Is This Not Corruption? How Negation Erases the Boundaries of Prohibition

Abstract

Anti-corruption campaigns often emphasize the harms of corruption or the benefits of integrity; however, their behavioral impact appears limited. One overlooked reason is that citizens do not share a clear and defined definition of what is considered corruption. We examined whether a simple linguistic choice —inviting people to think about "what is not corruption" rather than "what is"— modifies that definition and whether such a shift translates into subsequent judgments. Across four studies (total N > 1,400) with Ecuadorian and international samples, participants evaluated short vignettes describing prototypical and ambiguous transgressions. Across all studies, negation reliably expanded the boundary of corruption. For ambiguous acts, the likelihood of being judged as "corrupt" was approximately two to four times higher under a negated framing, whereas clear prototypes remained at the boundary limit. In Study 4, the same manipulation produced, at most, modest and specification-sensitive reductions in generosity and recommended sanctions, with no detectable effects on personal perception or beliefs about corruption norms. Findings suggest that a single linguistic operator can systematically expand the borderline behaviors that people deem corrupt. This boundary-expansion effect adds a psychological layer to the definitional challenge in anti-corruption initiatives and highlights that seemingly minor wording choices in public communication could sharpen or blur the targets of messaging on corruption.