Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T05:27:54.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Deterrence: Behavioral Decision Theory and Tax Compliance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Jeff T. Casey  and
John T. Scholz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Deterrence models generally predict compliance patterns based solely on the subjective probability and utility of outcomes associated with alternative actions. Yet recent work in behavioral decision theory suggests that compliance decisions may also be affected by how the risks of noncompliance are described and how the decisionmaker's preferences are expressed. We report five experiments that examine how the cognitive heuristics evoked by these descriptive and procedural variables affect tax compliance. Using tax decision problems involving how to choose a tax professional, whether to take a questionable deduction, and how to approach an impending tax audit, we find that taxpayer preferences are significantly influenced by descriptive and procedural variables that traditional expected utility models ignore. We discuss the implications of these results for (1) extending compliance theory to understand a broader range of compliance behavior and (2) utilizing cognitive heuristics to predict the consequences of various enforcement policies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , 1991 , pp. 821 - 843
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 by The Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank workshop participants at the Department of Accountancy, University of Illinois, the editor, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. Correspondence may be addressed to Jeff T. Casey, Harriman School for Management and Policy, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-3775.

References

ALM, J., B. R., JACKSON, and McKEE, M. (1990) “Institutional Uncertainty and Taxpayer Compliance.” Working Paper, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
BAR-HILLEL, Maya (1973) “On the Subjective Probability of Compound Events,” 9 Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 396.Google Scholar
BECKER, Gary S. (1968) “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” 76 Journal of Political Economy 169.Google Scholar
BECKER, Selwyn W., and Fred O., BROWNSON (1964) “What Price Ambiguity? Or the Role of Ambiguity in Decision-Making,” 72 Journal of Political Economy 62.Google Scholar
BERNOULLI, David ([1738]/1967) Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk. Farnsborough Hants, Eng.: Gregg Press.Google Scholar
BORUCH, Robert F. (1989) “Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs in Taxpayer Compliance Research,” in Roth, J. A., Scholz, J. T., and Witte, A. D. (eds.), Taxpayer Compliance, Vol. 1: An Agenda for Research. Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
CARROLL, John S. (1989) “A Cognitive-Process Analysis of Taxpayer Compliance,” in Roth, J. and Scholz, J. (eds.), Taxpayer Compliance, Vol. 2: Social Science Perspectives. Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
CASEY, Jeff T., and John T., SCHOLZ (1991) “Boundary Effects of Vague Risk Information on Taxpayer Decisions,” 50 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 360a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHANG, O. H., D. R., NICHOLS, and J. J., SCHULTZ (1987) “Taxpayer Attitudes towards Tax Audit Risk,” 8 Journal of Economic Psychology 299.Google Scholar
CHANG, O. H., and J. J., SCHULTZ Jr. (1990) “The Income Tax Withholding Phenomenon: Evidence from TCMP Data,” Journal of the American Taxation Association 88 (Fall).Google Scholar
EDWARDS, W. (1961) “Behavioral Decision Theory,” 12 Annual Review of Psychology 473.Google Scholar
EINHORN, Hillel J., and Robin M., HOGARTH (1985) “Ambiguity and Uncertainty in Probabilistic Inference,” 92 Psychological Review 433.Google Scholar
EINHORN, Hillel J., and Robin M., HOGARTH (1986) “Decision Making under Ambiguity,” 59 Journal of Business S225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EHRLICH, I. (1973) “Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation,” 81 Journal of Politics and Economy 521.Google Scholar
ELLSBERG, D. (1961) “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms,” 75 Quarterly Journal of Economics 643.Google Scholar
GRASMICK, Harold G., and Robert J., BURSIK Jr. (1990) “Conscience, Significant Others, and Rational Choice: Extending the Deterrence Model,” 24 Law & Society Review 837.Google Scholar
GRETHER, David M., and Charles R., PLOTT (1979) “Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon,” 69 American Economic Review 623.Google Scholar
HAYS, W. L. (1973) Statistics for the Social Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
HOGARTH, Robin M. (1987) Judgment and Choice. 2d ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
HOGARTH, Robin M., and Hillel J., EINHORN (1990) “Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights,” 36 Management Science 780.Google Scholar
KAHN, B. E., and SARIN, R. K. (1988) “Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty,” 15 Journal of Consumer Research 265.Google Scholar
KAHNEMAN, Daniel, Paul, SLOVIC, and Amos, TVERSKY (eds.) (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KAHNEMAN, Daniel, and Amos, TVERSKY (1979) “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” 47 Econometrica 263.Google Scholar
KAHNEMAN, Daniel, and Amos, TVERSKY (1984) “Choices, Values and Frames,” 39 American Psychologist 341.Google Scholar
KLEPPER, Steven, and Daniel, NAGIN (1989) “Tax Compliance and Perceptions of the Risks of Detection and Criminal Prosecution,” 23 Law & Society Review 209.Google Scholar
LICHTENSTEIN, Sarah, and Paul, SLOVIC (1971) “Reversals of Preference between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions,” 89 Journal of Experimental Psychology 46.Google Scholar
LICHTENSTEIN, Sarah, and Paul, SLOVIC (1973) “Response-induced Reversals of Preference in Gambling: An Extended Replication in Las Vegas,” 101 Journal of Experimental Psychology 16.Google Scholar
LOFTUS, Elizabeth F. (1985) “To File, Perchance to Cheat,” 34 (4) Psychology Today 19.Google Scholar
RESCHER, N. (1988) Rationality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
ROBBEN, Henry S. J., WEBLEY, Paul, WEIGEL, Russell H., WAERNERYD, Karl-Erik, KINSEY, Karyl A., HESSING, Dick, MARTIN, Francisco ALVIRA, ELFFERS, Henk, WAHLUND, Richard, LANGENHOVE, Luk VAN, LONG, Susan B., and John T., SCHOLZ (1990) “Decision Frame and Opportunity as Determinants of Tax Cheating: An International Experimental Study,” 11 Journal of Economic Psychology 341.Google Scholar
ROTH, Jeffery A., SCHOLZ, John T., and Ann D., WITTE (1989) Taxpayer Compliance, Vol. 1: An Agenda for Research. Panel Report of the National Academy of Sciences. Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
SCHOEMAKER, Paul J. H. (1982) “The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations,” 20 Journal of Economic Literature 529.Google Scholar
SCHOLZ, John T. (1985) “Coping with Complexity: A Bounded Rationality Perspective on Taxpayer Compliance.” Proceedings of Annual Meeting of NTA-TIA.Google Scholar
SHAFER, G. (1986) “Savage Revisited,” 1 Statistical Science, 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SLOVIC, Paul, GRIFFIN, D., and Amos, TVERSKY (1990) “Compatibility Effects in Judgment and Choice,” in Hogarth, R. M. (ed.), Insights in Decision Making: Theory and Applications—A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
SLOVIC, Paul, and Sarah, LICHTENSTEIN (1983) “Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective,” 73 American Economic Review 596.Google Scholar
SLOVIC, Paul, Sarah, LICHTENSTEIN, and B., FISCHHOFF (1988) “Decision Making,” in Atkinson, R. C., Herrnstein, R. J., Lindzey, G., and Luce, R. D. (eds.), 2 Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
SLOVIC, Paul, and Amos, TVERSKY (1974) “Who Accepts Savage's Axiom?” 19 Behavioral Science 368.Google Scholar
SMITH, Kent W., and Karyl A., KINSEY (1987) “Understanding Taxpaying Behavior: A Conceptual Framework with Implications for Research,” 21 Law & Society Review 639.Google Scholar
STINSON, C. H., and I., VAYSMAN (1990) “‘Self-Audit’ and Taxpayer Compliance.” Presented at the Internal Revenue Service 1990 Research Conference, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
TVERSKY, Amos, and Daniel, KAHNEMAN (1974) “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” 185 Science 1124.Google Scholar
TVERSKY, Amos, and Daniel, KAHNEMAN (1981) “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” 211 Science 453.Google Scholar
TVERSKY, Amos, and Daniel, KAHNEMAN (1983) “Extensional versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment,” 90 Psychological Review 293.Google Scholar
TVERSKY, Amos, and Daniel, KAHNEMAN (1986) “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” 59 Journal of Business S251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TVERSKY, Amos, Shmuel, SATTATH, and Paul, SLOVIC (1988) “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,” 95 Psychological Review 371.Google Scholar
TVERSKY, Amos, Paul, SLOVIC, and Daniel, KAHNEMAN (1990) “The Causes of Preference Reversal,” 80 American Economic Review 204.Google Scholar
TVERSKY, Amos, and Richard H., THALER (1990) “Anomalies: Preference Reversals,” 4 Journal of Economic Perspectives 201.Google Scholar
VON NEUMANN, John, and Oscar, MORGENSTEIN (1944) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. 2d ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
YATES, J. Frank, and Bruce W., CARLSON (1986) “Conjunction Errors: Evidence for Multiple Judgment Procedures, Including ‘Signed Summation,‘” 37 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 230.Google Scholar