Abstract

In economic unethical decision-making experiments, one important methodological investigation is what types of contexts should be used to frame the instructions. Within the experimental economics community, using neutral-context instructions instead of loaded-context instructions is the mainstream practice. Because the loaded contexts may impact behavior in an unpredictable manner and therefore, put experimental control at risk. Nevertheless, using the loaded-context instructions could be advantageous in several ways. A properly framed context can help to facilitate learning and gain ecological validity. The challenge is whether we can identify when and why the loaded context may alter behavior. In this paper, we aim to test if being familiar with a loaded context can systematically influence unethical decisions in a bribery game. We conduct a laboratory bribery game experiment with three different treatments: the neutral-context treatment, the familiar-context treatment, and the unfamiliar-context treatment. Using the neutral-context treatment as a benchmark, we find that participants in the familiar-context treatment express stronger negative attitudes toward corruption. Attitudes toward unethical behavior are the same in the neutral-context treatment and the unfamiliar-context treatment. Behaviorally, the participants in the familiar-context treatment are much less likely to engage in corrupt activities. The neutral-context treatment and the unfamiliar-context treatment produce the same behavioral outcome.