Determinants of Moral Judgments Regarding Budgetary Slack: An Experimental Examination of Pay Scheme and Personal Values

Jessen L. Hobson, M. Mellon, D. Stevens
{"title":"Determinants of Moral Judgments Regarding Budgetary Slack: An Experimental Examination of Pay Scheme and Personal Values","authors":"Jessen L. Hobson, M. Mellon, D. Stevens","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1467042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT: We study moral judgments regarding budgetary slack made by participants at the end of a participative budgeting experiment in which an expectation for a truthful budget was present. We find that participants who set budgets under a slack-inducing pay scheme, and therefore built relatively high levels of budgetary slack, judged significant budgetary slack to be unethical on average, whereas participants who set budgets under a truth-inducing pay scheme did not. This suggests that the slack-inducing pay scheme generated a moral frame by setting economic self-interest against common social norms such as honesty or responsibility. We also find that participants who scored high in traditional values and empathy on a pre-experiment personality questionnaire (JPI-R) were more likely to judge significant budgetary slack to be unethical. These results suggest that financial incentives play a role in determining the moral frame of the budgeting setting and that personal values play a role in determining h...","PeriodicalId":365298,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Business (Topic)","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"103","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CSN: Business (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1467042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 103

Abstract

ABSTRACT: We study moral judgments regarding budgetary slack made by participants at the end of a participative budgeting experiment in which an expectation for a truthful budget was present. We find that participants who set budgets under a slack-inducing pay scheme, and therefore built relatively high levels of budgetary slack, judged significant budgetary slack to be unethical on average, whereas participants who set budgets under a truth-inducing pay scheme did not. This suggests that the slack-inducing pay scheme generated a moral frame by setting economic self-interest against common social norms such as honesty or responsibility. We also find that participants who scored high in traditional values and empathy on a pre-experiment personality questionnaire (JPI-R) were more likely to judge significant budgetary slack to be unethical. These results suggest that financial incentives play a role in determining the moral frame of the budgeting setting and that personal values play a role in determining h...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于预算松弛的道德判断的决定因素:薪酬方案和个人价值观的实验检验
摘要:我们研究了参与者在对真实预算有期望的参与式预算实验结束时对预算松弛的道德判断。我们发现,在诱导懈怠的薪酬方案下制定预算的参与者,因此建立了相对较高的预算懈怠水平,平均而言,他们认为显著的预算懈怠是不道德的,而在诱导真相的薪酬方案下制定预算的参与者则不然。这表明,通过将经济上的自利与诚实或责任等共同的社会规范对立起来,诱导懈怠的薪酬机制产生了一种道德框架。我们还发现,在实验前人格问卷(JPI-R)中,传统价值观和同理心得分较高的参与者更有可能认为显著的预算宽松是不道德的。这些结果表明,财政激励在决定预算设置的道德框架方面起作用,而个人价值观在决定预算设置的道德框架方面起作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Temporal Reframing Elicitations Can Improve the Emergency Savings Intentions of Gig Workers Pharmaceutical Lottery Stocks: Investors’ Reaction to FDA Announcements Review Studies: Lifestyle and Social Class in Consumer Behavior for Services Industries Market Distraction and Near-Zero Volatility Persistence Do Preferences for Private Labels Respond to Supermarket Loyalty Programs?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1