September 2019, ScientificAmerican.com 65cluding those involving ethical dilemmas. In 1991
psychologists Robert B. Cialdini, Carl A. Kallgren and
Raymond R. Reno drew the important distinction be-
tween descriptive norms—the perception of what
most people do—and injunctive norms—the percep-
tion of what most people approve or disapprove of.
We argue that both types of norms influence bribery.
Simply put, knowing that others are paying bribes to
obtain preferential treatment (a descriptive norm)
makes people feel that it is more acceptable to pay a
bribe themselves. Similarly, thinking that others be-
lieve that paying a bribe is acceptable (an injunctive
norm) will make people feel more comfortable when
accepting a bribe request. Bribery becomes normative,
affecting people’s moral character.
In 2009 Ariely, with behavioral researchers Fran-
cesca Gino and Shahar Ayal, published a study show-
ing how powerful social norms can be in shaping dis-
honest behavior. In two lab studies, they assessed the
circum stances in which ex posure to others’ unethical
behavior would change someone’s eth ical decision-
making. Group membership turned out to have a sig-
nificant effect: When individuals observed an in-
group member behaving dishonestly (a student with a
T-shirt sug gesting he or she was from the same school
cheating in a test), they, too, behaved dishonestly. In
contrast, when the person behaving dishonestly was
an out-group member (a student with a T- shirt from
the rival school), observers acted more honestly.
But social norms also vary from culture to culture:
What is acceptable in one culture might not be accept-
able in another. For example, in some societies giving
gifts to clients or public officials demonstrates respect
for a business relationship, whereas in other cultures it
is considered bribery. Similarly, gifts for individuals in
business relationships can be regarded either as lubri-
cants of business negotiations, in the words of behav-
ioral economists Michel André Maréchal and Chris-
tian Thöni, or as questionable business practices. And
these expectations and rules about what is accepted
are learned and reinforced by observation of others in
the same group. Thus, in countries where individuals
regularly learn that others are paying bribes to obtain
preferential treatment, they determine that paying
bribes is socially acceptable. Over time the line be-
tween ethical and unethical behavior becomes blurry,
and dishonesty becomes the “way of doing business.”
Interestingly, in cross-cultural research we pub-
lished in 2016 with behavioral researchers Heather
Mann, Lars Hornuf and Juan Tafurt, we found that
people’s underlying tendency to behave dishonestly is
similar across countries. We studied 2,179 native resi-
dents in the U.S., Colombia, Portugal, Germany and
China. Using a game similar to the one in our bribing
studies, we observed that cheating levels in these
countries were about the same. Regardless of the coun-
try, people were cheating to an extent that balanced
the motive of earning money with that of maintaining
SOURCE: TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL (a positive moral image of themselves. And contrary to
CPI data
)
Graphic by Tiffany Farrant-GonzalezCorruption Perception Index
Levels of corruption in the public sector vary greatly around the world, accord-
ing to Transparency International. Every year the nongovernmental agency
uses opinion surveys and expert assessments to rank countries on a corruption
scale ranging from 0 to 100. The chart displays the evolution of these rankings
from 2012 to 2018, highlighting the most and least corrupt countries, as well
as a few that evinced the greatest change in corruption. Levels of dishonest
behavior can worsen or decline with surprising rapidity but are relatively stable
in the least corrupt countries. Curiously, behavioral studies show that the
in nate inclination of individuals to behave dishonestly is roughly the same in
lxßx³î` ̧ø³îßxäjßxDßl§xää ̧
îxßD`îøD§§xþx§ä ̧
` ̧ßßøÇî ̧³Í100806040200
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Less corruptCorruption Perception Index (CPI) ValueMore corruptDenmark
New Zealand
Finland
Sweden
Singapore88
87
85
85
85665544362914
14
13
13
10Seychelles (+14)71 U.S.Saint Lucia (–16)Bahrain (–15)Myanmar (+14)Belarus (+13)Yemen
North Korea
Syria (–13)
South Sudan
SomaliaBiggest increases in CPI (2012–2018)
Biggest decreases in CPI (2012–2018)Considered least corrupt (2018)
Considered most corrupt (2018)No data (No dotted)