Curbing Bribe-Giving in Malaysia: The Role of Attitudes and Parents

Figures & data

Figure 1. The research model.

Table 1. Survey questions developed to measure all RAA variables.

RAA variable	Survey question	Meaning of higher score
Instrumental attitudes toward bribery (IA)	The person’s action is acceptable.	Positive instrumental attitudes toward bribery
Experiential attitudes toward bribery (EA)	If I am the person as described in the scenario, it is a pleasant experience to act in the same manner.	Positive experiential attitudes toward bribery
Close friends’ descriptive norms toward bribery (DNF)	If my close friend is the person as described in the scenario, s/he would act in the same manner.	Higher perception that close friends would offer bribe
Parent’s descriptive norms toward bribery (DNP	If my parents are the person as described in the scenario, they would act in the same manner.	Higher perception that parents would offer bribe
Close friend’s injunctive norms toward bribery (INF)	My close friends will agree with me if I act like the person in the scenario.	Higher perception that close friends would agree if bribe is offered
Parents’ injunctive norms toward bribery (INP)	My parents will agree with me if I act like the person in the scenario.	Higher perception that parents would agree if bribe is offered
Capacity	I am confident that I can act like the person in the scenario if I want to.	High capacity to bribe
Autonomy**	If I am the person as described in the scenario, I know that the action is beyond my control.	High autonomy to decide to offer bribe or not
Bribe giving intention	If I am the person as described in the scenario, I intend to do the same.	High in bribe giving intention

Note. **Reverse scoring. The measurements were adopted and modified based on Truex (2011).

Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.

Constructs	Items	Loadings^a	AVE construct^b	CR^c
Instrumental attitudes toward bribery (IA)	IA1	0.79	0.64	0.90
	IA2	0.84
	IA3	0.88
	IA4	0.73
	IA5	0.76
Experiential attitudes toward bribery (EA)	EA1	0.84	0.70	0.92
	EA2	0.89
	EA3	0.89
	EA4	0.78
	EA5	0.77
Close friends’ descriptive norms toward bribery (DNF)	DNF1	0.86	0.69	0.92
	DNF2	0.88
	DNF3	0.85
	DNF4	0.79
	DNF5	0.77
Parent’s descriptive norms toward bribery (DNP)	DNP1	0.87	0.70	0.92
	DNP2	0.89
	DNP3	0.85
	DNP4	0.80
	DNP5	0.78
Close friend’s injunctive norms toward bribery (INF)	INF1	0.88	0.70	0.92
	INF2	0.89
	INF3	0.86
	INF4	0.78
	INF5	0.77
Parents’ injunctive norms toward bribery (INP)	INP1	0.88	0.71	0.93
	INP2	0.90
	INP3	0.88
	INP4	0.76
	INP5	0.78
Capacity	CAP1	0.87	0.77	0.95
	CAP2	0.90
	CAP3	0.90
	CAP4	0.81
	CAP5	0.82
Autonomy	AUT1	0.88	0.74	0.93
	AUT2	0.91
	AUT3	0.93
	AUT4	0.87
	AUT5	0.80
Bribe giving intention	BRIBE1	0.84	0.66	0.91
	BRIBE2	0.91
	BRIBE3	0.87
	BRIBE4	0.72
	BRIBE5	0.72

^aAll item loadings >0.6 indicates indicator reliability (Chin et al., 1997).

^bAll average variance extracted (AVE) >0.5 indicates convergent reliability (Hair et al., 2010).

^cAll composite reliability (CR) >0.7 indicates internal consistency (Gefen et al., 2000).

Table 3. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT).

Latent variables	HTMT value
IA -> BRIBE	0.83
IA -> AUTONOMY	0.54
IA -> CAPACITY	0.57
IA -> DNF	0.76
IA -> DNP	0.73
IA -> EA	0.87
EA -> BRIBE	0.85
EA -> AUTONOMY	0.53
EA -> CAPACITY	0.62
EA -> DNF	0.78
EA -> DNP	0.73
DNF -> BRIBE	0.79
DNF -> AUTONOMY	0.53
DNF -> CAPACITY	0.71
DNP -> BRIBE	0.77
DNP -> AUTONOMY	0.49
DNP -> CAPACITY	0.63
DNP -> DNF	0.80
INF -> BRIBE	0.80
INF -> AUTONOMY	0.52
INF -> CAPACITY	0.73
INF -> DNF	0.94
INF -> DNP	0.78
INF -> EA	0.78
INF -> IA	0.79
INP -> BRIBE	0.76
INP -> AUTONOMY	0.45
INP -> CAPACITY	0.64
INP -> DNF	0.76
INP -> DNP	0.96
INP -> EA	0.73
INP -> IA	0.72
INP -> INF	0.78
CAPACITY -> BRIBE	0.71
CAPACITY -> AUTONOMY	0.40
AUTONOMY -> BRIBE	0.56

IA: instrumental attitudes toward bribery; EA: experiential attitudes toward bribery; DNF: close friends’ descriptive norms toward bribery; DNP: parents’ descriptive norms toward bribery; INF: close friends’ injunctive norms toward bribery; INP: parents’ injunctive norms toward bribery, CAPACITY: capacity; AUTONOMY: autonomy; BRIBE: bribe giving intention.

Table 4. Summary of significant result testing of the structural model path coefficient.

Hypothesis	The path for RAA variable and bribe giving intention	Path coefficient/Std β	Mean (M)	Standard deviation	t-Statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p-Values	BCI LL	BCI UL	Hypothesis supported
H1	IA -> BRIBE GIVING**	0.27	0.27	0.09	3.10	0.00	0.10	0.44	Yes
H2	EA -> BRIBE GIVING**	0.26	0.26	0.10	2.78	0.01	0.08	0.43	Yes
H3	DNF -> BRIBE GIVING	0.01	0.01	0.11	0.11	0.92	−0.21	0.21	No
H4	DNP -> BRIBE GIVING*	0.24	0.24	0.11	2.24	0.03	0.05	0.46	Yes
H5	INF -> BRIBE GIVING	0.07	0.07	0.12	0.64	0.55	−0.15	0.29	No
H6	INP -> BRIBE GIVING	−0.08	−0.08	0.10	0.74	0.45	−0.30	0.12	No
H7	CAPACITY -> BRIBE GIVING**	0.20	0.20	0.05	3.96	0.00	0.11	0.31	Yes
H8	AUTONOMY -> BRIBE GIVING	−0.07	−0.07	0.05	1.64	0.12	−0.17	0.00	No

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.

The path is significant if the critical value for t-statistics is larger than 1.96 and p-values is lower than .05.

R² value = 0.74.

Truex, R. (2011). Corruption, attitudes, and education: survey evidence from Nepal. World Development, 39(7), 1133–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.11.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chin, W. W., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W. D. (1997). Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8(4), 342–367. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.8.4.342

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson.

 Google Scholar

Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1–77. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407

 Google Scholar