OBJECTIVE The complexity of tax laws makes manual preparation difficult, leading more taxpayers to use software or accountants. This study presents an experimental analysis comparing taxpayer perceptions of trust and procedural justice when filing with tax experts versus using tax software. The study addressed four questions: (1) How do perceptions of human tax experts compare to tax software? (2) Do perceptions vary among different types of tax software? (3) Do trust and procedural justice predict filing decisions? (4) Can taxpayers effectively oversee tax preparation software? HYPOTHESES We hypothesized that participants would favor professional tax experts over commercial and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) software (Hypothesis 1). We also expected higher procedural justice to correlate with greater satisfaction (Hypothesis 2), self-identified knowledge to correlate with accurate expectations (Hypothesis 3), and filing decisions to be predicted by trust in the method (Hypothesis 4a) or outcome (Hypothesis 4b). We anticipated that higher trust in software would increase the likelihood of filing with software (Hypothesis 5) and that inconsistency across methods would decrease filing likelihood (Hypothesis 6). METHOD In the experiment, 146 taxpayers (64% women; 88% Hispanic; 75% White; Mage = 27.55 years) prepared their taxes using three methods: a tax professional, commercial software, and IRS software. Participants rated and ranked the trustworthiness of each method and indicated their preference. RESULTS As predicted, participants had the most favorable perceptions of the tax expert, followed by commercial software and IRS software (Hypothesis 1). Trust in the method, not the outcome, predicted filing decisions (Hypothesis 4a). Participants with higher trust in software were more likely to file with software (Hypothesis 5). Contrary to expectations, procedural justice did not correlate with satisfaction (Hypothesis 2), and knowledge did not correlate with accurate expectations (Hypothesis 3). Consistency across methods did not predict filing (Hypothesis 6). CONCLUSIONS Participants generally preferred human experts, but trust in software could override this preference. Future research directions and implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

专家、商业软件和美国国税局：美国纳税人对信任和程序正义的看法。


目标 税法的复杂性使手动准备变得困难，导致更多的纳税人使用软件或会计师。本研究提出了一项实验分析，比较了纳税人在向税务专家报税与使用税务软件时对信任和程序正义的看法。该研究解决了四个问题：（1） 与税务软件相比，人类税务专家的看法如何？（2） 不同类型的税务软件的看法是否不同？（3） 信托和程序正义是否能预测申请决定？（4） 纳税人能否有效监督报税软件？假设 我们假设参与者会更喜欢专业的税务专家，而不是商业和美国国税局 （IRS） 软件（假设 1）。我们还预计更高的程序正义与更高的满意度相关（假设 2），自我识别的知识与准确的期望相关（假设 3），以及通过对方法的信任（假设 4a）或结果（假设 4b）来预测提交决策。我们预计，对软件的更高信任度会增加使用软件提交的可能性（假设 5），而方法之间的不一致会降低提交的可能性（假设 6）。方法 在实验中，146 名纳税人（64% 女性;88% 西班牙裔;75% 白人;法师 = 27.55 岁）使用三种方法准备税款：税务专业人士、商业软件和 IRS 软件。参与者对每种方法的可信度进行评分和排名，并表明他们的偏好。结果正如预测的那样，参与者对税务专家的看法最有利，其次是商业软件和 IRS 软件（假设 1）。相信方法，而不是结果，预测了申请决定（假设 4a）。 对软件信任度较高的参与者更有可能使用软件提交文件（假设 5）。与预期相反，程序公正与满意度无关（假设 2），知识与准确期望无关（假设 3）。方法之间的一致性并不能预测申请（假设 6）。结论 参与者通常更喜欢人类专家，但对软件的信任可能会凌驾于这种偏好之上。讨论了未来的研究方向和启示。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 （c） 2025 APA，保留所有权利）。