A perspective on the whistleblowing intention of internal auditors: an integrated ethical decision-making model

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Table 1. Sample selection.

Selection Procedures
Number of state universities in Indonesia	122
Minimal number of internal auditors (SPI) for each university, as stipulated by regulation^2	3
Total population (122 X 3)	366
Collected responses	197 (53.8%)
Questionnaire with incomplete information	4
Number of samples	193 (52.7%)

Table 2. Profile of respondents.

Description	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Age
20–30 years	24	12.4
31–40 years	67	34.7
41–50 years	53	27.5
> 50 years	49	25.4
Gender
Male	92	47.7
Female	101	52.3
Educational Level*
Bachelor’s Degree	21	10.9
Master’s Degree	130	67.4
Doctoral Degree	42	21.8
Educational Background
Accounting	97	50.3
Non-Accounting	96	49.7
Length of Service with Internal Supervisory Unit
< 1 year	44	22.8
1–5 years	103	53.4
6–10 years	34	17.6
> 10 years	12	6.2
Position in Internal Supervisory Unit
Head	50	25.9
Secretary	45	23.3
Member	98	50.8
Number of Audit Trainings Attended
1–5 times	143	74.1
6–10 times	28	14.5
> 10 times	22	11.4

* Tertiary education.

Table 3. Measurement of the variables.

Variables	Symbol	Measurement
Dependent Variable
Whistleblowing Intention	WI, WE	The whistleblowing intention was measured using eight questions which consisted of two parts, namely the internal whistleblowing intention and the external whistleblowing intention. These were adopted from Park and Blenkinsopp (2009). A seven-point Likert scale was used to rate the statements, ranging from 1 ‘I will not try at all’ to 7 ‘I will try hard’.
Independent Variable
Ethical Awareness	EA	Ethical awareness was measured using two question items adapted from Arnold et al. (2013) which asked whether the actions in each scenario (there were four scenarios) are ethical or unethical and rated on a seven-point Likert scale.
Mediating Variable
Attitude Toward Whistleblowing	ATB	The attitude toward whistleblowing was measured using an instrument developed by Park and Blenkinsopp (2009) which asked how true respondents thought five statements were regarding the salient consequences of an employee reporting fraud in an organization. The respondents were also asked to evaluate the importance of these consequences. The two questions above were rated on a seven-point Likert scale
Moderating Variable
Perceived Ethical Climate	EC	The perceived ethical climate was measured using the instrument used by Tsai and Huang (2008), based on the ethical climate questionnaire (ECQ) developed by Victor and Cullen (1988). Respondents were asked, using a seven-point Likert scale, about the actual ethical climate in their organization, instead of the ideal climate that they hoped for.
Controls
Gender	GENDER	Gender of auditors.
Age	AGE	Age of auditors.
Educational Background	EDUBC	Educational background of the auditors: accounting or non-accounting.
Tenure	TENURE	The number of years that the auditors have held the position.
Audit Training	AUTRAIN	Number of audit training sessions the auditors had attended.

Table 4. Results of discriminant validity test using the Fornell-Larcker criterion.

	EA	ATB	EC	WI	WE
Ethical Awareness	0.778	0.237	0.333	0.190	0.003
Attitude Toward Whistleblowing	0.237	0.876	0.418	0.452	0.089
Perceived Ethical Climate	0.333	0.418	0.843	0.258	−0.035
Internal Whistleblowing	0.190	0.452	0.258	0.820	0.114
External Whistleblowing	0.003	0.089	−0.035	0.114	0.839

Notes: For variable definition, see Table 3.

Table 5. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT).

	EA	ATB	EC	WI
ATB	0.268
EC	0.371	0.455
WI	0.238	0.537	0.311
WE	0.119	0.103	0.078	0.150

Notes: For variable definition, see Table 3.

Table 6. Results of measurement model’s testing.

Indicator	Loading	P-value	AVE	Cronbach’s	Composite
	Factor			Alpha	Reliability
Ethical Awareness (EA)
EA3	0.73	<0.001	0.605	0.869	0.902
EA4	0.747	<0.001
EA5	0.809	<0.001
EA6	0.811	<0.001
EA7	0.77	<0.001
EA8	0.795	<0.001
Attitude Toward Whistleblowing (ATB)
ATB1	0.815	<0.001	0.767	0.923	0.942
ATB2	0.888	<0.001
ATB3	0.907	<0.001
ATB4	0.9	<0.001
ATB5	0.865	<0.001
Perceived Ethical Climate (EC)
EC2	0.744	<0.001	0.711	0.918	0.936
EC4	0.852	<0.001
EC5	0.898	<0.001
EC6	0.89	0.004
EC7	0.788	0.071
EC8	0.876	0.139
Whistleblowing Intention (WI & WE)
WI1	0.749	<0.001	0.672	0.754	0.83
WI3	0.879	<0.001
WI4	0.826	<0.001
WE1	0.866	<0.001	0.705	0.859	0.86
WE2	0.848	<0.001
WE3	0.876	<0.001
WE4	0.762	<0.001

Notes: For variable definition, see Table 3.

Table 7. Descriptive statistics.

	N	Min	Max	Average Value	Standard Deviation
EA	193	1.0	7	5.881	1.018
WI	193	1.7	7	5.953	1.050
WE	193	1.0	7	2.885	1.556
ATB	193	2.5	7	6.298	0.795
EC	193	2.0	7	5.676	1.090

Notes: For variable definition, see Table 3.

Table 8. Results of the structural model’s analysis.

Indicator	Value	P	Criteria
Average path coefficient (APC)	0.127	0.018	<0.05
Average R-squared (ARS)	0.158	<0.006	<0.05
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS)	0.132	<0.015	<0.05
Average block VIF (AVIF)	1.142		< =3.3
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF)	1.350		< =3.3
Tenenhaus GoF (GoF)	0.372		Small > =0.1 Medium > 0.25 Large > =0.36
Standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR)	0.079		< =0.1
Simpson’s paradox ratio (SPR)	0.833		> =0.7
f² effect size	0.01-0.162		Small 0.02 Medium 0.15 Large 0.35
Q²:			>0
- Attitude Toward Whistleblowing	0.114
- Internal Whistleblowing Intention	0.308
- External Whistleblowing Intention	0.152

Figure 2. Direct effect test results.

Notes: Output of Warp PLS 7; for variable definition, see Table 3.

Table 9. Results of hypothesis testing.

Structural Path	Coeficient	P-value	Conclusion
Testing of Direct Effect
EA →WI	0.282	<0.001***	H1 supported, specifically for internal whistleblowing intention.
EA →WE	−0.170 ª	0.008***
EA→ATB	0.310	<0.001***	H2 supported.
Testing of Mediating Effect
EA →WI	0.172	0.053**	H1 supported, specifically for internal whistleblowing.
EA →WE	−0.147	0.220
EA →ATB	0.310	<0.001***	H2 supported.
ATB→WI	0.406	<0.001***	H3 supported and H4 supported, specifically for internal whistleblowing.
ATB→WE	0.145	0.020**
Testing of Indirect Effect
EA →ATB→WI	0.136	0.006***	H4 supported, specifically for internal whistleblowing.
EA →ATB→WE	0.045	0.188
Testing of Moderating Mediation Effect
EA →WI	0.175	0.006***	H1 supported, specifically for internal whistleblowing.
EA →WE	−0.137ª	0.0026**
EA →ATB	0.292	<0.001***	H2 supported.
ATB→WI	0.351	<0.001***	H3 supported and H4 supported, specifically for internal whistleblowing.
ATB→WE	0.138	0.025**
EC*EA→ATB	0.098	0.083*	H5a supported.
EC*ATB→WI	−0.122ª	0.042**	H5b supported, specifically for external whistleblowing.
EC*ATB→WE	0.090	0.102*

Notes: For variable definition, see Table 3; ***, **, * significant at 1%, 5% and 10%; ^aThe direction of influence is different from the hypothesized direction.

Figure 3. Mediating effect test results.

Notes: Output of Warp PLS 7; for variable definition, see Table 3.

Figure 4. Mediating moderation effect test results.

Notes: Output of Warp PLS 7; for variable definition, see Table 3.

Table 10. Testing of endogeneity and consistent PLS results.

Endogeneity Test: Instrumental Variable			Consintent PLS (PLSc)
Structural Path	Coeficient	P-value	Structural Path	Coeficient	P-value
EA →WI	0.158	0.012**	EA →WI	0.185	0.004***
EA →WE	−0.133	0.030**	EA →WE	−0.054	0.223
EA →ATB	0.292	<0.001***	EA →ATB	0.306	<0.001***
ATB→WI	0.377	<0.001***	ATB→WI	0.422	<0.001***
ATB→WE	0.129	0.034**	ATB→WE	0.169	0.008***
iV→WI	−0.131ª	0.031**	EC*EA→ATB	0.096	0.087*
iV→WE	0.118	0.048**	EC*ATB→WI	−0.091ª	0.051**
EC*EA→ATB	0.098	0.083*	EC*ATB→WE	0.084	0.120
EC*ATB→WI	−0.091ª	0.100***
EC*ATB→WE	0.083	0.098*

Notes: For variable definition, see Table 3; ***, **, * significant at 1%, 5% and 10%; ^a The direction of influence is different from the hypothesized direction.

Park, H., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2009). Whistleblowing as planned behavior - A survey of South Korean police officers. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9788-y

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arnold, D. F., Dorminey, J. W., Neidermeyer, A. A., & Neidermeyer, P. E. (2013). Internal and external auditor ethical decision-making. Managerial Auditing Journal, 28(4), 300–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901311311918

 Google Scholar

Tsai, M. T., & Huang, C. C. (2008). The relationship among ethical climate types, facets of job satisfaction, and the three components of organizational commitment: A study of nurses in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9455-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392857

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data not available – the participants in this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly.