Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 154, Issue 1, pp 127–145 | Cite as

Peer Influence on Managerial Honesty: The Role of Transparency and Expectations

  • Markus Brunner
  • Andreas Ostermaier
Original Paper

Abstract

We investigate peer influence on managerial honesty under varying levels of transparency. In a laboratory experiment, managers report their costs to a superior to request budget. We manipulate whether the managers learn each other’s report and cost (full transparency) or the report but not the cost (partial transparency). The results show, first, that managers are susceptible to peer influence, as they join peers in reporting honestly and dishonestly both under full and partial transparency. Second, however, the effect of peer influence is asymmetric. While managers’ dishonesty increases much when peers’ reports are higher than they have expected, the opposite is not true. Third, partial transparency reinforces this asymmetry in peer influence. Unlike full transparency, it allows managers to substitute self-serving assumptions for missing information and to thus justify their own dishonesty more easily. The contribution of this study is twofold: It provides evidence for the interaction between transparency and peer influence and it highlights the role of (disappointed) expectations in fueling dishonesty. Our findings warn firms that especially partial transparency may spread dishonesty more than honesty. Transparency may also hurt firms that push honesty norms (as in ethics codes) but fail to enforce compliance, thus raising and disappointing managers’ expectations.

Keywords

Honesty Motivated reasoning Peer influence Reporting Social norms Transparency 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standard

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study that involved human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Antle, R., & Eppen, G. D. (1985). Capital rationing and organizational slack in capital-budgeting. Management Science, 31(2), 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bloomfield, R. J., & Luft, J. L. (2006). Responsibility for cost management hinders learning to avoid the winner’s curse. Accounting Review, 81(1), 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradshaw, M. T., Lian Fen, L., & Peterson, K. (2016). The interactive role of difficulty and incentives in explaining the annual earnings forecast walkdown. Accounting Review, 91(4), 995–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. L., Fisher, J. G., Sooy, M., & Sprinkle, G. B. (2014). The effect of rankings on honesty in budget reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(4), 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgoon, J. K., & Burgoon, M. (2001). Expectancy theories. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 79–99). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Cardinaels, E., & Jia, Y. (2016). How audits moderate the effects of incentives and peer behavior on misreporting. European Accounting Review, 25(1), 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Church, B. K., Hannan, R. L., & Kuang, X. (2012). Shared interest and honesty in budget reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(3), 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24(20), 1–243.Google Scholar
  10. Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance (4th ed., Vol. 2). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Clor-Proell, S., Kaplan, S., & Proell, C. (2015). The impact of budget goal difficulty and promotion availability on employee fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(4), 773–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clor-Proell, S. M. (2009). The effects of expected and actual accounting choices on judgments and decisions. Accounting Review, 84(5), 1465–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dana, J., Weber, R., & Kuang, X. (2007). Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory, 33(1), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diekmann, A., Przepiorka, W., & Rauhut, H. (2015). Lifting the veil of ignorance: An experiment on the contagiousness of norm violations. Rationality and Society, 27(3), 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Douthit, J. D., & Stevens, D. E. (2015). The robustness of honesty effects on budget proposals when the superior has rejection authority. Accounting Review, 90(2), 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Emett, S. A., Guymon, R. N., Tayler, W. B., & Young, D. (2015). Controls and the asymmetric stickiness of norms. Working paper.Google Scholar
  18. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2016). The mechanics of motivated reasoning. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans, J. H., Hannan, R. L., Krishnan, R., & Moser, D. V. (2001). Honesty in managerial reporting. Accounting Review, 76(4), 537–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans, J. H., Moser, D. V., Newman, A. H., & Stikeleather, B. R. (2016). Honor among thieves: Open internal reporting and managerial collusion. Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(4), 1375–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fanning, K., Agoglia, C. P., & Piercey, M. D. (2015). Unintended consequences of lowering disclosure thresholds. Accounting Review, 90(1), 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46(4–5), 687–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feiler, L. (2014). Testing models of information avoidance with binary choice dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 45, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fischer, P., & Huddart, S. (2008). Optimal contracting with endogenous social norms. American Economic Review, 98(4), 1459–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior the effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gino, F., Norton, M. I., & Weber, R. A. (2016). Motivated Bayesians: Feeling moral while acting egoistically. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grossman, Z., & van der Weele, J. J. (2016). Self-image and willful ignorance in social decisions. Working paper.Google Scholar
  33. Hannan, R. L., McPhee, G. P., Newman, A. H., & Tafkov, I. D. (2013). The effect of relative performance information on performance and effort allocation in a multi-task environment. Accounting Review, 88(2), 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hannan, R. L., Rankin, F. W., & Towry, K. L. (2006). The effect of information systems on honesty in managerial reporting: A behavioral perspective. Contemporary Accounting Research, 23(4), 885–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Innes, R., & Mitra, A. (2013). Is dishonesty contagious? Economic Inquiry, 51(1), 722–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kadous, K., Leiby, J., & Peecher, M. E. (2013). How do auditors weight informal contrary advice? The joint influence of advisor social bond and advice justifiability. Accounting Review, 88(6), 2061–2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kadous, K., Magro, A. M., & Spilker, B. C. (2008). Do effects of client preference on accounting professionals’ information search and subsequent judgments persist with high practice risk? Accounting Review, 83(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322(5908), 1681–1685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maas, V. S., & van Rinsum, M. (2013). How control system design influences performance misreporting. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(5), 1159–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Fallon, M., & Butterfield, K. (2012). The influence of unethical peer behavior on observers’ unethical behavior: A social cognitive perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paz, M., Reichert, B. E., & Woods, A. (2013). How does peer honesty affect focal manager honesty in a budget reporting setting? In D. B. Schmitt (Ed.), Advances in accounting behavioral research (16th ed., Vol. Chapter 11, pp. 84–114). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  43. Rankin, F. W., Schwartz, S. T., & Young, R. A. (2008). The effect of honesty and superior authority on budget proposals. Accounting Review, 83(4), 1083–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rauhut, H. (2013). Beliefs about lying and spreading of dishonesty: Undetected lies and their constructive and destructive social dynamics in dice experiments. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e77878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tafkov, I. D. (2013). Private and public relative performance information under different compensation contracts. Accounting Review, 88(1), 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tayler, W. B. (2010). The balanced scorecard as a strategy-evaluation tool: The effects of implementation involvement and a causal-chain focus. Accounting Review, 85(3), 1095–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tayler, W. B., & Bloomfield, R. J. (2011). Norms, conformity, and controls. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(3), 753–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thorne, L., & Hartwick, J. (2001). The directional effects of discussion on auditors’ moral reasoning. Contemporary Accounting Research, 18(2), 337–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wenzel, M. (2004). An analysis of norm processes in tax compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(2), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TUM School of ManagementTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations