Unraveling controversies over civic honesty measurement: An extended field replication in China

Abstract

Cohn et al. (2019) conducted a wallet drop experiment in 40 countries to measure “civic honesty around the globe,” which has received worldwide attention but also sparked controversies over using the email response rate as the sole metric of civic honesty. Relying on the lone measurement may overlook cultural differences in behaviors that demonstrate civic honesty. To investigate this issue, we conducted an extended replication study in China, utilizing email response and wallet recovery to assess civic honesty. We found a significantly higher level of civic honesty in China, as measured by the wallet recovery rate, than reported in the original study, while email response rates remained similar. To resolve the divergent results, we introduce a cultural dimension, individualism versus collectivism, to study civic honesty across diverse cultures. We hypothesize that cultural differences in individualism and collectivism could influence how individuals prioritize actions when handling a lost wallet, such as contacting the wallet owner or safeguarding the wallet. In reanalyzing Cohn et al.’s data, we found that email response rates were inversely related to collectivism indices at the country level. However, our replication study in China demonstrated that the likelihood of wallet recovery was positively correlated with collectivism indicators at the provincial level. Consequently, relying solely on email response rates to gauge civic honesty in cross-country comparisons may neglect the vital individualism versus collectivism dimension. Our study not only helps reconcile the controversy surrounding Cohn et al.'s influential field experiment but also furnishes a fresh cultural perspective to evaluate civic honesty.

A closer look at civic honesty in collectivist cultures

“… Notes: Ordinary least squares coefficients with robust standard errors in parentheses. Model 1 reproduces the specification reported in Column 6 of Table 2 in YAC ( 1 ), showing the relationship between their measure of civic honesty (“wallet safekeeping”) and collectivism (“% of rice paddies”). Models 2 to 10 permutate the reference city when including city fixed effects, which introduces no new information and for a properly specified model should not affect any predictors or overall model fit.…”

“…Yang and colleagues (hereafter YAC) conducted a replication and extension of our lost wallet study in China ( 1 , 2 ). They argue that in collectivist cultures, civic honesty manifests as holding onto a wallet for safekeeping, without contacting the owner (“safekeeping”).…”

Reply to Tannenbaum et al.: Constructive dialogue advancing research on civic honesty

“…Yang et al’s ( 1 ) (hereafter Yang) primary contribution is to point out that “sole reliance on email response rates may give biased estimates of civic honesty in different cultural contexts” [Uzogara ( 2 )]. Yang innovatively introduced collectivism in examining civic honesty, which warrants further research.…”