Alternative Systems: The Interplay Between Criminal Groups' Influence and Political Trust on Civic Honesty in the Global Context

Individuals' endorsement of standards of civic honesty is necessary for democracies to flourish. A critical driver of civic honesty is the relationship of trust between individuals and institutions. Research has yet to systematically assess the contextual factors that may moderate this relationship. In this study, we examined the societal influence of organized criminal groups. Criminal groups operate as alternative systems of authority that erode the reliability of institutions' moral standards. We employed a new indicator that quantifies their societal influence to test the hypothesis that the association between individuals' political trust and civic honesty would weaken in countries more strongly affected by criminal groups. Multilevel evidence across 83 representative national samples (N = 128,839) supported this hypothesis. Moreover, the association between political trust and civic honesty was negative in contexts where criminal groups' influence was more extreme. We discuss the implications of the findings and future research directions.

Unraveling controversies over civic honesty measurement: An extended field replication in China

Cohn et al. (2019) conducted a wallet drop experiment in 40 countries to measure "civic honesty around the globe," which has received worldwide attention but also sparked controversies over using the email response rate as the sole metric of civic honesty. Relying on the lone measurement may overlook cultural differences in behaviors that demonstrate civic honesty. To investigate this issue, we conducted an extended replication study in China, utilizing email response and wallet recovery to assess civic honesty. We found a significantly higher level of civic honesty in China, as measured by the wallet recovery rate, than reported in the original study, while email response rates remained similar. To resolve the divergent results, we introduce a cultural dimension, individualism versus collectivism, to study civic honesty across diverse cultures. We hypothesize that cultural differences in individualism and collectivism could influence how individuals prioritize actions when handling a lost wallet, such as contacting the wallet owner or safeguarding the wallet. In reanalyzing Cohn et al.'s data, we found that email response rates were inversely related to collectivism indices at the country level. However, our replication study in China demonstrated that the likelihood of wallet recovery was positively correlated with collectivism indicators at the provincial level. Consequently, relying solely on email response rates to gauge civic honesty in cross-country comparisons may neglect the vital individualism versus collectivism dimension. Our study not only helps reconcile the controversy surrounding Cohn et al.'s influential field experiment but also furnishes a fresh cultural perspective to evaluate civic honesty.