Internal auditor reports a fraud: Courage and pressure

Rosdini, D.; Mita, A.; Setyaningrum, D.

Abstract: The purpose of the study is to examine whether internal auditors have the courage to report audit findings and fraud when they are under pressure and unpleasant situations. We used the experiment with 107 participants who were internal auditors from various companies. Participants were divided randomly into two groups with different treatments. The first group was given the low-pressure treatment by giving information that the company’s top management has good integrity and is open to every aspiration, and organizational culture is clean and free of corruption. Meanwhile, the second group was given high-pressure treatment in the form of information that the company's top management is firm and happy when all subordinates carry out their instructions and directions. The results show that the pressure influences auditors' courage to report fraud findings. Internal auditors with a low pressure are more willing to report indications of fraud than internal auditors with high pressure. Furthermore, the pressure will not impact reporting issues other than fraud. We found no difference in the reporting number of audit findings under low- or high-pressure conditions.

How to cite this paper

        APA: Rosdini, D., Mita, A & Setyaningrum, D. (2021). Internal auditor reports a fraud: Courage and pressure. Accounting, 7(7), 1813-1818.
    

        Chicago/Turabian: Rosdini, D., Mita, A & Setyaningrum, D. 2021. "Internal auditor reports a fraud: Courage and pressure." Accounting 7, no. 7 (2021): 1813-1818.
    

        AMA: Rosdini, D., Mita, A & Setyaningrum, D. Internal auditor reports a fraud: Courage and pressure. Accounting. 2021;7(7):1813-1818.
    

References

Argyle, M. (1957). Social pressure in public and private situations. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54(2), 172.
Baker, N. (2007). The fraud disconnect: a shared understanding of where fraud-related responsibilities lie can help internal auditing and management avoid costly short circuits. Internal Auditor, 64(2), 38-44.
Bartolucci, D. D., Bobek, T. M., & LaTorre, J. A. (2011). Internal Audit: The Second Line of Defense. In Skalak, S. L, Golden, T.W, Clayton, M. M, & Pill, J. S. (2nd Edition.), A Guide to Forensic Accounting Investigation (chapter 6).
Byrne, K. A., Silasi-Mansat, C. D., & Worthy, D. A. (2015). Who chokes under pressure? The Big Five personality traits and decision-making under pressure. Personality And Individual Differences, 74, 22-28.
Coram, P., Ferguson, C., & Moroney, R. (2008). Internal audit, alternative internal audit structures and the level of misappropriation of assets fraud. Accounting & Finance, 48(4), 543-559.
Edwards, W. (1961). Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 12(1), 473-498.
Evans III, J. H., Hannan, R. L., Krishnan, R., & Moser, D. V. (2001). Honesty in managerial reporting. The Accounting Review, 76(4), 537-559.
Everett, J., & Tremblay, M.S. (2014). Ethics and internal audit: moral will and moral skill in a heteronomous field”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25, 1-16.
Hunt, G. L. (2014). A descriptive comparison of two sources of occupational fraud data. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 12(2), 171-176.
Khelil, I., Hussainey, K., & Noubbigh, H. (2016). Audit committee–internal audit interaction and moral courage. Managerial Auditing Journal, 31(4/5), 403-433.
Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Brown & Benchmark Publishers.
Lord, A. T., & DeZoort, F. T. (2001). The impact of commitment and moral reasoning on auditors' responses to social influence pressure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(3), 215-235.
Markman, A. B., Maddox, W. T., & Worthy, D. A. (2006). Choking and excelling under pressure. Psychological Science, 17, 944–948.
Natenzon, P. (2011). Essays in Behavioral Decision Theory. Princeton University.
Norman, C., Rose, A., & Rose, J. (2010). Internal audit reporting lines, fraud risk decomposition, and assessments of fraud risk. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(5), 546-557.
Othman, R., Aris, N. A., Mardziyah, A., Zainan, N., & Amin, N. M. (2015). Fraud Detection and Prevention Methods in the Malaysian Public Sector: Accountants’ and Internal Auditors’ Perceptions. Procedia Economics and Finance, 28, 59-67.
Rosdini, D., Sari, P. Y., Amrania, G. K. P., & Yulianingsih, P. (2020). Decision making biased: How visual illusion, mood, and information presentation plays a role. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 100347.
Sekerka, L. E., Bagozzi, R. P., & Charnigo, R. (2009). Facing ethical challenges in the workplace: Conceptualizing and measuring professional moral courage. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 565.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1984). Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety. Acta Psychologica, 56(1-3), 183-203.
https://na.theiia.org/standards-guidance/Public%20Documents/IPPFStandards- 2017.pdf