Homo economicus? An investigation of factors influencing perceived comfort of choosing paper-based triple stimulus vouchers

Abstract

Purpose

To alleviate the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the economy, Taiwan introduced a stimulus package in the form of triple stimulus vouchers. Despite intense promotion to opt for the vouchers in digital form, Taiwanese public overwhelmingly chose the paper form. This study considers the reasons that influenced their decision comfort in choosing paper rather than digital vouchers based on two categories: rational (promotion depth and ease of use) and behavioral economics factors (analysis paralysis, mental accounting related to ease of tracking expenses, social influence and payment habits).

Design/methodology/approach

Partial least squares (PLS) method was utilized to analyze survey information obtained from 183 individuals who chose paper vouchers.

Findings

Individuals consider rational and behavioral economic factors in their perception of decision comfort while choosing paper over digital vouchers. Decision comfort is driven more by behavioral economics than rational factors such as ease of use. Interestingly, analysis paralysis related to paper vouchers has the greatest impact, but it positively influences decision comfort, indicating that Taiwanese people view paper vouchers as a safe haven in the midst of uncertainties and information overload. Therefore, when designing public policies or promotional campaigns, possible behavior outcomes should be considered from both rational and behavioral economic perspectives.

Originality/value

This study provides insights into the dynamics of how individuals arrive at their decision of opting paper vouchers over digital ones and offers theoretical contributions related to system adoption and behavioral economics.

Citation

Tan, W.K. and Liang, H.-J. (2022), "Homo economicus? An investigation of factors influencing perceived comfort of choosing paper-based triple stimulus vouchers", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 543-558. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-01-2021-0046