Deterring Unethical Behavior in Online Labor Markets
- 129 Downloads
This study examines how codes of conduct, monitoring, and penalties for dishonest reporting affect reporting honesty in an online labor market setting. Prior research supports the efficacy of codes of conduct in promoting ethical behavior in a variety of contexts. However, the effects of such codes and other methods have not been examined in online labor markets, an increasingly utilized resource that differs from previously examined settings in several key regards (e.g., transient workforce, lack of an established culture). Leveraging social norm activation theory, we predict and find experimental evidence that while codes of conduct and monitoring without economic penalties are ineffective in online settings, monitoring with economic penalties activates social norms for honesty and promotes honest reporting in an online setting. Further, we find that imposing penalties most effectively promotes honest reporting in workers who rate high in Machiavellianism, a trait that is highly correlated with dishonest reporting. In fact, while in the absence of penalties we observe significantly more dishonest reporting from workers who rate high versus low in Machiavellianism, this difference is eliminated in the presence of penalties. Implications of these findings for companies, researchers, online labor market administrators, and educators are discussed.
KeywordsCorporate ethics Social norm theory Online labor markets Honesty Mechanical Turk
We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers as well as Annie Farrell, Michele Frank, Eric Marinich, Jon Pyzoha, and workshop participants at Miami University for constructive feedback and Chunying Piao for research assistance. The authors also appreciate the financial support of the Farmer School of Business and the Department of Accountancy at Miami University. Jonathan Grenier would like thank PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for financial support.
- Bernardi, R. A., & Bean, D. F. (2008). Establishing a standardized sample for accounting students’ DIT scores: A meta-analysis. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 12, 1–21.Google Scholar
- Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Blay, A. D., Gooden, E. S., Mellon, M. J., & Stevens, D. E. (2016). The usefulness of social norm theory in empirical business ethics research: A review and suggestions for future research. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3286-4.
- Buckless, F. A., & Ravenscroft, S. P. (1990). Contrast coding: A refinement of ANOVA in behavioral analysis. Accounting Review, 65(4), 933–945.Google Scholar
- Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Cialdini, R., & Trost, M. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). Boston: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Cressey, D. R. (1973). Other people’s money. Montclair: Patterson Smith.Google Scholar
- Dobson, J. (2013). Mechanical Turk: Amazon’s new underclass. The Huffington Post 19 February. Web. 25 March 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julian-dobson/mechanical-turk-amazons-underclass_b_2687431.html.
- Folbre, N. (2013). The unregulated work of Mechanical Turk. The New York Times 18 March. Web. 25 March 2014.Google Scholar
- Glazer, E. (2011). Serfing the web: Sites let people farm out their chores. The Wall Street Journal 28 November. Web. 26 March 2014.Google Scholar
- Horton, J., & Chilton, L. (2010). The labor economics of paid crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on electronic commerce. New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
- Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
- Mims, C. (2015). How everyone gets the sharing economy wrong. Wall Street Journal 24 May. Web. 19 June 2015. http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-everyone-gets-the-sharing-economywrong-1432495921.
- Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.Google Scholar
- Pope, K. R. (2005). Measuring the ethical propensities of accounting students: Mach IV versus DIT. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3(2–4), 89–111.Google Scholar
- Suri, S., Goldstein, D., & Mason, W. (2011). Honesty in an online labor market. Human Computation Papers from the 2011 AAAI Workshop. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI.Google Scholar
- Triki, A., Cook, G., & Bay, D. (2015). Machiavellianism, more orientation, social desirability, Response bias, and anti-intellectualism: A profile of Canadian accountants. Journal of Business Ethics. Web. 4 September.Google Scholar
- Verschoor, C. C. (2016). Lessons from the Wells Fargo scandal. Strategic Finance.Google Scholar
- Worstall, T. (2013) On the New York Times’ stupidity over Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Forbes 19 March. Web. 5 January 2016. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/19/on-the-new-york-times-stupidity-over-amazons-mechanical-turk/.
- Zittrain, J. (2009). The internet creates a new kind of digital sweatshop. Newsweek 7 December.Web. 17 September 2014. http://www.newsweek.com/internet-creates-new-kindsweatshop-75751.