Various motivations for managerial (mis)reporting – an experimental study

References

• Evans III JH, Hannan RL, Krishnan R, et al. Honesty in managerial reporting. Accounting Rev. 2001;76:537–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rankin FW, Schwartz ST, Young RA. The effect of honesty and superior authority on budget proposals. Accounting Rev. 2008;83:1083–1099.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y. The effects of perceived fairness and communication on honesty and collusion in a multi-agent setting. Accounting Rev. 2008;83:1125–1146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gneezy U. Deception: the role of consequences. Am Econ Rev. 2005;95:384–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D. The dishonesty of honest people: a theory of self-concept maintenance. J Marketing Res. 2008;45:633–644.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U, Föllmi-Heusi F. Lies in disguise – an experimental study on cheating. J Eur Econ Assoc. 2013;11:525–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmußen A, Leopold-Wildburger U. Honesty in intra-organizational reporting. J Bus Econ. 2014;84:929–958.
   Google Scholar
• Erat S, Gneezy U. White lies. Manage Sci. 2012;58:723–733.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy R, Ackermann KA, Handgraaf MJJ. Measuring social value orientation. Judgment Decis Making. 2011;6:771–781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ. 1976;3:305–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmstrom B. Moral hazard and observability. Bell J Econ. 1979;10:74–91.
   Google Scholar
• Antle R, Eppen GD. Capital rationing and organizational slack in capital budgeting. Manage Sci. 1985;31:415–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasri M, Bastin F, Marcotte P. Quantifying the social welfare loss in moral hazard models. Eur J Oper Res. 2015;245:226–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasri M. Characterizing optimal wages in principal-agent problems without using the first-order approach. Optimization. 2016;65:467–478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gkortsilas D, Zaroliagis C. An experimental study of bicriteria models for robust timetabling. Optimization. 2013;62:1089–1112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmußen A. Reporting behavior: a literature review of experimental studies. Central Eur J Oper Res. 2015;23:283–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown JL, Evans III JH, Moser DV. Agency theory and participative budgeting experiments. J Manage Accounting Res. 2009;21:317–345.
   Google Scholar
• Nikias AD, Schwartz ST, Spires EE, et al. Effects of aggregation and timing on budgeting: an experiment. Behav Res Accounting. 2010;22:67–83.
   Google Scholar
• Koford K, Penno M. Accounting, principal-agent theory, and self-interested behavior. In: Bowie NE, Freeman RE, editors. Ethics and agency theory. Oxford University Press: New York (NY); 1992. p. 127–142.
   Google Scholar
• Church BK, Hannan RL, Kuang XJ. Shared interest and honesty in budget reporting. Accounting Organiz Soc. 2012;37:155–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosaz J, Villeval MC. Lies and biased evaluation: a real-effort experiment. J Econ Behav Organiz. 2012;84:537–549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selten R. The equity principle in economic behavior. In: Gottinger HW, Leinfellner W, editors. Decision theory and social ethics. Issues in social choice. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company; 1978. p. 289–301.
   Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U. z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp Econ. 2007;10:171–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greiner B. An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In: Forschung und wissenschaftliches rechnen 2003. Göttingen: GWDG; 2004. p. 79–93.
   Google Scholar
• Lewicki RJ. Lying and deception: a behavioral model. In: Bazerman MH, Lewicki RJ, editors. Negotiation in organizations. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage Publications; 1983. p. 68–90.
   Google Scholar
• Mazar N, Ariely D. Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications. J Public Policy Marketing. 2006;25:117–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In: Kurtines WM, Gewirtz L, editors. Handbook of moral behavior and development. Hillsdale Erlbaum; 1991. p. 45–103.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality Social Psychol Rev (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). 1999;3:193–209.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schweitzer ME, Gibson DE. Fairness, feelings, and ethical decision-making: consequences of violating community standards of fairness. J Bus Ethics. 2008;77:287–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleiß J, Leopold-Wildburger U. Social values and cooperation. Results from an iterated prisoner’s dilemma experiment. In: Klatte D, L\"{u}thi HJ, Schmedders K, editors. Operations research proceedings 2011. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg; 2012. p. 199–204.
   Google Scholar
• Bogaert S, Boone C, Declerck C. Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a review and conceptual model. British J Social Psychol. 2008;47:453–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balliet D, Parks C, Joireman J. Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta-analysis. Group Process Intergroup Rel. 2009;12:533–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q J Econ. 1999;114:817–868.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar