Keywords
Morality
Public Integrity
Political behavior
Political culture
How to Cite
Abstract
Purpose: This article examines how different moral value systems shape electoral preferences and perceptions of corruption regarding political candidates in Brazil and Mexico. It distinguishes between personal moral values related to the private sphere and social moral values associated with the public and institutional sphere, seeking to identify which dimension carries greater weight in leadership evaluation.
Method: A mixed-methods approach is employed. The quantitative stage relies on longitudinal data from the World Values Survey between 1981 and 2019, using factor analysis and the construction of a moral evaluation index. The qualitative stage consists of comparative focus groups conducted in both countries, structured according to the tripartite model of attitudes, encompassing cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions.
Findings: The findings show that Brazilians place greater emphasis on public integrity, displaying lower tolerance for corruption in political office even at the expense of perceived effectiveness. Mexicans, by contrast, adopt a more pragmatic stance, valuing both public and private morality and showing greater tolerance toward corruption when candidates are seen as competent. In both contexts, a gap emerges between declared moral values and actual electoral choices, largely mediated by emotional and situational factors.
Originality and Value: The study advances the literature by demonstrating the fluid and context-dependent nature of moral attitudes and their implications for political accountability and democratic decision-making.
References
Altemeyer, B. (2006). The authoritarians. Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba. [Manuscrito no publicado].
Assunção e Silva, W. F. (2017). O princípio da moralidade política segundo Ronald Dworkin e o processo de impeachment: o caso de Dilma Rousseff [Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos].
Barbosa, T. (2020, octubre 21). Não faz, mas não rouba? [Ponencia]. 12° Encuentro de la ABCP, Democracia e Desenvolvimento, Universidade Federal da Paraíba. https://rb.gy/ovqql
Bezes, P., & Lascoumes, P. (2005). Percevoir et juger la corruption politique. Revue française de science politique, 55(5–6), 757–786. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfsp.555.0757
Bizer, G. (2004). Attitudes. En C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 247–253). Elsevier.
Bizer, G., Barden, J., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Attitudes. En L. Nadel et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 247–253). Macmillan.
Da Matta, R. O. (1984). O que faz o brasil, Brasil? Editora Rocco.
Duska, R., & Whelan, M. (1975). Moral development: A guide to Piaget and Kohlberg. Paulist Press.
Dworkin, R. (2011). Justice for hedgehogs. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Esaiasson, P., & Muñoz, J. (2014). Roba pero hace? An experimental test of the competence-corruption tradeoff hypothesis in Spain and Sweden. Working Paper Series, University of Gothenburg, 2(2), 2–25. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/38899
Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., & Puranen, B. (Eds.). (2020). World Values Survey: Round Seven – Country-pooled datafile version 3.0. JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp
Lane, R. E. (1962). Political ideology: Why the American common man believes what he does. The Free Press.
Lledó Íñigo, E. (1985). Introducción. En Aristóteles, Ética Nicomáquea (pp. 9–43). Editorial Gredos.
Martínez Rosón, M. M. (2016). Yo prefiero al corrupto: el perfil de los ciudadanos que eligen políticos deshonestos pero competentes. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 153, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.153.77
Olvera, A. (2016). La crisis política, los movimientos sociales y el futuro de la democracia en México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, 61(226), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0185-1918(16)30011-3
Peters, J. G., & Welch, S. (1980). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 74(3), 697–709. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958151
Pérez, O. J. (2015). The impact of crime on voter choice in Latin America. En R. Carlin, M. Singer, & E. J. Zechmeister (Eds.), The Latin American voter: Pursuing representation and accountability in challenging contexts (pp. 324–345). University of Michigan Press.
Rennó, L. R. (2007). Escândalos e voto: As eleições presidenciais brasileiras de 2006. Opinião Pública, 13(2), 260–282. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-62762007000200002
Rundquist, B. S., Strom, G. S., & Peters, J. G. (1977). Corrupt politicians and their electoral support: Some experimental observations. American Political Science Review, 71(3), 954–963. https://doi.org/10.2307/1960100
Silveira, F. E. (1998). A decisão do voto no Brasil. EDIPUCRS.
Sousa Oliva, J. D. (2021). Comportamento eleitoral: O dilema entre honestidade e competência nas eleições 2018 no Brasil e no México [Tesis de doctorado, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul]. Repositório Digital Lume. https://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/226278
Sousa Oliva, J. D. (2023). El dilema de los votantes entre candidatos honestos y competentes en las elecciones de 2018 en México y Brasil. Nóesis. Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 32(64), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.20983/noesis.2023.2.2
Winters, M., & Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2013). Lacking information or condoning corruption: When do voters support corrupt politicians? Comparative Politics, 45(4), 418–436. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041513X13815259182857
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 José Daniel Sousa Oliva