Debiasing scale compatibility effects when investors use nonfinancial measures to screen potential investments

Contemporary Accounting Research

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 803-826

  Jackson, Kevin E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Investment screen; Nonfinancial; Nonprofessional investors; Scale compatibility; Simultaneous

Indexed keywords

EID: 51949110325     PISSN: 08239150     EISSN: 19113846     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1506/car.25.3.6     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bock, R., and L. Jones. 1968. The measurement and prediction of measurement and choice. San Francisco: Holden Day.
2. Cohen, J., G. Krishnamoorthy, and A. Wright. 2000. Evidence on the effect of financial and nonfinancial trends on analytical review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19 (1): 27-48.
3. Coupey, E., J. R. Irwin, and J. W. Payne. 1998. Product category familiarity and preference construction. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 459-68.
4. Dhar, R., S. M. Nowlis, and S. J. Sherman. 1999. Comparison effects on preference construction. Journal of Consumer Research 26 (3): 293-306.
5. Dowling, G., and D. Midgley. 1991. Using rank values as an interval scale. Psychology and Marketing 8 (1): 37-41.
6. Elliott, W. B., F. Hodge, J. Kennedy, and M. Pronk. 2007. Are MBA students a good proxy for nonprofessional investors? The Accounting Review 82 (1): 139-68.
7. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 2001. Business and financial reporting. challenges from the new economy, ed. W. S. Upton. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
8. Fischer, G. W., and S. A. Hawkins. 1993. Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology 19 (3): 580-97.
9. Gujarati, A. 2003. Basic econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10. Hodge, F. D. 2001. Hyperlinking unaudited information to audited financial statements: Effects on investor judgments. The Accounting Review 76 (4): 675-91.
11. Hogarth, R. M., and H. J. Einhorn. 1992. Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology 24 (1): 1-55.
12. Hsee, C. K. 1996. The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67 (3): 247-57.
13. Huber, J., D. Ariely, and G. Fischer. 2002. Expressing preferences in a principal-agent task: A comparison of choice, rating, and matching. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87 (1): 66-90.
14. Invested Interests. 2006. Introduction to socially responsible investing. http://www.investedinterests.com.
15. Irwin, J. R., and J. H. Davis. 1995. Choice/matching preference reversals in groups: Consensus processes and justification-based reasoning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64 (3): 325-39.
16. Johnson, E. J., J. W. Payne, and J. R. Bettman. 1988. Information displays and preference reversals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 42 (1): 1-21.
17. Joyce, E., and B. Shapiro. 1995. Invariance violations and mental accounting procedures in riskless matching. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62 (2): 175-89.
18. Kensinger, J. W., and J. D. Martin. 1996. Relationship investing: What active institutional investors want from management. Morristown, NJ: Financial Executive Research Foundation.
19. Kinder, P. D. 2005. Socially responsible investing: An evolving concept in a changing world. Boston: KLD Research & Analytics.
20. Mercer, M. A. 2004. How do investors assess the credibility of management disclosures? Accounting Horizons 18 (3): 185-96.
21. Niedrich, R., S. Subhash, and D. Wedell. 2001. Reference price and price perceptions: A comparison of alternative methods. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (3): 339-54.
22. Russo, J. E. 1977. The value of unit-price information. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (2): 193-201.
23. Schkade, D. A., and E. J. Johnson. 1989. Cognitive processes in preference reversals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 44 (2): 203-31.
24. Slovic, P., D. Griffin, and A. Tversky. 1990. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn, ed. R. M. Hogarth, 5-27. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Slovic, P., and D. MacPhillamy. 1974. Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 11 (1): 17-94.
26. Social Investment Research Analyst Network. 2006. Socially responsible investment analysts find more large U.S. companies reporting on social and environmental issues. July, 12, 2006. http://www.siran.org/csr.php.
27. Tversky, A., S. Sattath, and P. Slovic. 1988. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review 95 (3): 371-84.
28. Wall Street Journal Online (WSJ Online). 2005. Corporate reputation survey. December 6, 2005. http://online.wsj.com.
29. Wedell, D. 1995. Contrast effects in paired comparisons: Evidence for both stimulus-based and response-based processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21 (5): 1158-73.