Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine whether users’ perceived moral affect explains the effect of perceived intensity of emotional distress on responsibility judgment of a perpetrator and company, respectively, in an ill and good intention breach.

Participants completed a questionnaire containing items measuring their perceived intensity of emotional distress, perceived moral affect and responsibility judgment of a perpetrator and company, respectively.

The results support the mediating hypothesis on responsibility judgment of a perpetrator regardless of intention. The mediating hypothesis is also supported in an ill intention breach in responsibility judgment of a company. However, the mediating effect is not observed in a good intention breach when users assess a company’s responsibility.

The findings support the notion that users use the consequentialism approach when assessing a perpetrator’s responsibility because they focus on the victims’ emotional distress and discount a perpetrator’s intent, resulting in similar mediating effect of perceived moral affect in an ill and good intention breach. The results also indicate that perceived moral affect increases the negative effect of perceived intensity of emotional distress on responsibility judgment of a company, suggesting that users may exhibit empathetic feelings toward a company and perceive it as a victim of an ill intention breach. The lack of mediating effect in responsibility judgment of a company in a good intention breach may be attributed to the diminished effect of a perpetrator’s feelings of regret, sorrow, guilt and shame for causing emotional distress to the victims.

This study tests a research model for promoting understanding of the responsibility attribution process.

A between-subjects experiment was conducted to test the hypotheses.

The results reveal that counterfactual thinking about how a system failure could have been prevented moderates the effect of cause of misstatement on perceived control. Counterfactual thinking about how an audit failure could have been avoided also moderates the effect of perceived control on causal account. Additionally, causal account mediates the effect of perceived control on responsibility judgment of an audit firm. Inclusion of audit firm size and auditor systems competency as control variables in the hypothesis tests and as grouping variables in the invariance tests does not alter the model results.

Research can guide the audit profession on development of innovative strategies for detecting fraud to protect the interests of decision-makers. Strategies can also be devised to prompt users to consider relevant factors to enhance their ability to arrive at an accurate assessment of an audit firm’s responsibility for an audit failure.

Regulators may need to address whether availability of advanced data analytic tools increases the audit firms’ responsibility for presenting convincing evidence suggesting due diligence in the audit work in the event of an audit failure.

This study examines the process variables influencing responsibility judgment of an audit firm. Elicitation of counterfactual thoughts before the participants responded to the questions measuring the process and dependent variables facilitates discernment of the intensity of counterfactual thinking on the variables examined in the research model.

In the public debate, companies are confronted with conflicting expectations regarding their responsibility. An inconsistent understanding of the responsibility of corporations may affect the acceptance of corporate actions. The purpose of this study is to take this observation as a starting point and to analyze corporate responsibility assessments of different actors.

In the course of two online surveys conducted by a polling institute at the end of January 2017, 1,003 German citizens were asked about their expectations concerning the responsibility of corporations. One survey was mainly focused on clothing manufacturers, the other one on banks. Moreover, a content analysis of nationwide German quality newspapers aims at showing the media perspective. By using an extensive combination of keywords, 1069 articles were analyzed for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2016. The coding revealed 345 relevant articles containing 717 responsibility-related judgments.

Overall, the systematic comparison of both perspectives show differences between societal perspectives and therefore presents an explanation for conflicting expectations concerning the responsibility of corporations.

The measurement of judgments on responsibility is a complex endeavor. Findings may be limited due to an extensive coding process and a restricted comparability of the two surveys and the content analysis. Moreover, findings are focused on clothing manufacturers and banks only.

A focus on responsibility assessments delivers a deeper understanding of different perspectives concerning the responsibility of corporations in the public debate.

In crafting Auditing Standard No.3 (AS3), a primary objective of the PCAOB was to reduce auditors' exposure to litigation by raising the standard of care for audit documentation. We examine whether the increased documentation requirements of AS3 affect legal professionals' perceptions of audit quality and auditor responsibility in the event of an audit failure. Our experiment consists of a 3 × 2 between-participants design with law students serving as proxies for legal professionals. The results of our experiment indicate that when an audit procedure, namely the investigation of inconsistent evidence, is not required to be documented, legal professionals perceive the performance of the work itself but not its documentation to significantly increase audit quality and reduce the auditor's responsibility for an audit failure. When documentation of the procedure is required, as per AS3, legal professionals perceive enhanced audit quality and reduced auditor responsibility only if the performance of the work is documented.

We stress the public demand for accountability of global brands and the rise in normative public brand evaluations in online networks. To gain an empirical and theoretical understanding of these phenomena, we introduce the notion of public brand auditing, which refers to public agents collectively contrasting brands against a multiplicity of shared understandings of what is worthy and good.

Convention theory serves as a theoretical lens to conceptualize public brand auditing, since it provides a normative framework of orders of worth based on which the appropriateness of actions are judged. Empirically, we conduct a netnographic study and illustrate public auditing strategies with online discussions about Google on the Slashdot platform.

We find that public brand auditing comprises two major auditing strategies: drawing leeways of acceptable brand conduct and allocating responsibilities.

Approaching public forms of normative brand judgments from a convention theory perspective allows researchers to better understand how the public holds brands accountable and evaluates brand conduct against higher-order principles.

The concept of public brand auditing helps managers to understand and approach the normative basis of both positive and negative brand judgments.

We urge brands to monitor public demand for accountability and emphasize the importance of the civic, market, and industrial orders of worth in guiding brand conduct.

This paper offers a conceptualization of and a framework for investigating public brand auditing phenomena.

The decision to disclose an illness is a difficult choice for many individuals. Despite national laws such Americans with Disabilities Act that protect workers with disabilities from discrimination in the workplace, the stigmas around certain illnesses, fears of being judged by others using different standards, and concerns about a lack of support regardless of legal requirements are all reasons why someone may hesitate to disclose a health condition in the workplace.

Using experimentally manipulated vignettes and a combination of theories on attribution and incivility, this study explores the dangers of not disclosing a disability/condition that can lead to behaviors that will engender judgments by coworkers.

The results of the study make clear that there are social benefits to disclosing a health condition rather than concealing. The findings clearly demonstrate that attributing an individual's negative behavior to their disposition will lead to more judgments of responsibility, and less sympathy and more anger compared to behaviors that can be explained by any health reason. Furthermore, more punishment, feelings of revenge and social distancing await individuals whose negative behavior cannot be explained by health issues.

This study combines issues of health, attributions, incivility in an experimental studies that illuminates issues surround disclosing a workplace disability that go beyond the typical focus of legal questions.

Attributing blame for performance failure and credit for success is ubiquitous in organizations. These responsibility attributions can play an important role in aligning individual and organizational performance expectations, but may also exacerbate conflict in groups and organizations. Theory suggests that an actor's organizational role will affect blame and credit attributions, yet empirical work on this prediction is lacking. This article tests an organizational role approach by assessing the effect of the responsible actor's hierarchical position and whether he or she acted as an individual or as part of a group on blame and credit attributions. The study finds that in response to organizational failures and successes leadership roles attract more blame than other positions, but in contrast to previous predictions, these roles do not attract more credit than lower level roles. In addition, upper level positions tend to be assigned greater blame than credit, while lower level positions show a reversed pattern: they attract more credit than blame. Groups are less likely to be assigned blame and more likely to be credited than are individuals, and occupants in flat organizational structures are assigned higher levels of blame and credit than are occupants in taller organizational structures.

The purpose of this research is to describe organization members' attributions for managerial responses to obviously externally caused crises. The authors draw from attribution theory research and the actor-observer bias to argue that organization members' proximity to managerial crisis response is a key determinant of organization members' affective and behavioral outcomes following a crisis.

The authors develop a conceptual dual-process model of attributions that explains why organization members' judgments of managerial responsibility and associated outcomes differ depending on organization members' proximity to crisis response action.

The authors focus on organization members' attributions for the failure of managerial crisis responses to obviously externally caused crisis events. The authors present propositions regarding the impact of organization members' potential biases on their attributions for managerial crisis response. Then, the authors delineate how action proximity can assuage negative outcomes of managerial crisis response failure by encouraging an attitude of understanding and awareness of situational challenges.

The authors diverge from prior applications of attribution theory to crisis management by focusing on organization members' attributions of managerial crisis response failure, rather than attributions for the initial cause of the crisis itself. The authors also extend prior work that primarily focuses on crisis response strategies by instead elaborating on how organization members' attributions operate in the wake of their management's failure to effectively respond to an obviously externally caused crisis.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the notion of “responsibility”.

Discussing the notion of “responsibility” according to two main philosophers (Paul Ricoeur and Hans Jonas) and its legal conception.

In philosophy, the issue of responsibility appears as a second‐level question, thus pointing up the first‐level ones (e.g. action, liberty, causality, autonomy). As such, responsibility necessarily reduces the philosophical field, otherwise the issue becomes unmanageable – if the issue ever was manageable! The concept of responsibility is both recent and fuzzy. The most commonly associated word is obligation. The notion of responsibility raises the problem of its conditions of possibility with the issue of imputation and the binary: imputation and sanction. Self‐referentiality and the circumstances surrounding calculation (of sanctions) are key aspects.

The question arises: What is hidden behind the notion?

Beware of the performative aspects linked to the notion of “responsibility”.

The current meaning of responsibility is embedded in today's political ideology (the “liberal moment”).

The paper takes into account the philosophical background of a notion currently used in management.