This study examines how principals adjust their control over agents based on their prior controlling experience. According to standard economic theory, principals should be equally willing to decrease their control as they are to increase it. However, I use psychological theory to predict that prior experience with exercising tight control reinforces a principal's belief that agents are self‐interested and that they should be controlled. In contrast, I predict that the reinforcement of the belief that agents are socially interested and should not be controlled is weaker for principals who have prior experience with exercising loose control. I test my prediction using an experiment that exposes principals to either an increase or a decrease in the economic costs of control. The results support the predictions by exhibiting an asymmetric adjustment pattern. The data also show theory‐consistent conditions under which the asymmetry in principals' control adjustments diminishes. Overall, my study suggests that prolonged experience with exercising high levels of control over agents may cause principals to hold on to their control disproportionally.

A significant challenge firms face is providing performance feedback that effectively motivates low‐performing employees. In our field experiment, we examine the impact of an often‐overlooked form of relative performance feedback (RPF) that emphasizes comparing employees based on their inputs. Our results indicate that input‐based RPF enhances the input performance of low performers without adversely affecting high performers. Furthermore, our field experiment demonstrates that selecting the right input—specifically, actions that employees can control and that are linked to outputs—can significantly boost low performers' contributions to a firm's overall output. Together, our findings support our prediction that input‐based RPF provides a viable strategy for low performers to narrow the performance gap with high performers by guiding them toward the crucial inputs that high performers use to generate output. Our study adds an important refinement to our understanding of how RPF promotes upward social comparison and facilitates social learning, offering insights for firms aiming to motivate low performers in their workforce.

Regulators are increasingly considering and mandating additional public tax disclosures to enhance transparency and promote scrutiny of corporate tax avoidance. We conducted three experiments to examine how such disclosures influence retail investors' perceptions of firms with identical effective tax rates but different tax avoidance methods. In the first experiment, participants evaluated whether firms were paying their fair share of taxes. We find that additional public tax disclosures reduce retail investors' tendency to differentiate between tax avoidance methods, subsequently affecting their willingness to invest. Specifically, participants use easy‐to‐process summary tax information in the additional public tax disclosure as a heuristic shortcut. The second and third experiments demonstrate that modifying the disclosure format and prompting participants to assess tax aggressiveness rather than fairness can mitigate these adverse effects. However, none of the cases significantly alters participants' perceptions compared to the baseline condition of no public tax disclosure. Overall, our findings provide insights into the design of, and the debate surrounding, additional public tax disclosures.