In this study we examine whether managers’ affective reactions influence their risk–taking tendencies in capital budgeting decisions. Prior research on risky decision making indicates that decision makers are often risk averse when choosing among alternatives that yield potential gains, and risk taking when the alternatives yield losses. The results reported here indicate that negative or positive affective reactions can change this commonly found risky behavior. Managers were generally risk avoiding (taking) for gains (losses) in the absence of affective reactions, as predicted by prospect theory. However, when affect was present, they tended to reject investment alternatives that elicited negative affect and accept alternatives that elicited positive affect, resulting in risk taking (avoiding) in gain (loss) contexts. The results also indicate that affective reactions can influence managers to choose alternatives with lower economic value, suggesting that managers consider both financial data and affective reactions when evaluating the utility of a decision alternative. These findings point to the importance of considering affective reactions when attempting to understand and predict risky decision making in accounting contexts.

In this paper, we propose that affective reactions are integral to accounting decision contexts like capital budgeting, and that researchers must jointly consider affect and cognition to better understand accounting decision makers' behavior. We argue that interpersonal relationships are characteristic of many capital‐budgeting contexts, and that these relationships can lead to emotional affective reactions. For example, reactions such as frustration and anger may result if a manager is treated unfairly by another individual involved in a capital project. Drawing on relevant work in neurobiology and psychology, we then predict that these affective reactions can influence managers' capital‐budgeting decisions. We report on four experimental scenarios that demonstrate the impact of affective reactions on capital‐budgeting decisions. Consistent with our predictions, the results indicate that managers consider both financial data and affective reactions when evaluating the utility of an investment alternative. Our results suggest that researchers should consider both affect and cognition to more fully understand decision making in accounting contexts.

This study examines whether the presence of realistic, yet irrelevant, affective information differentially influences the professional judgments of more experienced and less experienced auditors. In this study, auditors with different experience levels were either provided or not provided with information designed to elicit a negative interpersonal emotional reaction towards a manufacturing client when making an inventory obsolescence risk judgment. The results indicate that the inventory obsolescence risk assessments of less experienced auditors were significantly higher when they were provided with negative affective information on a client than when no such information was provided. No such differences were found for the more experienced auditors. This study suggests that professional experience is one factor that influences individuals' assessments of the informational value of affective reactions. This has implications for developing effective training programs to increase professionals' awareness of the influence that emotional reactions can have on their judgment.

This study examines the impact of the pressure to obtain potential client business opportunities on auditor judgments. Thirty-two lower rank auditors (staff and seniors) and 39 higher rank auditors (managers and partners) were either provided or not provided with information on additional client business opportunities when assessing a client's potential inventory obsolescence risk. Lower rank auditors judged the obsolescence risk to be lower when provided with information on additional business opportunities than when such information was not provided. In contrast, there were no differences in the judgments of higher rank auditors when either provided or not provided with such information. These findings suggest that, through greater tacit management skills and exposure to other counter-pressures such as litigation and risk-management concerns, higher rank auditors are better able to manage competing goals and recognize the importance of freedom from client pressure than are lower rank auditors. Implications for training procedures and audit judgment research are discussed.

Accounting decisions often involve similar types of judgments regarding different clients, projects, or employees. These tasks may use similar information items and be performed within the same work session. While independent consideration of the information for each respective decision may be desired, psychology research on contrast effects suggests that the information from a previous decision may be retained and compared to the information provided for a current judgment. Such contrast effects are potentially critical to accounting judgments because they suggest that the information associated with a given decision task will be evaluated differently depending on the nature of the prior contextual information. Using a multi-client audit context, we find that auditors are susceptible to contrast effects such that their judgments on a current client are influenced by their exposure to similar judgment information on a prior client. We also extend prior psychology and accounting research by examining and finding that for a current client, the magnitude of the contrast effect from an initial judgment task cascades to influence indirectly related subsequent judgment tasks for which no information from the prior client is available for comparison. We also find auditors' documentations of evidence are systematically affected by the contrast and cascading of contrast effects. Thus, our results provide support for contrast effects and, most important, the cascading of contrast effects to subsequent decisions.

No abstract

No abstract

This study replicates Bhattacharjee, Maletta, and Moreno (2007), who find that audit preparers are susceptible to contrast effects in a multi-client environment. We demonstrate that auditors in the role of reviewers are also susceptible to contrast effects from a prior client. Audit reviewers' assessments of internal audit quality of a current client were significantly affected by the quality of the internal audit group of a client they previously reviewed. Specifically, when auditors first reviewed a client with a weak internal audit group they assessed the subsequent moderate internal audit group as being of higher quality than when they first reviewed a prior client with a strong internal audit group or did not review a prior client. Reviewers' documentation of evidence was also influenced by comparative information from the prior client. These results corroborate the key findings of Bhattacharjee et al. (2007) and confirm audit reviewers' susceptibility to contrast effects.