Cited by 331Corruption and Economic DevelopmentElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Theory and Democracy

Turning a Blind Eye: Experimental Evidence of Partisan Bias in Attitudes Toward Corruption

Open access
Anduiza, Eva, Gallego, Aina, Muñoz, Jordi·2013·Comparative Political Studies

Abstract

This article considers how partisanship conditions attitudes toward corruption. Stirred by the puzzle of why corruption does not seem to have the electoral consequences we would expect, it explores whether party supporters are more tolerant toward corruption cases when they affect their own party. The partisan-bias hypothesis is confirmed by a survey experiment carried out in Spain, a country where a number of corruption scandals have been recently visible. The results show that the same offense is judged differently depending on whether the responsible politician is a member of the respondent’s party, of unknown partisan affiliation, or of a rival party. Furthermore, the degree of partisan bias depends on political sophistication. This suggests that although partisanship may induce tolerance to same-party corruption practices, the partisan bias disappears when political awareness is high.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0010414013489081

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Citizens evaluate corrupt actions differently depending on the partisan affiliation of the involved politician: they tend to be more forgiving with co-partisan politicians and more condemning towards members of other parties.

    “Citizens evaluate corrupt actions differently depending on the partisan affiliation of the involved politician: they tend to be more forgiving with copartisan politicians and more condemning towards members of other parties (Anduiza et al., 2013;Cornejo, 2023).”

    From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as Anduiza et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anduiza, E., Gallego, A., & Muñoz, J.
Affiliations
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
Venue
Comparative Political Studies
Published
2013-05-30
Volume
46
Issue
12
Pages
1664-1692
ISSN
  • 0010-4140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3829
OpenAlex
W2112053984
Cited by
331
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
58.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Comparative Political Studies (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Corruption and Economic Development
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
corruption tolerance, partisanship, partisan bias, political sophistication, party identification, corruption scandals, political attitudes, Spain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review