Desafiando la validez de constructo de soborno en la economía experimental

dc.contributor0000-0001-9131-3843
dc.creatorSenci, Carlos Maximiliano
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-03T16:22:22Z
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-05T14:57:20Z
dc.date.available2021-11-03T16:22:22Z
dc.date.available2023-06-05T14:57:20Z
dc.date.created2021-11-03T16:22:22Z
dc.date.issued2021-01-01
dc.identifier0124-4620
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12495/6305
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.18270/rcfc.v21i42.3252
dc.identifierinstname:Universidad El Bosque
dc.identifierreponame:Repositorio Institucional Universidad El Bosque
dc.identifierrepourl:https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/6643140
dc.description.abstractEl constructo de soborno que emplean los estudios experimentales sobre corrupción enfrenta tres desafíos interrelacionados. En primer lugar, la noción de confianza em-pleada en el constructo de soborno reduce la misma a un mero cálculo de riesgo. En se-gundo lugar, y como consecuencia de lo anterior, el contexto apropiado de interacción se encuentra indeterminado. Por último, los experimentos presentan una insuficiente explicitación del marco normativo. En resumen, los investigadores sobre corrupción deben ser conscientes de los desafíos del constructo que emplean en el laboratorio y deben abordar los problemas antes mencionados para no comprometer la validez de sus resultados.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherRevista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia
dc.relationRevista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, 0124-4620, Vol. 21 Núm 42, 2021, 205-234.
dc.relationhttps://revistas.unbosque.edu.co/index.php/rcfc/article/view/3252
dc.relationAbbink, Klaus. “Staff Rotation as an Anti-corruption Policy: an Experimental Study”. Journal of European Political Economy 20.4 (2004): 887-906. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2003.10.008>
dc.relationAbbink, Klaus., and Hennig-Schmidt, Heike. “Neutral Versus Loaded Instructions in a Bribery Experiment”. Experimental Economics 9.2 (2006): 103-121. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-5385-z>
dc.relationAbbink, Klaus., and Serra, Danila. “Anticorruption Policies: Lessons from the Lab”. New Advances in Experimental Research on Corruption (Research in Exper-imental Economics, Vol. 15. Eds. Serra, Danila. and Wantchekon, Leonard. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2012. 77-115. <https://doi.org/10.1108/S0193-2306(2012)0000015006>
dc.relationAlatas, Vivi., Cameron, Lisa., Erkal, Nisvan., and Gangadharan, Lata. “Subject Pool Effects in a Corruption Experiment: A comparison of Indonesian Public Ser-vants and Indonesian Students”. Experimental Economics 12.1 (2009): 113-132. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-008-9207-3>
dc.relationAlekseev, Aleksandr., Gary Charness., and Uri Gneezy. “Experimental Methods: When and Why Contextual Instructions Are Important”. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 134.1 (2017): 48-59. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.12.005>
dc.relationAlexandrova, Ana., and Daniel M, Heibron. “Is Construct Validation Valid?” Philos-ophy of Science 83.5 (2016): 1098-1109. <https://doi.org/10.1086/687941>
dc.relationAndvig, Jens Chr. “Corruption and Fast Change”. World Development 34.2 (2006): 328-340. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.03.007>
dc.relationArmantier, Oliver., and Amadou, Boly. “A Controlled Field Experiment on Cor-ruption”. European Economic Review, 55.8 (2011): 1072–1082. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2011.04.007>
dc.relationBanerjee, Ritwik. “On the Interpretation of Bribery in a Laboratory Corruption Game: Moral Frames and Social Norms”. Experimental Economics 19.1 (2016): 240–267. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-015-9436-1>
dc.relationBanfield, Edward C. “The Moral Basis of a Backward Society”. Glencoe: IL: The Free Press, 1958.
dc.relationBarr, Abigail., and Danila, Serra. “The Effects of Externalities and Framing on Brib-ery in a Petty Corruption Experiment”. Experimental Economics 12.4 (2009): 488-503. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-009-9225-9>
dc.relationBarron, Kenneth., Allison R. Brown., Christopher R. Gesualdi., Kimberly A. Marchuk., and Theresa E. Egan. “Validity”. 21st Century Psychology: A Reference Handbook. Eds. Davis, Stephen F., and Buskist, William. Thousand Oaks, Cal-ifornia: Sage, 2008. 55–64. <http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412956321.n7>
dc.relationBerg, Joyce., Dickhaut, John., and McCabe, Kevin. “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History”. Games and Economic Behavior 10.1 (1995): 122-142. <https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027>
dc.relationBicchieri, Cristina. “The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
dc.relationBorsboom, Denny. “Measuring the Mind”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. <https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511490026>
dc.relationBorsboom, Denny., Cramer, Angélique., Kievit, Rogier A., Franić, Sanja., and Scholten, Annemarie Zand. “The End of Construct Validity”. The Concept of Validity: Revisions, New Directions, and Applications. Ed. Lissitz, Robert W. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2009. 135-170.
dc.relationBray, John. “The Use of Intermediaries and Other ‘Alternatives’ to Bribery”. The New Institutional Economics of Corruption. Eds. Johann Graf Lambsdorff, Markus Taube and Matthias Schramm. London: Routledge, 2004. 112-137.
dc.relationBrennan, Geoffrey., Lina Eriksson, Brennan., Robert E. Goodin, and Nicholas Southwood. “Explaining Norms”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
dc.relationBobkova, Nina., y Egbert, Henrik. “Corruption investigated in the lab: A Survey of the Experimental Literature”. International Journal of Latest Trends in Finance and Economic Sciences 2.4 (2012): 337-349. <https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pra:mprapa:38163>
dc.relationCamaño-Alegre, María. and Camaño-Alegre, José. “From Ontological Traits to Va-lidity Challenges in Social Science: The Cases of Economic Experiments and Research Questionnaires”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 32.2 (2019): 101-127. <https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2019.1682773>
dc.relationCampbell, Donald T. “Factors Relevant to the Validity of Experiments in So-cial Settings”. Psychological Bulletin 54.4 (1957): 297–312. <https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040950>
dc.relationCampbell Donald T., and Cook Thomas D. “Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings”. Dallas, Ill.: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
dc.relationCapraro, Valerio. and Rand, David G. “Do the Right Thing: Experimental Evidence that Preferences for Moral Behavior, Rather than Equity and Efficiency Per Se, Drive Human Prosociality”. Judgment and Decision Making 13.1 (2018): 99-111.
dc.relationCialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., and Kallgren C.A. “A Focus Theory of Normative con-duct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58.6 (1990): 1015–1026. <https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015>
dc.relationColeman, James William. “Toward an Integrated Theory of White-Collar Crime”. American Journal of Sociology 93.2 (1987): 406-439. <https://doi.org/10.1086/228750>
dc.relationCronbach, Lee J., and Meehl, Paul E. “Construct Validity in Psychological Tests”. Psychological Bulletin 52.4 (1955): 281-302. <https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957>
dc.relationDella Porta, Donnatella., and Vannuci, Alberto. “Corrupt Exchanges: Actors, Re-sources, and Mechanisms of Political Corruption”. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1999. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315080284>
dc.relationEngel, Christoph., and Rand, David G. “What does ‘Clean’ Really Mean? the Im-plicit Framing of Decontextualized Experiments”. Economic Letters 122.3 (2014): 386-389. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.12.020>
dc.relationFalk, Armin., and Czech, Nora. “Morals and Markets”. Science 340.6133 (2013): 707-711. <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231566>
dc.relationFehr, Ernst., and Schmidt, Klaus M. “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Coop-eration”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114.3 (1999): 817–868. <https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151>
dc.relationFrank, Björn. and Schulze, Günther G. “Does Economics make Citizens Corrupt?”.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 43.1 (2000): 101-113. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00111-6>
dc.relationGneezy, Uri., and Rustichini, Aldo. “A Fine Is a Price”. The Journal of Legal Studies 29.1 (2000): 1-17. <https://doi.org/10.1086/468061>
dc.relationGuala, Francesco. “The Methodology of Experimental Economics”. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. <https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511614651>
dc.relationHansson, Sven O. “Risk”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta, 2018. <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/risk/>
dc.relationHeimer, Carol A. “Solving the Problem of Trust”. Trust in Society. Ed. Karen S. Cook. Russell Sage Foundation, 2001. 40-88
dc.relationHeukelom, F. “How Validity Travelled to Economic Experimenting”. Journal of Economic Methodology 18.1 (2011): 13-28. <https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178x.2011.556435>
dc.relationHoffrage, Ulrich. “Overconfidence”. Cognitive Illusions: a Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Ed. Pohl, Rüdiger. Dove and New York: Psychology Press, 2004. 235-254.
dc.relationJacquemet, Nicholas. “Corruption as betrayal: Experimental Evidence on Corrup-tion Under Delegatio”. gate Groupe d’Analyse et de Théorie Économique (2012) <https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00180044>
dc.relationKahneman, Daniel., and Tversky, Amos. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk”. Econometrica 47.1 (1979): 263-291. <https://doi.org/10.21236/ada045771>
dc.relationKlitgaard, Robert E. Controlling Corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
dc.relationLambsdorff, J. G. and Teksoz, S. U. “Corrupt relational contracting”. The New In-stitutional Economics of Corruption. Eds. Johann Graf Lambsdorff, Markus Taube, Matthias Schramm. London: Routledge, 2004. 138-151. <https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511492617.010>
dc.relationLambsdorff, Johann G. and Frank, Björn. “Bribing versus Gift-Giving: An Exper-iment”. Journal of Economic Psychology 31.3 (2010): 347–357. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.01.004>
dc.relationMcAdams, Richard H. “The Expressive Powers of Law: Theories and Limits”. Bos-ton, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.
dc.relationManski, Charles. “Identification of Decision Rules in Experiments on Simple Games of Proposal and Response”. European Economic Review 46.1 (2002): 880-891.
dc.relationMessick, Samuel. “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning”. New Jersey: Educational Testing ServicePrinceton, Research Report Series 1994. i-28. <https://Doi.org/10.1002/j.23338504.1994.tb01618.x>
dc.relationNickel, Philip J. “Trust, Staking, and Expectations”. Journal for the Theo-ry of Social Behaviour 39.2 (2009): 345-362. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00407.x>
dc.relationNickel, Philip J. and Vaesen, Krist. “Trust and Risk”. Handbook of Risk Theo-ry: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics and Social Implications of Risk. Eds.Roeser, Sabine., Hillerbrand, Rafaela., Sandin, Per. and Peterson, Martín. Berlin: Springer, 2012. 857-876. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_34>
dc.relationNye, J. S. “Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis”. The American Political Science Review 61.2 (1967): 417-27. <https://doi.org/10.2307/1953254>
dc.relationPinker, Steven., Nowak, Martín A., and Lee, James. “The Logic of Indirect Speech”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105.3 (2008): 833-838. <https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707192105>
dc.relationPrentice, R. A. “Moral Norms, Behavioral Ethics and Bribery Activity”. Thinking about Bribery: Neuroscience, Moral Cognition and the Psychology of Bribery. Eds. Nichols, Philip., and Diana, Robertson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. <https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316450765>
dc.relationReiss, J. “Against External Validity”. Synthese 196.8 (2019): 3103-3121. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1796-6>
dc.relationRothstein, Bo., and Uslaner, Eric. “All for All. Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust”. World Politics 58.1 (2005): 41-72. <https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2006.0022>
dc.relationSchulze, Günther G., and Frank, Björn. “Deterrence versus Intrinsic Motivation: Experimental evidence on the Determinants of Corruptibility”. Econ Gov 4.1 (2003): 143–160. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s101010200059>
dc.relationSenci, Carlos Maximiliano; Hasrun, Hipolito Manuel; Moro, Rodrigo; Freidin, Es-teban. “The Influence of Prescriptive Norms and Negative Externalities on Bribery Decisions in the Lab”. Rationality and Society 31.3 (2019): 287-312. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463119853893>
dc.relationShadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook., and Donald T., Campbell. “Experimental and Quasi experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference”. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
dc.relationSmith, Vernon. “Papers in Experimental Economics”. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1991. <https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511528354>
dc.relationSjöberg, Lennart. “The Methodology of Risk Perception Research”. Quality & Quantity 34 (2000): 407-418. <https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004838806793>
dc.relationSuppe, Frederick. “The Search for Philosophic Understanding of Scientific Theo-ries”. The Structure of Scientific Theories. Ed. Frederick Suppe. Urbana: Uni-versity of Illinois Press, 1974. 1-241.
dc.relationThaler, Richard H. “Mental Accounting Matters”. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12.3 (1999): 183-206.
dc.relationUslaner, Eric M. “Trust and Corruption”. Corruption and the New Institutional Eco-nomics. Eds. J. G. Lambsdorf, M. Taube, and M. Schramm. London: Rout-ledge, 2004. 76-92. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413920>
dc.relationXiao, Erte. “Punishment, Social Norms and Cooperation”. Research Handbook on Behavioral Law and Economics. Eds. Joshua C. Teitelbaum and Kathryn Zeiler. Elgar Publishing, 2018. <https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805681.00014>
dc.relationWarren, M. “Political Corruption as Duplicitous Exclusion”. Political Science & Pol-itics 39.4 (2006): 803-807. <https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096506060975>
dc.relationWilliamson, Oliver E. “Calculativeness, Trust, and Economic Organization”. The Journal of Law & Economics 36.1 (1993): 453-486. <https://doi.org/10.1086/467284>
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.rightsAcceso abierto
dc.rightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional
dc.subjectSoborno
dc.subjectValidez de constructo
dc.subjectExperimentos de laboratorio
dc.subjectConfianza
dc.subjectNormas
dc.titleDesafiando la validez de constructo de soborno en la economía experimental


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución