IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/majpps/02686901311311918.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Internal and external auditor ethical decision‐making

Author

Listed:
  • Donald F. Arnold
  • Jack W. Dorminey
  • A.A. Neidermeyer
  • Presha E. Neidermeyer

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this exploratory research is to compare three sectors of the auditing profession – internal auditors, external auditors from larger international firms, and external auditors from smaller/regional firms – in regard to the influence of situational context on their ethically‐related decision‐making and judgment evaluations. Design/methodology/approach - Against the backdrop of five vignettes applied with a survey, the paper examines the potential influence of social consensus and magnitude of consequence on the ethical decision path of these three auditor groups. Findings - The paper finds that, in all cases, social consensus and magnitude of consequences exert influence on the ethical decision path. In the case of social consensus, however the paper finds that the ethical decision path is fully mediated for large firm auditors but is only partial mediated for the other two groups of auditors. Originality/value - This research examines responses from both internal and external auditors. Comparison between such groups is unique because these groups have not been well researched in the past literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald F. Arnold & Jack W. Dorminey & A.A. Neidermeyer & Presha E. Neidermeyer, 2013. "Internal and external auditor ethical decision‐making," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 28(4), pages 300-322, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:02686901311311918
    DOI: 10.1108/02686901311311918
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02686901311311918/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02686901311311918/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/02686901311311918?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:02686901311311918. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.