De Economist

, Volume 160, Issue 3, pp 289–310 | Cite as

Peer Reporting and the Perception of Fairness

Article

Abstract

Economic motives are not the only reasons for committing a (small) crime. People consider social norms and perceptions of fairness before judging a situation and acting upon it. If someone takes a bundle of printing paper from the office for private use at home, then a colleague who sees this can take action by talking to the offender or someone else (peer reporting). We investigate how fairness perception influences the decision to act upon incorrect behavior or not.

Keywords

Peer reporting Perception Social norms Fairness Employee theft Victimization 

JEL Classification

C35 C36 D63 K42 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnett T., Bass K., Brown G. (1996) Religiosity, ethical ideology, and intentions to report a peer’s wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 1161–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker G. S. (1968) Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 76: 169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Graaf G. (2010) A report on reporting: Why peers report integrity and law violations in public organizations. Public Administration Review 70: 767–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deutsch M. (1958) Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2: 265–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Douhou S., Magnus J. R., van Soest A. (2011) The perception of small crime. European Journal of Political Economy 27: 749–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gneezy U. (2005) Deception: The role of consequences. American Economic Review 95: 384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greenberg J. (1990) Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology 75: 561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greenberg J. (2002) Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89: 985–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenberg, J., & Scott K. S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hands that feed them? Employee theft as a social exchange process. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 111–156). Greenwich: JAI Press Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Houser, D., Vetter, S., & Winter, J. (2011). Fairness and cheating. Working paper, Munich: University of Munich.Google Scholar
  11. Jones G. E., Kavanagh M. J. (1996) An experimental examination of the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keizer K., Lindenberg S., Steg L. (2008) The spreading of disorder. Science 322: 1681–1685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. King G. (1997) The effects of interpersonal closeness and issue seriousness on blowing the whistle. Journal of Business Communication 34: 419–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King G., Hermodson A. (2000) Peer reporting of coworker wrongdoing: A qualitative analysis of observer attitudes in the decision to report versus not report unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research 28: 309–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mesmer-Magnus J. R., Viswesvaran C. (2005) Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics 62: 277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Near J., Miceli M. P. (1985) Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics 4: 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oudejans, M., & Vis, C. M. (2008). Slachtoffers van (poging tot) oplichting. Survey conducted for WODC EWB, CentERdata, Tilburg.Google Scholar
  18. Roodman, D. (2009). Estimating fully observed recursive mixed-process models with CMP. CGD Working Paper, 168, Washington, D.C.: Center for Global Development.Google Scholar
  19. Schlüter A., Vollan B. (2011) Morals as an incentive? A field study on honour based flower picking. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38: 79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sims R. L., Keenan J. P. (1998) Predictors of external whistleblowing: Organizational and intrapersonal variables. Journal of Business Ethics 17: 411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Traxler C. (2010) Social norms and conditional cooperative taxpayers. European Journal of Political Economy 26: 89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Traxler C., Winter J. (2012) Survey evidence on conditional norm enforcement. European Journal of Political Economy 28: 390–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Trevino L., Victor B. (1992) Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective. Academy of Management Journal 35: 38–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Beek K., Koopmans C. C., van Praag B. M. S. (1997) Shopping at the labour market: A real tale of fiction. European Economic Review 41: 295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Victor B., Trevino L., Shapiro D. L. (1993) Peer reporting of unethical behavior: The influence of justice evaluations and social context factors. Journal of Business Ethics 12: 253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weibull, J. W., & Villa, E. (2005). Crime, punishment and social norms. SSE/EFI Working Paper, 610, Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salima Douhou
    • 1
  • Jan R. Magnus
    • 2
  • Arthur van Soest
    • 2
  1. 1.CentERdata, Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Econometrics & Operations ResearchTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations