{PSOCIAL}

Levels of perceived corruption in a society are apparently related to the levels and ways in which individuals valuate corruption itself and other types of normative transgressions (Beramendi et al., 2020; Janos et al., 2018; Beramendi & Zubieta, 2013; Fernández-Dols & Oceja, 1994). Specifically, Shalvi (2016) and Gächter and Schulz (2016) empirically find that the constant perception of transgression or rule violation ends up damaging the intrinsic honesty of people within a society. This is related to a progressive conviction of assigning greater value to dishonesty (Marin, 1999). In this regard, it becomes relevant that individual dishonesty is not only influenced by the cost-benefit analysis of committing a transgressive act, but also by social norms and exposure to unethical behaviors, as models of socialization, in different settings of interaction among citizens. (Alva et al., 2021; Wenzel et al., 2017; Gino et al., 2009).

In the same vein, when the prevalence of dishonest behaviors, such as cheating, are widespread, tolerated, and often go unpunished in society, individuals will underestimate the consequences of being caught performing a transgressive act, questioning, in turn, their own beliefs about what dishonesty means (Nordin et al., 2013). As a consequence, people may see dishonesty and transgression in certain everyday matters as justifiable, without damaging their self-image as honest. (De Klerk, 2017; Shalvi, 2016; Gächter & Schulz, 2016; Shalvi et al., 2011; Anand et al., 2004).

Justifications lead to the performance of new dishonest acts with more frequency, without producing guilt or discomfort due to the moral costs of such behaviors, as long as individuals evaluate that the gains from their transgressive behaviors are greater than their moral costs. (Wenzel et al., 2017). To avoid moral cost of transgressions, individuals tend to attribute their own transgressive behaviors to necessity or contextual conditions that force them breaking the rules (see Delgado, 2013). Additionally, Gächter and Schulz (2016) mention that to justify their dishonesty people socially compare themselves with the degree of dishonesty they perceive in their social environments.

Likewise, people use moral disengagement as a cognitive mechanism to allow themselves to commit immoral acts (Zhao et al., 2019a; Zhao et al., 2019b; Barsky, 2011). According to Bandura (1999), moral disengagement disables the internalized moral standards that regulate individuals’ behavior, allowing them to restructure or reframe their unethical or deviant behaviors so that they appear less harmful or socially acceptable. The elements previously listed and discussed lead to the process of normalizing corruption, which is internalized in the culture and even shapes some personal and social expressions of identity. (Cabezas & Paredes, 2020; Roth & Acosta, 2018; Sautu, 2014; Nordin et al., 2013; Portocarrero, 2005; Fernández-Dols & Oceja, 1994).

According to Arellano Gault (2017) and Ashforth and Anand (2003), the process that reinforces the normalization of corruption comprises three steps: (1) institutionalization of corruption, where an initial corrupt act becomes embedded in structures and processes until it becomes routine; (2) rationalization of corruption, where representational frameworks are developed to justify and even positively value corruption; and (3) socialization of corruption, where individuals are induced to see corruption as something permissible, and even desirable (see also Quiroz, 2013).

For Hadiprajitno and Amal (2019), favorable attitudes toward corrupt actions will encourage people to attempt to perform corrupt acts. As a result, the more widespread the corrupt behavior is in the society, the greater the likelihood of emitting such behavior again (Tavits, 2010). For some social groups in Peru, tolerant attitudes towards transgressive behaviors are historically rooted, becoming internalized in the culture and identity as the viveza criolla or criollada (Quiroz, 2013; Portocarrero, 2005). Thus, criollada would be constituted as a cultural transgressive model of disrespect and disregard for the law (De Aliaga, 2012).

Based on the above, this qualitative research seeks to answer the following questions: how do a group of students and university graduates in the cities of Lima and Callao understand corruption, and what are their attitudes and behavioral intentions towards corruption? To this end, the following research objectives are proposed (1) to explore the concept of corruption in young university students and graduates; (2) to investigate the characteristics that young university students and graduates attribute to corruption; and (3) to identify the reasons why young university students and graduates would engage in acts of corruption

To collect the sociodemographic information of the participants, a general data sheet was prepared in which data related to age, sex, district of residence, career, type of higher education institution and self-perceived socioeconomic level were inquired.

In order to gather the information corresponding to the research objectives, individual in-depth interviews were conducted on the basis of a semi-structured interview guide, which was elaborated with reference to the literature reviewed and previous qualitative studies on the subject (Alva et. al, 2021; Genemo, 2019; López-López et al., 2016; Cuéllar, 2016). The questions that compose the interview guide and its structure were validated by three expert researchers on the subject of corruption (a social psychologist, an economist and a lawyer), who corrected aspects of phrasing (style) and content (relevance and coherence) in order to appropriately address the research objectives. Once the interview guide was validated by the experts, two pilot interviews were conducted to make adjustments to ensure the quality, comprehensibility, appropriate length and sequence of the questions.

Finally, the interview guide was divided into two sections: (1) beliefs regarding corruption: conceptions and characteristics; (2) reasons and intention to become involved in acts of corruption. Table 2 shows the structure of the interview guide in relation to the objectives of this research.

The snowball technique was applied for the selection of participants in the study, and they were intentionally selected, considering their accessibility and availability. During the recruitment process, participants were informed about the general purpose of the research. Those who agreed to be interviewed were provided with the terms of informed consent, where they were notified of the conditions of free and voluntary participation, since they had the option of leaving the interview at any time they wished without any type of prejudice. The procedure to be followed during the interview was also explained. In addition, authorization was requested for the interviews to be recorded in audio and video, and it was remarked that the information obtained during the interview would be confidential and would only be used for strictly academic purposes.

All interviews were conducted between September 25 and October 24, 2020, via a video-calling platform due to the pandemic context of COVID-19. The interviews were conducted individually and lasted approximately 35 to 60 minutes. Subsequently, the recordings were transcribed, and an identification code was assigned to each participant. For the interpretation of the qualitative data, a deductive-inductive thematic analysis was applied as a methodological design that allows for a deeper understanding of the meanings and experience of the participants of the study with respect to the phenomenon addressed (Creswell, 2014).

For the systematization of the qualitative data, we used the methodology proposed by Nowell et al, (2017) for a reliable and rigorous thematic analysis, and which consisted of the following four steps: (1) transcription of the interviews, reading and re-reading, for familiarization with the content and annotation of general ideas; (2) identification of units of analysis, through quotations from the testimonies, to categorize and code them, in a process of searching for structures and meanings; (3) identification of relationships between categories to form conceptual networks and argumentative constellations; and (4) generation, review and naming of emerging themes. After two consecutive coding processes, the final result was 2 main themes and 12 categories that integrated common semantic patterns. Regarding the abovementioned, the ethical and rigorous criteria of qualitative research such as the veracity, authenticity and credibility of the information collected were validated (Creswell, 2014)

The first theme refers to (1) the conception of corruption and (2) the characteristics that the participants attribute to this phenomenon. Consequently, 6 categories describe these topics, which have made it possible to address the first two objectives of the study.

The first objective corresponds to the examination of the concept of corruption. In relation to this, 3 categories are identified in the participants' narratives that coincide with the three-dimensional approach to corruption proposed by Cabezas and Paredes (2020).

The first category Corruption as a structural phenomenon refers to corruption as the "institutional subjugation to private interests and corrupt behaviors" (Cabezas & Paredes, 2020, p.45). From this conception, norms and institutions would be aligned to make corrupt acts less punishable, so that power is used for private benefit while the illegal is legitimized. Two subcategories emerge from the view of corruption as a structural phenomenon. The first refers to corruption as (1) an institutionalized act and the second refers to corruption as (2) an abuse of power from authority and institutions

“For me, corruption is a systemic phenomenon to the extent that, for example, at the level of regional, local and central governments, it is widespread. […] corruption is also a structure since it can be present in any institution […]”. (Student 5, Male, 18 years old).

Both students and graduates agreed on the idea that corruption is rooted in the institutions that govern Peru. The generalization of corrupt acts in both the public and private spheres contributes to the perception of the 'institutionalization' of corruption in the participants. Precisely, Arellano Gault (2017) and Ashforth and Anand (2003) specify that, through institutionalization, a corrupt act penetrates processes and structures until it becomes a habitual, frequent, or common behavior. Additionally, interviewees agree in associating 'abuse of power' with corruption. According to Rabl and Kühlmann (2008, 2009), Rabl (2011) and Zhao et al. (2016, 2019a), corruption is manifested in the abuse of the public power for the achievement of particular benefits. This idea is one of the most consensual in the reviewed literature so it was expected that it would not be absent from the participants' expressions.

The second category Corruption as a cultural phenomenon refers to the fact that corruption presents a highly complex cultural dimension, given that this phenomenon manages to integrate itself into daily life, regulate the codes of social interaction and even leads to corrupt behaviors being accepted by society (Cabezas & Paredes, 2020; Beramendi & Zubieta, 2013). In this regard, Julian and Bonavia (2017) point out that, if corrupt behaviors are perceived as normal in the group, there would be an intragroup reinforcement in which the corrupt behavior would not transgress the norms of the group itself and, therefore, would lead to the implicit acceptance of these behaviors. For the present study, 4 subcategories emerge referring to corruption as a cultural phenomenon: (1) corruption as a transgressive act, (2) corruption as an anti-value, (3) corruption as a viveza or criollada, and (4) corruption as a normalized act.

“Trying to break the law or the rules in a State institution [...] in order to obtain a personal objective, which could have a negative impact on society or any institution”. (Student 6, Male, 19 years old).

Both groups of participants (students and graduates) conceive corruption as an act in which norms are transgressed or laws are broken or normative loopholes are exploited for particular ends, which in turn harms those who do not participate in the act. Beramendi and Zubieta (2013) point out that the lack of control and sanctions, the distrust in the regulatory system, the existence of incoherent rules, corrupt practices, and the infringement of laws by the authorities, contribute to a generalized transgression of the rules. This would cause transgressive mechanisms are established in daily life and become the most important tools of interaction among people. Then, the frequent proximity to situations of transgression would be a risk factor that would lead to committing new acts of corruption in the future (Rottenbacher & Schmitz, 2012). Additionally, Mejía Navarrete (2018) states that transgression of norms serves to obtain personal benefits in a sort of egocentric individualism. This means that the transgressive individuals believe they deserve everything they find in their ways, with no limits at all

"He prioritizes his own interests [...] over the welfare of others [...] and is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve his own goal [...] he does not care if this affects even his own family or [...] people who are innocent of any wrongdoing”. (Graduate 5, Female, 25 years old)

The participants understand corruption as a constraint to moral or ethical behavior, made up of ‘anti-values’ such as dishonesty, disloyalty, and selfishness. Based on this idea, corruption would be harmful to people's moral integrity. Regarding this point, Blasi (2005) and Bock and Samuelson (2014) agree that moral principles and convictions regulate the behaviors of individuals in any situation, but phenomena such as corruption undermine self-regulation and moral identity built around people's ethical sense. Then, things do not work under what they should be but through unmoral ways that force people to tolerate or adapt to a socially corrupt functioning (Beramendi & Zubieta, 2013; Quiroz, 2013)

“[...] it is an act supported by the law of the most devious, where [one] wants to take advantage at any cost, either to benefit a close friend [...] or yourself [...] it is the criollada that we live almost daily, the lack of respect [...] for others... those foundations of conduct are the ones that make corruption [...]. It is so much so that it has become part of Peruvian customs. [...] there is always going to be a tendency to look out for one's own interests before those of others because it is part of our culture”. (Graduate 2, Male, 31 years old)

From the narrative of the participants, particularly the graduates, corruption is part of Peruvian history and society. Corruption would be acknowledged with resignation when recalling passages of colonial history, highlighting the viveza criolla or criollada as a characteristic feature of being Peruvian (Ubilluz, 2010; Portocarrero, 2005). Despite being a problematic phenomenon, viveza criolla has gained acceptance and is represented with some positive characteristics in Peruvian society. On this point, it could be added that if the viveza criolla is positively valued as a mean of survival or adaptation in a society where transgressions of the norms are exalted, it could lead to adherence to corrupt behaviors (Quiroz, 2013; Aliaga, 2012; Portocarrero, 2005). Corruption is rationalized by justifying it (Arellano Gault, 2017; Ashforth & Anand, 2003), to such an extent that if it is not penalized, it could be internalized in the social identity (Cabezas & Paredes, 2020; Espinosa, 2003)

“[...] in Peru I have sometimes felt that repudiable acts have been normalized [...] people do not understand the consequences of what they do and they normalize it... in Peru it is normalized to bribe a policeman... I feel that this is changing a little, but not enough. [...]”. (Graduate 1, Male, 28 years old)

Previous descriptions show that corruption would be part of the culture and everyday life in Peru. Sihombing (2018) notes that, for young people, corruption is perceived as an everyday problem that occurs in themselves and their environment, and is not necessarily a specific problem of the public sector. The historical image of corruption in Peru would have validated the normalization of corrupt behaviors in society over time (Quiroz, 2013). It is worth mentioning that the normalization of corruption would be triggered, among other conditions, by the perception of a corrupt environment (Alva et al., 2021; Janos et al., 2018), the justification of transgressive acts (Wenzel et al., 2017; Gächter & Schulz, 2016) and moral disengagement (Zhao et al., 2019a; Zhao et al., 2019b; Bandura, 1999).

The third category Straight corruption is defined as an outcome of the corrupt structure and corrupt culture. According to Cabezas and Paredes (2020, p. 45), "any visible or perceptible manifestation of corrupt acts typified by positive legislation" is straight corruption. This dimension incorporates offenses such as bribery, fraud, misappropriation of funds, trafficking of influence, among others, which are applied in both the public and private sectors and provide benefits to those who carry them out, even when they have negative effects on society. Consistently, the results show that straight corruption is represented as a criminal act.

"[...] corruption is a crime that includes different areas, whether it is collusion... misappropriation of funds... influence trafficking and so many crimes that occur not only at a private level but also that predominate, and we perceive it, in the public aspect, in our institutions... and they end up affecting us [...]" (Student 4, Female, 19 years old)

This would be linked to the idea of corruption as an action in which the actors involved collaborate with each other and execute a criminal act for a common purpose. Corrupt practices are therefore associated not only with reprehensible moral acts but also with the activities of criminal organizations (Poeschl & Ribeiro, 2010). The dimensions of corruption become interconnected when corrupt structures are institutionalized and internalized in the culture to produce recurring corruption offenses such as bribery (Cabezas & Paredes, 2020).

In sum, it can be inferred from the participants' responses that, in Peru, corruption has a historical legacy of normalized and institutionalized transgressions, which finds its maximum expression in a criminal act, which includes the abuse of power and ‘anti-values’ serving private, individual, and collective, ends, with negative social consequences for society. This conceptualization coincides with the conceptual elements taken from the literature, but also incorporates cultural components of the participants' own context.

The second objective of the study seeks to investigate the characteristics attributed to corruption. In this sense, 3 categories are identified from the participants' responses: (1) beliefs about what motivates people to engage in acts of corruption, (2) personality types and the characterization of the actors involved in acts of corruption, and (3) the consequences attributed to this phenomenon.

The first category Corruption motives starts from the idea that the motivation to perform an action is key in understanding why there is a willingness to behave immorally or perform illegal behaviors (Chugh, 2012). The literature related to Self-Determination Theory refers those individuals can have intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Ryan & Deci, 2000), being extrinsic motivations those enhancing tendencies towards corrupt behaviors (Agbo & Iwundu, 2016). For this study, participants emphasized that extrinsic and external regulation motives such as customs and child-rearing styles, and extrinsic and identified regulation motives such as ambition for power, money, or social status were conditions conducive to corruption. Additionally, they pointed to the absence of control and necessity as motives for individuals to engage in corruption

"I think they are already used to do it, it may be the power, it may be the quick profit they can get. [...] those who aspire to more and are not very clear about their values because they only want to survive, to improve their quality of life, will tend to be unethical [and] corrupt [...]". (Graduate 2, Male, 31 years old).

For the participants, individuals engage in corrupt acts motivated by certain child-rearing styles and customs that are learned through interaction with the environment and constitute a socialization process that influences behavior. Thus, individuals can learn since childhood that corruption is a common behavior and, even, authority figures and peers can validate these actions by approving them, so that corruption becomes something habitual in the society (Dong et al., 2012).

Ambition for power, money and improved social status are extrinsic motivators that stand out in the participants' narratives. Ambition that involves unrealistic achievement goals and distorted values based on wealth and social status is a pathology that leads to antisocial emotions and behaviors (Casallas, 2020). Moreover, although power and money act as external incentives that motivate participation in corruption, experiences of having observed a successful corrupt act are what make individuals anticipate a successful outcome as well (Chugh, 2012)

"[...] at some point they committed that and there were people who saw it and did not say anything, so if they do it again, nobody will say anything [...] they know they will not be punished". (Graduate 5, Female, 25 years old).

The lack of control is added as an opportunity that individuals find leading them more easily to acts of corruption. While perceived impunity allows individuals to underestimate the consequences of being caught by a transgressive act (Nordin et al., 2013).

"[...] I think people do it because it is extremely necessary, even though they may have moral dilemmas, many times the decision to perform a corrupt action is linked to the survival of one's own family or that the next day one can eat, continue working in a company, continue studying [...]" (Student 7, Male, 18 years old).

Finally, participants identify that necessity leads to corruption. In developing countries, there is a reduced capacity of States to fulfill basic needs (Núñez & Flanagan, 2015), which motivates, for example, the payment of bribes to be able to access to basic public services, therefore, individuals would have the incentives to engage in corruption in order to protect themselves from situations of deprivation (Dimant & Tosato, 2018, Justesen & Bjørnskov, 2014). On the other hand, environmental pressure and the need for acceptance in society can lead to engaging in dishonest acts. In this regard, Goldschmidt and Anonymous (2008) find that officers in a police department in Chicago engage in dishonest acts due to peer pressure, the need to be productive and to represent an identity of effective officers.

The second category refers to the Personality of the corrupt. According to Ajzen (1991), personality traits influence behavior through cognitive mechanisms related to behavioral, normative and control beliefs. There are, then, certain personality traits that are associated with participation in dishonest, transgressive, and corrupt acts. For the present study, 6 subcategories emerge referring to the personality traits of the actors involved in corruption. The interviewees mainly characterize the personality of the corrupt subject with dark traits and only made a brief mention of the weakness of the corruptible subject and the lack of interest of the subject affected by corruption.

"Envy, greed, non-humility, constant competition [...] they are immediatists". (Graduate 8, Male, 33 years old).

Psychopathy and Machiavellianism are traits of dark personalities that manifest themselves in selfishness, low self-control, and other antisocial personality traits, which are linked to accelerated lifestyles and tend to immediacy (Jonason et al., 2010); an issue that could be aligned with the outcomes offered by acts of corruption. Likewise, this inclination towards immediate results would be linked to an unstable environment of uncertainty, in which there would be less adherence to norms (Brumbach et al. 2009), as occurs in developing countries, given the dissatisfaction of basic needs and the search for survival that affects their citizens.

"[...] I describe them as cynical [...] hypocritical in a general way... and ambitious." (Graduate 12, Female, 28 years old).

In sum, participants characterize the corruptor as unscrupulous, unethical, with a distorted view of what is morally right and wrong, someone who likes to stand out, selfish, self-centered, hypocritical, dishonest, cynical, disloyal, a liar, eloquent, manipulative, and ambitious. Such characteristics are consistent with the personality traits of the dark triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Jonason et al., 2010).

The third category named Corruption consequences reflects from the perspective of the participants a consensus regarding the long-term negative impact of corruption in economic growth, equality of opportunities, effectiveness of public institutions and quality of governance (Transparencia Internacional, 2014). The effects of corruption, however, are not only on a large scale (Myint, 2000) but also in a diversity of sectors and spheres of civil and political society (Miranzo, 2018). In this sense, 2 subcategories were identified that concentrate (1) the macro-social consequences and (2) the individual consequences that the interviewees pointed out with respect to corruption. In relation to the consequences of corruption, 5 additional subcategories emerge and their impacts are associated with the loss of social welfare, loss of prestige, normative distortion, lack of opportunities and distrust among citizens

"[...] every act of corruption diminishes growth, the economic development of the country, affects the provision of public services that are very important, health, education, justice [...]" (Graduate 6, Female, 29 years old).

In terms of macro-social consequences, the participants mainly pointed out the damage that corruption generates in the society's prosperity. At the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the study was conducted, the deficiencies of the institutions and the ethical shortcomings of the people who make up these institutions were revealed. On the one hand, public institutions related to public health were the reflection of years of accumulated deficiencies resulting from the corrupt practices of different governments, with the poorest citizens being the most affected during the health crisis. On the other hand, citizens themselves, who lived with corruption before the pandemic, showed transgressive behavior and resistance to regulatory measures aimed to control the health crisis.

"Corruption generates a feeling that things can work without the need to pay attention to the law... it is not surprising that most people do not know what the law says or know it to the extent that they can get some benefit from it [...]" (Student 7, Male, 18 years old).

Thus, during the first and second year of the pandemic, both citizens and authorities transgressed norms and committed acts of corruption, with their own individual interests or needs prevailing over collective interests or the rights of others. Cepeda (2021) notes that the COVID-19 crisis has allowed corrupt actors to benefit through mismanagement of funds, overpricing of medicines, political corruption and extortion to families seeking access to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds. In this regard, Dezecache et al. (2020) point out that, in the face of a situation that threatens integrity, people become rivals by nature and brutality and misery emerge

"[...] reduction of opportunities, because there is influence trafficking in which many people who are capable of holding public positions do not obtain them because priority is given to those who have influence at the political level". (Student 4, Female, 19 years old).

Regarding individual consequences, participants point to the lack of opportunities caused by corruption. In certain ways, they are aware of the different cases of traffic of influence shown by the media and, particularly, the graduates highlight having experienced situations in which the positions were named and their abilities had no value when applying for positions in both the public and private sectors. As Almagro (2020) points out, the permanent corruption in politics means that public positions are not occupied by people with a service vocation and, rather, discourages the adhesion of people with a true vocation. Thus, the new generations could be more sensitive to developing a generalized distrust in the political system, which translates into cynicism, given the wave of corruption scandals in Latin America that are also exposed in social networks. It is worth noting that the interviewees did not indicate positive consequences of corruption, but they did justify corrupt practices in certain circumstances. These aspects will be developed in the following section.