International Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Submit a Manuscript

Publishing with us to make your research visible to the widest possible audience.

Propose a Special Issue

Building a community of authors and readers to discuss the latest research and develop new ideas.

Triangle Model of Responsibility Theory in Perspective of Internal Auditor's Responsibility for Fraud Detection

This paper aims to show the role of the triangle model of responsibility theory in the responsibility of detecting fraud which is one of the duties of internal auditors, especially government internal auditors. The theory suggests that perceptions of responsibility are a direct function of the strength of the three psychological relationships between the three formative elements (professional obligation, task clarity and personal control). The three elements are the relationship between prescription, event and identity. This article discusses the results of previous research related to auditor responsibility using the perspective of the triangle model of responsibility theory. This paper also shows that external factors and a person's psychological factors also shape the perception of auditor responsibilities such as the type of fraud, accountability, cognitive style and moral development. The discussion in this paper shows how the concept of responsibility perceived by government internal auditors will shape their desire to be responsible for detecting fraud. The results of this paper are expected to contribute to researchers in using appropriate theory to measure perceptions of responsibility for other professions. For practitioners and regulators, the discussion of this paper can be used as a reference for assessing and building auditor competence in increasing responsibility for detecting fraud.

Triangle Model of Responsibility, Fraud Detection, Accountability, Cognitive Style, Moral Development

APA Style

Yusnaini Yusnaini. (2023). Triangle Model of Responsibility Theory in Perspective of Internal Auditor's Responsibility for Fraud Detection. International Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 11(3), 146-153.

ACS Style

Yusnaini Yusnaini. Triangle Model of Responsibility Theory in Perspective of Internal Auditor's Responsibility for Fraud Detection. Int. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2023, 11(3), 146-153. doi: 10.11648/j.ijebo.20231103.14

AMA Style

Yusnaini Yusnaini. Triangle Model of Responsibility Theory in Perspective of Internal Auditor's Responsibility for Fraud Detection. Int J Econ Behav Organ. 2023;11(3):146-153. doi: 10.11648/j.ijebo.20231103.14

Copyright © 2023 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License ( which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Abdolmohammadi, M. J. 2005. Ethical Training in Graduate Accounting Courses. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting. Published online: 37-62.
2. Ashton, R. H. 1990. Pressure and Performance in Accounting Decision Settings: Paradoxical Effects of Incentives, Feedback, and Justification. Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement): 148-80.
3. Ashton, R. H. 1992. Effects of Justification and a Mechanical Aid on Judgment Performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (July): 292-306.
4. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. 2008. 2008 ACFE Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud and Abuse. Austin, TX: ACFE.
5. Benbasat, I., and A. S. Dexter. 1982. Individual Differences in The Use of Decision Support Aids. Journal of Accounting Research 20 (1) (Spring): 1- 11, 1982.
6. Bennink, C. D., & T. Spoelstra. 1979. Individual Differences in Field Articulation as A Factor in Language Comprehension. Journal of Research in Personality (October): 480-489, 1979.
7. Chen, S. dan R. Macredie. 2002. Cognitive Styles and Hypermedia Navigation: Development of a Learning Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53 (1): 3–15.
8. Cheng, Mandy M., Peter F. Luckett and Axel K-D. Schulz. 2003. The Effects of Cognitive Style Diversity on Decision-Making Dyads: An Empirical Analysis in the Context of a Complex Task. Behavioral Research in Accounting. Vol. 15: 39-62.
9. Cloyd, C. 1997. Performance in Tax Research Task: The Joint Effects of Knowledge and Accountability. The Accounting Review 72 (January): 111-132.
10. Cochran, K. F., and J. K. Davis. 1987. Individual Differences in Inference Process” Journal of Research Personality (June): 197-210.
11. DeZoort, T., dan P. Harrison. 2008 (a). The Effects of Fraud Type and Accountability Pressure on Auditor Fraud Detection Responsibility and Brainstorming Performance. Working Paper.
12. DeZoort, T., and P. Harrison. 2008 (b). An Evaluation of Internal Auditor Responsibility for Fraud Detection. The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation.
13. Doherty, K., and Schlenker, B. R. 1995. Excuses as Mood Protection: An Impact of Supportive and Challenging Feedback from Others. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 147–164.
14. Eckensberger, Lutz H., Thomas Doring and Heiko Breit. 2001. Moral Dimensions in Risk Evaluation. Environmental Risk: Perception, Evaluation and Management. Published online: 137-163.
15. Emler, Nicholas, Hammond Tarry and Angela St. James. 2007. Post-conventional Moral Reasoning and Reputation. Journal of Research in Personality. Vol. 41: 76-89.
16. Everett, Jeff and Marie-Soleil Tremblay. 2014. Ethics and Internal Audit: Moral Will and Moral Skill in A Heteronomous Field. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. Vol. 25: 181-196.
17. Glover, S., D. Prawitt, and B. Spilker. 1997. The Influence of Decision Aids on User Behavior: Implications for Knowledge Acquisition and Inappropriate reliance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72 (2): 232–255.
18. Goodenough, D. 1976. The Role of Individual Differences in Field Dependence as A Factor in Learning and Memory. Psychological Bulletin 83: 675–694.
19. Hoffman, V., and Patton, J. 1997. Accountability, The Dilution Effect, and Conservatism in Auditors’ Fraud Judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 35, 227–238.
20. Johnson. V. E., and S. E. Kaplan. 1991. Experimental Eyidence on the Effects of Accountability on Auditor Judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (Supplement): 96-107.
21. Jones, Thomas M and Lori Verstegen Ryan. 2001. The Effect of Organizational Forces on Individual Morality: Judgment, Moral Approbation, and Behavior” The Next Phase of Business Ethics: Integrating Psychology and Ethics. Publised online: 285-300.
22. Kennedy, Jane. 1993. Debiasing Audit Judgment with Accountability: A Framework and Experimental Result. Journal of Accounting Research, 31 (2): 231-245.
23. Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stages and Sequences: The Cognitive Developmental Approach to Socialization. In Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, edited by D. Goslin, 347-480. Chicago: Rand McNally.
24. Koonce, L., Anderson, U., and Marchant, G. 1995. Justifcation of Decisions in Auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 33, 369–384.
25. KPMG. 2003. KPMG Fraud Survey 2003. Montvale, NJ: KPMG.
26. KPMG. 2006. KPMG Forensic Fraud Survey, Australia and New Zealand. KPMG, Australia.
27. Lovell, Alan. 1995. Moral Reasoning and Moral Atmosphere in The Domain of Accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. Vol. 8 (3): 60-80.
28. Messick, S. 1976. Personality Consistencies in Cognition and Creativity. In Messick, S. (Ed.) Individuality in Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 4–22.
29. Oltman, P. K., E. Raskin, & H. A. Witkin. 1971. Group Embedded Figures Test”. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
30. Pincus, K. V. 1990. Auditor Individual Differences and Fairness of Presentation Judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 9 (Fall): 150-166.
31. Pontari, B. A., Schlenker, B. R., & Christopher, A. N. 2002. Excuses and Character: Identifying the Problematic Aspects of Excuses. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 497–516.
32. Presiden Republik Indonesia. 2008. Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 60 Tahun 2008 tentang Sistem Pengendalian Intern Pemerintah. Diakses tanggal 02 Oktober 2013.
33. Schlenker, B. R. 1997. Personal Responsibility: Applications of The Triangle Model. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 241–301). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
34. Schlenker, B. R., Pontari, B. A., and Christopher, A. N. 2001. Excuses and Character: Personal and Social Implications of Excuses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 15–32.
35. Snyder, C. R., and Higgins, R. L. 1988. Excuses: Their effective role in the negotiation of reality. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 23–35.
36. Tan, H. 1995. Effects of Expectations, Prior Involvement, and Review Awareness on Memory for Audit Evidence and Judgment. Journal of Accounting Research, 33, 113–135.
37. Tan, H., and Kao, A. 1999. Accountability Effects on Auditors’ Performance: The Influence of Knowledge, Problem-Solving Ability and Task Complexity. Journal of Accounting Research, 37: 209–223.
38. Tetlock, P. E. 1992. The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward a Social Contingency Model. In Zanna, M. (Ed). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 25. Academic Press. New York, NY. pp: 31-77.
39. Tuanakotta, Theodorus M. 2010. Akuntansi Forensik & Audit Investigatif Edisi 2. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
40. Yusnaini Y., Imam Ghozali, Fuad Fuad and Etna Nur Afri Yuyetta. 2017. Accountability And Fraud Type Effects on Fraud Detection Responsibility. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology. 8 (8), 424–436.
41. Yusnaini Y., Burhanudin B., Arista Hakiki. 2020. The Role of Supply Chain Management in Responsibility of Indonesian Government Auditors in Detecting Corruptions: Analysis of Cognitive and Moral Effects. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 9 (1): 1048-1056.
42. Rest, J. 2008. Defining Issues Test. Minneapolis. MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1979.
43. Asare, S., Trompeter, G., and Wright, A. 2000. The Effect of Accountability and Time Budgets on Auditors’ Testing Strategies. Contemporary Accounting Research, 17, 539–560.