gender differences on the influence of ethical judgment

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

227

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

GENDER DIFFERENCES ON THE INFLUENCE OF ETHICAL JUDGMENT AND

MORAL REASONING TOWARD BUDGET SLACK BEHAVIOR IN PUBLIC

SECTOR

Syamsuri Rahim

Doctoral Program of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Brawijaya University

Corresponding author

Bambang Subroto, Rosidi, Bambang Purnomosidhi

Departement of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Brawijaya University

Abstract

This study examined gender differences on the influence of ethical considerations and moral

reasoning toward slack behavior on local government budgets. The objective of this study is

to describe the ethical considerations and moral reasoning for male and female toward the

tendency of an individual's behavior creates slack budget. Data collection was done through

questionnaires and multiple linear regression analysis testing with multi-group approach. The

result findings show that there are gender differences from two groups on the influence of

moral reasoning and ethical judgment on the behavior of individuals in making budgetary

slack. This finding explains that female is stronger than male in term of ethical judgment

influence and moral reasoning toward individual behavior that reduces budget slack action.

Keywords: Budget Slack Behavior; Ethical Judgment; Moral Reasoning; Gender Differences

1. BACKGROUND

The issue of this study deals with the behavior of individuals in making budgetary

slack in public sector organizations. Furthermore, this study discusses whether or not gender

differences influence the ethical decisions and moral behavior of individuals to create budget

slack. This research focuses on ethical behavior (Ponemon and Glazer, 1990; Ponemon, 1992;

Shaub et al., 1993; Stevens, 2002; Ho and Redfern, 2010) and moral (Monga, 2007; Hobson

et al., 2011) to explain the behavior of the individual in making budgetary slack. Budget slack

action is an ethical behavior and moral issues that have a potential impact towards the loss on

the local government budget.

This study aims to describe the behavior of budgetary slack that occurs in local

governments of Indonesia. It mainly deals with the behavior of individuals in making

budgetary slack with the goal of personal gain (Onsi 1973) such as in some studies finding

which state that individual ethical and moral issues in the proposed budget of Indonesia’s

local government (Maskun, 2009; Yuhertiana, 2011).

This study also aims to explain the gender difference (males or females) to determine

ethical decisions (Eweje and Bruton, 2010; Adebayo, 2007) and moral reasoning (Donenberg

and Hoffman, 1998) for individuals in taking action budgetary slack. Gender differences can

ijcrb.webs.com



228

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

affect the ethical and moral considerations difference for individuals to create budgetary

slack. This study describes two gender groups, namely males and females. Then, they are

tested to determine differences in ethical and moral decisions in taking action on budgetary

slack (Yuhertiana, 2011).

2. LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS

2.1. Agency Theory

Agency theory in this study explains the superior-subordinate relationship in the scope

of local government budget. Superior-subordinate relationship has implications for the

emergence of agency problems due to the delegation of authority to subordinates (Eisenhardt

1989). Lane (2003) describes that the superior-subordinate relationship in the preparation of

the government budget to encourage subordinates tend to slack in their budgets behavior.

Subordinates perform behaviors to create budgetary slack to allow subordinates to achieve the

goals set.

2.2. Ethical Decision in Making Theory and Moral Reasoning Theory

Behavior of individuals in creating budget slack can be explained through the ethical

decisions by making theory and moral reasoning theory. Onsi (1973) suggests that the

behavior of individuals in creating budget slack can be explained by the theory of individual

behavior itself.

Jones (1991) explains that individuals respond in the same way on all ethical

situations, depending on the response of "moral intensity" of ethical situations as well as

individual and organizational factors. Forsyth (1992) found that individual ethical decisions

are influenced by ethical considerations of ethical situations encountered in the organization.

Douglas and Wier (2000) describes when an individual in a position of relative ethics

positively influence the behavior of individuals in making budgetary slack, and when

individual ethical ideal position negatively affect on the behavior to create budgetary slack.

Kohlberg (1969) explains that moral development is one way to exam moral

reasoning. Kohlberg divided it into three levels of moral development that includes six stages

based on a variety of scenarios involving responses toward moral dilemmas. Kohlberg's

model of reasoning is widely used by researchers to explain the moral perception of

individual moral action based on the perception of moral reasoning (Colby et al., 1983;

Weber, 1990; Lovell, 1997, and Monga, 2007).

Hobson et al. (2011) conducted an experimental study to assess the moral determinant

factor of the slack budget. Moral perception test findings that are owned by individuals are

personal values and social norms which shape individual moral frames involved in the

ijcrb.webs.com



229

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

preparation of the budget. Moral perceptions also affect an individual's propensity to create

budgetary slack. Lord and DeZoort (2001) found that moral reasoning determines the actions

of individuals in the context of social stress (social influence pressure). Moral reasoning is a

moral process steps for forming one's moral actions as developed in the concept of cognitive

moral development (Kohlberg, 1969).

2.3. Gender

Several previous studies explain that males and females have different behavior in

ethical situations and moral dilemmas. Richmond (2001) explains that there are gender

differences in ethical judgment between males and females. Stedham et al. (2007) found

gender differences between males and females in ethical considerations. Research results

explain that females have a stronger ethical judgment than males. Yuhertiana (2011) found

that more females have good ethical decisions than males’ propensity to create budgetary

slack

Donemberg and Hoffman (1988) explain that the gender differences between males

and females faced by moral dilemma. Moral development of females is better than males

(Kohlberg, 1969). Gilligan (1982) explains about moral development of males and females.

And states that females have better moral reasoning in terms of responsibility that males do.

2.4. Hypothesis

Based on the review of the above results, the hypothesis for the current study represent as

follows:

H1: Differences between males and females in making ethical judgments affect on the

behavior of budget slack

H2: Differences between males and females in making moral reasoning affects on the

behavior of budget slack

H3: Females are better than males in the influence of ethical judgment towards the behavior

of budgetary slack

H4: Females are better than males in the influences moral reasoning on the behavior of

budget slack

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample method in this research uses proportional stratified random sampling method.

The samples used are high-level managers to lower-level managers with the number of 49

ijcrb.webs.com



230

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

units who work in the government of Makassar, the amount of collected data are 100

respondents. Meanwhile, the samples used are two groups of respondents which determined

by sex, i.e males (n = 50) and females (n = 50). The instruments used are questionnaire and

ethical judgment (Tan and Snell, 2002; Ho and Redfem, 2010) which are measured by the 7

point on Likert scale, i.e a scale of 1 (highly unethical) to 7 scale (very ethical). Instrument of

moral reasoning (Colby et al., 1983; Weber, 1990; Monga, 2007) was measured with 7 point

on Likert scale, i.e a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 scale (strongly agree). Instrument of

budget slack behavior (Hobson et al., 2011; Lord and DeZoort, 2001; Lukka, 1988; Dunk,

1993) was measured with 7 point on Likert scale, i.e a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 scale

(strongly agree).

The analytical tool used is multiple linear regression analysis with Multi-Group approach.

The following figure presents a model of the relationship between the studied variables:

Ethical

Judgment

Moral

Reasoning

Budget Slack

Behavior

Gender: Men

Gender: WOmen

Information:

b11

b12

b21

b22

b Regression COefficient

Figure 1. Interpersonal Model Research Variables

Regression equation used is:

Group 1 (Males)

Y = β11X1 + β21X2 + e1

Group 2 (Female)

Y = β12X1 + β22X2 + e2

Information:

Y = budget slack behavior, X1 = ethical judgment, X2 = moral reasoning, β11, β21, β12, β22 =

Regression Coefficient, e1 and e2 = error term

ijcrb.webs.com



231

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Instrument Testing

The following tables are the validity testing and reliability of research instrument for

each variable. Table 1 shows that all values of each indicator and item correlations are above

0.3. Thus, the overall indicators and the item have a valid question. While the Cronbach alpha

values obtained above 0.6 for all variables so that it can be concluded that the data instrument

of the research has been valid.

Table 1: Validity and Reliability Instrument Testing (n = 100)

No Ethical Judgment (X1)

Moral Reasoning

(X2)

Budget Slack

Behavior (Y)

1 X1.1.1 0.653 X2.1 0.541 Y.1 0.503

2 X1.1.1 0.615 X2.2 0.646 Y.2 0.597

3 X1.2.1 0.725 X2.3 0.725 Y.3 0.546

4 X1.2.2 0.687 X2.4 0.609 Y.4 0.651

5 X1.3.1 0.675 X2.5 0.665 Y.5 0.615

6 X1.3.2 0.602 X2.6 0.743 Y.6 0.630

7 Y.7 0.645

Cronbach

Alpha 0.701 0.691 0.784

Based on the table above, it shows that the correlation values for all items are greater

than 0.3 that can be said all research instruments are valid. Reliability test was demonstrated

by Cronbach alpha values. The results showed by Cronbach alpha values for all variables are

greater than 0.6 so that the instrument is said to be a reliable research because the instrument

proved to be valid and reliable, and therefore, further analysis can be done.

There are four assumptions in regression analysis that must be met: the assumption of

normality, no autocorrelation, the absence of heteroscedasticity, and there is no multi-co

linearity.

Testing the assumptions of normality using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test which showed

the Sig from both models are 0.385 and 0.995 which indicates the value above 0.05 that the

normality assumption is met. Testing the assumption of autocorrelation using the Durbin

Watson test which shows the value of the two models is the DW 2.164 and 2.251 were in the

range of 1.7 to 2.3 indicating the assumption of no autocorrelation. Testing the assumption of

no heteroscedasticity using the Spearman correlation test showed in the Sig 0.474 and 0.219

(model 1), and 0.255 and 0.295 (model 2) are worth more than 0:05 so the assumption of no

heteroscedasticity. The last assumption is multicollinearity using Variance Inflation Factor

ijcrb.webs.com



232

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

test (VIF). VIF value in model 1 is 1,015 and VIF in model 2 is 1.402 showed values below 5,

so the assumption of no multicollinearity. Thus, four assumptions are met so that the model

has been unfit to be used.

4.2. Regression Analysis Results

Table 2 shows the results of regression analysis on both models (male and female).

Table 2: Results of Regression Analysis

Relation Group 1 (Males) Group 2 (Females)

Ethical Judgment (X1) to

Budget Slack Behavior (Y)

β11 = -0.483

t-hit = -4.508

Sig t = 0.000*

Β12 = -0.792

t-hit = -8.046

Sig t = 0.000*

Moral Reasoning to Budget

Slack Behavior (Y)

β21 = -0.430

t-hit = -4.016

Sig t = 0.000*

β22 = -0.902

t-hit = -9.159

Sig t = 0.000*

Sig F = 0.000*

R2 = 0.468

Sig F = 0.000*

R2 = 0.675

* = Significant at .001

Description: X1: ethical judgment, X2: moral reasoning, and Y: budget slack behavior

Regression equation for Group 1 (Males) as follows:

Y = -0.483 X1 – 0.430 X2, R2 = 0.468

While the regression equation for Group 2 (Females) as follows:

Y = -0.792 X1 – 0.902 X2, R2 = 0.675

Are graphically presented as follows:

Ethical

Judgment

Moral

Reasoning

Budget Slack

Behavior

Gender: Men

Gender: Women

Information:

-0.483

-0.792

-0.430

-0.902

Figure 2: Result of Regression Analysis

Simultaneously, the regression analysis testing by using F-test shows the Sig. F for both

models for 0.000< 0.05, so it can be concluded that there are significant ethical judgment and

moral reasoning on budget slack behavior on both gender both males and females, these

results are consistent with the findings of Douglas and Wier (2000) found that ethical

ijcrb.webs.com



233

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

judgments influence on budget slack behavior. Hobson et al. (2011) found that moral

reasoning influence on budget slack behavior.

The coefficient of determination in the group is 0.468 for male or 46.8%, Budget slack

behavior by 46.8% influenced by ethical judgment and moral reasoning, the remaining 53.2%

is for other factors. The coefficient of determination in females group is 0.675 or 67.5%

which shows that the group of females, budget slack by 67.5% influenced by ethical judgment

and moral reasoning, the remaining 32.5% by other factors. Of the coefficient of

determination (R2) shows that the influence of ethical judgment and moral reasoning on

budget slack has better behavior for females group (67.5%) than in males group (46.8%). The

test results lead that females have better consideration of ethical judgment and moral

reasoning on budget slack behavior than males. These results prove the findings of gender

differences (males or females) in consideration of ethics (Eweje and Bruton, 2010) and moral

reasoning (Donenberg and Hoffman, 1998) in situations of ethical and moral dilemmas faced

by individuals. This finding is consistent with the findings of Stedham et al. (2007) found that

females have better ethical considerations than males. Donemberg and Hoffman (1988) also

stated that females have better moral reasoning than males.

Partial test on males groups is as follows:

In testing the effect of ethical judgment on budget slack behavior, the coefficient is -0.483,

t-hit is -4.508 and Sig. t is 0.000. Due to the Sig. t > 0.05, it indicates a significant effect

between ethical judgments on budget slack behavior that has a negative coefficient. It

indicates that the higher ethical judgment by males, the lower the budget slack behavior.

The partial testing effect of moral reasoning on budget slack behavior shows that

regression coefficients is -0.430, t-hit is -4.016 and Sig. t is 0.000. Due to the fact that Sig.

t > 0.05, it indicates a significant effect between moral reasoning on budget slack behavior

has a negative coefficient that indicates the higher moral reasoning by males, the lower the

budget slack behavior.

Highest regression coefficient values are a group of males, ethical judgment is stronger

(dominant) effects on the behavior of budgetary slack, compared to the influence of moral

reasoning on the behavior of budgetary slack.

Partial testing on females groups as follows:

Testing the effect of partially ethical judgment on budget slack behavior derived regression

coefficient of -0.792, t-values hit at -8.046 and Sig. t for 0.000. Because the Sig. t > 0.05 indicate a

significant effect between ethical judgment against budget slack. Has a negative coefficient

indicates that the higher ethical judgment by females, the lower the budget slack behavior.

ijcrb.webs.com



234

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Testing the effect in partial way of moral reasoning on budget slack behavior, it is shown that

there is regression coefficients of -0.902, t-hit is -9.159 and Sig. t is 0.000. Due to the Sig. t > 0.05,

it indicates that there is a significant effect between moral reasoning towards budget slack. It has a

negative coefficient that indicates the higher moral reasoning by females, the lower the budget

slack behavior.

The highest regression coefficient values are the females group, moral reasoning is

stronger (dominant) effects on the behavior of budgetary slack, compared to the influence of

ethical judgment on the behavior of budgetary slack. The results show the difference from the

two groups (males and females) to test the influence of moral reasoning and ethical judgment

on the behavior of budgetary slack. This finding is consistent with Adebayo (2007) and

Stedham et al. (2007) that females have stronger ethical judgment than males, so females have

higher ethical judgment influence to create budgetary slack. Stedham et al. (2007),

Donemberg and Hoffman (1988) found that females have stronger moral reasoning than

males, therefore, females have higher moral reasoning influences towards the behavior of

budgetary slack.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The research findings conclude that both gender groups suggests that ethical judgment and

moral reasoning have effect toward behavior in creating budgetary slack. The results explain

about gender differences, females have better ethical considerations than males, and females

have a better moral reasoning than males.

Furthermore, both results of the regression analysis show that there is a difference in from

the second group (males and females) in testing the influence of ethical judgment and moral

reasoning toward budget slack behavior. For males, the strongest influence is ethical

judgment towards budget slack behavior, whereas in females, the effect is strongest on moral

reasoning toward budget slack behavior. Meanwhile, the most significant influence from the

research finding shows that females are stronger than males in term of ethical judgment and

moral reasoning on budget slack behavior. It indicate that the ethical judgment negatively

affect the behavior of individuals in creating budget slack, consistent findings of Douglas and

Wier (2000). Moral reasoning negatively affect the behavior of individuals in creating budget

slack, consistent findings of Hobson et al. (2011), Lord and DeZoort (2001), Blanchette et al.

(1992).

Lastly, the implications of the research findings related to gender differences of males

and females is the consideration of ethical and moral reasoning because this study only tested

the gender differences. Therefore, it is advisable for further researchers to develop research on

ijcrb.webs.com



235

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

cultural differences, with the aim of explaining gender differences in cultural characteristics.

Moor, et al. (2000) explains that there are cultural differences in the organization of the

private sector with the public sector, so it must consider the organizational culture. Maskun

(2009) explains that individuals are influenced by cultural characteristics that shape the

individual up, so the consideration of local culture to test for gender differences is important

to know the local values that predispose individuals to make ethical and moral considerations.

ijcrb.webs.com



236

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

References

Adebayo, S.O. (2007). Effect of religiosity and occupation on moral reasoning: a study of a

Nigeria adult sample. British Journal of Art an Social Science, 3(2): 253-264

Blanchette, D., Pilote, C. dan Cadieux, J. (2002). Manager’s moral evaluation of budgetary

slack creation. www.accounting.rutgers.Edu/ raw/aaa/2002 annual/cpe/cpe3/B-2.pdf.

Colby, A., L. Kohlberg, J. Gibbs, and M. Lieberman. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral

judgment. in Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development ,48 (series

200):1–107.

Dunk, A. S. (1993). The effect of budget emphasis and information asymmetry on the relation

between budgetary participation and slack. The Accounting Review. 4:400-401

Donenberg, G.R., dan Hoffman, L.W. (1988). Gender differences in moral development. Sex

Role, 18:11/12: 701-717

Douglas, P. C. dan B. Weir. (2000). Integrating ethical dimension into a model of budgeting

slack creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 28: 267-278.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: an assessment an review. Academy of Management

Review, vol. 14 : 1 : 57-74

Eweje, G. dan Bruton, M. (2010). Ethical perceptions of business students in New Zeland

university: do gender, age and work experience matter?. Business Ethics: European Review,

19 (1): 95-111

Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: the influence of personal

moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics. 11:461-470

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: female's conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard

Educational Review. 481-517.

Ho, C., dan Redfern, K. A. (2010). Consideration of the role of Guanxi in the ethical

judgments of Chinese managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 96:207-221

Hobson, J. L., Mellon, M. J. dan Stevens, D. J. (2011). Determinants of moral judgment

regarding budgetary slack: an experimental examination of pay scheme and personal values.

Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23(1): 87-107

Kohlberg. L. (1969). Stage and Sequence: the Cognitive Approach to Socialization. In Goslin,

D.A., ed. Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Lane, J.E. (2003). Management and Public Organization: the Principal-Agent Framework.

University of Geneva and National University of Singapore. Working paper.

http://www.accounting.rutgers.edu/%20raw/aaa/2002%20annual/cpe/cpe3/B-2.pdf

ijcrb.webs.com



237

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Lord, A.T., dan DeZoort, F. T. (2001). The impact of commitment and moral reasoning on

auditors’ responses to social pressure. Accounting, Organizations, Society. 26; 215-235

Lovell, A. (1997). Some thoughts on Kohlberg’s hierarchy of moral reasoning and its

relevance for accounting theories of control. Accounting Education, 6 (2): 147-162

Lukka, K. (1988). Budgetary biasing in organizations: theoretical framework and empirical

evidence. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13 (3): 281-301.

Maskun, A. (2009). Analysis of factors ethics, organizational culture, social pressures and the

capacity of individuals to budgetary slack: study of executive behavior in the budgeting

process in the Agency Coordinating Wilayahh II of East Java, Application Management

Journal, 7 (2):162-172

Monga, M. (2007). Managers’ moral reasoning: evidence from large Indian manufacturing

organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 71:179-194

Onsi, M, (1973). Factor analysis of behavioral variables affecting budgetary slack. The

Accounting Review. 48 (3): 535-48.

Ponemon, L. (1992). Ethical reasoning and selection-socialization in accounting. Accounting,

Organization, and Society: 17 (3/4): 239-258.

Ponemon, L. A. and Glazer, A. (1990). Accounting education and ethical development: the

influence of liberal learning to students and alumni in accounting practice. Issues in

Accounting Education, 5(2):195–208.

Richmond, K. A. (2001). Ethical reasoning, machiavellian behavior, and gender: the impact

on accounting students’ ethical decision making. Dissertation. Blacksburg, Virginia.

Shaub, M. K., Find, D. W., and Munter, P. (1993). The effects of auditors’ ethical orientation

on commitment and ethical sensitivity. Behavioral Research in Accounting. 5:145-169.

Stedham, Y., Yamamura, J. H., dan Beekun, R. I. (2007). Gender differences in business

ethics: justice and relativist perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16 (2): 163-178

Stevens, E. D. (2002). The effect of reputation and ethics on budgetary slack. Journal of

Management Accounting Research, 14: 153–171.

Tan, D. dan Sneel, R. S. (2002). The thir eye: exploring Guanxi and relation morality in the

workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 41;361-384

Weber, J. (1990). Measuring the impact of teaching ethics to future managers a review,

assessment and recommendations. Journal of Business Ethics, 9. 183-190

Yuhertiana, I. (2011). A gender perspective of budgetary slack in east java governance”.

International Research Journals of Finance and Economics, Issue 78, 114-120

ijcrb.webs.com



238

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Appendix 1. Regression Analysis Results for Group 1 (Men)

Regression

Variables Entered/Removedb

X2, X1a . Enter

Model

1

Variables

Entered

Variables

Removed Method

All requested v ariables entered.a.

Dependent Variable: Yb.

Model Summaryb

.684a .468 .446 3.74817 2.164

Model

1

R R Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

Durbin-

Watson

Predictors: (Constant), X2, X1a.


ANOVAb

581.489 2 290.744 20.695 .000a

660.291 47 14.049

1241.780 49

Regression

Residual

Total

Model

1

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.



Coefficientsa

75.212 6.957 10.811 .000

-.657 .146 -.483 -4.508 .000 .986 1.015

-.573 .143 -.430 -4.016 .000 .986 1.015

(Constant)

X1

X2

Model

1

B Std. Error

Unstandardized

Coeff icients

Beta

Standardized

Coeff icients

t Sig. Tolerance VIF

Collinearity Statistics

Dependent Variable: Ya.

ijcrb.webs.com



239

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

50

.0000000

3.98870917

.128

.128

-.050

.906

.385

N

Mean

Std. Dev iat ion

Normal Parametersa,b

Absolute

Positive

Negativ e

Most Extreme

Dif f erences

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z

Asy mp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Unstandardiz

ed Residual

Test distribution is Normal.a.

Calculated f rom data.b.

Correlations

1.000

.

50

-.104

.474

50

.219

.127

50

Correlation Coef f icient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N


Sig. (2-tailed)

N


Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Abs_res1

X1

X2

Spearman's rho

Abs_res1

ijcrb.webs.com



240

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Appendix 2. Regression Analysis Results for Group 2 (Female)

Regression

Variables Entered/Removedb

X2, X1a . Enter

Model

1

Variables

Entered

Variables

Removed Method

All requested v ariables entered.a.


Model Summaryb

.822a .675 .661 2.65998 2.251

Model

1

R R Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

Durbin-

Watson



ANOVAb

691.451 2 345.725 48.862 .000a

332.549 47 7.076

1024.000 49

Regression

Residual

Total

Model

1

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.



Coefficientsa

100.298 7.269 13.798 .000

-1.065 .132 -.792 -8.046 .000 .713 1.402

-.838 .092 -.902 -9.159 .000 .713 1.402

(Constant)

X1

X2

Model

1

B Std. Error

Unstandardized

Coeff icients

Beta

Standardized

Coeff icients

t Sig. Tolerance VIF

Collinearity Statistics

Dependent Variable: Ya.

ijcrb.webs.com



241

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

50

.0000000

2.60513274

.059

.059

-.046

.416

.995

N

Mean

Std. Dev iat ion

Normal Parametersa,b

Absolute

Positive

Negativ e

Most Extreme

Dif f erences

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z

Asy mp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Unstandardiz

ed Residual

Test distribution is Normal.a.

Calculated f rom data.b.

Correlations

1.000

.

50

.164

.255

50

-.151

.295

50


Sig. (2-tailed)

N


Sig. (2-tailed)

N


Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Abs_res2

X1

X2

Spearman's rho

Abs_res2

gender differences on the influence of ethical judgment

Documents