Abstract
Corruption is often seen as one of the root causes of pressing national and global challenges. The persisting stark national differences in corruption levels and their potential causes have thus attracted growing interest from international business scholars. The objective of this study was to re-examine key factors that predict levels of national corruption. Drawing on comprehensive personality data from over 5 million respondents across 87 nations, and numerous dimensions of national culture, the study examines the relative importance of national personality versus national culture and wealth as predictors of national corruption. Regression analysis found that collectivism (particularly societal practices pertaining to collectivism) and wealth were robust predictors of corruption. In contrast, there was no consistent support for the effects of the Big Five personality traits aggregated to the national level, above and beyond the effects of national culture and wealth. These findings highlight and specify the important role played by national culture, and call into question previous research on national personality and corruption. More broadly, our study further highlights the need to exert caution when examining the influence of national-level personality, and the need for cross-national personality researchers to improve the validity, interpretability, and replicability of their work.
Résumé
La corruption est souvent considérée comme l'une des causes profondes des défis nationaux et globaux urgents. La persistance de fortes différences nationales dans les niveaux de corruption et leurs causes potentielles ont donc suscité un intérêt croissant de la part des chercheurs en affaires internationales. Cette recherche visait à réexaminer les facteurs clés qui prédisent les niveaux de corruption nationale. S'appuyant sur des données complètes sur la personnalité de plus de 5 millions de personnes interrogées dans 87 pays et sur de nombreuses dimensions de la culture nationale, notre recherche examine l'importance relative de la personnalité nationale par rapport à la culture et à la richesse nationales, considérées toutes les trois comme prédicteurs de la corruption nationale. L'analyse de régression a révélé que le collectivisme (en particulier les pratiques sociétales relatives au collectivisme) et la richesse étaient les prédicteurs robustes de la corruption. En revanche, après avoir contrôlé les impacts de la culture et de la richesse nationales, nous n’avons trouvé aucune évidence empirique cohérente permettant de corroborer les effets des Cinq Grands traits de personnalité agrégés au niveau national. Ces résultats mettent en lumière et spécifient le rôle important joué par la culture nationale, et remettent d’ailleurs en question les recherches antérieures sur la personnalité et la corruption nationales. De manière plus générale, notre recherche souligne la nécessité de faire preuve de prudence lors de l'examen de l'influence de la personnalité au niveau national, et la nécessité pour les chercheurs en personnalité transnationale d'améliorer la validité, l'interprétabilité et la reproductibilité de leurs travaux.
Resumen
La corrupción es frecuentemente considerada como una de las causas profundas de los apremiantes retos nacionales y globales. La persistencia de severas diferencias nacionales en los niveles de corrupción y sus posibles causas han suscitado un creciente interés entre los estudiosos de los negocios internacionales. El objetivo de este estudio era reexaminar los factores clave que predicen los niveles de corrupción nacional. A partir de datos exhaustivos sobre la personalidad de más de 5 millones de encuestados de 87 países, y de numerosas dimensiones de la cultura nacional, el estudio examina la importancia relativa de la personalidad nacional, frente a la cultura nacional y la riqueza, como factores predictivos de la corrupción nacional. El análisis de regresión encontró que el colectivismo (particularmente, las prácticas sociales relacionadas con el colectivismo) y la riqueza eran sólidos predictores de la corrupción. Por el contrario, los efectos de los Cinco Grandes rasgos de personalidad agregados a nivel nacional, más allá de los efectos de la cultura nacional y la riqueza, no obtuvieron un apoyo consistente. Estos hallazgos resaltan y especifican el importante papel que desempeña la cultura nacional, y cuestionan las investigaciones anteriores sobre la personalidad nacional y la corrupción. De manera más amplia, nuestro estudio resalta la necesidad de actuar con cautela a la hora de examinar la influencia de la personalidad a nivel nacional, y la necesidad de que los investigadores de la personalidad entre países mejoren la validez, la interpretabilidad y la replicabilidad de su trabajo.
Resumo
A corrupção é frequentemente vista como uma das causas originárias dos desafios nacionais e globais prementes. As persistentes grandes diferenças nacionais nos níveis de corrupção e suas causas potenciais têm atraído crescente interesse de acadêmicos de negócios internacionais. O objetivo deste estudo foi reexaminar principais fatores que predizem os níveis de corrupção nacional. Baseando-se em dados amplos de personalidade de mais de 5 milhões de respondentes em 87 nações e em várias dimensões de cultura nacional, o estudo examina a importância relativa da personalidade nacional, versus a cultura e a riqueza nacionais como preditores da corrupção nacional. Análise de regressão descobriu que coletivismo (particularmente práticas sociais relativas ao coletivismo) e a riqueza foram preditores robustos de corrupção. Em divergência, não houve suporte consistente para os efeitos dos traços de personalidade Big Five agregados ao nível nacional, acima e além dos efeitos da cultura e da riqueza nacionais. Esses resultados destacam e especificam o importante papel desempenhado pela cultura nacional e questionam pesquisas anteriores sobre personalidade nacional e corrupção. De forma mais ampla, nosso estudo destaca ainda a necessidade de exercer cautela ao examinar a influência da personalidade de nível nacional e a necessidade de pesquisadores de personalidade transnacionais melhorarem a validade, interpretabilidade e replicabilidade de seu trabalho.
摘要
腐败通常被视为紧迫的国家和全球挑战的根源之一。因此, 各国在腐败水平及其潜在原因方面持续存在的明显差异引起了国际商务学者越来越多的兴趣。本研究的目的是重新考察预测国家腐败水平的关键因素。本研究利用来自 87 个国家超过 500 万受访者的综合性格数据, 以及国家文化的众多维度, 考察了民族性格对比国家文化和财富作为国家腐败预测指标的相对重要性。回归分析发现, 集体主义 (特别是与集体主义有关的社会实践) 和财富是腐败的有力预测指标。相比之下, 大五性格特质在国家层面的影响并没有超越国家文化和财富的影响, 这一点并没有得到一致的支持。这些发现突出并具体说明了国家文化所发挥的重要作用, 并对以往关于民族性格和腐败的研究提出了质疑。更广泛地说, 我们的研究进一步强调了在考察国家层面性格的影响时要谨慎, 以及跨国性格研究需要提高其工作的有效性、可解释性和可复制性。
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
National corruption is the “extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ‘capture’ of the state by elites and private interests” (Kaufmann, Kraay & Mastruzzi, 2010: 4). Corruption in the form of bribes and stolen money costs the world economy US$3.6 trillion annually (Johnson, 2018). In recent years, national differences in corruption levels have become a renewed focus in the scholarly and public debate, driven, in part, not only by the increased awareness of humanity’s grand challenges, but also by the increased interaction and competition between nations resulting from globalization, and by attempts to assist reformers in curbing corruption (Gelbrich, Stedham, & Gäthke, 2016; Montiel, Cuervo-Cazurra, Park, Antolín-López, & Husted, 2021).
Prior work has highlighted personality, culture, and wealth as predictors of national corruption (e.g., Husted, 1999; Pellegrini & Gerlagh, 2008). Personality has been a focus within geographical psychology (Allik, Church, Ortiz, Rossier, Hřebíčková, Fruyt De, Realo, & McCrae, 2017; Rentfrow & Jokela, 2016). Prior research points to factors such as genetic homology within nations (e.g., Minkov, van de Vijver, & Schachner, 2019) and selective migration (e.g., Obschonka, Stuetzer, Rentfrow, Shaw-Taylor, Satchell, Silbereisen, & Gosling, 2018) in shaping national personality, which in turn is argued to affect societal norms pertaining to corruption (McCrae, 2004). An exploratory study (Connelly & Ones, 2008) found that national-level aggregation of individual personality predicted corruption; however, only 23 countries within a limited geography were included, while the national-level scores were based on relatively small and unrepresentative samples.
In addition to personality, research in IB has examined national culture as a predictor of corruption, typically drawing on Hofstede’s (2001) four cultural value orientations of power distance, collectivism, masculinity/femininity, and uncertainty avoidance. Numerous studies have found a relationship between these four dimensions and corruption, after controlling for national wealth (Davis & Ruhe, 2003; Husted, 1999), but the findings on the effects of national culture remain somewhat inconsistent (Getz & Volkema, 2001; Seleim & Bontis, 2009), and many new conceptualizations and measures of culture have been developed in recent years, suggesting a need for an updated investigation.
To address these issues, we examined relationships between personality, culture, and corruption, drawing upon the largest, most representative personality dataset available, and a range of cultural measures. Our analysis makes an important contribution to debates in the corruption literature on the robustness and nature of the effects of personality and culture (Davis & Ruhe, 2003; Getz & Volkema, 2001).
Theoretical foundations
Personality and Corruption
Individual level
Research investigating personality and corruption focuses on the Big Five personality traits (i.e., openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness), considered to be relatively stable “broad individual differences in behavior, thought, and feeling that account for general consistencies across situations and over time” (McAdams & Pals, 2006: 212), which have been validated across nations (e.g., Minkov et al., 2019). Openness refers to actively seeking out new experiences and being reflective and thoughtful about new things encountered (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Individuals with high levels of openness to experience are likely to question the status quo and debate moral issues. Agreeableness refers to being cooperative, helpful, friendly, trusting, and concerned with the welfare of others (McCrae & Costa, 1997), avoiding behaviors that are condemned by others and valuing behaviors that benefit society as a whole. Extraversion refers to being social, outgoing, and dominant in social settings (McCrae, 2001), and thus less submissive (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). Conscientiousness refers to a tendency to be dutiful, self-disciplined, achievement striving, organized, and mindful of details (Roberts, Jackson, Fayard, Edmonds, & Meints, 2009). People high in conscientiousness plan carefully, are performance goal-oriented, and adhere to deadlines. Neuroticism refers to having a tendency to be anxious, insecure, emotional, and overwhelmed by work and social demands (McCrae & Costa, 1997), thus possibly being more likely to take shortcuts to achieve their goals.
Given these tendencies, scholars have argued links between personality and behavior related to corruption, and, indeed, meta-analyses at the individual level show openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness are negatively related to unethical, counterproductive, and deviant behavior in the workplace, while neuroticism is positively related to these behaviors (Pletzer, Bentvelzen, Oostrom, & Vries de, 2019; Koodamara, Prabhu, Suhan, & Narayanan, 2020).
National level
The study of national personality examines the origins and effects of population-wide personality differences between countries – typically assessed by aggregating individual-level personality scores to the country level (Allik, 2012; Church, 2016). Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain how such national personality differences emerge and persist. ‘Genetic founder effects’ suggest geographic personality differences emerge due to immigrants selectively migrating to areas that satisfy and reinforce their psychological and physical needs. If so, then restricted gene pools of non-random samples of personality traits may emerge, which cause certain regions to develop disproportionate numbers of individuals with particular personality traits (Rentfrow, Gosling, & Potter, 2008). ‘Social founder effects’ suggest that intellectual histories, customs, lifestyles, and daily practices of early settlers established social norms and influenced the prevalence of behavioral tendencies within regions (Kitayama, Ishii, Imada, Takemura, & Ramaswamy, 2006). Personality is thus perpetuated and becomes similar within a nation through folk descriptions of personality, myths and written narratives, and proverbs (Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011). As time goes on, people choose to live near similar group members because they are more likely to understand and share the same languages, cultures, and ways of life (Rentfrow et al., 2008). Dynamic social impact theory suggests that local clustering of attitudes and beliefs can occur when individuals engage in repeated social interactions with others (Bourgeois & Bowen, 2001). Even if someone is comparatively low on a trait initially, through ongoing interactions, the psychological and behavioral tendencies demonstrated by others could influence the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of people in that region, resulting in a personality shift (Bourgeois & Bowen, 2001). Finally, a psychoanalytic view sees personality as emanating from early life experiences and unconscious motives, with core psychological characteristics developing through early child-rearing practices, which are in turn shaped by larger societal institutions (see Rentfrow et al., 2008 for a review).
Research documents links between national personality and characteristics, such as stereotypes, gender differences, political orientation, health, psychological well-being, and economic outcomes (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; McCrae & Terracciano, 2008; Obschonka, Stuetzer, Rentfrow, Potter, & Gosling, 2017; Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008; Terracciano, Abdel-Khalek, Adam, Adamovova, Ahn, Ahn, & Avia, 2005). Past research has found that regional- and individual-level analyses tend to converge (e.g., Fritsch, Obschonka & Wyrwich, 2019; Obschonka, Schmitt-Rodermund, Silbereisen, Gosling, & Potter, 2013; Rentfrow, Jokela, & Lamb, 2015).
The pioneering study by Connelly and Ones (2008) cued successive interest in the role of personality in predicting corruption, in part because they found several non-homologous effects at the individual and national level. In particular, the authors were perplexed by a positive relationship between national conscientiousness and corruption, given that findings at the individual level had consistently documented a negative relationship, suggesting a “conscientiousness paradox” (Mõttus, Allik, & Realo, 2010). One possible explanation is that highly conscientious societies place a greater focus on achievement striving and status recognition than do societies low on conscientiousness (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002), resulting in a culture of rivalry, willingness to engage in unethical behavior (Kilduff, Galinsky, Gallo, & Reade, 2016; Lee, Schwarz, Newman, & Legood, 2019), and collective endorsement of corruption to meet such goals. Thus, a competing set of logics might suggest non-homologous relationships occur at the individual and national level between personality and corruption.
Culture and Corruption
A growing number of studies have examined whether culture predicts corruption. Definitions of culture range from beliefs, behaviors, values, and cognitive patterns that people in a society or culture share (i.e., the psychological view of culture, in which culture resides within individuals) to a normative value system that underlies the functioning of societal institutions (i.e., the contextual view of culture, in which culture resides outside individuals) (Schwartz, 2014; see also Dau, Chacar, Lyles, & Li, 2022). As mentioned, numerous studies have found a positive relationship between the cultural dimensions of power distance, collectivism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and corruption, after controlling for national wealth (Davis & Ruhe, 2003; Husted, 1999; Seleim & Bontis, 2009).
These studies reason, for example, that, in societies with high power distance, there is a greater dependence of subordinates on their supervisors' paternalism, and decisions are not always made on the basis of merit, but on the basis of favors and loyalty. This leaves room for corruption in the form of favoritism and nepotism (Takyi-Asiedu, 1993). In collective societies, decisions about a person’s life are often determined by the ingroup – family, friends, or coworkers. This form of familism has been associated with less tendency to rate a practice as ethical (Cohen, Pant, & Sharp, 1996) and greater tendency of public officers to accept bribes (Gonzalez-Fabre, 1996). Societies high in masculinity tend to focus more on material success than on quality of life, and such a tendency has been associated with corruption (Husted, 1999). Finally, individuals in societies high in uncertainty avoidance tend to feel threatened by unknown situations, and research has shown corruption serves to deliver more secure results in situations where outcomes are uncertain (Alam, 1995; Husted, 1999; Davis & Ruhe, 2003).
Other studies have examined dimensions developed in the Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (GLOBE) study (2004). For each of nine dimensions, respondents were asked the extent to which they felt that the value operated in society (‘societal practices’) and the extent to which they felt society should hold the value (‘societal values’) (Peterson, 2004). Using this approach, Seleim and Bontis (2009) found several differential relationships for practices versus values in their association with corruption. For example, collectivism practices were negatively related to corruption, and the authors reasoned that this is because such practices result in cooperative norms and priority on the group goals, hence less engagement in corrupt behavior; but collectivism values were positively related to corruption (Seleim & Bontis, 2009). Hence, existing results regarding culture and corruption are somewhat inconclusive (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018). Given these open questions, we operated in exploratory mode to investigate relationships between both national personality and culture and corruption in a comprehensive cross-national field study.
Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 87 countries for which we obtained national-level estimates of personality and corruption. Data on cultural variables was available for 67 of these countries.
Measures
National corruption
We used the Control of Corruption Index (CCI) 2016 produced by the World Bank, an index across measures of perceived corruption standardized across countries. For example, it includes Gallup opinion surveys where respondents are asked how common corruption is in their country and surveys in which company executives were asked to estimate the percentage of company revenues that are spent on bribes. We reversed the index prior to data analysis so that high scores reflect high levels of corruption.
Personality traits
We drew from the Gosling–Potter Internet Personality Project (GPIPP), collected by a non-commercial website (www.outofoffice.com) accessed via several channels (e.g., search engines, unsolicited links on other webpages, newspaper articles on previous studies, or word of mouth). The project provides individuals with an opportunity to voluntarily complete a questionnaire on socio-demographic variables and personality traits in return for a personality evaluation based on their responses.
The initial GPIPP sample contained data from 11,272,142 respondents collected in the years 1998–2015. Responses were then excluded based on several criteria (see Online Appendix A), resulting in a final sample size consisting of 5,569,401 responses. Based on a threshold of 1,000 observations per country, we retained data for 87 countries (with an average 64,016 responses per country).
Personality traits of Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C), Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), and Neuroticism (N) were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999), which consists of 44 items self-rated by participants on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The scales showed strong internal consistency at the individual level (Cronbach alphas for E = 0.86, O = 0.78, A = 0.79, N = 0.84, C = 0.84). To avoid measurement biases due to diverging response patterns on these variables across nations based on age, gender, and education differences, we weighted the individual participants by their age, gender, and education, using the joint distribution of these variables provided in Barro and Lee (2013). To test the comparability of the personality assessments across nations, we conducted comprehensive psychometric analyses: invariance tests, assessment of factorial structures (Minkov et al., 2019), and a procrustes EFA analysis (McCrae, 1996). These indicate that the GPIPP data has acceptable psychometric properties and satisfies the criterion of scalar equivalence (see Online Appendix A).
National culture
We included the scores on the nine societal practices and nine societal values dimensions reported in the GLOBE study (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). We also included Collectivism–Individualism, Duty–Joy, Distrust–Trust cultural dimensions reported in Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018). Higher scores on these variables indicate stronger national-level individualism, joy, and trust, respectively. Third, we included Minkov’s new individualism–collectivism scores (Minkov, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez, Jandosova, Khassebekov, & Mudd, 2017). Finally, as a final robustness check, we included scores on Schwartz's (2008) seven cultural dimensions: Harmony, Embeddedness, Hierarchy, Mastery, Affective Autonomy, Intellectual Autonomy, and Egalitarianism.
National wealth
Following others, we controlled for national wealth via GDP per capita (e.g., Connelly & Ones, 2008; Gelbrich et al., 2016; Seleim & Bontis, 2009). Data were taken from the International Monetary Fund database. Given skewness in the data, we used a log function of wealth.
Analysis and results
Descriptive Statistics
The distribution of the study variables and their correlations with corruption are shown in Table A19 (see Online Appendix Section B). Among the (weighted) Big Five traits, extraversion and conscientiousness were negatively and neuroticism positively correlated with corruption. Among the cultural factors, collectivism defined by Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018) as well as by Minkov et al. (2017), in-group collectivism (social practices), and uncertainty avoidance (social values) exhibited the strongest positive correlations with corruption.
Main Analysis
Figure 1 shows the standardized regression coefficients of the personality traits based on OLS multiple regression across models, controlling for national wealth (first row) and for national culture (rows 2–6) (see Table A20 in the Online Appendix). We found no robust support for a relationship between national-level openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientious, or extraversion and national corruption. We did find that national-level neuroticism was positively related to national corruption in some but not all models, and that the relationship became non-significant when controlling for wealth, Beugelsdijk and Welzel’s (2018) cultural dimensions, Minkov et al's (2017) collectivism-individualism scale, or GLOBE societal level practices.
In Figure 2, we present the relationship of national culture with corruption (controlling for wealth and national personality). We found a strong and robust positive relationship of collectivism defined by Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018) as well as by Minkov et al. (2017), and the GLOBE in-group collectivism (societal practices). Other significant findings were a positive and robust association between distrust, as defined by Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018), and corruption, and, from the GLOBE study, a positive relationship between both uncertainty avoidance (societal values) and future orientation (societal values) and corruption, and a negative relationship between performance orientation (societal level practices) and corruption.
Robustness Checks
We conducted the following robustness checks: (1) we repeated our main analysis for the more homogenous set of OECD countries (see Online Appendix B, Table A21), (2) for the smaller set of countries included in Connelly and Ones (2008) (Table A24), (3) tested for potential econometric issues based on the number of countries represented (Tables A22, A23), (4) considered four alternative data sources for national-level personality (Allik et al., 2017; Bartram, 2013; Lu & Cui, 2022; Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, & Benet-Martínez, 2007) (Tables A25, A26), (5) checked whether results hinge on the use of the CCI index for a single year (2016) (Tables A27–A30), and (6) utilized an alternative measure of corruption, the Corruption Perception Index (CPI, 2016) produced by Transparency International (Table A31). A similar pattern of results was obtained.
Discussion
Our study provides a comprehensive analysis that delivers important new insights into research on the link between personality, culture, and national corruption. Findings suggest that earlier research on national-level personality and corruption likely underestimated significant method bias and lack of cross-national equivalence (e.g., Connelly & Ones, 2008). Instead, we find a robust relationship between collectivism and culture, even after controlling for wealth and national personality, in a large and diverse sample with multiple measures. Below, we discuss the three major theoretical contributions of this study.
Theoretical Implications
Personality and corruption
Our study did not reveal consistent associations between any national personality characteristic and national corruption. In a subset of our regression models that controlled for wealth and culture, neuroticism was positively associated with corruption. However, this was not true across all datasets and measures. Of particular note, despite many robustness tests, we did not replicate the positive association between conscientiousness and corruption reported by Connelly and Ones (2008). In contrast, conscientiousness correlated negatively with national corruption, and this disappeared after controlling for culture and national wealth.
Our findings demonstrate that researchers examining the role of national-level personality need to be cautious. Debate continues regarding cross-cultural universality of the Big Five (e.g., Gurven, 2018; Lukaszewski, Gurven, Rueden von, & Smaldino, 2020). Sample bias, response style bias, reference group effects, and measurement invariance must be considered, and doing so is a complex, challenging endeavor. Indeed, this analysis was revealing because, in our validity checks of the cross-national personality data, we found the least consistent patterns for conscientiousness. Cross-national comparisons of conscientiousness collected from small, highly skewed samples can lead to substantially biased results (Mõttus, Allik, Realo, Rossier, Zecca, Ah-Kion, & Bhowon, 2012; Van de Vijver & He, 2017). Our analysis attempted to address these issues by drawing from larger and more diverse and representative national samples, and by using weighted national personality scores. Taken together, we have to conclude that national personality is not predictive of national corruption when controlling for culture and wealth.
Culture and corruption
Perhaps the most striking finding is the significant relationship between some cultural dimensions and corruption, even when controlling for personality and wealth. In particular, our results inform our understanding of the link between collectivism and corruption (Davis & Ruhe, 2003), given that we captured general collectivism, institutional collectivism, and in-group collectivism in the same study. We find a strong positive relationship of general collectivism with corruption (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018; Minkov et al., 2017). When we segment into in-group and institutional collectivism as defined in the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004), we find that it is in-group collectivism that is positively associated with corruption, and that this relationship only applies to societal practices (how the society operates) and not to societal values (beliefs about what should be valued). These results extend earlier analyses (Gelbrich et al., 2016), and highlight the important role of societal practices promoting cohesiveness within groups as a predictor of national corruption (Pinto, Leana, & Pil, 2008).
Personality–culture debate
Finally, we also contribute to the broader personality–culture debate, which is concerned with the question of which is the more important driver of national-level outcomes – personality or culture (e.g., Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; Van de Vijver & He, 2017). Our results extend prior research by testing personality and culture side by side, showing an effect of culture (but not personality) on national corruption. Future research should also consider an integrative perspective (see Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011), given that theory building from multiple paradigms can deliver important insights into complex mechanisms driving and maintaining corruption. Such a theoretical lens is consistent with Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez and Gibson's (2011) call for an integration of diverse perspectives on culture as a theoretical innovation in IB research.
Limitations and Future Research
Several limitations should be noted. First, our weighting procedures may not have fully addressed the overrepresentation of respondents with high education, especially in developing countries. Internet samples are less vulnerable to some facets of selection bias than other methods, and our primary dataset has been shown to be relatively free of problems with its factor structure (Laajaj, Macours, Hernandez, Arias, Gosling, Potter, Rubio-Codina, & Vakis, 2019), but recruiting less-selective large-scale samples in developing countries should remain a priority. Future studies might also consider how variations in population structures and age hierarchies across cultures (e.g., aging societies) relate to corruption. For example, future research should contextualize the age dependency of personality and implications for the personality–corruption relationship.
Second, the positive relationship between neuroticism and corruption became non-significant when controlling for Beugelsdijk and Welzel’s cultural dimensions or for GLOBE societal practices. Examining various levels of neuroticism, along with various levels of specific cultural dimensions (i.e., uncertainty avoidance), might reveal particular combinations yielding greater corruption. We view configurational research that considers interactions between multiple potential predictors as a useful next step. It will also be important to capture fine-grained mediating mechanisms for the potential relationship of personality and culture, using longitudinal research.
Third, reference group and language effects are biases likely to be particularly powerful at cross-national levels, compared to regional within-country comparisons. We encourage future research to explore this. Perhaps regional personality characteristics interact with the cultural values of a particular nation, such that regional differences play a stronger role in certain national contexts, as has been suggested by work on when culture matters (Gibson, Maznevski, & Kirkman, 2009; Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2014). For example, cultural tightness–looseness (Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, & Aycan, 2011) may interact with regional personality characteristics, such that the relationship with corruption is weaker when specific dimensions of national culture are tight (i.e., homogenous within the region).
More broadly, our findings imply that future cross-national personality studies face major methodological and conceptual challenges, and that, until these are addressed, researchers must remain cautious in their conclusions about the relationships involving national personality differences. Cross-cultural research methods offer a suite of procedural remedies pertaining to research design, data collection, and statistical analysis (Van de Vijver & He, 2017; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2017), including new methods and new types of data (e.g., vignettes, Mõttus et al., 2012; think-aloud protocols, Church, 2016; or revealed preference methodology, Costello, Wood, & Tov, 2018).
Conclusions
We have revisited the fundamental question of whether national personality and/or culture predict national-level corruption. We did not find consistent evidence for effects of personality, after controlling for culture and wealth. We did find links between numerous cultural dimensions and national-level corruption, suggesting for example, that in-group collectivism (societal practices) predicted corruption. Methodologically, our work points to the need for cross-national personality research to increase the validity, interpretability, and replicability of cross-national personality studies.
References
Alam, M. S. 1995. A theory of limits on corruptions and some applications. Kyklos, 48: 419–435.
Allik, J. 2012. National differences in personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(2): 114–117.
Allik, J., Church, A. T., Ortiz, F. A., Rossier, J., Hřebíčková, M., De Fruyt, F., Realo, A., & McCrae, R. R. 2017. Mean profiles of the NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(3): 402–420.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. 2002. Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1): 43–51.
Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. W. 2013. A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. Journal of Development Economics, 104: 184–198.
Bartram, D. 2013. Scalar equivalence of OPQ32: Big Five profiles of 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1): 61–83.
Beugelsdijk, S., & Welzel, C. 2018. Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10): 1469–1505.
Bourgeois, M. J., & Bowen, A. 2001. Self-organization of alcohol related attitudes and beliefs in a campus housing complex: An initial investigation. Health Psychology, 20: 434–437.
Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. 2011. Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66(7): 593–603.
Church, A. T. 2016. Personality traits across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8: 22–30.
Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. 1996. A methodological note on cross-cultural accounting ethics research. International Journal of Accounting, 31(1): 55–66.
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. 2008. The personality of corruption: A national-level analysis. Cross-Cultural Research, 42(4): 353–385.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. 2001. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2): 322–331.
Costello, C. K., Wood, D., & Tov, W. 2018. Revealed traits: A novel method for estimating cross-cultural similarities and differences in personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(4): 554–586.
Dau, L. A., Chacar, A. S., Lyles, M. A., & Li, J. 2022. Informal institutions and international business: Toward an integrative research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(6): 985–1010.
Davis, J. H., & Ruhe, J. A. 2003. Perceptions of country corruption: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 43: 275–288.
Fritsch, M., Obschonka, M., & Wyrwich, M. 2019. Historical roots of entrepreneurship-facilitating culture and innovation activity: an analysis for German regions. Regional Studies, 2019: 1–12.
Gelbrich, K., Stedham, Y., & Gäthke, D. 2016. Cultural discrepancy and national corruption: Investigating the difference between cultural values and practices and its relationship to corrupt behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(2): 201–225.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., Duan, L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., & Aycan, Z. 2011. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033): 1100–1104.
Getz, K. A., & Volkema, R. J. 2001. Culture, perceived corruption, and economics: A model of predictors and outcomes. Business and Society, 40(1): 7–30.
Gibson, C. B., Maznevski, M., & Kirkman, B. L. 2009. When does culture matter? In R. S. Bhagat, & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Handbook of culture, organizations, and work: 46–68. Cambridge University Press.
Gonzalez-Fabre, R. 1996. Las estructuras culturales de la corrupcion en Venezuela. In A. A. de Etica (Ed.), Eficiencia, corrupcion crecimiento con equidadBilbao: Universidad de Deusto.
Gurven, M. D. 2018. Broadening horizons: Sample diversity and socioecological theory are essential to the future of psychological science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115: 11420–11427.
Hofstede, G. S. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hofstede, G. S., & McCrae, R. R. 2004. Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research: the Journal of Comparative Social Science, 38: 52–88.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Husted, B. W. 1999. Wealth, culture, and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2): 339–359.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. 1999. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2: 102–138.
Johnson, S. 2018. Corruption is costing the global economy $3.6 trillion dollars each year. World Economic Forum, December 13 2018, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/the-global-economy-loses-3-6-trillion-to-corruption-each-year-says-u-n
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. 2010. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: A summary of methodology, data and analytical issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1682130
Kilduff, G. J., Galinsky, A., Gallo, E., & Reade, J. J. 2016. Whatever it takes to win: Rivalry increases unethical behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5): 1508–1534.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K., & Gibson, C. B. 2017. A retrospective on culture’s consequences: The 35-year journey. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 12–29.
Kitayama, S., Ishii, K., Imada, T., Takemura, K., & Ramaswamy, J. 2006. Voluntary settlement and the spirit of independence: Evidence from Japan’s “Northern Frontier.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 369–384.
Koodamara, N.K., Prabhu, N., Suhan, M. & Narayanan, S.L. 2020. Big five personality traits and ethical climate: A test of antecedents of unethical behaviour. Journal of Education for Business.
Laajaj, R., Macours, K., Hernandez, D. A. P., Arias, O., Gosling, S. D., Potter, J., Rubio-Codina, M., & Vakis, R. 2019. Challenges to capture the big five personality traits in non-WEIRD populations. Science Advances, 5: eaaw5226.
Lee, A., Schwarz, G., Newman, A., & Legood, A. 2019. Investigating when and why psychological entitlement predicts unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1): 109–126.
Leung, K., Bhagat, R., Buchan, N., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. 2011. Beyond national culture and culture-centricism: A reply to Gould and Grein (2009). Journal of International Business Studies, 42: 177–181.
Lu, Q., & Cui, S. 2022. Not completely unusable: Procedures to rescue the Big-Five personality data in the World Values Survey wave 6. Personality and Individual Differences, 199: 111832.
Lukaszewski, A., Gurven, M., von Rueden, C. R., & Smaldino, P. 2020. Toward Integration of the Niche Diversity Hypothesis With Other Explanations for Personality Covariation: Reply to Međedović’s (2019) Commentary on Lukaszewski et al. (2017). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4): 574–576.
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. 2006. A new Big Five: fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61(3): 204–217.
McCrae, R. R. 1996. Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3): 323.
McCrae, R. R. 2001. Trait psychology and culture: Exploring intercultural comparisons. Journal of Personality, 69: 819–846.
McCrae, R. R. 2004. Human nature and culture: A trait perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(1): 3–14.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. 1997. Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5): 509–516.
McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. 2005. Personality profiles of cultures: aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3): 407–425.
McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. 2008. The five-factor model and its correlates in individuals and cultures. In F. J. R. van de Vijver, D. A. van Hemert, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures: 249–283. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., Khassebekov, Y., & Mudd, B. 2017. A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(3): 386–404.
Minkov, M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Schachner, M. 2019. A test of a new short Big-Five tool in large probabilistic samples from 19 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 151: 109519.
Montiel, I., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Park, J., Antolín-López, R., & Husted, B. W. 2021. Implementing the United Nations’ sustainable development goals in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(5): 999–1030.
Mõttus, R., Allik, J., & Realo, A. 2010. An attempt to validate national mean scores of Conscientiousness: No necessarily paradoxical findings. Journal of Research in Personality, 44: 630–640.
Mõttus, R., Allik, J., Realo, A., Rossier, J., Zecca, G., Ah-Kion, J., Amoussou-Yéyé, D., Bäckström, M., Barkauskiene, R., Barry, O., & Bhowon, U. 2012. The effect of response style on self-reported conscientiousness across 20 countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(11): 1423–1436.
Obschonka, M., Schmitt-Rodermund, E., Silbereisen, R. K., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. 2013. The regional distribution and correlates of an entrepreneurship-prone personality profile in the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom: A socioecological perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105: 104–122.
Obschonka, M., Stuetzer, M., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. 2017. Did strategic bombing in the Second World War lead to ‘German angst’? A large-scale empirical test across 89 German cities. European Journal of Personality, 31(3): 234–257.
Obschonka, M., Stuetzer, M., Rentfrow, P. J., Shaw-Taylor, L., Satchell, M., Silbereisen, R. K., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. 2018. In the shadow of coal: How large-scale industries contributed to present-day regional differences in personality and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(5): 903–927.
Pellegrini, L., & Gerlagh, R. 2008. Causes of corruption: A survey of cross-country analyses and extended results. Economics of Governance, 9(3): 245–263.
Peterson, M. F. 2004. Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(4): 641–647.
Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. 2008. Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33(3): 685–709.
Pletzer, J. L., Bentvelzen, M., Oostrom, J. K., & de Vries, R. E. 2019. A meta-analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: Big Five versus HEXACO. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112: 369–383.
Rentfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. 2008. A theory of the emergence, persistence, and expression of geographic variation in psychological characteristics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5): 339–369.
Rentfrow, P. J., & Jokela, M. 2016. Geographical psychology: The spatial organization of psychological phenomena. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6): 393–398.
Rentfrow, P. J., Jokela, M., & Lamb, M. E. 2015. Regional personality differences in Great Britain. PLoS ONE, 10(3): e0122245.
Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G. W., & Meints, J. 2009. Conscientiousness. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior: 369–381. New York: Guilford Press.
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J. A., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. 2007. The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38: 173–212.
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. 2008. Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1): 168–182.
Schwartz, S. H. 2008. The 7 Schwartz cultural value orientation scores for 80 countries. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3313.3040.
Schwartz, S. H. 2014. Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1): 5–13.
Seleim, A., & Bontis, N. 2009. The relationship between culture and corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(1): 165–184.
Takyi-Asiedu, S. 1993. Some socio-cultural factors regarding entrepreneurial activity in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Business Venturing, 8: 91–98.
Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A. M., Adam, N., Adamovova, L., Ahn, C. K., Ahn, H. N., Alansari, B. M., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Angleitner, A., & Avia, M. D. 2005. National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310(5745): 96–100.
Van de Vijver, F. J., & He, J. 2017. Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural personality research. In T. A. Church (Ed.) The Praeger handbook of personality across cultures: Trait psychology across cultures, 1, 251-277.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. B. 2014. How does culture matter? A process view of cultural interaction in groups. In M. Yuki, & M. Brewer (Eds.), Frontiers of Culture and Psychology series: Culture and Group Processes: 166–194. Oxford University Press.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access We thank Jochen Gebauer for his advice and support for conducting the invariance test, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Obschonka, M., Stuetzer, M., Newman, A. et al. Corruption revisited: the influence of national personality, culture, and wealth. J Int Bus Stud 54, 1577–1587 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00632-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00632-z