To Whistleblow or Not to Whistleblow: Affective and Cognitive Differences in Reporting Peers and Advisors.
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 nega...
| Publicado en: | Science & Engineering Ethics Vol. 25; no. 1; pp. 171 - 211 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Feb2019
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=135326482&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 135326482 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13533452 GNI jtl: Science & Engineering Ethics issn: 13533452 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Feb2019 vid: 25 iid: 1 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 135326482 10.1007/s11948-017-9974-3 ppf: 171 ppct: 40 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 509KB tig: atl: To Whistleblow or Not to Whistleblow: Affective and Cognitive Differences in Reporting Peers and Advisors. aug: au: McIntosh, Tristan Higgs, Cory Turner, Megan Partlow, Paul Connelly, Shane Mumford, Michael D. Steele, Logan MacDougall, Alexandra E. affil: Department of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, 73071, Norman, OK, USA Muma College of Business, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA College of Business Administration, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA su: Whistleblowing & ethics Ethical decision making Behavior disorders Peers Consultants Emotions sug: subj: Whistleblowing & ethics Ethical decision making Behavior disorders Peers Consultants Emotions keyword: Ethics Misconduct Whistleblowing ab: 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Science & Engineering Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2019. All Rights Reserved. item: Science & Engineering Ethics holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2019 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|