Communicating Deception: Differences in Language Use,Justifications, and Questions for Lies,Omissions, and Truths

The use of linguistics to detect deception is a growing field of study. This experiment used naturally-occurring deception to test the propositions and fundamental assumptions of this line of inquiry. One participant (allocator) was given 6 dollars to divide between herself and another participant (receiver). Receivers were not told how much money allocators received. In 1/3 of interactions, the recipient was deceived either with a lie or deceptive omission. Linguistic differences associated with deception (fewer first person pronouns) were found for lies and omission, but higher word count was only found for omission. We found no evidence of a relationship between negative emotion and linguistic factors related to emotion (negative emotion words, negations, pronouns). Coding of justifications found allocators used more justifications for their offers when recipient was suspicious. Liars used more justifications providing details about how they obtained the money. Justifications about offer fairness were related to increased detection accuracy.     

Gender Differences in Double Standards

The purpose of the present study is to investigate gender differences in the use of double standards in ethical judgements of questionable conduct instigated by business or consumers. We investigate if consumers are more critical towards unethical corporate versus consumer actions and if these double standards depend on the gender of the respondent. In the first study, we compared evaluations of four specific unethical actions [cfr. DePaulo, 1987, in: J. Saegert (ed.) Proceedings of the Division of Consumer Psychology (American Psychological Association, Washington DC)] instigated by either the consumer or the corporation. In a second study, we investigated the perception of some general consumer and corporate (un)ethical actions in addition to DePaulo’s unethical scenarios. Both researches show that females are less likely to use double standards when it comes to their own (un)ethical behaviour compared to corporate (un)ethical actions. Furthermore, gender differences in the use of double standards depend on the type of unethical behaviour. Limitations and suggestions for further research are discussed.     

Cash holdings and business group membership

This study examines the cash policies of business group members (i.e., affiliates). Using a panel dataset of private Belgian affiliates and comparable non-affiliated firms, the empirical results show that business group affiliates hold significantly smaller amounts of cash as compared to non-affiliated firms. This finding is consistent with the notion that affiliates can afford to keep lower cash reserves because these firms can access the internal capital market of the group. The analysis also combines affiliate level and group level data to evaluate cash drivers and shows that groups in financial distress reduce cash holdings in affiliates. However, affiliates that are more important for the group's reputation and operations maintain cash levels comparable to affiliates belonging to financially healthy groups.     

Acting More Generously than the Law Requires: The Issue of Employee Layoffs in halakhah

In this paper, the issue of plant closings is analyzed from the perspective of halakhah (the Written Law of Judaism). Two levels of analysis in halakhah must be differentiated: the legal (enforced by courts) and the moral (not enforced by law, but rather framed in terms of duty to God). There is no legal mandate to keep an unprofitable plant open, but there are a number of moral imprecations (particularly "acting more generously than the law requires") that might influence an employer's decision making. Using analogical reasoning to infer moral and/or legal obligations may be a fruitful means for businesspeople to analyze business situations in terms of ethical implications.     

Measuring the Cost‐Effectiveness of an R&D Tax Credit for the UK

This paper investigates the economic impact of the government's proposed new UK R&D tax credit. We measure the benefit of the credit by the effect on value added in the short and long runs. This is simulated from existing econometric estimates of the tax‐price elasticity of research and development (R&D) and the effect of R&D on productivity. For the latter, we allow R&D to have an effect on technology transfer (catching up with the technological frontier) as well as innovation (pushing the frontier forward). We then compare the increase in value added to the likely exchequer costs of the programme under a number of scenarios. In the long run, the increase in GDP far outweighs the costs of the tax credit. The short‐run effect is far smaller, with value added only exceeding cost if R&D grows at or below the rate of inflation.     

A new proof of the maximum principle

Summary. We offer a new proof of the maximum principle, by using the envelope theorem that is frequently used in the standard microeconomic theory. Received: April 11, 2002; revised version: June 26, 2002 Correspondence to: K. Shimomura     

A critical test of the choice questionnaire for collecting informed public opinions

In the Choice Questionnaire (Neijens et al. 1992) respondents have to choose between several policy options. Within this questionnaire they are provided with information about the consequences of each option. Until now, only indirect evidence as to whether or not respondents base their preferences on the information provided was available and plausible alternative explanations for the Choice Questionnaire's effect could not be ruled out. In the present study, we demonstrate that Choice Questionnaire respondents do base their preferences on the information provided: different information resulted in significantly different choices.     

Power and responsibility: How different sources of CEO power affect firms' corporate social responsibility practices

Does greater CEO power come with more responsibility? Previous scholarly work in this field entails divergent results on this question. Based on the upper echelons theory and CEO power literature, this study aimed to explore the mechanisms underlying how different sources of CEO power, including structural, ownership, expert, and prestige power, affect firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and whether such relationships are moderated by firm visibility. Using a panel dataset comprising 6604 yearly observations of Chinese publicly traded firms from 2009 to 2019, we found that structural power is negatively related to CSR practices and that expert power is positively related to CSR practices, whereas ownership power and prestige power have no direct relationship with CSR practices. Our results show that firm visibility weakens the negative relationship between structural power and CSR practices and strengthens the relationship between expert power and CSR practices, respectively. Overall, this study reconciles the mixed results of previous studies on the impact of CEO power on CSR and integrates the effect of firm visibility as a contextual factor. This article concludes with practical recommendations on how to manage CSR engagement.