The aim of this exploratory research is to compare three sectors of the auditing profession – internal auditors, external auditors from larger international firms, and external auditors from smaller/regional firms – in regard to the influence of situational context on their ethically‐related decision‐making and judgment evaluations.
Against the backdrop of five vignettes applied with a survey, the paper examines the potential influence of social consensus and magnitude of consequence on the ethical decision path of these three auditor groups.
The paper finds that, in all cases, social consensus and magnitude of consequences exert influence on the ethical decision path. In the case of social consensus, however the paper finds that the ethical decision path is fully mediated for large firm auditors but is only partial mediated for the other two groups of auditors.
This research examines responses from both internal and external auditors. Comparison between such groups is unique because these groups have not been well researched in the past literature.
