‘Spite effects’ in tax evasion experiments

Cullis, John; Jones, Philip; Soliman, Amal

doi:10.1016/j.socec.2011.05.011

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, game theorists (Hamburger, 1979) have defined spiteful acts as those that maximize differences, even at personal costs (e.g., it is better to receive $4 and have the other player receive $1 than to each receive $5). According to behavioral economists, a spiteful person is “willing to decrease the economic payoff of a reference agent at a personal cost to himself” (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2005, p. 154), and spiteful acts “incur costs that generate neither present nor future material rewards” (Cullis, Jones, & Soliman, 2012, p. 418). From a different perspective, psychoanalysts have written about the “the self-destructiveness of spite” (Shabad, 2000, p. 690) and define spite to refer to instances in which people harm themselves to punish another (e.g., people with borderline personality disorder hurting themselves to punish those who care about them; Critchfield, Levy, Clarkin, & Kernberg, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, spiteful motives during child custody negotiations may damage children's relationships with their parents, ultimately harming all of the parties involved (Johnston, 2003). At the societal level, using an analogue experiment, Cullis et al (2012) found that increasing the audit rate and penalties can elicit spiteful tax evasion in which people at the greatest risk of being caught hide more income.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The psychology of spite and the measurement of spitefulness.

Marcus¹,

Zeigler‐Hill²,

Mercer³

et al. 2014

Psychological Assessment

121

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spite is an understudied construct that has been virtually ignored within the personality, social, and clinical psychology literatures. This study introduces a self-report Spitefulness Scale to assess individual differences in spitefulness. The scale was initially tested on a large sample of 946 college students and cross-validated on a national sample of 297 adults. The scale was internally consistent in both samples. Factor analysis supported a 1-factor solution for the initial pool of 31 items. Item response theory analysis was used to identify the best performing of the original 31 items in the university sample and reduce the scale to 17 items. Tests of measurement invariance indicated that the items functioned similarly across both university and national samples, across both men and women, and across both ethnic majority and minority groups. Men reported higher levels of spitefulness than women, younger people were more spiteful than older people, and ethnic minority members reported higher levels of spitefulness than ethnic majority members. Across both samples, spitefulness was positively associated with aggression, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and guilt-free shame, and negatively correlated with self-esteem, guilt-proneness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Ideally, this Spitefulness Scale will be able to predict behavior in both laboratory settings (e.g., ultimatum games, aggression paradigms) and everyday life, contribute to the diagnosis of personality disorders and oppositional defiant disorder, and encourage further study of this neglected, often destructive, trait.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The psychology of spite and the measurement of spitefulness.

Marcus¹,

Zeigler‐Hill²,

Mercer³

et al. 2014

Psychological Assessment

121

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The threat with punishment may not be powerful enough since potential offenders do not want to fall behind their peers, who might gain a competitive advantage by committing crime (Songchoo and Suriya 2012). One important behavioral effect results from the perceived legitimacy of the enforced rule (Beams, Brown et al 2003, Cullis, Jones et al 2012, Castro and Rizzo 2014, Besley, Jensen et al 2015, of the procedure that has led to the adoption of the rule (Feld and Tyran 2002, Azfar and Nelson Jr 2007, DeAngelo and Charness 2012, and of the sanction (Montag and Sobek 2014): the higher the legitimacy, the less the rule is violated.…”

Section: A) Deterrencementioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental criminal law: a survey of contributions from law, economics, and criminology

Engel¹

2018

Empirical Legal Research in Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three distinct disciplines, crime and punishment are studied experimentally: in empirical legal studies, in experimental economics, and an experimental criminology. These three disciplines have surprisingly little interaction. The current paper surveys the rich evidence, and discusses the methodological reasons for running experiments on these issues, the limitations of the method, and how they can be mitigated.

show abstract

“…and DeGiovanni et al (2019) deal with biases induced by prospect theory.7 SeeAndreoni et al (1998) andLuttmer and Singhal (2014).8 Empirical and experimental evidence of the relationship of tax morale and tax compliance is vast. Just to mention a few, seeTorgler (2007),Kirchler (2007),Hallsworth et al (2014) andCullis et al (2012). Also, recent psychology literature provides a very useful framework, the so called Slippery Slope model, to study the formation of tax morale and the way it influences tax payers' behavior (seeGangl et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%