IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v31y2010i3p400-404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions and outcomes of a fiscal bonus: Framing effects on evaluations and usage intentions

Author

Listed:
  • Lozza, Edoardo
  • Carrera, Sonia
  • Bosio, A. Claudio

Abstract

Is presenting a fiscal bonus as an income increase (a gain) the same as presenting it as a tax rebate (a loss reduction)? This paper aims to answer this question with two studies. Study 1 is a survey carried out in Italy to explore citizens' perceptions of a fiscal reform introduced in 2005. It shows both effects imputable to the methods used to describe the bonus and differences between respondents belonging to different occupational groups. But it does not allow disentangling these factors. Study 2 aims to investigate whether and how (1) the frame used to describe a fiscal bonus and (2) taxpayers' occupational status, influence their evaluation of this tax reduction and the uses they intend to make of it. To this end, 252 participants belonging to different occupational groups were submitted to two between-subject framing conditions (the bonus being described as a reduced loss or as a gain). They were then asked to evaluate the bonus' importance for their personal wealth and to state how they intended to use it. Results demonstrate that the frame, rather than the occupational status of the respondent, influences taxpayers' responses to the bonus. Respondents attached a higher importance to the bonus and were keener to save it when it was described as a loss reduction, compared to it being presented as a gain. These results are interpreted with reference to Prospect Theory, producing new insights into the processes through which framing can affect fiscal policy evaluations. The study is also relevant from a pragmatic perspective, as it shows that the way fiscal policy is communicated can be decisive for the achievement of economic and political goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Lozza, Edoardo & Carrera, Sonia & Bosio, A. Claudio, 2010. "Perceptions and outcomes of a fiscal bonus: Framing effects on evaluations and usage intentions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 400-404, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:31:y:2010:i:3:p:400-404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-4870(10)00015-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Ashby, Julie S. & Webley, Paul & Haslam, Alexander S., 2009. "The role of occupational taxpaying cultures in taxpaying behaviour and attitudes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 216-227, April.
    3. Matthew D. Shapiro & Joel Slemrod, 2003. "Consumer Response to Tax Rebates," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 381-396, March.
    4. Epley, Nicholas & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2007. "The framing of financial windfalls and implications for public policy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 36-47, February.
    5. Chang, Otto H. & Nichols, Donald R. & Schultz, Joseph J., 1987. "Taxpayer attitudes toward tax audit risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 299-309, September.
    6. Robben, Henry S. J. & Webley, Paul & Weigel, Russell H. & Warneryd, Karl-Erik & Kinsey, Karyl A. & Hessing, Dick J. & Martin, Francisco Alvira & Elffers, Henk & Wahlund, Richard & Van Langenhove, Luk, 1990. "Decision frame and opportunity as determinants of tax cheating : An international experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 341-364, September.
    7. Kirchler, Erich & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2001. "Tax compliance within the context of gain and loss situations, expected and current asset position, and profession," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 173-194, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dharshing, Samdruk & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2017. "The Influence of Political Orientation on the Strength and Temporal Persistence of Policy Framing Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 295-305.
    2. Cinzia Castiglioni & Edoardo Lozza & Albino Claudio Bosio, 2018. "Lay People Representations on the Common Good and Its Financial Provision," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(4), pages 21582440188, October.
    3. Cullis, John & Jones, Philip & Lewis, Alan & Castiglioni, Cinzia & Lozza, Edoardo, 2015. "Do poachers make harsh gamekeepers? Attitudes to tax evasion and to benefit fraud," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 124-131.
    4. Kay Blaufus & Frank Hechtner & Axel Möhlmann, 2017. "The Effect of Tax Preparation Expenses for Employees: Evidence from Germany," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 525-554, March.
    5. Ackermann, Hagen, 2015. "How does the type of subsidization affect investments: Experimental evidence," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 185, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    6. Kay Blaufus & Axel Möhlmann, 2014. "Security Returns and Tax Aversion Bias: Behavioral Responses to Tax Labels," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 56-69, January.
    7. James Alm & Kay Blaufus & Martin Fochmann & Erich Kirchler & Peter N. C. Mohr & Nina E. Olson & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Tax Policy Measures to Combat the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic and Considerations to Improve Tax Compliance: A Behavioral Perspective," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 76(4), pages 396-428.
    8. Iannario, Maria & Manisera, Marica & Zuccolotto, Paola, 2015. "The treatment of don't know responses in the consumers' perceptions: a survey in the agri-food sector," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202704, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Maria Iannario & Marica Manisera & Paola Zuccolotto, 2017. "Treatment of “don’t know” responses in the consumers’ perceptions about sustainability in the agri-food sector," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 765-778, March.
    10. John Yinger & Phuong Nguyen-Hoang, 2015. "The Behavioral Impacts of Poverty Tax Relief: Salience or Framing?," Center for Policy Research Working Papers 186, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School, Syracuse University.
    11. Ackermann, Hagen & Fochmann, Martin & Temme, Rebecca, 2018. "Behavioral responses to subsidies in risky investment decisions and the effectiveness of tax credits and grants," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 226, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    12. Tai-Sen He, 2020. "The framing effect of tax–transfer systems," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(2), pages 213-225, December.
    13. Renz, André, 2016. "Die Relevanz von Replikationen in der experimentellen Steuerforschung: Eine Replikationsstudie zu Wahrnehmungsverzerrungen bei Subventionen," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 202, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Copeland, Phyllis V. & Cuccia, Andrew D., 2002. "Multiple Determinants of Framing Referents in Tax Reporting and Compliance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 499-526, May.
    2. Vossler, Christian A. & McKee, Michael & Bruner, David M., 2021. "Behavioral effects of tax withholding on tax compliance: Implications for information initiatives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 301-319.
    3. Diller, Markus & Kühne, Daniela, 2020. "Framing and loss aversion in tax reporting behavior: Evidence from German income tax return data," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Betriebswirtschaftliche Reihe B-43-20, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    4. Steinel, Wolfgang & Valtcheva, Kalina & Gross, Jörg & Celse, Jérémy & Max, Sylvain & Shalvi, Shaul, 2022. "(Dis)honesty in the face of uncertain gains or losses," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    6. Elffers, Henk & Hessing, Dick J., 1997. "Influencing the prospects of tax evasion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(2-3), pages 289-304, April.
    7. Luigi Mittone, 2002. "Individual styles of tax evasion: an experimental study," CEEL Working Papers 0202, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    8. Luigi Mittone, 1997. "Subjective versus objective probability: results from seven experiments on fiscal evasion," CEEL Working Papers 9704, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    9. Kirchler, Erich & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2001. "Tax compliance within the context of gain and loss situations, expected and current asset position, and profession," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 173-194, April.
    10. Fochmann, Martin & Wolf, Nadja, 2015. "Mental accounting in tax evasion decisions: An experiment on underreporting and overdeducting," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 186, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    11. Frank A Cowell, 2003. "Sticks and Carrots," STICERD - Distributional Analysis Research Programme Papers 68, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    12. Mehrmann, Annika & Sureth-Sloane, Caren, 2017. "Tax loss offset restrictions and biased perception of risky investments," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 222, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    13. Kirchler, Erich & Holzl, Erik, 2006. "Twenty-five years of the Journal of Economic Psychology (1981-2005): A report on the development of an interdisciplinary field of research," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 793-804, December.
    14. גדעון יניב, 1998. "מקדמות מס והשתמטות ממס: ניתוח של רצוינאליות מוגבלת (באנגלית)," Working Papers 359, National Insurance Institute of Israel.
    15. Hasseldine, John & Hite, Peggy A., 2003. "Framing, gender and tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 517-533, August.
    16. Fahr, René & Janssen, Elmar & Sureth, Caren, 2014. "Can tax rate increases foster investment under entry and exit flexibility? Insights from an economic experiment," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 166, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    17. Faralla, Valeria & Novarese, Marco & Ardizzone, Antonella, 2017. "Framing Effects in Intertemporal Choice: A Nudge Experiment," MPRA Paper 82086, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Fortin, Bernard & Lacroix, Guy & Villeval, Marie-Claire, 2007. "Tax evasion and social interactions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(11-12), pages 2089-2112, December.
    19. Albuquerque, Bruno & Green, Georgina, 2023. "Financial concerns and the marginal propensity to consume in COVID times: Evidence from UK survey data," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    20. Austin, Chelsea Rae & Bobek, Donna D. & Jackson, Scott, 2021. "Does prospect theory explain ethical decision making? Evidence from tax compliance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Framing Rebate Taxation;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:31:y:2010:i:3:p:400-404. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.