Hijacking the Moral Imperative: How Financial Incentives Can Discourage Whistleblower Reporting
Recently, policy makers have focused significant attention on the use of financial rewards as a means of encouraging whistleblower reporting, e.g., the Dodd-Frank Act (U.S. House of Representatives 2010). While such incentives are meant to increase the likelihood that fraud will be reported in a tim...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Auditing : a journal of practice and theory 2017-08, Vol.36 (3), p.1-14 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Recently, policy makers have focused significant attention on the use of financial rewards as a means of encouraging whistleblower reporting, e.g., the Dodd-Frank Act (U.S. House of Representatives 2010). While such incentives are meant to increase the likelihood that fraud will be reported in a timely manner, the psychological theory of motivational crowding calls this proposition into question. Motivational crowding warns that the application of financial rewards (an extrinsic motivator) can unintentionally hijack a person's moral motivation to “do the right thing” (an intrinsic motivator). Applying this theory, we conducted an experiment and found that, in certain contexts, incentive programs can inhibit whistleblower reporting to a greater extent than had no incentives been offered at all. We discuss the implications of our results for auditors, audit committees, regulators, and others charged with corporate governance.
Data Availability: Available from the authors upon request. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0278-0380 1558-7991 |
DOI: | 10.2308/ajpt-51663 |