Normally, policies to strengthen integrity are designed on the assumption that decision makers are motivated to act ethically. Indeed, the majority of people feel committed to integrity and think that they generally act accordingly. Yet, in reality, people are less consistent and less categorical in their ethical decisions than they admit to themselves. Sometimes a person is not even aware when their behaviour diverts from ethical standards. This is because justifications and biased judgment blur the perception of integrity breaches. Public policies can, therefore, affect individuals’ moral choices by emphasising or raising their moral reference points:
There is broad evidence that a small message, a “moral reminder”, can be sufficient to induce ethical reflection. Such moments of ethical reflection can be integrated in many policies.
Moreover, moral choices can be invoked be by creating commitments and by mentally preparing individuals for ethical temptations.
Finally, over-strict control can have adverse effects. Excessive monitoring of a trust-based rule might drive people to disregard the rule, and create an entry-point for severe misconduct
Ethical choices are not made in isolation, but as part of social interaction. What others think or do matters. Integrity policies can be improved by taking into account the social environment in which they are applied. Guilt is smaller when shared, which means that when several people jointly engage in misconduct, each of them feels less responsible. Spreading the burden of responsibility over too many people can create an integrity risk.
Furthermore, upholding the public interest can be understood as an act of indirect reciprocity, carried out in the trust that others will do the same and the belief that integrity benefits all. Integrity policies can reinforce such behaviour by creating an institutional setting in which the adherence to integrity is seen as the norm. Enforcing this norm, in turn, requires a balance between building trust and strictly investigating and sanctioning violations. Behavioural insights have shown that these two functions gain credibility when they are separated, e.g. executed by different institutions.
Finally, a group that has collectively de-stigmatized corrupt behaviours might find itself in a collective action trap. In this situation, an individual’s motivation to act with integrity is no longer sufficient to break the vicious cycle and moral appeals will fall on deaf ears. Such situations need to be identified and systematically addressed through interventions from outside the group and strict enforcement.
