996).A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 125: 387-402.