Predicting support for eliminating the dividend tax: The role of framing and attributions for wealth

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 49-66

  Bullock, Heather E ^a   Fernald, Julian L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Psychology Department

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SOCIAL POLICY; TAX SYSTEM; WELFARE REFORM;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 29244481489     PISSN: 15297489     EISSN: 15302415     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2005.00055.x     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Bashevkin, S. (2002). Welfare hot buttons: Women, work, and social policy reform. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
2. Batson, D. C., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., et al. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105-118.
3. Baylor, T. (1996). Media framing of movement protest: The case of American Indian protest. The Social Science Journal, 33, 241-255.
4. Bobo, L., & Licari, F. C. (1989). Education and political tolerance: Testing the effects of cognitive sophistication and target group affect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 285-308.
5. Bowman, K. H. (2003, November 21). Taking stock of business: Public opinion after the corporate scandals. Retrieved August 28, 2004, from: http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.,pubID.19507/pub_detail.asp.
6. Brewer, P. R. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights: A framing-based account. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 173-201.
7. Bullock, H. E., & Limbert, W. M. (2003). Scaling the socioeconomic ladder: Low-income women's perceptions of class status and opportunity. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 693-709.
8. Bullock, H. E., Williams, W. R., & Limbert, W. M. (2003). Predicting support for welfare policies: The impact of attributions and beliefs about inequality. Journal of Poverty, 7, 35-56.
9. Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. (2001). Assessing the democratic debate: How the news media frame elite policy discourse. Political Communication, 18, 183-212.
10. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2003a, January 23). Exempting corporate dividends from individual income taxes. Retrieved June 2, 2004, from: www.cbpp.org/l-6-03tax.htm.
11. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2003b, September 23). The new, definitive CBO data on income and tax trends. Retrieved August 17, 2004, from: http://www.cbpp.org/9-23-03tax.htm.
12. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2004, June 2). The ultimate burden of tax cuts: Once the tax cuts are paid for, low- and middle-income households likely to be net losers, on average. Retrieved June 2, 2004, from: www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.pdf.
13. Christopher, A. N., & Jones, J. R. (2004). Affluence cues and first impressions: The moderating impact of the Protestant work ethic. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 279-292.
14. Christopher, A. N., Morgan, R. D., Marek, P., Troisi, J. D., Jones, J. R., & Reinhart, D. F. (2005). Affluence cues and first impressions: Does it matter how the affluence was acquired? Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 187-200.
15. Citizens for Tax Justice. (2004, April 13). Phase-in dates for the Bush tax cuts, including 2003 legislation (calendar years). Retrieved June 2, 2004, from: http://www.ctj.org/html/publist.htm#congress.
16. de Goede, M. (1996). Ideology in the US welfare debate: Neo-liberal representations of poverty. Discourse & Society, 7, 317-357.
17. Druckman, J. N. (2001a). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225-256.
18. Druckman, J. N. (2001b). Evaluating frame effects. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 91-101.
19. Elffers, H., & Hessing, D. J. (1997). Influencing the prospects of tax evasion. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 289-304.
20. Ending double tax trouble. (2002, December 26). Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 2, 2004, from: http://www.atr.org/opeds/122602wsj.html.
21. Entman, R. M. (1995). Television, democratic theory and the visual construction of poverty. Research in Political Sociology, 7, 139-159.
22. Free Press (2005). Who owns the media? Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.freepress.net/ownership/.
23. Furnham, A. F. (1983). Attributions for affluence. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 31-40.
24. Gans, H. J. (1995). The war against the poor: The underclass and antipoverty policy. New York: Basic Books.
25. Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Gross, K., & D'Ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25, 1-29.
27. Heritage Foundation. (2003, January 7). Who really benefits from dividend tax relief? (CDA03-02). Retrieved June 2, 2004, from: http://www.heritage.org/ Research/Taxes/CDA03-02.cfm.
28. Howell, S. E., & Day, C. L. (2000). Complexities of the gender gap. The Journal of Politics, 62, 858-874.
29. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Jacoby, W. G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 750-767.
31. Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-27, 117 Stat. 752 (2003).
32. Kellstedt, P. M. (2000). Media framing and the dynamics of racial policy preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 245-260.
33. Kirchler, E., & Maciejovsky, B. (2001). Tax compliance within the context of gain and loss situations, expected and current asset position, and profession. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 173-194.
34. Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans' view of what is and what ought to be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
35. Krugman, P. (2003, September 14). The tax-cut con. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved June 2, 2004, from: www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/magazine/ 14TAXES.html?pagewanted=print&position=.
36. McCaffery, E. J., & Baron, J. (2004). Framing and taxation: Evaluation of tax policies involving household composition. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 679-705.
37. Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issues frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. The Journal of Politics, 58, 1055-1078.
38. Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. The Journal of Politics, 61, 1040-1067.
39. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221-246.
40. Petruno, T. (2003, December 29). Dividend tax cut effect mixed; The experts differ on whether the reality of the rate reduction has lived up to the hype. Los Angeles Times, p. C1.
41. Prothro, J. W., & Grigg, C. M. (1960). Fundamental principles of democracy: Bases of agreement and disagreement. Journal of Politics, 22, 276-294.
42. Roberts, M. L. (1994). An experimental approach to changing taxpayers' attitudes towards fairness and compliance via television. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 16, 67-86.
43. Roberts, M. L., Hite, P. A., & Bradley, C. F. (1994). Understanding attitudes toward progressive taxation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 165-190.
44. Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1996). "To thine own self be true:" Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23, 509-560.
45. Sheffrin, S. M. (1993). What does the public believe about tax fairness? National Tax Journal, 46, 301-308.
46. Simon, A., & Xenos, M. (2000). Media framing and effective public deliberation. Political Communication, 17, 363-376.
47. Sloan, A. (2004a, April 12). Six fixes for the tax mess. Newsweek, CXLIII, 47.
48. Sloan, A. (2004b, April 12). Why your tax cut doesn't add up. Newsweek, CXLIII, 41-46.
49. Smith, K. B. (1985). I made it because of me: Beliefs about the causes of wealth and poverty. Sociological Spectrum, 5, 255-267.
50. Smith, K. B., & Stone, L. (1989). Rags, riches, and bootstraps: Beliefs about the causes of wealth and poverty. The Sociological Quarterly, 30, 93-108.
51. Terkildsen, N., & Schnell, F. (1997). How media frames move public opinion: An analysis of the women's movement. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 879-900.
52. The president's job and growth plan: The dividend exclusion is not complex, (n.d.). Retrieved June 2, 2004, from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ infocus/economy/complexity.html.
53. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
54. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform - Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division (2003, April). The dividend tax cut: Fortune 100 corporate executives would reap huge financial benefits. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from: www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20040608091640- 19649.pdf.