17/10/2025
Psychological Theories Explaining Electoral Fraud Among Respected Individuals
Several psychological concepts and theories can help explain why respected individuals—who are often perceived as moral or upstanding—engage in unethical acts like electoral fraud:
1. Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957)
These individuals may see themselves as honorable community members, yet their actions (fraud) conflict with that self-image. To reduce psychological discomfort, they may rationalize the fraud as being “for the greater good,” “everyone does it,” or “necessary to prevent chaos.” This moral justification helps them maintain a positive self-concept despite unethical behavior.
2. Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)
Highly respected individuals are often deeply tied to political, ethnic, or social groups. Their loyalty to the in-group may drive them to commit fraud if they see it as protecting their group’s interests. They prioritize group victory over personal morality.
3. Moral Disengagement (Bandura, 1999)
People can temporarily “switch off” moral standards through mechanisms like diffusion of responsibility (“The party asked me to do it”), displacement of responsibility (“I was only following orders”), or euphemistic labeling (calling fraud “mobilization” or “securing votes”). This allows them to act unethically without feeling guilt.
4. Authority and Obedience (Milgram’s Experiment)
Respected figures may be part of political hierarchies where superiors pressure them to “deliver results.” Obedience to authority—even unethical authority—can override personal conscience.
5. Normative Social Influence / Social Pressure
In communities where electoral fraud is normalized, individuals may comply simply to maintain their social standing or avoid being seen as traitors or weaklings.
6. Rational Choice Theory
They may calculate that the benefits (political favor, protection, financial gain) outweigh the risks, especially in weak justice systems where punishment is unlikely.
Summary Insight
Respected individuals don’t always act ethically simply because they are admired. They often reinterpret wrongdoing as duty, loyalty, or necessity, allowing them to violate democratic norms without damaging their self-image.