When do severe sanctions enhance compliance? The role of procedural fairness
AbstractBuilding on theoretical notions that severe sanctions (more than mild ones) can communicate that sanctioned behavior is morally unacceptable, we argued that particularly authorities who enact the sanction procedures in a fair manner stimulate compliance with their decisions. This is because such authorities should be considered legitimate to communicate what is morally acceptable and unacceptable. This interactive effect of sanction size and procedural fairness on compliance should thus be mediated by moral evaluations of the authority. A field survey and an experiment revealed support for these predictions. These results thus support a non-instrumental perspective on the effectiveness of sanction severity in increasing compliance with authorities.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Economic Psychology.
Volume (Year): 32 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (February)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep
Sanction severity Procedural fairness Compliance Moral evaluations;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- van Dijke, Marius & Verboon, Peter, 2010. "Trust in authorities as a boundary condition to procedural fairness effects on tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 80-91, February.
- Hite, Peggy A., 1988. "An examination of the impact of subject selection on hypothetical and self-reported taxpayer noncompliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 445-466, December.
- McCusker, Christopher & Carnevale, Peter J., 1995. "Framing in Resource Dilemmas: Loss Aversion and the Moderating Effects of Sanctions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 190-201, February.
- Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2000.
"A fine is a price,"
Natural Field Experiments
00258, The Field Experiments Website.
- Ernst Fehr & Bettina Rockenbach, 2003. "Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism," Microeconomics 0305007, EconWPA.
- Kirchler,Erich, 2007. "The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521876742, April.
- Kirchler, Erich & Wahl, Ingrid, 2010. "Tax compliance inventory TAX-I: Designing an inventory for surveys of tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 331-346, June.
- Allingham, Michael G. & Sandmo, Agnar, 1972. "Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 323-338, November.
- Kastlunger, Barbara & Lozza, Edoardo & Kirchler, Erich & Schabmann, Alfred, 2013. "Powerful authorities and trusting citizens: The Slippery Slope Framework and tax compliance in Italy," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 36-45.
- Pickhardt, Michael & Prinz, Aloys, 2014. "Behavioral dynamics of tax evasion – A survey," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-19.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.