Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-25T14:56:57.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of externalities and framing on bribery in a petty corruption experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Abigail Barr  and
Danila Serra
Abigail Barr*
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Danila Serra*
Affiliation:
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
*
e-mail: abigail.barr@economics.ox.ac.uk
e-mail: dserra@fsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using a simple one-shot bribery game simulating petty corruption exchanges, we find evidence of a negative externality effect and a framing effect. When the losses suffered by third parties due to a bribe being offered and accepted are high and the game is presented as a petty corruption scenario instead of in abstract terms bribes are less likely to be offered. Higher negative externalities are also associated with less bribe acceptance. However, framing has no effect on bribe acceptance, indicating that the issue of artificiality may be of particular importance in bribery experiments.

Keywords

CorruptionEconomic experimentSocial preferences

JEL classification

D73: Bureaucracy • Administrative Processes in Public Organizations • Corruption C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior Z13: Economic Sociology • Economic Anthropology • Language • Social and Economic Stratification

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 488 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10683-009-9225-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Abbink, K. (2005). Fair salaries and the moral costs of corruption. In Proceedings of the conference on cognitive economics, Sofia.Google Scholar
Abbink, K., & Hennig Schmidt, H. (2006). Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment. Experimental Economics, 9(2), 103–121.10.1007/s10683-006-5385-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbink, K., Irlenbusch, B., & Renner, E. (2002). An experimental bribery game. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 18(2), 428–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alatas, V., Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., & Gangadharan, L. (2009). Subject pool effects in a corruption experiment: a comparison of Indonesian public servants and Indonesian students. Experimental Economics, 1, 113–132.10.1007/s10683-008-9207-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: the effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 1–21.10.2307/2118508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardsley, N. (2005). Experimental economics and the artificiality of alteration. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12, 239–251.10.1080/13501780500086115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilotkach, V. (2006). A tax evasion—bribery game: experimental evidence from Ukraine. European Journal of Comparative Economics, 3(1), 31–49.Google Scholar
Brosig, J., Weimann, J., & Yang, C.-L. (2003). The hot versus cold effect in a simple bargaining experiment. Experimental Economics, 6(1), 75–90.Google Scholar
Branas-Garza, P. (2007). Promoting helping behavior with framing in dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 477–486.Google Scholar
Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2000). Hot vs. cold: sequential experimental games. Experimental Economics, 2, 227–238.10.1023/A:1009962612354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., & Gangadharan, L. (2009). Propensities to engage in and punish corrupt behavior: experimental evidence from Australia, India, Indonesia and Singapore. Journal of Public Economics, 93(7-8), 843–851.10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T., & Mui, V. (1998). Social influence in the sequential dictator game. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 248–265.10.1006/jmps.1998.1213CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cookson, R. (2000). Framing effects in public goods experiments. Experimental Economics, 3, 55–79.10.1023/A:1009994008166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. J., Kagel, J., Lo, W., & Gu, Q. L. (1999). Gaming against managers in incentive systems: experimental results with Chinese students and Chinese managers. American Economics Review, 89(4), 781–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, Ph. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16, 181–191.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & List, J. (2004). The hidden costs and returns of incentives—trust and trustworthiness among CEOs. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(5), 743–771.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Rockenbach, B. (2003). Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism. Nature, 422(13), 137–140.10.1038/nature01474CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71, 397–404.10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., Huck, S., & Mueller, W. (2001). The relevance of equal splits in ultimatum games. Games and Economic Behavior, 37, 161–169.10.1006/game.2000.0829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, V., Samuels, S., & Ross, L. (2004). The name of the game: predictive power of reputations vs. situational labels in determining prisoner's dilemma game moves. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1175–1185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loomes, G. (1999). Some lessons from past experiments and some challenges for the future. Economic Journal, 109, F35–F45.10.1111/1468-0297.00401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxoby, R. J., & McLeish, K. N. (2004). Sequential decision and strategy vector methods in ultimatum bargaining: evidence on the strength of other regarding behaviour. Economic Letters, 84, 399–405.10.1016/j.econlet.2004.03.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rege, M., & Telle, K. (2004). The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public goods situations. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1625–1644.10.1016/S0047-2727(03)00021-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In Reed, E.S., Turiel, E. & Brown, T. (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103–135). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schotter, A., Weigelt, K., & Wilson, C. (1994). A laboratory investigation of multi-person rationality and presentation effects. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 445–468.10.1006/game.1994.1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, J. (2005). Eight questions about corruption. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International, Transparency (2006). Global Corruption Report 2006.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Barr and Serra supplementary material

Supplementary materials
Download Barr and Serra supplementary material(File)
File 35.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Barr and Serra supplementary material

Tables 1 and 2
Download Barr and Serra supplementary material(File)
File 95.2 KB