Revisiting the Accounting Fraud Components: A Bottom-Up Approach Using the Twitter Platform

Abstract

Despite the relevant economic and reputational impact of fraud, research in this field remains fragmented. This study aims to create a new framework for accounting fraud, defining its main components from the social media user’s perspective. In terms of research technique, an online data collection using social media platform was used retrieving, through the phyton web crawler procedure, 43,655 tweets containing the phrase “accounting fraud” from July 2006 to December 2019. Individual words were identified and treated within the selected tweets, excluding stop words and, finally, using a sparsity index. The proposed methodology, which overcomes traditional survey inherent bias efficiently, contributes to bridging the divide between academia and society. We find that Twitter users shape the Accounting Fraud Hexagon, composed by (i) The Object and the Tool (of misrepresentation), being the Financials, (ii) The (Guilty) Fraudster, (iii) The Defrauded, (iv) Materiality, (v) The Consequences, and (vi) the Watchdog. Our research has several implications. Our research identifies additional “angles” of vision to the traditional fraud triangle-diamond-pentagon theories compared with the existing top-down conceptual frameworks. Also, since it uses a bottom-up instead of a top-down approach, the study allows a more comprehensive definition of accounting fraud, thus contributing to the debate for a common language in this field. We expect to encourage more research using social media as a tool to test the literature built on in vitro theories empirically.

Pengejawantahan Teori Psikoanalitik pada Etika Bisnis

“…Horney menunjukkan bagaimana konflik kehidupan orang dewasa dapat menyebabkan neurosis yang akhirnya memicu perilaku tidak sesuai etika (Guntrip & Sutherland, 2018). Penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya mengenai pelanggaran etika bisnis masih membahas dari sisi sadar manusia (Tommasetti et al, 2021;Vousinas, 2019). Saat ini di Indonesia sendiri belum terdapat penelitian baik kualitatif maupun kuantitatif yang membahas mengenai etika bisnis yang dihubungkan dengan sisi unconscious seseorang.…”

Two Decades of Accounting Fraud Research: The Missing Meso-Level Analysis

“…The micro-individualized strand of literature is built on constructing the offender as a ''lone wolf'' predator who circumvents internal controls to maximize his or her selfinterests (Cordos x & F€ ulo¨p, 2015; M. E. Lokanan, 2015;Morales et al, 2014;Murphy, 2012). Fraud risks are presented with a moral dimension that is articulated concerning the risk-taking and moral defects of the individual offender (Davis & Pesch, 2013;Gietzmann & Pettinicchio, 2014;Power, 2013;Tommasetti et al, 2021). The literature in this area provides theoretical anchors for organizing and interpreting known facts and provides explanations of fraud from which effective prevention strategies can be devised.…”

“…Similarly, Cooper et al (2013) explained that not only should fraud be contextualized in terms of ''organizational norms, structures, practices, and culture,'' but ''societal corruption needs to be appreciated concerning distributions of wealth, inequality, and deprivation, as well as regional and tribal rivalries and histories'' (p. 441). Invariably, these sensibilities and contexts positioned fraud not only as a product of moral defects but also as an intersection where individual actions are intertwined with the various structural elements of society (Choo & Tan, 2007;Cooper et al, 2013;Gabbioneta et al, 2013;Tommasetti et al, 2021).…”

“…The individual may also respond to friction from other people in the organization or from other sources of friction, leading to a contagion effect. By virtue of sheer repetition, an argument can then be made that criminogenic behavior becomes ingrained when breaking the law is the first action alternative the fraudster perceives and, subsequently, the action becomes the habitual and only alternative (Matthews, 2005;Mayhew & Murphy, 2014;Rezaee, 2005;Tommasetti et al, 2021). According to Morales et al (2014) and later M. Lokanan (2018), fraudulent activities are driven by personal gain, either for power and prestige or wealth.…”