Experimental Design
Update 30.4.2026 separate section for 2026 extension survey added
2024 survey:
Our study contain a set of regular survey questions, two conjoint survey experiments, one information provision video experiment implemented within the survey and one real-life shock in the form of the Finnish Tax Day (and US Presidential elections). The respondents are drawn from our survey partners (Taloustutkimus) respondent panel which is nationally representative on the level of age, gender, region (NUTS 2).
The survey proceeds in the following manner.
Respondents are divided into two groups by our real-life information treatment, the Finnish tax-day. We achieve this by half of the respondents being surveyed before the Tax Day and the other half after the Tax Day. The first survey window is between 22.10.2024 and 5.11.2024. The Tax Day takes place on 7.11.2024. The second survey window takes place between, 8.11.2024 and 22.11.2024. The US Presidential elections take place on 5.11.2024, but likely the results will be discussed in the Finnish media on 6.11.2024, that is, one day before the Tax Day.
The second treatment assignment is conducted at the start of the survey. Half of the people in both groups (before and after the Tax Day) are randomly assigned to watch an informational video of the role of taxes and public spending in redistributing income.
Before the video, all respondents answer basic demographic questions.
Then those who are randomly allocated to the video treatment proceed to video which cannot be skipped. The video is a whiteboard animation, which explains in simple manner how taxes are collected each year, why taxes are collected and what they are used for, and what benefits and costs are associated with tax collection.
Those without video treatment move straight into background questions that include demographic questions and questions about political preferences, values, knowledge of redistributive policies, trust, views about the world and one’s own life, and habits concerning media consumption. The English translation of questions can be found in the attached analysis plan.
In the last part of the survey, we run two conjoint survey experiments.
In the first conjoint, the respondents are presented with two cards, A and B, which both present policy packages that hypothetical parties in the next parliamentary elections are proposing in their party manifestos. Both cards include seven statements (attributes) regarding taxes and redistributive policies. The respondents are asked to choose which party, A or B they would rather vote. The respondents make the choice between the candidates six times. Each attribute category contains value realisations that are associated with a specific redistributive policy. The seven polices are: 1) income taxes; 2) unemployment benefit; 3) public health care; 4) national debt; 5) capital income tax; 6) progressivity of the income tax at the top and; 7) fuel taxes.
List below displays the attributes and their levels in the first conjoint. Each attribute has three levels. The value of each attribute is randomised for each card and the order of the attributes is randomised once for each respondent, but is the same on both cards and remains the same for the same respondent across the cards.
Income taxation:
• Increase income tax evenly by 1% across all income groups
• Keep the current level of income taxation
• Decrease income tax evenly by 1% across all income groups
Unemployment benefits:
• Make unemployment benefits more generous by increasing the basic daily allowance by 200 euros per month
• Keep the current level of unemployment benefits
• Tighten unemployment benefits by reducing the basic daily allowance by 200 euros per month
Public healthcare funding:
• Increase public healthcare funding by 1 billion euros per year
• Keep the current level of public healthcare funding
• Cut public healthcare funding by 1 billion euros per year
National debt:
• Be willing to take on an additional 1 billion euros of national debt per year
• Not seek to change the current level of national debt
• Aim to reduce national debt by 1 billion euros per year
Capital income tax:
• Increase capital gains tax by 2 percentage points
• Keep the current level of capital gains tax
• Decrease capital gains tax by 2 percentage points
Tax progression:
• Increase tax progression by raising the top income tax rate by 3%
• Keep the current level of tax progression
• Reduce tax progression by lowering the top income tax rate by 3%
Fuel tax:
• Increase the fuel tax by 5 cents per liter
• Keep the current level of fuel tax
• Decrease the fuel tax by 5 cents per liter
The second conjoint tests the motivation hypotheses detailed in the previous section, that is, what kind of views people have about reasons and consequences of income inequality and redistribution. In the conjoint, the respondents are presented with the personal opinions of two politicians A and B and are asked which of these individual politicians would they rather vote for in the next parliamentary elections. The opinions concern the possible effects and externalities of redistributive policies and taxation. The conjoint has five attributes which are: 1) fairness; 2) luck vs. effort; 3) efficiency; 4) trust in politicians and; 5) inequality’s effect on stability.
List below displays the attributes and their levels in the second conjoint. Each attribute has either two or three levels. The value of each attribute is randomised for each card and the order of the attributes is randomised once for each respondent, but is the same on both cards and remains the same for the same respondent across the cards.
Large income differences:
• Large income differences are unfair
• Large income differences are fair
Causes of large income differences:
• Large income differences are the result of good luck experienced by high earners
• Large income differences are the result of the hard work of high earners
Income redistribution and economic impact:
• Income redistribution would increase employment and boost economic growth
• Income redistribution does not have an impact on employment or economic growth
• Income redistribution would decrease employment and diminish economic growth
Trust in politicians:
• Politicians can be trusted to foster the common good of the citizens
• Politicians cannot be trusted to foster the common good of the citizens
Income inequality and societal stability:
• Large income differences reduce societal stability and increase crime
• Large income differences do not affect societal stability or crime
• Large income differences increase societal stability and reduce crime
2026 Survey:
The April–June 2026 wave uses a shorter survey and omits the information treatment included in the November 2024 survey, while expanding the study to include two additional respondent groups: politicians and bureaucrats. The survey is conducted in cooperation with the University of Helsinki Societal Barometers (HSB), a research infrastructure consisting of online panels of citizens, politicians, and bureaucrats. The panel tracks the same participants over an extended period, gathering data on their values, opinions, and experiences of Finnish society. The panel contains a rich set of background characteristics.
The 2026 study contains a more concise set of questions and some of the questions have been tailored to fit a shorter format. The survey can be taken in Finnish or in Swedish.
List of questions and details on the conjoint experiments can be found on the attached analysis plan (v.3).