
handle: 10419/180157
We conduct an experiment with professional internal auditors and evaluate their performance and objectivity, measured as the extent to which they truthfully report the performance of other participants in a real‐effort task. In line with our hypotheses, we find that incentive‐based compensation increases dishonest behavior: competitive incentives lead to under‐reporting of other participants' performance, while collective incentives lead to over‐reporting of performance. We replicate these results with a student sample. In addition, we find that moving from an environment with objective performance evaluation toward a peer evaluation scheme reduces performance among internal auditors, but not among students.(JEL C93, M42, M52)
dishonesty, LIES, experiment, ddc:330, incentives, IMPACT, M52, M42, internal audit, SABOTAGE, COMPETITION, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, PERFORMANCE, sabotage, OBJECTIVITY, C93, COMPENSATION, TOURNAMENTS, DECEPTION, BEHAVIOR
dishonesty, LIES, experiment, ddc:330, incentives, IMPACT, M52, M42, internal audit, SABOTAGE, COMPETITION, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, PERFORMANCE, sabotage, OBJECTIVITY, C93, COMPENSATION, TOURNAMENTS, DECEPTION, BEHAVIOR
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 12 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
