See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342068495

Youth Attitudes Towards Intolerance to Corruption in Lithuania

Article · June 2020

DOI: 10.46585/sp28020109

CITATIONS READS

2 891

3 authors:

Rita Toleikienė Sigitas Balciunas

Vilnius University Šiauliai University
20 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vita Juknevičienė
Vilnius University
41 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

E-leadership in local self-government View project

Ethics management in local self-government View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vita Juknevičienė on 10 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

Scientific Papers of the University

of Pardubice, Series D: Faculty of
Youth Attitudes Towards Economics and Administration
2020, 28(2), 109.
Intolerance to Corruption ©The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.46585/sp28020109

in Lithuania editorial.upce.cz/SciPap

Rita Toleikienė
Šiauliai University, Institute of Regional Development, Lithuania
Sigitas Balčiūnas
Šiauliai University, Institute of Regional Development, Lithuania

Vita Juknevičienė
Šiauliai University, Institute of Regional Development, Lithuania

Abstract
Corruption as the challenge needs many efforts. The fight against corruption is uniting organizations at international,
national and local levels. This fight requires not only changes in legal basis or institutional procedures, but rather the
change of society mindset turning it more and more to the intolerance to corruption. Therefore, youth is considered as
a targeted group, which is able and capable to fight the dishonest behaviour, corruption cases. Based on the Theory of
Planned Behaviour, knowledge must be transformed to perception, the perception - to the attitude and the attitude - to
the behaviour. Therefore, it is important to ensure, that youth would be able to identify the corruption and inform
appropriate institutions about this. This needs the values’ background of the youth (knowledge), the relevant
understanding of corruption (perception, attitude) and intolerance for it (behaviour). This paper aims to reveal the
perception and attitudes of the Lithuanian youth towards the corruption and to identify opportunities for strengthening
the anti-corruption potential. The research was implemented in Šiauliai region, Lithuania, using quantitative approach.
Few main findings were found out in the research. First, the motives to inform/withhold about the corruption cases
depend on the status of occupation (students of high schools, employers or having no job young people are mostly
ready to inform about corruption cases rather than students of universities and colleges), the gender (women have
bigger potential of anticorruption), the social status of the family (having medium social status people have higher
potential than people with lower or higher social status), the civil and political activity (more active young people have
higher anti-corruption potential).

Keywords
Intolerance for Corruption, Youth Provisions, Anti-corruption Potential

JEL Classification
D73, D91, M38

Introduction
Corruption is a complex destructive practice (Hoffman and Patel, 2017), which is characterized by various
economic, political, administrative, social and cultural factors. Non-transparent and unfair behaviour (individual,
organizational) usually influences processes, generating the potential for corrupt practices (Laboutková and
Staňková, 2016). It affects individuals, groups, organizations and institutions, which provide the base for the
country, civil society, public and private sectors. Although corruption has been linked to public and political
sectors for a long time, this practice has recently been found out in private and non-governmental sectors
(Lankauskas and Nikartas, 2017). Despite a strong interest of practitioners to the corruption problem and a large
number of interdisciplinary researches, scientists are still searching in different motivational, volitional, emotional,
and cognitive components of corruption (Rabl and Kühlmann, 2008), trying to discover efficient measures for
managing this problem and finding best tools for the implementation of the anti-corruption policy.
Anti-corruption policy can be successfully implemented just in a case of the support from the society and its
individuals. Individuals’ attitudes towards corruption are revealed through the ability to identify the expression of
corruption. The person must demonstrate certain corruption perception level, and also intolerance to the
expression of corruption. Corruption perception allows an individual to recognize the expression of corruption,
while intolerance allows to inform the relevant institutions or to take preventive actions (Gong and W ang, 2012).
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (created by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)) was successfully applied in previous

Corresponding author:
Vita Juknevičienė, P. Višinskio str. 25-402, Šiauliai, Lithuania
Email: vita.jukneviciene@su.lt
 2 SciPap 28(2)

researches of corruption (Rabl and Kühlmann, 2008; Zengtian and Lingling, 2015; Suyatno, 2018), because it
argues that individual perception and attitudes are directly linked to intentions and behaviour. This theory is
considered as an appropriate theoretical approach to explain individuals’ attitudes towards corruption and their
ability to resist for the corruption (to realize the anti-corruption potential). However, it was not applied for previous
researches of youth perceptions and attitudes towards corruption, trying to identify opportunities for anti-
corruption potential; therefore, this research is the unique one (scientific novelty).
Corruption is often seen to be solved in the change of generations (Transparency International Fiji, 2013),
therefore, the analysis of the role of youth in the fight against corruption is becoming one of the most significant
subjects in the scientific field. Many authors emphasize that young people is the main targeted group having
enough potential to strengthen anti-corruption efforts (Vaisvalavičiūtė, 2007; Disch et al., 2009; Cimbro, 2017;
Farzaneganand Witthuhn, 2017; Sihombing, 2018; Stupnianek and Navickas, 2019; Zhu and Li, 2019; Denisova-
Schmidt et al., 2020). As a new generation of politicians, businessmen and civil society actors, youth plays an
important role in the implementation of new integrity (honesty) culture at all society levels. That is why the specific
strategies on how to enhance their skills to effectively identify, prevent and fight corruption need to be developed
(Cimbro, 2017). Prior research shows that only strategies supplemented with various civil initiatives (especially
youth initiatives, when the community feels being engaged and a meaningful part of the event) can effectively
function in developing intolerance to corruption (Hanna et al., 2011). Especially it is very important for young
developing countries, such as Lithuania to build the strong democracy and to prevent from ethical problems.
Corruption perception surveys allow identifying the respondents’ views on corruption, to determine the level of
subjective and objective tolerance towards corruption, identifying the actual level of corruption manifestation in
society (Gong and Wang, 2012). Abramo (2008) argues that World Economic Forum survey includes the
questions about corruption, but it fails to include the questions about how the corruption perceptions could be
evaluated, which is essential for the evaluation of an actual corruption level in the country. Thus, two international
organizations play the leading role in the provision of survey data: Transparency International prepared well-
known initiatives such as the Corruption Perceptions Index, Global Corruption Barometer (an adult population
sample), National Integrity studies and etc., and the World Bank’s Enterprise Survey (a firm-level sample)
(Kimeu, 2014; Wysmułek, 2019). Researches performed by both of them contribute to the identification of
corruption perception. Wysmułek (2019) emphasize that there are many high-quality international public opinion
surveys that cover the topic of corruption, but these data differ in depth and quality. Results of behavioural ethics
researches emphasize that social norms and justifications matter a great deal (Shalvi et al., 2015; Shalvi et al.,
2016; Köbis et al., 2018); thus, it is important to understand the social and cultural context and the features of the
specific group - youth in a particular country, while revealing individuals’ perception and attitude towards
corruption. This requires for the empirically determining the expression of youth attitude towards intolerance to
corruption and a socio-cultural context of corruption phenomenon in Lithuania.
During a soviet period Lithuanian society was highly corrupted because of favorable socio-cultural environment,
i.e. unfair behaviour and bribes were perceived as social norms (Šliavaitė, 2017; Praspaliauskiene, 2016). As a
post-soviet country Lithuania is fighting with corruption trying to change the mindset of the society (transform
knowledge to perception, attitudes and behaviour), using various tools of anti-corruption education for different
targeted groups, including youth. Research, focused on the perception of corruption of youth, was conducted just
in 2011; later researches were applied just for special groups of youth (Transparency International Lithuania,
2012; Šliavaitė, 2017; Stupnianek and Navickas, 2019). This research was conducted in one of ten Lithuanian
regions (Šiauliai region). Results of this research can not be generalized for all Lithuanian youth, however,
because of the research scale, sample’s features and reasonably selected region (in the corruption context), they
are significant for the development of anti-corruption policy and education (practical novelty).
There emerges a scientific problem, which may be expressed by problematic questions: what kind of theoretical
approaches can explain the analysis of the expression of youth attitudes towards intolerance to corruption? how
Lithuanian youth attitudes towards intolerance to corruption can be described and developed? The aim of this
paper is to reveal the perception and attitudes of the Lithuanian youth towards the corruption and to identify
opportunities for strengthening the anti-corruption potential. For this aim two objectives must be implemented: 1)
to give the theoretical background for the research of the expression of youth attitudes towards intolerance to
corruption; 2) to reveal the situation in Lithuania of the phenomenon and to identify opportunities for the anti-
corruption potential. The scientific method of the questionnaire survey has been used for this research. Results
were systemized, analysed and interpreted.

Theoretical background of the research

Corruption is considered as one of the biggest problems with such consequences as a threat for the rule of law,
democracy, human rights, weakening of good governance, honesty and social justice, distorting competition and
slowing down economic development (Navot and, Cohen, 2015; Dimant and Schulte, 2016). It raises concerns at
both national and international levels. Special international and national organizations fight the corruption using
different approaches and tools, including education of the society.
 3 SciPap 28(2)

Corruption phenomenon is dangerous, because it demoralizes the authorities, weakens policy making and
implementing, as well as the provision of public services. It increases a fiscal stress (Graycar, 2015) and, more
importantly, all this undermines trust and does not meet the legitimate expectations of the community. Gong and
Wang (2012) argue that all this is determined by institutional dimension of anti-corruptive environment (formal
institutional infrastructure, which helps to fight corruption) and cultural dimension of anti-corruptive environment,
which affect the individual behaviour (society corruption intolerance level, intolerance to dishonest behaviour,
readiness to report cases of corruption and etc.).
Scholars are divided on causes of corruption and remedies. In general, two foci have been observed in the
existing literature. One group of scholars concentrates on the institutional dimension and emphasizes the impact
of formal anti-corruption institutions, law, and policy (Michael et al., 2006; Doig, 2006; De Sousa, 2010;
Johannsen and Hilmer Pedersen, 2011; Fjelde and Hegre, 2014; Boly and Gillanders, 2018). The other group of
scholars, alternatively, believes that a culture of corruption or anticorruption persists and greatly shapes
individuals’ behaviour (Barr and Serra, 2006; Köbis et al., 2018; Jackson and Köbis, 2018; Stupnianek and
Navickas, 2019; Sun, 2019; Köbis et al., 2019). The idea of the socio-cultural importance on the success or
failure of anti-corruption reforms is explained by results of the analysis of experiences of successful transitions
from thoroughly corrupt to significantly less corrupt systems. It was founded that it is important to involve all major
political, economic, and social institutions as well as the combination of both formal and informal mechanisms of
control (formal monitoring and sanctioning, reciprocity and trust) (Persson et al., 2013). Vaisvalavičiūtė (2007)
argues that “one of the most important factors of corruption prevention is a formation of a new society attitude
and developing respect for honest and transparent community” (pp. 75). Acus (2012, pp. 152-153) agrees that
“when there is no one who would be able and willing to ensure functioning of the rules, then the rule does not
affect behaviour”. The functioning of the rules depends on individuals’ motivation rather than on “the invisible
hand”. Seeking community transparency, individuals, as society members (citizens), must prevent corruption
manifestations. However, this is complicated and complex process, which requires moral and value-based
individual decisions and behaviour. Values are both a moral category and individual’s emotional state, steady
beliefs that promote individual or socially acceptable behaviour (Vveinhardt, Gulbovaitė, 2012; Thomas, 2013).
The research finds that society appreciates honesty, and that the behaviour, which contradicts this value,
increases individual’s emotional stress and moral dissatisfaction. So people tend to act dishonestly to benefit,
only to the extent that allows seeing themselves as still an honest person (Mazar et al., 2008). The understanding
this psychological approach and the development of transparent society aim to raise the awareness among
members of society (citizens). Only collaboration could facilitate the achievement of goals, which could not be
achieved individually (Weisel and, Shalvi, 2015). That is why anti-corruption activity (anti-corruption policy, anti-
corruption education), which aims to educate and strengthen society members’ intolerance to unethical behaviour
and corruption, is being developed and implemented at local, national and international levels involving policy
makers and takers, public and non-governmental organizations, representatives of a private sector.
Vaisvalavičiūtė (2007) argues that “one of the most important factors of corruption prevention is a formation of a
new society attitude and developing respect for honest and transparent community”. Acus (2012) agrees that
“when there is no one who would be able and willing to ensure functioning of the rules, then the rule does not
affect behaviour”. Culture may impose an influence independent of formal institutions; some cross-country
studies in the latter group reveal that corruption is taken as the rule, not the exception, in some developing
countries and, additionally, social norms of corruption can travel across institutional boundaries (Gong and Wang,
2012). Beliefs and social norms may frame the level of anti-corruption effort and types of tactics taken by a
government, and hence outcomes. Crafting a low public tolerance for corruption (social norm), thus, is critically
important for successful corruption prevention as civic engagement deters actual and potential corrupt activities.
The functioning of the rules depends on individuals’ motivation rather than on “the invisible hand” (Acus, 2012).
Seeking community transparency, individuals, as society members (citizens), must prevent corruption
manifestations. However, this is complicated and complex process, which requires moral and value-based
individual decisions and behaviour. Perceptions are good predictors of other perceptions, not only related to
corruption but also to other matters (Abramo, 2008). Certain values could be considered as a part of individual’s
self-imagination at an individual level. That is why they can determine individual’s attitudes, norms or choices as
well as behaviour. Values are both a moral category and individual’s emotional state, steady beliefs that promote
individual or socially acceptable behaviour (Vveinhardt and Gulbovaitė, 2012; Thomas, 2013). Values, beliefs and
social norms are significant for the individual level as they frame person’s knowledge (perception) about
corruption and the need for anti-corruption efforts. The intuitive logic of an individual is both compelling and
simple: if he/she considers a certain behaviour to be normal, he/she is likely to do it as well; therefore, then
“corruption becomes “the normal thing to do” justifying it is easy - both to oneself and others” (Köbis et al., 2018).
Intuitively, individuals could cheat more when cheating is more lucrative, but it was founded that “the effect of
performance-based pay-rates on dishonesty depends on how readily people can compare their pay-rate to that of
others” (John et al., 2014). The research finds that society appreciates honesty, and that the behaviour, which
contradicts this value, increases individual’s emotional stress and moral dissatisfaction. So people tend to act
dishonestly to benefit, only to the extent that allows seeing themselves as still an honest person (Mazar et al.,
 4 SciPap 28(2)

2008). Thus, perception (knowledge) and social norms also frame individual attitudes and intentions towards
intolerance to corruption.
The understanding this psychological approach and the development of transparent society aim to raise the
awareness among members of society (citizens). Anti-corruption interventions (measures, education) have the
main task to increase knowledge of the negative impact of corruption. But typically it is one of the most difficult
challenges because anti-corruption interventions have to transform knowledge (“this is what corruption is and
does”) into new attitudes (“corruption is bad”) and from there to new behaviour or practices (“I will no longer
engage in corrupt practices”) (Disch et al., 2009). This approach leads to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen
and Fishbein, 1980; Jhangiani and Tarry, 2014; Kan and Fabrigar, 2017), which links individual beliefs and
behaviour and is closely connected to social and individual norms and the cultural context. Attitudes towards
intolerance to corruption are highly connected to the perception of corruption and individual intentions to behave
(see Figure 1).

CULTURE

Social norms

Individual values and knowledge about corruption

PERCEPTION

Beliefs (behavioural, normative, control)

Other
(institutional) Anti-
anti-corruption ATTITUDE corruption
interventions education

Subjective Attitudes Perceived

norms towards the behavioural
behaviour control

INTENTIONS

BEHAVIOUR

Ethical/Unethical individual behaviour

Intolerance/Tolerance towards corruption

Source: authors’ conducted based on Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), Pantano and Di Pietro (2012), Jhangiani and Tarry (2014),
Kan and Fabrigar (2017), Sun (2019).

Fig. 1. Attitudes towards intolerance to corruption in the context of the Theory of Planned Behaviour.

The Theory of Planned Behaviour is based on three main dimensions: perception, attitude, behaviour. Socio-
cultural context of the society defines frames for social norms. Living in such a socio-cultural environment an
individual takes over the norms and transforms them to individual values and knowledge (about corruption, its
influence, the need for the anti-corruption policy and its real power in practice), which becomes the individual
perception, consisting of beliefs. Beliefs and social norms may frame the individual attitude towards the need of
anti-corruption efforts. Individual attitude towards intolerance to corruption is supported by subjective norms and
the perceived need for the behavioural control: the attitude toward the behaviour (the stronger the better),
subjective norms (the support of those individual values), and (c) perceived behavioural control (the extent to
which individual believes he/she can actually perform the behaviour) (Jhangiani and Tarry, 2014). This leads to
individual intentions to behave (non-)ethical in a particular situation. However, real intentions are revealed just in
particular situations, when an individual must make a decision on personal choices and act. In this context anti-
corruption interventions play a significant role.
Institutional (formal) interventions (such as formal anti-corruption measures and processes, i.e. legal acts, code
 5 SciPap 28(2)

of ethics, sanctions, penalties, etc.) usually are oriented to the pre-action stage (directly affecting and changing
social norms and influencing individual perception) or post-action stage (reacting after individual’s choice or act).
While anti-corruption education (as a process) is oriented to the change of individual perception (short-term
results) together changing society’s mindset (long-term results).
Anti-corruption education may be provided in a form of a subject integrated to the study programme or special
trainings for particular target groups. In Lithuania for a long time most of the training activities have taken place
on the project basis (Jonauskis, 2004), later - it became one of constantly tasks for various structures
(institutions, responsible for the corruption prevention or educational institutions, provided courses or trainings).
According to Gong and Wang (2012), corruption perception surveys serve as an appropriate tool to identify
individuals’ attitudes towards corruption (the level of subjective and objective tolerance towards corruption) and to
measure the actual level of corruption manifestation in society (or its groups). This highly contributes to the
development of content and forms of anti-corruption education. As this intervention is linked to psychological
aspects of the target group, specifics of it must be revealed by anti-corruption policy makers and implementers.
Many young people are able and willing to change the world and have a potential to strengthen the anti-
corruptive efforts (Cimbro, 2017); thus, corruption is a challenge that needs to be actively addressed through
intergenerational change (Transparency International Fiji, 2013). Youth is considered as a target group, which is
able and capable to support the prevention of unethical behaviour and corruption. However, to do so, youth
needs to be ready to identify dishonesty manifestations and to report on those to the relevant institutions.
First, this requires the basis of values of youth itself, as well as their understanding of corruption and their
intolerance to corruption. The best indicator of individual’s behaviour is a set of the personal values. Perception of
values helps to understand individual and social behaviour of individuals. Materialism (material values), when a
person is assessed based on the wealth status (income, asset ownership), dominates in a modern society;
however, material values often conflict with family or religious values, which causes the psychological tension
associated to the person’s reduced sense of well-being (Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002). There are such
values as consistency, honesty, responsibility, justice, reliability, commitment, respect, compatibility of principles
and actions in a list of values of an ethical person (Sihombing, 2018). Such values as wisdom, honesty, diligence,
loyalty, sacrifice, harmony, collaboration and etc. are general values of society, which are expected from the
members of society (Vveinhardt and Gulbovaitė, 2012). Acus (2012) argues that corruption would disappear as a
phenomenon if the majority of society members (youth) internalize such values and change preferences. In a
system of interrelated and hierarchical values, beliefs and attitudes affect each other in transformation. Thus, the
value attitudes held by an individual reveal his/her relationships with the other individuals, because they provide
the principled activity and behavioural guidelines.
Second, as a new generation the youth plays a crucial role in the anti-corruption activities at all society levels,
that is why the specific strategies on how to enhance their skills to effectively identify, prevent and fight corruption
need to be developed (Cimbro, 2017). If youth is properly specialized in ethics and anti-corruption areas, they
become a strong driver of changes in different sectors (Kimeu, 2014). In 2013, Transparency International
identified the key opportunities for youth in the fight against corruption: youth integrity camps, collaboration with
schools and universities, integrity clubs and youth movements, increase in awareness through arts and sports,
contests and trainings, programming events and new technologies (Cimbro, 2017). Prior research shows that
only strategies supplemented with various civil initiatives (especially youth initiatives, when the community feels
being engaged and a meaningful part of the event) can effectively function in developing intolerance to corruption
(Hanna et al., 2011). Properly selected strategies may enhance the youth knowledge about corruption
(perception) and strengthen the change of youth attitudes towards intolerance of corruption.
In summary, better understanding of the phenomenon in real circumstances requires for the empirically
determining of the expression of youth attitude towards intolerance to corruption and a socio-cultural context of
corruption phenomenon in Lithuania.

Methods of the research

During a soviet period Lithuanian society was highly corrupted country and even now (starting the fourth decade
of the independency) results of various researches demonstrate the prevalence of a corruption culture in
Lithuania (Šliavaitė, 2017; Praspaliauskiene, 2016; Stupnianek and Navickas, 2019). “Culture of blat, mutual
obligations, and informal networks have not disappeared with the old system but have been transformed into new
forms adapting to new circumstances” (Palidauskaitė, 2006). Membership in EU, NATO encouraged Lithuania to
create new strategies for the fight against corruption, therefore, international inter-state and international non-
government organizations played a primary role in drawing attention to the corruption problem in Lithuania
(Aleknevičienė, 2013). As traditions of corruption (social norms) are still vital in Lithuanian society (Šliavaitė,
2017), Lithuanian institutions are looking for various ways and tools to implement the anti-corruption policy and to
achieve the success.
The latest big research “Research of Youth Honesty in Lithuania” was conducted in 2011 (based on the
 6 SciPap 28(2)

quantitative approach, sample - 700 of 16-29 year old residents), and it aimed to investigate the extent to which
Lithuanian youth tend to justify various forms of unfair behaviour, what, in their opinion, could prevent such
behaviour and what are the values of contemporary Lithuanian youth (Transparency International Lithuania,
2012). It was founded that the youth was generally aware of being involved in corruption (in a situation of “take or
give a bribe”), however, results of the research on youth intolerance towards corruption were not gratifying: young
people considered various manifestations of corruption to be justified.
Later researches were focused on the perception of corruption of particular groups of the society or sectors
(Praspaliauskiene, 2016; Vilmorus, 2016; Šliavaitė, 2017; Stupnianek and Navickas, 2019), but results were not
excluded for youth (based on the age sampling) as a target group.
This empirical research was conducted in one of ten Lithuanian Counties (Šiauliai region). This region was
selected for the sample using the method of criterial selection according to 6 criteria (look Table 1).

Table 1. Criterial selection of the sample (region).

Group of Requirement for Šiauliai region’s
criteria Criteria selected region Source compliance
Demographical Number of inhabitants The selected region with the Statistics 262 247 close to 220 405
number of inhabitants close Lithuania, 2019
to the medium number of
inhabitants in a county
(eliminating the capital
region)
Perception of Respondents’ perception if Selected region’s result (in Lithuanian 40 close to 55.3
corruption of corruption is really serious problem percent) must be close to Corruption Map
region’s the medium regional result in (Vilmorus, 2016)
inhabitants Lithuania
Respondents’ perception if Selected region’s result (in 39 close to 41.5
corruption has increased in last 5 percent) must be close to
years the medium regional result in
Lithuania
Respondents’ perception if Selected region’s result (in 16 close to 18.7
corruption will increased in next 5 percent) must be close to
years the medium regional result in
Lithuania
Unethical Respondents’ confirmation that Selected region’s result (in Lithuanian 23 is among top 3 results: 26,
behaviour of they gave a bribe during last 12 percent) must be among top Corruption Map 24, 23
region’s months 3 regional results in (Vilmorus, 2016)
inhabitants Lithuania
The Transparency in municipalities According to the total The initiative Šiauliai region has 7
transparency in measuring 7 different spheres evaluation municipalities of “George’s Cap” municipalities:
a region (its (employees of a municipality, selected region must be (Transparency 3 of them are among 8 most
municipalities) council of a municipality, anti- equally distributed among International transparent municipalities (1,
corruption, enterprises, finances, places from 1 to 23 (in three Lithuania, 2018) 4, 8);
procurements, participation) and intervals: 1-8; 9-16; 17-23) 2 - among 8 medium
providing the total evaluation. transparent municipalities
(13, 14);
2 - among less transparent
municipalities (18, 22).
Source: authors’ conducted.

Results of this research can not be generalized for all Lithuanian youth, however, because of the research scale,
sample’s features and reasonably selected region (in the corruption context), they are significant for the
development of anti-corruption policy and education.
This research was based on the quantitative approach. To achieve the research goal, a quantitative research
was organized in 2018, in which 16-29 year old residents of Šiauliai region (students of general education and
vocational schools, as well as students of universities and colleges, the employed) participated in the paper
survey (the method was a questionnaire survey). The instrument was a questionnaire made of 25 questions,
divided to parts and 6 dimensions: youth’s attitude towards corruption (knowledge and attitudes of youth,
experience of corruption, anti-corruption potential, experience of anti-corruption education, youth’s suggestions
for anti-corruption activities) (19 questions); demographic, social and political activity’s characteristics of
respondents (6 questions). It was composed after the deep analysis of scientific literature and previous scientific
research. The sample included 1244 respondents, which ensured a random error of less than 2.8 percent with 95
percent confidence (some questions were not answered by some respondents, so each graph adjusts the
number of respondents). The quota sampling technique was applied to control for residence location, age,
gender and employment characteristics. This paper presents just a part of results, mostly focusing on the
perception (values and beliefs) and attitudes of youth. The research identified the value attitudes of a targeted
group, which reveals youth anti-corruptive potential expressed as intolerance to corruption, and determines
corruption recognition capabilities. The research findings are presented according to main cross-sections: age,
gender, employment and social status of the family.
 7 SciPap 28(2)

Research findings
Following the Theory of Planned Behaviour it was emphasised that the perception of corruption is very
important stage. As corruption has negative effects both at macro (negative impact on country’s development)
and individual (personal losses) levels, the question for respondents included both levels. When filling in the
questionnaire, young people had to consider how much damage corruption does to themselves, family and
friends, to youth in general, to business, economics and country development. Figure 2 provides the
generalized responses.

100%
12% 11%
90% 19% 21% 24% 4%
6%
80%

70% 21% 16%

30%
60%

50%

82% 85%
40%

30% 58% 60%

52%
20%

10%

0%
to you personally to your family and to young people as to bussiness and to the country
friends you are economics development
development
Yes No Do not know

Source: authors’ conducted.

Fig. 2. The distribution of responses to the question “Do you think corruption makes harm...” (N=1235).

The majority of young people believe that corruption negatively affects country development (85 percent),
business and economic development (82 percent), and only 52 percent of respondents believe that corruption
negatively affects them. 30 percent of young people think that corruption does not make harm to themselves. 58
percent of respondents think that corruption negatively affects the family and friends and 60 percent of
respondents think that corruption affects negatively youth in general. The research finds that the majority of
young people understand a harmful impact of corruption on the country and business, but many young people do
not know how it affects themselves and their close environment. The research reveals that evaluation of
corruption consequences at a macro level statistically significantly depends on respondents’ gender. Female
respondents (85 percent) more often than male respondents (79 percent) specify a negative impact of corruption
on the country development, business and economics development. While both female and male respondents
similarly evaluate negative corruption effects on themselves and family. During the research it was found out that
students have least knowledge on how corruption can affect themselves, their families and friends. Young people
have difficulties in identifying corruption impacts on themselves and their environment. They do not see
corruption impacts in a context of their working environment and their independent life.
To reveal attitudes towards corruption focusing on its tolerance limits, respondents were provided with various
situations of corruption activity including political, social, healthcare areas, which respondents had to identify as
acceptable or unacceptable (look Figure 3). Results are connected to respondent s’ values and beliefs, forming
their attitudes.
The research finds that youth considers the situations with indirect corruption characteristics as more acceptable:
around half of respondents think that it is acceptable to the politician to give a present to the school before the
election or for the old man to give 5 euro gratitude to a social care worker in a nursing home. A bit less issues
with proper identification of corruptive behaviour include situations, where a “beneficiary” is a society group or a
particular person with whom respondents can identify themselves: 31 percent of respondents think that it is
acceptable to a company’s manager to evade taxes to pay higher salary to employees, 27 percent think that it is
acceptable to pay unofficially for better services at healthcare institutions. The most common form of
unacceptable behaviour is evident corruption in public administration area: request for bribe for a faster service is
unacceptable to 92 percent of respondents, and obvious nepotism is unacceptable to 89 percent of respondents.
There can be stated, that most often, young people recognize and identify corruption as unacceptable behaviour
in state or local governance (public administration) area.
 8 SciPap 28(2)
100
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% %

A company manager evades taxes and, therefore, pays higher salaries 31%
to the employees 70%

A municipal officer requests a bribery, but promises to prepare a 9%

certificate faster 92%

A ministry officer employs his family member, although he does not 11%
have an appropriate qualification 89%

A person gives a gift to a doctor or nurse to get a better medical 27%

treatment 73%

The parents give an Acropolis voucher to the class teacher, hoping 16%
that she will pay more attention to the children 84%

The politician's charity foundation donates 10 computers to the 45%

school before the elections 55%

The politician buys a bicycle to a socially disadvantaged family 22%

children and asks to vote for him in elections. 78%

The old man gives 5 euro gratitude to a social care worker in a 49%
52%
nursing home

Acceptable behaviour Unecceptable behaviour

Source: authors’ conducted.

Fig. 3. Youth opinion on the acceptability of corruptive activity situations (N=1235).

The research argues that younger people aged 16 to 19 tolerate corruption more often than older respondents.
For example, a tax evasion by a company manager is acceptable to 35 percent of respondents aged 16 to 19,
while it is tolerated by only 20 percent of respondents aged 25 to 29. 13 percent of students and 4 percent of
older people consider nepotism as acceptable.
The research finds statistically significant relations between the attitudes towards corruption and youth
employment. Students, non-learners and unemployed young people more often tolerate corruption, while
employed young people often describe corruptive behaviour as unacceptable. This tendency does not depend on
the nature of the corruption activity situation.
The research finds that family environment has an impact on the expression of youth attitudes towards
corruption. It is evident from almost all the situations presented in the questionnaire that young people, who
attribute their family to the upper class according to wealth and status, more often consider corruptive behaviour
as tolerable (acceptable) rather than those who attribute their family to the medium or lower class. For example,
30 percent of respondents who attribute their family to the lower or medium class, and 40 percent of respondents,
who attribute their family to the upper class, considered a tax evasion for payment of higher salaries to the
employees as an acceptable behaviour. The research also finds that 25 percent of young people with a lower
social status and 32 percent with a higher social status justify the bribery at a healthcare organization.
The research findings show that the attitude towards corruptive behaviour does not depend on social activeness
of a young person. The respondents, who are active members of society groups, consider corruptive behaviour
as acceptable or unacceptable similarly as young people who are not socially active. However, the attitude
towards corruptive behaviour is found to be related to political activeness of youth.
Respondents, who intend to vote in the presidential elections in 2018, consider corruptive behaviour as
unacceptable more often than respondents, who do not intend to vote, or undecided voters. The tax evasion is
tolerated by 23 percent of respondents, who intend to vote in elections, and 38 percent of respondents, who do
not intend to vote. The bribery to educators is acceptable to 21 percent of more politically active young people
and to 38 percent of politically inactive respondents. The research finds quite large discrepancies between the
youth groups in their evaluation of a vote-buying situation.
To identify the value attitudes of respondents (which affect intolerance to corruption), they were asked whether it
is more important to be rich or honest. Figure 4 provides the distribution of responses.
 9 SciPap 28(2)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Being rich is the most important: it is
acceptable to lie and decieve, ignore some 5%
laws and abuse power to achieve the goal
Being rich a little more important than to be
12%
honest
Being honest is a little more important than
31%
to be rich
Being honest is much more important than
47%
to be rich

Do not know 6%

Source: authors’ conducted.

Fig. 4. The distribution of responses to the question “What is more important: to be rich or honest?” (N=1230).

The research finds that the majority of young people (78 percent) evaluate a dichotomy of being honest or rich in
favour of honesty. 47 percent of young people believe that being honest is much more important than being rich,
and 31 percent of young people think that being honest is a bit more important than being rich. 19 percent of
respondents think that wealth is more important than honesty: it is acceptable to lie, deceive and ignore laws for a
material gain.
To get deeper insights into the value attitudes of survey participants and to reveal their expression, respondents
were asked to consider whether the person who is honest is more successful than the one who tends to violate
the law, ignore rules, deceive and be corruptive. Figure 5 generalizes the responses. Although socially positive
responses (honest people achieve more) were noted by 52 percent of respondents, but socially negative
responses (dishonest people achieve more) were noted by even 40 percent of respondents (8 percent did not
know how to respond). The results show the images of many young people about surrounding environment,
where corruption and ignoring laws can often bring success. The results of this question and the question above,
when 78 percent of young people note that to be honest is more important than to be rich, allow concluding that
young people are experiencing a significant negative pressure of the environment to behave dishonestly to
achieve the success even if it contradicts their values.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

People, who are ready to deceive, violate laws

16%
and be corruptive, achieve more in life
People, who are ready to deceive, violate laws
and be corruptive, achieve a little more in life than 24%
those who do not do so
Sincere, fair man has a little more chances of
achieving something in life than a person who 28%
lacks honesty

Sincere, fair man achieves much more in life, than 25%

a person, who is ready to deceive

Do not know 8%

Source: authors’ conducted.

Fig. 5. The distribution of responses to the question “Who has more chances to be successful in life?” (N=1222).

The research reveals significant gender-related differences in solving the dilemma of being honest or rich. 84
percent of female and 64 percent of male respondents note that to be honest is more important than to be rich.
45 percent of male respondents in the study age group think that those people, who are ready to deceive, violate
laws and be corruptive, achieve more in life rather than those, who behave honestly (noted by 45 percent of
respondents), while only 36 percent of female respondents think so.
The value attitude of honest behaviour does not depend much on age. The differences in different age groups
are not large, answering the question “What is more important to be rich or to be honest?” However, it should be
noted that older respondents more often note the lack of honesty in the environment. When answering the
question “Who has more chances to be successful in life?” 41 percent of respondents aged 25 to 29 and 56
 10 SciPap 28(2)

percent of respondents aged 16 to 19 choose honesty.

The analysis of the responses with regard to employment shows that honesty is noted as the important value
attitude more often by students and less often by non-learners and unemployed respondents. The research
finds that the latter (57 percent) note that people, who are ready to deceive, violate laws and be corruptive,
have high achievements, while 37 percent of employed and 43 percent of students think so. The solution of
dichotomy of being honest or rich depends on the wealth and social status of the young person’s family. 62
percent of young people, who attribute their family to a lower social class, 80 percent of young people, who
attribute their family to a medium social class, and 71 percent of young people, who attribute their family to an
upper social class, believe that to be honest is more important than to be rich. Young people, who attribute
their family to a lower social class, more often note the success of people who are dishonest: 53 percent of
respondents think that those, who are ready to deceive and violate laws, ac hieve more in life than those, who
do not do this. While only 39 percent of young people, who attribute their family to a medium and upper social
class, agree with this statement.
The research finds that the value of honesty for young people is more/less important regardless of their political
activeness. However, honesty is noted as a greater value more often by politically active rather than inactive
young people. Respondents (81 percent), who intend to vote in upcoming Lithuanian presidential elections, more
often note that being honest is more important than being rich (81 percent), than the ones (68 percent), who do
not intend to vote in elections. The research does not find statistically significant relationships between political
activeness and attitudes towards honesty and success in life.

Discussion
The aim of the paper was to reveal the perception and attitudes of the Lithuanian youth towards the corruption
and to identify opportunities for strengthening the anti-corruption potential. Thus, it was proposed to use a model
of perception-attitude-behaviour. The Theory of Planned Behaviour was applied successfully for the analysis of
the expression of youth attitudes towards intolerance to corruption in Lithuania. Results of this research show that
it helped to understand better the procedure and components of attitude’s formation. Previous researches (Rabl
and Kühlmann, 2008; Zengtian and Lingling, 2015; Suyatno, 2018) applied this theoretical approach to analyse
the perception of corruption and anticorruption-education more in organizational level. This research has
confirmed that corruption appear as a situational phenomenon (the situation offers the opportunity) and individual
decisions on whether to act corruptly or not are evoked (Rabl and Kühlmann, 2008). However, the theoretical
model suggests wider possibilities to analyse the individual attitude towards corruption: components of pre-phase
such as socio-cultural context, social norms, values, belies; components of action-phase, i.e. subjective norms,
attitude and perceived control; components of post-phase such as decisions or actions (behaviour) and their
influenced modifications in various anti-corruption interventions (including anti-corruption education, especially
important for the realisation of anticorruption potential and the future formation of youth’s attitudes).
The empirical research aimed to reveal the situation in Lithuania of the phenomenon and to identify opportunities
for the anti-corruption potential. Results of this research show that the situation of the youth perception of
corruption did not change radically during the last 8 years after the last evaluation of the level of Lithuanian youth
honesty (Transparency International Lithuania, 2012) despite of the application of many different measures of
anticorruption policy into the practice. Changing social norms by merely targeting injunctive norms - telling society
that corruption is bad - likely remains unsuccessful among Lithuanian youth (Köbis, 2018). The majority of young
people even understand a harmful corruption impact on the country development, business and economics
development, but many young people still do not know how it affects themselves and their close environment.
Empirical results have confirmed that corruption can be perceived as a situational phenomenon (Rabl and
Kühlmann, 2008), i.e. young people’s decision to justify or not justify dishonest behaviour depends on many
circumstances. However, some young people tend to justify such dishonest behaviour if during corruption activity
the benefits were gained not only by corruption subjects but also by the groups of residents (company
employees, socially disadvantaged families and etc.), who did not participate in the corruption activity. It connects
to the finding of previous research that the effect of performance-based pay on dishonesty depends on how
readily people can compare their pay to that of others (John et al., 2014). This approach links to the idea that
corruption turns into a collective action problem (Köbis et al., 2019) and is closely connected to social norms of
the post-soviet society.
Seeking to disclose how values affect youth attitudes towards corruption, the empirical research questions
focused on the dichotomy of honesty and welfare (success). Results of this research show that the value of
honesty still remains important for many young people. Majority of Lithuanian youth is ready to behave honestly
in seeking material benefits, but this attitude is not compatible with experience-based beliefs that success is often
determined by dishonest behaviour.
Seeking to strengthen the development of anti-corruption potential, insights of this research should be taken to
the consideration for planning anti-corruption interventions (including education). As it was founded motives for
 11 SciPap 28(2)

the intolerance of corruption are depending on few issues: the status of occupation (students of high schools,
employers or having no job young people are mostly ready to inform about corruption cases rather than students
of universities and colleges), the gender (women have bigger potential of anticorruption), the social status of the
family (having medium social status people have higher potential than people with lower or higher social status),
the civil and political activity (more active young people have higher anti-corruption potential). Therefore,
implementers of anti-corruption policy or planners of various anti-corruption interventions (including education)
have to find formal ways how individuals from youth with higher anticorruption potential could be involved in all
targeted groups to share and develop personal attitudes (inviting them to join a group for trainings, to participate
in the special summer session, to lead a group for a project, to become a key speaker in public lectures or
presenters in conferences, to be involved in a research or a project, etc.).

Conclusions
The Theory of Planned Behaviour provides a model “perception-attitude-behaviour” enabling researches to
investigate youth attitudes towards intolerance to corruption in Lithuania. This model integrates three dimensions
and provides possibility to disclose the socio-cultural contexts (social norms or a targeted group). Social norms
are taught by the environment, however, youth has the highest potential to resist unethical social norms and
correct their behaviour with the help of the anticorruption interventions.
The new generation (the youth) being a part of the society and playing the crucial role (as the main driver) in the
anti-corruption activities at all society have the anti-corruption potential, which may be stronger realized by
strengthening their engagement to the implementation of various programmes and tools of anticorruption policy.
The new generation (the youth) is considered as a part of the society which plays the crucial role (is the main
driver) in the anti-corruption activities at all society and enables the anti-corruption potential. The anticorruption
policy makers must follow this idea and create strategies, oriented to the enhancement of youth skills to
effectively identify, prevent and fight corruption.
Future research could develop further insight into the psychological processes underlying the behavioural
patterns observed here. Moreover, the aspects of youth behaviour (experiences) are left aside; therefore the
analysis, using all dimensions of the model (perception-attitude-behaviour), would enrich theoretical and
empirical implications. It would be important to conduct the comparative research every five years to have an
opportunity analyse results of two sample groups (the control group - having constant anti-corruption
interventions and normal group), to examine to what extent social norms affect youth.

References
Abramo, C. W. (2008). How much do perceptions of corruption really tell us? Economics: The Open-Access, Open-
Assessment E-Journal, 2 (2008-03), 1-57. DOI 10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2008-3
Acus, A. (2012). Kaip ištrūkti iš korupcijos aklavietės? Čilės sėkmės istorija ir Argentinos agonija. Politologija, 67(3), 143-200.
Ajzen, H., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. NJ, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Aleknevičienė, J. (2013). Lithuania’s “fight” against corruption: why can’t we see any progress? Lithuanian Annual Strategic
Review, 11(1), 255-278.
Barr, A., & Serra, D. (2006). Culture and corruption. [online] An ESRC Research Group. Available at: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/
objects/uuid:897bbd03-55e9-4aeb-a7a4-8e2bcb52b18e/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=gprg-wps-
040.pdf&type_of_work=Working+paper [Accessed 29.03.2020].
Boly, A., & Gillanders, R. (2018). Anti-corruption policy making, discretionary power and institutional quality: An experimental
analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 152, 314-327. DOI 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.05.007
Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer
research, 29(3), 348-370. DOI 10.1086/344429
Cimbro, E. (2017). Youth against corruption. [online] Council of Europe, Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.
Available at: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=24233&lang=en [Accessed
29.03.2020].
De Sousa, L. (2010). Anti-corruption agencies: between empowerment and irrelevance. Crime, law and social change, 53(1),
5-22. DOI 10.1007/s10611-009-9211-3
Denisova-Schmidt, E., Huber, M., Leontyeva, E., & Solovyeva, A. (2020). Combining experimental evidence with machine
learning to assess anti-corruption educational campaigns among Russian university students. Empirical Economics,
1-24. DOI 10.1007/s00181-020-01827-1
Dimant, E., & Schulte, T. (2016). The nature of corruption: An interdisciplinary perspective. German Law Journal, 17(1), 53-72.
DOI 10.1017/S2071832200019684
Disch, A., Vigeland, E., Sundet, G., & Gibson, S. (2009). Anti-corruption approaches: A literature review. [online] Oslo:
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad). Available at: https://www.sida.se/contentassets/3f5c8afd
51a6414d9f6c8f8425fb935b/anti-corruption-approaches-a-literature-review_3153.pdf [Accessed 27.02.2020].
Doig, A. (2006). Not as easy as it sounds? Delivering the National Integrity System approach in practice. The case study of the
National Anti-Corruption Programme in Lithuania. Public Administration Quarterly, 3/4(30), 273-313.
Farzanegan, M. R., & Witthuhn, S. (2017). Corruption and political stability: Does the youth bulge matter? European Journal of
Political Economy, 49, 47-70. DOI 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2016.12.007
Fjelde, H., & Hegre, H. (2014). Political corruption and institutional stability. Studies in Comparative International Development,
49(3), 267-299. DOI 10.1007/s12116-014-9155-1
Gong, T., & Wang, S. (2013). Indicators and implications of zero tolerance of corruption: The case of Hong Kong. Social
 12 SciPap 28(2)

Indicators Research, 112(3), 569-586. DOI 10.1007/s11205-012-0071-3

Graycar, A. (2015). Corruption: classification and analysis. Policy and Society, 34(2), 87-96. DOI 10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.04.
001
Hanna, R., Bishop, S., Nadel, S., Scheffler, G., & Durlacher, K. (2011). The effectiveness of anti-corruption policy. What has
worked, what hasn’t, and what we don’t know. Technical report. [online] London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science
Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Available at: https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?
tabid=3106 [Accessed 20.02.2020].
Hoffmann, L. K., & Patel, R. N. (2017). Collective action on corruption in Nigeria. A social norms approach to connecting
society and institutions. [online] Great Britain: Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Available
at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/collective-action-corruption-nigeria-social-norms [Accessed
20.02.2020].
Jackson, D., & Köbis, N. (2018). Anti-corruption through a social norms lens. U4 Issue, 2018(7), 1-60.
Jhangiani, R., & Tarry, H. (2014). Principles of social psychology – 1st international edition. [online] Victoria, B.C.: BC campus
Available at: https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/ [Accessed 27.02.2020].
Johannsen, L., & Hilmer Pedersen, K. (2011). The institutional roots of anti-corruption policies: comparing the three Baltic
states. Journal of Baltic Studies, 42(3), 329-346. DOI 10.1080/01629778.2011.597128
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Rick, S. I. (2014). Cheating more for less: Upward social comparisons motivate the poorly
compensated to cheat. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 101-109. DOI 10.1016/j.
obhdp.2013.08.002
Jonauskis, M. (2004). Anti-corruption education and training in Lithuania. Book chapter. In B. Michael, R. Kattel, & W.
Drechsler (Eds.), Enhancing the Capacities to Govern: Challenges Facing the Central and Eastern European
Countries (pp. 254-269). Bratislava: NISPAcee.
Kan, M. P. H., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2017). Theory of Planned Behavior. Book chapter. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. Shackelford (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Cham: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8
Kimeu, S. (2014). Corruption as a challenge to global ethics: the role of Transparency International. Journal of Global Ethics,
10(2), 231-237. DOI 10.1080/17449626.2014.935982
Köbis, N. C., Iragorri-Carter, D., & Starke, C. (2018). A social psychological view on the social norms of corruption. Book
chapter. In I. Kubbe & A. Engelbert (Eds.), Corruption and Norms (pp. 31-52). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Köbis, N. C., Troost, M., Brandt, C. O., & Soraperra, I. (2019). Social norms of corruption in the field: social nudges on posters
can help to reduce bribery. Behavioural Public Policy, 1-28. DOI 10.1017/bpp.2019.37
Laboutková, Š., & Staňková, L. (2016). The potencial effect of non-transparent lobbying on competitiveness through economic
freedom in the EU-An empirical survey. Scientific papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, 37(2/2016), 1-12.
Lankauskas, M., & Nikartas, S. (2017). Korupcija nevyriausybiniame sektoriuje: politinė korupcija labdaros ir paramos fondų
veikloje. Teisės problemos, 2(94), 87-114.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of
marketing research, 45(6), 633-644. DOI 10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633
Michael, B., Kennon, E., & Hansen, J. K. (2006). The future of anti-corruption measures in Lithuania. Public Policy and
Administration, 16, 7-15.
Navot, D., & Cohen, N. (2015). How policy entrepreneurs reduce corruption in Israel. Governance, 28(1), 61-76. DOI 10.1111/
gove.12074
Palidauskaitė, J. (2006). Spread of Corruption in Lithuania: Between Soviet Legacy and Market Pragmatism. Public Policy and
Administration, 1(18), 57-72.
Pantano, E., & Di Pietro, L. (2012). Understanding consumer’s acceptance of technology-based innovations in retailing.
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 7(4), 1-19. DOI 10.4067/S0718-27242012000400001
Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why anticorruption reforms fail – systemic corruption as a collective action
problem. Governance, 26(3), 449-471. DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01604.x
Praspaliauskiene, R. (2016). Enveloped lives: Practicing health and care in Lithuania. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 30(4),
582-598. DOI 10.1111/maq.12291
Rabl, T., & Kühlmann, T. M. (2008). Understanding corruption in organizations–development and empirical assessment of an
action model. Journal of business ethics, 82(2), 477-495. DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9898-6
Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015). Self-serving justifications: Doing wrong and feeling moral. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 125-130. DOI 10.1177/0963721414553264
Shalvi, S., Weisel, O., Kochavi-Gamliel, S., & Leib, M. (2016). Corrupt Collaboration: A behavioral ethics approach. Book
chapter. In J. W. van Prooijen & P. A. M. van Lange (Eds.), Cheating, Corruption, and Concealment: The Roots of
Dishonest Behavior (pp. 134-148). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sihombing, S. O. (2018). Youth perceptions toward corruption and integrity: Indonesian context. Kasetsart Journal of Social
Sciences, 1-6. DOI 10.1016/j.kjss.2018.03.004
Šliavaitė, K. (2017). Dovanos mokytojams Lietuvos mokyklų bendruomenėse: tarp bendruomeniškumo kūrimo ir mainų.
Lietuvos etnologija: socialinės antropologijos ir etnologijos studijos= Lithuanian Ethnology: Studies in Social
Antropology and Ethnology, 17(26), 99-123.
Stupnianek, K., & Navickas, V. (2019). Can beliefs in justice predict corrupt behavior? Journal of Social and Political
Psychology, 7(1), 246-259. DOI 10.5964/jspp.v7i1.1031
Sun, W. (2019). Toward a theory of ethical consumer intention formation: re-extending the theory of planned behavior. AMS
Review, 1-19. DOI 10.1007/s13162-019-00156-6
Suyatno, B. (2018). Predictors of employees’ intention to Whistleblow using Theory of Planned Behaviour: A case study of an
Indonesian government department. Doctoral dissertation. [online] Victoria University]. Available at:
http://vuir.vu.edu.au/36952/ [Accessed 27.02.2020].
Thomas, T. P. (2013). The effect of personal values, organizational values, and person-organization fit on ethical behaviours
and organizational commitment outcomes among substance abuse counsellors: A preliminary investigation. Doctoral
dissertation. [online] University of Iowa. Available at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4877&context
=etd [Accessed 20.02.2020].
Transparency International Fiji. (2013). Integrity and corruption in Fiji. What do young people think? [online] Transparency
 13 SciPap 28(2)

International Fiji – Youth Integrity Survey. Available at: http://www.transparencyfiji.org/docs/Youth%Integrity%

Survey%Report%2013%_TI%Fiji.pdf [Accessed 20.02.2020].
Transparency International Lithuania. (2012). Lietuvos jaunimo sąžiningumo tyrimas. Slides. [online] Transparency
International Lithuania. Available at: https://www.transparency.lt/tils-jaunimo-saziningumo-tyrimas/ [Accessed
27.02.2020].
Transparency International Lithuania. (2018). Savivaldybių skaidrumo tyrimas. [online] Jurgio kepurė. Available at:
https://jurgiokepure.lt/tyrimas/2018/joniskio-rajono [Accessed 27.02.2020].
Vaisvalavičiūtė, A. (2007). Antikorupcinis švietimas: Lietuvos atvejis. Public Policy and Administration, 1(21), 75-86.
Vilmorus. (2016). Lietuvos korupcijos žemėlapis 2016. [online] Transparency International Lithuania. Available at:
https://www.transparency.lt/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2016_Korupcijos_zemelapis_ataskaita.ppt [Accessed
27.02.2020].
Vveinhardt, J., & Gulbovaitė, E. (2012). Asmeninių ir organizacinių vertybių kongruencija: percepcijos aspektai. Management
theory and studies for rural business and infrastructure development, 1(30), 213-221.
Weisel, O., & Shalvi, S. (2015). The collaborative roots of corruption. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
112(34), 10651-10656. DOI 10.1073/pnas.1423035112.
Wysmułek, I. (2019). Using public opinion surveys to evaluate corruption in Europe: trends in the corruption items of 21
international survey projects, 1989-2017. Quality & Quantity, 53(5), 2589-2610. DOI 10.1007/s11135-019-00873-x
Zengtian, Z., & Lingling, W. (2015). Study on the intention to be involved in anti-corruption education from public servants
based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Chinese Public Administration, 2, 11.
Zhu, M., & Li, A. (2019). Political attitudes of the Chinese young people: An empirical study based on anti-corruption issue.
Procedia Computer Science, 162, 449-457. DOI 10.1016/ j.procs.2019.12.010

View publication stats