Fair or beneficial? The influence of subjective procedural fairness and individual benefits on the level of acceptance of a tax administration decision
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15678/PJOEP.2016.10.03Keywords:
procedural fairness, outcome favorability, taxes, tax administrationAbstract
This article presents two experiments to determine the level of acceptance of a tax office decision as a function of the decision’s favourability and perceived procedural fairness. The studies were conducted in a two-factor experimental scheme: Procedure (fair vs. unfair) and Result (in Study 1: Decision: favourable vs. unfavourable; Income: less vs. more unfavourable; in Study 2: Overpayment: less vs. more favourable) on a total sample of 224 people. Study 1 results showed a significant effect of the decision’s favourability on the acceptance of the final tax office decision. Respondents were more likely to accept a decision to be favourable and less unfavourable, even as the result of an unfair procedure. In the Income scenario, the effect of procedural fairness on the level of statistical trend was found. Study 2 results showed the higher acceptance of the more favourable decision, regardless of the level of procedural fairness. The results suggest that the acceptance of a tax office decision is primarily influenced by its favourability. Procedural fairness may have an impact on moderately unfavourable decisions.
References
Alm, J., Jackson, B.R., McKee, M. (1993). Fiscal Exchange, Collective Decisions Institutions, and Tax Compliance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 22(3), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(93)90003-8
Alm, J., McClelland, G.H., Schulze, W.D. (1999). Changing the Social Norms of Tax Compliance by Voting.
Kyklos, 52(2), 141–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
1999.tb01440.x
Alm, J., Torgler, B. (2006). Culture Differences and Tax Morale in the United States and in Europe. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(2), 224–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2005.09.002
Batson, C.D., Thompson, E.R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., Strongman, J.A. (1999). Moral Hypocrisy: Appearing Moral to Oneself without Being So. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.525
Białobrzeska, O., Bocian, K., Parzuchowski, M., Frankowska, N., Wojciszke, B. (2015).To nie fair (bo mi szkodzi): zaangażowanie interesu własnego zniekształca ocenę sprawiedliwości dystrybutywnej. Psychologia Społeczna, 2(33) 149–162.
Bies, R.J. (2005). Are Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice Conceptually Distinct? W: J. Greenberg, J.A. Colquitt (red.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (s. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blanthorne, C., Kaplan, S. (2008). An Egocentric Model of the Relations among the Opportunity to Underreport, Social Norms, Ethical Beliefs, and Underreporting Behavior. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(7–8), 684–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2008.02.001
Bocian, K., Wojciszke, B. (2014). Self-interest Bias in Moral Judgments of Others’ Actions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 898–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214529800
Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Magner, N., Folger, R., Umphress, E., van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., Magner, M., Siegel, P. (2003). High Procedural Fairness Heightens the Effect of Outcome Favorability on Self-evaluations: An Attributional Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00531-9
Cohen, R.L. (1986). Power and Justice in Intergroup Relations. W: H.W. Bierhoff, R.L. Cohen, J. Greenberg (red.), Justice in Social Relations (s. 65–84). New York: Plenum Press.
Cuccia, A.D., Carnes, G.A. (2001). A Closer Look at the Relation between Tax Complexity and Tax Equity Perceptions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(2), 113–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-4870(01)00025-3
Doerrenberg, P., Peichl, A. (2010). Progressive Taxation and Tax Morale. IZA Discussion Paper, 5378. Bonn: IZA.
Epley, N., Caruso, E.M. (2004). Egocentric Ethics. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:sore.0000027408.72713.45
Feld, L.P., Frey, B.S. (2002). Trust Breeds Trust: How Taxpayers Are Treated. Economics of Governance, 3(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101010100032
Folger, R., Martin, C. (1986). Relative Deprivation and Referent Cognitions: Distributive and Procedural Justice Effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(6), 531–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90049-1
Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J., Corkran, L. (1979). Effects of “Voice” and Peer Opinions on Responses to Inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(12), 2253–2261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.12.2253
Folger, R., Rosenfield, D.D., Robinson, T. (1983). Relative Deprivation and Procedural Justifications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 268–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.268
Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to Procedural Injustice in Payment Distributions: Do the Means Justify the Ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.55
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the Name of Justice: Informational and Interpersonal Moderators of Theft Reactions to Underpayment Inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1004
Kirchler, E. (2007). The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lind, E.A., Tyler, T.R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Maroney, J.J., Rupert, T.J., Anderson, B.H. (1998). Taxpayer Reaction to Perceived Inequity: An Investigation of Indirect Effects and the Equity-control Model. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 20(1), 60–77.
Murphy, K. (2003). Procedural Justice and Tax Compliance. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 38(3), 379–407.
Murphy, K. (2004). The Role of Trust in Nurturing Compliance: A Study of Accused Tax Avoiders. Law and Human Behavior, 28(2), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:lahu.0000022322.94776.ca
Niesiobędzka, M. (2009). Relacje podatnik–państwo jako predyktory moralności podatkowej. Psychologia Społeczna, 4(3), 123–132.
Niesiobędzka, M. (2013). Dlaczego nie płacimy podatków? Psychologiczna analiza uchylania się od opodatkowania. Warszawa: Scholar.
Niesiobędzka, M. (2014). Relations between Procedural Fairness, Tax Morale, Institutional Trust and Tax Evasion. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 5(1), 41–52.
Pommerehne, W.W., Hart, A., Frey, B.S. (1994). Tax Morale, Tax Evasion and the Choice of Policy Instruments in Different Political Systems. Public Finance, 49 (Supplement), 52–69.
Thibaut, J., Walker, L. (1978). A Theory of Procedure. California Law Review, 66(3), 541–566. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480099
Tyler, T.R. (1994). Psychological Models of the Justice Motive: Antecedents of Distributive and Procedural Justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 850–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.850
Tyler, T.R., Degoey, O. (1996). Trust in Organizational Authorities: The Influence of Motive Attributions on Willingness to Accept Decisions. W: R.M. Kramer, T.R. Tyler (red.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (s. 331–356). London: Sage.
Tyler, T.R., Lind, E.A. (1992). A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. W: M. Zanna (red.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25 (s. 115–191). San Diego–London: Academic Press.
Verboon, P., van Dijke, M. (2011). When do Severe Sanctions Enhance Compliance: The Role of Procedural Fairness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.09.007
Van den Bos, K., Bruins, J., Wilke, H.A.M., Dronkert, E. (1999). Sometimes Unfair Procedures Have Nice Aspects: On the Psychology of the Fair Process Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.324
Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., Wilke, H.AM. (1997). Procedural and Distributive Justice: What Is Fair Depends More on What Comes First Than on What Comes Next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.95
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H.A.M., Lind, E.A., Vermunt R. (1998). Evaluating Outcomes by Means of the Fair Process Effect: Evidence for Different Processes in Fairness and Satisfaction Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1493–1503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1493
Wartick, M.L. (1994). Legislative Justification and the Perceived Fairness of Tax Law Changes: A Referent Cognitions Theory Approach. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 16(2), 106–123.
Wenzel, M. (2003). Tax Compliance and the Psychology of Justice: Mapping the Field. W: V. Braithwaite (red.), Taxing Democracy: Understanding Tax Avoidance and Evasion (s. 41–69). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Wenzel, M. (2006). A Letter from the Tax Office: Compliance Effects of Informational and Interpersonal Justice. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0011-y
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authorship
The Author (Co-authors) declares that the submitted paper does not infringe on the third parties’ copyright, consents to submitting the paper to the reviewing procedure and introducing editorial changes in it, and conveys proprietary copyright to the paper free of charge to publisher for uses stipulated in paragraph 50 of the Polish Bill on Copyright and Related Rights of 4.02.1994, provided that the paper has been accepted for publication and published.
Conditions of use
The Publisher owns the proprietary copyright to all materials published in the journal. Articles are made available on the basis of non-exclusive Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 licence. The full text of the licence can be found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode, and its accessible summary a thttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en.
Posting the text in the repository, on the author’s homepage or other website is permitted on condition that it does not entail gaining material benefits and the text is equipped with full source documentation (including the title, volume, issue and internet address of the journal).
All those interested in using the materials published in the journal for commercial purposes are kindly requested to contact the Editors.
