Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Who Blows the Whistle and Why?

Miceli, Marcia P., Near, Janet P., Schwenk, Charles R.·1991·ILR Review

Abstract

This study examines the effects of a number of perceptual variables on internal auditors' reporting of wrongdoing by employees and managers in their organizations. Survey responses of 653 Directors of Internal Auditing who observed what they perceived to be incidents of wrongdoing show that they were less likely to report these incidents when they did not feel compelled morally or by role prescription to do so, when they evaluated their job performance as below average, or when they were employed by highly bureaucratic organizations. Also, the auditors were more likely to report incidents to external agencies (as opposed to authorities within the organization) when they felt that the public or their co-workers were harmed by the wrongdoing, the wrongdoing involved theft by relatively low-level workers, there were few other observers, or the organization was highly regulated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/001979399104500108

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Metadata

Authors
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Schwenk, C. R.
Venue
ILR Review
Published
1991-10
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
113-130
ISSN
  • 0019-7939 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-271X
OpenAlex
W2138934348
Cited by
336
References
1
FWCI
9.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Who Blows the Whistle and Why? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/001979399104500108
The paper
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Schwenk, C. R. (1991). Who Blows the Whistle and Why? ILR Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979399104500108

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.