AN EMPIRICAL VALIDATION OF ADAM IN A CAPITAL BUDGETING CONTEXT

The attribute-dynamic attitude model (ADAM) offers a description of decision processes that has greater theoretical appeal than that offered by the multiple regression model. It distinguishes judgment from choice, explains inconsistent behavior, and shows the implications of criterion weight modifications when decision situations change. This study tests the validity of ADAM empirically in a capital budgeting context. Results of a laboratory experiment show that: (1) ADAM is a good ex ante descriptor of decision processes and (2) ADAM weights are context dependent and differ significantly from a priori weights. The results support an equal-weighting theory.