Do Institutional Features of Reporting Regimes Matter? Experimental Study of the Institutional Factors that shape Reporting Abuse by Intermediaries, and their Interaction with Personal Values.

While previous research has extensively examined reporting behavior among mandated reporters, relatively little is known about the factors that shape civilians’ reporting preferences. This study addresses that gap by examining how both institutional and individual-level factors - and their interactions - influence third-party reporting. Using a conjoint experiment with a sample of 2,765 Dutch participants in the context of a severe child abuse case, we find that regime ability is the most influential factor in civilians’ reporting decisions, overriding self-interest considerations. Additionally, we find strong evidence that both the willingness to report and the perceived utility of reporting are shaped by individual differences in core personal values: While some segments of the population may be reluctant to report abuse, reporting among other groups could be increased by altering specific institutional functions. These findings underscore the importance of viewing the public not as a monolithic entity, but as a diverse population with distinct motivational orientations that differently shape their expectations of reporting procedures and consequently their cost-benefit assessments in reporting decisions. Tailoring institutional design to reflect this diversity is essential for developing more effective reporting regimes.