Psychology and Behavioral Science - Juniper Publishers
Abstract
This article identifies several key issues of
corruptive behaviors. Why did the corruption case start? We seek out the
immediate causes and circumstances of the corrupt transaction and
action. It is very significant to focus on the personality
characteristics and the individual’s conducts as anti-social behaviors.
The more we know about corruptive behaviors, the better we can decide
which policy instruments to use to combat corruption. It first discusses
the definitions of corruption and bribery and its relationships with
some variables. It then, explores the corruptive actions as antisocial
behavior in organization. In doing so, it draws on key psychological
issues and factors that conduct of corrupt behavior in social context.
Introduction
The word corruption is universal. Corruption is a
major obstacle to development. Many other areas in the social sciences
(e.g., economics, political science, and sociology) have devoted
considerable research to understanding antecedents to national
corruption. However, little research has explored psychological
antecedents—specifically, personality measured at an aggregate level.
Psychologists argue that nice and clean man may change his/her behavior
based on social and family pressures and circumstances Corruption is typically defined as “the abuse of
entrusted power for private gain”, Transparency International (2014),
and usually occur s where private wealth and public power overlap [1],
Rose-Ackerman (1999). A corrupt act typically requires three parties: a
corrupter, a corruptee and a disadvantaged party. One party, often a
public official, abuses a position of power, often by accepting or
demanding a payoff. The second party, often a private party, a corporate
body, a representative, or even another public official (e.g. judiciary
executive, a police officer etc.) is either forced or to or seeks to
make a payoff to the first party. The third party is external to the
decisions made but adversely affected by them. For example, if a private
party bribes a public official to receive a valuable government
contract, then then the private party and the official both benefit from
the transaction, but the third party, in this case the wider public,
may suffer if the private party is not the best candidate for the
contract. Our experiment will consider a setting with three such parties
[2].
Bribery is often defined as the offer, promise,
exchange, Acceptance, or solicitation of an advantage or tangible item
as an incentive to perform an act that is illegal or unethical. Bribes
can take the form of physical gifts, loans, favors, fees, rewards,
donations, or other advantages. Experimental research on corruption has
grown in the last years but is still in its infancy [1]. Prior
experimental studies have focused on individual determinants of
corruption and consider the influence of an individual’s gender,
religion culture, amount of wages, the amount of bribe, level of
monitoring and punishment (Ina, & Michael, 2015). Why did this
corruption case start? In that case, we seek out the immediate causes
and circumstances of the corrupt transactions and decisions. We look
directly at the corrupt acts themselves from psychological and social
cognitive viewpoint.
Corruptions, simply put, the abuse of power and trust
for personal and private gain. It is antisocial behavior, which is
learnt through nastiest parenting. Effective parenting by implication,
aims at primarily the first type family climate for a congenial
socialization of the individual, as well as, a healthy development of
his/her personality and self. Researchers have generally converged on defining
corruption as the miss-use of public power for private benefit [3],
which, for example, includes bribery, embezzlement, or kickbacks but
excludes acts such as petty or violent theft or political instability.
In this definition, corruption is not limited to government: public
power refers not only to power held over the public by government
officials but also more broadly to power held
over groups in industry and communities. Although multiple
definitions of corruption exist in the literature and across
cultures, many universal trends underlie corruption, such as the
exploitation of power, the selfish orientation of the corrupt actor,
and the detrimental effects of corrupt acts on the society in which
they occur [4].
Individual and Work
a. Individual: Character and Private circumstances
b. Work: Type, Colleagues, Contacts
Organization
a. Leadership
b. Organization structure
i. Size, complexity
ii. Control, auditing
iii. Separation of responsibilities
c. Organization culture
i. Goals/mission
ii. Values and norms
iii. Operational code
d. Personal (Policy)
i. Training and Selection
ii. Rewarding
e. Environment
i. Juridical/law
ii. Political-administrative
iii. Societal (e.g. criminality) [5,6]/p>
Organizations can consist of individuals who are not
inherently corrupt or criminal, but who engage in acts that later
are identified as criminal. As a leading scholar in social psychology,
Professor John Darley, has written, „Some of the people who launch
corruption-initiating acts do not scrutinize these contemplated
acts from an ethical perspective. Strange as it may seem, they do
not see them as unethical [7].
Corruption as Anti-social Behavior
The basic question “what explains corrupt behavior” has
long plagued scholars and practitioners [8]. Organizations can
consist of individuals who are not inherently corrupt or criminal,
but who engage in acts that later are identified as criminal. It
has recently received renewed attention in policy and academic
circles because, despite the rise and spread of the global anticorruption
movement, many highly corrupt countries have made
little progress on reducing corruption [9,10].
Antisocial behaviors exist along a severity continuum and
include repeated violations of social rules, defiance of authority
and of the rights of others, deceitfulness, theft, and reckless
disregard for self and others. Antisocial behavior can be identified
in children as young as three or four years of age. If left unchecked
these coercive behavior patterns will persist and escalate in
severity over time, becoming a chronic behavioral disorder. Highrisk
factors in the family setting include the following:
i. Parental history of antisocial behaviors
ii. Parental alcohol and drug abuse
iii. Chaotic and unstable home life
iv. Absence of good parenting skills
v. Use of coercive and corporal punishment
vi. Parental disruption due to divorce, death, or other
separation
vii. Parental psychiatric disorders, especially maternal
depression
viii. Economic distress due to poverty and unemployment
Corruptive actions include coercive conducts as maladaptive
behaviors engaged in as a means of avoiding or escaping aversive
events. Coercive behavior may include whining, noncompliance,
and lying. Coercive behavior [11]. The psychological and
personality traits of corruptive individual: Disregard for society’s
laws, violation of the physical or emotional rights of others, Lack of
stability in job and home life, irritability and aggressiveness, lack
of remorse, consistent irresponsibility, recklessness, impulsivity,
deceitfulness [12].
Rational choice theory has long dominated the academic study
of corruption, Anti-corruption practice and policy approaches. It
explains corruption as the function of calculating, strategic, selfinterested
behavior. In this view, corruption is particularly likely to
occur in situations of power asymmetry, where some individuals
(agents) hold power over others (principals). Yet, rational choice
explanations make assumptions about motivations that may
not be valid. Psychology, political psychology, and behavioral
economics have posed serious challenges to rational choice
theories of human behavior. That rational choice theories “explain
how one should reason, not how one actually reason” and they do
not adequately explain how people “make decisions to reach an
outcome” Parents serve as the first socializing agents. Specially,
sound family environmental ways persist disciplines moral and
obedience lessons [4,13].
Hofstede & McCrae [14] contrasted viewpoints about the
relative roles of personality and culture in determining the
characteristics of societies. The analyses here suggest that
both national personality and national culture provide unique
information in predicting national corruption. As one reviewer
pointed out, there is likely considerably more variability in personality and values within a nation than across nations [9,15].
This certainly means that individuals within a given nation do
not all behave similarly, particularly in the case of corruption.
in environments that are characterized by lower levels of
corruption, there is both a lower propensity to engage in and a
higher propensity to punish corrupt actions. We therefore focus
on the correlations between an individual’s propensity to engage
in and punish corrupt acts, depending on the amount of bribe and
punishment and certain socio-demographic characteristics such
as gender, religion, field of study, income, work experience, time
spent in other countries, and experience with corruption [2]. Behavioral ethics in general, as well as corruption (as an
important form of unethical behavior) have gained increasing
public and scholarly interest during the last decades. The number
of publications on the topic has grown rapidly, not only in the field
of behavioral ethics but also in almost all major social sciences
[15].
Kahneman [16] indicated that, even if an individual begins
to discern a possible ethical or legal problem associated with his
organization’s receipt or payment of bribes, confirmation bias is
highly likely to affect his ability to process and action that initial
perception, as it influences that individual to look for and accept
more innocent or less malign explanations for others’ corrupt
actions (while, consistent with ethical fading, enabling him to
reinforce his self-image of being ethical). On the other hand, the
faulty intuition and mental shortcuts represent the key types that
can influence individual into participating in corrupt behavior,
such as overconfidence effect, reciprocation, scarcity [7].
In sum, Antisocial behavior can be broken down into two
components: the presence of antisocial (i.e., angry, aggressive,
or disobedient) behavior and the absence of prosocial (i.e.,
communicative, affirming, or cooperative) behavior. Most children
exhibit some antisocial behavior during their development, and
different children demonstrate varying levels of prosocial and
antisocial behavior. Corruptive actions represent one of antisocial
behavior that require psychological treatment and prevention
strategies in social context and organization.
To know more about Psychology and Behavioral Science
Click here: https://juniperpublishers.com/pbsij/index.php
To know more about Juniper Publishers
Click here: https://juniperpublishers.com/index.php
No comments:
Post a Comment