The Influence of Professional Commitment and Rationalization-Discrediting Interventions on Unethical Audit Decisions

Individuals often engage in a rationalization process to self-justify questionable conduct. However, as “gatekeepers” to the market, it is vitally important for professional auditors to avoid such practices. Recognizing that some individuals may be more prone to rationalize than others, we first ide...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Auditing : a journal of practice and theory 2023-08, Vol.42 (3), p.87-106
Hauptverfasser: Lowe, D. Jordan, Reckers, Philip M. J., Sauciuc, Ashley K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Individuals often engage in a rationalization process to self-justify questionable conduct. However, as “gatekeepers” to the market, it is vitally important for professional auditors to avoid such practices. Recognizing that some individuals may be more prone to rationalize than others, we first identify an important subset of professional auditors that we expect is more susceptible to rationalizing unethical behavior: those with low professional commitment. We then examine whether rationalization-discrediting interventions can mitigate such behavior among this auditor subset. Specifically, we developed interventions geared toward discrediting some of the most commonly-used rationalizations found in practice in order to promote a more ethical mindset and reduce unethical behavior. Using professional auditor participants, our results confirm that auditors with low (high) professional commitment are more (less) likely to accede to unethical requests from superiors. Further, among those with low professional commitment, our rationalization-discrediting interventions were effective in reducing unethical intentions.
ISSN:0278-0380
1558-7991
DOI:10.2308/AJPT-2020-068