Adherence to expense report approval control: an application of the theory of planned behavior
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to identify sociocognitive determinants of managers' adherence to the expense report approval control. A behavioral view of control was adopted, drawing on the theory of planned behavior. Design/methodology/approach Managers authorized to approve subordinates' expense reports in three large organizations were surveyed. Findings Results indicate that managers' perception of overall consequences (for the organization or for themselves) resulting from their adherence to the expense report approval control (attitude) and their perception of control over the approval (perceived behavioral control) are positively related to their intention to adhere to the expense report approval control, while their perceived pressures from important referents in that matter (subjective norm) are not. Research limitations/implications By adopting a behavioral view of control to examine individual-level adherence, this study contributes to the accounting literature. By focusing on a positive response to control (adherence), it contributes specifically to the literature on control effectiveness and acts as a counterpoint to the abundant literature on negative control responses such as fraud. Practical implications Results could help organizations identify motivations and barriers to managers' adherence to expense report approval control. This could help reduce losses, improve asset safeguarding and provide insights into the understanding of behavioral/individual factors that can influence the application of other control policies and procedures. Originality/value The study defines and measures the “adherence” construct in a control context.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it