Do internal auditors make consistent ethical judgments in English and Chinese in reporting wrongdoing?

Peipei Pan, Chris Patel*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

We contribute to the literature on intentions to report wrongdoing by examining whether Chinese internal auditors make consistent judgments when an ethical dilemma is presented in English and when the same dilemma is presented in Chinese. We invoke cultural frame switching theory, and our findings, which are based on a randomized experiment using between-subjects and within-subject mixed design, support the hypothesis that Chinese internal auditors are more likely to report wrongdoing when the ethical dilemma is presented in English than when it is presented in Chinese. Our results, which demonstrate that internal auditors make inconsistent ethical judgments in English and Chinese, point to language-triggered cognitive bias resulting from cultural mindsets. We suggest practical interventions and language strategies to improve audit quality.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)433-453
Number of pages21
JournalJournal of Business Ethics
Volume194
Issue number2
Early online date13 Mar 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2024

Keywords

  • Chinese versus English
  • Cognitive bias
  • Cultural frame switching theory

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Do internal auditors make consistent ethical judgments in English and Chinese in reporting wrongdoing?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this