Embezzlement and guilt aversion

Abstract

Psychological game theory can contribute to renew the analysis of unethical behavior by providing insights on the nature of the moral costs of dishonesty. We investigate the moral costs of embezzlement in situations where donors need intermediaries to transfer their donations to recipients and where donations can be embezzled before they reach the recipients. We design a novel three-player Embezzlement Mini-Game to study whether intermediaries in the laboratory suffer from guilt aversion and whether guilt aversion affects the decision to embezzle. We show that the proportion of guilt-averse intermediaries is the same irrespective of the direction of guilt and guilt aversion reduces embezzlement. Structural estimates indicate no difference in the effect of guilt aversion toward the donor and toward the recipient on intermediaries' behavior. This is striking as embezzlement affects the earnings of the recipient but not those of the donor. It shows that guilt aversion matters even when decisions have no direct monetary consequences.

Gender differences in guilt aversion in Korea and the United Kingdom

“…Guilt aversion is an important factor of cooperation that lives up to the expectations of others, since people suffer from guilt if they disappoint others [10,11,12,13] (see Materials and Methods for a more detailed definition). Both laboratory and field experiments have supported this theory for populations in both the East and the West (e.g., East [14,15,16], West [11,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]).…”

Gender differences in guilt aversion in Korea and the United Kingdom

“…Notably, many experimental studies have demonstrated that belief-dependent guilt is a predominant motivator for trustees in a trust game (for a broader discussion, see 19 ). Additionally, both laboratory and field experiments have supported guilt aversion theory for populations in both the East and West (e.g., East 20 – 22 ; West 11 , 17 , 18 , 23 – 30 ).…”

Teoría de juegos conductual y psicológica: una revisión sistemática

“…Podemos observar en la tabla 2 que la mayoría de los artículos centran sus esfuerzos en estudiar la culpa y la reciprocidad como generadoras de equilibrios no racionales. Los artículos etiquetados como "estudiar la culpa" examinan el papel de la culpa (Bracht y Regner, 2013;Giaccherini y Ponti, 2018), la aversión a la culpa (Attanasi et al, 2019;Bellemare et al, 2018;Charness y Dufwenberg, 2006) y cómo se utiliza la culpa para manipular las acciones de los demás (Cardella, 2016). Los artículos sobre reciprocidad investigan cómo la reciprocidad moldea el comportamiento, como Diekmann (2004) y Franzen y Pointner (2013), pero también cuando la reciprocidad no es tan importante, como Chen y Houser (2019).…”