Allcott, H., and Mullainathan, S. (2012). External Validity and Partner Selection Bias. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 18373.Google Scholar

Allingham, M. G., and Sandmo, A. (1972). Income Tax Evasion: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 1, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alm, J. (2012). Measuring, Explaining, and Controlling Tax Evasion: Lessons from Theory, Experiments, and Field Studies. International Tax and Public Finance, 19, 54–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alm, J., Bloomquist, K. M., and McKee, M. (2015). On the External Validity of Laboratory Tax Compliance Experiments. Economic Inquiry, 53(2), 1170–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alm, J., McClelland, G. H., and Schulze, W. D. (1992). Why Do People Pay Taxes? Journal of Public Economics, 48(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Angrist, J. D., and Pischke, J. S. (2008). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, B. (2012). Deterrence and Moral Persuasion Effects on Corporate Tax Compliance: Findings from a Randomized Controlled Trial. Criminology, 50(1), 27–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bargh, J. A., and Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The Unbearable Automaticity of Being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barrett, G., Levell, P., and Milligan, K. (2013). A Comparison of Micro and Macro Expenditure Measures Across Countries Using Differing Survey Methods. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 19544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonell, C., Fletcher, A., Morton, M., Lorenc, T., and Moore, L. (2012). Realist Randomised Controlled Trials: A New Approach to Evaluating Complex Public Health Interventions. Social Science and Medicine, 75(12), 2299–2306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bristow, D., Carter, L., and Martin, S. (2015). Using Evidence to Improve Policy and Practice: The UK What Works Centres. Contemporary Social Science, 10(2), 126–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burtless, G. (1995). The Case for Randomized Field Trials in Economic and Policy Research. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Camerer, C. (2011). The Promise and Success of Lab-Field Generalizability in Experimental Economics: A Critical Reply to Levitt and List. SSRN 1977749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., and Rabin, M. (eds.). (2011). Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cartwright, N., and Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Choo, C. L., Fonseca, M. A., and Myles, G. D. (2016). Do Students Behave Like Real Taxpayers in the Lab? Evidence from a Real Effort Tax Compliance Experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 124, 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., and Reno, R. R. (1991). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coricelli, G., Joffily, M., Montmarquette, C., and Villeval, M. C. (2010). Cheating, Emotions, and Rationality: An Experiment on Tax Evasion. Experimental Economics, 13(2), 226–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coricelli, G., Rusconi, E., and Villeval, M. C. (2014). Tax Evasion and Emotions: An Empirical Test of Re-Integrative Shaming Theory. Journal of Economic Psychology, 40, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doerrenberg, P., and Schmitz, J. (2015). Tax Compliance and Information Provision: A Field Experiment with Small Firms. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper 15–028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., and Kremer, M. (2007). Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit. Handbook of Development Economics, 4, 3895–3962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dunning, T., Monestier, F., Piñeiro, R., Rosenblatt, F., and Tuñón, G. (2015). Positive vs. Negative Incentives for Compliance: Evaluating a Randomized Tax Holiday in Uruguay. SSRN 2650105.Google Scholar

Dwenger, N., Kleven, H., Rasul, I., and Rincke, J. (2016). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivations for Tax Compliance: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Germany. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 8(3), 203–232.Google Scholar

Elffers, H., Robben, H. S., and Hessing, D. J. (1992). On Measuring Tax Evasion. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13(4), 545–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elffers, H., Weigel, R. H., and Hessing, D. J. (1987). The Consequences of Different Strategies for Measuring Tax Evasion Behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, 311–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ettelt, S., Mays, N., and Allen, P. (2015). Policy Experiments: Investigating Effectiveness or Confirming Direction? Evaluation, 21(3), 292–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

European Commission (2010). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee: Tax and Development: Cooperating with Developing Countries on Promoting Good Governance in Tax Matters. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar

Exadaktylos, F., Espín, A. M., and Branas-Garza, P. (2013). Experimental Subjects Are Not Different. Scientific Reports, 3, 1213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Feld, L. P., and Larsen, C. (2012) Self-Perceptions, Government Policies and Tax Compliance in Germany. International Tax and Public Finance, 19(1), 78–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freedman, B. (1987). Equipoise and the Ethics of Clinical Research. New England Journal of Medicine, 317(3), 141–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gerber, A. S., and Green, D. P. (2012). Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Gillitzer, C., and Skov, P. (2013). Evidence on Unclaimed Charitable Contributions from the Introduction of Third-Party Information Reporting in Denmark. Working Paper 2013-04, Economic Policy Research Unit (EPRU), University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar

Glennerster, R., and Powers, S. (2016). Balancing Risk and Benefit. In: DeMartino, G. F and McCloskey, D. N. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Professional Economic Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 367–401.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. M., Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J., and Squires, J. E. (2012). Knowledge Translation of Research Findings. Implementation Science, 7(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hallsworth, M. (2014). The Use of Field Experiments to Increase Tax Compliance. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30(4), 658–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hallsworth, M., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D., and Vlaev, I. (2017). The Behavioralist as Tax Collector: Using Natural Field Experiments to Enhance Tax Compliance. Journal of Public Economics, 148, 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halpern, D. (2015). Inside the Nudge Unit: How Small Changes Can Make a Big Difference. London: Random House.Google Scholar

Harrison, G. W., and List, J. A. (2004). Field Experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hasseldine, J., and Hite, P. A. (2003). Framing, Gender and Tax Compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(4), 517–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hessing, D. J., Elffers, H., and Weigel, R. H. (1988). Exploring the Limits of Self-Reports and Reasoned Action: An Investigation of the Psychology of Tax Evasion Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hessing, D., Robben, H., and Elffers, H. (1989). The Relationship Between Self-Reported and Documented Behaviour in the Case of Fraud with Unemployment Benefits. Madison, WI: 1989 Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association.Google Scholar

Hite, P. A. (1987). An Application of Attribution Theory in Taxpayer Noncompliance Research. Public Finance, 42(1), 105–118.Google Scholar

Hurst, E., Li, G., and Pugsley, B. (2014). Are Household Surveys Like Tax Forms? Evidence from Income Underreporting of the Self-Employed. Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jones, C. W., Keil, L. G., Holland, W. C., Caughey, M. C., and Platts-Mills, T. F. (2015). Comparison of Registered and Published Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kettle, S., Hernandez, M., Ruda, S., and Sanders, M. (2016). Behavioral Interventions in Tax Compliance: Evidence from Guatemala. Working Paper 7690. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Kirchler, E. (1999). Reactance to Taxation: Employers’ Attitudes Towards Taxes. Journal of Socio-Economics, 28(2), 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirchler, E. (2007). The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirchler, E., Muehlbacher, S., Kastlunger, B., and Wahl, I. (2010). Why Pay Taxes? A Review of Tax Compliance Decisions In: Alm, J., Martinez-Vazquez, J., and Torgler, B., (eds.) Developing Alternative Frameworks for Explaining Tax Compliance. London: Routledge, pp. 15–31.Google Scholar

Kleven, H. (2016) Bunching. Annual Review of Economics, 8, 435–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kleven, H. J., Knudsen, M. B., Kreiner, C. T., Pedersen, S., and Saez, E. (2011). Unwilling or Unable to Cheat? Evidence from a Tax Audit Experiment in Denmark. Econometrica, 79(3), 651–692.Google Scholar

Levitt, S., and List, J. A. (2007). What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, A. (1982). The Psychology of Taxation. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Marriott, L. (2014). Using Student Subjects in Experimental Research: A Challenge to the Practice of Using Students as a Proxy for Taxpayers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17(5), 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCaffery, E. J., and Baron, J. (2006). Thinking About Tax. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(1), 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyer, B. D., Mok, W. K., and Sullivan, J. X. (2015). Household Surveys in Crisis. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(4), 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moser, D. V., EvansIII, J. H., and Kim, C. K. (1995). The Effects of Horizontal and Exchange Inequity on Tax Reporting Decisions. Accounting Review, 70(4), 619–634.Google Scholar

Muehlbacher, S., and Kirchler, E. (2016). About the External Validity of Laboratory Experiments in Tax Compliance Research. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 76(1), 7–19.Google Scholar

Muehlbacher, S., Mittone, L., Kastlunger, B., and Kirchler, E. (2012). Uncertainty Resolution in Tax Experiments: Why Waiting for an Audit Increases Compliance. Journal of Socio-Economics, 41(3), 289–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murphy, K. (2005). Regulating More Effectively: The Relationship Between Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Tax Non-Compliance. Journal of Law and Society, 32(4), 562–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newhouse, J. P., and RAND Corporation Insurance Experiment Group (1993). Free for All? Lessons from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Oakley, A. (1998). Experimentation and Social Interventions: A Forgotten but Important History. British Medical Journal, 317, 1239–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2010). Understanding and Influencing Taxpayers’ Compliance Behaviour. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar

Ortega, D., and Scartascini, C. (2015) Don’t Blame the Messenger: A Field Experiment on Delivery Methods for Increasing Tax Compliance. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Working Paper IDB-WP-627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pawson, R., and Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Roth, A. (1995). Introduction to Experimental Economics. In: Kagel, J. and Roth, A. (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 3–110.Google Scholar

Saez, E. (2010). Do Taxpayers Bunch at Kink Points? American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(3), 180–212.Google Scholar

Sánchez, G. (2014). The Impact of Low-Cost Intervention on Tax Compliance: Regression Discontinuity Evidence. Texas A&M University Working Paper.Google Scholar

Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-Based Policy Making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-Reports: How the Questions Shape the Answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slemrod, J. (2016) Tax Compliance and Enforcement. New Research and Its Policy Implications. SSRN 2726077.Google Scholar

Spicer, M. W., and Thomas, J. E. (1982). Audit Probabilities and the Tax Evasion Decision: An Experimental Approach. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2(3), 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Torgler, B. (2002). Speaking to Theorists and Searching for Facts: Tax Morale and Tax Compliance in Experiments. Journal of Economic Surveys, 16(5), 657–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Torgler, B. (2007). Tax Compliance and Tax Morale: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

US Treasury (2009). Update on Reducing the Federal Tax Gap and Improving Voluntary Compliance. Washington, DC: US Treasury.Google Scholar

Webb, T. L., and Sheeran, P. (2006). Does Changing Behavioral Intentions Engender Behavior Change? A Meta-analysis of the Experimental Evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Webley, P., Robben, H., Elffers, H., and Hessing, D. (1991). Tax Evasion: An Experimental Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Weiss, C. H. (1979). The Many Meanings of Research Utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whitehead, M., Jones, R., Howell, R., Lilley, R., and Pykett, J. (2014). Nudging All over the World: Assessing the Global Impact of the Behavioural Sciences on Public Policy. Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar