Cited by 640Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsTaxation and Compliance StudiesGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics

Psychological Frictions and the Incomplete Take-Up of Social Benefits: Evidence from an IRS Field Experiment

Bhargava, Saurabh, Manoli, Dayanand·2015·American Economic Review

Abstract

We address the role of “psychological frictions” in the incomplete take-up of EITC benefits with an IRS field experiment. We specifically assess the influence of program confusion, informational complexity, and stigma by evaluating response to experimental mailings distributed to 35,050 tax filers who failed to claim $26 million despite an initial notice. While the mere receipt of the mailing, simplification, and the heightened salience of benefits led to substantial additional claiming, attempts to reduce perceived costs of stigma, application, and audits did not. The study, and accompanying surveys, suggests that low program awareness/understanding and informational complexity contribute to the puzzle of low take-up. (JEL C93, D03, H24, M38)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/aer.20121493

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Take-up of the earned income tax credit is lower among eligible individuals with low incomes compared with more well-off citizens.

    “Take‐up of the earned income tax credit is lower among eligible individuals with low incomes compared with among more well‐off citizens, and findings suggest that inabilities to overcome learning costs are part of the reason for this (Bhargava and Manoli 2015).”
  • Inabilities to overcome learning costs are part of the reason for lower EITC take-up among eligible low-income individuals.

    “Take‐up of the earned income tax credit is lower among eligible individuals with low incomes compared with among more well‐off citizens, and findings suggest that inabilities to overcome learning costs are part of the reason for this (Bhargava and Manoli 2015).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhargava, S., & Manoli, D.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of Texas, Austin, Speedway Stop C3100, Austin, TX 78712 (e-mail: )
Venue
American Economic Review
Published
2015-11-01
Volume
105
Issue
11
Pages
3489-3529
ISSN
0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1853301790
Cited by
640
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
28.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Taxation and Compliance Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Keywords
Earned Income Tax Credit, benefit take-up, information complexity, stigma, tax filers, program awareness, benefit claiming, tax audit

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review