ABSTRACT
Resumen La corrupción es un fenómeno que involucra componentes morales. Sin embargo, este aspecto no se ha visto reflejado en los experimentos de corrupción de manera inequívoca. De los elementos utilizados para señalizar la presencia de normas, tanto las externalidades negativas como el castigo y la introducción de marcos, han arrojado resultados mixtos o nulos, lo que pareciera cuestionar su validez como instrumentos para estudiar la corrupción. En este experimento se buscó evidencia de que el componente moral está presente en un juego de coimas. Se contó con dos grupos independientes de participantes (N = 106) que fueron expuestos al juego en un marco neutro o con opciones que llevaban etiquetas con contenido semántico concreto (por ejemplo, ofrecer un trato corrupto). Por último, para evaluar la connotación moral de los escenarios de toma de decisiones, se solicitó a los participantes que completaran (post-decisión) una escala de maquiavelismo, que ha estado asociada a diferentes aspectos en la toma de decisiones morales. El experimento logró identificar un claro efecto de marco tanto para los jugadores A como para los B. Los resultados muestran que los participantes eligieron las opciones corruptas en menor medida en el tratamiento con el marco cargado que con el marco neutro. Además, las respuestas al juego mostraron diferencias individuales en el nivel de maquiavelismo, ya que puntajes elevados de maquiavelismo estuvieron directamente asociados a ofertas corruptas, aunque solo en el marco cargado.
ABSTRACT
El estudio de la corrupción (causas, consecuencias y medios efectivos para combatirla) es difícil debido a la naturaleza usualmente secreta del tipo de relaciones involucradas. Recientemente se han comenzado a realizar estudios experimentales sobre situaciones análogas a las de corrupción para complementar otros abordajes empíricos más tradicionales. El problema principal que se ha planteado sobre estos estudios es el de su validez externa, es decir, si los resultados que se obtienen en el laboratorio son extrapolables a situaciones de corrupción reales. Los objetivos de este artículo son, por un lado, resumir la metodología y los principales resultados de esta nueva área de investigación y, por otro, analizar el problema de su validez externa. Se concluye que si bien algunos resultados son alentadores, parece aconsejable una actitud cautelosa con respecto a la generalización de los mismos. Consecuentemente, se sugiere la necesidad de realizar más estudios empíricos para evaluar la validez externa del área.
Some authors conceive corruption as the misuse or abuse of public power for private benefit. Despite not being full agreement about the conceptual definition of the term, there is consensus that corruption is a widespread welfare-reducing phenomenon affecting institutions all over the world (Rose-Ackerman, 2006). The study of corruption (causes, consequences, and effective means of deterrence) is difficult because of the usually secret nature of the relationships involved. Despite the progress made in cross-country econometric analysis of corruption, on the level of the determinants of behaviour there is still lack of reliable knowledge about the factors that affect people’s corruptibility or the institutional features that affect the incidence of corruption (Abbink, 2006). The new field of experimental studies of corruption has recently emerged in an attempt to complement more traditional studies of corruption. In this paper, we first present a brief review of some of the most significant studies in this nascent area, in especial, we focus on introducing the methodology and main results of bribery experiments. In effect, although corruption is a phenomenon that can come in a variety of forms, the offer and acceptance of bribes has been the main focus of interest of this new experimental area. One of the simples ways in which bribery has been modeled in an experiment has been allowing couples of participants to play a Trust Game that can have negative consequences on the other couples (or on passive third parties, depending on the experiment; Abbink et al., 2002; Barr & Serra, 2009; Cameron et al., 2009). Negative externalities happen when the monetary transfer from the first to the second player (the bribe) is reciprocated by the second player choosing an option that favors the first player but harms others. Researchers have also experimentally implemented the possibility of a monetary punishment when the second player chooses the option with negative externalities (Abbink et al., 2002; Cameron et al., 2009). There are two goals that this new area of research pursues. First, researchers try to find out the micro-determinants of corrupt behavior. Second, researchers try to test the efficacy of different anticorruption policies. One of the main problems with experimental studies of corruption is their external validity, that is, the extent to which experimental results can be extrapolated to understand and combat corruption in real life. The second goal of this article is to discuss the external validity issue in experimental studies of corruption from particular examples from bribery studies. We mention two relevant aspects to assess the external validity of studies: on one hand, generalization among different populations, in which the idea is to evaluate the extent to which the same results persist when populations differ between experiments; on the other hand, situational generalization, in which the idea is to evaluate if results persist when the situation or the context varies. It has been argued (e.g., Levit & List, 2007) that the artificial features of the experimental setup (such as the use of abstract language, the detailed characterization of the corrupt transaction and the scrutiny of participants’ actions by researchers) make the extrapolation inference very problematic. We conclude that, although some results seem promissory (especially, very similar findings between laboratory and field experiments; Armantier & Boly, 2011), it seems recommendable to keep a cautious attitude toward the generalization of laboratory findings because there is not enough data on this field yet. Consequently, we stress that the problem of generalization can be approached empirically, and that it is necessary to have more studies which aim at evaluating the external validity of experiments in an area which pretends to be relevant to applied issues.
ABSTRACT
Se ha mostrado en la literatura de Psicología Cognitiva que las personas generalmente tienen dificultades para resolver problemas de probabilidad condicional. Sin embargo, también se ha mostrado que, bajo ciertas condiciones, las respuestas mejoran de manera significativa. Desde mitad de la década de 1990 hubo un gran debate acerca de cómo dar cuenta de dicho efecto facilitador. Se han propuesto dos hipótesis rivales, la hipótesis de frecuencias naturales que dice que el efecto facilitador se debe a presentar la información de manera frecuentista, y la hipótesis de conjuntos anidados que dice que dicho efecto se debe a la clarificación de las relaciones de conjunto del problema. En este artículo intentaremos clarificar el debate y analizar la evidencia empírica relevante. La pregunta a responder es la siguiente: ¿Se ha producido alguna experimentación crucial en favor de alguna de las dos hipótesis? Nuestra respuesta será negativa, aunque reconociendo que la hipótesis de conjuntos anidados parece hasta ahora, mejor respaldada que su rival.
In the early '70s, Tversky and Kahneman founded a research program in Cognitive Psychology called Heuristics and Biases. This program found extensive evidence that shows that people tend to commit reasoning errors when making judgments under uncertainty. A particular case is that people tend to fail when reasoning about conditional probability problems, that is, problems that ask for the probability of some event given the fact that another event has occurred (e.g. the probability of raining given that it is cloudy). But in the mid '90s, Gigerenzer and other evolutionary psychologists came along and gave an important turn to the state of the art. They showed that if the conditional probability problems used in the literature are framed in a different way, people's performance greatly improves. More specifically, if the problems present the information under a specific format called natural frequency format, around 50% of participants get the correct answer. Since the mid ´90s researchers engage in an important debate on how to account for such a facilitation effect. There are two main proposals, one by the Evolutionary Psychology Program and the other by Heuristic and Biases Program. The natural frequency hypothesis supported by the Evolutionary Program basically says that the natural frequency format is the responsible factor for the improvement in people's performance. The Heuristic and Biases Program, in turn, has proposed the nested-set hypothesis to explain the facilitation effect. The basic idea is that natural frequency versions tend to make transparent the relevant subset relations of the problem. When people see clearly the set relations involved in this kind of problems (the argument goes) they tend to use correctly base rates and thus, their performance improves. They point out that, according to this view, the success of the frequency effect does not have to do with natural frequency formats per se. They predict that any format whatsoever that make the relevant set relations clear will show the same effect. The key question is, then, as follows. Is this a case of crucial experimentation in favor of one of our rival hypotheses? In other words, is there an experiment or a series of experiments such that our rival hypotheses predict opposite results, so that we can claim one of them as victorious over the other? The empirical evidence on the matter is mixed. Some studies seem to support the natural frequency hypothesis while others seem to support the nested-set hypothesis. We will then try to clarify this debate by focusing on the diverse strategies and techniques used in the literature to settle the dispute. We will argue that the right strategy to discriminate between both hypotheses is to use genuine probability problems with a clarified set structure and see whether these conditions elicit or not a performance comparable to the natural frequency effect. Within this general strategy, we review the literature and found that there are three techniques, namely, the improved wording technique, the natural chance technique and the graphical representation technique that seem to provoke a performance as good as the one elicited by natural formats, giving, thus, a stronger support for the nested set hypothesis. However, a careful analysis shows that neither the improved wording technique nor the chance technique has provided both consistent and clear results in favor of the nested-set hypothesis. As for the graphical representation technique, the evidence still seems very slim. The improvement in performance was shown in two studies that worked with only one problem each. Furthermore, neither of these problems seems completely adequate. Thus, we do not think the last word about the matter has been said and more empirical work is needed to settle the issue.