This study suggests that in-group loyalty, defined as the degree to which people favor their own group over others, undermines the punishment of corruption. We present evidence from two studies. First, we utilize a real-world corruption scandal involving the ruling party in Spain that broke during survey fieldwork. People exposed to the scandal withhold support from the incumbent, but in-group loyalty based on partisanship weakens this effect. Second, we explore in-group loyalty beyond partisanship through laboratory experiments. These experiments artificially induce group identities, randomly assign the group identity of candidates and shut down any instrumental benefits of in-group loyalty. The experimental evidence suggests that people support corrupt candidates as long as they share a group identity and are willing to sacrifice material payoffs to do so. Our findings have important implications. Most importantly perhaps, they suggest that candidates can get away with corruption by engaging in identity politics.
AbbinkK. (2006). Laboratory experiments on corruption. In Rose-AckermanS. (Ed.), International handbook on the economics of corruption (pp. 418-438). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
2.
AbrajanoM. A.AlvarezR. M. (2005). A natural experiment of race-based and issue voting: The 2001 city of Los Angeles elections. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 203-218.
3.
AbramowitzA. (2010.). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
AkerlofG. A.KrantonR. E. (2000). Economics and identity. Quarterly journal of Economics, 115, 715-753.
5.
AlvarezR. M.NaglerJ. (1998). When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 55-96.
6.
AndersonC. J.TverdovaY. V. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 91-109.
7.
AnduizaE.GallegoA.MunozJ. (2013). Turning a blind eye: Experimental evidence of partisan bias in attitudes toward corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1664-1692.
8.
AresM.HernándezE. (2017). The corrosive effect of corruption on trust in politicians: Evidence from a natural experiment. Research & Politics, 1-8.
9.
ArmantierO.BolyA. (2008, September1). Can corruption be studied in the lab? Comparing a field and a lab experiment (CIRANO-Scientific Publications No. 2008s-26). CIRANO, Montreal, Canada.
10.
AzfarO.NelsonW. R.Jr. (2007). Transparency, wages, and the separation of powers: An experimental analysis of corruption. Public Choice, 130, 471-493.
11.
BafumiJ.ShapiroR. Y. (2009). A new partisan voter. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1-24.
12.
BanerjeeA. V.PandeR. (2007). Parochial politics: Ethnic preferences and politician corruption (Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government Faculty Research Working Paper RWP07-031), Boston, USA.
13.
BazermanM. H.GinoF. (2012). Behavioral ethics: Toward a deeper understanding of moral judgment and dishonesty. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 85-104.
14.
BernhardH.FischbacherU.FehrE. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442, 912-915.
15.
BlalockH. M. (1967). Causal inferences, closed populations, and measures of association. American Political Science Review, 61, 130-136.
16.
BoteroS.CornejoR. C.GamboaL.PavaoN.NickersonD. W. (2015). Says who? An experiment on allegations of corruption and credibility of sources. Political Research Quarterly, 68, 493-504.
17.
BrewerM. B.CaporaelL. R. (2006). An evolutionary perspective on social identity: Revisiting groups. In SchallerM.SimpsonJ. A.KenrickD. T. (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 143-162). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
18.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. Michigan, USA: Michigan University Press.
19.
CarlinR. E.LoveG. J. (2018). Political competition, partisanship and interpersonal trust in electoral democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 48, 115-139. doi:10.1017/S0007123415000526
20.
CarlinR. E.LoveG. J.Martinez-GallardoC. (2015a). Cushioning the fall: Scandals, economic conditions, and executive approval. Political Behavior, 37, 109-130.
21.
CarlinR. E.LoveG. J.Martinez-GallardoC. (2015b). “Security, clarity of responsibility and presidential approval” comparative. Political Studies, 48, 438-463.
22.
ChandraK. (2007). Why ethnic parties succeed: Patronage and ethnic head counts in India. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
23.
ChangE. C. C.GoldenM. A. (2007.). Electoral systems, district magnitude and corruption. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 115-137.
24.
ChangE. C. C.GoldenM. A.HillS. J. (2010). Legislative malfeasance and political accountability. World Politics, 62, 177-220.
25.
CharnessG.RabinM. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817-869.
26.
ChenY.LiS. X. (2009). Group identity and social preferences. The American Economic Review, 99, 431-457.
27.
De VriesC. E.SolazH. (2017). The electoral consequences of corruption. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 391-408.
28.
DuchR.PrzepiorkaW.StevensonR. (2015). Responsibility attribution for collective decision makers. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 372-389.
29.
EckerA.GlinitzerK.MeyerT. M. (2016). Corruption performance voting and the electoral context. European Political Science Review, 8, 333-354.
30.
EnglmaierF.GebhardtG. (2016). Social dilemmas in the laboratory and in the field. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 128, 85-96.
31.
EvansG.AndersenR. (2006). The political conditioning of economic perceptions. The Journal of Politics, 68, 194-207.
32.
FacklerT.LinT. M. (1995). Political corruption and presidential elections, 1929-1992. The Journal of Politics, 57, 971-993.
33.
FerrazC.FinanF. (2008). Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 703-745.
34.
FiorinaM. (1981). Retrospective voting in American elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
FismanR.GoldenM. A. (2017). Corruption: What everyone needs to know. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
GinoF.GuJ.ZhongC.-B. (2009). Contagion or restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1299-1302.
37.
GreenD. P.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
HabyarimanaJ.HumphreysM.PosnerD. N.WeinsteinJ. M. (2007). Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision?American Political Science Review, 101, 709-725.
39.
HardoonD.HeinrichF. (2013). Global corruption barometer. Berlin, Germany: Transparency International.
40.
HealyA.MalhotraN. (2013). Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 285-306.
41.
HildrethJ. A. D.GinoF.BazermanM. (2016). Blind loyalty? When group loyalty makes us see evil or engage in it. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132, 16-36.
42.
HuberG. A.HillS. J.LenzG. S. (2012). Sources of bias in retrospective decision making: Experimental evidence on voters’ limitations in controlling incumbents. American Political Science Review, 106, 720-741.
43.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109, 1-17.
44.
KlašnjaM. (2017). Uninformed voters and corrupt politicians. American Politics Research, 45, 256-279.
45.
KlašnjaM.TuckerJ. A.Deegan-KrauseK. (2016). Pocketbook vs. sociotropic corruption voting. British Journal of Political Science, 46, 67-94.
46.
KrauseS.MéndezF. (2009). Corruption and elections: An empirical study for a cross-section of countries. Economics & Politics, 21, 179-200.
47.
KunicováJ.Rose-AckermanS. (2005). Electoral rules and constitutional structures as constraints on corruption. British Journal of Political Science, 35, 573-606.
48.
LandaD.DuellD. (2015). Social identity and electoral accountability. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 671-689.
49.
LaneT. (2016). Discrimination in the laboratory: A meta-analysis. European Economic Review, 90, 375-402.
50.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
51.
LedermanD.LoayzaN. V.SoaresR. R. (2005). Accountability and corruption: Political institutions matter. Economics & Politics, 17, 1-35.
52.
LegewieJ. (2013). Terrorist events and attitudes toward immigrants: A natural experiment. American journal of sociology, 118, 1199-1245.
53.
LevittS. D.ListJ. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153-174.
54.
LupuN. (2016). Party brands in crisis: Partisanship, brand dilution, and the breakdown of political parties in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
ManzettiL.WilsonC. J. (2007). Why do corrupt governments maintain public support?Comparative Political Studies, 40, 949-970.
56.
MaresI.YoungL. (2016). Buying, expropriating, and stealing votes. Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 267-288.
57.
MuñozJ.AnduizaE.GallegoA. (2016). Why do voters forgive corrupt mayors? Implicit exchange, credibility of information and clean alternatives. Local Government Studies, 42, 598-615.
58.
MyersonR. B. (1993). Effectiveness of electoral systems for reducing government corruption: A game-theoretic analysis. Games and Economic Behavior, 5, 118-132.
59.
OlkenB. A. (2009). Corruption perceptions vs. corruption reality. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 950-964.
60.
PerssonT.TabelliniG.TrebbiF. (2003). Electoral rules and corruption. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 958-989.
61.
PetersJ. G.WelchS. (1980). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behaviour in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 74, 697-708.
62.
RandD. G.PfeifferT.DreberA.SheketoffR. W.WernefeltN. C.BenklerY. (2009). Dynamic remodeling of in-group bias during the 2008 presidential election. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 6187-6191.
63.
ReedS. (1996). Political Corruption in Japan. International Social Science Journal, 149, 395-405.
64.
Rose-AckermanS. (Ed.). (2006). International handbook on the economics of corruption. London, England: Edward Elgar.
65.
RubinD. B. (1973). The use of matched sampling and regression adjustment to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 185-203.
66.
RudolphT. J. (2003). Who’s responsible for the economy? The formation and consequences of responsibility attributions. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 698-713.
67.
RundquistB. S.StromG. S.PetersJ. G. (1977). Corrupt politicians and their electoral support: Some experimental observations. American Political Science Review, 71, 954-963.
68.
SchnakenbergK. E. (2014). Group identity and symbolic political behavior. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 9, 137-67.
69.
ShayoM. (2009). A model of social identity with an application to political economy: Nation, class, and redistribution. American Political Science Review, 103, 147-174.
70.
StokesS. (2001). Mandates and democracy: Neoliberalism by surprise in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
71.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
72.
TajfelH. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.
73.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
74.
TajfelH. (1984). Intergroup relations, social myths and social justice in social psychology. In TajfelH.FraserC.JansenJ. M. F. (Eds.), The social dimension: Volume 2: European developments in social psychology (pp. 695-715), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33, 47-74.
76.
TavitsM. (2007). Clarity of responsibility and corruption. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 218-229.
77.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
78.
VivyanN.WagnerM.TarlovJ. (2012). Representative misconduct, voter perceptions and accountability: Evidence from the 2009 House of Commons expenses scandal. Electoral Studies, 31, 750-763.
79.
Weitz-ShapiroR.WintersM. S. (2017). Can citizens discern? Information credibility, political sophistication, and the punishment of corruption in Brazil. The Journal of Politics, 79, 60-74.
80.
WelchS.HibbingJ. R. (1997). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections, 1982-1990. The Journal of Politics, 58, 226-239.
81.
WintersM. S.Weitz-ShapiroR. (2013). Lacking information or condoning corruption: When do voters support corrupt politicians?Comparative Politics, 45, 418-436.
82.
WintersM. S.Weitz-ShapiroR. (2014). Partisan Protesters and Nonpartisan Protests in Brazil. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 6, 137-150.
83.
WintersM. S.Weitz-ShapiroR. (2015). Political corruption and partisan engagement: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 7, 45-81.
84.
WrightS. A.DinsmoreJ. B.KellarisJ. J. (2013). How group loyalties shape ethical judgment and punishment preferences. Psychology & Marketing, 30, 203-210.
85.
ZechmeisterE. J.Zizumbo-ColungaD. (2013). The varying political toll of concerns about corruption in good versus bad economic times. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1190-1218.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
