IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/advacc/v63y2023ics0882611023000354.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of online tax community advice on individual taxpayer decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Stone, Gregory
  • Walton, Stephanie
  • Zhang, Yibo (James)

Abstract

In this study, we examine the impact of advice shared on an online tax community and taxpayer decision making. Online tax communities are linked to major tax preparation software and provide a way for taxpayers to ask unique questions and receive responses. While online communities are intended to facilitate the transmission of unbiased advice between individual taxpayers, the quality, content, and source of responses can greatly vary. Drawing on the predictions of expectancy violations theory (EVT), we investigate two facets of provided advice: response provider expertise and response language concreteness. Our results indicate that taxpayers report more conservatively (more aggressively) when presented with advice from a deemed tax expert if concrete language (abstract language) is used. Further, we find that taxpayers' perceived usefulness of the response mediates this relationship. Collectively, we contribute to EVT and provide evidence on the recognition and use of online tax community responses.

Suggested Citation

  • Stone, Gregory & Walton, Stephanie & Zhang, Yibo (James), 2023. "The impact of online tax community advice on individual taxpayer decision making," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:advacc:v:63:y:2023:i:c:s0882611023000354
    DOI: 10.1016/j.adiac.2023.100676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882611023000354
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.adiac.2023.100676?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Soojung Kim & Sanghee Oh, 2009. "Users' relevance criteria for evaluating answers in a social Q&A site," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(4), pages 716-727, April.
    2. Chirag Shah & Vanessa Kitzie, 2012. "Social Q&A and virtual reference—comparing apples and oranges with the help of experts and users," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(10), pages 2020-2036, October.
    3. Sniezek, Janet A. & Buckley, Timothy, 1995. "Cueing and Cognitive Conflict in Judge-Advisor Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 159-174, May.
    4. Chirag Shah & Vanessa Kitzie, 2012. "Social Q&A and virtual reference—comparing apples and oranges with the help of experts and users," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(10), pages 2020-2036, October.
    5. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    6. Chai, Sangmi & Kim, Minkyun, 2010. "What makes bloggers share knowledge? An investigation on the role of trust," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 408-415.
    7. Dalal, Reeshad S. & Bonaccio, Silvia, 2010. "What types of advice do decision-makers prefer?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 11-23, May.
    8. Kimberly Moreno & Thomas Kida & James F. Smith, 2002. "The Impact of Affective Reactions on Risky Decision Making in Accounting Contexts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(5), pages 1331-1349, December.
    9. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    10. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    11. O'Donnell, Ed. & Koch, Bruce & Boone, Jeff, 2005. "The influence of domain knowledge and task complexity on tax professionals' compliance recommendations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 145-165, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    2. Sprenger, Julia, 2016. "Financial literacy: A barrier to seek financial advice but not a shield against following it," Ruhr Economic Papers 634, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    3. Back, Camila & Morana, Stefan & Spann, Martin, 2023. "When do robo-advisors make us better investors? The impact of social design elements on investor behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Kessel, Dany & Mollerstrom, Johanna & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Can simple advice eliminate the gender gap in willingness to compete?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 138, pages 1-1.
    5. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    6. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    7. Makkonen, Marika & Hujala, Teppo & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2016. "Policy experts' propensity to change their opinion along Delphi rounds," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 61-68.
    8. Jodlbauer, Barbara & Jonas, Eva, 2011. "Forecasting clients' reactions: How does the perception of strategic behavior influence the acceptance of advice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 121-133, January.
    9. Haran, Uriel & Mazar, Asaf & Hurwitz, Mordechai & Moran, Simone, 2022. "Confidently at your service: Advisors alter their stated confidence to be helpful," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    10. Roth, Benjamin & Voskort, Andrea, 2014. "Stereotypes and false consensus: How financial professionals predict risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 553-565.
    11. Van Swol, Lyn M., 2011. "Forecasting another's enjoyment versus giving the right answer: Trust, shared values, task effects, and confidence in improving the acceptance of advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 103-120, January.
    12. Pruijssers, Jorien Louise & Singer, Gallia & Singer, Zvi & Tsang, Desmond, 2023. "Social influence pressures and the risk preferences of aspiring financial market professionals," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    13. Thomas Schultze & Anne-Fernandine Rakotoarisoa & Stefan Schulz-Hardt, 2015. "Effects of distance between initial estimates and advice on advice utilization," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(2), pages 144-171, March.
    14. Sah, Sunita & Moore, Don A. & MacCoun, Robert J., 2013. "Cheap talk and credibility: The consequences of confidence and accuracy on advisor credibility and persuasiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 246-255.
    15. El’fred Boo & Terence Ng & Premila Gowri Shankar, 2021. "Effects of Advice on Auditor Whistleblowing Propensity: Do Advice Source and Advisor Reassurance Matter?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(2), pages 387-402, November.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:4:p:401-415 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Kuhn, Kristine M. & Galloway, Tera L. & Collins-Williams, Maureen, 2017. "Simply the best: An exploration of advice that small business owners value," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 33-40.
    18. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102, January.
    19. Jodlbauer, Barbara & Jonas, Eva, 2011. "Forecasting clients’ reactions: How does the perception of strategic behavior influence the acceptance of advice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 121-133.
    20. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Schechter, Laura, 2018. "Receptiveness to advice, cognitive ability, and technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 239-268.
    21. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Online community; Individual taxpayer; Language concreteness; Expertise; Decision making;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:advacc:v:63:y:2023:i:c:s0882611023000354. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/advances-in-accounting/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.