Vote-selling as unethical behavior: Effects of voter’s inhibitory self-control, decision toward vote-buying money, and candidate’s quality in Indonesia election
Rizka Halida, Harry Susianto, Saiful Mujani, Annas J. Pratama
{"title":"Vote-selling as unethical behavior: Effects of voter’s inhibitory self-control, decision toward vote-buying money, and candidate’s quality in Indonesia election","authors":"Rizka Halida, Harry Susianto, Saiful Mujani, Annas J. Pratama","doi":"10.5964/jspp.5643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines two stages of vote-selling among voters: to accept or refuse money, and then to vote for the vote-buyer or competitor. Using unethical behavior and money-as-temptation as a framework, we predict that the amount of the money will influence the decision to accept, but that the effect will be lower among voters with higher inhibitory self-control (ISC). We also predict that accepting money will influence the vote choice, but that the influence will be lower when the competitor has higher levels of integrity and leadership. Overall, the voters decision on money offered will moderate the relations between amount of money and vote choice. A population-based survey experiment with 1,220 participants of Indonesian voters was conducted to test these predictions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of 12 groups using a 4 (money offered: IDR50,000 vs. 100,000 vs. 150,000 vs. none) × 3 (candidate's personal quality: high leadership competitor vs. high integrity competitor vs. equal) between-group design. They made two hypothetical decisions: to accept or refuse the money, and to vote for the vote buyer or the competitor. The results showed that participants were signicantly tempted by larger amount of money, but the effect was moderated by ISC. However, there were no significant interaction between decision on money offered and candidates’ quality in influencing vote choice. Results from mediation analysis showed that accepting money was significantly mediate the influence of money on vote choice. Theoretical implications for understanding the practice of vote-buying and vote-selling are discussed.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.5643","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
This study examines two stages of vote-selling among voters: to accept or refuse money, and then to vote for the vote-buyer or competitor. Using unethical behavior and money-as-temptation as a framework, we predict that the amount of the money will influence the decision to accept, but that the effect will be lower among voters with higher inhibitory self-control (ISC). We also predict that accepting money will influence the vote choice, but that the influence will be lower when the competitor has higher levels of integrity and leadership. Overall, the voters decision on money offered will moderate the relations between amount of money and vote choice. A population-based survey experiment with 1,220 participants of Indonesian voters was conducted to test these predictions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of 12 groups using a 4 (money offered: IDR50,000 vs. 100,000 vs. 150,000 vs. none) × 3 (candidate's personal quality: high leadership competitor vs. high integrity competitor vs. equal) between-group design. They made two hypothetical decisions: to accept or refuse the money, and to vote for the vote buyer or the competitor. The results showed that participants were signicantly tempted by larger amount of money, but the effect was moderated by ISC. However, there were no significant interaction between decision on money offered and candidates’ quality in influencing vote choice. Results from mediation analysis showed that accepting money was significantly mediate the influence of money on vote choice. Theoretical implications for understanding the practice of vote-buying and vote-selling are discussed.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Social and Political Psychology (JSPP) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal (without author fees), published online. It publishes articles at the intersection of social and political psychology that substantially advance the understanding of social problems, their reduction, and the promotion of social justice. It also welcomes work that focuses on socio-political issues from related fields of psychology (e.g., peace psychology, community psychology, cultural psychology, environmental psychology, media psychology, economic psychology) and encourages submissions with interdisciplinary perspectives. JSPP is comprehensive and integrative in its approach. It publishes high-quality work from different epistemological, methodological, theoretical, and cultural perspectives and from different regions across the globe. It provides a forum for innovation, questioning of assumptions, and controversy and debate. JSPP aims to give creative impetuses for academic scholarship and for applications in education, policymaking, professional practice, and advocacy and social action. It intends to transcend the methodological and meta-theoretical divisions and paradigm clashes that characterize the field of social and political psychology, and to counterbalance the current overreliance on the hypothetico-deductive model of science, quantitative methodology, and individualistic explanations by also publishing work following alternative traditions (e.g., qualitative and mixed-methods research, participatory action research, critical psychology, social representations, narrative, and discursive approaches). Because it is published online, JSPP can avoid a bias against research that requires more space to be presented adequately.