By Maria Misbach
A new study from the Vanderbilt University Owen Graduate School of Management finds that small changes in how government benefits are described can meaningfully increase engagement among eligible individuals.
The research, co-authored by Associate Professor of Marketing Jackie Silverman and researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago, Georgetown University, and multiple non-profit organizations, shows that reframing benefit amounts in terms of familiar household expenses helps people better understand and appreciate their value.
Millions of lower-income households qualify for public benefits such as tax credits or healthcare support but never apply. This underutilization limits the effectiveness of programs designed to reduce financial strain and improve economic stability. Silverman and her co-authors examined whether a simple shift in language could help close that gap.
Their findings point to the power of “expenditure reframes,” a messaging strategy that translates a benefit’s dollar value into concrete spending categories like groceries, utilities, or rent. Instead of presenting a benefit as a lump sum, the communication highlights what the amount could realistically cover in everyday life.
“Dollar figures can feel abstract, especially when people are juggling many financial pressures,” said Silverman. “When a benefit is framed in terms of expenses people already recognize, its impact becomes clearer and more personally relevant.”
Making Benefits Feel More Concrete
The research team conducted multiple large-scale, pre-registered field experiments involving tens of thousands of participants across different benefit contexts.
In one study of more than 14,000 lower-income adults, individuals received outreach encouraging them to learn about a tax credit.
In the control condition, the individual received a message stating they were, for example, “eligible for a $1,493 tax credit.” In the expenditure reframe, language explaining that this amount was “enough to cover roughly five weeks of groceries” was added. Messages using expenditure reframes led 23.9% of recipients to visit the claiming website, which was a statistically significant 25% increase over the standard dollar-based description.
A second field experiment with nearly 72,000 Medicaid recipients identified an important case where expenditure reframes do not work: when the benefit is already reframed in another way. Potential benefit recipients often see that information
reframed temporally (for instance, WIC is explained as $50 per month). Adding an expenditure reframe to such messaging did not generate a boost in interest.
A third large field study replicated the results and revealed an important nuance: the type of expense featured in the reframe matters. Certain categories, particularly recurring essentials such as food costs, produced stronger increases in perceived value and interest.
Complementary online experiments helped explain why. Benefits described through expenditure reframes were seen as more psychologically valuable, easier to interpret, and more connected to daily financial realities.
Implications for Policymakers and Organizations
The research offers practical guidance for government agencies, nonprofits, and advocacy groups working to increase benefit uptake.
Clearer, more relatable descriptions of benefits could help eligible individuals recognize their value, engage with available resources, and ultimately access support programs designed to improve financial and health outcomes.
“Improving participation does not always require larger budgets or new programs,” said Silverman. “Sometimes, it starts with how we communicate.”
About the Research
The paper, “Using Expenditure Reframes to Increase Interest in Claiming Government Benefits,” appears in the Journal of Marketing. The study was co-authored by Jackie Silverman (Vanderbilt University), Wendy De La Rosa (University of Pennsylvania), Abigail B. Sussman (University of Chicago), Gwen Rino, Vincent Dorie (Georgetown University), Maximilian Hell, Eric Giannella (Georgetown University), and Lisa Dillman.
