Motivating Whistleblowers

References

• Abbink K, Wu K (2017) Reward self-reporting to deter corruption: An experiment on mitigating collusive bribery. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 133:256–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abbink K, Dasgupta U, Ghanghadaran L, Jain T (2014) Letting the briber go free: An experiment on mitigating harassment bribes. J. Public Econom. 111:17–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alekseev A, Charness G, Gneezy U (2016) Experimental methods: When and why contextual instructions are important. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 134:48–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Bernheim BD (2009) Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica 77(5):1607–1636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Petrie R (2004) Public goods experiments without confidentiality: A glimpse into fund-raising. J. Public Econom. 88(7–8):1605–1623.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (1995) Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: The effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Quart. J. Econom. 110(1):1–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Apesteguia J, Dufwenberg M, Selten R (2007) Blowing the whistle. Econom. Theory 31(1):143–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Bracha A, Meier S (2009) Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(1):544–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashforth BE, Mael F (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Management Rev. 14(1):20–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aubert C, Kovacic W, Rey P (2006) The impact of leniency and whistleblowing programs on cartels. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 24(6):1241–1266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baloria V, Marquardt C, Wiedman C (2015) A lobbying approach to evaluating the whistleblower provisions of the Dodd–Frank Reform Act of 2010. Contemporary Accounting Res. 34(3):1305–1339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartuli J, Djawadi B, Fahr R (2016) Business ethics in organizations: An experimental examination of whistleblowing and personality. IZA Discussion Paper 10190, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
• Bénabou R, Tirole J (2006) Incentives and prosocial behavior. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1652–1678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bigoni M, Fridolfsson S, Le Coq C, Spagnolo G (2012) Fines, leniency and rewards in antitrust. RAND J. Econom. 43(2):368–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bigoni M, Fridolfsson S, LeCoq C, Spagnolo G (2015) Trust, leniency and deterrence. J. Law, Econom. Organ. 31(4):663–689.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Branas-Garza P (2007) Promoting helping behavior with framing in dictator games. J. Econom. Psychol. 28(4):477–486.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandts J, Charness G (2000) Hot vs. cold: Sequential responses and preference stability in experimental games. Experiment. Econom. 2(3):227–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandts J, Charness G (2011) The strategy versus the direct-response method: A first survey of experimental comparisons. Experiment. Econom. 14(3):375–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breuer L (2013) Tax compliance and whistleblowing: The role of incentives. Bonn J. Econom. 2(2):7–44.Google Scholar
• Buckenmaier J, Dimant E, Mittone L (2018) Effects of institutional history and leniency on collusive corruption and tax evasion. J. Econom. Behav. Organ., ePub ahead of print May 5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.04.004.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bursztyn L, Jensen R (2017) Social image and economic behavior in the field: Identifying, understanding, and shaping social pressure. Annual Rev. Econom. 9:131–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Call AC, Martin GS, Sharp NY, Wilde JH (2017) Whistleblowers and outcomes of financial misrepresentation enforcement actions. J. Accounting Res. 56(1):123–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter J, Myers CK (2008) Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and incentives. J. Public Econom. 94(11):911–920.Google Scholar
• Carpenter J, Robbett A, Akbar PA (2017) Profit sharing and peer reporting. Management Sci. 64(9):4261–4276.Link, Google Scholar
• Carpenter J, Seki E (2011) Do social preferences increase productivity? Field experimental evidence from fishermen in Toyama Bay. Econom. Inquiry 49(2):612–630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen R, Chen Y (2011) The potential of social identity for equilibrium selection. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(6):2562–2589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cookson R (2000) Framing effects in public goods experiments. Experiment. Econom. 3(1):55–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cotten S, Santore R (2016) Whistleblowers, amnesty, and managerial fraud: An experimental investigation. Unpublished manuscript, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Whistleblowers-%2C-Amnesty-%2C-and-Managerial-Fraud-%3A-*-Cotten-Santore/64937234718a5059f10faf0f6dd820ce4fc4d3f7.Google Scholar
• Dozier JB, Miceli MP (1985) Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 10(4):823–836.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dufwenberg M, Gächter S, Hennig-Schmidt H (2011) The framing of games and the psychology of play. Games Econom. Behav. 73(2):459–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyck A, Morse A, Zingales L (2010) Who blows the whistle on corporate fraud? J. Finance 65(6):2213–2253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyck A, Morse A, Zingales L (2013) How pervasive is corporate fraud? Rotman School of Management Working Paper 2222608, University of Toronto, Toronto.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel C, Grossman PJ (1996) Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games Econom. Behav. 16(2):181–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engstrom DF (2012) Harnessing the private attorney general: Evidence from qui tam litigation. Columbia Law Rev. 112:1244–1325.Google Scholar
• Engstrom DF (2013) Public regulation of private enforcement: Empirical analysis of DOJ oversight of qui tam litigation under the False Claims Act. Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 107:1689–1756.Google Scholar
• Engstrom DF (2014a) Private enforcement’s pathways: Lessons from qui tam litigation. Columbia Law Rev. 115:1913–2006.Google Scholar
• Engstrom DF (2014b) Whither whistleblowing? Bounty regimes, regulatory context, and the challenge of optimal design. Theoretical Inquiries Law 15(2):605.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethics Resource Center (2014) National Business Ethics survey of the U.S. workforce. Accessed July 30, 2019, http://www.ethics.org/ecihome/research/nbes.Google Scholar
• Feldman Y, Lobel O (2010) The incentives matrix: The comparative effectiveness of rewards, liabilities, duties and protections for reporting illegality. Texas Law Rev. 88(6).Google Scholar
• Felli L, Hortala-Vallve R (2016) Collusion, blackmail and whistle-blowing. Quart. J. Political Sci. 11(3):279–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Ready-made Economic Experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friebel G, Guriev S (2012) Whistle-blowing and incentives in firms. J. Econom. Management Strategy 21(4):1007–1027.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gerber AS, Green DP, Larimer CW (2008) Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 102(1):33–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Givati Y (2016) A theory of whistleblower rewards. J. Legal Stud. 45(1):43–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Rustichini A (2000) A fine is a price. J. Legal Stud. 29(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greiner B (2015) Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 1(1):114–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gundlach MJ, Douglas SC, Martinko MJ (2003) The decision to blow the whistle: A social information processing framework. Acad. Management Rev. 28(1):107–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hamaguchi Y, Kawagoe T, Shibata A (2009) Group size effects on cartel formation and the enforcement power of leniency programs. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 27(2):145–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heyes A, Kapur S (2009) An economic model of whistle-blower policy. J. Law Econom. Organ. 25(1):157–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hinloopen J, Soetevent A (2008) Laboratory Evidence on the effectiveness of corporate leniency programs. RAND J. Econom. 39(2):607–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Internal Revenue Service (2015) IRS Whistleblower Program, Fiscal Year 2015—Annual Report to the Congress (Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Linardi S, McConnell MA (2011) No excuses for good behavior: Volunteering and the social environment. J. Public Econom. 95(5):445–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Zhao S, Li R, Zhou L, Tian F (2018) The relationship between organizational identification and internal whistle-blowing: The joint moderating effects of perceived ethical climate and proactive personality. Rev. Managerial Sci. 12(1):113–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miceli MP, Near JP (1992) Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and Legal Implications for Companies and Employees (Lexington Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Miceli MP, Near JP (1994) Relationship among value congruence, perceived victimization, and retaliation against whistle-blowers. J. Management 20(4):773–794.Google Scholar
• Miceli MP, Near JP, Rehg MT, Van Scotter JR (2012) Predicting employee reactions to perceived organizational wrongdoing: Demoralization, justice, proactive personality, and whistle-blowing. Human Relations 65(8):923–954.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Near JP, Miceli MP (1995) Effective whistle-blowing. Acad. Management Rev. 20(3):679–708.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nyrerod T, Spagnolo G (2018) Myths and numbers on whistleblower rewards. Dp 12957, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, https://www.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=12957.Google Scholar
• Rege M, Telle K (2004) The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations. J. Public Econom. 88(7):1625–1644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reuben E, Stephenson M (2013) Nobody likes a rat: On the willingness to report lies and the consequences thereof. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 93:384–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothschild J, Miethe T (1999) Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation. Work Occupations 26(1):107–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salmon TC, Serra D (2017) Corruption, social judgment and culture: An experiment. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 142:64–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schikora J (2011) Bringing good and bad whistle-blowers to the lab. Munich Discussion Paper 2011-4, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12161.Google Scholar
• Schmolke KU, Utikal V (2016) Whistleblowing: Incentives and situational determinants. FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 09/2016, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg-Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2820475.Google Scholar
• Serra D (2012) Combining top-down and bottom-up accountability: Evidence from a bribery experiment. J. Law Econom. Organ. 28(3):569–587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spagnolo G (2004) Divide et impera: Optimal leniency programs. CEPR Discussion Papers 4840, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Spagnolo G (2008) Leniency and whistleblowers in antitrust. Buccirossi P ed. Handbook of Antitrust Economics (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 259–304.Google Scholar
• Sunstein CR (1996) On the expressive function of law. Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev. 144(5):2021–2053.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Billig MG, Bundy RP, Flament C (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 1(2):149–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waytz A, Dungan J, Young L (2013) The whistleblower’s dilemma and the fairness–loyalty tradeoff. J. Exp. Soc. Psych. 49:1027–1033.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilde JH (2017) The deterrent effect of employee whistleblowing on firms’ financial misreporting and tax aggressiveness. Accounting Rev. 92(5):247–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xiao E, Houser D (2011) Punish in public. J. Public Econom. 95(7):1006–1017.Crossref, Google Scholar