Are Guilt-Prone Power-Holders Less Corrupt? Evidence From Two Online Experiments

Abstract

Bribery is ubiquitous in human society. Yet it remains unknown how bribe-taking behaviors of power-holders and underlying psychological processes are affected by guilt-proneness, a crucial moral-related personality trait, and how this trait–behavior association depends on harm salience brought by bribery. To address these questions, we conducted two online experiments (N_total = 2, 082) combining economic games with personality measures. Experiment 1 showed that highly guilt-prone individuals were less willing to take bribes, especially when higher harm salience was involved. Leveraging a parametric design with computational modeling, Experiment 2 confirmed the moderation effect of harm salience, and revealed a mediation role of the concern for others’ suffering, a key psychological construct in the trait–behavior association. Together, these findings demonstrate a critical function of guilt-proneness in curbing bribe-taking behaviors and suggest the concern for others’ suffering as an underlying psychological mechanism.

Keywords

bribery corruption guilt-proneness harm salience computational model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbink

Hennig-Schmidt

(2006). Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment. Experimental Economics, 9(2), 103–121.

Abbink

Irlenbusch

Renner

(2002). An experimental bribery game. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 18(2), 428–454.

Barr

Serra

(2009). The effects of externalities and framing on bribery in a petty corruption experiment. Experimental Economics, 12(4), 488–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-009-9225-9

Bates

Maechler

Bolker

(2013). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R Package Version 0.999999-0; 2012). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4

Berndsen

van der Pligt

Doosje

Manstead

(2004). Guilt and regret: The determining role of interpersonal and intrapersonal harm. Cognition and Emotion, 18(1), 55–70.

Cohen

T. R.

Panter

A. T.

Turan

(2012). Guilt proneness and moral character. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 355–359.

Cohen

T. R.

Panter

A. T.

Turan

(2013). Predicting counterproductive work behavior from guilt proneness. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 45–53.

Cohen

T. R.

Wolf

S. T.

Panter

A. T.

Insko

C. A.

(2011). Introducing the GASP Scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), Article 947.

Crockett

M. J.

(2016). How formal models can illuminate mechanisms of moral judgment and decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(2), 85–90.

10.

Crockett

M. J.

Kurth-Nelson

Siegel

J. Z.

Dayan

Dolan

R. J.

(2014). Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(48), 17320–17325.

11.

Ent

M. R.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2015). Individual differences in guilt proneness affect how people respond to moral tradeoffs between harm avoidance and obedience to authority. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 231–234.

12.

Fehr

Schmidt

K. M.

(1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.

13.

Gao

Peng

Gong

Xiang

Jiang

Zhou

(2021). The mutuality of social emotions: How the victim’s reactive attitude influences the transgressor’s emotional responses. Neuroimage, 244, Article 118631.

14.

Graham

Nosek

B. A.

Haidt

Iyer

Koleva

Ditto

P. H.

(2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), Article 366.

15.

Gray

Young

Waytz

(2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 101–124.

16.

Graycar

Smith

R. G.

(2011). Handbook of global research and practice in corruption. Edward Elgar.

17.

Greene

J. D.

(2014). The cognitive neuroscience of moral judgment and decision making. In Gazzaniga

M. S.

Mangun

G. R.

(Eds.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1013–1023). MIT Press.

18.

Koban

Corradi-Dell'Acqua

Vuilleumier

(2013). Integration of error agency and representation of others’ pain in the anterior insula. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(2), 258–272.

19.

Köbis

N. C.

Starke

Rahwan

(2022). The promise and perils of using artificial intelligence to fight corruption. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4, 418–424.

20.

Köbis

N. C.

van Prooijen

J.-W.

Righetti

Van Lange

P. A.

(2016). Prospection in individual and interpersonal corruption dilemmas. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), Article 71.

21.

Konovalov

Ruff

C. C.

(2018). Neurocomputational approaches to social behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 24, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.009

22.

Lambsdorff

J. G.

(2006). Measuring corruption—The validity and precision of subjective indicators (CPI). In Sampford

C. J. G.

Shacklock

Connors

Galtung

(Eds.), Measuring corruption (pp. 81–100). Ashgate.

23.

Lange

Kobis

N. C.

Herrmann

(2022). A systematic literature review and integrative framework on the link between emotions and corruption. https://osf.io/8uzkf

24.

Levine

E. E.

Bitterly

T. B.

Cohen

T. R.

Schweitzer

M. E.

(2018). Who is trustworthy? Predicting trustworthy intentions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), Article 468.

25.

McAuliffe

Blake

P. R.

Steinbeis

Warneken

(2017). The developmental foundations of human fairness. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(2), 1–9.

26.

Mungiu-Pippidi

Heywood

P. M.

(2020). A research agenda for studies of corruption. Edward Elgar.

27.

R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.

28.

Schein

Gray

(2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32–70.

29.

Serra

Wantchekon

(2012). Experimental research on corruption: Introduction and overview. In Serra

Wantchekon

(Eds.), New advances in experimental research on corruption (pp. 1–12). Emerald Group.

30.

Stan Development Team. (2016). Stan: A C++ library for probability and sampling.

31.

Tangney

J. P.

Stuewig

Mashek

Hastings

(2011). Assessing jail inmates’ proneness to shame and guilt: Feeling bad about the behavior or the self? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 710–734.

32.

Tanner

Linder

Sohn

(2022). Does moral commitment predict resistance to corruption? Experimental evidence from a bribery game. PLOS ONE, 17(1), Article e0262201.

33.

Thielmann

Böhm

Hilbig

B. E.

(2021). Buying unethical loyalty: A behavioral paradigm and empirical test. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(3), 363–370.

34.

Wiltermuth

S. S.

Cohen

T. R.

(2014). “I’d only let you down”: Guilt proneness and the avoidance of harmful interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 925–942.

35.

Gao

Shen

Liu

Xiao

Yang

Zhao

Crockett

M. J.

Zhou

(2021). Explaining individual differences in advantageous inequity aversion by social-affective trait dimensions and family environment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 626–637.

36.

Siegel

J. Z.

Crockett

M. J.

(2019). Modeling morality in 3-D: Decision-making, judgment, and inference. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(2), 409–432.

37.

Zhang

Zeelenberg

Breugelmans

S. M.

(2021). Anticipated guilt and going against one’s self-interest. Emotion, 21(7), 1417–1426.

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.

0.00 MB

1.06 MB