ABSTRACT
Although corruption has negative effects on society, little psychological and developmental research has examined individuals’ beliefs about corruption, particularly in late adolescence, when participation in the broader society increases. Using social domain theory, this exploratory study examined late adolescents’ judgments and reasoning about three hypothetical dilemmas focusing on bribery (parental donations to influence college admissions), preferential job hiring (hiring a nephew), and patronage (holding private events to influence decisions regarding receiving a government contract). Participants were 77 U.S. university students (M
age = 20.16 years, SD = 1.43, 58% female) who were administered semi-structured clinical interviews assessing five judgments and associated justifications about each scenario. Late adolescents viewed these situations as complex, multifaceted, and as entailing competing moral and nonmoral concerns that sometimes permitted or even encouraged corrupt acts. Parental donations to influence college admissions were evaluated most negatively, based primarily on moral concerns with fairness and the psychological consequences for the student, while patronage in government contracting was evaluated most positively, based primarily on pragmatic and conventional reasons (i.e., that patronage is normative). Most participants judged that recipients should accept the influence, based on psychological, personal, prudential, and pragmatic reasons. They also believed that, for moral reasons, donations influencing college admissions and patronage in government should be regulated by law, but that preferential hiring should not. Further research should examine the correlates and developmental trajectory of these beliefs and their implications for youth’s civic and political beliefs and involvement.