| This study examined the impact of situational factors on peer reporting intent (defined as the self-reported likelihood of reporting unethical acts of colleagues) within and between two focal professional groups: applied psychologists (N = 166) and Master's degree level human resources (HR) practitioners (N = 328). These two groups were chosen since they often work in overlapping functions in organizations yet have different training backgrounds in ethics and belong to professional organizations that have different codes in dealing with ethics scenarios. Participants responded to case vignettes created for this research (Study 1) that varied on 1) the extensiveness of the alleged ethical violation, (2) the degree of perceived self-interest or rewards associated with reporting the problematic behavior, (3) the degree of anticipated retaliation by management, colleagues, or other parties for reporting the act, and (4) the degree of anonymity in the permitted manner of reporting. Overall, the results for Study 2 found that applied psychologists, contrary to the hypotheses, were less likely on average than HR practitioners to indicate that they would report violations. Previous research on how ethical behavior is guided by codes of ethics was also not supported in this study. These results, combined with post-hoc inquiries of some study participants, suggested that although these two professional groups share similar work settings and overlapping job characteristics in the human capital arena their different professional competencies (and in the case of the HR professionals, legal compliance) focus may affect their self-reported actions in response to perceived unethical behaviors. |
