Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
This study explores the whistleblowing judgments and intentions of professional accountants. Utilizing three scenarios involving potential organizational fraud, we surveyed professional accountants to explore whether their peers should blow the whistle (moral judgment) and whether they would blow the whistle (moral intention) if they experienced any of the three actions. Further, we explored the effects of perceived overall harm and perceived societal pressure on the whistleblowing judgments and intentions.
We find that in each of the three actions, professional accountants suggest the whistle should be blown and that both perceived overall harm and perceived societal pressure significantly affect those decisions. We also find that the peers of these professional accountants would blow the whistle on each of the three actions, and that the decision to take action is significantly affected by perceived societal pressure.
This manuscript makes two important contributions to the existing literature. First, because of perceived overall harm and perceived societal pressure, these accountants indicate the whistle should be blown, which lends support to prior studies. Second, and most importantly, because of perceived societal pressure, the surveyed accountants suggest the whistle would be blown. This is a new finding, and one we hope suggests a trend towards a stronger willingness to report fraud.