Search results

This study aims to examine the effects of peer ethical behavior and individual differences in valuation of fairness vs loyalty on whistleblowing intentions in academic settings. This study also tests the underlying mechanism responsible for the effects of peer behavior on reporting intentions, namely, fear of reprisal.

A survey was conducted with 947 undergraduate students. The model was tested using ordinary least squares regression models followed by bootstrapped mediation analyses.

Results showed that the effects of peer ethical behavior on whistleblowing intentions are mediated by fear of retaliation. Moreover, the findings indicated that, for low-severity transgressions, there is an interactive effect between fear of retaliation and endorsement of fairness over loyalty on whistleblowing intentions.

When the misconduct is seen as minor, a potential whistleblower may understand that the expected costs outweigh the possible benefits of blowing the whistle. In such situations, higher fear of retaliation would undermine the effects of individual’s endorsement of fairness over loyalty on reporting intentions.

As the social environment significantly affects someone’s whistleblowing intentions, there should be visible efforts to improve and to foster an ethical infrastructure in organizations.

As fear of retaliation by peers is one of the most important determinants affecting the decision to report misconduct in general, there must be serious efforts from leaders to mitigate any threat of retaliation to those who come forward.

This work contributes to the discussion about individual and situational antecedents of whistleblowing. More importantly, it sheds light on one potential boundary condition for the influence of the fairness–loyalty tradeoff on whistleblowing decisions: severity of the transgression. The findings provide initial evidence that, for low-severity transgressions, fear of retaliation weakens the positive effects of one’s moral compass in terms of preference for fairness over loyalty on whistleblowing intentions.

This article examines the misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic in social media and electronic media, as well as whether the existing legal administration and laws in Bangladesh, Singapore, and Vietnam are adequate to combat the infodemic. People who believe misinformation and fake news about Coronavirus, prevention, and treatment may put their lives in danger. False information about Coronavirus has spread throughout the world, not just in South and Southeast Asian countries, causing widespread concern in the global healthcare community. We employed a qualitative approach as well as the case study analysis method. Case studies were conducted using news reports and news channels. We examined the legal provisions of the People's Republic of Bangladesh's Constitution, as well as factual analyses of Singapore and Vietnam. We discovered the impact of misinformation dissemination through social and electronic media, which is prevalent not only among rural Bangladeshis but also in almost all classes in Singapore and Vietnam, and how such influence can be detrimental to the interests of Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Singapore.

This paper aims to use the advertisements of three major brands – Chymol, Formamint and Lifebuoy Soap – to examine how advertisers responded to the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic in Great Britain influenza pandemic. It looks particularly at the ways in which marketing strategies changed and how these strategies were enacted in the lexical and semiotic choices (e.g. language, image, colour, typography, texture, materiality, composition and layout) of advertisements.

A total of 120 advertisements for the three brands were collected from the British Newspaper Archive and analysed using the theory and analytical tools of multimodal critical discourse analysis. The general themes and semiotic structures of the advertisements were identified, with the aim of deconstructing the meaning potentials of verbal and visual resources used to convey ideas about the pandemic, and how they work to shape public understanding of the products and make them appear as effective and credible.

Each brand rapidly changed their marketing strategy in response to the influenza pandemic, using such techniques as testimonials, hyperbole, scaremongering and pseudoscientific claims to persuade consumers that their products offered protection. Whilst these strategies may appear manipulative, they also had the function of fostering reassurance and sympathy amongst the general public in a moment of turmoil, indicating the important role of brands in building consumer trust and promoting a sense of authority in early twentieth-century Britain.

Exploring the way in which advertisers responded to the 1918‐1919 influenza pandemic reminds us of the challenges of distinguishing legitimate and illegitimate medical advice in a fast-moving pandemic and highlights the need to cast a critical eye to the public health information, particularly when it comes from unofficial sources with vested interests.