Peer Influence on Managerial Honesty: The Role of Transparency and Expectations
- 738 Downloads
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.
KeywordsHonesty Motivated reasoning Peer influence Reporting Social norms Transparency
Compliance with Ethical Standard
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
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.
- Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance (4th ed., Vol. 2). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Emett, S. A., Guymon, R. N., Tayler, W. B., & Young, D. (2015). Controls and the asymmetric stickiness of norms. Working paper.Google Scholar
- Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Grossman, Z., & van der Weele, J. J. (2016). Self-image and willful ignorance in social decisions. Working paper.Google Scholar
- 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