Search results

In Chapter 10 in this volume, Comandé (2009) has proposed that American courts adapt “scheduling” for use by juries in awarding nonpecuniary damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases. Comandé suggests that American courts can develop schedules for awarding damages for nonpecuniary losses on the basis of the severity of the injury and the age of the injured party, based on data on prior awards by particular courts in specific jurisdictions. Comandé's proposal is shaped by the experiences of European jurisdictions that have developed scheduling for awarding nonpecuniary damages.

We examine experimentally the extent to which three potential tax authority interventions encourage the reporting of tax fraud to tax authorities and how two types of guilt feelings are involved in this decision. Using a sample of 728 adult taxpayers in the United States, we find that a cash award, a prosocial award and a moral suasion message positively influence whistleblowing intentions and that the moral suasion effect is mediated by intrapsychic guilt (when an individual violates their moral values) and interpersonal guilt (when one's actions cause harm to another). The combination of a cash award and moral suasion message results in the greatest likelihood of tax whistleblowing. Our research contributes to the tax whistleblowing literature by providing evidence of the efficacy of potential interventions and also extends literature on the role of moral emotions by showing the relevance of intrapsychic and interpersonal guilt to the tax fraud reporting decision.

This chapter presents a brief history of the James Partridge Award from its founding in 1997 to the present day.

The history of the James Partridge Award is told as a narrative account. Both authors were personally involved in the founding and early development of the award.

The James Partridge Award has celebrated the accomplishments of African American information professionals since the first award was presented in 1998. The award is an important part of the Conference on Inclusion and Diversity in Library and Information Science.

Multiple factors contribute to the attrition of women from STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). A lack of recognition for scholarly contributions is one piece of the puzzle. Awards are crucial not only for recognizing achievement but also for making individuals feel that their contributions are valued. Additionally, awards for research are important for promotion to various levels within the academic hierarchy, including tenure and promotion. With a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Association for Women in Science (AWIS) has been examining the ways in which women are recognized for their achievements by professional disciplinary societies.

Working with the leadership of scientific societies, we developed best practices to increase gender parity and the transparency of awards processes. These recommendations included using gender-neutral language for solicitations and letters of recommendation, increasing the nomination and selection pools, clearly defining and discussing the types of achievements being sought and evaluated, including women on nomination and selection committees (particularly as committee chairs), and educating the committees about implicit bias.

AWIS partnered with 18 different societies and has seen an increase in the transparency of awards processes leading to more equitable recognition since the project’s inception in 2010.

Professional societies play critical roles in scientists’ professional development, and their awards programs make powerful statements about values. When awards show a gender gap, the implication is that men and women are valued differently by the society. Thus, leaders of disciplinary societies should work to ensure that their recognition processes do not disadvantage women.

This chapter analyzes the extent to which more experienced employers, arbitrators, and attorneys fare better in securities industry arbitration. Although studies into experience have identified a so-called repeat-player effect on outcomes, I argue that more nuanced considerations of experience are required.

I empirically analyze all employment arbitration awards from the securities system’s inception through 2008. I separate experience into two categories (between- and within-group effects) and run hybrid random- and fixed-effects regressions modeling increasing employer, attorney, and arbitrator experience on arbitration outcomes.

I find that between-group experience affects awards but that within-group experience is nonsignificant, except in civil rights cases. This implies that so-called repeat players gain an advantage over inexperienced players due to their entity-specific characteristics, not necessarily by learning to use the system to their advantage. I conclude that, although the securities arbitration system suffers from power imbalances, there is little evidence of systemic exploitation by firms.

Prior studies into employment arbitration are limited both by their definitions of experience and by their methodological approaches. I overcome these issues by employing a novel methodological approach to measure between- and within-entity experience, which adds a more multifaceted and nuanced framework to the literature than the common repeat-player versus single-player dichotomy.

This study explores how app store awards shape the behavior of leading digital entrepreneurs, focusing on their engagement in technological innovation through feedback and re-signaling mechanisms. It aims to reveal the nudging effect of award signals on entrepreneurial behavior.

In this study, data from 349 leading mobile app entrepreneurs in the UK Google Play Store were collected over an extended period from various sources. Functionality novelty and explorative behavior were assessed by analyzing app release date and permission technologies in comparison to both their own prior apps and those of their closest competitors. Hypothesized relationships were tested using accelerated failure time parametric models.

This study extends the literature on signaling by showing that (1) the top developer award signal served to nudge entrepreneurs to improve the functionality novelty of their apps and those who succeeded were less likely to switch to another product category, (2) the award signal created a window of opportunity for non-award entrepreneurs to respond and those who released new apps around the midpoint of a normal app development cycle significantly improved the likelihood of winning the award in a subsequent round of award-giving, and (3) the effect of functionality novelty on winning the award was more pronounced when non-award entrepreneurs pursued more explorative than exploitative behavior in app development.

The results offer novel insights into an understudied area, specifically the influence of online award signals on nudging entrepreneurs to pursue technological innovation. The research also highlights the crucial role played by the app store as an intermediary signaler.