<![CDATA[Purposes: This study aims to examine how various forms of social pressure influence ethical decision-making in the context of public sector internal audits. Specifically, this research analyzes the influence of obedience pressure, group cohesiveness, and public accountability pressure on the ethical decisions of government internal auditors. This research is important because government internal auditors often face various social pressures within the organizational environment that could potentially affect their ethical judgment and independence. Methods: This study uses an experimental method with a 2×2 ×2 between-subjects factorial design. The research participants consisted of 84 accounting students who had completed courses in auditing and public sector accounting, who were used as substitutes for government internal auditors. Participants were randomly assigned to experimental scenarios that manipulated three forms of social pressure. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the influence of each independent variable on ethical decision-making. Findings: The research results indicate that social pressure within organizations does not always produce a uniform influence on individual ethical behavior. Pressure originating from authoritative figures and workgroup dynamics tends to weaken the independence of individuals’ ethical considerations in decision-making. On the contrary, pressure stemming from public accountability demands encourages individuals to make more careful considerations and decisions that are more in line with ethical principles. Novelty: This study contributes to the social influence literature by demonstrating that social influences do not operate uniformly in shaping ethical decisions. While prior studies predominantly portray social pressure as a threat to auditor independence, this study shows that different social influences can generate contrasting ethical consequences within the same decision context. By integrating obedience pressure, group cohesiveness, and public accountability pressure into a single experimental framework, this study provides evidence that social influences may simultaneously function as both risk factors and protective mechanisms in government internal auditing.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
