Do Perceived Pressure and Perceived Opportunity Influence Employees’ Intention to Commit Fraud?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fraud has always remains an issue for organisations throughout the globe due to the increasing number of fraud occurrences over the years which resulted to the increasing amount of losses. Despite the large amount of efforts by organisations through internal control implementation and the amount of money spent to combat fraud, the numbers of fraud occurrences are still increasing. This study examines the employees’ intention to commit fraud. Specifically, this study examines the influence of perceived pressure and perceived opportunity on employees’ intention to commit fraud. In addition, this study examines the effect of capability in moderating the influence of perceived pressure and perceived opportunity on employees’ intention to commit fraud. Using online questionnaire on 158 employees from various sectors, this study shows that the employees have a low intention to commit fraud. This study also shows an existence of linear relationship between perceived pressure and perceived opportunity on employees’ intention to commit fraud. Consistent with previous studies, this study found that capability of the employees does not influence them to commit fraud. The findings in this study assist the employers to adopt appropriate strategies in preventing and detecting fraud possibility among their employees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".