Physiological and behavioral patterns of corruption

Abstract

We study the behavior and emotional arousal of the participants in an experimental auction, leading to an asymmetric social dilemma involving an auctioneer and two bidders. An antisocial transfer (bribe) which is beneficial for the auctioneer (official) is paid, if promised, by the winner of the auction. Some pro-social behavior on both the auctioneers' and the bidders' sides is observed even in the absence of any punishment mechanism (Baseline, Treatment 0). However, pro-social behavior is adopted by the vast majority of subjects when the loser of the auction can inspect the transaction between the winner and the auctioneer (Inspection, Treatment 1). The inspection and punishment mechanism is such that, if a bribe is (not) revealed, both corrupt agents (the denouncing bidder) lose(s) this period's payoffs. This renders the inspection option unprofitable for the loser and is rarely used, especially toward the end of the session, when pro-social behavior becomes pervasive. Subjects' emotional arousal was obtained through skin conductance responses. Generally speaking, our findings suggest that stronger emotions are associated with decisions deviating from pure monetary reward maximization, rather than with (un)ethical behavior per se. In fact, using response times as a measure of the subject's reflection during the decision-making process, we can associate emotional arousal with the conflict between primary or instinctive and secondary or contemplative motivations and, more specifically, with deviations from the subject's pure monetary interest.

Does the Dark Triad of Personality Predict Corrupt Intention? The Mediating Role of Belief in Good Luck

“…Why do these people tend to engage in corruption more often than others? Though previous research tried to uncover the occurrence of corruption at both macro (Treisman, 2000 ; Blackburn and Forgues-Puccio, 2009 ) and micro level (Jaber-López et al, 2014 ), and found that corruption was a result of interactions among various variables (e.g., political, social, economic, or psychological factors), yet to date, little research has explored the wider range of personality traits potentially associated with corrupt behaviors. A growing body of evidence suggested that the Dark Triad of personality (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) was associated with unethical behaviors (Egan et al, 2015 ; Azizli et al, 2016 ; Roeser et al, 2016 ).…”

The cognitive basis of social behavior: cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives

“…Even though the SHH has received considerable empirical support (Roch et al, 2000 ; Cornelissen et al, 2011 ; Rand et al, 2012 , 2014 , 2015 ; Lotito et al, 2013 ; Cone and Rand, 2014 ; Nielsen et al, 2014 ; Rand and Kraft-Todd, 2014 ; Schulz et al, 2014 ; Capraro and Cococcioni, 2015 ; Evans et al, 2015 ), a number of findings seem inconsistent with the idea of spontaneous prosociality and calculated selfishness (e.g., Knoch et al, 2006 , 2010 ; Dewall et al, 2008 ; Piovesan and Wengström, 2009 ; Martinsson et al, 2012 , 2014 ; Xu et al, 2012 ; Tinghög et al, 2013 ; Crockett et al, 2014 ; Jaber-López et al, 2014 ; Verkoeijen and Bouwmeester, 2014 ). In this paper, we shall argue that our understanding of the sources of these apparent contradictions may benefit from an in-depth analysis of the motivations underlying social behavior.…”

Psychopathy and Economic Behavior Among Prison Inmates: An Experiment

“…The Corruption Game (CG) framework studied here is based on Jaber-López et al ( 2014 ). In a framed interaction protocol, two subjects in the role of “firms” bid in quality ( Q ) and bribe ( B ) levels (both in integers ranging between 0 and 10, Q + B = 10 ), for the procurement of a “public project,” the quality of which is beneficial to all players within a group and individually profitable to the winning firm.…”