LAUSR

Abstract In this study, we conducted two experiments to test whether varying the types of pronouns used in a company's internal whistleblowing policy influences employees' reporting intentions. We focus on two fundamental types of whistleblowing policy content: Reporting Responsibility (i.e., information about how to report through whistleblowing channels) and Anti-retaliation (i.e., information about retaliation protections). Within these types of content, we examine the effect of pronoun congruency, which occurs when vivid pronouns are used in a manner that emphasizes the intended theme of the message. First, we conducted a 2 × 2 experiment where policy content type (Reporting Responsibility or Anti-retaliation) and pronoun type (first-person or third-person) were manipulated between participants. The results indicate a significant interaction where more vivid first-person pronouns are more effective than third-person pronouns in improving employees' reporting intentions when they only receive Reporting Responsibility policy content. However, third-person pronouns are more effective than first-person pronouns when participants only receive Anti-retaliation content. In our second experiment, participants viewed both types of content simultaneously in a 2 × 2 between-participants experiment where pronoun congruency was manipulated. Results indicate that pronoun congruency within Reporting Responsibility content significantly affects reporting intentions, such that congruent first-person pronouns are more effective in increasing reporting intentions than incongruent third-person pronouns. The subsequent manipulation of pronoun congruency in Anti-retaliation policy content has no significant incremental effect on reporting intentions. Implications are discussed in the paper.