Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBatolas, D
dc.contributor.authorPerkovic, S
dc.contributor.authorMitkidis, P
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-31T09:56:01Z
dc.date.issued2022-10-25
dc.date.updated2022-10-30T14:12:28Z
dc.description.abstractAlthough employees are an important means of detecting and preventing misconducts through whistleblowing, many witnesses choose to remain silent. One reason to remain silent is the discomfort of reporting a colleague. Intuitively, employees should be less likely to report a close or trusted colleague, but a previous review suggests that the opposite may actually be true. However, later studies have shown mixed effects of social closeness on whistleblowing. To gain a better understanding of how social closeness affects whistleblowing, we meta-analyzed 22 experimental studies on intentions to blow the whistle. Overall, the studies show no effect of social closeness on whistleblowing intentions, d =  − 0.21, p = .05. However, when separating the studies by type of closeness, we find that psychological closeness has a negative effect, d =  − 0.46, p < .001, while hierarchical closeness has a positive effect, d = .34, p < .001 on whistleblowing intentions. This means that employees are most likely to report misconduct if the perpetrator is at the same hierarchical level in the organization and not a close or trusted friend. Since close psychological bonds are more likely to develop between employees at the same hierarchical level, the two types of closeness may counteract each other. This dilemma could be part of the explanation why so many witnesses choose to remain silent.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 25 October 12022en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09849-5
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/131508
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherSpringeren_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://osf.io/f7aj4/?view_only=11eb7c401e2b4fcc9d0e15f8e1b4de42en_GB
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.en_GB
dc.subjectWhistleblowing en_GB
dc.subjectMeta-analysisen_GB
dc.subjectCloseness en_GB
dc.titlePsychological and Hierarchical Closeness as Opposing Factors in Whistleblowing: A Meta-Analysisen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2022-10-31T09:56:01Z
dc.identifier.issn0889-3268
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Springer via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionData Availability: The data and code that support the findings of this study are available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at: https://osf.io/f7aj4/?view_only=11eb7c401e2b4fcc9d0e15f8e1b4de42.en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1573-353X
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Business and Psychologyen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Business and Psychology
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-10-03
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-10-25
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2022-10-31T09:54:33Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2022-10-31T09:56:07Z
refterms.panelCen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2022-10-25


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.