Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 117, Issue 1, pp 189–208 | Cite as

Reporting Self-Made Errors: The Impact of Organizational Error-Management Climate and Error Type



We study how an organization’s error-management climate affects organizational members’ beliefs about other members’ willingness to report errors that they discover when chance of error detection by superiors and others is extremely low. An error-management climate, as a component of the organizational climate, is said to be “high” when errors are accepted as part of everyday life as long as they are learned from and not repeated. Alternatively, the error-management climate is said to be an “error averse” climate when discovery of errors invokes the laying of blame on those admitting to or found committing errors. We examine the effects of this error-management climate in a professional services environment where uncorrected errors may have severe consequences and discovery of work errors is crucial for organizational success. We find that error-management climate affects organizational members’ beliefs about what other members will report about discovered self-made errors, with a high error-management (versus error averse) climate leading to greater reporting willingness. We also find a significant interaction with a key contextual variable, error type (conceptual or calculation), that suggests the effect is more significant for conceptual errors than calculation errors. Our findings suggest that an organization’s error-management climate is an important factor in promoting ethical behavior of employees, especially junior employees, carrying out routine tasks whose failure to report errors discovered incidental to those tasks may have severe implications for their organizations.


Error reporting Self-discovered errors Organizational climate Error-management climate Auditors 


  1. Adkins, N., & Radtke, R. R. (2004). Students’ and faculty members’ perceptions of the importance of business ethics and accounting ethics education: Is there an expectations gap? Journal of Business Ethics, 51(3), 279–300.Google Scholar
  2. Alderman, C. W., & Deitrick, J. W. (1982). Auditors’ perceptions of time budget pressures and premature sign-offs: A replication and extension. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 1(2), 54–68.Google Scholar
  3. Antle, R., & Nalebuff, B. (1991). Conservatism and auditor–client-negotiations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29(Supplement), 31–54.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, M. B. (1987). Moral development and accounting education. Journal of Accounting Education, 5(1), 27–43.Google Scholar
  5. Asare, S. K., & McDaniel, L. S. (1996). The effects of familiarity with the preparer and task complexity on the effectiveness of the audit review process. The Accounting Review, 71(2), 139–159.Google Scholar
  6. Ashforth, B. E., & Lee, R. T. (1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: A preliminary model. Human Relations, 43(7), 621–648.Google Scholar
  7. Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1993). The recency effect: Implicit learning with explicit retrieval? Memory and Cognition, 21(2), 146–155.Google Scholar
  8. Bamber, E. M., & Ramsay, R. J. (1997). An investigation of the effects of specialization in audit workpaper review. Contemporary Accounting Research, 14(3), 501–513.Google Scholar
  9. Bamber, E. M., & Ramsay, R. J. (2000). The effects of specialization in audit workpaper review on review efficiency and reviewers’ confidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(2), 147–157.Google Scholar
  10. Barrett, M., Cooper, D. J., & Jamal, K. (2005). Globalization and the coordinating of work in multinational audits. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  11. Bowrin, A. R. (1998). Review and synthesis of audit structure literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 17, 40–71.Google Scholar
  12. Brazel, J. F., Agoglia, C. P., & Hatfield, R. C. (2004). Electronic versus face-to-face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors’ performance. The Accounting Review, 79(4), 949–966.Google Scholar
  13. Buchan, H. F. (2005). Ethical decision making in the public accounting profession: An extension of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(2), 165–181.Google Scholar
  14. Burgstahler, D., Glover, S. M., & Jiambalvo, J. (2000). Error projection and uncertainty in the evaluation of aggregate error. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(1), 79–99.Google Scholar
  15. Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB). (2004). Public report on initial quality inspections of the four largest accounting firms, October 6. Toronto, CA: CPAB. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from
  16. Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB). (2005). Second public report on quality inspections of public accounting firms, August 18. Toronto, CA: CPAB. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from
  17. Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Confronting failure: Antecedents and consequences of shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 161–177.Google Scholar
  18. Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 459–484.Google Scholar
  19. Chung, J., & Monroe, G. S. (2003). Exploring social desirability. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4), 291–302.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (1993). A validation and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(1), 13–26.Google Scholar
  21. Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., Sharp, D. J., & Holder-Webb, L. (2007). The effect of perceived fairness on opportunistic behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(4), 1119–1138.Google Scholar
  22. Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W., Heian, J. B., & Samuel, S. (1998). The calculated and the avowed: Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big six public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 293–328.Google Scholar
  23. Desmurget, M., & Grafton, S. (2000). Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 423–431.Google Scholar
  24. Dirsmith, W., & Covaleski, M. A. (1985). Informal communications, nonformal communications and mentoring in public accounting firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(2), 149–170.Google Scholar
  25. Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(1), 5–28.Google Scholar
  26. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.Google Scholar
  27. Epley, N., & Dunning, D. (2000). Feeling “Holier Than Thou”: Are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 861–975.Google Scholar
  28. Eynon, G., Hill, N. T., & Stevens, K. T. (1997). Factors that influence the moral reasoning abilities of accountants: Implications for universities and the profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(12/13), 1297–1309.Google Scholar
  29. Ferguson, A., Francis, J., & Stokes, D. (2003). The effects of firm-wide and office-level industry expertise on audit pricing. The Accounting Review, 78(2), 429–448.Google Scholar
  30. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315.Google Scholar
  31. Fisher, R. J., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Removing social desirability bias with indirect questioning: Is the cure worse than the disease? Advances in Consumer Research, 15(25), 563–567.Google Scholar
  32. Francis, J., Maydew, L. E., & Sparks, H. C. (1999). The role of Big 6 auditors in the credible reporting of accruals. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 18(2), 17–34.Google Scholar
  33. Ganushchak, L. Y., & Schiller, N. O. (2006). Effects of time pressure on verbal self-monitoring: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1125(1), 104–115.Google Scholar
  34. Ganushchak, L. Y., & Schiller, N. O. (2008a). Motivation and semantic context affect brain error-monitoring activity: An event-related brain potentials study. NeuroImage, 39(1), 395–405.Google Scholar
  35. Ganushchak, L. Y., & Schiller, N. O. (2008b). Brain error-monitoring activity is affected by semantic relatedness: An event-related brain potentials study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(5), 927–940.Google Scholar
  36. Gibbins, M., & Newton, J. (1994). An empirical exploration of complex accountability in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Research, 32(2), 165–186.Google Scholar
  37. Gibbins, M., Salterio, S., & Webb, A. (2001). Evidence about auditor–client management negotiation concerning client’s financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(3), 535–563.Google Scholar
  38. Gibbins, M., & Trotman, K. T. (2002). Audit review: Managers’ interpersonal expectations and conduct of the review. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(3), 411–444.Google Scholar
  39. Gillingham, D. W., Blanco, J., & Lewko, J. H. (1997). An integrated model of error management. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6(3), 186–190.Google Scholar
  40. Gronewold, U., & Donle, M. (2011). Audit firms’ organizational error climate and auditors’ predispositions toward handling errors. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23(2), 69–92.Google Scholar
  41. Harding, N., & Trotman, K. T. (1999). Hierarchical differences in audit workpaper review performance. Contemporary Accounting Research, 16(4), 671–684.Google Scholar
  42. Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2001). Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cognitive Psychology, 42(2), 113–157.Google Scholar
  43. Hermanson, H. M. (1997). The effects of audit structure and experience on auditors’ decisions to isolate errors. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 9(Supplement), 76–93.Google Scholar
  44. Hermanson, D. R., Houston, R. W., & Rice, J. C. (2007). PCAOB inspections of smaller CPA firms: Initial evidence from inspection reports. Accounting Horizons, 21(2), 137–152.Google Scholar
  45. Hofmann, D. A., & Mark, B. (2006). An investigation of the relationship between safety climate and medication errors as well as other nurse and patient outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 847–869.Google Scholar
  46. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  47. Homsma, G. J., Van Dyck, C., De Gilder, D., Koopman, P. L., & Elfring, T. (2009). Learning from error: The influence of error incident characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 115–122.Google Scholar
  48. Hyatt, T. A., & Prawitt, D. F. (2001). Does congruence between audit structure and auditors’ locus of control affect job performance? The Accounting Review, 76(2), 263–274.Google Scholar
  49. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2010a). International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 220: Quality Control for an Audit of Financial Statements. New York: International Federation of Accountants. Retrieved February 27, 2012, from
  50. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2010b). International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 230: Audit documentation. New York: International Federation of Accountants. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from
  51. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2010c). International Standard on Quality Control (ISQC) 1: Quality control for firms that perform audits and reviews of financial statements, and other assurance and related services engagements. New York: International Federation of Accountants. Retrieved February 27, 2012, from,
  52. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.Google Scholar
  53. Jones, J., Massey, D. W., & Thorne, L. (2003). Auditors’ ethical reasoning: Insights from past research and implications for the future. Journal of Accounting Literature, 22, 45–103.Google Scholar
  54. Kanodia, C., Bushman, R., & Dickhaut, J. (1989). Escalation errors and the sunk cost effect: An explanation based on reputation and information asymmetries. Journal of Accounting Research, 27(1), 59–77.Google Scholar
  55. Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management, 34(5), 978–1008.Google Scholar
  56. Kelley, T., & Margheim, L. (1990). The impact of time budget pressure, personality, and leadership variables on dysfunctional auditor behavior. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 9(2), 21–42.Google Scholar
  57. Kennedy, J. (1993). Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2), 231–245.Google Scholar
  58. King, R. R. (1996). Reputation formation for reliable reporting: An experimental investigation. The Accounting Review, 71(3), 375–396.Google Scholar
  59. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569–598.Google Scholar
  60. Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature. Journal of Management, 35(3), 634–717.Google Scholar
  61. Larrick, R. P. (1993). Motivational factors in decision theories: The role of self-protection. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 440–450.Google Scholar
  62. Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41–104.Google Scholar
  63. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  64. Lewis, P. V. (1985). Defining ‘Business Ethics’: Like nailing jello to a wall. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(5), 377–383.Google Scholar
  65. Luu, P., Flaisch, T., & Tucker, D. M. (2000). Medial frontal cortex in action monitoring. The Journal of Neuroscience, 20(1), 464–469.Google Scholar
  66. Malone, C. F., & Roberts, R. W. (1996). Factors associated with the incidence of reduced audit quality behaviors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 15(2), 49–64.Google Scholar
  67. Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 647–660.Google Scholar
  68. Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 175–194.Google Scholar
  69. Mayhew, B. W. (2001). Auditor reputation building. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(3), 599–617.Google Scholar
  70. Mayhew, B. W., & Murphy, P. R. (2009). The impact of ethics education on reporting behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(3), 397–416.Google Scholar
  71. McDaniel, L. S. (1990). The effects of time pressure and audit program structure on audit performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 28(2), 267–285.Google Scholar
  72. McNair, C. J. (1991). Proper compromises: The management control dilemma in public accounting and its impact on auditor behavior. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(7), 635–653.Google Scholar
  73. Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. LEA Organization and Management Series. Mahwah, NJ: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  74. Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2009). A word to the wise: How managers and policy-makers can encourage employees to report wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(3), 379–396.Google Scholar
  75. Miller, D. L., & Thomas, S. (2005). The impact of relative position and relational closeness on the reporting of unethical acts. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 315–328.Google Scholar
  76. Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently… and why. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  77. Nooteboom, S., & Quené, H. (2008). Self-monitoring and feedback: A new attempt to find the main cause of lexical bias in phonological speech errors. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 837–861.Google Scholar
  78. Norman, D. A. (1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychological Review, 88(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  79. Otley, D. T., & Pierce, B. J. (1996). The operation of control systems in large audit firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 15(2), 65–84.Google Scholar
  80. Owhoso, V. E., Messier, W. F., Jr., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (2002). Error detection by industry-specialized teams during sequential audit review. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(3), 883–900.Google Scholar
  81. Palmrose, Z. (1991). Trials of legal disputes involving independent auditors: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 29(Supplement), 149–185.Google Scholar
  82. Palmrose, Z., Richardson, V. J., & Scholz, S. (2004). Determinants of market reactions to restatement announcements. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 37(1), 59–89.Google Scholar
  83. Palmrose, Z., & Scholz, S. (2004). The circumstances and legal consequences of non-GAAP reporting: Evidence from restatements. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(1), 139–180.Google Scholar
  84. Payne, E. A., Ramsay, R. J., & Bamber, E. M. (2010). The effect of alternative types of review on auditors’ procedures and performance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(1), 207–220.Google Scholar
  85. Peytcheva, M., & Gillett, P. R. (2012). Auditor perceptions of prior involvement and reputation threats as antecedents of quality threatening audit behavior. Managerial Auditing Journal, 27(9), 796–820.Google Scholar
  86. Pierce, B., & Sweeney, B. (2006). Perceived adverse consequences of quality threatening behaviour in audit firms. International Journal of Auditing, 10(1), 19–39.Google Scholar
  87. Ponemon, L. A. (1992). Ethical reasoning and selection-socialization in accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(3–4), 239–258.Google Scholar
  88. Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77(2), 97–131.Google Scholar
  89. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2004a). Report on the 2003 limited inspection of Deloitte & Touche LLP, August 26. Washington, DC: PCAOB. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from
  90. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2004b). Report on the 2003 limited inspection of Ernst & Young LLP, August 26. Washington, DC: PCAOB. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from
  91. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2004c). Report on the 2003 limited inspection of KPMG LLP, August 26. Washington, DC: PCAOB. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from
  92. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2004d). Report on the 2003 limited inspection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, August 26. Washington, DC: PCAOB. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from
  93. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2004e). Auditing Standard No. 3: Audit documentation, June 9. Washington, DC: PCAOB. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from
  94. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2005). Report on the 2004 inspection of Ernst & Young LLP, November 17. Washington, DC: PCAOB. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from
  95. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2007). Report on the PCAOB’s 2004, 2005, and 2006 inspections of domestic triennially inspected firms, PCAOB Release No. 2007-010, October 22. Washington, DC: PCAOB. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from
  96. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2008). Report on the PCAOB’s 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 inspections of domestic annually inspected firms, PCAOB Release No. 2008-008, December 5. Washington, DC: PCAOB. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from
  97. Rabbitt, P. (1969). Psychological refractory delay and response-stimulus interval duration in serial, choice-response tasks. Acta Psychologica, 30, 195–219.Google Scholar
  98. Rabbitt, P. (1990). Age, IQ and awareness, and recall of errors. Ergonomics, 33(10/11), 1291–1305.Google Scholar
  99. Ramsay, R. J. (1994). Senior/manager differences in audit workpaper review performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 32(1), 127–135.Google Scholar
  100. Reason, J. T. (2000). Human error: Models and management. British Medical Journal, 320(7237), 768–770.Google Scholar
  101. Reynolds, J. K., & Francis, J. (2000). Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 30(3), 375–400.Google Scholar
  102. Rich, J. S., Solomon, I., & Trotman, K. T. (1997). The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(5), 481–505.Google Scholar
  103. Rodríguez-Fornells, A., Kurzbuch, A. R., & Münte, T. F. (2002). Time course of error detection and correction in humans: Neurophysiological evidence. The Journal of Neuroscience, 22(22), 9990–9996.Google Scholar
  104. Rothwell, G. R., & Baldwin, J. N. (2007). Ethical climate theory, whistle-blowing, and the code of silence in police agencies in the state of Georgia. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(4), 341–361.Google Scholar
  105. Rybowiak, V., Garst, H., Frese, M., & Batinic, B. (1999). Error Orientation Questionnaire (EOQ): Reliability, validity, and different language equivalence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 527–547.Google Scholar
  106. Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145–164). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  107. Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 447–479.Google Scholar
  108. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66.Google Scholar
  109. Sherwood, G. G. (1981). Self-serving biases in person perception: A re-examination of projection as a mechanism of defense. Psychological Bulletin, 90(3), 445–459.Google Scholar
  110. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190.Google Scholar
  111. Stefaniak, C., & Robertson, J. C. (2009). When auditors err: How mistake significance and superiors’ historical reactions influence auditors’ likelihood to admit a mistake. International Journal of Auditing, 14(1), 41–55.Google Scholar
  112. Tan, H.-T., & Jamal, K. (2006). Managing perceptions of technical competence: How well do auditors know how others view them? Contemporary Accounting Research, 23(3), 761–787.Google Scholar
  113. Tan, H.-T., & Trotman, K. T. (2003). Reviewers’ responses to anticipated stylization attempts by preparers of audit workpapers. The Accounting Review, 78(2), 581–604.Google Scholar
  114. Tax, S. S., & Brown, S. W. (1998). Recovering and learning from service failure. Sloan Management Review, 40(1), 75–88.Google Scholar
  115. Taylor, E. Z., & Curtis, M. B. (2010). An examination of the layers of workplace influences in ethical judgments: Whistleblowing likelihood and perseverance in public accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 21–37.Google Scholar
  116. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883.Google Scholar
  117. Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A Review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990.Google Scholar
  118. Tucker, A. L., & Edmondson, A. (2003). Why hospitals don’t learn from failures: Organizational and psychological dynamics that inhibit system change. California Management Review, 45(2), 55–72.Google Scholar
  119. Uribe, C. L., Schweikhart, S. B., Pathak, D. S., & March, G. B. (2002). Perceived barriers to medical-error reporting: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Healthcare Management, 47(4), 264–279.Google Scholar
  120. Van Dyck, C. (1997). Error climate and management issues: Its links to organizational performance. In R. Pepermans, A. Buelens, C. J. Vinkenburg, & P. G. W. Jensen (Eds.), Managerial behavior and practices: European research issues (pp. 107–116). Amersfoort, NL: Acco.Google Scholar
  121. Van Dyck, C. (2009). The tragic 1996 everest expedition: A tale of error culture. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 22–34.Google Scholar
  122. Van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1228–1240.Google Scholar
  123. Van Leuvan, P., & Wang, M. C. (1997). An analysis of students’ self-monitoring in first- and second-grade classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(3), 132–143.Google Scholar
  124. Vardi, Y. (2001). The effects of organizational and ethical climates on misconduct at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4), 325–337.Google Scholar
  125. Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organization Science, 7(2), 151–165.Google Scholar
  126. Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101–125.Google Scholar
  127. Weber, J. (1990). Measuring the impact of teaching ethics to future managers: A review, assessment, and recommendations. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(3), 183–190.Google Scholar
  128. Willett, C., & Page, M. (1996). A survey of time budget pressure and irregular auditing practices among newly qualified UK chartered accountants. British Accounting Review, 28(2), 101–120.Google Scholar
  129. Winograd, B. N., Gerson, J. S., & Berlin, B. L. (2000). Audit practices of pricewaterhousecoopers. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(2), 175–182.Google Scholar
  130. Yates, J. F., & Curley, S. P. (1986). Contingency judgment: Primacy effects and attention decrement. Acta Psychologica, 62(3), 293–302.Google Scholar
  131. Zhao, B. (2011). Learning from errors: The role of context, emotion, and personality. Journal Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 435–463.Google Scholar
  132. Zhao, B., & Olivera, F. (2006). Error reporting in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 1012–1030.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulfert Gronewold
    • 1
  • Anna Gold
    • 2
  • Steven E. Salterio
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Economics and Social SciencesUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.School of BusinessQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations