IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/26180.html

Rules of Thumb and Attention Elasticities: Evidence from Under- and Overreaction to Taxes

Author

Listed:
  • William Morrison
  • Dmitry Taubinsky

Abstract

This paper tests costly attention models of consumers’ misreaction to opaque taxes. We report an online shopping experiment that involves shrouded sales taxes that are exogenously varied within consumer over time. Some consumers systematically underreact to sales taxes while others systematically overreact, but higher stakes decrease both under- and overreaction. This is consistent with consumers using heterogeneous rules of thumb to compute the opaque tax when the stakes are low, but using costly mental effort at higher stakes. The results allow us to differentiate between various theories of limited attention. We also develop novel econometric techniques for quantifying individual differences.

Suggested Citation

  • William Morrison & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2019. "Rules of Thumb and Attention Elasticities: Evidence from Under- and Overreaction to Taxes," NBER Working Papers 26180, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:26180
    Note: LE LS PE POL
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w26180.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kory Kroft & Jean-William Laliberté & René Leal-Vizcaíno & Matthew J Notowidigdo, 2024. "Salience and Taxation with Imperfect Competition," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(1), pages 403-437.
    2. Jerry Hausman, 2001. "Mismeasured Variables in Econometric Analysis: Problems from the Right and Problems from the Left," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 57-67, Fall.
    3. Xavier Gabaix, 2014. "A Sparsity-Based Model of Bounded Rationality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(4), pages 1661-1710.
    4. Paul Heidhues & Botond Kőszegi & Takeshi Murooka, 2017. "Inferior Products and Profitable Deception," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(1), pages 323-356.
    5. Paulo Natenzon, 2019. "Random Choice and Learning," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 419-457.
    6. Justine S. Hastings & Brigitte C. Madrian & William L. Skimmyhorn, 2013. "Financial Literacy, Financial Education, and Economic Outcomes," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 347-373, May.
    7. Jason Abaluck & Abi Adams, 2017. "What Do Consumers Consider Before They Choose? Identification from Asymmetric Demand Responses," NBER Working Papers 23566, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Vojtěch Bartoš & Michal Bauer & Julie Chytilová & Filip Matějka, 2016. "Attention Discrimination: Theory and Field Experiments with Monitoring Information Acquisition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1437-1475, June.
    9. Kengo Kato & Yuya Sasaki & Takuya Ura, 2018. "Inference based on Kotlarski's Identity," Papers 1808.09375, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    10. Naomi E. Feldman & Bradley J. Ruffle, 2015. "The Impact of Including, Adding, and Subtracting a Tax on Demand," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 95-118, February.
    11. Saurabh Bhargava & George Loewenstein & Justin Sydnor, 2017. "Choose to Lose: Health Plan Choices from a Menu with Dominated Option," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(3), pages 1319-1372.
    12. Daniel J. Benjamin & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball & Nichole Szembrot, 2014. "Beyond Happiness and Satisfaction: Toward Well-Being Indices Based on Stated Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(9), pages 2698-2735, September.
    13. Sendhil Mullainathan, 2002. "A Memory-Based Model of Bounded Rationality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 735-774.
    14. Jacob Goldin & Tatiana Homonoff, 2013. "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: Cigarette Tax Salience and Regressivity," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 302-336, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andreas R. Kostøl & Andreas S. Myhre, 2021. "Labor Supply Responses to Learning the Tax and Benefit Schedule," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(11), pages 3733-3766, November.
    2. Sergiu Burlacu & Austėja Kažemekaitytė & Piero Ronzani & Lucia Savadori, 2022. "Blinded by worries: sin taxes and demand for temptation under financial worries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 141-187, February.
    3. Beg, Sabrin & Islam, Mahnaz & Rahman, Khandker Wahedur, 2024. "Information and behavior: Evidence from fertilizer quantity recommendations in Bangladesh," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    4. Tomoharu Mori & Katsuya Takii, 2025. "The Effect of Coarse Score Labels on College Application Decisions," OSIPP Discussion Paper 25E002, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University.
    5. Drew Fudenberg & Giacomo Lanzani & Philipp Strack, 2021. "Limit Points of Endogenous Misspecified Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 1065-1098, May.
    6. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "To buy or not to buy? Price salience in an online shopping field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    7. Ciril Bosch-Rosa & Bernhard Kassner & Steffen Ahrens, 2024. "Overconfidence and the Political and Financial Behavior of a Representative Sample," Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers 0051, Berlin School of Economics.
    8. Martin, Daniel & Muñoz-Rodriguez, Edwin, 2022. "Cognitive costs and misperceived incentives: Evidence from the BDM mechanism," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    9. Chuang, Shih-Hsien, 2024. "Behavioral optimization of US air travel taxes," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    10. Sydnee Caldwell & Scott Nelson & Daniel Waldinger, 2023. "Tax Refund Uncertainty: Evidence and Welfare Implications," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 352-376, April.

    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. Dmitry Taubinsky & Alex Rees-Jones, 2018. "Attention Variation and Welfare: Theory and Evidence from a Tax Salience Experiment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(4), pages 2462-2496.
    2. Tamara Bischof & Michael Gerfin & Tobias Mueller, 2021. "Attention Please! Health Plan Choice and (In-)Attention," Diskussionsschriften dp2111, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    3. Lu, Kelin, 2022. "Overreaction to capital taxation in saving decisions," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    4. Andrew Caplin & Daniel Martin, 2015. "A Testable Theory of Imperfect Perception," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(582), pages 184-202, February.
    5. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Erin T. Bronchetti & Judd B. Kessler & Ellen B. Magenheim & Dmitry Taubinsky & Eric Zwick, 2023. "Is Attention Produced Optimally? Theory and Evidence From Experiments With Bandwidth Enhancements," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(2), pages 669-707, March.
    7. Andrea La Nauze & Erica Myers, 2023. "Do Consumers Acquire Information Optimally? Experimental Evidence from Energy Efficiency," NBER Working Papers 31742, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Scott Duke Kominers & Xiaosheng Mu & Alexander Peysakhovich, 2019. "Paying for Attention: The Impact of Information Processing Costs on Bayesian Inference," Working Papers 2019-31, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    9. Crawford, Gregory S. & Griffith, Rachel & Iaria, Alessandro, 2021. "A survey of preference estimation with unobserved choice set heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 4-43.
    10. Ronayne, David & Brown, Gordon D.A., "undated". "Multi-Attribute Decision By Sampling : An Account Of The Attraction, Compromise And Similarity Effects," Economic Research Papers 269322, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    11. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    12. Goldin, Jacob, 2015. "Optimal tax salience," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 115-123.
    13. Dewan, Ambuj & Neligh, Nathaniel, 2020. "Estimating information cost functions in models of rational inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    14. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Matthew Thirkettle, 2021. "Discrete Choice under Risk with Limited Consideration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1972-2006, June.
    15. Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC), 2025. "Study on behavioural economics for efficient regulation and supervision," Colección Estudios de Mercado E/CNMC/002/23_ENG, Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC).
    16. Altmann, Steffen & Grunewald, Andreas & Radbruch, Jonas, 2019. "Passive Choices and Cognitive Spillovers," IZA Discussion Papers 12337, IZA Network @ LISER.
    17. Abay,Kibrom A. & Barrett,Christopher B. & Kilic,Talip & Moylan,Heather G. & Ilukor,John & Vundru,Wilbert Drazi, 2022. "Nonclassical Measurement Error and Farmers’ Response to Information Reveal Behavioral Anomalies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9908, The World Bank.
    18. Scott R. Baker & Stephanie Johnson & Lorenz Kueng, 2021. "Shopping for Lower Sales Tax Rates," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 209-250, July.
    19. Levon Barseghyan & Maura Coughlin & Francesca Molinari & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2021. "Heterogeneous Choice Sets and Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2015-2048, September.
    20. Linda Thunström & Chian Jones Ritten, 2019. "Endogenous attention to costs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 1-22, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D9 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics
    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:26180. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.