Not engaging or actively fighting? What characteristics do voters associate with being able to fight corruption?

While women are consistently associated with engaging less in corruption in both experimental and observational studies, in this paper, we argue that not engaging in corruption is fundamentally different from fighting corruption. While not engaging in corruption is a passive form of reducing corruption, fighting corruption requires active engagement, a distinction that is rarely addressed in previous research. In this project, we argue that while the stereotypical trademarks that voters associate with women not engaging in corruption – risk-aversion, pro-social behavior, outsider status – might not only not be perceived as not helpful in fighting corruption but actually be perceived as a hinder. Instead, we argue that voters believe that to fight corruption traits such as being agentic and dominant, typically associated with men, are preferred over the risk-aversion and empathy associated with women. Furthermore, while women’s lack of networks might result in them engaging less in corruption, to actively fight corruption, we argue, voters believe that individuals need networks to have an impact on changes in legislation and implementation of anti-corruption measures. We plan to test the above-outlined arguments leveraging two conjoint experiments implemented in Mexico, where corruption is frequent, salient, and voters are likely to have encountered corruption before. By comparing whether the same attributes are important to not engaging in corruption as for fighting corruption, we make important contributions not only to research on corruption, and particularly, gender and corruption, but also to societal efforts to reduce corruption. Particularly, our study can inform future studies and policy decisions on who voters believe to be best suited to engage in the fight against corruption.