To Whistleblow or Not to Whistleblow: Affective and Cognitive Differences in Reporting Peers and Advisors
- 453 Downloads
Traditional whistleblowing theories have purported that whistleblowers engage in a rational process in determining whether or not to blow the whistle on misconduct. However, stressors inherent to whistleblowing often impede rational thinking and act as a barrier to effective whistleblowing. The negative impact of these stressors on whistleblowing may be made worse depending on who engages in the misconduct: a peer or advisor. In the present study, participants are presented with an ethical scenario where either a peer or advisor engages in misconduct, and positive and the negative consequences of whistleblowing are either directed to the wrongdoer, department, or university. Participant responses to case questions were evaluated for whistleblowing intentions, moral intensity, metacognitive reasoning strategies, and positive and negative, active and passive emotions. Findings indicate that participants were less likely to report the observed misconduct of an advisor compared to a peer. Furthermore, the findings also suggest that when an advisor is the source of misconduct, greater negative affect results. Post-hoc analyses were also conducted examining the differences between those who did and did not intend to blow the whistle under the circumstances of either having to report an advisor or peer. The implications of these findings for understanding the complexities involved in whistleblowing are discussed.
KeywordsWhistleblowing Ethical decision making Ethics Misconduct
We would like to thank Tyler Mulhearn, Genevieve Johnson, Alisha Ness, and Logan Watts for their contributions to the present effort.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helskinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (2000). Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of work events and associated emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 36–48). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
- Braxton, J., Proper, E., & Bayer, A. (2011). Professors behaving badly: Faculty misconduct in graduate education. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Connelly, M. S., Helton, W. B., Schultz, R., Van Doorn, J. R., Benavidez, J., Thompson, H., & Mumford, M. D. (2000). Assessment tool report: Review of existing tools and development of new tools (Vols. 1 and 2). Technical Report for the Department of Defense (contract No. 1999*I033800*000). Norman, OK, University of Oklahoma, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
- Ettorre, B. (1994). Whistleblowers: Who’s the real bad guy? Management Review, 83, 18–23.Google Scholar
- Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Morgan, R. B. (1993). Self-and co-worker perceptions of ethics and their relationships to leadership and salary. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 200–214.Google Scholar
- Ness, A. M., & Connelly M. S. (2017). Situational influences on ethical sensemaking: Performance pressure, interpersonal conflict, and the recipient of consequences, Human Performance, 2–3, 1–22.Google Scholar
- Palmer, G. (1986). Windmill-tilting whistleblower turns advocate. Retrieved from http://newsok.com/article/2154056.
- Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.Google Scholar
- Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiesences as responses to perceived injustice. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 331–369). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Singer, M., Mitchell, S., & Turner, J. (1998). Consideration of moral intensity in ethicality judgments: Its relationship with whistle-blowing and need-for-cognition. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 527–541.Google Scholar
- Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379–440.Google Scholar
- Trevino, L. K., & Victor, B. (1992). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 38–64.Google Scholar
- Watts, L. L., & Buckley, M. R. (2015). A dual-processing model of moral whistleblowing in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2913-9.
- Westin, A. F. (1981). Whistle-blowing: Loyalty and dissent in the corporation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar