Argument Framing, Source Credibility, and Emotional Conditions: Effects on Accountants’ Whistleblowing Decision

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared the effect of argument framing (positive-negative), source credibility (high-low), and emotional conditions (good-bad) on accountants' decisions to report fraud. Theoretical framework: No research investigates cognitive and affective factors in influencing accountants' decisions to whistleblowing: (1) how an argument is framed, (2) what extent management and system demonstrate credibility, and (3) whether emotional conditions can distort these two factors. The study aimed at companies that want their employees to play a critical role in preventing fraud in the workplace. Design/methodology/approach: In eight between-subject experiments, accountants faced an ethical dilemma in making a whistleblowing decision that describes a situation from a combination of all three factors (e.g., positive argument framing, low source credibility, and good emotional conditions). The authors used the Mann-Withney U-test to examine differences in accountants' whistleblowing decisions as the dependent variable. Findings: The results show that argument framing, source credibility, and emotional conditions affect the accountant's whistleblowing decision. It has been empirically proven that positive argument framing increases accountants' consent to act more than negatively framed arguments. High management and system credibility also strengthen accountants rather than low credibility. Finally, good emotions can encourage accountants to act as whistleblowers, while bad emotions can prevent accountants from taking whistleblowing actions. Research, Practical & Social implications: This study reveals that cognitive and affective factors need to be considered by companies related to the successful implementation of anti-fraud policies and whistleblowing systems. Originality/value: This paper has implications for company management in understanding the factors that can strengthen or weaken the actions of employees to report fraud that occurs in the workplace.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.