The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments
Abstract
We analyze randomized online survey experiments providing interactive, customized information on US income inequality, the link between top income tax rates and economic growth, and the estate tax. The treatment has large effects on views about inequality but only slightly moves tax and transfer policy preferences. An exception is the estate tax—informing respondents of the small share of decedents who pay it doubles support for it. The small effects for all other policies can be partially explained by respondents' low trust in government and a disconnect between concerns about social issues and the public policies meant to address them. (JEL D31, D72, H23, H24)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Rational Theory of the Size of Government
Meltzer, A. H., & Richard, S. F. (1981) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261013 · Cited by 5,485
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
Wealth Inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data
Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2016) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjw004 · Cited by 1,636
Self-citationBuilding a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393524 · Cited by 1,119
Self-citationOptimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities
Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2014) · American Economic Journal: Economic Policy · doi:10.1257/pol.6.1.230 · Cited by 713
Self-citationHomer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind
Bartels, L. M. (2005) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592705050036 · Cited by 620
GERBER, A. S., GIMPEL, J. G., GREEN, D. P., & SHAW, D. R. (2011) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s000305541000047x · Cited by 596 · cited 1×
“While not a survey experiment per se, Gerber et al. (2011) use variation in the location of campaign television advertising to show that persuasive effects are strong the week the ad airs but have little persistence beyond the first week.”
Economic games on the internet: the effect of $1 stakes
Amir, O., Rand, D. G., & Gal, Y. K. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031461 · Cited by 364
The evolution of antisocial punishment in optional public goods games
Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2011) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms1442 · Cited by 350
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- 10.1257/0002828054825655 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.05.009 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1162/00335530151144078 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10551-005-5353-0 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00130.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1257/aer.90.5.1491 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00172-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.10.009 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10551-011-0843-8 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1540-5907.00051 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.202 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00141-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/1928321 · DOI
- 10.1093/pan/mpl008 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/aje/kwq291 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/2082611 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10888-011-9205-0 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9 · DOI
- Hoxby Caroline, 2013, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper, 12
- 10.1111/0162-895X.00215 · DOI
- 10.1093/ser/mwm006 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/poq/nfn063 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/0022-3816.00033 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01580.x · DOI
- 10.1017/S0007123402000194 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1086/321019 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1257/pol.3.1.157 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0003055412000603 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/1076-8971.12.1.106 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1537592709990818 · DOI
- 10.2307/2946692 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1162/00335530360535135 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1006/jesp.1995.1008 · DOI
- 10.1257/aer.103.3.636 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797611434540 · DOI
- 10.17310/ntj.2006.1.03 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0016836 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10101-013-0134-1 · DOI
Cited by
Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities
Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2014) · American Economic Journal: Economic Policy · doi:10.1257/pol.6.1.230 · Cited by 713
Self-citationThe paradox of inequality: income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand
Mijs, J. J. B. (2021) · Socio-Economic Review · doi:10.1093/ser/mwy051 · Cited by 585
How to Run Surveys: A Guide to Creating Your Own Identifying Variation and Revealing the Invisible
Stantcheva, S. (2023) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-091622-010157 · Cited by 354
Self-citation“Capitalists in the Twenty-First Century”
Smith, M., Yagan, D., Zidar, O., & Zwick, E. (2019) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjz020 · Cited by 263
Income inequality influences perceptions of legitimate income differences
Trump, K.-S. (2018) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123416000326 · Cited by 236
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuziemko, I., Norton, M. I., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S.
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2015-04-01
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1478-1508
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2133153768
- Cited by
- 1,067
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 412.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1257/aer.20130360
- The paper
- Kuziemko, I., Norton, M. I., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2015). How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments. American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130360
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
