Summary
We present the results of a survey-experiment – using a representative sample of the Dutch population – in which we relate respondents’ opinion about a restriction of the tax deductibility of mortgages to their estimates about other people’s opinions. We find a strong consensus effect; meaning that respondents’ estimates of others’ opinions are related to their own opinion. Furthermore, we find that the size of the effect is not affected by the ambiguity of the question posed. The provision of arguments pro and contra the tax provision and monetary incentives for accuracy reduce the consensus effect, but only so in conjunction. Finally, we find that house owners display a significantly stronger consensus effect. Our results suggest that both cognitive and motivational factors are responsible for the consensus effect. Aside from the consensus effect, our survey gives interesting insights into people’s opinion on tax deductibility of mortgages. A majority consider a general restriction to be unfair, but a proposal to restrict only mortgages as of a certain size meets with much more approval.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Brosig J., Weimann J., Yang C.-L. (2003), ‘The Hot Versus Cold Effect in a Simple Bargaining Experiment’. Experimental Economics 6, 75–90
Brown C.E. (1982), ‘A false consensus in 1980 Presidential Preferences’. Journal of Social Psychology 118, 137–138
Camerer C. (1995), ‘Individual Decision Making. In: Kagel J., Roth A. (eds), Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, Princeton University Press
Campbell J.D. (1986), ‘Similarity and Uniqueness: The Effects of Attribute Type, Relevance, and Individual Differences in Self-esteem and Depression’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50, 281–294
Charness G., Grosskopf B. (2001), ‘Relative Payoffs and Happiness: an Experimental Study’. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 45, 301–328
Crano W.D. (1983), ‘Assumed Consensus of Attitudes: The Effect of Vested Interest’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 9, 597–606
Dawes R.M. (1990), ‘The Potential Nonfalsity of the False Consensus Effect’. In: Hogarth R. (eds), Insight in Decision Making. A Tribute to Hillel J Einhorn. Chicago, Chicago University Press
Engelmann D., Strobel M. (2000), ‘The False Consensus Effect Disappears if Representative Information and Monetary Incentives are Given’. Experimental Economics 3, 241–260
Engelmann, D. and M. Strobel (2004), ‘The False Consensus Effect: Deconstruction and Reconstruction of an Anomaly,’ mimeo, CERGE-EI, Charles University, Prague.
Forsythe R., Nelson F., Neumann G.R., Wright J. (1992), ‘Anatomy of an Experimental Political Stock Market’. American Economic Review 82, 1142–1161
Goethals G.R., Allison S.J., Frost M. (1979), ‘Perceptions of the Magnitude and Diversity of Social Support’. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 15, 570–581
Harmon C., Oosterbeek H., Walker I. (2003) ‘The Returns to Education: microeconomics’. Journal of Economic Surveys 17, 115–155
Jacobsen, E. and Sadrieh (1996), ‘Experimental Proof for the Motivational Importance of Reciprocity,’ University of Bonn, Discussion Paper No. B-386.
Manstead A.S.R. (1982), ‘Perceived Social Support for Opinions: A test of the Magnitude and Diversity Hypotheses’. British Journal of Social Psychology 21, 35–41
Marks G., Miller N. (1987), ‘Ten Years of Research on the False Consensus Effect: An Empirical and Theoretical Overview’. Psychological Bulletin 102, 72–90
Mullen B., Hu L. (1988), ‘Social Projection as a Function of Cognitive Mechanisms: Two Meta-analytic Integrations’. British Journal of Social Psychology 27, 333–356
Offerman T., Sonnemans J., Schram A. (1996), ‘Value Orientations, Expectations and Voluntary Contributions in Public Goods’. Economic Journal 106, 817–845
Ross L., Greene D., House P. (1977), ‘The ‘False Consensus Effect: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes’. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13, 279–301
Selten R., Ockenfels A. (1998), ‘An Experimental Solidarity Game’. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 34, 517–539
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
We thank Marcel Das and Corrie Vis of CentERdata for their excellent support in conducting the survey-experiment and two referees of this journal and Dirk Engelmann for helpful comments. Financial support from the Faculty of Economics and Business administration is gratefully acknowledged.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Van Der Heijden, E., Nelissen, J. & Potters, J. Opinions on the Tax Deductibility of Mortgages and the Consensus Effect. De Economist 155, 141–159 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-007-9061-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-007-9061-2