Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 112 Download : 80

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study examines whether fraud awareness and fraud literacy reduce corrupt behaviour in public institutions and whether public service motivation and professional scepticism condition these relationships. Drawing on Social Exchange Theory, the study adopts an explanatory sequential mixed-method design. Quantitative data were collected from 137 employees of a local government institution in East Java and analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). To complement the quantitative findings, qualitative data were subsequently gathered through semi-structured interviews with eight participants and analysed using thematic analysis. The quantitative results show that fraud awareness, fraud literacy, public service motivation, and professional scepticism do not have significant direct effects on corruption. However, the interaction effects are negative and significant. These suggest that fraud awareness and fraud literacy become behaviourally meaningful to prevent corruption when combined with public service motivation and professional scepticism that activate ethical responsibility within organisational relationships. Interestingly, the qualitative findings deepen this explanation by showing that employees interpret responsibility through shared decision structures, hierarchical relationships, and clearly defined role boundaries. These relational conditions shape how individuals translate knowledge of fraud risks into ethical actions in everyday administrative work. Although this study is conducted in the public sector, its insights extend to private sector governance as well. For instance, this perspective enriches existing fraud prevention research by highlighting how knowledge-based capacities interact with motivational and professional orientations to shape integrity outcomes across different organisational contexts.

Keywords

Fraud Awareness Fraud Literacy Public Service Motivation Professional Scepticism corruption

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

References

  1. Andersen, L. B., & Pedersen, L. H. (2012). Public service motivation and professionalism. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(1), 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.635278 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.635278
  2. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) (2024). Occupational fraud 2024: A report to the nations. https://www.acfe.com/-/media/files/acfe/pdfs/rttn/2024/2024-report-to-the-nations.pdf
  3. Bai, J., Shang, C., Wan, C., & Zhao, Y. E. (2022). Social capital and individual ethics: Evidence from financial adviser misconduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(2), 495-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04910-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04910-4
  4. Brink, A. G., Eller, C. K., & Green, K. Y. (2022). Fraud reporting within an organization and the use of the internal audit function as a training ground for management. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 34(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-2020-015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-2020-015
  5. Campa, D., & Laguecir, A. (2025). The auditors and the media as central actors in accounting fraud and scandal. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 101, 102787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102787 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102787
  6. Chiang, C. (2016). Conceptualising the linkage between professional scepticism and auditor independence. Pacific Accounting Review, 28(2), 180-200. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-08-2015-0034 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-08-2015-0034
  7. Christensen, D. M. (2016). Corporate accountability reporting and high-profile misconduct. The Accounting Review, 91(2), 377-399. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51200 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51200
  8. Cooper, D. J., Dacin, T., & Palmer, D. (2013). Fraud in accounting, organizations and society: Extending the boundaries of research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(6-7), 440-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.11.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.11.001
  9. Crepaz, M., & Arikan, G. (2024). The effects of transparency regulation on political trust and perceived corruption: Evidence from a survey experiment. Regulation & Governance, 18(3), 896-913. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12555 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12555
  10. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
  11. Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479-516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099
  12. Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. (2022). Revisiting reciprocity: How accountability, proactivity, and interpersonal skills shape obligations to reciprocate citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(2), 263-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09743-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09743-6
  13. Endrawes, M., Leong, S., & Matawie, K. M. (2023). The moderating effect of culture on the relationship between accountability and professional scepticism. Meditari Accountancy Research, 31(2), 381-399. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2020-0986 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2020-0986
  14. Eutsler, J., Nickell, E. B., & Robb, S. W. (2016). Fraud risk awareness and the likelihood of audit enforcement action. Accounting Horizons, 30(3), 379-392. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51490 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51490
  15. Fehrenbacher, D. D., Triki, A., & Weisner, M. M. (2021). Can multitasking influence professional scepticism?. Accounting & Finance, 61(1), 1277-1306. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12627 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12627
  16. Gans-Morse, J., Kalgin, A., Klimenko, A., Vorobyev, D., & Yakovlev, A. (2022). Public service motivation as a predictor of corruption, dishonesty, and altruism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(2), 287-309. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab018
  17. Grenier, J. H. (2017). Encouraging professional skepticism in the industry specialization era. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3155-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3155-1
  18. Groves, C. (2009). Future ethics: risk, care and non-reciprocal responsibility. Journal of Global Ethics, 5(1), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449620902765286 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17449620902765286
  19. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  20. Islam, M. T., Rahim, M. M., & Kuruppu, S. C. (2024). Public accountability failure in solving a public nuisance: stakeholder disengagement in a clash of Western and Islamic worldviews. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 37(1), 119-149. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2020-4362 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2020-4362
  21. Kelly, M., & Larres, P. (2025). Enhancing the auditor's mindset: a framework for nurturing professional skepticism. Journal of Accounting Literature, 47(1), 222-243. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAL-07-2023-0122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAL-07-2023-0122
  22. Kim, J., Kang, H., & Lee, K. (2023). Transformational-transactional leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior in the public sector: Does public service motivation make a difference? Public Management Review, 25(2), 429-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1974714 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1974714
  23. Kim, S., & Trotman, K. T. (2015). The comparative effect of process and outcome accountability in enhancing professional scepticism. Accounting & Finance, 55(4), 1015-1040. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12084 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12084
  24. Ko, J., & Hur, S. (2014). The impacts of employee benefits, procedural justice, and managerial trustworthiness on work attitudes: Integrated understanding based on social exchange theory. Public Administration Review, 74(2), 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12160 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12160
  25. Lee, E., Lewis-Liu, T., Khurana, S., & Lu, M. (2024). A systematic review of the link between public service motivation and ethical outcomes. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 46(3), 236-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2023.2247101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2023.2247101
  26. Lochmiller, C. R. (2021). Conducting thematic analysis with qualitative data. The Qualitative Report, 26(6), 2029-2044. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5008
  27. Maulidi, A., Girindratama, M. W., Putra, A. R., Sari, R. P., & Nuswantara, D. A. (2024). Qualitatively beyond the ledger: unravelling the interplay of organisational control, whistleblowing systems, fraud awareness, and religiosity. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), 2320743. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2320743 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2320743
  28. Maulidi, A., & Ali, H. M. M. (2025). A discussion of co-offending behaviours, social bonds and implications for auditing practice, research and pedagogy. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-12-2024-0423 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-12-2024-0423
  29. Nolder, C. J., & Kadous, K. (2018). Grounding the professional skepticism construct in mindset and attitude theory: A way forward. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 67, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.03.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.03.010
  30. Ohemeng, F. L., Obuobisa Darko, T., & Amoako-Asiedu, E. (2020). Bureaucratic leadership, trust building, and employee engagement in the public sector in Ghana: The perspective of social exchange theory. International Journal of Public Leadership, 16(1), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-05-2019-0018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-05-2019-0018
  31. Potipiroon, W. (2024). Reward expectancy and external whistleblowing: Testing the moderating roles of public service motivation, seriousness of wrongdoing, and whistleblower protection. Public Personnel Management, 53(2), 309-345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026023122281 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260231222814
  32. Potipiroon, W. (2025). Political corruption, political responsiveness and public trust: Testing the implicit exchange hypothesis. Governance, 38(2), e12888. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12888 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12888
  33. Ripoll, G., & Schott, C. (2024). Responding to unethical demands by one’s leader: the role of public service motivation. International Journal of Public Administration, 47(14), 990-1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2023.2233118 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2023.2233118
  34. Ritz, A., Schott, C., Nitzl, C., & Alfes, K. (2023). Public service motivation and prosocial motivation: Two sides of the same coin? Public Service Motivation (pp. 26-50). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032617701-2
  35. Rothstein, B., & Varraich, A. (2017). Making sense of corruption. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316681596
  36. Sihombing, R. P., Soewarno, N., & Agustia, D. (2023). The mediating effect of fraud awareness on the relationship between risk management and integrity system. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(3), 618-634. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-02-2022-0058 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-02-2022-0058
  37. Su, S., & Ni, X. (2023). Corruption in social relations: Bribe‐taking, corruptibility, and corruption risks. Public Administration, 101(2), 481-499. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12795 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12795
  38. Sun, Y., Jia, W., & Liu, S. (2022). Is auditors’ professional scepticism a “double-edged sword”?. Accounting Forum, 46(3), 241-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2021.1944028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2021.1944028
  39. Transparency International (2023). Corruption Perceptions Index 2023. https://files.transparencycdn.org/images/CPI-2023-Report.pdf
  40. Trompeter, G. M., Carpenter, T. D., Jones, K. L., & Riley Jr, R. A. (2014). Insights for research and practice: What we learn about fraud from other disciplines. Accounting Horizons, 28(4), 769-804. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-50816 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-50816
  41. Verwey, I. G., & Asare, S. K. (2022). The joint effect of ethical idealism and trait skepticism on auditors’ fraud detection. Journal of Business Ethics, 176(2), 381-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04718-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04718-8
  42. Wang, T., Long, L., Zhang, Y., & He, W. (2019). A social exchange perspective of employee–organization relationships and employee unethical pro-organizational behavior: The moderating role of individual moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 473-489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3782-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3782-9
  43. Wang, Y. (2020). A network-exchange approach to corruption: brokers and institution spanning in A Chinese corruption network. Deviant Behavior, 41(12), 1636-1649. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1640525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1640525
  44. Wei, L., Peng, M., & Wu, W. (2021). Financial literacy and fraud detection - Evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance, 76, 478-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2021.06.017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2021.06.017
  45. Weißmüller, K. S., & Zuber, A. (2023). Understanding the micro‐foundations of administrative corruption in the public sector: Findings from a systematic literature review. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1704-1726. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13699 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13699