American Accounting Association - AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory
AAA Digital Library

AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory

Previous Article
Why Do Some Accelerated Filers with SOX Section 404 Material Weaknesses Provide Early Warning under Section 302?
SUMMARY: During the first year of the SOX Section 404 reporting requirements (effective November 15, 2004), many adverse Section 404 audit reports were a “surprise” in that management had ...
Next Article
Audit Fees at U.S. Non-Profit Organizations
SUMMARY: Non-profit organizations account for a significant share of the U.S. national economy. Some recent scandals and governance failures in non-profits have led to increased scrutiny of non-profit...

You are not logged in to this journal. Log in

An Examination of the Effects of Procedural Safeguards on Intentions to Anonymously Report Fraud

Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 28 (2), 273 (2009);
doi: 10.2308/aud.2009.28.2.273

Buy This PDF   (US$25)
Download PDF (178 kB) View Cart
Steven E. Kaplan, Professor; Kurt Pany, Professor; and Janet A. Samuels, Assistant Clinical Professor
Arizona State University.

Jian Zhang, Assistant Professor
San Jose State University.
SUMMARY: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX, Sec. 301) requires audit committees of public companies to establish procedures for employee anonymous reporting of concerns regarding questionable accounting, internal control, or auditing matters. Audit committees have great flexibility in their implementation of this requirement. To address this issue, this paper reports the results of two experimental studies. Our first experimental study examines whether an anonymous hotline possessing stronger procedural safeguards, including external administration and related procedural safeguards, increases fraud-related reporting intentions in comparison with one possessing weaker procedural safeguards, including internal administration. Respondents' intentions to report a fraudulent act were greater under the weaker safeguards condition as compared with the stronger safeguards condition. These results were not anticipated, and an ancillary study was conducted examining internal versus external anonymous hotline administration, holding constant other procedural safeguards. The results show that respondents' intentions to report a fraudulent act were stronger under an internally administered hotline. Thus, our results suggest that an externally administered anonymous hotline may not increase fraud reporting. Our findings have implications for those who oversee and evaluate the operating effectiveness of controls. ©2009 American Accounting Association
History: Submitted September 2007; accepted April 2009; published November 2009
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/AJPTXX/v28/i2/p273/s1

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN:
0278-0380 (print)   1558-7991 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef American Accounting Association

REFERENCES (32)

For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.

CITING ARTICLES

For access to citing articles, you need to log in.
For access to citing articles, you need to Log in.

RSS Library Card Alerts