Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 112, Issue 3, pp 437–451 | Cite as

The Influence of Subjective Norms on Whistle-Blowing: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

Article

Abstract

This research consists of two studies with interrelated objectives. The purpose of the first study is to develop and validate scales measuring whistle-blowing subjective norms, attitudes, and intentions. The objective of the second study is to test a model of whistle-blowing intentions, motivated by the theory of reasoned action, across two contrasting cultures: the collectivist Thai and the individualistic American. To achieve cross-cultural comparisons, we first perform measurement and structural invariance tests. Tests of latent mean differences lend support for our prediction that individuals in the collectivist Thai culture have higher means on subjective norms, attitudes, and intentions for whistle-blowing than members of the individualist American culture. Our models indicate that subjective norms for whistle-blowing, even though significantly different for American and Thai participants, have a direct effect on whistle-blowing attitudes as well as direct and indirect effects on reporting intentions for both subject groups. Compared to American subjects, the whistle-blowing intentions of Thai participants are more strongly influenced by subjective norms for whistle-blowing.

Keywords

Whistle-blowing Culture Invariance testing Subjective norms Theory of reasoned action 

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitude. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (2002a). Sample TpB questionnaire. Retrieved October 14, 2005, from the website: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/pdf/tpb.questionnaire.pdf.
  4. Ajzen, I. (2002b). Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved October 14, 2005, from the website: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~ajzen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf.
  5. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. M. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22((5) September), 453–474.Google Scholar
  7. Albrecht, S. L., & Carpenter, K. E. (1976). Attitudes as predictors of behavior versus behavior intentions: A convergence of research traditions. Sociometry, 39, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychology Bulletin, 103, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bagozzi, R. P., Wong, N., Abe, S., & Bergami, M. (2000). Cultural and situational contingencies and the theory of reasoned action: Application to fast food restaurant consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 92(2), 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bame-Aldred, C., Sweeney, J. T., & Seifert, D. (2007). An examination of the effectiveness of Sarbanes-Oxley whistle-blower protection. Journal of Forensic Accounting, 8, 105–118.Google Scholar
  11. Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS 6 Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Bobek, D. D., Sweeney, J. T., & Roberts, R. W. (2007). The social norms of tax compliance: Evidence from Australia, Singapore, and The United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.Google Scholar
  14. Brody, R. G., Coulter, J. M., & Lin, S. (1999). The effect of national culture on whistle-blowing perceptions. Teaching Business Ethics, 3, 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Burns, G. L., Walsh, J. A., Gomez, R., & Hafetz, N. (2006). Measurement and structural invariance of parent ratings of the ADHD and ODD symptoms across gender for American and Malaysian children. Psychological Assessment, 18(4), 452–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Model, 12(3), 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen, Y.-J., & Tang, T. L.-P. (2006). Attitude toward and propensity to engage in unethical behavior: Measurement invariance across major among university students. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new model. Journal of Management, 25, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(2), 187–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y-y. (2007). Cultural processes. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (Vol. 34, pp. 785–804). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Church, A. T. (2000). Culture and personality: toward an integrated cultural trait psychology. Journal of Personality, 68(4), 651–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  25. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 151–192). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Comrey, & Lee, (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Dyck, A., Morse, A., & Zingales, L. (2010). Who blows the whistle on corporate fraud? The Journal of Finance, 6(December), 2213–2253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ellis, S., & Arieli, S. (1999). Predicting intention to report administrative and disciplinary infractions: Applying the reasoned action model. Human Relations, 52(7), 947–967.Google Scholar
  33. Feldman, Y., & Lobel, O. (2007). Behavioral versus institutional antecedents of decentralized enforcement in organizations: An experimental approach. San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 07-126. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1031853.
  34. Figg, J. (2000). Whistleblowing. The Internal Auditor, 57(2), 30–37.Google Scholar
  35. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  36. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1981). On construct validity: A critique of Miniard and Cohen’s paper. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 340–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fiske, A. P., Kitiyama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 915–981). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (2000). Environmental ethical decision making in the U.S. metal finishing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 642–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & M. Boudreau. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 4, article 7: 1–77.Google Scholar
  40. Gernon, H. (1993). Discussion of an investigation of the reporting of questionable acts in an international setting. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(Supplement), 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hirschfeld, G. H. F., & Brown, G. T. L. (2009). Students’ conceptions of assessment: Factorial and structural invariance of the SCoA across sex, age, and ethnicity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 30–38.Google Scholar
  42. Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 105, 117–144.Google Scholar
  43. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kline, R. B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  45. KPMG Forensic. (2008). Integrity survey 2008–2009. New York, NY: KPMG LLP.Google Scholar
  46. Lee, C., & Green, R. T. (1991). Cross-cultural examinations of the Fishbein behavioral intention model. Journal of International Business Studies, 2, 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lewis, D. (2008). Ten years of public interest disclosures in the U.K.: Are whistleblowers adequately protected? Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 657–678.Google Scholar
  49. Little, T. D. (2000). On the comparability of constructs in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(2), 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacCullum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McGill, A. L. (1995). American and Thai managers’ explanations for poor company performance: Role of perspective and culture in causal selection. Organizational Behavior and Group Decision Processes, 61(1), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meade, A. W., & Bauer, D. J. (2007). Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic test of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 611–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20(2), 439–464.Google Scholar
  54. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in Organizations. New York, NY: Lea’s Organization and Management Series.Google Scholar
  56. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2005). Chi-square difference testing using the S-B scaled Chi-square. Note on Mplus website, www.statmodel.com.
  57. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
  58. Near, J. P., Rehg, M. T., Van Scotter, J. R., & Miceli, M. P. (2004). Does type of wrongdoing affect the whistle-blowing process? Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nolan, R. (2002). Development anthropology: Encounters in the real world. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  60. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Park, H., Rehg, M. T., & Lee, D. (2005). The influence of Confucian ethics and collectivism on whistleblowing intentions: A study of South Korean public employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Patel, C. (2003). Some cross-cultural evidence on whistle-blowing as an internal control mechanism. Journal of International Accounting Research, 2, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  64. Riordan, C. M., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1994). A central question in cross-cultural research: Do employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in an equivalent manner? Journal of Management, 20(3), 643–671.Google Scholar
  65. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Mc-Graw Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
  66. Ryan, M. J. (1982). Behavioral intention formation: The interdependency of attitudinal and social influence variables. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sarbanes-Oxley Act. (2002). Public law 107–204. 107th Congress, 2nd session. July 30, 2002.Google Scholar
  68. Schmidt, M. (2009). “Whistle Blowing” regulation and accounting standards enforcement in Germany and Europe—An economic perspective. International Review of Law and Economics, 25, 143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schultz, J. J., Johnson, D. A., Deegan, M., & Dyrnes, S. (1993). An investigation of the reporting of questionable acts in an international setting. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(Supplement), 75–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Seifert, D. L., Sweeney, J. T., Joireman, J., & Thornton, J. M. (2010). The influence of organizational justice on accountant whistleblowing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 707–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shaftel, J., & Shaftel, T. L. (2005). The influence of effective teaching in accounting on student attitudes, behavior, and performance. Issues in Accounting Education, 20(3), 231–246.Google Scholar
  72. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Singhapakdi, A., Rallapalli, K. C., Rao, C. P., & Vitell, S. J. (1995). Personal and professional values underlying ethical decisions a comparison of American and Thai marketers. International Marketing Review, 12(4), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method of studying differences in factor means and structure between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(June), 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotion versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Trairatvorakul, P. (1998). The importance of corporate governance reforms in the recovery from financial crisis: Viewpoint from Thailand. Paper presented at the conference on “Managing Asia’s financial sector recovery: The role of competition policy and corporate governance.” Singapore, November. http://wb-cu.car.chula.ac.th/papers/corpgov/cg071.htm.
  79. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  80. Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influence on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L., Deshaies, P., Cuerrier, J., & Mongeau, C. (1992). Azjen and Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action as applied to moral behavior: A confirmatory factor analysis. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 62(1), 98–109.Google Scholar
  82. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2002). Using the theory of reasoned action to predict organizational misbehavior. Psychological Reports, 91, 1027–1040.Google Scholar
  84. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation modeling with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  86. Zanna, M. P., & Rampel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 313–334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting, Thammasat Business SchoolThammasat UniversityPranakorn, BangkokThailand
  2. 2.Department of Accounting & Information Systems, School of BusinessUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations