What Works and What Hurts: New Research on Anti-Corruption Messaging

As a part of its ongoing efforts to find quick solutions to specific corruption challenges, the latest quarterly gathering of the Center for International Private Enterprise’s Rapid Response Community of Practice focused on anti-corruption messaging. The community is organized by CIPE’s Anti-Corruption & Governance Center and brings together anti-corruption activists, practitioners, donors, and academics to discuss breaking anti-corruption news, often in private meetings that encourage candid discussion and new partnerships among anti-corruption professionals.

This Community of Practice session was focused on the importance of anti-corruption messaging. Anti-corruption messaging is a fundamental component of international, national, and local initiatives to combat corruption. The discussion highlighted the importance of robust anti-corruption messaging campaigns, prevalent pitfalls and opportunities, and forthcoming research on the topic.

Our speakers included Caryn Peiffer (Caryn.peiffer@bristol.ac.uk), lecturer in international public policy and governance at the University of Bristol; Nic Cheeseman (n.cheeseman@bham.ac.uk), professor of democracy and international development and director of the Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation at the University of Birmingham; and Jordan Gans-Morse (jordan.gans-morse@northwestern.edu), associate professor of political science at Northwestern University. Peiffer and Cheeseman have conducted extensive research on the efficacy of anti-corruption awareness campaigns, while Gans-Morse is currently conducting research on norm-based anti-corruption messaging and citizen concerns about corruption. The three speakers have allowed us to share an unattributed summary of their collected remarks, which are presented below.

Does Anti-Corruption Messaging Work?

Research suggests anti-corruption messaging must be done thoughtfully or it may do more harm than good. More than half of the anti-corruption messaging campaigns assessed by the researchers either lacked impact or had negative consequences. Messaging that focuses on injunctive norms – peoples’ normative perceptions of what is going on, such as a message like “many citizens are fighting corruption; join them!” – can be effective.

However, anti-corruption messages that emphasize negative descriptive norms – messaging describing what people do, such as “people pay too many bribes” – are likely to backfire, leading to phenomena such as corruption fatigue. As participants in surveys learned that others were doing something corrupt, instead of opposing that behavior they became more likely to copy it.

Gaps and Opportunities When Focusing On Anti-Corruption Messaging

There is no winning formula for anti-corruption messaging, but there are multiple opportunities for improvement. Research shows that messages denying the existence of corruption do not work. Audiences generally make the opposite conclusion.

However, emerging research points to new opportunities to develop effective anti-corruption messaging. There are three distinct findings:

• Injunctive norm messaging shows consistent, but modest, short-lived effects.
• Research suggests young people respond more positively than older people to anti-corruption messaging campaigns, indicating the crucial link between this specific audience and the long-term success of anti-corruption campaigns.
• Finally, and perhaps intuitively, research suggests tailored and targeted messaging is less likely to produce negative outcomes.

The Three Ts of Effective Anti-Corruption Messaging: Tailor, Target, and Test

The nascent but growing research shows a deepening well of best practices available to researchers and practitioners. That starts before beginning a campaign, with careful consideration of its theory of change. How will each message, audience, and distribution mechanism in its campaign contribute to the campaign’s long-term goal? Once a theory of change is determined, apply the Three Ts:

• TAILOR: campaigns should calibrate their messages for targeted audiences using existing social psychology literature and anti-corruption research.
• TARGET: campaigns should aim their messages at different audiences to increase potential effectiveness, according to the campaign’s theory of change.
• TEST: campaigns should test their proposed messages with these different audiences before and during the campaign to measure efficacy and adjust as needed.

The credibility of the sender matters in all campaigns, but especially in environments laden with conspiracies and disinformation. One of the hardest things to do is rebuild trust when it has been lost. Citizens find it hard to believe good news stories in environments of low credibility, for instance, and are often more likely to believe corruption is inevitable.

Summing It Up

Generalized messaging may do more harm than good, and it’s important for donors and campaigners to ensure they do no harm. Billboards with generic anti-corruption messages, for example, especially when sponsored by a government widely viewed as corrupt, can do more harm than good. Instead, campaigners should identify a trusted messenger, tailor their messages to targeted audiences, and test their campaigns at a small scale before investing massive resources. Funding is required at each stage of the process.

Practitioners should also consider integrated campaigns or multi-pronged approaches to anti-corruption work, in which anti-corruption messaging is a single prong of a larger campaign that works with local community members, brings together stakeholders, and connects messaging to outlets and existing programming. Messaging connected to programming and communities is more likely to convince an audience that corruption is beatable and there are tools and mechanisms available to help.

The work of anti-corruption messaging is not straightforward, but the challenges presented in the field – and in our Community of Practice – offer plenty of opportunities to learn and improve.

Additional Resources

• See Peiffer and Cheeseman’s research on messaging here: Message Misunderstood: Why Raising Awareness of Corruption Can Backfire and The Curse of Good Intentions: Why Anticorruption Messaging Can Encourage Bribery.
• Read Gans-Morse’s recently published working paper with Aaron Erlich, titled “Can Norm-Based Information Campaigns Reduce Corruption?”
• Basel Institute on Governance: Case studies on social norms and corruption in Tanzania

Richard Christel formerly led CIPE’s Anti-Corruption Rapid Response Program at the Anti-Corruption and Governance Center, and is now a Governance Program Manager at the National Democratic Institute’s Governance Team.

Wyatt Frank is a Program Associate for the Anti-Corruption and Governance Center (ACGC) at CIPE, where he supports Rapid Response, Beneficial Ownership Transparency, and Collective Action Against Kleptocracy programming.