Foreign Investor’s Interest and Tax Avoidance: Contingency Perspectives Depended on Country’s Protection Level and Law Systems

This study investigates differences in firms’ tax avoidances between multinational and national. Furthermore, it investigates the differences between firms’ contingent behavior because of the country’s investor protection level and law systems. This research takes into account the firms’ tax avoidance phenomenon. Besides that, it proposes novelties as follows. First, this study highlights that multinational firms tend to avoid taxes higher than national ones. Second, it induces the dividend catering theory related to the country’s investor protection. The latest, it persuades that country’s investor protection, and law systems make firms contingent on their tax avoidance behaviors. This study finds that firms where they live in high investors’ protection countries and common law did higher tax avoidance than others. The findings imply that these firms could grow higher than others. It means that this study suggests economic consequences. The consequence is that a country should increase its investors’ protection level and somehow redefine its law systems. Therefore, it could enhance its capital market and subsequently improve the national welfares.

Classical Conditioning of Skeletal Avoidance Responses in Two Strains of Rats

Anticipatory skeletal responses can be directly elicited during classical aversive conditioning in the shuttlebox. Under the classical CS-UCS contingency Long-Evans rats shuttle at moderate rates, while Fischer344 rats display high rates of anticipatory responding, even though the instrumental avoidance contingency is absent. The classical contingency is also exceedingly important in determining the differences between these strains, as well as their initial and terminal rates of anticipatory responding, when the avoidance contingency is present.

The Role of the Cs and Avoidance Period Duration in Discriminated Avoidance Conditioning

In an experiment investigating the effect of CS duration on discriminated bar-press conditioning, subjects were assigned to one warning period duration (1.5, 5.0 or 15.0 sec.) on the first day of avoidance training, and to one of the three durations on the second day of training. On each day avoidance behaviour was greatly influenced by the duration of the CS (warning) period, but the duration on day I had no effect on the second day's avoidance performance. Groups receiving no CS during training, although provided an avoidance contingency, showed little conditioning, but produced highly significant amounts of intertrial responding. In a second experiment, subjects receiving CS on day I were shifted to no CS on day II. Avoidance performance on day II was not significantly different from the day II performance of subjects in Experiment I having two training sessions with the CS present or absent on both days.