Lay People Representations on the Common Good and Its Financial Provision:

Cinzia Castiglioni; Edoardo Lozza; Albino Claudio Bosio

doi:10.1177/2158244018807247

Lay People Representations on the Common Good and Its Financial Provision:

Castiglioni, Cinzia; Lozza, Edoardo; Bosio, Albino Claudio 2018-10-16 00:00:00 The financial contribution to the common good is a relevant issue to contemporary societies, especially in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. In the economic literature, taxes and monetary donations have been regarded as two complementary ways of financially providing for the common good. In the psychological literature, instead, they have not been studied in conjunction. In-depth interviews have been conducted using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach and a photo-elicitation technique to investigate the representations people share on the financial provision for the common good. Results suggest that both taxes and donations are seen as indirect, rather than direct, ways of providing for the common good. From a formal and cognitive level, paying taxes and making donations can be seen as two sides of the same coin, but they present differences at the affective level. When paying taxes, people are concerned mostly about the effects and expect a material exchange in return; when making a monetary donation, people are concerned mostly about the motivations and expect an emotional exchange in return. Keywords common good, tax behavior, charitable giving, financial provision, money, photo-elicitation economy in 31 European countries is estimated at 18% of Introduction GDP; Schneider, 2015). One of the biggest challenges to governments and institu- On one hand, in the economic literature, taxes and mone- tions is to find arrangements that overcome the free-riding tary donations have been regarded as two complementary problem inherent in both the voluntary and mandatory provi- ways - one “public,” the other “private” - to create public sion of the common good. From a financial point of view, value and financially provide for the common good (Slavov, such provision also includes the allocation of monetary 2014; Sugden, 1984). In the psychological literature, on the resources (i.e., by making monetary donations or being tax other hand, they have not been studied in conjunction, and compliant). Interestingly, despite strong incentives to free there is a dearth of studies considering lay people representa- ride, a large fraction of people voluntarily contributes to the tions on the common good and its financial provision. common good. On the one side, people make charitable Although the financial contribution to the common good has donations supporting causes that benefit others at a cost to been investigated in social dilemma research, the psycho- themselves. On the other side, people actually pay taxes logical literature has mostly focused on understanding why despite the rather low levels of fines and probability of audit- and when people make cooperative rather than selfish ing (Feld & Frey, 2007). choices by examining a number of constructs ranging from Nonetheless, experimental research has shown that volun- internal psychological variables, such as social value orienta- tary contributions (i.e., monetary donations) for the common tion (Van Lange, 1999), Machiavellian traits (Czibor, Vincze, good are often below the efficient level, and if such provision & Bereczkei, 2014), social identity (Brewer & Kramer, is entirely left to them, many individuals would not contrib- ute anything (e.g., Andreoni, 1988; Bergstrom, Blume, & Varian, 1986; Bernheim, 1986; Warr, 1983). In addition, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy although paying taxes is mandatory and does not involve a Corresponding Author: voluntary choice, tax evasion is a serious issue in some coun- Cinzia Castiglioni, Department of Psychology, Università Cattolica del tries where a consistent portion of GDP seems to be hidden Sacro Cuore, L.go Gemelli 1, Milan 20123, Italy. to tax authorities (e.g., the average size of the shadow Email: cinzia.castiglioni@unicatt.it Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open 1986), empathy (Batson et al., 1995), and emotions (Ketelaar used imprecisely and vaguely, in some cases there is a degree & Tung Au, 2003), to external variables, such as incentives of overlap between the “common good” and the “public and sanctions (Molenmaker, De Kwaadsteniet, & Van Dijk, good” in an economic sense. 2016), information (Van Dijk, De Kwaadsteniet, & De The present work refers to the concept of the “common Cremer, 2009), and framing effects (Van Dijk & Wilke, good” rather than the “public good” for some pragmatic rea- 1997). However, all these studies tend to use money as a way sons. First, in the context of tax compliance, some authors to operationalize people’s contribution rather than made it referring to standard economic theory state that the goods and the object of study itself. In other words, there seems to be a services that the state provides to citizens in exchange for their literature gap in terms of how lay people perceive their con- tax payments are a direct incentive for tax compliance (K. W. tribution to the common good and in what ways it can be Smith & Stalans, 1991). If taxes are prices for public goods fulfilled (e.g., is giving money a way to provide for the com- (do ut des), it implicitly implies that if a citizen does not ben- mon good? Does it include both paying taxes and making efit from a certain public good, he or she is to some extent donations, and are these equivalent?). Understanding lay justified not to pay for it. If we refer to the “common good,” people representations on the financial provision for the instead, and citizens perceive their tax payment as contribu- common good is relevant not only at a theoretical level but tions to the bonum commune, they might be more willing to also at a pragmatic one. Social representations are more than declare their income honestly, even if they do not receive a full social psychological tools that orient our understanding of public good equivalent to their tax payments (Feld & Frey, the worlds in which we live; they come to constitute our real- 2007). In addition, in their attempt to define the common ities, which, ultimately, influence our behavior (Moscovici, good, Deneulin and Townsend (2007) suggested that the char- 2000). For this reason, to promote a desirable behavioral acteristics of the common good are mostly presented in terms change, we first need to know which “reality” we are dealing of participation and generation of the goods themselves, rather with (not necessarily the one that is described at formal than in terms of consumption of a commodity (as is the case level). for the “public good”). Because the focus of the present work To present the main aims of this study, next sections will is the provision for the common good through tax money and show a brief literature overview on the main objects under monetary donations - and not its consumption - the term com- investigation. Following, methodological details of a qualita- mon good appears to be more suitable. tive study, including population, sampling technique, proce- As both psychology and economics lack a description of dure, and data analysis, will be provided. Finally, the main the common good based on lay people representations, one results will be presented and a discussion section will con- of this study’s aims is to investigate meanings and symbolic nect results of this study with the existing literature. Limits representations that are attached to the common good. and future research development will also be outlined. Moreover, as both disciplines seem to lack studies where the relationship between money and the common good has been expressly investigated, a further aim is to investigate such Common Good relationship and understand whether, from a psychological The “common good” is a concept with a long and contested perspective, giving money can actually be seen as a way to history. Philosophers, theologians, lawyers, politicians, and provide for the common good. the public have arrived at distinct understandings of what the common good entails (for a conceptual and historical review, Taxes and Donations: Commonalities and see Etzioni, 2014; Mastromatteo & Solari, 2014). To the best Overlapping Characteristics of our knowledge, there is a dearth of definitions of the “common good” from a psychological perspective. In the This section will provide a very brief overview of the exist- economic literature, instead, the “common good” has gener- ing research streams on tax behavior and charitable giving ally been distinguished from the “public good.” In neoclassi- which, according to economic literature, are two possible cal economics, public goods are generally characterized by means to financially provide for the common good. their non-excludability (i.e., a person’s consumption cannot Research on tax behavior has investigated a multitude of practically be excluded) and non-rivalry (i.e., a person’s con- factors that can influence tax compliance or noncompliance. sumption does not reduce the benefits of someone else’s con- From an economic and financial perspective, the income sumption of the good) in their consumption (Murphy & level of individuals, the severity of sanctions, and the prob- Parkey, 2016; Musgrave, 1969; Samuelson, 1969). Common ability of being caught have been taken into account (see goods, instead, have been defined as rival and non-exclud- Allingham & Sandmo, 1972; Yitzhaki, 1974). At psychologi- able (Hardin, 1968; Ostrom, 1990). However, the attempt to cal and sociological level, instead, other factors have been classify real-world objects based on their (non)excludability studied, such as knowledge, values, attitudes, norms, and and (non)rivalry has been found to be inadequate by some perception of tax authorities (see Hofmann, Hoelzl, & authors (see Wuyts, 1992). Moreover, because the concept of Kirchler, 2008; Kastlunger, Lozza, Kirchler, & Schabmann, the common good permeates several domains and can be 2013; Kirchler, 2007; Lewis, 1982; Wenzel, 2004). Castiglioni et al. 3 As for charitable giving, different economic models have businesslike attitude (Tong, Zheng, & Zhao, 2013), and cheat been identified to explain this behavior (see Meier, 2007): more when given the opportunity to do so (Gino & Mogilner, outcome-based prosocial preference theories, which assume 2014). Tax payment and charitable giving are also similar in an individual’s utility depends directly on the utility of other that they can both use a sanctioning system, either negative people (Smith, Kehoe, & Cremer, 1995); theories of reci- (e.g., fines as punishment for tax evasion) or positive (e.g., procity, which are based on the notion that individuals behave rewards such as discounted tickets to concerts or other events prosocially when their actions are reciprocated (Fischbacher, for donations). However, in both contexts, the explicit pres- Gächter, & Fehr, 2001); and approaches stressing the impor- ence of a sanctioning system may be counterproductive as it tance of self-identity for prosocial behavior (Bénabou & increases the likelihood that a business frame, versus an ethi- Tirole, 2006). Bekkers and Wiepking (2011) reviewed eight cal decision frame, will be evoked (Gneezy & Rustichini, key mechanisms that have been studied as determinants of 2000; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999), thus making individuals charitable giving: awareness of need, solicitation, costs and more likely to engage in a utility calculation that compares benefits, altruism, reputation, psychological benefits, values, the costs and benefits of their decision. and efficacy. Overall, both altruistic and egoistic motives From this brief overview, it seems that tax payment and behind monetary donations have been identified, and some charitable giving could share some common antecedents that attempts at integrating both aspects have been made (see make them more similar than it would appear. The present Dickert, Sagara, & Slovic, 2011). study will investigate from a psychological perspective if Both tax payment and charitable giving are clear exam- they also share a further commonality, that is, if they are per- ples of social dilemmas, where individual and collective ceived as two complementary ways to financially provide for interests are in conflict (Dawes, 1980): in both situations, the common good. private interests (i.e., increasing personal welfare) are at odds with collective ones (i.e., increasing general welfare). Aims and Scope On one hand, taxation is the solution that most societies have adopted to provide essential services, such as health care, In summary, moving from the economic literature - which education, and safety; on the other hand, charitable giving formally assume tax payment and charitable giving as two plays a significant role in alleviating problems related to the complementary means for the financial provision for the crisis of the welfare state. In both contexts, the short-term common good - our main research question is whether such negative consequences of paying the right amount of taxes or comparison also stands at psychological level (i.e., from lay donating money may keep individuals from performing this people’s perspective). Given the existing gap in psychologi- act even though it would entail long-term benefits for the cal literature, we aim to perform a first exploration on the collective. If many or most decision-makers pursue advan- topic by investigating meanings, experiences, and represen- tages for themselves, most end up worse than if many or tations that lay people attach to the common good and its most had sacrificed some self-advantage to contribute toward financial provision (i.e., the allocation of monetary benefits for others (Dawes, 1980; Kollock, 1998). resources). Despite their intrinsic difference of being mandatory on A qualitative study was performed on Italian participants. one hand (taxes) and voluntary on the other (donations), Using a sample of Italian people is relevant for the topic, some common antecedents can be found. For example, some given Italy’s fragile public finances situation, long-term eco- authors have found evidence for “prosocial spending” as a nomic stagnation, and the effects of the most recent Global possible psychological universal: Human beings around the Financial Crisis (for the impact of the crisis on spending/ world experience emotional rewards from using their finan- saving decisions in the Italian context, see Lozza, Bonanomi, cial resources to benefit others (Aknin et al., 2013). In the Castiglioni, & Bosio, 2016). According to Eurostat, in 2017 neuroscience field, Harbaugh, Mayr, and Burghart (2007) the Italian government debt equaled 134.7% of the country’s studied neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving, economic output. After Greece (176.2%), Italy has the sec- showing that both voluntary giving and mandatory transfers ond highest ratio of government debt to GDP in the European to a charity elicit activity in the same brain region associated Union, where the average for 28 countries is 84.1%. with processing rewards. In addition, regardless of whether Moreover, tax evasion in Italy is estimated to be much higher the behavior occurs by choice or under obligation, both pay- than in other highly developed countries (Giovannini, 2011), ing taxes and charitable giving involve decision-making and Italy’s shadow economy is higher (20.6% of GDP) than regarding the management of money. Money is not just a the average of 31 other European countries (18.0%, profane exchange medium; rather, it is an entity that can be Schneider, 2015). There is also evidence suggesting that perceived as either good or evil, according to the situation Italians are culturally inclined to commit tax evasion (Belk & Wallendorf, 1990). Money can also have a priming (Castiglioni, Lozza, Cullis, Jones, & Lewis, 2014; Cullis, effect, as it brings to mind an exchange mentality, in which Jones, Lewis, Castiglioni, & Lozza, 2015) and that an antag- people consider what they are giving up and what they will onistic tax climate between taxpayers and tax authorities pre- get in return (Jiang, Chen, & Wyer, 2014), adopt a vails (Lozza & Castiglioni, 2018). As for charitable giving, 4 SAGE Open Italy ranked 54th out of 139 countries in 2017, between investigation with the researcher (Willig, 2013). Nonetheless, Uganda (43rd) and Slovakia (55th), with only 30% of the if not spontaneously mentioned by the participants, discus- population donating money (Charities Aid Foundation, sions of both taxes and charitable giving were prompted to 2017). Thus, understanding Italian people’s representation of understand whether they could be regarded as ways to pro- the common good and its financial provision can be the first vide for the common good. step to gain new insights for the development of public Two qualitative techniques were adopted to yield richer policies. accounts; specifically, participants were asked to perform two tasks before the interview. The first task was to take pictures of something representing the common good. This technique is Procedure known as photo-elicitation, a visual method in which photo- graphs (taken by the researcher or research participants) are Method used as a stimulus to guide or elicit accounts in subsequent The qualitative study was conducted by adopting the inter- interviews (Slutskaya, Simpson, & Hughes, 2012). Photographs pretative phenomenological analysis (IPA, J. A. Smith, can be used as a reference point in conversation to yield richer, 1996). IPA is a methodological approach for exploring how more detailed and more precise information than that generated individuals experience and ascribe meaning to a specific by verbal-only interviews, providing concrete examples phenomenon (J. A. Smith & Osborn, 2008). It is strongly grounded in everyday experience (Cappello, 2005). In the pres- influenced by Husserl’s (1925/1977) phenomenology, which ent study, participants were given free rein in deciding when, is both a philosophy and an approach to research that allows where, and what pictures to take, by being invited to produce for an in-depth exploration of how phenomena appear in digital images and photographs (i.e., using their smartphones) people’s consciousness and the nature and meaning of such in relation to their idea of “the common good” (“Take some phenomena (Finaly & Ballinger, 2006). Based on Husserl’s pictures of what represents the common good to you”). phenomenology, the main aim is to capture the essence of a Participants were then asked to send their photos via email to phenomenon, that is, a structure of essential meanings that the interviewer prior to the scheduled date for the interview. To explicates a phenomenon of interest. In addition to the phe- avoid any bias, no definition of the “common good” was pro- nomenological focus, the influence of Heidegger’s herme- vided during recruitment. neutic phenomenology can be seen through the emphasis IPA In addition, because the reconstruction of social phenom- places on interpretation and the role of both participant and ena can come in a number of forms (e.g., video, photography, researcher in a dual dynamic research process (Clarke, 2009). film, and text; Maggs-Rapport, 2000), a further technique In other words, while the participants are trying to make used to help the participants reflect upon their experience of sense of their world, the researcher is trying to make sense of “providing for the common good” was a narrative task the participants’ attempt at making sense of their world (Czarniawska, 2004). Before setting a date for the interview, (Smith & Osborn, 2008). Because the aim of IPA studies is participants were asked to write a short piece about how they not to generate large quantities of information but to gather “provide for the common good” and send it via email to the quality information that will enable a deeper understanding interviewer. The aim of this task was to identify the ways in of the participants’ experience and representations, small which people feel the need to provide for the common good sample sizes are advocated. and whether or not financial provision (in terms of either paying taxes or making donations) was spontaneously men- tioned. This task also gave participants the opportunity to Data Collection talk about different ways to contribute to the common good. In-depth interviews (approximately 50-60 min each) were The products of both tasks were used during the interview as conducted using the IPA approach. All participants provided a stimulus for discussion. informed consent, and each interview was audio-recorded. All participants were recruited at least 1 week before the Data Analysis interviews and all interviews were conducted at either the participants’ homes or workplaces. All of the collected materials (photos, texts, and transcriptions) The interviews were unstructured, meaning that they were analyzed in accordance with the principles of IPA. imposed few constraints on the questions asked and often Thematic analysis is the principal analytic approach used in consisted of free-flowing exchanges between the interviewer IPA. Essentially, the analysis begins with a single case and pro- and participants, thus giving enough flexibility to address ceeds through the following stages: (a) reading and rereading unexpected issues that might arise. In phenomenological the transcripts, adding comments, associations or possible research, it is important for the questions posed to partici- interpretations; (b) transforming initial notes into more mean- pants to be open-ended and nondirective, as their sole pur- ingful statements, reflecting a broader level of meaning in a pose is to provide participants with an opportunity to share particular section of the text; (c) separately listing themes, their personal experience of the phenomenon under between which the analyst attempts to identify common links Castiglioni et al. 5 Table 1. Participants’ Profile. Italian taxpayers. Taxpayers were chosen as they are in the unique position to be able to provide for the common good Participant Gender Age Employment Donor by both paying taxes (unlike people who do not have any 1 Male 30 Self-employed No personal income) and making donations. 2 Male 31 Employee No The size of the sample (N = 15) was decided according to 3 Male 48 Self-employed Yes emerging themes and theoretical saturation (data saturation 4 Male 44 Employee Yes strategy; Suri, 2011). Participants were recruited through 5 Male 45 Employee No personal contacts and snow-ball technique. To maximize 6 Male 53 Self-employed No diversities that were relevant to the research questions, the 7 Female 27 Self-employed Yes sample was selected with particular attention paid to pro- 8 Female 28 Employee No spective participants’ charitable behavior (seven monetary 9 Female 28 Employee Yes 6 donors vs. eight nondonors) and their contract of employ- 10 Female 30 Employee No ment (seven self-employed vs. eight employees). The under- 11 Female 30 Employee Yes lying assumption is that donors and nondonors might have 12 Female 40 Self-employed No different awareness and sensitivity about the common good 13 Female 45 Self-employed No and the importance of contributing to it, resulting in different 14 Female 50 Employee Yes perspectives. In addition, in terms of taxation, there is a well- 15 Female 61 Self-employed Yes documented difference between self-employed people and employees (e.g., see Lozza, Carrera, & Bosio, 2010). Self- employed people are actually in a position to evade or avoid (some themes will cluster together while others will be broken taxation because they pay taxes “out-of-pocket” at the end of up, and some will appear to be more superordinate themes the year, so it is plausible to believe they have a different while others will appear to be nonrelevant); and (d) appropri- perception of their monetary contributions to the common ately naming the remaining themes and linking them to the good because they perceive taxes as a loss. Participants also originating text through reference to specific quotes varied in terms of age (M = 39.3, minimum = 27, maximum (Langdridge, 2007). Accordingly, interview transcripts were = 61) and gender (6 males and 9 females). Table 1 provides analyzed one at a time (idiographic approach), and each tran- a brief overview of the participants. script was read and reread before themes were identified. Content analysis was used to catalog the types of photographs taken, and thematic analysis was employed to identify com- Results mon threads across participants’ explanations of photo con- The current section will illustrate the main themes that tents, writings, and verbalizations (Boyatzis, 1998). Subordinate emerged during the data analysis. Each theme will be intro- themes were integrated across transcripts and supplemental duced together with its various manifestations. Verbatim material to identify shared superordinate themes that captured quotes from participants will also be included to illustrate the essence of the common good and its financial provision. the ways in which the themes are mobilized. According to the guidelines provided in the IPA literature Three superordinate themes emerged from the analysis. (Eatough & Smith, 2006; J. A. Smith & Osborn, 2008), the The first theme concerns the social representation of the approach adopts both emic (insider) and etic (interpretative, common good, in terms of “necessities for all” versus “well- outsider) positions (Reid, Flowers, & Larkin, 2005). The emic being for anyone.” The second theme is related to the ambiv- position enables the researcher to hear the participants’ per- alent relation between “money” and “provision for the spectives, while the etic position involves the researcher’s common good.” The third theme deals with the “asymmetry” attempts to make sense of the data by bringing in his or her own between paying taxes - where the effectiveness of the contri- interpretations and theoretical ideas while using verbatim bution is the primary concern - and making donations - where quotes to ground these interpretations in the participants’ actual the motivation for and genuineness of the gesture are most experience. This leads to two distinct levels of interpretation important. (Eatough & Smith, 2006). The first level is more descriptive, allowing the researcher to enter the participant’s world, whereas the second critically interrogates the participant’s account to Representation of the Common Good by Purpose gain further insight into its nature, meaning, and origin. (Rather Than by Content): “Necessities for All” Therefore, the second level of interpretation takes the researcher Versus “Well-Being for Anyone” beyond the participant’s own words and understanding. The current section will introduce the first superordinate theme that emerged from the analysis, related to the lay rep- Population and Sampling resentation and meaning of the common good. In presenting this theme, subordinate themes that are related to the repre- The study received approval from the university’s ethics sentation of the common good will be introduced first. committee. Participants were purposively sampled among 6 SAGE Open Figure 1. Five emerging categories of the common good and visual examples. “Difficult to articulate.” Most participants, when first asked to from very concrete and specific items to abstract principles take part in the study, reacted by making some comments or ideas. such as “The common good? That’s very difficult to think about” or “It could be almost anything!” However, the photo- “Accessible to everyone.” When asked to provide a general elicitation technique proved to be very useful and effective in definition of “the common good,” participants generally that it helped the interviewees to articulate their thoughts. agreed that for an object to be classified as part of the “com- Overall, 61 photos were provided. Through analysis of both mon good,” it needs to be shared, accessible to everyone, and the content of the pictures and the explanations that were pro- free to use: vided during the interviews, five different categories were identified (see also Figure 1): nature (e.g., landscapes, water, It needs to be able to be shared by anyone. The common good is sea, air, etc.), living beings (e.g., children, the elderly, ani- the good in common. (Participant 1) mals, etc.), arts/culture (both historic and cultural heritage as It is accessible to anyone. If possible, it should be equally well as visual arts, e.g., monuments, books, graffiti, muse- distributed and free to use. (Participant 6) ums, etc.), public services (e.g., public transportation, schools, hospitals, etc.), and freedom (e.g., freedom of thought, con- science, religion, etc.; to represent “freedom,” pictures of In other words, everyone should have the same rights to churches and gay pride event were chosen, see Figure 1). access the common good and it should be equally available The representation of the common good appears to be among all members of society, regardless of social status or very broad, ranging from animate to inanimate objects and sociodemographic characteristics. Castiglioni et al. 7 “Give-and-take.” Another important aspect related to the appears to be quite difficult, because its representation is common good is the sense of reciprocity involved: It is vague and difficult to articulate: Almost anything could be something that is taken and given at the same time. On one considered a common good. However, despite different hand, this means everyone can benefit from it. On the other, attempts to define what is common good - both by referring this implies that everyone has a duty to contribute to, protect, to concrete objects and by using more abstract concepts and and safeguard it, in order to prevent its loss. characteristics - it appears that the common good is more easily identified by what it is for. In other words, the repre- It is something from which you take, but you also need to give sentation of common good is more easily organized in terms something to it! Many people use it; it is helpful to everybody-or of purposes, rather than contents. Specifically, the common at least it should be-therefore, we need to protect and safeguard good serves two main purposes. On one hand, it provides it. (Participant 9) basic needs and requirements to which people are entitled (i.e., “necessities for all”), and, for this reason, it should be It is something that belongs to everyone, and everyone should free and accessible to anyone. This position is well expressed participate and be committed . . . Everyone should contribute to by the following quote: safeguard it and keep it the way it is. (Participant 12) A spa is not a common good, because it is something I can use if It is worth noting that the idea of “contributing” to the I want to, but it’s an “extra.” The common good is something common good seems to spontaneously emerge from its that is fairly essential, you know. So it should be accessible to definition as if it is an intrinsic property. Although this idea anyone, because it is fundamental. Education, for example, of “contributing” may have emerged because one of the tasks should be accessible to anyone; it is a common good. Some given to participants was to provide some examples of how services should be free; others can have a price, as long as it’s one provides for the common good, it is interesting to note not prohibitive to anyone. (Participant15) that this aspect was mostly mentioned when trying to define and describe the common good. It should also be noted that, On the other hand, it increases general well-being (beyond rather than a contribution in terms of generation, a contribu- mere survival) by presenting comfortable options, as the fol- tion in terms of preservation of something that already exists lowing quote exemplifies: is most salient in the interviewees’ comments. To me, the common good is anything that helps me to live better. Everything that unburdens my everyday life, that eases both my “Basic needs and necessities.” A further recurring definition of life and others’ lives. Anything that makes me feel good. For the common good consists in the fulfillment of human basic example, think about those services that work 24/7. I could live needs. According to the participants, anything that allows without them, but how much easier is my life with them? [. . .] people to live and fulfill primary needs can be considered Or when you walk in the city and instead of a grey wall you see part of the common good (e.g., water, food, air, clean envi- a piece of art: it changes your day! (Participant 5) ronment, etc.). It is identified as something that is of para- mount importance for people’s existence: In this case, rather than a necessity, the common good is described as increasing one’s personal well-being by fulfill- It is something that anybody should have, rightfully. Food, ing some secondary needs. water, and education . . . are fundamental; if you do not have Finally, it is worth underlining that the notion of the com- them, nothing else matters. (Participant 3) mon good itself includes the concept of participation and contribution (i.e., give-and-take). However, rather than a There are many common goods, but I depicted the most fundamental contribution to generate it, the emphasis seems to be on the things, the basic pillars of our existence. (Participant 4) safeguarding and protection of something that is already “given.” This might suggest that, to some extent, provision “Well-being.” Anything that improves, simplifies, and for the common good is taken for granted. Personal commit- unburdens people’s everyday life (e.g., public transportation, ment is more easily mentioned in relation to its preservation facilities, pieces of art, beauty, etc.) can also be considered a (i.e., by not squandering and wasting it) rather than its gen- common good. eration. This is related to the next superordinate theme, which is the nonmonetary provision for the common good. It is something good and positive that increases the general well- being. (Participant 8) The Nonmonetary Provision for the Common Roads, school, aggregation centres . . . They improve our lives; Good they make it better and easier. (Participant 5) As already mentioned, participants had some trouble stating To summarize, according to the emerged themes, a pre- what the common good is. Similarly, identifying ways in liminary result is that thinking about the common good which they provide for the common good was difficult, as 8 SAGE Open suggested by the fact that some of them did not perform the Paying taxes, absolutely, it’s a way to make sure that our society works better; it’s our civic duty. It is done to make sure everyone narrative task, stating instead that they “do not contribute to has the same rights and duties. When you pay taxes, you do not the common good,” This first result suggests a lack of aware- do it just for yourself, right? You do it for others, for your ness about one’s own individual contribution to the common community, for your country. It is something very concrete, and good. Despite the initial difficulties, participants were still it is absolutely a way to provide for the common good. able to identify the main characteristics of such provision (Participants 11) during the interview. I’m happy to pay taxes. I mean it, because it is part of a good “Civic duties.” Most interviewees suggested that a primary civic education . . . In Italy, we are like this: we say, “Aw, taxes,” form of contribution to the common good could be fulfilling but it is actually something very important to do, because the their civic duties (e.g., being good citizens, following the money is redistributed among everyone, and it creates the rules, not littering, recycling, etc.). common good. Once, a Swiss couple told me they cared about paying taxes; they valued it because they believed they were [You provide for the common good] by showing respect to doing something good for the whole community. I took that others and by respecting what is not just yours, but everybody’s. advice to heart. (Participant 3) For example, you do not throw your cigarette butt on the ground . . . It’s part of your civic duty. (Participant 2) Making monetary donations, as a possible act of benefi- cence, can also be regarded as a way to provide for the com- “Voluntary work.” Voluntary work (i.e., giving one’s time, mon good, especially when one has no spare time for rather than money) was considered the first and noblest form voluntary work and thus chooses to donate money instead of of contribution and provision for the common good. time. The first thing I thought of was voluntary work; I thought about I make donations to a foundation that helps children in Africa. It providing for the common good by doing something that helps would be nice to do voluntary work, but that would take time others. (Participant 8) from my family, so I don’t feel like doing it. (Participant 3) Doing voluntary work is the noblest form of providing for the Yes, I think [making donations] is another way to provide for the common good; it enriches you. (Participant 14) common good, because the common good is not just what you have around you; it’s everywhere. So, if you make a donation to an association working in Africa, you are still providing for the “A personal action and commitment.” According to partici- common good, because you are helping other human beings. If pants, a personal action and commitment (rather than del- their community grows, that is something that is beneficial to egating to someone else) are the most important ways everyone. (Participant 10) people can contribute to, and provide for, the common good. To summarize, when considering all the emerging themes related to the provision for the common good, it appears that When I think about providing for the common good, I think the financial aspect is not a strong and salient representation. about something you do personally, in which you engage directly Participants attribute greater importance to contributing with and get your hands dirty. (Participant 13) their actions, rather than with their money. Different inter- pretations of this result can be suggested. The likely reason The first thing I thought about the common good was something that you do to increase other people’s well-being; a personal for the weak relation between money and the common good action and commitment, rather than a single object or a thing. is that this relation is “mediated” rather than immediate. In (Participant 7) fact, money itself is a medium. While being a good citizen or doing voluntary work automatically increases the common “Money as an indirect way to provide.” Although the relation- good, a monetary contribution is subsidiary to the actual use ship between money and the common good is neither imme- and management of that money. This introduces the second diate nor straightforward, paying taxes and making monetary aspect of such a mediated relation: the presence of a third contributions are still acknowledged as ways to provide for party (e.g., the government or other institution/nongovern- the common good. However, participants seem to regard mental organization [NGO]) that is in charge of the manage- both forms of monetary contributions as indirect – rather ment of that money. Understandably, the presence of a third than direct – ways to provide for the common good. For party evokes trust-related issues, considering that money is example, although few participants spontaneously men- fungible. The following quotes help shed some light on this tioned “paying taxes,” when asked, they all agreed that pay- aspect: ing taxes is a way to provide for the common good, mostly because being fiscally compliant is part of a citizen’s civic The fact that the hospital is working is a common good. If you make a donation to that hospital, that’s a good deed, but you duty. Castiglioni et al. 9 need to trust that they are actually using that donation to make you give money away to someone, it is because you are the hospital work better. (Participant 9) depriving yourself of something else. It’s a sacrifice. If you are a billionaire and give away a thousand euros, it doesn’t really affect you. It is just for your public image. Instead, when you do The fact is that paying taxes can be daylight robbery, at least in it without ulterior motives, that’s when you are really Italy. Sometimes they [the taxes] go straight into our politicians’ contributing. (Participant 4) pockets. (Participant 1) This kind of concern was not expressed in relation to paying Therefore, the perception expressed by the participants is taxes. As long as taxpayers pay what they owe to the State, that the money derived from taxes and donations might pro- participants felt that it does not matter whether they do so out vide for the common good, but this is not necessarily the of fear, for a clear conscience, or because they genuinely case. Both paying taxes and making donations thus seem to believe it is their duty. be perceived as indirect ways of providing for the common good, due to their monetary aspect (for further consider- “Effectiveness.” When talking about taxes, the interviewees ations, see the Discussion section). The next paragraph, will strongly focus on effects rather than intentions. In other focus specifically on differences between taxes and dona- words, their main concern is about the management and final tions in relation to the financial provision for the common destination of the money. Because they pay taxes, they good. expect to have efficient public services in return, as function- ing public services are seen as a fair exchange for the money The Asymmetry Between Taxes and Donations: they give. Effects Versus Motivations Paying taxes is a way to provide for the common good if they are Thus far, it has been underlined what taxes and donations used to create services. I’m OK with paying tons of taxes, as have in common in relation to financial provision for the long as I have something in return. I want efficient services; I common good (i.e., they are two indirect monetary ways to want my town or the State to help me when I have a problem. provide for the common good, whose effectiveness is subsid- (Participant 5) iary to the management and use of a third party). Now, we will consider the main differences. If everybody pays taxes, then there is something in return for everyone. You make this sacrifice, you do not keep all the money “Genuine motivations for donations.” Some participants- to yourself, and then you have something in return, something regardless of their donation behavior-were concerned about that benefits everyone. Of course, those who are in charge of the true intentions and motivations of the donors, as dona- handling this money need to be serious and reliable about that; tions appear to be an easy solution “for the purpose of a clear they need to make choices with the common good in mind. conscience.” (Participant 8) If you are committed, if you make an effort and you also give In contrast, when talking about monetary donations, money, that’s the best kind of contribution. But I think many donors do not necessarily focus on the effects. Obviously, people give money for different reasons, and then they they may raise concerns about the management of their completely lose interest in it. (Participant 1) money by NGOs and other associations, but the thought of the unfortunate possibility that the donated money is not Giving money is easier than giving time . . . It’s easy to say used in the way it was intended is not enough to make them “Well, I gave 50 euros, I’m good with myself.” (Participant 13) decide not to donate. In other words, some people are still willing to make monetary donations even if they are unsure When talking about donations, it seems that the main con- about their effectiveness. cern of both donors and nondonors appears to be in assessing the true intentions and genuineness of the donor’s gesture. It is something that gives me joy [. . .]. Each month, my husband According to participants, regardless of the amount of money and I help this child in Mozambique. Of course, it would be nice given, a donation has little value without a component of pri- if the money actually helped someone . . . there is no way to vation and personal sacrifice. Even if a big sum of money know for sure, [but] I hope it does. (Participant 7) could be more effective in providing for the common good (e.g., by funding services for the needy), a small amount that I give money to almost everyone that asks me . . . this and that, is backed by sincerity and is heartfelt can be perceived as the FAI, the African children, [. . .] I do not like feeling guilty. God forbid if it came out that a child could not have his eye more valuable. A clear example of this position is seen in the operation because I did not give my 10 euros! (Participant 15) following quote: To summarize, it appears that donors from our sample are If you give to charity just for the purpose of a clear conscience . . . I don’t know about that. It is not what I have been taught: if still satisfied with donating money, regardless how effective 10 SAGE Open Figure 2. Taxes, donations, and the financial provision for the common good. the donation may be. They seem to experience an emotional In paying taxes, I cannot see this aspect of joy and gratification. (Participant 12) exchange from this kind of monetary transaction (either as personal fulfillment and gratification or because they avoid You pay taxes to get services in return, that’s it. You get negative feelings such as guilt). Even nondonors, rather than something back. When you make a donation, you get nothing in complaining about the lack of transparency in how charities return. Well, except for those people who believe they can use the money they receive, appear to be more concerned increase their karma by making donations. On second thoughts, about assessing the true intentions behind a donation, and everyone who makes a donation gets something in return, they undermine the gesture if they can detect any ulterior because they feel better, so we could say it’s a spiritual return, motives. Although this may represent a coping mechanism to rather than a material one. (Participant 2) deal with feelings of guilt related to not being a donor, it is curious that so much emphasis is placed on donors’ inten- tions rather than on charities’ accountability. Summary In contrast, when referring to tax behavior, both donors Figure 2 shows an attempt to link together the main themes and nondonors are most concerned about the effectiveness of that emerged during the data analysis in relation to the finan- their payment (e.g., creation of public services). In other cial provision for the common good. Both paying taxes and words, they expect a material exchange. The following making donations are seen as indirect ways to provide for the quotes capture the essence of the difference between the common good. This perception could be related to the fungi- material exchange that is expected when paying taxes and bility of money, whose handling and management is subsid- the emotional exchange that is expected when making a iary to a third party. Moreover, there appears to be an donation: asymmetry between paying taxes and making donations. When paying taxes, the focus is on the effects that can be When you contribute to the common good, you should do it with achieved through the money given, whereas when making joy and enthusiasm. I can see that aspect in donations; you can donations, the focus is on the intentions and motivations of make them with joy, while taxes . . . well, they are an imposition. the donor. If you make a donation, you are immediately gratified. I’ll never make a donation entirely selflessly, because the gratification I Before moving on to the discussion section, where the would get would be already like having something in return. identified themes will be analyzed in relation to the existing Castiglioni et al. 11 literature, a reflexive account about the analytical process and generation, which can make it more difficult for people will be provided. A preliminary consideration is the unex- to understand the importance of its financial contribution. pected relative homogeneity of themes that emerged across While the economic perspective mostly identifies which different participants. The choice to include both donors and objects can be included under the label of “common goods,” nondonors in the sample, as well as employees and self- one of the main novelties of this study is its finding that, from employed people, was made to bring out potentially different the psychological perspective of lay people, the common perspectives on the common good and its financial provi- good is more easily organized by purposes (i.e., what is it sion. Surprisingly, however, the core themes that were identi- for) than by objects and contents. The common good seems fied appear to be convergent across different groups. One to serve two main purposes: providing “necessities for all” possible explanation for the lack of differences is due to the (i.e., primary and basic human needs) and “well-being for topic under investigation-the common good and its financial anyone” (i.e., secondary needs). Such distinction can have provision, rather than taxes and donations per se. strong implications at practical level-for example, in terms of creating social communication to promote cooperative and prosocial behavior. Discussion Another important result is that the relationship between The main aim of this study was to investigate the experiences tax payment/charitable giving and the common good is not and representations lay people share about the financial pro- entirely straightforward. A possible explanation is the vision for the common good, in terms of the existing rela- salience of money in both context. Money is not just a pro- tionship between money and the common good and to what fane exchange medium; rather, it is an entity that can be extent paying taxes and making monetary donations can be either good or evil, according to the situation (Belk & seen as an expression of it. By adopting an IPA approach and Wallendorf, 1990). For example, money can be turned into a combining it with photo-elicitation and a narrative task, it sacred object when it is sacrificed for the well-being of oth- aimed to perform an in-depth exploration of the phenomenon ers (e.g., through charitable giving). However, charity is per- and develop new insights rather than to test a priori ceived as a sacred gift only when it involves the personal hypotheses. sacrifice of money (making the social action a selfless ges- When applying a hermeneutic research approach, it is ture), not when the motivation stems from concerns about essential that participants are enabled to provide vivid, rich, personal gain. This might explain why the motivations and authentic accounts of their experiences. It is important to behind charitable giving are so important (in terms of assess- reduce tension and barriers for the participants, in order to ing the genuineness and selflessness of the gesture). Money enable the access to everyday experience (Quinney, Dwyer, can also have a priming effect, as it brings to mind an & Chapman, 2016). On a methodological level, the combina- exchange mentality, in which people consider what they are tion of a phenomenological approach together with two fur- giving up and what they will get in return (Jiang et al., 2014) ther techniques-photo-elicitation and a narrative task-proved and adopt a businesslike attitude (Tong et al., 2013). When to be very useful and effective in that it helped the interview- money is made salient, subjects disconnect interpersonally, ees to articulate their thoughts and provide both concrete are less helpful (Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2006), are less will- examples and more abstract reasoning about the common ing to donate money to charities (Roberts & Roberts, 2012), good. This study suggests that photographs can be especially and reduce behavioral helpfulness (Guéguen & Jacob, 2013). valuable when investigating vague and abstract concepts, by The possible negative symbolization of money, together with grounding them in everyday life. The narrative task also its priming effects, might explain why the allocation of helped participants to reflect upon their personal experience money, in the form of either taxes or donations, is seen as a prior to face-to-face interviews. Thus, the combination of secondary and indirect form of contribution to the common such techniques yielded richer accounts and helped investi- good. Because money embodies both selfish and individual- gate implicit representations and experiences. istic values, identifying its role for the benefit of the com- On a theoretical level, a first interesting result concerns munity can be difficult. On the contrary, money is merely a the representation of the common good itself. The common medium between the giver and a third party (e.g., govern- good represents a broad concept that also includes the public ments, institutions, associations, NGOs, etc.) who is in good. One of its main characteristics is that everyone (with charge of handling and managing it (functional value). A lack no exclusion) should have access to it. People also seem to of trust in and transparency of this party may make people be aware that they need to safeguard and protect it, in order feel more insecure about whether or not they actually have not to squander it and thus reduce someone else’s ability to contributed to the common good, thus highlighting the benefit from it. Interestingly, the common good also includes importance of accountability (De Cremer, Snyder, & Dewitte, the idea of active participation (as opposed to passive con- 2001). This is in line with prior work on the effect of per- sumption; see also Deneulin & Townsend, 2007). However, ceived trust and transparency on both voluntary tax compli- such participation mostly finds expression in the preserva- ance (Kasper, Kogler, & Kirchler, 2015; Olsen et al., 2018) tion of something already given rather than in its provision and charitable giving (Blouin, Lee, & Erickson, 2018). 12 SAGE Open The last main result concerns the commonalities between they fail to perceive a material return after paying paying taxes and making donations, and to what extent they their taxes. are perceived as two alternative and complementary ways to provide for the common good. It appears that the comparison This study was a first exploration on the subject. On one merely stands on a formal and cognitive level. At an affective hand, it underlined what taxes and donations have in com- level, instead, they appear to be very distant in terms of both mon (i.e., they are two indirect monetary ways to provide for (a) main attentional focus (effects vs. motivations) and (b) the common good). On the other hand, it underlined their expected return (material vs. emotional). differences (i.e., when paying taxes and making donations, people pursue different goals; specifically, a material vs. an i. Effects versus motivations. Participants appeared to emotional return). Although the study gave preliminary be more focused on the effects of tax money, rather insights and laid the foundations for further investigation, its than on the motivations behind tax compliance, exploratory nature does not allow to directly address how to whereas they appeared to be more concerned about promote a behavioral change. In addition, caution not to the motivations behind a donation (i.e., genuineness overgeneralize the results is needed. Both tax payment and of the gesture) than about its effects. Despite the charitable giving were investigated at rather general level, common belief that individuals would donate more to without distinguishing between diverse and specific contexts charity if they were assured that their money would (e.g., different charitable causes or organizations), thus not not be wasted, results of this study seem to be more allowing to capture different nuances. Also, the study relies in line with other evidence from the literature arguing on Italian participants and therefore caution not to overgen- that sometimes donors do not primarily care about eralize the results to other countries with a different cultural results and fundraising efficiency (Berman & and socioeconomic background is needed. Future research Davidson, 2003; Charles & Kim, 2016; Gordon & could aim to investigate the existing differences in lay people Khumawala, 1999). In other words, the effort - rather experiences and representations of the financial provision for than the actual outcome - seems to be more valuable, common good across different countries, cultures, and con- leading to the idea that “it’s the thought that counts.” texts. Given the rather unstable socioeconomic situation in On the contrary, in the context of tax behavior, early Italy, it would be beneficial to compare these results with studies found evidence that the level of benefits pro- those from a sample of a country with a diverse economic vided through taxation, as well as participants’ aware- situation. ness of such benefits, can influence compliance (Alm, McClelland, & Schulze, 1992; Spicer & Concluding Remarks Lundstedt, 1976). ii. Material versus emotional return. As mentioned The present study is novel in that it aimed to be a first explo- above, taxes and donations also appear to differ in ration into the representations lay people share on the finan- terms of what people expect in return (material vs. cial provision for the common good. In-depth interviews emotional exchange). A theoretical framework that have been conducted using the IPA approach in combination may offer an explanation of such differences can be with two further techniques, photo-elicitation and a narrative provided by the distinction between “pure altruism” task. This methodology appeared to be extremely suited in and “warm-glow altruism” (Andreoni, 1990). yielding rich accounts of participants’ experience on a vague According to this framework, warm-glow altruists and abstract concept. Three main results are especially valu- make their contributions because of the good feeling able not only at theoretical level but also for their pragmatic they get from giving, whereas pure altruists contrib- implications. ute to make society better off. In the context of mon- First, results from this study confirm the importance of etary donations, a lack of transparency and trust referring to the “common good” rather than the “public regarding the way money is handled may discourage good” when dealing with tax behavior and charitable giving. pure altruists from donating, while warm-glow altru- At a semantic level, the common good appears to be a ists may be unaffected. In other words, despite the broader concept. Moreover, it includes the idea of active par- lack of evidence of tangible effects, warm-glow ticipation, as opposed to the passive consumption of the pub- altruists are still motivated to donate, as they experi- lic good. As above mentioned, if tax money and donations ence emotional gratification from doing so. However, are the prices for public goods, the underlying implication is in the context of taxation, being fiscally compliant that if someone does not benefit from a certain public good, does not appear to elicit any warm-glow feeling, and he or she may feel justified in not contributing. If we refer to the focus is on the effects rather than on the motiva- the “common good,” citizens may be more willing to con- tions. This could mean that, in contrast to donations, tribute, even if they do not receive a full public good equiva- taxpayers are more discouraged from compliance if lent to the money they gave. Castiglioni et al. 13 Second, it appears that financial provision for the com- represent?”); (b) different ways, both financial and nonfinan- cial, to provide for the common good (using the “narrative mon good may benefit from increased transparency and task” as stimulus); (c) paying taxes/making donations as a way accountability regarding how the money is handled to make of financially providing for the common good (prompted, if the relationship between money and the common good more not spontaneously mentioned); and (d) other considerations. straightforward and direct. Because money is fungible and 6. Only people who donated money to organized charities in the its effectiveness is subsidiary to its management and use by last year were qualified as “donors.” third-party institutions (government, NGOs, etc.), it can, but 7. All verbatim quotes have been translated from Italian into does not necessarily, provide for the common good. As a English by the authors. result, both taxes and donations are seen as secondary and 8. It should also be noted that some participants, at first, stated indirect ways to provide for the common good (the former as that they “do not contribute to the common good” and did part of people’s civic duty, the latter as a possible form of not spontaneously mention “paying taxes.” This result may offering beneficence). This appears to be especially relevant also be explained by referring to the construct of tax morale. Tax morale is often used to explain cross-cultural differences in the domain of tax behavior, as people are mostly con- in tax compliance and can be defined as the readiness of an cerned about the effects of paying taxes. individual to pay taxes as a moral responsibility (Cummings, Finally, the fact that people are mostly concerned about Martinez-Vazquez, McKee, & Torgler, 2004). It is also linked the effects and expect a material return when paying taxes, to the motivational concept of civic duty (Orviska & Hudson, whereas they are mostly concerned about motivations when 2003). Thus, we might expect people to be more inclined to making a monetary donation and expect an emotional return, spontaneously mention tax payment as a way to provide for leads to different communicative rhetoric in social commu- the common good in countries where tax morale has a higher nication. Accordingly, a campaign aimed at promoting tax impact on actual tax behavior. compliance might focus on the outcomes and what citizens 9. In a similar vein, a study aimed at examining consumers’ reac- may obtain in return (e.g., public services), rather than on tions to companies’ investments in charitable actions found that moral duty. A campaign aimed at promoting charitable giv- effort-oriented strategy results in more value-driven consumer attributions (altruistic and sincere) and warmer brand percep- ing, instead, might focus on personal fulfillment and gratifi- tions than an ability-oriented strategy (Zhu, He, Chen, & Hu, cation, rather than on the outcomes. 2017). It is noteworthy that lay people tend to interpret altru- ism more in terms of motivation than outcome. Another study Declaration of Conflicting Interests (Cheng, Kwok, Cheung, & Yip, 2017) found that donating The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect food or clothes to charity, which was considered to be altruis- to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. tic by experts, was deemed not to be altruistic by a community survey. Lay participants of a follow-up focus group further Funding explained that the reason for excluding this behavior is based on the idea that it is motivated more by a desire to help oneself The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- than to help others, despite the fact that the outcome will ben- ship, and/or publication of this article. efit others. Notes ORCID iD 1. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8118661/2- 20072017-AP-EN.pdf/83147478-c193-40e9-8a0a-b76e56a5cebc Cinzia Castiglioni https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7306-7079 2. On average, the Italian tax gap between 2010 and 2014 is esti- mated to be 88.1 billion euros (34.2% of the potential total rev- References enue), of which 12.4 billion (4.8%) is ascribed to unintentional mistakes, while the remaining 75.7 billion (29.4%) is ascribed Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, to intentional concealment (Ministero dell’Economia e delle J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., . . . Norton, M. I. (2013). Finanze, 2016). Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for 3. The average percentage of the population who donate money a psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social in Europe is 36%, with the United Kingdom (64%) and the Psychology, 104, 635-652. Netherlands (64%) having the largest proportions of people Allingham, M. G., & Sandmo, A. (1972). Income tax evasion: A making donations. theoretical analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 1, 323- 4. The first author performed all the interviews. The first and the second authors analyzed the interview transcripts. The third Alm, J., McClelland, G. H., & Schulze, W. D. (1992). Why do peo- author supervised the whole process. All authors approved the ple pay taxes? Journal of Public Economics, 48, 21-38. final interpretation of the results. Andreoni, J. (1988). Privately provided public goods in a large 5. Although the interviews were unstructured, there was a com- economy: The limits of altruism. Journal of Public Economics, mon flow that was typically followed by the interviewer: (a) 35, 57-73. representations of “the common good,” using the “photo-elic- Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: itation” technique as an initial stimulus (i.e., “Tell me more A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100, about these pictures. Why did you chose them? What do they 464-477. 14 SAGE Open Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Todd, R. M., Brummett, B. H., Shaw, Czibor, A., Vincze, O., & Bereczkei, T. (2014). Feelings and L. L., & Aldeguer, C. M. (1995). Empathy and the collective motives underlying Machiavellian behavioural strategies; good: Caring for one of the others in a social dilemma. Journal narrative reports in a social dilemma situation. International of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 619-361. Journal of Psychology, 49, 519-524. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empiri- Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, cal studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive chari- 31, 169-193. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001125 table giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, De Cremer, D., Snyder, M., & Dewitte, S. (2001). “The less I trust, 924-973. the less I contribute (or not)?” The effects of trust, accountabil- Belk, R. W., & Wallendorf, M. (1990). The sacred meanings of ity and self-monitoring in social dilemmas. European Journal money. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 35-67. of Social Psychology, 31, 93-107. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. Deneulin, S., & Townsend, N. (2007). Public goods, global public American Economic Review, 96, 1652-1678. goods and the common good. International Journal of Social Bergstrom, T., Blume, L., & Varian, H. (1986). On the private pro- Economics, 34, 19-36. vision of public goods. Journal of Public Economics, 29, 25- Dickert, S., Sagara, N., & Slovic, P. (2011). Affective motiva- 49. tions to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions. Berman, G., & Davidson, S. (2003). Do donors care? Some Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 361-376. Australian evidence. Voluntas: International Journal of Eatough, V., & Smith, J. (2006). I was like a wild wild person: Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14, 421-429. Understanding feelings of anger using interpretative phenom- Bernheim, B. D. (1986). On the voluntary and involuntary provision enological analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 483-498. of public goods. The American Economic Review, 76, 789-793. Etzioni, A. (2014). Common good. In M. T. Gibbons (Ed.), The Blouin, M. C., Lee, R. L., & Erickson, G. S. (2018). The impact of encyclopedia of political thought (p. 28). Chichester, UK: online financial disclosure and donations in nonprofits. Journal Wiley-Blackwell. of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30, 251-266. Feld, L. P., & Frey, B. S. (2007). Tax compliance as the result of a Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Thematic analysis and code development: psychological tax contract: The role of incentives and respon- Transforming qualitative information. London, England: Sage. sive regulation. Law & Policy, 29, 102-120. Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social Finaly, L., & Ballinger, C. (2006). Qualitative research for allied dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision health professionals: Challenging choices. Chichester, UK: framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, John Wiley. 543-549. Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people con- Cappello, M. (2005). Photo interviews: Eliciting data through con- ditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experi- versations with children. Field Methods, 17, 170-182. ment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397-404. Castiglioni, C., Lozza, E., Cullis, J., Jones, P., & Lewis, A. (2014). Gino, F., & Mogilner, C. (2014). Time, money, and morality. Is benefit fraud more or less wrong than tax evasion? An Psychological Science, 25, 414-421. exploratory study in the perspective of fiscal psychology. Giovannini, E. (2011). Economia non osservata e flussi finanziari Psicologia Sociale, 3, 291-308. (Rapporto finale) [Shadow economy and financial flows (final Charities Aid Foundation. (2017). World Giving Index 2016. report)]. Roma, Italy: Ministero dell’Economia e delle finanze. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us- Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. Journal of publications/cafworldgivingindex2017_2167a_web_210917. Legal Studies, 29, 1-17. pdf?sfvrsn=ed1dac40_10 Gordon, T. P., & Khumawala, S. B. (1999). The demand for not- Charles, C., & Kim, M. (2016). Do donors care about results? An for-profit financial statements: A model of individual giving. analysis of nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. Public Journal of Accounting Literature, 18, 31-56. Performance & Management Review, 39, 1-21. Guéguen, N., & Jacob, C. (2013). Behavioral consequences of Cheng, Q., Kwok, C. L., Cheung, F. T., & Yip, P. S. (2017). money: When the automated teller machine reduces helping Construction and validation of the Hong Kong Altruism Index behavior. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 47, 103-104. (A-Index). Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 201-208. Harbaugh, W. T., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. R. (2007). Neural Clarke, C. (2009). An introduction to interpretative phenomeno- responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for logical analysis: A useful approach for occupational therapy charitable donations. Science, 316, 1622-1625. research. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 37-39. 1243-1248. Cullis, J., Jones, P., Lewis, A., Castiglioni, C., & Lozza, E. (2015). Hofmann, E., Hoelzl, E., & Kirchler, E. (2008). Preconditions of Do poachers make harsh gamekeepers? Attitudes to tax evasion voluntary tax compliance: Knowledge and evaluation of taxa- and to benefit fraud. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental tion, norms, fairness, and motivation to cooperate. Zeitschrift Economics, 58, 124-131. für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 216, 209-217. Cummings, R. C., Martinez-Vazquez, J., McKee, M., & Torgler, B. Husserl, E. (1977). Phenomenological psychology: Lectures, (2004). Effects of culture on tax compliance: A cross check of summer semester, 1925 (J. Scanlon, Trans.). The Hague, experimental and survey evidence (CREMA Working Paper No. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. (Original work published 1925) 2004-13). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=661921 Jiang, Y., Chen, Z., & Wyer, R. S. (2014). Impact of money on emo- Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. tional expression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, London: Sage. 55, 228-233. Castiglioni et al. 15 Kasper, M., Kogler, C., & Kirchler, E. (2015). Tax policy and Olsen, J., Kasper, M., Enachescu, J., Benk, S., Budak, T., & the news: An empirical analysis of taxpayers’ perceptions of Kirchler, E. (2018). Emotions and tax compliance among tax-related media coverage and its impact on tax compliance. small business owners: An experimental survey. International Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 54, 58- Review of Law and Economics, 56, 42-52. 63. Orviska, M., & Hudson, J. (2003). Tax evasion, civic duty and the Kastlunger, B., Lozza, E., Kirchler, E., & Schabmann, A. (2013). law abiding citizen. European Journal of Political Economy, Powerful authorities and trusting citizens: The Slippery Slope 19, 83-102. Framework and tax compliance in Italy. Journal of Economic Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of Psychology, 34, 36-45. institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Ketelaar, T., & Tung Au, W. (2003). The effects of feelings of University Press. guilt on the behaviour of uncooperative individuals in repeated Quinney, L., Dwyer, T., & Chapman, Y. (2016). Who, where, and social bargaining games: An affect-as-information interpreta- how of interviewing peers: Implications for a phenomenologi- tion of the role of emotion in social interaction. Cognition & cal study. SAGE Open, 6(3). doi:10.1177/2158244016659688 Emotion, 17, 429-453. Reid, K., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2005). Exploring lived experi- Kirchler, E. (2007). The economic psychology of tax behaviour. ence. The Psychologist, 18, 20-23. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, J. A., & Roberts, C. R. (2012). Money matters: Does the Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. symbolic presence of money affect charitable giving and atti- Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 183-214. tudes among adolescents? Young Consumers, 13, 329-336. Langdridge, D. (2007). Phenomenological psychology: Theory, Samuelson, P. A. (1969). Contrast between welfare conditions for research and method. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. joint supply and for public goods. The Review of Economics Lewis, A. (1982). The psychology of taxation. Oxford, UK: Martin and Statistics, 51, 26-30. Robertson. Schneider, F. (2015). Size and development of the shadow econ- Lozza, E., Bonanomi, A., Castiglioni, C., & Bosio, A. C. omy of 31 European and 5 other OECD countries from 2003 (2016). Consumer sentiment after the global financial crisis. to 2015: Different developments? Journal of Self-Governance International Journal of Market Research, 58, 671-691. and Management Economics, 3, 7-29. Lozza, E., Carrera, S., & Bosio, A. C. (2010). Perceptions and out- Slavov, S. N. (2014). Public versus private provision of public comes of a fiscal bonus: Framing effects on evaluations and goods. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 16, 222-258. usage intentions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 400- Slutskaya, N., Simpson, A., & Hughes, J. (2012). Lessons from pho- 404. toelicitation: Encouraging working men to speak. Qualitative Lozza, E., & Castiglioni, C. (2018). Tax climate in the national Research in Organizations and Management: An International press: A new tool in tax behaviour research. Journal of Social Journal, 7, 16-33. Political Psychology, 6, 401-419. Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and Maggs-Rapport, F. (2000). Combining methodological approaches discourse: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in in research: Ethnography and interpretive phenomenology. health psychology. Psychology and Health, 11, 261-271. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 219-225. Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenologi- Mastromatteo, G., & Solari, S. (2014). The idea of “common good” cal analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A and the role of the state in present day social economics. Rivista practical guide to research methods (pp. 53-80). London, Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 124, 85-102. England: Sage. Meier, S. (2007). A Survey of economic theories and field evi- Smith, K. W., & Stalans, L. J. (1991). Encouraging tax compliance dence on pro-social behavior. In B. S. Frey & A. Stutzer (Eds.), with positive incentives: A conceptual framework and research Economics and psychology: A promising new cross-disciplin- directions. Law & Policy, 13, 35-53. ary field (pp. 51-88). Boston, MA: MIT Press. Smith, V. H., Kehoe, M. R., & Cremer, M. E. (1995). The private Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze. (2016). Relazione provision of public goods: Altruism and voluntary giving. sull’economia non osservata e sull’evasione fiscale e Journal of Public Economics, 58(1), 107-126. contributiva. Retrieved from http://www.mef.gov.it/ Spicer, M. W., & Lundstedt, S. B. (1976). Understanding tax eva- inevidenza/documenti/Relazione_evasione_fiscale_e_con- sion. Public Finance, 31, 295-305. tributiva__0926_ore1300_xversione_definitivax-29_settem- Sugden, R. (1984). Reciprocity: The supply of public goods bre_2016.pdf through voluntary contributions. The Economic Journal, 94, Molenmaker, W. E., De Kwaadsteniet, E. W., & Van Dijk, E. (2016). 772-787. The impact of personal responsibility on the (un) willingness to Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthe- punish non-cooperation and reward cooperation. Organizational sis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11, 63-75. Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 134, 1-15. Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (1999). Sanctioning systems, Moscovici, S. (2000). Social representations: Explorations in decision frames, and cooperation. Administrative Science social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Quarterly, 44, 684-707. Murphy, T., & Parkey, J. (2016). An economic analysis of the Tong, L., Zheng, Y., & Zhao, P. (2013). Is money really the root philosophical common good. International Journal of Social of all evil? The impact of priming money on consumer choice. Economics, 43, 823-840. Marketing Letters, 24, 119-129. Musgrave, R. A. (1969). Cost-benefit analysis and the theory of Van Dijk, E., De Kwaadsteniet, E. W., & De Cremer, D. (2009). public finance. Journal of Economic Literature, 7, 797-806. Tacit coordination in social dilemmas: The importance of 16 SAGE Open having a common understanding. Journal of Personality and field of economic psychology. Currently, she is postdoctoral Social Psychology, 96, 665-678. research fellow in Psychology at Catholic University of Milan, Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (1997). Is it mine or is it ours? Framing prop- where she teaches ‘Methods and Techniques of Interview and erty rights and decision making in social dilemmas. Organizational Questionnaire.’ She is also didactic coordinator for the master’s Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 195-209. degree in ‘International Marketing Management.’ Her research Van Lange, P. A. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality interests range over the fields of economic psychology, tax in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. behaviour, charitable giving, and the use of the nudge approach Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337-349. to behavioural change in public policy. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337 Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychologi- Edoardo Lozza is full professor at the faculty of Psychology at cal consequences of money. Science, 314, 1154-1156. Catholic University of Milan. He is director of the master’s Warr, P. G. (1983). The private provision of a public good is inde- degree in ‘Psychology for Organizations: Human Resources, pendent of the distribution of income. Economics Letters, 13, Marketing and Communication,’ where he teaches ‘Consumer 207-211. and Marketing Psychology’ and ‘Economic Psychology.’ He is Wenzel, M. (2004). An analysis of norm processes in tax compli- also member of the scientific board of the master’s degree in ance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 213-228. ‘International Marketing Management.’ His research interests Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. range over the fields of consumer psychology (consumer senti- Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education. ment, new patterns and trends), marketing research (methods), Wuyts, M. (1992). Deprivation and public need. In M. Wuyts, M. work and professions (job insecurity, psychological professions), Mackintosh, & T. Hewitt (Eds.), Development policy and pub- economic psychology and behavioral economics. lic action (pp. 13-37). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Yitzhaki, S. (1974). Income tax evasion: A theoretical analysis. Albino Claudio Bosio is full professor at the faculty of Psychology Journal of Public Economics, 3(2), 201-202. at Catholic University of Milan, where he teaches ‘Psychology of Zhu, L., He, Y., Chen, Q., & Hu, M. (2017). It’s the thought that Marketing and Consumption’ and ‘Psycho-Social Research and counts: The effects of construal level priming and donation Intervention for Organizations: Process Methodology.’ He has been proximity on consumer response to donation framing. Journal the dean of the same faculty since 2011. He is the author of more of Business Research, 76, 44-51. than 200 scientific publications, mainly in the area of applied psy- cho-social research. His main research areas are consumer psychol- Author Biographies ogy, marketing research, social communication, medical practices, Cinzia Castiglioni received a PhD in Psychology and the healthcare, professionalization of psychology, patient engagement additional title of doctor Europaeus in 2018, with a thesis in the and active healthy ageing. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/lay-people-representations-on-the-common-good-and-its-financial-LEVeaQrUGj

Loading next page...

References (96)

Lars Feld, B. Frey (2006)
Tax Compliance as the Result of a Psychological Tax Contract: The Role of Incentives and Responsive Regulation
Tax Law: Tax Law & Policy eJournal
Séverine Deneulin, N. Townsend (2007)
Public Goods, Global Public Goods and the Common Good
International Journal of Social Economics, 34
M. Allingham, A. Sandmo (1972)
Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis
Journal of Public Economics, 1
L. Felkins (2015)
The Social Dilemmas
T. Bergstrom, L. Blume, H. Varian (1986)
On the private provision of public goods
Journal of Public Economics, 29
Marva Cappello (2005)
Photo Interviews: Eliciting Data through Conversations with Children
Field Methods, 17
V. Smith, M. Kehoe, M. Cremer (1995)
The private provision of public goods: Altruism and voluntary giving
Journal of Public Economics, 58
R. Belk, Melanie Wallendorf (1990)
The sacred meanings of money
Journal of Economic Psychology, 11
N. Slutskaya, A. Simpson, J. Hughes (2012)
Lessons from photoelicitation: encouraging working men to speak
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 7
R. Cummings, J. Martínez-Vázquez, M. McKee, B. Torgler (2005)
Effects of Culture on Tax Compliance: A Cross Check of Experimental and Survey Evidence
P. Kollock (1998)
SOCIAL DILEMMAS: The Anatomy of Cooperation
Review of Sociology, 24
S. Slavov (2014)
Public Versus Private Provision of Public Goods: Public Versus Private Provision of Public Goods
Journal of Public Economic Theory, 16
Stephan Dickert, P. Slovic, Namika Sagara (2011)
Affective Motivations to Help Others: A Two-Stage Model of Donation Decisions
Behavioral & Experimental Economics eJournal
(1999)
The common good.
New scientist, 164 2210
R. Bekkers, Pamala Wiepking (2010)
A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40
M. Kasper, C. Kogler, E. Kirchler (2013)
Tax Policy and the News: An Empirical Analysis of Taxpayers’ Perceptions of Taxrelated Media Coverage and its Impact on Tax Compliance
Public Economics: Taxation
Kent Smith, Loretta Stalans (1991)
Encouraging Tax Compliance With Positive Incentives: A Conceptual Framework and Research Directions*
Law & Policy, 13
Eva Hofmann, E. Hoelzl, E. Kirchler (2008)
Preconditions of Voluntary Tax Compliance: Knowledge and Evaluation of Taxation, Norms, Fairness, and Motivation to Cooperate.
Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 216 4
E. Lozza, C. Castiglioni (2018)
Tax climate in the national press: A new tool in tax behaviour research
Journal of Social and Political Psychology
Channine Clarke (2009)
An Introduction to Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: A Useful Approach for Occupational Therapy Research
The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72
U. Gneezy, A. Rustichini (2000)
A Fine is a Price
The Journal of Legal Studies, 29
P. Lange (1999)
The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77
C. Castiglioni, E. Lozza, J. Cullis, Philip Jones, A. Lewis (2014)
Is benefit fraud more or less wrong than tax evasion? An exploratory study in the perspective of fiscal psychology
Barbara Czarniawska (2004)
Narratives in Social Science Research
Q. Cheng, Chi-Leung Kwok, F. Cheung, P. Yip (2017)
Construction and validation of the Hong Kong Altruism Index (A-Index)
Personality and Individual Differences, 113
F. Schneider (2015)
SIZE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHADOW ECONOMY OF 31 EUROPEAN AND 5 OTHER OECD COUNTRIES FROM 2003 TO 2014: DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS?
, 3
L. Finlay, C. Ballinger (2006)
Qualitative research for allied health professionals: challenging choices
F. Maggs-Rapport (2000)
Combining methodological approaches in research: ethnography and interpretive phenomenology.
Journal of advanced nursing, 31 1
P. Samuelson (1969)
Contrast between Welfare Conditions for Joint Supply and for Public Goods
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 51
J. Cullis, Philip Jones, A. Lewis, C. Castiglioni, E. Lozza (2015)
Do poachers make harsh gamekeepers? Attitudes to tax evasion and to benefit fraud
Journal of Socio-economics, 58
Stephan Meier (2006)
A Survey of Economic Theories and Field Evidence on Pro-Social Behavior
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Research Paper Series
(1992)
Deprivation and public need
(2016)
Relazione sull ’ economia non osservata e sull ’ evasione fiscale e contributiva
Interpretative phenomenological analysis
H. Suri (2011)
Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis
Qualitative Research Journal, 11
James Roberts, Camille Roberts (2012)
Money matters: does the symbolic presence of money affect charitable giving and attitudes among adolescents?
Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 13
K. Vohs, N. Mead, Miranda Goode (2006)
The Psychological Consequences of Money
Science, 314
A. Tenbrunsel, D. Messick (1999)
Sanctioning Systems, Decision Frames, and Cooperation
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44
C. Batson, Judy Batson, R. Todd, B. Brummett, Laura Shaw, Carlo Aldeguer (1995)
Empathy and the collective good: Caring for one of the others in a social dilemma.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68
J. Alm, G. McClelland, W. Schulze (1992)
Why do people pay taxes
Journal of Public Economics, 48
S. Pandey (2015)
Performance Information Use: Making Progress But a Long Way to Go
Public Performance & Management Review, 39
E. Lozza, A. Bonanomi, C. Castiglioni, A. Bosio (2016)
Consumer Sentiment after the Global Financial Crisis
International Journal of Market Research, 58
R. Sugden (1984)
Reciprocity: The Supply of Public Goods Through Voluntary Contributions
The Economic Journal, 94
F. Gino, Cassie Mogilner (2014)
Time, Money, and Morality
Psychological Science, 25
C. Willig (2001)
Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology
P. Warr (1983)
The private provision of a public good is independent of the distribution of income
Economics Letters, 13
E. Kirchler (2007)
The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour
A. Lewis (1982)
The psychology of taxation
(2016)
World Giving Index
Linlin Zhu, Yi He, Qimei Chen, Miao Hu (2017)
It's the thought that counts: The effects of construal level priming and donation proximity on consumer response to donation framing
Journal of Business Research, 76
Yuwei Jiang, Zhansheng Chen, R. Wyer (2014)
Impact of money on emotional expression
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55
A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving
Public versus private provision of public goods
Welmer Molenmaker, E. Kwaadsteniet, E. Dijk (2016)
The impact of personal responsibility on the (un)willingness to punish non-cooperation and reward cooperation
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 134
M. Brewer, Roderick Kramer (1986)
Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50
J. Olsen, M. Kasper, Janina Enachescu, Serkan Benk, T. Budak, E. Kirchler (2018)
Emotions and tax compliance among small business owners: An experimental survey
International Review of Law and Economics
Marie Blouin, R. Lee, Scott Erickson (2018)
The impact of online financial disclosure and donations in nonprofits
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30
Katie Reid, P. Flowers, M. Larkin (2005)
Exploring lived experience
Psychologist, 18
V. Eatough, Jonathan Smith (2006)
'I was like a wild wild person': understanding feelings of anger using interpretative phenomenological analysis.
British journal of psychology, 97 Pt 4
D. Cremer, M. Snyder, S. Dewitte (2001)
"The less I trust, the less I contribute (or not)?": The effects of trust, accountability and self-monitoring in social dilemmas
European Journal of Social Psychology, 31
Luqiong Tong, Yuhuang Zheng, Ping Zhao (2013)
Is money really the root of all evil? The impact of priming money on consumer choice
Marketing Letters, 24
(2014)
The encyclopedia of political thought (p
J. Andreoni (1990)
IMPURE ALTRUISM AND DONATIONS TO PUBLIC GOODS: A THEORY OF WARM-GLOW GIVING*
The Economic Journal, 100
R. Bénabou, J. Tirole (2006)
Incentives and Prosocial Behavior
IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series
Michael Wenzel (2004)
An analysis of norm processes in tax compliance
Journal of Economic Psychology, 25
E. Lozza, Sonia Carrera, A. Bosio (2010)
Perceptions and outcomes of a fiscal bonus: framing effects on evaluations and usage intentions.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 31
David Harper, Andrew Thompson (2011)
Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners
QMiP Bulletin
Jonathan Smith (1996)
Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: using interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology
Psychology & Health, 11
G. Hardin (1968)
Tragedy of the Commons
Science, 162
Giuseppe Mastromatteo, S. Solari (2014)
THE IDEA OF ‘‘COMMON GOOD’’ AND THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN PRESENT DAY SOCIAL ECONOMICS
, 124
L. Davidson (2020)
Phenomenological Psychology
Overcoming Psychologism: Husserl and the Transcendental Reform of Psychology
B. Bernheim (1986)
On the Voluntary and Involuntary Provision of Public Goods
The American Economic Review, 76
(1998)
Thematic analysis and code development: Transforming qualitative information
Gabrielle Berman, S. Davidson (2003)
Do Donors Care? Some Australian Evidence
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14
Marta Orviská, J. Hudson (2003)
Tax Evasion, Civic Duty and the Law Abiding Citizen
European Journal of Political Economy, 19
Loretto Quinney, T. Dwyer, Y. Chapman (2016)
Who, Where, and How of Interviewing Peers
SAGE Open, 6
Timothy Ketelaar, Wing Au (2003)
The effects of feelings of guilt on the behaviour of uncooperative individuals in repeated social bargaining games: An affect-as-information interpretation of the role of emotion in social interaction
Cognition and Emotion, 17
William Harbaugh, U. Mayr, Daniel Burghart (2007)
Neural Responses to Taxation and Voluntary Giving Reveal Motives for Charitable Donations
Science, 316
N. Guéguen, Céline Jacob (2013)
Behavioral consequences of money: When the automated teller machine reduces helping behavior
Journal of Socio-economics, 47
Andrea Czibor, O. Vincze, T. Bereczkei (2014)
Feelings and motives underlying Machiavellian behavioural strategies; narrative reports in a social dilemma situation.
International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie, 49 6
T. Murphy, J. Parkey (2016)
An Economic Analysis of the Philosophical Common Good
Public Choice: Public Goods eJournal
Eric Dijk, Erik Kwaadsteniet, D. Cremer (2009)
Tacit coordination in social dilemmas: the importance of having a common understanding.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 96 3
E. Dijk, H. Wilke (1997)
Is It Mine or Is It Ours? Framing Property Rights and Decision Making in Social Dilemmas☆☆☆
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71
(2011)
Economia non osservata e flussi finanziari (Rapporto finale) [Shadow economy and financial flows
(1999)
The demand for notfor-profit financial statements: A model of individual giving
M. Spicer, S. Lundstedt, R. Hill (1976)
Understanding Tax Evasion
, 30
L. Aknin, C. Barrington-Leigh, Elizabeth Dunn, J. Helliwell, R. Biswas-Diener, I. Kemeza, P. Nyende, C. Ashton-James, M. Norton (2010)
Prosocial Spending and Well-Being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal
Law & Prosociality eJournal
J. Andreoni (1988)
Privately provided public goods in a large economy: The limits of altruism
Journal of Public Economics, 35
Cleopatra Charles, Mirae Kim (2016)
Do Donors Care About Results? An Analysis of Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Organizations
Public Performance & Management Review, 39
Barbara Kastlunger, E. Lozza, E. Kirchler, A. Schabmann (2013)
Powerful authorities and trusting citizens: The Slippery Slope Framework and tax compliance in Italy
Journal of Economic Psychology, 34
R. Musgrave (1969)
Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Theory of Public Finance
Journal of Economic Literature, 7
E. Husserl (1977)
Phenomenological Psychology: Lectures, Summer Semester, 1925
U. Fischbacher, S. Gächter, E. Fehr (2001)
Are People Conditionally Cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment
Microeconomic Theory eJournal
S. Moscovici (2000)
Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology
G. Brady (1993)
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Southern Economic Journal, 60
J. Fuhrmann (2009)
Phenomenological Psychology: Theory, Research and Method
QMiP Bulletin

Publisher: SAGE
Copyright: Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN: 2158-2440
eISSN: 2158-2440
DOI: 10.1177/2158244018807247
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The financial contribution to the common good is a relevant issue to contemporary societies, especially in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. In the economic literature, taxes and monetary donations have been regarded as two complementary ways of financially providing for the common good. In the psychological literature, instead, they have not been studied in conjunction. In-depth interviews have been conducted using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach and a photo-elicitation technique to investigate the representations people share on the financial provision for the common good. Results suggest that both taxes and donations are seen as indirect, rather than direct, ways of providing for the common good. From a formal and cognitive level, paying taxes and making donations can be seen as two sides of the same coin, but they present differences at the affective level. When paying taxes, people are concerned mostly about the effects and expect a material exchange in return; when making a monetary donation, people are concerned mostly about the motivations and expect an emotional exchange in return. Keywords common good, tax behavior, charitable giving, financial provision, money, photo-elicitation economy in 31 European countries is estimated at 18% of Introduction GDP; Schneider, 2015). One of the biggest challenges to governments and institu- On one hand, in the economic literature, taxes and mone- tions is to find arrangements that overcome the free-riding tary donations have been regarded as two complementary problem inherent in both the voluntary and mandatory provi- ways - one “public,” the other “private” - to create public sion of the common good. From a financial point of view, value and financially provide for the common good (Slavov, such provision also includes the allocation of monetary 2014; Sugden, 1984). In the psychological literature, on the resources (i.e., by making monetary donations or being tax other hand, they have not been studied in conjunction, and compliant). Interestingly, despite strong incentives to free there is a dearth of studies considering lay people representa- ride, a large fraction of people voluntarily contributes to the tions on the common good and its financial provision. common good. On the one side, people make charitable Although the financial contribution to the common good has donations supporting causes that benefit others at a cost to been investigated in social dilemma research, the psycho- themselves. On the other side, people actually pay taxes logical literature has mostly focused on understanding why despite the rather low levels of fines and probability of audit- and when people make cooperative rather than selfish ing (Feld & Frey, 2007). choices by examining a number of constructs ranging from Nonetheless, experimental research has shown that volun- internal psychological variables, such as social value orienta- tary contributions (i.e., monetary donations) for the common tion (Van Lange, 1999), Machiavellian traits (Czibor, Vincze, good are often below the efficient level, and if such provision & Bereczkei, 2014), social identity (Brewer & Kramer, is entirely left to them, many individuals would not contrib- ute anything (e.g., Andreoni, 1988; Bergstrom, Blume, & Varian, 1986; Bernheim, 1986; Warr, 1983). In addition, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy although paying taxes is mandatory and does not involve a Corresponding Author: voluntary choice, tax evasion is a serious issue in some coun- Cinzia Castiglioni, Department of Psychology, Università Cattolica del tries where a consistent portion of GDP seems to be hidden Sacro Cuore, L.go Gemelli 1, Milan 20123, Italy. to tax authorities (e.g., the average size of the shadow Email: cinzia.castiglioni@unicatt.it Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open 1986), empathy (Batson et al., 1995), and emotions (Ketelaar used imprecisely and vaguely, in some cases there is a degree & Tung Au, 2003), to external variables, such as incentives of overlap between the “common good” and the “public and sanctions (Molenmaker, De Kwaadsteniet, & Van Dijk, good” in an economic sense. 2016), information (Van Dijk, De Kwaadsteniet, & De The present work refers to the concept of the “common Cremer, 2009), and framing effects (Van Dijk & Wilke, good” rather than the “public good” for some pragmatic rea- 1997). However, all these studies tend to use money as a way sons. First, in the context of tax compliance, some authors to operationalize people’s contribution rather than made it referring to standard economic theory state that the goods and the object of study itself. In other words, there seems to be a services that the state provides to citizens in exchange for their literature gap in terms of how lay people perceive their con- tax payments are a direct incentive for tax compliance (K. W. tribution to the common good and in what ways it can be Smith & Stalans, 1991). If taxes are prices for public goods fulfilled (e.g., is giving money a way to provide for the com- (do ut des), it implicitly implies that if a citizen does not ben- mon good? Does it include both paying taxes and making efit from a certain public good, he or she is to some extent donations, and are these equivalent?). Understanding lay justified not to pay for it. If we refer to the “common good,” people representations on the financial provision for the instead, and citizens perceive their tax payment as contribu- common good is relevant not only at a theoretical level but tions to the bonum commune, they might be more willing to also at a pragmatic one. Social representations are more than declare their income honestly, even if they do not receive a full social psychological tools that orient our understanding of public good equivalent to their tax payments (Feld & Frey, the worlds in which we live; they come to constitute our real- 2007). In addition, in their attempt to define the common ities, which, ultimately, influence our behavior (Moscovici, good, Deneulin and Townsend (2007) suggested that the char- 2000). For this reason, to promote a desirable behavioral acteristics of the common good are mostly presented in terms change, we first need to know which “reality” we are dealing of participation and generation of the goods themselves, rather with (not necessarily the one that is described at formal than in terms of consumption of a commodity (as is the case level). for the “public good”). Because the focus of the present work To present the main aims of this study, next sections will is the provision for the common good through tax money and show a brief literature overview on the main objects under monetary donations - and not its consumption - the term com- investigation. Following, methodological details of a qualita- mon good appears to be more suitable. tive study, including population, sampling technique, proce- As both psychology and economics lack a description of dure, and data analysis, will be provided. Finally, the main the common good based on lay people representations, one results will be presented and a discussion section will con- of this study’s aims is to investigate meanings and symbolic nect results of this study with the existing literature. Limits representations that are attached to the common good. and future research development will also be outlined. Moreover, as both disciplines seem to lack studies where the relationship between money and the common good has been expressly investigated, a further aim is to investigate such Common Good relationship and understand whether, from a psychological The “common good” is a concept with a long and contested perspective, giving money can actually be seen as a way to history. Philosophers, theologians, lawyers, politicians, and provide for the common good. the public have arrived at distinct understandings of what the common good entails (for a conceptual and historical review, Taxes and Donations: Commonalities and see Etzioni, 2014; Mastromatteo & Solari, 2014). To the best Overlapping Characteristics of our knowledge, there is a dearth of definitions of the “common good” from a psychological perspective. In the This section will provide a very brief overview of the exist- economic literature, instead, the “common good” has gener- ing research streams on tax behavior and charitable giving ally been distinguished from the “public good.” In neoclassi- which, according to economic literature, are two possible cal economics, public goods are generally characterized by means to financially provide for the common good. their non-excludability (i.e., a person’s consumption cannot Research on tax behavior has investigated a multitude of practically be excluded) and non-rivalry (i.e., a person’s con- factors that can influence tax compliance or noncompliance. sumption does not reduce the benefits of someone else’s con- From an economic and financial perspective, the income sumption of the good) in their consumption (Murphy & level of individuals, the severity of sanctions, and the prob- Parkey, 2016; Musgrave, 1969; Samuelson, 1969). Common ability of being caught have been taken into account (see goods, instead, have been defined as rival and non-exclud- Allingham & Sandmo, 1972; Yitzhaki, 1974). At psychologi- able (Hardin, 1968; Ostrom, 1990). However, the attempt to cal and sociological level, instead, other factors have been classify real-world objects based on their (non)excludability studied, such as knowledge, values, attitudes, norms, and and (non)rivalry has been found to be inadequate by some perception of tax authorities (see Hofmann, Hoelzl, & authors (see Wuyts, 1992). Moreover, because the concept of Kirchler, 2008; Kastlunger, Lozza, Kirchler, & Schabmann, the common good permeates several domains and can be 2013; Kirchler, 2007; Lewis, 1982; Wenzel, 2004). Castiglioni et al. 3 As for charitable giving, different economic models have businesslike attitude (Tong, Zheng, & Zhao, 2013), and cheat been identified to explain this behavior (see Meier, 2007): more when given the opportunity to do so (Gino & Mogilner, outcome-based prosocial preference theories, which assume 2014). Tax payment and charitable giving are also similar in an individual’s utility depends directly on the utility of other that they can both use a sanctioning system, either negative people (Smith, Kehoe, & Cremer, 1995); theories of reci- (e.g., fines as punishment for tax evasion) or positive (e.g., procity, which are based on the notion that individuals behave rewards such as discounted tickets to concerts or other events prosocially when their actions are reciprocated (Fischbacher, for donations). However, in both contexts, the explicit pres- Gächter, & Fehr, 2001); and approaches stressing the impor- ence of a sanctioning system may be counterproductive as it tance of self-identity for prosocial behavior (Bénabou & increases the likelihood that a business frame, versus an ethi- Tirole, 2006). Bekkers and Wiepking (2011) reviewed eight cal decision frame, will be evoked (Gneezy & Rustichini, key mechanisms that have been studied as determinants of 2000; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999), thus making individuals charitable giving: awareness of need, solicitation, costs and more likely to engage in a utility calculation that compares benefits, altruism, reputation, psychological benefits, values, the costs and benefits of their decision. and efficacy. Overall, both altruistic and egoistic motives From this brief overview, it seems that tax payment and behind monetary donations have been identified, and some charitable giving could share some common antecedents that attempts at integrating both aspects have been made (see make them more similar than it would appear. The present Dickert, Sagara, & Slovic, 2011). study will investigate from a psychological perspective if Both tax payment and charitable giving are clear exam- they also share a further commonality, that is, if they are per- ples of social dilemmas, where individual and collective ceived as two complementary ways to financially provide for interests are in conflict (Dawes, 1980): in both situations, the common good. private interests (i.e., increasing personal welfare) are at odds with collective ones (i.e., increasing general welfare). Aims and Scope On one hand, taxation is the solution that most societies have adopted to provide essential services, such as health care, In summary, moving from the economic literature - which education, and safety; on the other hand, charitable giving formally assume tax payment and charitable giving as two plays a significant role in alleviating problems related to the complementary means for the financial provision for the crisis of the welfare state. In both contexts, the short-term common good - our main research question is whether such negative consequences of paying the right amount of taxes or comparison also stands at psychological level (i.e., from lay donating money may keep individuals from performing this people’s perspective). Given the existing gap in psychologi- act even though it would entail long-term benefits for the cal literature, we aim to perform a first exploration on the collective. If many or most decision-makers pursue advan- topic by investigating meanings, experiences, and represen- tages for themselves, most end up worse than if many or tations that lay people attach to the common good and its most had sacrificed some self-advantage to contribute toward financial provision (i.e., the allocation of monetary benefits for others (Dawes, 1980; Kollock, 1998). resources). Despite their intrinsic difference of being mandatory on A qualitative study was performed on Italian participants. one hand (taxes) and voluntary on the other (donations), Using a sample of Italian people is relevant for the topic, some common antecedents can be found. For example, some given Italy’s fragile public finances situation, long-term eco- authors have found evidence for “prosocial spending” as a nomic stagnation, and the effects of the most recent Global possible psychological universal: Human beings around the Financial Crisis (for the impact of the crisis on spending/ world experience emotional rewards from using their finan- saving decisions in the Italian context, see Lozza, Bonanomi, cial resources to benefit others (Aknin et al., 2013). In the Castiglioni, & Bosio, 2016). According to Eurostat, in 2017 neuroscience field, Harbaugh, Mayr, and Burghart (2007) the Italian government debt equaled 134.7% of the country’s studied neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving, economic output. After Greece (176.2%), Italy has the sec- showing that both voluntary giving and mandatory transfers ond highest ratio of government debt to GDP in the European to a charity elicit activity in the same brain region associated Union, where the average for 28 countries is 84.1%. with processing rewards. In addition, regardless of whether Moreover, tax evasion in Italy is estimated to be much higher the behavior occurs by choice or under obligation, both pay- than in other highly developed countries (Giovannini, 2011), ing taxes and charitable giving involve decision-making and Italy’s shadow economy is higher (20.6% of GDP) than regarding the management of money. Money is not just a the average of 31 other European countries (18.0%, profane exchange medium; rather, it is an entity that can be Schneider, 2015). There is also evidence suggesting that perceived as either good or evil, according to the situation Italians are culturally inclined to commit tax evasion (Belk & Wallendorf, 1990). Money can also have a priming (Castiglioni, Lozza, Cullis, Jones, & Lewis, 2014; Cullis, effect, as it brings to mind an exchange mentality, in which Jones, Lewis, Castiglioni, & Lozza, 2015) and that an antag- people consider what they are giving up and what they will onistic tax climate between taxpayers and tax authorities pre- get in return (Jiang, Chen, & Wyer, 2014), adopt a vails (Lozza & Castiglioni, 2018). As for charitable giving, 4 SAGE Open Italy ranked 54th out of 139 countries in 2017, between investigation with the researcher (Willig, 2013). Nonetheless, Uganda (43rd) and Slovakia (55th), with only 30% of the if not spontaneously mentioned by the participants, discus- population donating money (Charities Aid Foundation, sions of both taxes and charitable giving were prompted to 2017). Thus, understanding Italian people’s representation of understand whether they could be regarded as ways to pro- the common good and its financial provision can be the first vide for the common good. step to gain new insights for the development of public Two qualitative techniques were adopted to yield richer policies. accounts; specifically, participants were asked to perform two tasks before the interview. The first task was to take pictures of something representing the common good. This technique is Procedure known as photo-elicitation, a visual method in which photo- graphs (taken by the researcher or research participants) are Method used as a stimulus to guide or elicit accounts in subsequent The qualitative study was conducted by adopting the inter- interviews (Slutskaya, Simpson, & Hughes, 2012). Photographs pretative phenomenological analysis (IPA, J. A. Smith, can be used as a reference point in conversation to yield richer, 1996). IPA is a methodological approach for exploring how more detailed and more precise information than that generated individuals experience and ascribe meaning to a specific by verbal-only interviews, providing concrete examples phenomenon (J. A. Smith & Osborn, 2008). It is strongly grounded in everyday experience (Cappello, 2005). In the pres- influenced by Husserl’s (1925/1977) phenomenology, which ent study, participants were given free rein in deciding when, is both a philosophy and an approach to research that allows where, and what pictures to take, by being invited to produce for an in-depth exploration of how phenomena appear in digital images and photographs (i.e., using their smartphones) people’s consciousness and the nature and meaning of such in relation to their idea of “the common good” (“Take some phenomena (Finaly & Ballinger, 2006). Based on Husserl’s pictures of what represents the common good to you”). phenomenology, the main aim is to capture the essence of a Participants were then asked to send their photos via email to phenomenon, that is, a structure of essential meanings that the interviewer prior to the scheduled date for the interview. To explicates a phenomenon of interest. In addition to the phe- avoid any bias, no definition of the “common good” was pro- nomenological focus, the influence of Heidegger’s herme- vided during recruitment. neutic phenomenology can be seen through the emphasis IPA In addition, because the reconstruction of social phenom- places on interpretation and the role of both participant and ena can come in a number of forms (e.g., video, photography, researcher in a dual dynamic research process (Clarke, 2009). film, and text; Maggs-Rapport, 2000), a further technique In other words, while the participants are trying to make used to help the participants reflect upon their experience of sense of their world, the researcher is trying to make sense of “providing for the common good” was a narrative task the participants’ attempt at making sense of their world (Czarniawska, 2004). Before setting a date for the interview, (Smith & Osborn, 2008). Because the aim of IPA studies is participants were asked to write a short piece about how they not to generate large quantities of information but to gather “provide for the common good” and send it via email to the quality information that will enable a deeper understanding interviewer. The aim of this task was to identify the ways in of the participants’ experience and representations, small which people feel the need to provide for the common good sample sizes are advocated. and whether or not financial provision (in terms of either paying taxes or making donations) was spontaneously men- tioned. This task also gave participants the opportunity to Data Collection talk about different ways to contribute to the common good. In-depth interviews (approximately 50-60 min each) were The products of both tasks were used during the interview as conducted using the IPA approach. All participants provided a stimulus for discussion. informed consent, and each interview was audio-recorded. All participants were recruited at least 1 week before the Data Analysis interviews and all interviews were conducted at either the participants’ homes or workplaces. All of the collected materials (photos, texts, and transcriptions) The interviews were unstructured, meaning that they were analyzed in accordance with the principles of IPA. imposed few constraints on the questions asked and often Thematic analysis is the principal analytic approach used in consisted of free-flowing exchanges between the interviewer IPA. Essentially, the analysis begins with a single case and pro- and participants, thus giving enough flexibility to address ceeds through the following stages: (a) reading and rereading unexpected issues that might arise. In phenomenological the transcripts, adding comments, associations or possible research, it is important for the questions posed to partici- interpretations; (b) transforming initial notes into more mean- pants to be open-ended and nondirective, as their sole pur- ingful statements, reflecting a broader level of meaning in a pose is to provide participants with an opportunity to share particular section of the text; (c) separately listing themes, their personal experience of the phenomenon under between which the analyst attempts to identify common links Castiglioni et al. 5 Table 1. Participants’ Profile. Italian taxpayers. Taxpayers were chosen as they are in the unique position to be able to provide for the common good Participant Gender Age Employment Donor by both paying taxes (unlike people who do not have any 1 Male 30 Self-employed No personal income) and making donations. 2 Male 31 Employee No The size of the sample (N = 15) was decided according to 3 Male 48 Self-employed Yes emerging themes and theoretical saturation (data saturation 4 Male 44 Employee Yes strategy; Suri, 2011). Participants were recruited through 5 Male 45 Employee No personal contacts and snow-ball technique. To maximize 6 Male 53 Self-employed No diversities that were relevant to the research questions, the 7 Female 27 Self-employed Yes sample was selected with particular attention paid to pro- 8 Female 28 Employee No spective participants’ charitable behavior (seven monetary 9 Female 28 Employee Yes 6 donors vs. eight nondonors) and their contract of employ- 10 Female 30 Employee No ment (seven self-employed vs. eight employees). The under- 11 Female 30 Employee Yes lying assumption is that donors and nondonors might have 12 Female 40 Self-employed No different awareness and sensitivity about the common good 13 Female 45 Self-employed No and the importance of contributing to it, resulting in different 14 Female 50 Employee Yes perspectives. In addition, in terms of taxation, there is a well- 15 Female 61 Self-employed Yes documented difference between self-employed people and employees (e.g., see Lozza, Carrera, & Bosio, 2010). Self- employed people are actually in a position to evade or avoid (some themes will cluster together while others will be broken taxation because they pay taxes “out-of-pocket” at the end of up, and some will appear to be more superordinate themes the year, so it is plausible to believe they have a different while others will appear to be nonrelevant); and (d) appropri- perception of their monetary contributions to the common ately naming the remaining themes and linking them to the good because they perceive taxes as a loss. Participants also originating text through reference to specific quotes varied in terms of age (M = 39.3, minimum = 27, maximum (Langdridge, 2007). Accordingly, interview transcripts were = 61) and gender (6 males and 9 females). Table 1 provides analyzed one at a time (idiographic approach), and each tran- a brief overview of the participants. script was read and reread before themes were identified. Content analysis was used to catalog the types of photographs taken, and thematic analysis was employed to identify com- Results mon threads across participants’ explanations of photo con- The current section will illustrate the main themes that tents, writings, and verbalizations (Boyatzis, 1998). Subordinate emerged during the data analysis. Each theme will be intro- themes were integrated across transcripts and supplemental duced together with its various manifestations. Verbatim material to identify shared superordinate themes that captured quotes from participants will also be included to illustrate the essence of the common good and its financial provision. the ways in which the themes are mobilized. According to the guidelines provided in the IPA literature Three superordinate themes emerged from the analysis. (Eatough & Smith, 2006; J. A. Smith & Osborn, 2008), the The first theme concerns the social representation of the approach adopts both emic (insider) and etic (interpretative, common good, in terms of “necessities for all” versus “well- outsider) positions (Reid, Flowers, & Larkin, 2005). The emic being for anyone.” The second theme is related to the ambiv- position enables the researcher to hear the participants’ per- alent relation between “money” and “provision for the spectives, while the etic position involves the researcher’s common good.” The third theme deals with the “asymmetry” attempts to make sense of the data by bringing in his or her own between paying taxes - where the effectiveness of the contri- interpretations and theoretical ideas while using verbatim bution is the primary concern - and making donations - where quotes to ground these interpretations in the participants’ actual the motivation for and genuineness of the gesture are most experience. This leads to two distinct levels of interpretation important. (Eatough & Smith, 2006). The first level is more descriptive, allowing the researcher to enter the participant’s world, whereas the second critically interrogates the participant’s account to Representation of the Common Good by Purpose gain further insight into its nature, meaning, and origin. (Rather Than by Content): “Necessities for All” Therefore, the second level of interpretation takes the researcher Versus “Well-Being for Anyone” beyond the participant’s own words and understanding. The current section will introduce the first superordinate theme that emerged from the analysis, related to the lay rep- Population and Sampling resentation and meaning of the common good. In presenting this theme, subordinate themes that are related to the repre- The study received approval from the university’s ethics sentation of the common good will be introduced first. committee. Participants were purposively sampled among 6 SAGE Open Figure 1. Five emerging categories of the common good and visual examples. “Difficult to articulate.” Most participants, when first asked to from very concrete and specific items to abstract principles take part in the study, reacted by making some comments or ideas. such as “The common good? That’s very difficult to think about” or “It could be almost anything!” However, the photo- “Accessible to everyone.” When asked to provide a general elicitation technique proved to be very useful and effective in definition of “the common good,” participants generally that it helped the interviewees to articulate their thoughts. agreed that for an object to be classified as part of the “com- Overall, 61 photos were provided. Through analysis of both mon good,” it needs to be shared, accessible to everyone, and the content of the pictures and the explanations that were pro- free to use: vided during the interviews, five different categories were identified (see also Figure 1): nature (e.g., landscapes, water, It needs to be able to be shared by anyone. The common good is sea, air, etc.), living beings (e.g., children, the elderly, ani- the good in common. (Participant 1) mals, etc.), arts/culture (both historic and cultural heritage as It is accessible to anyone. If possible, it should be equally well as visual arts, e.g., monuments, books, graffiti, muse- distributed and free to use. (Participant 6) ums, etc.), public services (e.g., public transportation, schools, hospitals, etc.), and freedom (e.g., freedom of thought, con- science, religion, etc.; to represent “freedom,” pictures of In other words, everyone should have the same rights to churches and gay pride event were chosen, see Figure 1). access the common good and it should be equally available The representation of the common good appears to be among all members of society, regardless of social status or very broad, ranging from animate to inanimate objects and sociodemographic characteristics. Castiglioni et al. 7 “Give-and-take.” Another important aspect related to the appears to be quite difficult, because its representation is common good is the sense of reciprocity involved: It is vague and difficult to articulate: Almost anything could be something that is taken and given at the same time. On one considered a common good. However, despite different hand, this means everyone can benefit from it. On the other, attempts to define what is common good - both by referring this implies that everyone has a duty to contribute to, protect, to concrete objects and by using more abstract concepts and and safeguard it, in order to prevent its loss. characteristics - it appears that the common good is more easily identified by what it is for. In other words, the repre- It is something from which you take, but you also need to give sentation of common good is more easily organized in terms something to it! Many people use it; it is helpful to everybody-or of purposes, rather than contents. Specifically, the common at least it should be-therefore, we need to protect and safeguard good serves two main purposes. On one hand, it provides it. (Participant 9) basic needs and requirements to which people are entitled (i.e., “necessities for all”), and, for this reason, it should be It is something that belongs to everyone, and everyone should free and accessible to anyone. This position is well expressed participate and be committed . . . Everyone should contribute to by the following quote: safeguard it and keep it the way it is. (Participant 12) A spa is not a common good, because it is something I can use if It is worth noting that the idea of “contributing” to the I want to, but it’s an “extra.” The common good is something common good seems to spontaneously emerge from its that is fairly essential, you know. So it should be accessible to definition as if it is an intrinsic property. Although this idea anyone, because it is fundamental. Education, for example, of “contributing” may have emerged because one of the tasks should be accessible to anyone; it is a common good. Some given to participants was to provide some examples of how services should be free; others can have a price, as long as it’s one provides for the common good, it is interesting to note not prohibitive to anyone. (Participant15) that this aspect was mostly mentioned when trying to define and describe the common good. It should also be noted that, On the other hand, it increases general well-being (beyond rather than a contribution in terms of generation, a contribu- mere survival) by presenting comfortable options, as the fol- tion in terms of preservation of something that already exists lowing quote exemplifies: is most salient in the interviewees’ comments. To me, the common good is anything that helps me to live better. Everything that unburdens my everyday life, that eases both my “Basic needs and necessities.” A further recurring definition of life and others’ lives. Anything that makes me feel good. For the common good consists in the fulfillment of human basic example, think about those services that work 24/7. I could live needs. According to the participants, anything that allows without them, but how much easier is my life with them? [. . .] people to live and fulfill primary needs can be considered Or when you walk in the city and instead of a grey wall you see part of the common good (e.g., water, food, air, clean envi- a piece of art: it changes your day! (Participant 5) ronment, etc.). It is identified as something that is of para- mount importance for people’s existence: In this case, rather than a necessity, the common good is described as increasing one’s personal well-being by fulfill- It is something that anybody should have, rightfully. Food, ing some secondary needs. water, and education . . . are fundamental; if you do not have Finally, it is worth underlining that the notion of the com- them, nothing else matters. (Participant 3) mon good itself includes the concept of participation and contribution (i.e., give-and-take). However, rather than a There are many common goods, but I depicted the most fundamental contribution to generate it, the emphasis seems to be on the things, the basic pillars of our existence. (Participant 4) safeguarding and protection of something that is already “given.” This might suggest that, to some extent, provision “Well-being.” Anything that improves, simplifies, and for the common good is taken for granted. Personal commit- unburdens people’s everyday life (e.g., public transportation, ment is more easily mentioned in relation to its preservation facilities, pieces of art, beauty, etc.) can also be considered a (i.e., by not squandering and wasting it) rather than its gen- common good. eration. This is related to the next superordinate theme, which is the nonmonetary provision for the common good. It is something good and positive that increases the general well- being. (Participant 8) The Nonmonetary Provision for the Common Roads, school, aggregation centres . . . They improve our lives; Good they make it better and easier. (Participant 5) As already mentioned, participants had some trouble stating To summarize, according to the emerged themes, a pre- what the common good is. Similarly, identifying ways in liminary result is that thinking about the common good which they provide for the common good was difficult, as 8 SAGE Open suggested by the fact that some of them did not perform the Paying taxes, absolutely, it’s a way to make sure that our society works better; it’s our civic duty. It is done to make sure everyone narrative task, stating instead that they “do not contribute to has the same rights and duties. When you pay taxes, you do not the common good,” This first result suggests a lack of aware- do it just for yourself, right? You do it for others, for your ness about one’s own individual contribution to the common community, for your country. It is something very concrete, and good. Despite the initial difficulties, participants were still it is absolutely a way to provide for the common good. able to identify the main characteristics of such provision (Participants 11) during the interview. I’m happy to pay taxes. I mean it, because it is part of a good “Civic duties.” Most interviewees suggested that a primary civic education . . . In Italy, we are like this: we say, “Aw, taxes,” form of contribution to the common good could be fulfilling but it is actually something very important to do, because the their civic duties (e.g., being good citizens, following the money is redistributed among everyone, and it creates the rules, not littering, recycling, etc.). common good. Once, a Swiss couple told me they cared about paying taxes; they valued it because they believed they were [You provide for the common good] by showing respect to doing something good for the whole community. I took that others and by respecting what is not just yours, but everybody’s. advice to heart. (Participant 3) For example, you do not throw your cigarette butt on the ground . . . It’s part of your civic duty. (Participant 2) Making monetary donations, as a possible act of benefi- cence, can also be regarded as a way to provide for the com- “Voluntary work.” Voluntary work (i.e., giving one’s time, mon good, especially when one has no spare time for rather than money) was considered the first and noblest form voluntary work and thus chooses to donate money instead of of contribution and provision for the common good. time. The first thing I thought of was voluntary work; I thought about I make donations to a foundation that helps children in Africa. It providing for the common good by doing something that helps would be nice to do voluntary work, but that would take time others. (Participant 8) from my family, so I don’t feel like doing it. (Participant 3) Doing voluntary work is the noblest form of providing for the Yes, I think [making donations] is another way to provide for the common good; it enriches you. (Participant 14) common good, because the common good is not just what you have around you; it’s everywhere. So, if you make a donation to an association working in Africa, you are still providing for the “A personal action and commitment.” According to partici- common good, because you are helping other human beings. If pants, a personal action and commitment (rather than del- their community grows, that is something that is beneficial to egating to someone else) are the most important ways everyone. (Participant 10) people can contribute to, and provide for, the common good. To summarize, when considering all the emerging themes related to the provision for the common good, it appears that When I think about providing for the common good, I think the financial aspect is not a strong and salient representation. about something you do personally, in which you engage directly Participants attribute greater importance to contributing with and get your hands dirty. (Participant 13) their actions, rather than with their money. Different inter- pretations of this result can be suggested. The likely reason The first thing I thought about the common good was something that you do to increase other people’s well-being; a personal for the weak relation between money and the common good action and commitment, rather than a single object or a thing. is that this relation is “mediated” rather than immediate. In (Participant 7) fact, money itself is a medium. While being a good citizen or doing voluntary work automatically increases the common “Money as an indirect way to provide.” Although the relation- good, a monetary contribution is subsidiary to the actual use ship between money and the common good is neither imme- and management of that money. This introduces the second diate nor straightforward, paying taxes and making monetary aspect of such a mediated relation: the presence of a third contributions are still acknowledged as ways to provide for party (e.g., the government or other institution/nongovern- the common good. However, participants seem to regard mental organization [NGO]) that is in charge of the manage- both forms of monetary contributions as indirect – rather ment of that money. Understandably, the presence of a third than direct – ways to provide for the common good. For party evokes trust-related issues, considering that money is example, although few participants spontaneously men- fungible. The following quotes help shed some light on this tioned “paying taxes,” when asked, they all agreed that pay- aspect: ing taxes is a way to provide for the common good, mostly because being fiscally compliant is part of a citizen’s civic The fact that the hospital is working is a common good. If you make a donation to that hospital, that’s a good deed, but you duty. Castiglioni et al. 9 need to trust that they are actually using that donation to make you give money away to someone, it is because you are the hospital work better. (Participant 9) depriving yourself of something else. It’s a sacrifice. If you are a billionaire and give away a thousand euros, it doesn’t really affect you. It is just for your public image. Instead, when you do The fact is that paying taxes can be daylight robbery, at least in it without ulterior motives, that’s when you are really Italy. Sometimes they [the taxes] go straight into our politicians’ contributing. (Participant 4) pockets. (Participant 1) This kind of concern was not expressed in relation to paying Therefore, the perception expressed by the participants is taxes. As long as taxpayers pay what they owe to the State, that the money derived from taxes and donations might pro- participants felt that it does not matter whether they do so out vide for the common good, but this is not necessarily the of fear, for a clear conscience, or because they genuinely case. Both paying taxes and making donations thus seem to believe it is their duty. be perceived as indirect ways of providing for the common good, due to their monetary aspect (for further consider- “Effectiveness.” When talking about taxes, the interviewees ations, see the Discussion section). The next paragraph, will strongly focus on effects rather than intentions. In other focus specifically on differences between taxes and dona- words, their main concern is about the management and final tions in relation to the financial provision for the common destination of the money. Because they pay taxes, they good. expect to have efficient public services in return, as function- ing public services are seen as a fair exchange for the money The Asymmetry Between Taxes and Donations: they give. Effects Versus Motivations Paying taxes is a way to provide for the common good if they are Thus far, it has been underlined what taxes and donations used to create services. I’m OK with paying tons of taxes, as have in common in relation to financial provision for the long as I have something in return. I want efficient services; I common good (i.e., they are two indirect monetary ways to want my town or the State to help me when I have a problem. provide for the common good, whose effectiveness is subsid- (Participant 5) iary to the management and use of a third party). Now, we will consider the main differences. If everybody pays taxes, then there is something in return for everyone. You make this sacrifice, you do not keep all the money “Genuine motivations for donations.” Some participants- to yourself, and then you have something in return, something regardless of their donation behavior-were concerned about that benefits everyone. Of course, those who are in charge of the true intentions and motivations of the donors, as dona- handling this money need to be serious and reliable about that; tions appear to be an easy solution “for the purpose of a clear they need to make choices with the common good in mind. conscience.” (Participant 8) If you are committed, if you make an effort and you also give In contrast, when talking about monetary donations, money, that’s the best kind of contribution. But I think many donors do not necessarily focus on the effects. Obviously, people give money for different reasons, and then they they may raise concerns about the management of their completely lose interest in it. (Participant 1) money by NGOs and other associations, but the thought of the unfortunate possibility that the donated money is not Giving money is easier than giving time . . . It’s easy to say used in the way it was intended is not enough to make them “Well, I gave 50 euros, I’m good with myself.” (Participant 13) decide not to donate. In other words, some people are still willing to make monetary donations even if they are unsure When talking about donations, it seems that the main con- about their effectiveness. cern of both donors and nondonors appears to be in assessing the true intentions and genuineness of the donor’s gesture. It is something that gives me joy [. . .]. Each month, my husband According to participants, regardless of the amount of money and I help this child in Mozambique. Of course, it would be nice given, a donation has little value without a component of pri- if the money actually helped someone . . . there is no way to vation and personal sacrifice. Even if a big sum of money know for sure, [but] I hope it does. (Participant 7) could be more effective in providing for the common good (e.g., by funding services for the needy), a small amount that I give money to almost everyone that asks me . . . this and that, is backed by sincerity and is heartfelt can be perceived as the FAI, the African children, [. . .] I do not like feeling guilty. God forbid if it came out that a child could not have his eye more valuable. A clear example of this position is seen in the operation because I did not give my 10 euros! (Participant 15) following quote: To summarize, it appears that donors from our sample are If you give to charity just for the purpose of a clear conscience . . . I don’t know about that. It is not what I have been taught: if still satisfied with donating money, regardless how effective 10 SAGE Open Figure 2. Taxes, donations, and the financial provision for the common good. the donation may be. They seem to experience an emotional In paying taxes, I cannot see this aspect of joy and gratification. (Participant 12) exchange from this kind of monetary transaction (either as personal fulfillment and gratification or because they avoid You pay taxes to get services in return, that’s it. You get negative feelings such as guilt). Even nondonors, rather than something back. When you make a donation, you get nothing in complaining about the lack of transparency in how charities return. Well, except for those people who believe they can use the money they receive, appear to be more concerned increase their karma by making donations. On second thoughts, about assessing the true intentions behind a donation, and everyone who makes a donation gets something in return, they undermine the gesture if they can detect any ulterior because they feel better, so we could say it’s a spiritual return, motives. Although this may represent a coping mechanism to rather than a material one. (Participant 2) deal with feelings of guilt related to not being a donor, it is curious that so much emphasis is placed on donors’ inten- tions rather than on charities’ accountability. Summary In contrast, when referring to tax behavior, both donors Figure 2 shows an attempt to link together the main themes and nondonors are most concerned about the effectiveness of that emerged during the data analysis in relation to the finan- their payment (e.g., creation of public services). In other cial provision for the common good. Both paying taxes and words, they expect a material exchange. The following making donations are seen as indirect ways to provide for the quotes capture the essence of the difference between the common good. This perception could be related to the fungi- material exchange that is expected when paying taxes and bility of money, whose handling and management is subsid- the emotional exchange that is expected when making a iary to a third party. Moreover, there appears to be an donation: asymmetry between paying taxes and making donations. When paying taxes, the focus is on the effects that can be When you contribute to the common good, you should do it with achieved through the money given, whereas when making joy and enthusiasm. I can see that aspect in donations; you can donations, the focus is on the intentions and motivations of make them with joy, while taxes . . . well, they are an imposition. the donor. If you make a donation, you are immediately gratified. I’ll never make a donation entirely selflessly, because the gratification I Before moving on to the discussion section, where the would get would be already like having something in return. identified themes will be analyzed in relation to the existing Castiglioni et al. 11 literature, a reflexive account about the analytical process and generation, which can make it more difficult for people will be provided. A preliminary consideration is the unex- to understand the importance of its financial contribution. pected relative homogeneity of themes that emerged across While the economic perspective mostly identifies which different participants. The choice to include both donors and objects can be included under the label of “common goods,” nondonors in the sample, as well as employees and self- one of the main novelties of this study is its finding that, from employed people, was made to bring out potentially different the psychological perspective of lay people, the common perspectives on the common good and its financial provi- good is more easily organized by purposes (i.e., what is it sion. Surprisingly, however, the core themes that were identi- for) than by objects and contents. The common good seems fied appear to be convergent across different groups. One to serve two main purposes: providing “necessities for all” possible explanation for the lack of differences is due to the (i.e., primary and basic human needs) and “well-being for topic under investigation-the common good and its financial anyone” (i.e., secondary needs). Such distinction can have provision, rather than taxes and donations per se. strong implications at practical level-for example, in terms of creating social communication to promote cooperative and prosocial behavior. Discussion Another important result is that the relationship between The main aim of this study was to investigate the experiences tax payment/charitable giving and the common good is not and representations lay people share about the financial pro- entirely straightforward. A possible explanation is the vision for the common good, in terms of the existing rela- salience of money in both context. Money is not just a pro- tionship between money and the common good and to what fane exchange medium; rather, it is an entity that can be extent paying taxes and making monetary donations can be either good or evil, according to the situation (Belk & seen as an expression of it. By adopting an IPA approach and Wallendorf, 1990). For example, money can be turned into a combining it with photo-elicitation and a narrative task, it sacred object when it is sacrificed for the well-being of oth- aimed to perform an in-depth exploration of the phenomenon ers (e.g., through charitable giving). However, charity is per- and develop new insights rather than to test a priori ceived as a sacred gift only when it involves the personal hypotheses. sacrifice of money (making the social action a selfless ges- When applying a hermeneutic research approach, it is ture), not when the motivation stems from concerns about essential that participants are enabled to provide vivid, rich, personal gain. This might explain why the motivations and authentic accounts of their experiences. It is important to behind charitable giving are so important (in terms of assess- reduce tension and barriers for the participants, in order to ing the genuineness and selflessness of the gesture). Money enable the access to everyday experience (Quinney, Dwyer, can also have a priming effect, as it brings to mind an & Chapman, 2016). On a methodological level, the combina- exchange mentality, in which people consider what they are tion of a phenomenological approach together with two fur- giving up and what they will get in return (Jiang et al., 2014) ther techniques-photo-elicitation and a narrative task-proved and adopt a businesslike attitude (Tong et al., 2013). When to be very useful and effective in that it helped the interview- money is made salient, subjects disconnect interpersonally, ees to articulate their thoughts and provide both concrete are less helpful (Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2006), are less will- examples and more abstract reasoning about the common ing to donate money to charities (Roberts & Roberts, 2012), good. This study suggests that photographs can be especially and reduce behavioral helpfulness (Guéguen & Jacob, 2013). valuable when investigating vague and abstract concepts, by The possible negative symbolization of money, together with grounding them in everyday life. The narrative task also its priming effects, might explain why the allocation of helped participants to reflect upon their personal experience money, in the form of either taxes or donations, is seen as a prior to face-to-face interviews. Thus, the combination of secondary and indirect form of contribution to the common such techniques yielded richer accounts and helped investi- good. Because money embodies both selfish and individual- gate implicit representations and experiences. istic values, identifying its role for the benefit of the com- On a theoretical level, a first interesting result concerns munity can be difficult. On the contrary, money is merely a the representation of the common good itself. The common medium between the giver and a third party (e.g., govern- good represents a broad concept that also includes the public ments, institutions, associations, NGOs, etc.) who is in good. One of its main characteristics is that everyone (with charge of handling and managing it (functional value). A lack no exclusion) should have access to it. People also seem to of trust in and transparency of this party may make people be aware that they need to safeguard and protect it, in order feel more insecure about whether or not they actually have not to squander it and thus reduce someone else’s ability to contributed to the common good, thus highlighting the benefit from it. Interestingly, the common good also includes importance of accountability (De Cremer, Snyder, & Dewitte, the idea of active participation (as opposed to passive con- 2001). This is in line with prior work on the effect of per- sumption; see also Deneulin & Townsend, 2007). However, ceived trust and transparency on both voluntary tax compli- such participation mostly finds expression in the preserva- ance (Kasper, Kogler, & Kirchler, 2015; Olsen et al., 2018) tion of something already given rather than in its provision and charitable giving (Blouin, Lee, & Erickson, 2018). 12 SAGE Open The last main result concerns the commonalities between they fail to perceive a material return after paying paying taxes and making donations, and to what extent they their taxes. are perceived as two alternative and complementary ways to provide for the common good. It appears that the comparison This study was a first exploration on the subject. On one merely stands on a formal and cognitive level. At an affective hand, it underlined what taxes and donations have in com- level, instead, they appear to be very distant in terms of both mon (i.e., they are two indirect monetary ways to provide for (a) main attentional focus (effects vs. motivations) and (b) the common good). On the other hand, it underlined their expected return (material vs. emotional). differences (i.e., when paying taxes and making donations, people pursue different goals; specifically, a material vs. an i. Effects versus motivations. Participants appeared to emotional return). Although the study gave preliminary be more focused on the effects of tax money, rather insights and laid the foundations for further investigation, its than on the motivations behind tax compliance, exploratory nature does not allow to directly address how to whereas they appeared to be more concerned about promote a behavioral change. In addition, caution not to the motivations behind a donation (i.e., genuineness overgeneralize the results is needed. Both tax payment and of the gesture) than about its effects. Despite the charitable giving were investigated at rather general level, common belief that individuals would donate more to without distinguishing between diverse and specific contexts charity if they were assured that their money would (e.g., different charitable causes or organizations), thus not not be wasted, results of this study seem to be more allowing to capture different nuances. Also, the study relies in line with other evidence from the literature arguing on Italian participants and therefore caution not to overgen- that sometimes donors do not primarily care about eralize the results to other countries with a different cultural results and fundraising efficiency (Berman & and socioeconomic background is needed. Future research Davidson, 2003; Charles & Kim, 2016; Gordon & could aim to investigate the existing differences in lay people Khumawala, 1999). In other words, the effort - rather experiences and representations of the financial provision for than the actual outcome - seems to be more valuable, common good across different countries, cultures, and con- leading to the idea that “it’s the thought that counts.” texts. Given the rather unstable socioeconomic situation in On the contrary, in the context of tax behavior, early Italy, it would be beneficial to compare these results with studies found evidence that the level of benefits pro- those from a sample of a country with a diverse economic vided through taxation, as well as participants’ aware- situation. ness of such benefits, can influence compliance (Alm, McClelland, & Schulze, 1992; Spicer & Concluding Remarks Lundstedt, 1976). ii. Material versus emotional return. As mentioned The present study is novel in that it aimed to be a first explo- above, taxes and donations also appear to differ in ration into the representations lay people share on the finan- terms of what people expect in return (material vs. cial provision for the common good. In-depth interviews emotional exchange). A theoretical framework that have been conducted using the IPA approach in combination may offer an explanation of such differences can be with two further techniques, photo-elicitation and a narrative provided by the distinction between “pure altruism” task. This methodology appeared to be extremely suited in and “warm-glow altruism” (Andreoni, 1990). yielding rich accounts of participants’ experience on a vague According to this framework, warm-glow altruists and abstract concept. Three main results are especially valu- make their contributions because of the good feeling able not only at theoretical level but also for their pragmatic they get from giving, whereas pure altruists contrib- implications. ute to make society better off. In the context of mon- First, results from this study confirm the importance of etary donations, a lack of transparency and trust referring to the “common good” rather than the “public regarding the way money is handled may discourage good” when dealing with tax behavior and charitable giving. pure altruists from donating, while warm-glow altru- At a semantic level, the common good appears to be a ists may be unaffected. In other words, despite the broader concept. Moreover, it includes the idea of active par- lack of evidence of tangible effects, warm-glow ticipation, as opposed to the passive consumption of the pub- altruists are still motivated to donate, as they experi- lic good. As above mentioned, if tax money and donations ence emotional gratification from doing so. However, are the prices for public goods, the underlying implication is in the context of taxation, being fiscally compliant that if someone does not benefit from a certain public good, does not appear to elicit any warm-glow feeling, and he or she may feel justified in not contributing. If we refer to the focus is on the effects rather than on the motiva- the “common good,” citizens may be more willing to con- tions. This could mean that, in contrast to donations, tribute, even if they do not receive a full public good equiva- taxpayers are more discouraged from compliance if lent to the money they gave. Castiglioni et al. 13 Second, it appears that financial provision for the com- represent?”); (b) different ways, both financial and nonfinan- cial, to provide for the common good (using the “narrative mon good may benefit from increased transparency and task” as stimulus); (c) paying taxes/making donations as a way accountability regarding how the money is handled to make of financially providing for the common good (prompted, if the relationship between money and the common good more not spontaneously mentioned); and (d) other considerations. straightforward and direct. Because money is fungible and 6. Only people who donated money to organized charities in the its effectiveness is subsidiary to its management and use by last year were qualified as “donors.” third-party institutions (government, NGOs, etc.), it can, but 7. All verbatim quotes have been translated from Italian into does not necessarily, provide for the common good. As a English by the authors. result, both taxes and donations are seen as secondary and 8. It should also be noted that some participants, at first, stated indirect ways to provide for the common good (the former as that they “do not contribute to the common good” and did part of people’s civic duty, the latter as a possible form of not spontaneously mention “paying taxes.” This result may offering beneficence). This appears to be especially relevant also be explained by referring to the construct of tax morale. Tax morale is often used to explain cross-cultural differences in the domain of tax behavior, as people are mostly con- in tax compliance and can be defined as the readiness of an cerned about the effects of paying taxes. individual to pay taxes as a moral responsibility (Cummings, Finally, the fact that people are mostly concerned about Martinez-Vazquez, McKee, & Torgler, 2004). It is also linked the effects and expect a material return when paying taxes, to the motivational concept of civic duty (Orviska & Hudson, whereas they are mostly concerned about motivations when 2003). Thus, we might expect people to be more inclined to making a monetary donation and expect an emotional return, spontaneously mention tax payment as a way to provide for leads to different communicative rhetoric in social commu- the common good in countries where tax morale has a higher nication. Accordingly, a campaign aimed at promoting tax impact on actual tax behavior. compliance might focus on the outcomes and what citizens 9. In a similar vein, a study aimed at examining consumers’ reac- may obtain in return (e.g., public services), rather than on tions to companies’ investments in charitable actions found that moral duty. A campaign aimed at promoting charitable giv- effort-oriented strategy results in more value-driven consumer attributions (altruistic and sincere) and warmer brand percep- ing, instead, might focus on personal fulfillment and gratifi- tions than an ability-oriented strategy (Zhu, He, Chen, & Hu, cation, rather than on the outcomes. 2017). It is noteworthy that lay people tend to interpret altru- ism more in terms of motivation than outcome. Another study Declaration of Conflicting Interests (Cheng, Kwok, Cheung, & Yip, 2017) found that donating The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect food or clothes to charity, which was considered to be altruis- to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. tic by experts, was deemed not to be altruistic by a community survey. Lay participants of a follow-up focus group further Funding explained that the reason for excluding this behavior is based on the idea that it is motivated more by a desire to help oneself The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- than to help others, despite the fact that the outcome will ben- ship, and/or publication of this article. efit others. Notes ORCID iD 1. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8118661/2- 20072017-AP-EN.pdf/83147478-c193-40e9-8a0a-b76e56a5cebc Cinzia Castiglioni https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7306-7079 2. On average, the Italian tax gap between 2010 and 2014 is esti- mated to be 88.1 billion euros (34.2% of the potential total rev- References enue), of which 12.4 billion (4.8%) is ascribed to unintentional mistakes, while the remaining 75.7 billion (29.4%) is ascribed Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, to intentional concealment (Ministero dell’Economia e delle J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., . . . Norton, M. I. (2013). Finanze, 2016). Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for 3. The average percentage of the population who donate money a psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social in Europe is 36%, with the United Kingdom (64%) and the Psychology, 104, 635-652. Netherlands (64%) having the largest proportions of people Allingham, M. G., & Sandmo, A. (1972). Income tax evasion: A making donations. theoretical analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 1, 323- 4. The first author performed all the interviews. The first and the second authors analyzed the interview transcripts. The third Alm, J., McClelland, G. H., & Schulze, W. D. (1992). Why do peo- author supervised the whole process. All authors approved the ple pay taxes? Journal of Public Economics, 48, 21-38. final interpretation of the results. Andreoni, J. (1988). Privately provided public goods in a large 5. Although the interviews were unstructured, there was a com- economy: The limits of altruism. Journal of Public Economics, mon flow that was typically followed by the interviewer: (a) 35, 57-73. representations of “the common good,” using the “photo-elic- Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: itation” technique as an initial stimulus (i.e., “Tell me more A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100, about these pictures. Why did you chose them? What do they 464-477. 14 SAGE Open Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Todd, R. M., Brummett, B. H., Shaw, Czibor, A., Vincze, O., & Bereczkei, T. (2014). Feelings and L. L., & Aldeguer, C. M. (1995). Empathy and the collective motives underlying Machiavellian behavioural strategies; good: Caring for one of the others in a social dilemma. Journal narrative reports in a social dilemma situation. International of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 619-361. Journal of Psychology, 49, 519-524. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empiri- Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, cal studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive chari- 31, 169-193. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001125 table giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, De Cremer, D., Snyder, M., & Dewitte, S. (2001). “The less I trust, 924-973. the less I contribute (or not)?” The effects of trust, accountabil- Belk, R. W., & Wallendorf, M. (1990). The sacred meanings of ity and self-monitoring in social dilemmas. European Journal money. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 35-67. of Social Psychology, 31, 93-107. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. Deneulin, S., & Townsend, N. (2007). Public goods, global public American Economic Review, 96, 1652-1678. goods and the common good. International Journal of Social Bergstrom, T., Blume, L., & Varian, H. (1986). On the private pro- Economics, 34, 19-36. vision of public goods. Journal of Public Economics, 29, 25- Dickert, S., Sagara, N., & Slovic, P. (2011). Affective motiva- 49. tions to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions. Berman, G., & Davidson, S. (2003). Do donors care? Some Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 361-376. Australian evidence. Voluntas: International Journal of Eatough, V., & Smith, J. (2006). I was like a wild wild person: Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14, 421-429. Understanding feelings of anger using interpretative phenom- Bernheim, B. D. (1986). On the voluntary and involuntary provision enological analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 483-498. of public goods. The American Economic Review, 76, 789-793. Etzioni, A. (2014). Common good. In M. T. Gibbons (Ed.), The Blouin, M. C., Lee, R. L., & Erickson, G. S. (2018). The impact of encyclopedia of political thought (p. 28). Chichester, UK: online financial disclosure and donations in nonprofits. Journal Wiley-Blackwell. of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30, 251-266. Feld, L. P., & Frey, B. S. (2007). Tax compliance as the result of a Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Thematic analysis and code development: psychological tax contract: The role of incentives and respon- Transforming qualitative information. London, England: Sage. sive regulation. Law & Policy, 29, 102-120. Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social Finaly, L., & Ballinger, C. (2006). Qualitative research for allied dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision health professionals: Challenging choices. Chichester, UK: framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, John Wiley. 543-549. Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people con- Cappello, M. (2005). Photo interviews: Eliciting data through con- ditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experi- versations with children. Field Methods, 17, 170-182. ment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397-404. Castiglioni, C., Lozza, E., Cullis, J., Jones, P., & Lewis, A. (2014). Gino, F., & Mogilner, C. (2014). Time, money, and morality. Is benefit fraud more or less wrong than tax evasion? An Psychological Science, 25, 414-421. exploratory study in the perspective of fiscal psychology. Giovannini, E. (2011). Economia non osservata e flussi finanziari Psicologia Sociale, 3, 291-308. (Rapporto finale) [Shadow economy and financial flows (final Charities Aid Foundation. (2017). World Giving Index 2016. report)]. Roma, Italy: Ministero dell’Economia e delle finanze. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us- Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. Journal of publications/cafworldgivingindex2017_2167a_web_210917. Legal Studies, 29, 1-17. pdf?sfvrsn=ed1dac40_10 Gordon, T. P., & Khumawala, S. B. (1999). The demand for not- Charles, C., & Kim, M. (2016). Do donors care about results? An for-profit financial statements: A model of individual giving. analysis of nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. Public Journal of Accounting Literature, 18, 31-56. Performance & Management Review, 39, 1-21. Guéguen, N., & Jacob, C. (2013). Behavioral consequences of Cheng, Q., Kwok, C. L., Cheung, F. T., & Yip, P. S. (2017). money: When the automated teller machine reduces helping Construction and validation of the Hong Kong Altruism Index behavior. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 47, 103-104. (A-Index). Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 201-208. Harbaugh, W. T., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. R. (2007). Neural Clarke, C. (2009). An introduction to interpretative phenomeno- responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for logical analysis: A useful approach for occupational therapy charitable donations. Science, 316, 1622-1625. research. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 37-39. 1243-1248. Cullis, J., Jones, P., Lewis, A., Castiglioni, C., & Lozza, E. (2015). Hofmann, E., Hoelzl, E., & Kirchler, E. (2008). Preconditions of Do poachers make harsh gamekeepers? Attitudes to tax evasion voluntary tax compliance: Knowledge and evaluation of taxa- and to benefit fraud. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental tion, norms, fairness, and motivation to cooperate. Zeitschrift Economics, 58, 124-131. für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 216, 209-217. Cummings, R. C., Martinez-Vazquez, J., McKee, M., & Torgler, B. Husserl, E. (1977). Phenomenological psychology: Lectures, (2004). Effects of culture on tax compliance: A cross check of summer semester, 1925 (J. Scanlon, Trans.). The Hague, experimental and survey evidence (CREMA Working Paper No. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. (Original work published 1925) 2004-13). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=661921 Jiang, Y., Chen, Z., & Wyer, R. S. (2014). Impact of money on emo- Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. tional expression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, London: Sage. 55, 228-233. Castiglioni et al. 15 Kasper, M., Kogler, C., & Kirchler, E. (2015). Tax policy and Olsen, J., Kasper, M., Enachescu, J., Benk, S., Budak, T., & the news: An empirical analysis of taxpayers’ perceptions of Kirchler, E. (2018). Emotions and tax compliance among tax-related media coverage and its impact on tax compliance. small business owners: An experimental survey. International Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 54, 58- Review of Law and Economics, 56, 42-52. 63. Orviska, M., & Hudson, J. (2003). Tax evasion, civic duty and the Kastlunger, B., Lozza, E., Kirchler, E., & Schabmann, A. (2013). law abiding citizen. European Journal of Political Economy, Powerful authorities and trusting citizens: The Slippery Slope 19, 83-102. Framework and tax compliance in Italy. Journal of Economic Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of Psychology, 34, 36-45. institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Ketelaar, T., & Tung Au, W. (2003). The effects of feelings of University Press. guilt on the behaviour of uncooperative individuals in repeated Quinney, L., Dwyer, T., & Chapman, Y. (2016). Who, where, and social bargaining games: An affect-as-information interpreta- how of interviewing peers: Implications for a phenomenologi- tion of the role of emotion in social interaction. Cognition & cal study. SAGE Open, 6(3). doi:10.1177/2158244016659688 Emotion, 17, 429-453. Reid, K., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2005). Exploring lived experi- Kirchler, E. (2007). The economic psychology of tax behaviour. ence. The Psychologist, 18, 20-23. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, J. A., & Roberts, C. R. (2012). Money matters: Does the Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. symbolic presence of money affect charitable giving and atti- Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 183-214. tudes among adolescents? Young Consumers, 13, 329-336. Langdridge, D. (2007). Phenomenological psychology: Theory, Samuelson, P. A. (1969). Contrast between welfare conditions for research and method. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. joint supply and for public goods. The Review of Economics Lewis, A. (1982). The psychology of taxation. Oxford, UK: Martin and Statistics, 51, 26-30. Robertson. Schneider, F. (2015). Size and development of the shadow econ- Lozza, E., Bonanomi, A., Castiglioni, C., & Bosio, A. C. omy of 31 European and 5 other OECD countries from 2003 (2016). Consumer sentiment after the global financial crisis. to 2015: Different developments? Journal of Self-Governance International Journal of Market Research, 58, 671-691. and Management Economics, 3, 7-29. Lozza, E., Carrera, S., & Bosio, A. C. (2010). Perceptions and out- Slavov, S. N. (2014). Public versus private provision of public comes of a fiscal bonus: Framing effects on evaluations and goods. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 16, 222-258. usage intentions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 400- Slutskaya, N., Simpson, A., & Hughes, J. (2012). Lessons from pho- 404. toelicitation: Encouraging working men to speak. Qualitative Lozza, E., & Castiglioni, C. (2018). Tax climate in the national Research in Organizations and Management: An International press: A new tool in tax behaviour research. Journal of Social Journal, 7, 16-33. Political Psychology, 6, 401-419. Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and Maggs-Rapport, F. (2000). Combining methodological approaches discourse: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in in research: Ethnography and interpretive phenomenology. health psychology. Psychology and Health, 11, 261-271. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 219-225. Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenologi- Mastromatteo, G., & Solari, S. (2014). The idea of “common good” cal analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A and the role of the state in present day social economics. Rivista practical guide to research methods (pp. 53-80). London, Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 124, 85-102. England: Sage. Meier, S. (2007). A Survey of economic theories and field evi- Smith, K. W., & Stalans, L. J. (1991). Encouraging tax compliance dence on pro-social behavior. In B. S. Frey & A. Stutzer (Eds.), with positive incentives: A conceptual framework and research Economics and psychology: A promising new cross-disciplin- directions. Law & Policy, 13, 35-53. ary field (pp. 51-88). Boston, MA: MIT Press. Smith, V. H., Kehoe, M. R., & Cremer, M. E. (1995). The private Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze. (2016). Relazione provision of public goods: Altruism and voluntary giving. sull’economia non osservata e sull’evasione fiscale e Journal of Public Economics, 58(1), 107-126. contributiva. Retrieved from http://www.mef.gov.it/ Spicer, M. W., & Lundstedt, S. B. (1976). Understanding tax eva- inevidenza/documenti/Relazione_evasione_fiscale_e_con- sion. Public Finance, 31, 295-305. tributiva__0926_ore1300_xversione_definitivax-29_settem- Sugden, R. (1984). Reciprocity: The supply of public goods bre_2016.pdf through voluntary contributions. The Economic Journal, 94, Molenmaker, W. E., De Kwaadsteniet, E. W., & Van Dijk, E. (2016). 772-787. The impact of personal responsibility on the (un) willingness to Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthe- punish non-cooperation and reward cooperation. Organizational sis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11, 63-75. Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 134, 1-15. Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (1999). Sanctioning systems, Moscovici, S. (2000). Social representations: Explorations in decision frames, and cooperation. Administrative Science social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Quarterly, 44, 684-707. Murphy, T., & Parkey, J. (2016). An economic analysis of the Tong, L., Zheng, Y., & Zhao, P. (2013). Is money really the root philosophical common good. International Journal of Social of all evil? The impact of priming money on consumer choice. Economics, 43, 823-840. Marketing Letters, 24, 119-129. Musgrave, R. A. (1969). Cost-benefit analysis and the theory of Van Dijk, E., De Kwaadsteniet, E. W., & De Cremer, D. (2009). public finance. Journal of Economic Literature, 7, 797-806. Tacit coordination in social dilemmas: The importance of 16 SAGE Open having a common understanding. Journal of Personality and field of economic psychology. Currently, she is postdoctoral Social Psychology, 96, 665-678. research fellow in Psychology at Catholic University of Milan, Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (1997). Is it mine or is it ours? Framing prop- where she teaches ‘Methods and Techniques of Interview and erty rights and decision making in social dilemmas. Organizational Questionnaire.’ She is also didactic coordinator for the master’s Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 195-209. degree in ‘International Marketing Management.’ Her research Van Lange, P. A. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality interests range over the fields of economic psychology, tax in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. behaviour, charitable giving, and the use of the nudge approach Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337-349. to behavioural change in public policy. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337 Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychologi- Edoardo Lozza is full professor at the faculty of Psychology at cal consequences of money. Science, 314, 1154-1156. Catholic University of Milan. He is director of the master’s Warr, P. G. (1983). The private provision of a public good is inde- degree in ‘Psychology for Organizations: Human Resources, pendent of the distribution of income. Economics Letters, 13, Marketing and Communication,’ where he teaches ‘Consumer 207-211. and Marketing Psychology’ and ‘Economic Psychology.’ He is Wenzel, M. (2004). An analysis of norm processes in tax compli- also member of the scientific board of the master’s degree in ance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 213-228. ‘International Marketing Management.’ His research interests Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. range over the fields of consumer psychology (consumer senti- Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education. ment, new patterns and trends), marketing research (methods), Wuyts, M. (1992). Deprivation and public need. In M. Wuyts, M. work and professions (job insecurity, psychological professions), Mackintosh, & T. Hewitt (Eds.), Development policy and pub- economic psychology and behavioral economics. lic action (pp. 13-37). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Yitzhaki, S. (1974). Income tax evasion: A theoretical analysis. Albino Claudio Bosio is full professor at the faculty of Psychology Journal of Public Economics, 3(2), 201-202. at Catholic University of Milan, where he teaches ‘Psychology of Zhu, L., He, Y., Chen, Q., & Hu, M. (2017). It’s the thought that Marketing and Consumption’ and ‘Psycho-Social Research and counts: The effects of construal level priming and donation Intervention for Organizations: Process Methodology.’ He has been proximity on consumer response to donation framing. Journal the dean of the same faculty since 2011. He is the author of more of Business Research, 76, 44-51. than 200 scientific publications, mainly in the area of applied psy- cho-social research. His main research areas are consumer psychol- Author Biographies ogy, marketing research, social communication, medical practices, Cinzia Castiglioni received a PhD in Psychology and the healthcare, professionalization of psychology, patient engagement additional title of doctor Europaeus in 2018, with a thesis in the and active healthy ageing.

Journal

SAGE Open – SAGE

Published: Oct 16, 2018

Keywords: common good; tax behavior; charitable giving; financial provision; money; photo-elicitation

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Lay People Representations on the Common Good and Its Financial Provision:

Lay People Representations on the Common Good and Its Financial Provision:

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Lay People Representations on the Common Good and Its Financial Provision:

Lay People Representations on the Common Good and Its Financial Provision:

References (96)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies