Tax framing, instrumentality and individual differences:

Are there two different cultures?

John Cullis, Philip Jones, Alan Lewis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Five hundred and thirty nine psychology and economics majors took part in a tax compliance study investigating the influence of detection rates (within subjects); and the between subject variables of framing effects (loss aversion); instructions to behave instrumentally (or not), and individual differences (major degree undertaken and gender) on the amount of income declared. Respondents systematically declared more as detection rates rose but when considering the effects for framing or for instrumental instruction the results were mixed. However the individual difference measures were crucial factors in the interpretation of the results. Economists declared significantly less income, were significantly influenced by framing effects and in a qualitative analysis were less co-operative and less concerned with the morality of tax (non)compliance compared to psychologists. When the general linear analysis was repeated for males and females separately it was clear that males declared significantly less when tax was framed as a loss. The research method employed is discussed and suggestions are made for further research which can untangle the influence of gender and degree choice and address the question of the appropriate level of 'realism' in the research design.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)304-320
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of Economic Psychology
Volume27
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2006

Fingerprint

Individuality
taxes
Compliance
Psychology
Research
instruction
income
Research Design
gender
Economics
realism
psychologist
morality
economist
research planning
research method
psychology
interpretation
economics
Tax

Cite this

Tax framing, instrumentality and individual differences: Are there two different cultures? / Cullis, John; Jones, Philip; Lewis, Alan.

In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 2, 01.04.2006, p. 304-320.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{62762a958637468b8819cd3c7f6c9558,
title = "Tax framing, instrumentality and individual differences:: Are there two different cultures?",
abstract = "Five hundred and thirty nine psychology and economics majors took part in a tax compliance study investigating the influence of detection rates (within subjects); and the between subject variables of framing effects (loss aversion); instructions to behave instrumentally (or not), and individual differences (major degree undertaken and gender) on the amount of income declared. Respondents systematically declared more as detection rates rose but when considering the effects for framing or for instrumental instruction the results were mixed. However the individual difference measures were crucial factors in the interpretation of the results. Economists declared significantly less income, were significantly influenced by framing effects and in a qualitative analysis were less co-operative and less concerned with the morality of tax (non)compliance compared to psychologists. When the general linear analysis was repeated for males and females separately it was clear that males declared significantly less when tax was framed as a loss. The research method employed is discussed and suggestions are made for further research which can untangle the influence of gender and degree choice and address the question of the appropriate level of 'realism' in the research design.",
author = "John Cullis and Philip Jones and Alan Lewis",
year = "2006",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.joep.2005.07.003",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "304--320",
journal = "Journal of Economic Psychology",
issn = "0167-4870",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tax framing, instrumentality and individual differences:

T2 - Are there two different cultures?

AU - Cullis, John

AU - Jones, Philip

AU - Lewis, Alan

PY - 2006/4/1

Y1 - 2006/4/1

N2 - Five hundred and thirty nine psychology and economics majors took part in a tax compliance study investigating the influence of detection rates (within subjects); and the between subject variables of framing effects (loss aversion); instructions to behave instrumentally (or not), and individual differences (major degree undertaken and gender) on the amount of income declared. Respondents systematically declared more as detection rates rose but when considering the effects for framing or for instrumental instruction the results were mixed. However the individual difference measures were crucial factors in the interpretation of the results. Economists declared significantly less income, were significantly influenced by framing effects and in a qualitative analysis were less co-operative and less concerned with the morality of tax (non)compliance compared to psychologists. When the general linear analysis was repeated for males and females separately it was clear that males declared significantly less when tax was framed as a loss. The research method employed is discussed and suggestions are made for further research which can untangle the influence of gender and degree choice and address the question of the appropriate level of 'realism' in the research design.

AB - Five hundred and thirty nine psychology and economics majors took part in a tax compliance study investigating the influence of detection rates (within subjects); and the between subject variables of framing effects (loss aversion); instructions to behave instrumentally (or not), and individual differences (major degree undertaken and gender) on the amount of income declared. Respondents systematically declared more as detection rates rose but when considering the effects for framing or for instrumental instruction the results were mixed. However the individual difference measures were crucial factors in the interpretation of the results. Economists declared significantly less income, were significantly influenced by framing effects and in a qualitative analysis were less co-operative and less concerned with the morality of tax (non)compliance compared to psychologists. When the general linear analysis was repeated for males and females separately it was clear that males declared significantly less when tax was framed as a loss. The research method employed is discussed and suggestions are made for further research which can untangle the influence of gender and degree choice and address the question of the appropriate level of 'realism' in the research design.

U2 - 10.1016/j.joep.2005.07.003

DO - 10.1016/j.joep.2005.07.003

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 304

EP - 320

JO - Journal of Economic Psychology

JF - Journal of Economic Psychology

SN - 0167-4870

IS - 2

ER -