Psychological variables related to corruptiona systematic review

  1. Martín Julián 1
  2. Bonavia, Tomás 2
  1. 1 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

  2. 2 Departamento de Psicología Social. Facultad de Psicología (Universidad de Valencia)
Revista:
Anales de psicología

ISSN: 0212-9728,  1695-2294

Año de publicación: 2020

Título del ejemplar: May - September

Volumen: 36

Número: 2

Páginas: 330-339

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.6018/ANALESPS.389371 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDIGITUM editor

Otras publicaciones en: Anales de psicología

Resumen

En la actualidad, la corrupción constituye uno de los principales problemas psicológicos, sociales, económicos y políticos a nivel mundial. El objetivo del presente estudio es analizar las variables psicológicas asociadas a la corrupción a través de una revisión sistemática de las publicaciones entre 2008 y 2018. Tras realizar una búsqueda en las bases de datos Psycinfo, Web of Science y Dialnet, se encontraron 41 artículos que cumplían con los criterios de selección propuestos. Los grandes núcleos encontrados fueron la ética organizacional, creencias y valores culturales, moral y normas percibidas, y personalidad y variables relacionadas. En general, los resultados apuntan a que variables organizacionales como la percepción de la conducta de sus dirigentes o las estrategias de justificación están relacionadas con la corrupción. Valores culturales meritocráticos y materialistas también han sido ligados a la conducta corrupta, como ocurre en el caso de la percepción de un entorno corrupto y de las normas sociales. En cuanto a la personalidad, rasgos como el narcisismo y la psicopatía se encuentran íntimamente ligados a este fenómeno. Por otra parte, variables como la percepción del poder o el sexo de los participantes han recibido un sustento empírico ambiguo.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abbink, K., y Serra, D. (2012). Anticorruption Policies: Lessons from the Lab. Research in Experimental Economics, 15, 77–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0193-2306(2012)0000015006
  • *Abbink, K., y Wu, K. (2017). Reward self-reporting to deter corruption: An experiment on mitigating collusive bribery. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 133, 256–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.09.013
  • *Agbo, A., y Iwundu, E. (2016). Corruption as a propensity: Personality and motivational determinants among Nigerians. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 150(4), 502–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1107523
  • Andvig, J., y Fjeldstad, O. (2001). Corruption: a review of contemporary research. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute.
  • *Aremu, A., Pakes, F., y Johnston, L. (2011). The moderating effect of emotional intelligence on the reduction of corruption in the Nigerian police. Police Practice & Research, 12(3), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2010.536724
  • Argandoña, A. (2001). Corruption: the corporate perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(2), 163-175.
  • Azfar, O., Lee, Y., y Swamy, A. (2001). The causes and consequences of corruption. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 573, 42-56.
  • *Bai, B., Liu, X., y Kou, Y. (2016). Belief in a just world lowers bribery intention. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12108
  • *Balafoutas, L. (2011). Public beliefs and corruption in a repeated psychological game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 78(1–2), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.12.007
  • *Banerjee, R. (2016). On the interpretation of bribery in a laboratory corruption game: Moral frames and social norms. Experimental Economics, 19(1), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-015-9436-1
  • *Barr, A., y Serra, D. (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
  • *Bendahan, S., Zehnder, C., Pralong, F., y Antonakis, J. (2015). Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone. Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.07.010
  • *Berninghaus, S., Haller, S., Krüger, T., Neumann, T., Schosser, S., y Vogt, B. (2013). Risk attitude, beliefs, and information in a Corruption Game - An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 34, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.11.004
  • Cialdini, R., Reno, R., y Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
  • Connelly, B., y Ones, D. (2008). The personality of corruption: a national-level analysis. Cross-Cultural Research, 42(4), 353-385.
  • *Dickel, P., y Graeff, P. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ propensity for corruption: A vignette-based factorial survey. Journal of Business Research, 89, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.036
  • *Dong, B., Dulleck, U., y Torgler, B. (2012). Conditional corruption. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 609–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.12.001
  • *Drugov, M., Hamman, J., y Serra, D. (2014). Intermediaries in corruption: An experiment. Experimental Economics, 17(1), 78–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-013-9358-8
  • *Fath, S., y Kay, A. (2018). “If hierarchical, then corrupt”: Exploring people’s tendency to associate hierarchy with corruption in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 149, 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.10.004
  • Fehr, E., y Falk, A. (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46, 687–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00208-2
  • *Fišar, M., Kubák, M., Špalek, J., y Tremewan, J. (2016). Gender differences in beliefs and actions in a framed corruption experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 63, 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2016.05.004
  • *Fischer, R., Ferreira, M., Milfont, T., y Pilati, R. (2014). Culture of corruption? The effects of priming corruption images in a high corruption context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(10), 1594–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114548874
  • Gino, F., Ayal, S., y Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x
  • *Gorsira, M., Denkers, A., y Huisman, W. (2018). Both sides of the coin: Motives for corruption among public officials and business employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(1), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3219-2
  • *Guerrero, M., y Rodríguez-Oreggia, E. (2008). On the individual decisions to commit corruption: A methodological complement. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65, 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.09.006
  • *Hechanova, R., Melgar, I., Falguera, P., y Villaverde, M. (2014). Organisational culture and workplace corruption in government hospitals. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 8(2), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2014.5
  • *Jaber-López, T., García-Gallego, A., Perakakis, P., y Georgantzis, N. (2014). Physiological and behavioral patterns of corruption. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8(434). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00434
  • Jain, A. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 71–121.
  • Julián, M., y Bonavia, T. (2017). Aproximaciones Psicosociales a la Corrupción: Una Revisión Teórica. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 26(2), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v26n2.59353
  • *Karmann, T., Mauer, R., Flatten, T., y Brettel, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2305-6
  • *Köbis, N., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Righetti, F., y Van Lange, P. (2017). The road to bribery and corruption: Slippery slope or steep cliff? Psychological Science, 28(3), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616682026
  • *Lee, W., y Guven, C. (2013). Engaging in corruption: The influence of cultural values and contagion effects at the microlevel. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.09.006
  • *Liang, Y., Liu, L., Tan, X., Huang, Z., Dang, J., y Zheng, W. (2016). The effect of self-esteem on corrupt intention: The mediating role of materialism. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01063
  • *Liu, Z., Liu, X., Hong, Y., Brockner, J., Tam, K., y Li, Y. (2017). Is individual bribery or organizational bribery more intolerable in China (versus in the United States)? Advancing theory on the perception of corrupt acts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 143, 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.12.002
  • *López-López, W., Bocarejo, M., Peralta, D., Pineda, C., y Mullet, E. (2017). Mapping Colombian citizens’ views regarding ordinary corruption: Threat, bribery, and the illicit sharing of confidential information. Social Indicators Research, 133(1), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1366-6
  • Melgar, N., Rossi, M., y Smith, T. (2010). The perception of corruption. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1), 120-131.
  • Mocan, N. (2008). What determines corruption? International evidence from microdata. Economic Inquiry, 46, 493–510.
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D., The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(6): e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
  • *Onifade, C., y Bodunde, H. (2009). Gender differences in students’ response to corrupt practices in Nigeria. Gender & Behaviour, 7(1), 2162–2172. https://doi.org/10.4314/gab.v7i1.45037
  • *Pelletier, K., y Bligh, M. (2008). The aftermath of organizational corruption: Employee attributions and emotional reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 823–844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9471-8
  • Petticrew, M., y Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Philp, M., y Dávid-Barrett, E. (2015). Realism about political corruption. Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 387-402. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-092012-134421
  • *Rabl, T. (2011). The impact of situational influences on corruption in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0768-2
  • *Rabl, T., y Kühlmann, T. (2009). Why or why not? Rationalizing corruption in organizations. Cross Cultural Management, 16(3), 268–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600910977355
  • Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999). Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rose-Ackerman, S. (2006). International handbook on the economics of corruption. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
  • *Rotondi, V., y Stanca, L. (2015). The effect of particularism on corruption: theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Economic Psychology, 51, 219-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.09.008
  • *Salmon, T., y Serra, D. (2017). Corruption, social judgment and culture: An experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 142, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.06.004
  • Svensson, J. (2005). Eight questions about corruption. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 19-42.
  • *Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., Zhao, X., y Zheng, W. (2016). The Dampening Effect of Social Dominance Orientation on Awareness of Corruption: Moral Outrage as a Mediator. Social Indicators Research, 125(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0838-9
  • *Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., Zheng, W., y Liang, Y. (2016). The Effects of General System Justification on Corruption Perception and Intent. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01107
  • *Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., y Zheng, W. (2017). Working for the Hierarchical System: The Role of Meritocratic Ideology in the Endorsement of Corruption. Political Psychology, 38(3), 469–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12341
  • *Tan, X., Liu, L., Zheng, W., y Huang, Z. (2016). Effects of social dominance orientation and right‐wing authoritarianism on corrupt intention: The role of moral outrage. International Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12148
  • Tavits, M. (2010). Why Do People Engage in Corruption? The Case of Estonia. Social Forces, 88(3), 1257–1280. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0288
  • *Tay, L., Herian, M., y Diener, E. (2014). Detrimental Effects of Corruption on Subjective Well-Being: Whether, How, and When. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(7), 751–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614528544
  • Transparency International. (2009). The Anti-Corruption Plain Language Guide. Transparency International. Recuperado de www.transparency.org
  • Transparency International. (2017). People and Corruption: Citizens’ Voices From Around The World. Berlin. Recuperado de http://files.transparency.org/content/download/2161/13659/file/GCB Citizens voices_FINAL.pdf
  • *Wang, F., y Sun, X. (2016). Absolute power leads to absolute corruption? Impact of power on corruption depending on the concepts of power one holds. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2134
  • *Wu, Y., y Zhu, J. (2016). When Are People Unhappy? Corruption Experience, Environment, and Life Satisfaction in Mainland China. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(3), 1125–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9635-7
  • Zaloznaya, M. (2014). The social psychology of corruption: Why it does not exist and why it should. Sociology Compass, 8(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12120
  • *Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Marganski, A., Baran, T., y Piotrowski, J. (2017). Corruption and sexual scandal: The importance of politician gender. Anales de Psicología, 33(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.229171
  • *Zhao, H., Zhang, H., y Xu, Y. (2016). Does the dark triad of personality predict corrupt intention? The mediating role of belief in good luck. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00608
  • *Zheng, W., Liu, L., Huang, Z., y Tan, X. (2017). Life satisfaction as a buffer of the relationship between corruption perception and political participation. Social Indicators Research, 132(2), 907–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1318-1
  • *Abraham, J., Suleeman, J., & Takwin, B. (2018). The psychology of corruption: the role of the counterfeit self, entity self-theory, and outcome-based ethical mindset. Journal of Psychological and Educational Research, 26(2), 7-32. https://doi.org/
  • Argandoña, A. (2003). Private-to-private corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 253- 267
  • Elsevier. (2019). Mendeley. Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.mendeley.com/download-desktop/
  • Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (2005). Towards a Good Theory of Management. In J. Birkinshaw & G. Piramal (Eds.), Sumantra Ghoshal on Management: A Force for Good. Nueva Jersey: Financial Times/Prentice Hall
  • Jancsics, D. (2014). Interdisciplinary perspectives on Corruption. Sociology Compass, 8(4), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12146
  • Johnsøn, J., & Mason, P. (2013). The Proxy Challenge: Why bespoke proxy indicators can help solve the anti-corruption measurement problem (U4 Brief) (pp. 1–6). Bergen.
  • Kingshott, R., & Dincer, O. (2008). Determinant of public service employee corruption: a conceptual model from the Psychological Contract Perspective. Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(1), 69-85
  • *Vranka, M., & Bahník, S. (2018). Predictors of bribe-taking: the role of bribe size and personality. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(10), 1511. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01511
  • *Zalpa, G., Tapia, E., & Reyes, J. (2014). “El que a buen árbol se arrima…” intercambio de favores y corrupción. Cultura y representaciones sociales, 9(17), 149-176
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet