Trust in authorities as a boundary condition to procedural fairness effects on tax compliance

We explored the moderating role of trust in authorities in the positive effect of procedural fairness of the tax office on voluntary compliance with tax authorities. Building on fairness heuristic theory, we predicted that particularly low trust in authorities makes people carefully attend to the fairness with which the tax office enacts procedures. This should result in positive procedural fairness effects on endorsement of norms prescribing taxpaying and, consequently, in voluntary tax compliance, particularly among citizens with low trust in authorities. Results from an experiment and a field study revealed converging support for these predictions. We conclude that high trust in authorities forms an important boundary condition to the effectiveness of procedural fairness as a tool to enhance tax compliance.

[1]  Deborah E. Rupp,et al.  Three roads to organizational justice , 2001 .

[2]  M. Konovsky,et al.  Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange , 1994 .

[3]  Gary G. Johnson,et al.  Enhancing Procedural Justice in Local Government Budget and Tax Decision Making , 2000 .

[4]  T. Tyler.  The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. , 1989 .

[5]  Agnar Sandmo,et al.  Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis , 1972 .

[6]  Roy J. Lewicki,et al.  What Is the Role of Trust in Organizational Justice , 2005 .

[7]  William P. Bottom,et al.  Once Bitten: Defection And Reconciliation In A Cooperative Enterprise , 1999, Business Ethics Quarterly.

[8]  D. Cremer,et al.  How leader prototypicality affects followers' status: The role of procedural fairness , 2008 .

[9]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  Divergent Realities and Convergent Disappointments in the Hierarchic Relation: Trust and the Intuitive Auditor at Work , 1996 .

[10]  Peggy A. Hite.  An examination of the impact of subject selection on hypothetical and self-reported taxpayer noncompliance , 1988 .

[11]  J. Brockner.  Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice: The role of trust. , 1996 .

[12]  Brent A. Scott,et al.  Organizational Justice: Where Do We Stand? , 2005 .

[13]  T. Tyler,et al.  Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. , 2006, Annual review of psychology.

[14]  The impact of outcome orientation and justice concerns on tax compliance: the role of taxpayers' identity. , 2002 .

[15]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  Zhen Xiong (George) Chen,et al.  Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model , 2002 .

[17]  Henk Elffers,et al.  Exploring the limits of self-reports and reasoned action: An investigation of the psychology of tax evasion behavior. , 1988 .

[18]  Erich Kirchler,et al.  Enforced versus voluntary tax compliance: The "slippery slope" framework , 2008 .

[19]  T. Tyler.  The Psychology of Legitimacy: A Relational Perspective on Voluntary Deference to Authorities , 1997, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[20]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[21]  H. Wilke,et al.  When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. , 1998 .

[22]  Susanne Colenberg,et al.  Parents' Reactions to Child Day Care Organizations: The Influence of Perceptions of Procedures and the Role of Organizations' Trustworthiness , 2002 .

[23]  T. Tyler,et al.  Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. , 1996 .

[24]  Massimo Bordignon,et al.  A fairness approach to income tax evasion , 1993 .

[25]  Leigh Thompson,et al.  Primacy Effects in Justice Judgments: Testing Predictions from Fairness Heuristic Theory. , 2001, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[26]  D. Cremer.  The Influence of Accuracy as a Function of Leader’s Bias: The Role of Trustworthiness in the Psychology of Procedural Justice , 2004 .

[27]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  Swift trust and temporary groups. , 1996 .

[28]  R. H. Willis,et al.  Social Exchange: Advances In Theory And Research , 1981 .

[29]  Michael Wenzel,et al.  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA CATALOGUING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA: , 1995 .

[30]  K. Bos,et al.  What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect , 1999 .

[31]  V. Braithwaite.  Dancing with Tax Authorities: Motivational Postures and Non-Compliant Actions , 2003 .

[32]  D. Ferrin,et al.  Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[33]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Managing Group Behavior: The Interplay Between Procedural Justice, Sense of Self, and Cooperation , 2005 .

[34]  David De Cremer,et al.  The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[35]  David De Cremer,et al.  Sanctions and moral judgments: The moderating effect of sanction severity and trust in authorities , 2009 .

[36]  D. Cremer,et al.  Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty , 2008 .

[37]  E. Kirchler.  The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour , 2007 .

[38]  Joe C Magee,et al.  From power to action. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[39]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

[40]  E. Lind.  Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. , 2001 .

[41]  P. Norris.  Critical citizens : global support for democratic government , 1999 .

[42]  Michael McKee,et al.  Fiscal exchange, collective decision institutions, and tax compliance , 1993 .

[43]  D. Ferrin,et al.  Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[44]  D. Shapiro,et al.  What is the Role of Control in Organizational Justice , 2004 .

[45]  T. Tyler.  Procedural justice, identity and deference to the law: What shapes rule-following in a period of transition? , 2009 .

[46]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Advances in Organizational Justice , 2001 .

[47]  M. Wenzel.  The Social Side of Sanctions: Personal and Social Norms as Moderators of Deterrence , 2004, Law and human behavior.

[48]  Russell Cropanzano,et al.  Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. , 1991, Journal of Applied Psychology.

[49]  Kristina Murphy,et al.  The Role of Trust in Nurturing Compliance: A Study of Accused Tax Avoiders , 2004, Law and human behavior.

[50]  Gary H. McClelland,et al.  Why do people pay taxes , 1992 .

[51]  R. Kramer,et al.  Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research , 1995 .

[52]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. , 1988 .

[53]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust , 1998 .

[54]  G. Leventhal.  What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships. , 1976 .

[55]  David De Cremer,et al.  The role of authority power in explaining procedural fairness effects. , 2010, The Journal of applied psychology.

[56]  Loretta J. Stalans,et al.  The meaning of procedural fairness: A comparison of taxpayers’ and representatives’ views of their tax audits , 1997 .

[57]  Americus Reed,et al.  Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: the interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. , 2009, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[58]  Charles R. Tittle,et al.  Sanctions and social deviance: The question of deterrence , 1980 .

[59]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, : . , 1995 .

[60]  P. Norris.  Institutional Explanations for Political Support , 1999 .

[61]  P. Verboon,et al.  A Self-Interest Analysis of Justice and Tax Compliance: How Distributive Justice Moderates the Effect of Outcome Favorability , 2007 .

[62]  Bruno S. Frey,et al.  Morality and Rationality in Environmental Policy , 1999 .

[63]  Thomas M. Porcano,et al.  Correlates of tax evasion , 1988 .

[64]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Handbook of Organizational Justice , 2005 .

[65]  C. Judd,et al.  When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[66]  Paul E. Spector,et al.  The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis , 2001 .

[67]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions , 2007, Multivariate behavioral research.

[68]  D. Schweiger,et al.  Building Commitment, Attachment, and Trust in Strategic Decision-Making Teams: The Role of Procedural Justice , 1995 .

[69]  Stuart S. Nagel,et al.  Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis , 1976 .

[70]  S. West,et al.  A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[71]  Michael Wenzel,et al.  Motivation or rationalisation? Causal relations between ethics, norms and tax compliance , 2005 .

[72]  R. L. Dipboye,et al.  Research settings in industrial and organizational psychology: Are findings in the field more generalizable than in the laboratory? , 1979 .

[73]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Procedural justice and compliance behaviour: the mediating role of emotions , 2008 .