We examine whether ethnicity influences the ethical evaluation of an auditor's willingness (or unwillingness) to engage in whistleblowing. Utilising the concepts of ethnic identity and construal of self, we asked Kenyan auditors to assess an ethical dilemma in which auditors and wrongdoers belong to the same or a different ethnic group. We found that ethnic identity has no significant effect on an auditor's ethical evaluation of remaining silent if both the wrongdoer and potential whistleblower are from the same ethnic group. However, there is a significant effect on the ethical evaluation of whistleblowing if the wrongdoer is from a different ethnic group. We found that auditors with an interdependent construal of self are more likely to perceive as ethical the decision to remain silent if the wrongdoer is a member of their own ethnic group, but this finding did not hold when the wrongdoer is from a different ethnic group.

This study examines the effects of personal values on ethical judgments of auditors in Kenya in relation to an auditor-client conflict scenario. It utilizes Schwartz’s (1992) personal value theory and measures ethical judgments by using both single-items and the Multidimensional Ethics Measure developed by Reidenbach and Robin (1988, 1990). The results show some significant differences in the ethical judgments of auditors in Kenya when exposed to an auditor-client conflict scenario. Specifically, auditors who rank high on values such as universalism are likely to not resolve auditor-client conflicts by acceding to clients’ wishes because they perceive such behavior as unethical. In addition, auditors who rank low on power also perceive such behavior as unethical. As such, the results provide support for a relationship between specific values and ethical judgments in the context of auditor-client conflict scenarios.