The Effects of Supervisory Advice on Tax Professionals’ Information Search Behaviors

Abstract

Prior research provides evidence that, when searching for information to resolve client issues, tax professionals’ search processes are subject to confirmation bias. That is, their search tends to focus on information consistent with client preferences at the expense of attending to information that is contrary to client preferences. Although tax professionals are client advocates, such confirmation bias in information search is problematic because it may lead to systematic upward bias in assessments of the evidential support for client-preferred positions and to overly aggressive recommendations. In addition to their clients, tax staff professionals are also accountable to their supervisors. Therefore, this study investigates whether staff professionals’ confirmation bias in information search is influenced by their supervisor's initial belief concerning whether the client-preferred tax position can or cannot be supported. We predict that confirmation bias will be stronger when the supervisor's belief is consistent with client preference than when it is not. We report the results of an experiment in which 83 experienced tax professionals performed a simulated research task. We manipulated the client's preferred tax position and the supervisor's initial belief in a 2×2 between-subjects design. Our results generally support our hypotheses in a case in which the client recognized a loss. However, when the client recognized a gain, the results do not support our hypotheses. We also find that measures of confirmation bias are positively associated with subordinates’ assessments of the evidential support for the client-preferred position and that evidential support assessments are positively associated with the strength of recommendations for the client-preferred position.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.