IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Anonymous Whistle‐Blowing and Perceived Reputation Threats on Investigations of Whistle‐Blowing Allegations by Audit Committee Members


  • James E. Hunton
  • Jacob M. Rose


A total of 83 experienced audit committee members participated in an experiment in which they evaluated the credibility of and allocated investigative resources towards a whistle-blowing allegation of financial reporting malfeasance by corporate executive officers. We manipulated whether the whistle‐blowing allegation was made through anonymous or non‐anonymous channels and whether the allegation posed a relatively high or low threat to the personal reputation of the audit committee member who was charged with investigating the allegation. Results indicate that the participating audit committee members attributed lower credibility and allocated fewer investigatory resources when the whistle‐blowing report was received through an anonymous versus non‐anonymous channel, and when the allegation posed a relatively high versus low level of reputation threat. While the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 requires audit committees of publicly traded firms to provide an anonymous whistle‐blowing channel to employees, our findings suggest disturbing unintended consequences of such regulation; specifically, audit committee members might fail to sufficiently investigate whistle‐blowing allegations received through anonymous whistle‐blowing channels, particularly if the allegation poses a personal reputation threat.

Suggested Citation

  • James E. Hunton & Jacob M. Rose, 2011. "Effects of Anonymous Whistle‐Blowing and Perceived Reputation Threats on Investigations of Whistle‐Blowing Allegations by Audit Committee Members," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 75-98, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:48:y:2011:i:1:p:75-98

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Fich, Eliezer M. & White, Lawrence J., 2005. "Why do CEOs reciprocally sit on each other's boards?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-2), pages 175-195, March.
    2. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    3. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 43-58.
    4. Suraj Srinivasan, 2005. "Consequences of Financial Reporting Failure for Outside Directors: Evidence from Accounting Restatements and Audit Committee Members," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 291-334, May.
    5. John Bizjak & Michael Lemmon & Ryan Whitby, 2009. "Option Backdating and Board Interlocks," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(11), pages 4821-4847, November.
    6. Steven Kaplan & Joseph Schultz, 2007. "Intentions to Report Questionable Acts: An Examination of the Influence of Anonymous Reporting Channel, Internal Audit Quality, and Setting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 109-124, March.
    7. Hallock, Kevin F., 1997. "Reciprocally Interlocking Boards of Directors and Executive Compensation," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(03), pages 331-344, September.
    8. Alexander Dyck & Adair Morse & Luigi Zingales, 2010. "Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(6), pages 2213-2253, December.
    9. Linn, Scott C. & Park, Daniel, 2005. "Outside director compensation policy and the investment opportunity set," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 680-715, September.
    10. Agrawal, Anup & Chadha, Sahiba, 2005. "Corporate Governance and Accounting Scandals," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(2), pages 371-406, October.
    11. James Konow, 2000. "Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1072-1091, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:kap:jbuset:v:146:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-015-2913-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:kap:jbuset:v:146:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3237-0 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item


    This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:
    1. Recognized plagiarism


    Access and download statistics


    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:bla:jomstd:v:48:y:2011:i:1:p:75-98. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.