IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v10y1993i1p83-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Experimental Investigation of Explanations for Outcome Effects on Appraisals of Capital†Budgeting Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • CLIFTON E. BROWN
  • IRA SOLOMON

Abstract

. Studies investigating effects of outcomes on judgments and decisions have been increasing within the business/accounting research literatures. No study, however, has addressed the presence or absence of such effects in terms of potential explanations and the conditions affecting their viability. Three such explanations are the foci of the present study: cognitive reconstruction, self†enhancing motive, and an escalation†of†commitment analogue. The viability of these explanations was investigated experimentally in an accounting context in which subjects evaluated a capital†budgeting committee's funding priority decisions with or without project outcome information (five†year operating results). Experimental results fully support the cognitive reconstruction explanation for outcome effects on decision appraisals but provide only limited support for the self†enhancing motive and escalation†of†commitment explanations. Results of additional experimentation are presented, further supporting logic inherent in the hypothesis derived from the cognitive reconstruction explanation. The relationship of the present study to prior research and implications for future research and practice are discussed. Résumé. Les études portant sur l'analyse de l'incidence de l'issue d'une situation sur les jugements posés et les décisions prises par la suite se sont multipliées dans la recherche en gestion et en comptabilité. Aucun chercheur ne s'est pourtant penché sur la présence ou l'absence d'une telle incidence en s'interrogeant sur son explication potentielle et sur les facteurs qui influent sur sa viabilité. La présente étude s'articule autour de trois de ces explications: la reconstruction cognitive, la promotion personnelle et un équivalent de l'escalade de l'engagement. La viabilité de ces explications a été soumise à une étude expérimentale dans un contexte comptable dans lequel les sujets évaluaient les décisions d'un comité chargé du choix des investissements dans le cadre de l'établissement des priorités en matière d'affectation des fonds, avec ou sans information sur l'issue des projets (résultats d'exploitation de cinq ans). Les résultats de l'expérience confirment sans équivoque l'explication de la reconstruction cognitive relativement à l'incidence de l'issue des projets sur les évaluations décisionnelles, mais ils n'appuient que de façon mitigée les explications de la promotion personnelle et de l'escalade des engagements. Les auteurs exposent les résultats d'autres expériences, qui viennent étayer la logique sous†jacente à l'hypothèse fondée sur l'explication de la reconstruction cognitive. Ils analysent enfin la relation entre la présente étude et les travaux de recherche antérieurs de même que ses conséquences éventuelles sur la recherche et la profession.

Suggested Citation

  • Clifton E. Brown & Ira Solomon, 1993. "An Experimental Investigation of Explanations for Outcome Effects on Appraisals of Capital†Budgeting Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 83-111, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:10:y:1993:i:1:p:83-111
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1993.tb00383.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1993.tb00383.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1993.tb00383.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hogarth, Robin M & Reder, Melvin W, 1986. "Perspectives from Economics and Psychology: Editor's Comments," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 185-207, October.
    2. Buchman, Thomas A., 1985. "An effect of hindsight on predicting bankruptcy with accounting information," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 267-285, July.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    4. March, James G., 1987. "Ambiguity and accounting: The elusive link between information and decision making," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 153-168, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2003. "Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 287-318.
    2. Mertins, Lasse & Salbador, Debra & Long, James H., 2013. "The outcome effect – A review and implications for future research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 2-30.
    3. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 169-249.
    4. Eva Crespo-Cebada & Carlos Díaz-Caro & Aurora E. Rabazo-Martín & Edilberto J. Rodríguez-Rivero, 2021. "Do Narcissistic Managers Prefer Incentive Systems Based on Financial Instruments? An Analysis Based on Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Ghosh, Dipankar & Lusch, Robert F., 2000. "Outcome effect, controllability and performance evaluation of managers: some field evidence from multi-outlet businesses," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 411-425, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pingle, Mark, 1997. "Submitting to authority: Its effect on decision-making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 45-68, February.
    2. Blom, Tannelie and Valentina Carraro, 2014. "An information processing approach to public organizations: The case of the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 18, February.
    3. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence -A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,29, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    4. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    6. Pascale Amans & Sylvie Rascol-Boutard, 2006. "Controlling Complex Organizations on the Basis of an Operational Performance Measure," Post-Print hal-01659071, HAL.
    7. Kumar, Alok, 2007. "Do the diversification choices of individual investors influence stock returns?," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 362-390, November.
    8. Jensen, Robert & Lleras-Muney, Adriana, 2012. "Does staying in school (and not working) prevent teen smoking and drinking?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 644-657.
    9. Strauss, Jason, 2007. "Return-of-Premium Endorsements for Living-Benefits Insurance Policies: Rational or Irrational?," MPRA Paper 11103, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim, 2007. "Preferences and decision errors in the winner’s curse," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 241-257, June.
    11. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    12. Giuseppe Pernagallo & Benedetto Torrisi, 2020. "A theory of information overload applied to perfectly efficient financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 223-236, October.
    13. Prieto, Marc & Caemmerer, Barbara & Baltas, George, 2015. "Using a hedonic price model to test prospect theory assertions: The asymmetrical and nonlinear effect of reliability on used car prices," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 206-212.
    14. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Joshua M. Epstein, 2007. "Agent-Based Computational Models and Generative Social Science," Introductory Chapters, in: Generative Social Science Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling, Princeton University Press.
    16. Willman, Paul & Fenton-O'Creevy, Mark & Nicholson, Nigel & Soane, Emma, 2002. "Traders, managers and loss aversion in investment banking: a field study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(1-2), pages 85-98.
    17. Schilirò, Daniele & Graziano, Mario, 2011. "Scelte e razionalità nei modelli economici: un'analisi multidisciplinare [Choices and rationality in economic models: a multidisciplinary analysis]," MPRA Paper 31910, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Liebig, Stefan & Schupp, Jürgen, 2008. "Leistungs- oder Bedarfsgerechtigkeit? Über einen normativen Zielkonflikt des Wohlfahrtsstaats und seiner Bedeutung für die Bewertung des eigenen Erwerbseinkommens," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(1), pages 7-30.
    19. Buckenmaier, Johannes & Dimant, Eugen & Posten, Ann-Christin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2017. "On punishment institutions and effective deterrence of illicit behavior," Kiel Working Papers 2090, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    20. Shi, Yuwei & Herniman, John, 2023. "The role of expectation in innovation evolution: Exploring hype cycles," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:10:y:1993:i:1:p:83-111. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.