Deception choice and self-selection - The importance of being earnest

被引:13
作者
Konrad, Kai A. [1 ,2 ]
Lohse, Tim [1 ,3 ]
Qari, Salmai [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Max Planck Inst Tax Law & Publ Finance, D-80539 Munich, Germany
[2] Social Sci Res Ctr Berlin, D-10785 Berlin, Germany
[3] Berlin Sch Econ & Law, D-10825 Berlin, Germany
关键词
Deception; Self-selection; Tax compliance; Lie-catching; TAX MORALE; TRUTH; BEAUTY; CORRUPTION; PROMISES; GENDER;
D O I
10.1016/j.jebo.2014.07.012
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
We study deception choices, the self-selection of capable and less capable deceivers and deception detection in a tax compliance experiment. We find large systematic differences between whether subjects are perceived as honest or as dishonest. Taxpayers are seemingly aware of these perceptions. The empirical outcomes are in line with a theory suggesting that taxpayers make their tax compliance choices on the basis of these perceptions. Taxpayers who are perceived as honest self-select since they are more likely to underreport. This selection effect is stronger if the fines for underreporting are high. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:25 / 39
页数:15
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]  
Andreoni J, 1998, J ECON LIT, V36, P818
[2]   Beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments [J].
Andreoni, James ;
Petrie, Ragan .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY, 2008, 29 (01) :73-93
[3]  
[Anonymous], 201118 MAX PLANCK I
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2008, Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities
[5]  
[Anonymous], RAPPORTO ALLANTROPOL
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2004, MPRA Paper No. 13513
[7]  
[Anonymous], 4373 CESIFO
[8]  
Baron-Cohen S, 1998, NATURE, V392, P459, DOI 10.1038/33076
[9]   What You See May Not Be What You Get: Relationships Among Self-Presentation Tactics and Ratings of Interview and Job Performance [J].
Barrick, Murray R. ;
Shaffer, Jonathan A. ;
DeGrassi, Sandra W. .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 94 (06) :1394-1411
[10]   CRIME AND PUNISHMENT - ECONOMIC APPROACH [J].
BECKER, GS .
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 1968, 76 (02) :169-217