The importance of trustworthiness: a systematic literature review in budget slack

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Table 1. Number of articles included and excluded per process step.

Description	Number
Number of articles screened in selected databases and journals during the initial investigation period	1.172
Excluded after initial inclusion check and removing duplicate articles	128
Potentially relevant articles after initial screening	1.044
Excluded after extension check	1.001
Articles included in review after final inspection	43

Table 2. Journal name, acronym and number of articles.

Journal name	Journal acronym	Number of article
Advances in Management Accounting	AMA	5
Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research	AABR	4
Managerial Auditing Journal	MAJ	2
Journal of Accounting Literature	JAL	1
Journal of business ethics	JBE	5
Journal of Management Control	JMC	1
Journal of Business Economics	JBE	1
Journal of International Accounting Research	JIAR	1
Journal of Management Accounting Research	JMAR	8
Behavioral Research in Accounting	BRIA	3
The Accounting Review	TAR	2
Contemporary Accounting Research	CAR	2
Journal of Accounting Research	JAR	1
Accounting, Organizations and Society	AOS	5
Management Accounting Research	MAR	1
European Accounting Review	EAR	1
Total		43

Table 3. Instruments for integrity enhancement.

Article	Research method	Integrity function
Libby (2003)	Experiment	Fairness (in contract)
Wentzel (2004)	Survey	Fairness
Douglas and Wier (2005)	Experiment	Ethical ideology
Maiga (2005)	Experiment	Moral equity
Davis et al. (2006)	Experiment	Perceived responsibility
Magner et al. (2006)	Literature Review	Procedural fairness and fairness implementation
Cohen et al. (2007)	Experiment	Fairness and moral ethics
Rankin et al. (2008)	Experiment	Honesty
Schatzberg and Stevens (2008)	Experiment	Fairness and ethics
Zhang (2008)	Experiment	Perceived fairness
Hoogervorst et al. (2010)	Experiment	Leader’s accountability
Chong and Ferdiansah (2011)	Experiment	Subordinates truthfulness
Hobson et al. (2011)	Experiment	Personal value (moral judgment and moral decision making)
Church et al. (2012)	Experiment	Honesty preference
Tang and Liu (2012)	Panel study	Personal integrity
Drake et al. (2013)	Experiment	Honesty preference and fairness
Paz et al. (2014)	Experiment	Peer honesty and social norm
Chong and Loy (2015)	Experiment	Leader’s reputation and subordinates honesty
Cardinaels and Yin (2015)	Experiment	Social norms
Douthit and Stevens (2015)	Experiment	Honesty effect
Cardinaels and Jia (2016)	Experiment	Positive social norms (peer behavior)
Altenburger (2017)	Experiment	Injunctive social norm
Chung and Hsu (2017)	Experiment	Cognitive moral development
Schwering (2017)	Experiment	Peer honesty
Chong and Wang (2018)	Survey	Responsibility rationalization
Blay et al. (2019)	Experiment	Honesty preference and negative effect intensity
Brunner and Ostermaier (2019)	Experiment	Managerial honesty under the role of transparency
Hirth-Goebel and Weißenberger (2019)	Survey	Ethical awareness
Libby et al. (2019)	Experiment	Responsibility
Chong et al. (2021)	Experiment	Accountability pressure
Cheng et al. (2023)	Experiment	Honesty reminder

Table 4. The instrument for benevolence improvement.

Article	Research method	Benevolence function
Hartmann and Maas (2010)	Experiment	Machiavellianism personality
Hobson et al. (2011)	Experiment	Empathy (personal value)
Tang and Liu (2012)	Panel study	Character (caring and transparent help)
Eskenazi et al. (2016)	Experiment	Human mirror neuro system (HMNS)
Davidson (2019)	Experiment	Reciprocity
Brown et al. (2021)	Experiment	Machiavellianism personality

Table 5. The instrument for ability improvement.

Article	Research method	Ability function
Yuen (2004)	Experiment	Communication
Rankin et al. (2008)	Experiment	Budget communication
Schatzberg and Stevens (2008)	Experiment	Experience
Zhang (2008)	Experiment	Peer communication
Newman (2014)	Experiment	Informal communication
Brink et al. (2017)	Experiment	Deceptive superior
Brink et al. (2018)	Experiment	Superior type (active superior)
Carroll and Marginson (2021)	Case study	Managers’ cognitive

Libby, T. (2003). The effect of fairness in contracting on the creation of budgetary slack. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 6, 145–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-7979(03)06007-1/FULL/XML

 Google Scholar

Wentzel, K. (2004). Do perceptions of fairness mitigate managers’ use of budgetary slack during asymmetric information conditions? Advances in Management Accounting, 13, 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-7871(04)13009-8/FULL/XML

 Google Scholar

Douglas, P. C., & Wier, B. (2005). Cultural and ethical effects in budgeting systems: A comparison of US and Chinese managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-6711-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Maiga, A. S. (2005). The effect of manager’s moral equity on the relationship between budget participation and propensity to create slack: A research note. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 8, 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1488(04)08006-8

 Google Scholar

Davis, S., Dezoort, F. T., & Kopp, L. S. (2006). The effect of obedience pressure and perceived responsibility on management accountants’ creation of budgetary slack. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2006.18.1.19

 Google Scholar

Magner, N. R., Johnson, G. G., Little, H. T., Staley, A. B., & Welker, R. B. (2006). The case for fair budgetary procedures. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(4), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900610661414

 Google Scholar

Cohen, J. R., Holder-Webb, L., Sharp, D. J., & Pant, L. W. (2007). The effects of perceived fairness on opportunistic behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24(4), 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1506/car.24.4.3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rankin, F. W., Schwartz, S. T., & Young, R. A. (2008). The effect of honesty and superior authority on budget proposals. The Accounting Review, 83(4), 1083–1099. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2008.83.4.1083

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schatzberg, J. W., & Stevens, D. E. (2008). Public and private forms of opportunism within the organization: A joint examination of budget and effort behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 20(1), 59–81. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/accountancy_facpub https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2008.20.1.59

 Google Scholar

Zhang, Y. (2008). The effects of perceived fairness and communication on honesty and collusion in a multi-agent setting. The Accounting Review, 83(4), 1125–1146. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2008.83.4.1125

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hoogervorst, N., de Cremer, D., & van Dijke, M. (2010). Why leaders not always disapprove of unethical follower behavior: It depends on the leader’s self-interest and accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(S1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0793-1

 Google Scholar

Chong, V. K., & Ferdiansah, I. (2011). The effect of trust-in-superior and truthfulness on budgetary slack: An experimental investigation. Advances in Management Accounting, 19, 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7871(2011)0000019009

 Google Scholar

Hobson, J. L., Mellon, M. J., & Stevens, D. E. (2011). Determinants of moral judgments regarding budgetary slack: An experimental examination of pay scheme and personal values. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23(1), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2011.23.1.87

 Google Scholar

Church, B. K., Hannan, R. L., & Kuang, X. J. (2012). Shared interest and honesty in budget reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(3), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.01.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tang, T. L. P., & Liu, H. (2012). Love of money and unethical behavior intention: Does an authentic supervisor’s personal integrity and character (ASPIRE) make a difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1040-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Drake, A. R., Matuszewski, L. J., & Miller, F. (2013). The effect of personality traits and fairness on honesty in managerial reporting. Advances in Management Accounting, 22, 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7871(2013)0000022008/FULL/XML

 Google Scholar

Paz, M., Reichert, B. E., & Woods, A. (2014). How does peer honesty affect focal manager honesty in a budget reporting setting? Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 16, 85–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-1488(2013)0000016009/FULL/XML

 Google Scholar

Chong, V. K., & Loy, C. Y. (2015). The effect of a leader’s reputation on budgetary slack. Advances in Management Accounting, 25, 49–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-787120150000025003/FULL/XML

 Google Scholar

Cardinaels, E., & Yin, H. (2015). Think twice before going for incentives: Social norms and the principal’s decision on compensation contracts. Journal of Accounting Research, 53(5), 985–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12093

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Douthit, J. D., & Stevens, D. E. (2015). The robustness of honesty effects on budget proposals when the superior has rejection authority. The Accounting Review, 90(2), 467–493. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50937

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cardinaels, E., & Jia, Y. (2016). How audits moderate the effects of incentives and peer behavior on misreporting. European Accounting Review, 25(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2015.1042889

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Altenburger, M. (2017). The effect of injunctive social norms and dissent on budget reporting honesty. Journal of International Accounting Research, 16(2), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-51744

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chung, J. O. Y., & Hsu, S. H. (2017). The effect of cognitive moral development on honesty in managerial reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2834-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schwering, A. (2017). The influence of peer honesty and anonymity on managerial reporting. Journal of Business Economics, 87(9), 1151–1172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-017-0861-9

 Google Scholar

Chong, V. K., & Wang, I. Z. (2018). Delegation of decision rights and misreporting: The roles of incentive-based compensation schemes and responsibility rationalization. European Accounting Review, 28(2), 275–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2018.1452771

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blay, A., Douthit, J., & Fulmer, B. (2019). Why don’t people lie? Negative affect intensity and preferences for honesty in budgetary reporting. Management Accounting Research, 42, 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2018.05.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brunner, M., & Ostermaier, A. (2019). Peer influence on managerial honesty: The role of transparency and expectations. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3459-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hirth-Goebel, T. F., & Weißenberger, B. E. (2019). Management accountants and ethical dilemmas: How to promote ethical intention? Journal of Management Control, 30(3), 287–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-019-00288-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Libby, T., Proell, C. A., & Smith, S. D. (2019). Difficult cost goals and conflicting honesty incentives: The influence of decision responsibility. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 31(3), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-52299

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chong, V. K., Leong, M. K. C., & Woodliff, D. R. (2021). The effect of accountability pressure and perceived levels of honesty on budgetary slack creation. Advances in accounting behavioral research (Vol. 24, pp. 1–28). Emerald Group Holdings Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-148820200000024001

 Google Scholar

Cheng, W. W. H., Lim, C. Y., & Yuen, K. C. K. (2023). Can honesty reminders reduce dishonesty in budgetary slack? Advances in Management Accounting, 34, 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-787120220000034008/FULL/XML

 Google Scholar

Hartmann, F. G. H., & Maas, V. S. (2010). Why business unit controllers create budget slack: Involvement in management, social pressure, and Machiavellianism. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 22(2), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2010.22.2.27

 Google Scholar

Eskenazi, P. I., Hartmann, F. G. H., & Rietdijk, W. J. R. (2016). Why controllers compromise on their fiduciary duties: EEG evidence on the role of the human mirror neuron system. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 50, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2016.02.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Davidson, B. I. (2019). The effects of reciprocity and self-awareness on honesty in managerial reporting: Social value orientation matters. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 31(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-52020

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brown, T. J., Majors, T. M., & Vance, T. W. (2021). Incomplete contracts and employee opportunism: How machiavellianism moderates the effects of impacting an uncompensated objective. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 33(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2308/JMAR-18-023

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yuen, D. C. Y. (2004). Goal characteristics, communication and reward systems, and managerial propensity to create budgetary slack. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(4), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900410530529

 Google Scholar

Newman, A. H. (2014). An investigation of how the informal communication of firm preferences influences managerial honesty. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(3), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.02.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brink, A. G., Coats, J. C., & Rankin, F. W. (2017). Deceptive superiors and budgetary reporting: An experimental investigation. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 29(3), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51591

 Google Scholar

Brink, A. G., Coats, J. C., & Rankin, F. W. (2018). Who’s the boss? The economic and behavioral implications of various characterizations of the superior in participative budgeting research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 41(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2018.03.004

 Google Scholar

Carroll, E., & Marginson, D. (2021). Relative performance information and social comparisons: Exploring managers’ cognitive, emotional and dysfunctional behavioral processes. Management Accounting Research, 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2021.100768

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

During this study, no datasets were generated or analyzed. Therefore, the sharing or availability of data is not applicable.