Abstract
Corruption is a pervasive phenomenon that affects the quality of institutions, undermines economic growth and exacerbates inequalities around the globe. Here we tested whether perceiving representatives of institutions as corrupt undermines trust and subsequent prosocial behaviour among strangers. We developed an experimental game paradigm modelling representatives as third-party punishers to manipulate or assess corruption and examine its relationship with trust and prosociality (trust behaviour, cooperation and generosity). In a sequential dyadic die-rolling task, the participants observed the dishonest behaviour of a target who would subsequently serve as a third-party punisher in a trust game (Study 1a, N = 540), in a prisoner’s dilemma (Study 1b, N = 503) and in dictator games (Studies 2–4, N = 765, pre-registered). Across these five studies, perceiving a third party as corrupt undermined interpersonal trust and, in turn, prosocial behaviour. These findings contribute to our understanding of the critical role that representatives of institutions play in shaping cooperative relationships in modern societies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current studies are publicly available at https://osf.io/fm9b3. Source data are provided with this paper.
Code availability
The code used to analyse the data is publicly available at https://osf.io/p986h.
References
Harding, L. What are the Panama Papers? A guide to history’s biggest data leak. Guardian (5 April 2016).
Rose-Ackerman, S. Trust, honesty and corruption: reflection on the state-building process. Arch. Eur. Sociol. 42, 526–570 (2001).
Köbis, N. C., Van Prooijen, J. W., Righetti, F. & Van Lange, P. A. M. Prospection in individual and interpersonal corruption dilemmas. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 20, 71–85 (2016).
Graycar, A. & Smith, R. G. Handbook of Global Research and Practice in Corruption (Edward Elgar, 2011).
Mauro, P. Corruption and growth. Q. J. Econ. 110, 681–712 (1995).
Rose-Ackerman, S. The economics of corruption. J. Public Econ. 4, 187–203 (1975).
Weisel, O. & Shalvi, S. The collaborative roots of corruption. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 10651–10656 (2015).
Gross, J., Leib, M., Offerman, T. & Shalvi, S. Ethical free riding: when honest people find dishonest partners. Psychol. Sci. 29, 1956–1968 (2018).
Gründler, K. & Potrafke, N. Corruption and economic growth: new empirical evidence. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 60, 101810 (2019).
Gupta, S., Davoodi, H. & Alonso-Terme, R. Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty? Econ. Gov. 3, 23–45 (2002).
Gino, F., Ayal, S. & Ariely, D. Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: the effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychol. Sci. 20, 393–398 (2009).
Köbis, N. C., van Prooijen, J. W., Righetti, F. & Van Lange, P. A. M. The road to bribery and corruption: slippery slope or steep cliff? Psychol. Sci. 28, 297–306 (2017).
Rothstein, B. & Eek, D. Political corruption and social trust: an experimental approach. Ration. Soc. 21, 81–112 (2009).
Banerjee, R. Corruption, norm violation and decay in social capital. J. Public Econ. 137, 14–27 (2016).
Muthukrishna, M., Francois, P., Pourahmadi, S. & Henrich, J. Corrupting cooperation and how anti-corruption strategies may backfire. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0138 (2017).
Baumert, A., Halmburger, A., Rothmund, T. & Schemer, C. Everyday dynamics in generalized social and political trust. J. Res. Pers. 69, 44–54 (2017).
Balliet, D. & van Lange, P. A. M. Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: a meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 363–379 (2013).
Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).
Powers, S. T., van Schaik, C. P. & Lehmann, L. Cooperation in large-scale human societies—what, if anything, makes it unique, and how did it evolve? Evol. Anthropol. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21909 (2021).
Yamagishi, T. The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 110–116 (1986).
Hruschka, D. et al. Impartial institutions, pathogen stress and the expanding social network. Hum. Nat. 25, 567–579 (2014).
Spadaro, G., Gangl, K., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Van Lange, P. A. M. & Mosso, C. O. Enhancing feelings of security: how institutional trust promotes interpersonal trust. PLoS ONE 15, e0237934 (2020).
Macy, M. W. & Sato, Y. Trust, cooperation, and market formation in the U.S. and Japan. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 7214–7220 (2002).
Dinesen, P. T. Where you come from or where you live? Examining the cultural and institutional explanation of generalized trust using migration as a natural experiment. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 29, 114–128 (2013).
Sønderskov, K. M. & Dinesen, P. T. Trusting the state, trusting each other? The effect of institutional trust on social trust. Polit. Behav. 38, 179–202 (2016).
Gächter, S. & Schulz, J. F. Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies. Nature 531, 496–499 (2016).
Cohn, A., Maréchal, M. A., Tannenbaum, D. & Zünd, C. L. Civic honesty around the globe. Science 365, 70–73 (2019).
Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S. & Steg, L. The spreading of disorder. Science 322, 1681–1685 (2008).
Balliet, D. & Van Lange, P. A. M. Trust, conflict, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 139, 1090–1112 (2013).
Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Am. Econ. Rev. 90, 980–994 (2000).
Molho, C., Tybur, J. M., Van Lange, P. A. M. & Balliet, D. Direct and indirect punishment of norm violations in daily life. Nat. Commun. 11, 3432 (2020).
Čábelková, I. & Hanousek, J. The power of negative thinking: corruption, perception and willingness to bribe in Ukraine. Appl. Econ. 36, 383–397 (2004).
Bowler, S. & Karp, J. A. Politicians, scandals, and trust in government. Polit. Behav. 26, 271–287 (2004).
Halmburger, A., Rothmund, R., Schulte, M. & Baumert, A. Psychological reactions to political scandals: effects on emotions, trust, and the need for punishment. J. Polit. Psychol. 2, 30–51 (2012).
Gächter, S., Renner, E. & Sefton, M. The long-run benefits of punishment. Science 322, 1510 (2008).
Croson, R. & Gächter, S. The science of experimental economics. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 73, 122–131 (2010).
van Dijk, E. & De Dreu, C. K. W. Experimental games and social decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72, 415–438 (2021).
Soraperra, I. et al. The bad consequences of teamwork. Econ. Lett. 160, 12–15 (2017).
Wouda, J., Bijlstra, G., Frankenhuis, W. E. & Wigboldus, D. H. J. The collaborative roots of corruption? A replication of Weisel & Shalvi (2015). Collabra Psychol. 3, 27 (2017).
Choshen-Hillel, S., Shaw, A. & Caruso, E. M. Lying to appear honest. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 1719–1745 (2020).
Gerlach, P., Teodorescu, K. & Hertwig, R. The truth about lies: a meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychol. Bull. 145, 1–44 (2019).
Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415, 137–140 (2002).
Fehr, E. & Fischbacher, U. Third-party punishment and social norms. Evol. Hum. Behav. 25, 63–87 (2004).
Yamagishi, T. & Yamagishi, M. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv. Emot. 18, 129–166 (1994).
Capraro, V. & Perc, M. Mathematical foundations of moral preferences. J. R. Soc. Interface 18, 20200880 (2021).
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J. & McCabe, K. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10, 122–142 (1995).
Van Lange, P. A. M. & Kuhlman, D. M. Social value orientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and intelligence: a test of the might versus morality effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 126–141 (1994).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022); http://www.R-project.org
Preacher, K. J. & Hayes, A. F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. in. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 879–891 (2008).
Knack, S. & Keefer, P. Does social capital have an economic payoff? Q. J. Econ. 112, 1251–1288 (1997).
Lewicki, R. & Wiethoff, C. in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (eds Deutsch, M. & Coleman, P. T.) 104–136 (Jossey-Bass, 2000).
Van Lange, P. A. M. Generalized trust: four lessons from genetics and culture. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24, 71–76 (2015).
Algan, Y. & Cahuc, P. Inherited trust and growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 100, 2060–2092 (2010).
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. & Vishny, R. W. Trust in large organizations. Am. Econ. Rev. 87, 333–338 (1997).
Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J. & Milinski, M. Climate change: what psychology can offer in terms of insights and solutions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27, 269–274 (2018).
van Prooijen, J. W. The Moral Punishment Instinct (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017).
Stagnaro, M. N., Arechar, A. A. & Rand, D. G. From good institutions to generous citizens: top-down incentives to cooperate promote subsequent prosociality but not norm enforcement. Cognition 167, 212–254 (2017).
Marcin, I., Robalo, P. & Tausch, F. Institutional endogeneity and third-party punishment in social dilemmas. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 161, 243–264 (2019).
Kerr, N. L. et al. “How many bad apples does it take to spoil the whole barrel?”: social exclusion and toleration for bad apples. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45, 603–613 (2009).
Liebrand, W. B. G., Wilke, H. A. M., Vogel, R. & Wolters, F. J. M. Value orientation and conformity: a study using three types of social dilemma games. J. Confl. Resolut. 30, 77–97 (1986).
Brohmer, H. et al. Inspired to lend a hand? Attempts to elicit prosocial behavior through goal contagion. Front. Psychol. 10, 545 (2019).
Stirrat, M. & Perrett, D. I. Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust: male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychol. Sci. 21, 349–354 (2010).
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., Buchner, A. & Lang, A. G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 1149–1160 (2009).
Casler, K., Bickel, L. & Hackett, E. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 2156–2160 (2013).
Paolacci, G. & Chandler, J. Inside the Turk: understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23, 184–188 (2014).
Hendriks, A. SoPHIE—Software Platform for Human Interaction Experiments (v3.2.1) (University of Osnabrück, 2012).
Acknowledgements
We thank D. Balliet, L. Hoeft and the members of the Amsterdam Cooperation Lab for helpful comments on the manuscript. G.S. acknowledges funding from the ERC Starting Grant (no. 635356) awarded to D. Balliet. C.M. acknowledges IAST funding from the French National Research Agency under grant no. ANR-17-EURE-0010 (Investissements d’Avenir programme). A.R. acknowledges funding from the ERC Advanced Grant (no. 785635) awarded to C. K. W. De Dreu. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
G.S., C.M., J.-W.V.P., A.R., C.O.M. and P.A.M.V.L. conceived the project. G.S. collected the data for Studies 1a through 2. C.M. collected the data for Studies 3 and 4. G.S. analysed the data and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript with input and revisions from C.M., J.-W.V.P., A.R., C.O.M. and P.A.M.V.L.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Human Behaviour thanks Valerio Capraro and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1–3, Tables 1–17 and analyses.
Source data
Source Data Fig. 2
Source data (Studies 2 through 4).
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Spadaro, G., Molho, C., Van Prooijen, JW. et al. Corrupt third parties undermine trust and prosocial behaviour between people. Nat Hum Behav 7, 46–54 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01457-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01457-w
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Cultural religiosity moderates the relationship between trust and altruism: a study in 64 countries
Current Psychology (2023)