Schemas of Gratification and Gratification Situation Assessment in

Common People

Alfikalia, Handrix Chris Haryanto, Tia Rahmania, and Muhammad Iqbal

Universitas Paramadina

Keywords: Schemas, Gratification, Corruption

Abstract: The purpose of this research is to study common people's understanding of gratification and their assessment

of gratification situations. The research method used in this study is a qualitative-inductive content analysis

that coded and categorized the respondents' answers to several open-ended questions in an online-distributed

questionnaire. The coding of the themes from the respondent's answer was grouped into categories, and then

abstraction of the themes was performed. The data analyzed came from 72 respondents, 30 women, and 42

men, with age range from 24 - 70 years and the range of education was between junior high school to a

doctoral degree. Respondents also came from different regions in Indonesia. The results of the content

analysis will look at the themes that emerge from respondents 'answers regarding respondents' definitions of

gratification and whether respondents view a given situation as a form of gratification or not. The paper will

also discuss how respondents' schema on gratification could be related to how they assessed the gratification-

related situation.

1 INTRODUCTION

The terminology of gratification was only recognized

in the Indonesian criminal law since 2001, through

Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law

No. 31 of 1999 on Eradication of The Criminal Act of

Corruption (KPK, 2015). The law, through articles

12B and 12C, regulates criminal threats for every

civil servant/state official who accepts all forms of

unauthorized giving in carrying out his duties, or is

called gratification that is considered a bribe, and

does not report it to the Komisi Pemberantasan

Korupsi (KPK/Commission on The Eradication of

Corruption) within 30 days work.

Explanation of Law No. 20 of 2001 defines

gratification as a gift in the broadest sense. This

means that all gifts received by civil servants or state

apparatus are gratification. On the other hand,

however, there is an emphasis on Article 12B that

gratification can be considered bribes when related to

his position and contrary to his obligations or duties,

and Article 12C is further strengthened by the

statement that criminal penalties do not apply if the

gratification is submitted to the KPK within a

maximum of 30 days. It can also be concluded from

this regulation that The KPK regulates that

gratification may be accepted by civil servants/state

apparatus if they are not related to their positions and

do not conflict with their duties. Civil servants/state

apparatus will not be subject to the consequences of

the criminal act of gratification if they report the gift

within a maximum period of 30 days.

Law regarding gratification as a form of

corruption then has an impact on handling corruption

cases. There are some cases where civil servants or

state apparatus. A popular case related to corruption

gratuity, which is one of the references, is the case of

Gayus Halomohan Partahanan Tambunan (KPK,

2015). Based on the KPK Anti-corruption Clearing

House website, it is known that the cases with a

permanent legal force (inkracht) in 2017 were 84

cases, and most of them were cases of gratification to

civil servants/state apparatus (Perkara yang

berkekuatan Hukum Tetap (Inkracht) 2017, n.d)

KPK realizes that sociologically, giving or

receiving gifts is a natural thing in social interactions,

and is neutral (Tamagola, 2009; Sinaga, 2009; in

KPK, 2015). But what must be considered is that if

the practice of gift-giving takes place in a power

relationship and there is also an interest in it, the

neutrality disappears (Tamagola, 2009; in KPK,

2015). Gifts-giving that occurs in a work-and-

position relationship can affect the assessment of civil

214

Alﬁkalia, ., Haryanto, H., Rahmania, T. and Iqbal, M.

Schemas of Gratiﬁcation and Gratiﬁcation Situation Assessment in Common People.

DOI: 10.5220/0009402102140219

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity (ICOACI 2019), pages 214-219

ISBN: 978-989-758-461-9

servants/state apparatus who have certain

responsibilities towards individuals/ institutions that

provide gratification. In turn, the gift provided can

then make public servants/state apparatus could not

carry out their responsibilities objectively. Therefore,

KPK carries out socialization to the public in various

forms, related to gratification as a criminal act of

corruption.

The KPK as an institution does not only have a

function of enforcing corruption, but also a function

of prevention. Corruption prevention efforts are

realized with the presence of Deputy for Prevention,

whose function is the implementation of corruption

prevention through anti-corruption education,

dissemination of corruption eradication, and anti-

corruption campaign (Office of Deputy for

Prevention, 2017). In relation to gratification as a

criminal act of corruption, this prevention function is

carried out by several directorates within the Deputy

for Prevention, including the Directorate of

Gratification and the Directorate of Education and

Community Services (Dikyanmas).

One of the efforts to prevent gratification is by

involving community participation. In the Pedoman

Pengendalian Gratifikasi KPK (KPK Guidelines for

Controlling Gratification) (2015), it is stated that one

tangible form of the role of the community in

controlling gratification is by not giving gratification

to civil servants or state apparatus. A concrete

example presented in the guideline is by not giving

gratification in the form of goods or money to the

teacher when taking a child's report card. According

to the KPK, by not providing goods or money, it

means that parents or guardians have taken

commendable steps and respect the dignity of civil

servants, in this case, teachers.

The teacher is also one of the positions in public

services in the field of education. Public service itself

is one of the elements that has become the focus of

the KPK in gratification control. KPK expects public

officials to play a role in running the gratification

control system (KPK, 2015). Law Number 25 of

2009 concerning Public Services in article 1 (1) states

that elements of public service consist of:

1) Activities/series of activities undertaken

2) in the framework of meeting service needs in

accordance with statutory regulations,

3) for each citizen and resident, in the

4) form of goods, services, and / or administrative

services

5) provided by public service providers.

The public service providers referred to in this law

are all state-run institutions, corporations,

independent institutions established under the law for

public service activities, and other legal entities solely

for public service activities. In this case, the public

service provider could be a government agency, a

regionally owned business entity, or an institution

whose financial source is not from the government,

but its availability is important for the country.

Based on the previous elaboration, we can see that

in the prevention of gratification, the KPK is targeting

the public not to provide gratification in the context

of public services. The KPK in its campaign through

the community or anti-corruption extension worker

(penyuluh antikorupsi) encouraged participants to

rethink the gratification situation they were facing.

For example, when student participants of the

Community Service Program (KKN) visit the village

head's house and are served food, should we accept

the food or reject it? If those who come are not KKN

participants, will the village head provide food? On

the other hand, giving to public service officers, such

as teachers or doctors, is still conducted with the

motive as a thank you.

Looking at the phenomena in the community

related to gratification, it appears that the community

has a certain understanding of gratification. What is

understood cognitively about a concept can affect the

way they think about behavior. One way to see an

individual's understanding of something is to look at

his schema.

Sternberg and Sternberg (2011) suggested that the

schema is a mental framework for organizing

knowledge. The schema will help individuals create a

meaningful structure of related concepts. Sternberg

and Sternberg (2011) summarize some characteristics

of schema:

▪ Can include other schemas

▪ Usually include general matters, which can

vary from one event to another.

▪ Have different levels of abstraction.

The schema that a person has will affect how

he/she responds.

In this paper, we will discuss what common

people's schema of gratification is and how

they view samples of gift-giving situations that

can be considered as gratification.

2 RESEARCH METHODS

The data analyzed came from 72 respondents, 30

women and 42 men, with an age range of 24 - 70 years

old (𝑥̅ = 40), from an open-ended question in a

questionnaire given online. The respondent's

education range from junior high school to a doctoral

degree, with the majority of the respondent, has a

Schemas of Gratiﬁcation and Gratiﬁcation Situation Assessment in Common People

215

master's degree as their highest level of education

(43.1%; N = 31). Respondents live in Jakarta, Bogor,

Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi (Jabodetabek), and 16

other provinces in Indonesia, with the majority of the

respondents, live in Jabodetabek (41.7%; N = 30). All

respondents had used public services such as

administrative, education, and health services.

The analysis was carried out on respondents'

answers to the following questions: "According to

you, what is gratification?" Respondents were also

given a description of the situation in which gifts

(money, gold, or gift term in general) were given to

public service personnel, such as teachers, medical

doctors, parking officers, or public service personnel

in the government office. Respondents were then

asked whether the situation can be classified as

gratification or not. There are three choices of

answers, namely: yes, no, and it depends.

Respondents were then asked to give reasons for their

response.

Data processing used in the research is an

inductive-qualitative content analysis approach from

Ello & Kyngäs (2008). The stages in this approach

started with the process of open coding, continue to

categorization, and ended with abstraction. The open

coding phase directs researchers to make notes in the

form of certain keywords related to the answers of

respondents. In the categorization stage, the

researcher will later group the answers according to

the initial categories that appear based on the

keywords that have been obtained in the open coding

process. The grouping of categories will later build to

a final conclusion based on a research question, which

in this case, is an abstraction process. To get good

research results in an inductive qualitative approach

to content analysis, it can use existing standards in

qualitative approaches in general (Cho & Lee, 2014).

In this research, it directs to the intercoder agreement

process in the form of a re-examination and cross-

examination process between researchers to be able

to obtain an agreement regarding the answers to

respondents in the analysis process (Creswell, 2009).

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Results

Results from the content of the analysis of the

question "According to you, what is gratification?",

Table 1 will show the results of the groupings of the

following themes:

Table 1: Themes on the concept of gratification.

Themes

A gift which can affect its

recipient

52.7

Gift

5.5

A gift that may affect civil

servant as the recipients

4.17

Gifts as a form of thank-you

4.17

Accept things which are not

his/her right

4.17

Gift related to positions

4.17

Gifts to a civil servant

2.78

Excessive gifts

2.78

Unofficial gifts

1.38

10.

Unnecessary gifts

1.38

11.

Gifts that can be good, but can

also be bad

1.38

12.

Others

15.28

This grouping shows that there are 11 themes that

can be grouped from respondents' answers. There is

also another theme named ‘others’ because the

respondent's answer does not answer the question or

irrelevant (N = 11; 15.28%).

Most respondents understood gratification as a

gift that can affect its recipient (N = 38; 52.7%). In

the second place, there is an understanding of

gratification as a gift (N = 4; 5.5%). There are 4

themes with the same number of respondents, namely

gifts that can affect civil servant as the recipients,

gifts as a form of gratitude, accept things which are

not his/her right, and gifts due to the position (N = 3;

4.17%). Other themes identified have fewer

respondents.

The results of the analysis of the identification of

respondents whether a situation is classified as

gratification or not, shown in the following table:

Table 2: Identification of gift-giving situations as

gratification.

Situation

Yes

1) Parents present the

gift to the homeroom

teacher when taking

report cards

33.3

37.5

29.17

2) The parents'

association agrees to

present gifts of 2 grams

of gold to teachers at the

school at the end of the

school year

27.8

40.3

31.9

3) Giving to doctors

who routinely conduct

health examination due

to chronic illness

suffered

29.16

45.83

ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity

216

4) Giving tip money to

parking officers in

shopping centers/offices

that have a No tipping

policy

51.38

29.17

19.44

5) Giving money to

thank public service

officers in government

offices that have helped

your business, even

though the officers did

not ask

70.83

18.05

11.11

1 D = It Depends

In situation 1, 37.5% (N=27) of respondents

answered that the situation is not a situation of

gratification, 33.3% (N=24) of respondents said that

the situation is a situation of gratification, and 29.17%

(N=21) respondents answered it depends. The variety

of the reasons in the 'it depends' answer was as

follows: it depended on the intention of the giver

when the gift was given, and it also depends on the

purpose and the amount of the gifts. Those who

answered that situation 1 was not a gratification

situation was largely because the report card could

not be changed anymore, so the gift could not be

considered as gratification.

In Situation 2, 40.3% (N=29) of respondents

stated that the situation was not a gratification

situation, 31.9% (N=23) said it depends, and 27.8%

(N=20) stated that the situation was a gratification

situation. Some of the reasons that situation 2 is not a

gratification situation are partly because it was agreed

upon, all teachers were given, because the assessment

process was finished, and it was given as a thank you.

In situation 3, 45.83% (N=33) of respondents

stated that the situation was not a gratification

situation. 29.16% (N=21) of respondents stated that

the situation was a situation of gratification, and 25%

(N=18) answered 'it depends.' The reasons

respondents answered 'no' included, among others,

that it was a thank-you gift, there was an emotional

bond, the doctor was not a civil servant, or because it

did not affect anything. Those who say "yes" on the

grounds that it can change the quality of the doctor's

services, or it was the doctor's responsibility.

In situation 4, 51.38% (N=37) stated that the

situation was a gratification situation. 29.17% (N=21)

answered “no”, and 19.44% (N=14) of respondents

answered “it depends.” Some of the reason for

answering 'yes' was partly because in situation 4 there

were already clear rules, because they could violate

the rules or because some of the customers they will

be privileged because they give a tip. It shows that

compared to situations 1, 2, and 3, there were more

people who answered 'yes' in situation 4.

In situation 5, 70.83% (N=51) answered that the

situation was a gratification situation, 18.05% (N=13)

stated that the situation was not the situation, and

11.11% (N= 8) answered 'it depends.' Some of the

reasons for the 'yes' answer was that it was their

responsibility, it would not be professional for them

to receive money, because civil servant receives

salaries, it would become a habit that will affect the

officer’s professionalism, or it will develop to illegal

charges by the officers. Those who answered 'no'

because they considered it as a thank you for the

service or because they were satisfied with the

service. Compare to situations 1-4, situation 5 was

considered by the majority of the respondents as a

gratification situation.

Analysis of respondents' answers showed that

situations 1-3 are situations where the intensity of the

gratification is less than those of situations 4 and 5.

3.2 Discussion

The concept of gratification stipulated in Law No. 20

of 2001 on the Amendments to Law No. 31 of 1999

on the Eradication of The Criminal Act of Corruption,

gratification is more directed towards payments or

gifts in broad sense, which must be controlled, and

also given room for return if the individual as a state

apparatus/civil servants receives it

Respondents' conceptions of gratification

represent their schema of gratification. Anderson

(2015) stated that schemas represent categorical

knowledge according to a slot structure, in which

slots are attributes that members of a category

possess, and each slot is filled with one or more

values, or specific instances, of that attribute. Let us

see the majority of respondents' schema of

gratification as a gift that can affect its recipient. This

schema at least has two slots:

Gratification

▪ First slot: Is a gift

▪ Second slot: it can affect the recipient of the gift

Anderson (2015) stated in his example of a

schema that the first slot is called the isa slot, which

points to the superset or the higher hierarchy of the

concept. The higher hierarchy of gratification is a gift.

Gratification is a subgroup of gifts in the concept

hierarchy of gifts. The second slot can be called a

function slot (Anderson, 2015). It means that

gratification has a function to affect its recipient. So,

for most respondents, the properties of gratification

Schemas of Gratiﬁcation and Gratiﬁcation Situation Assessment in Common People

217

have two characteristics, which are a subgroup of gift

and has the function to affect its recipient.

As we could see from the overall result, common

people's concept of gratification was varied. We

could see 11 variations on the respondents' definition

of gratification. If we group this variation into slot

structure, there will be more slots added. With more

slots added, the schema of gratification could be

presented like this:

Gratification

▪ isa slot: Is a gift

▪ function slot: it can affect the recipient of the

gift, as a thank you

▪ receiver slot: given to people in general, civil

servant, person with position

▪ the nature of gift slot: unspecified, excessive,

unofficial, unnecessary, not rightfully for the

receiver

▪ the impact of the gift slot: good or bad

According to Anderson (2015), slots represent the

attributes of what the concept has. In each slot, there

will be a specific value, for example, in the receiver

slot, and the value could be people in general, civil

servant, or person with the position. Anderson (2015)

stated the value in each slot is a default value because

they can be changed, or they do not exclude other

possibilities.

With this analysis, some questions arise. Is

gratification as a criminal act of corruption, is a

concept with a lot of attributes? Or whether the

attributes that were found in the analysis, were the

correct attributes for the concept of gratification as a

criminal act of corruption?

The analysis to the majority of respondent’s

schema of gratification, which is a gift that can affect

its recipient, showed that the attributes of the schema

were different from what stipulated by the law

regarding gratification. Their understanding of

gratification is closer to the concept of bribery in

article 5 (a) of Law No. 20 of 2001 on the

Amendments to Law No. 31 of 1999 on the

Eradication of the Criminal Act of Corruption which

stated the act of bribery as: “Any person(s) who gives

or promises something to a civil servant or state

apparatus with the aim of persuading him/her to

perform an action or not to perform an action because

of his/her position in violation of his/her obligation.”

A schema a person has, influence how he/she

interpret a situation that presented to them. Beck

(1964; in James, Southam, & Blackburn, 2004) define

the schema as a structure for screening, coding, and

evaluating impinging stimuli. According to Beck (in

James, Southam, & Blackburn, 2004), schemas direct

individual attention to previously stored information

to generate expectancies and interpretations for new

experiences. In this case, the schema a person has for

gratification will be used as a basis in determining and

evaluating the situation experienced and/or steps to be

taken by them.

In the schema of gratification as gifts that can

affect its recipient, any gift considered not to

intentionally influence individuals, will not be

considered a form of gratification. The author's belief

that this gratification schema affect respondents’

assessment of gratification situations. This can be

seen from how the tendency of respondents to assess

situations 1, 2, and 3. In situations 1 and 2, the gifts

were given after receiving report cards and at the end

of the school year. Presenting the gift would not affect

the teacher. The schema of gratification as a gift as a

form of appreciation could also involve here, seen

from the reason of the ‘no’ answer.

In situation 3, most respondents considered that

the situation was not a situation of gratification. Some

of the reasons that state that the situation is not a

situation of gratification because giving is done for

reasons of gratitude and an emotional connection.

When compared with gratification schemas as gifts

that can affect recipients, situation 3 is not intended

to influence recipients. It was also shown from the

function slot of gratification, and some people also

considered gratification is a gift for appreciation, a

form of thank-you.

Situations 4 and 5 were thick with the nuances of

duties and responsibilities. Only a small number of

respondents relate the duties and responsibilities of

the receiver of the gifts in their concept of

gratification. But when faced with a situation where

there was a gift-giving situation related to the duties

and responsibilities of the receiver, more respondents

considered the gift-giving situation as gratification. In

conclusion, the authors believe that the receiver

attribute will be apparent in gratification schema

when a situation dealing with the duties and

responsibilities of the receiver arise.

Also, it is interesting to consider the receiver

profession attribute. Respondents reacted differently

with the teacher and medical doctor compared to the

parking officer and civil servant in gift-giving

situations related to gratification. More respondents

consider the gift-giving situation as gratification

when the receiver has clear responsibilities and is a

civil servant, compare to when the receiver is the

teacher or medical doctor visited regularly. Because

there are also a teacher and medical doctor who is a

civil servant, and they also have responsibilities of

ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity

218

giving the best service to a customer who visited

them.

When comparing the profession, it could be

understood that interacting with the teacher and a

medical doctor visited regularly could create an

emotional bond from the giver to the recipient. Giving

gifts then considered a good act rather than an act that

related to gratification as a criminal act of corruption.

Giving gifts as an act that reinforce compassion and

eliminate hostility between individuals, is one of the

teachings of Prophet Muhammad, PBUH that can be

found in hadith (Shihab, 2009). As Indonesia is a

country with a majority of its population are

Moslems, this teaching of The Prophet Muhammad is

encouraged in the Moslem community. On the other

hand, this teaching of the prophet can be misused to

endorsed gratification that leads to blackmail or

bribery.

Baron, et.al., (2008) explains that individual’s

schema formation was closely related with their

previous experience. And their experiences would

also relate to their social environment and its

socialization processes. Matsumoto and Juang (2003)

explained that the existence of socialization

experienced by the individual is the process of

switching and learning both values, culture and rules

that are ultimately understood as beliefs that must be

followed when making decision in a social context. In

this sense, the schema of gratification as governed by

the law, must be continued to be socialized in its

correct, clear-cut concept so that people can form a

correct schema on gratification and can develop

related schema such as which gift is allowed and not

allowed related to one’s duties and responsibilities.

Padesky (1994) suggests that wrong schema can

survive even if there is evidence that denies these

schemas. It happened because individuals do not pay

attention, obscure evidence, or cut evidence.

Regarding gratification, it is also important to

consider what values and norms the society have on

gift-giving situations, or what consider a gift-giving

situation as a gratification. Society schema on

gratification could influence whether the law’s

schema on gratification would be adopted by the

individuals.

The research conducted to understand common

people schema on gratification has several

limitations. Because the data collection was

conducted using online questionnaire, only people

with internet access can participate in this research.

This research also did not control whether

respondents had socialization on the law on

gratification. It will be interesting to see the effect of

socialization on people’s schema on gratification can

be researched. Research on public service officer

schema on gratification is also interesting to research

because they will be the recipient of the gift from their

customer. It will be their responsibilities to reject the

gift if the customers present them gifts for the service

provided.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R., 2015. Cognitive psychology and its

implications. Worth Publisher. New York, 8th edition.

Baron, R., Branscombe, N., Byrne, D., 2008. Social

psychology. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, 11th edition.

Cho, JY., Lee,EH., 2014. Reducing confusion about

grounded theor and qualitative content analysis:

Similarities and differences. Accessed from

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/cho64.pdf

Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research design: Qualitative,

quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

California, 3rd edition.

Office of Deputy for Prevention, 2017. Downloaded from

https://www.kpk.go.id/en/about-kpk/organizational-

structure/office-of-deputy-for-prevention

Elo, S., Kyngäs, H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis

process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62 (1), 107-115.

James, I.A., Southam, L., Blackburn, I.A., 2004. Schemas

Revisited. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 11

369 - 377

Matsumoto, D., Juang, L., 2003. Culture and Psychology.

Wadsworth. New York, 3rd edition.

Padesky, C.A., 1994. Schema Change Processes in

Cognitive Therapy. Clinical Psychology and

Psychology, Vol 1 (5), 267-268

Pedoman Pengendalian Gratifikasi KPK (Gratification

Control Guidelines), 2015. Komisi Pemberantasan

Korupsi. Jakarta

Perkara yang berkekuatan Hukum Tetap (Inkracht) 2017.

Downloaded from

https://acch.kpk.go.id/id/berkas/penindakan/inkracht/i

nkracht-2017

Shihab, Q., 2009. Tafsir Al Misbah. Lentera Hati. Jakarta,

8th edition

Sternberg, R.J., Sternberg, K., 2011. Cognitive Psychology.

Wadsworth. California, 6th edition.

Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Amendments to Law No. 31 of

1999 on Eradication of The Criminal Act of Corruption

Schemas of Gratiﬁcation and Gratiﬁcation Situation Assessment in Common People

219