We provide theory and experimental evidence consistent with an unintended, causal relation between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) performance and investors' estimates of fundamental value that can be attenuated by investors' explicit assessment of CSR performance. Consistent with “affect-as-information” theory from psychology, we find that investors who are exposed to, but do not explicitly assess, CSR performance derive higher fundamental value estimates in response to positive CSR performance, and lower fundamental value estimates in response to negative CSR performance. Explicit assessment of CSR performance, however, significantly diminishes this effect, indicating that the effect among investors who do not explicitly assess CSR performance is unintended; i.e., they unintentionally use their affective reactions to CSR performance in estimating fundamental value. Supplemental findings shed light on consequences of these fundamental value estimates: investors who do not explicitly assess CSR performance rely on their unintentionally influenced estimates of fundamental value to increase the price they are willing to pay to invest in the stock of a firm with positive CSR performance. Overall, our theory and findings contribute to the CSR and affect literatures in accounting by revealing the contingent nature of how and to what extent CSR performance influences investors' beliefs about firm value and the bids these investors are likely to make in equity markets. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

Previous research demonstrates that auditors' directional goals influence their reporting decisions. For example, when auditors have goals of accepting client-preferred accounting methods, they tend to exploit ambiguity in reporting standards to justify those methods, even when they are aggressive (Hackenbrack and Nelson 1996). We report an experimental investigation of the likely effectiveness of regulation designed to curb this tendency. Specifically, regulators suggest that having auditors identify benchmarks or assess the quality of various methods will “raise the bar” for method acceptability, thereby reducing auditor acceptance of aggressive reporting methods. However, this reasoning ignores the fact that ambiguity typically surrounds quality assessment. Following motivated reasoning theory, we argue that, in order to meet the increased standard for acceptability, auditors with high commitment to directional goals will exploit the ambiguity surrounding the quality of various methods when making quality assessments, with the result that the client-preferred method will be deemed best, or at least of high enough relative quality to be used. This theory suggests that auditor acceptance will increase with goal commitment, and that the increase will be most dramatic when quality assessment is performed. Results of our experiment support our hypotheses that performing a quality assessment amplifies the effects of auditors' directional goals on their acceptance of client-preferred methods and on their ratings of the quality of that method. Moreover, auditors making quality assessments are more likely to identify the client's method as the most appropriate method when they are more committed to their directional goals. An implication of our theory and results is that regulation (such as SAS No. 90) that requires auditors to make quality assessments may decrease auditors' objectivity when auditors have directional goals to accept client methods.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract