Stakeholder value disclosures: Anchoring on primacy and importance of financial and nonfinancial performance measures

Review of Managerial Science

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 195-212

  Neumann, Bruce R ^a   Roberts, Michael L ^a   Cauvin, Eric ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^c KEDGE BUSINESS SCHOOL   (France)

Author keywords

Financial measures bias; Performance evaluation; Performance measurement; Presentation order effects; Stakeholder values

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959379993     PISSN: 18636683     EISSN: 18636691     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11846-010-0054-1     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Banker RD, Chang H, Pizzini M (2004) The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy. Account Rev 79(1): 1-23.
2. Cauvin E, Decock-Good C, Bescos P-L (2006) Characteristics of the performance measures in external reporting: non-financial information used by French companies in their communication. Performance measurement and management control: improving organizations and society studies in managerial and financial accounting. Elsevier 16: 335-354.
3. Dilla WN, Steinbart PJ (2005) Relative weighting of common and unique balanced scorecard measures by knowledgeable decision makers. Behav Res Account 17: 43-53.
4. Dillenburg S, Greene T, Erekson H (2003) Approaching socially responsible investment with a comprehensive ratings scheme: total social impact. J Bus Ethics 43(3): 167-177.
5. Driscoll C, Starik M (2004) The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. J Bus Ethics 49: 55-73.
6. Einhorn H, Hogarth R (1992) Order effects in belief updating: the belief-adjustment model. Cogn Psychol 24: 1-55.
7. Goodman KS (1967) Analysis of oral reading miscues: applied psycholinguistics. Read Res Q 5(1): 9-30. International reading association stable. http://www. jstor. org/stable/747158.
8. Gough PB (1972) One second of reading. In: Kavanagh JP, Mattingly IG (eds) Language by eye and by ear. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 331-358.
9. Halford GS, Baker R, McGredden JE, Bain JD (2005) How many variables can humans process? Psychol Sci 16(1): 70-76.
10. Hotchkiss G (2007) Eye tracking on universal and personalized search. Search engine land column: just behave. 21 Sept 2007. http://www. searchengineland. com/eye-tracking-on-universal-and-personalized-search-12233.
11. Ittner CD, Larcker DF, Meyer MW (2003) Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: evidence from a balanced scorecard. Account Rev 78(July): 725-758.
12. Kaplan R, Norton D (1996) The balanced scorecard. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
13. Kujala J (2004) Developing measures for managers' stakeholder orientation: a business ethics perspective. Front E-Bus Res 2: 561-571.
14. Libby T, Salterio S, Webb A (2004) The balanced scorecard: the effects of assurance and process accountability on managerial judgment. Account Rev 79(3): 1075-1094.
15. Lipe M, Salterio S (2000) The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. Account Rev 75(3): 283-298.
16. Lipe MG, Salterio S (2002) A note on the judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard's information organization. Account Organ Soc 27(6): 531-540.
17. Malina MA, Selto FH (2001) Communicating and controlling strategy: an empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. J Manage Account Res 13: 47-90.
18. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63: 81-97.
19. Roberts ML, Albright TA, Hibbets AR (2004) Debiasing the balanced scorecard. Behav Res Account 16: 75-88.
20. Schiff AD, Hoffman LR (1996) An exploration of the use of financial and nonfinancial measures of performance by executives in a service firm. Behav Res Account 8: 134-151.
21. Slovic P (1975) Choice between equally valued alternatives. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1: 280-287.
22. Slovic P, MacPhillamy D (1974) Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organ Behav Hum Perf 11: 172-194.
23. Smith F (1971) Understanding reading: a psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahweh, NJ, London.
24. Treiman R (2001) Reading. In: Aronoff M, Rees-Miller J (eds) Blackwell handbook of linguistics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 664-672. http://www. artsci. wustl. edu/~rtreiman/Selected_Papers/Treiman_Handbook_of_linguistics_2001.pdf.
25. Trotman KT, Wright A (2000) Order effects and recency: where do we go from here? Account Financ 40: 169-182.
26. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124-1131.