Are More Choices Better? An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Multiple Tax Incentives

IF 1.3 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of the American Taxation Association Pub Date : 2016-05-01 DOI:10.2308/ATAX-51478
Donna D. Bobek, Jason Chen, Amy M. Hageman, Yu Tian
{"title":"Are More Choices Better? An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Multiple Tax Incentives","authors":"Donna D. Bobek, Jason Chen, Amy M. Hageman, Yu Tian","doi":"10.2308/ATAX-51478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The U.S. federal income tax system includes numerous incentives intended to encourage many behaviors. However, these incentives add complexity. This study investigates how one source of complexity, the number of different incentives, affects individuals' use of tax incentives. The results from two experiments detect no evidence that having more (versus fewer) incentive choices (i.e., high choice complexity) affects individuals' decisions to engage in the targeted behavior or select an incentive. However, the results do show that individuals faced with high choice complexity are more likely to make errors and less likely to choose the optimal incentive. Further, high choice complexity leads to greater perceived complexity and difficulty, which, in turn, is related to less positive emotions and more anxiety. Thus, high choice complexity has negative consequences on individuals. This study also contributes to the choice complexity literature by examining its effect on making an optimal choice.","PeriodicalId":45477,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Taxation Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Taxation Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ATAX-51478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

ABSTRACT The U.S. federal income tax system includes numerous incentives intended to encourage many behaviors. However, these incentives add complexity. This study investigates how one source of complexity, the number of different incentives, affects individuals' use of tax incentives. The results from two experiments detect no evidence that having more (versus fewer) incentive choices (i.e., high choice complexity) affects individuals' decisions to engage in the targeted behavior or select an incentive. However, the results do show that individuals faced with high choice complexity are more likely to make errors and less likely to choose the optimal incentive. Further, high choice complexity leads to greater perceived complexity and difficulty, which, in turn, is related to less positive emotions and more anxiety. Thus, high choice complexity has negative consequences on individuals. This study also contributes to the choice complexity literature by examining its effect on making an optimal choice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
选择越多越好吗?多重税收优惠效应的实验研究
美国联邦所得税制度包括许多旨在鼓励多种行为的激励措施。然而,这些激励措施增加了复杂性。本研究探讨了复杂性的一个来源,即不同激励的数量,如何影响个人对税收激励的使用。两个实验的结果没有发现有更多(或更少)的激励选择(即,高选择复杂性)影响个人参与目标行为或选择激励的决定的证据。然而,结果确实表明,面对高选择复杂性的个体更容易犯错误,更不可能选择最优激励。此外,高选择复杂性导致更高的感知复杂性和难度,这反过来又与较少的积极情绪和更多的焦虑有关。因此,高选择复杂性对个体有负面影响。本研究还通过考察选择复杂性对最优选择的影响,为选择复杂性文献做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
12.50%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Managers’ Stock Price Incentives and Earnings Management Using Tax Expense The Efficiency of Interactive Voice Response Systems and Tax Compliance: A Field Experiment by the California Franchise Tax Board Editorial Policy DISCUSSION OF Companies’ Initial Estimates of the One-Time Transition Tax Imposed by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Summaries of Papers In This Issue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1