Quantification and Persuasion in Managerial Judgment

Accounting involves assigning numbers to events-quantifying them. Conventional wisdom holds that putting numbers to an argument enhances its persuasive power. However, little scholarly evidence exists to support or refute this claim, in accounting or elsewhere. In this paper, we develop an original process-based model of how quantification influences persuasion. We posit that including a high-quality quantified analysis in a proposal enhances its persuasive power by increasing both the perceived competence of the proposal preparer and the perceived plausibility that a favorable outcome could occur. However, under some conditions, quantification also encourages criticism of the details of the proposal, which potentially offsets these effects. We experimentally test implications of our model in a managerial decision setting, investigating conditions in which quantification is more and less likely to result in criticism of the quantified proposal and, thus, less and more likely to be persuasive. We also test the model, itself, using structural equations methods. Results largely support the model, which should prove of value to researchers interested in the effects of quantification on judgments and to those interested in persuasion.

[1]  D. Budescu,et al.  Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms , 1993 .

[2]  Amy P. Hutton,et al.  The Role of Supplementary Statements with Management Earnings Forecasts , 2003 .

[3]  Geoffrey B. Sprinkle,et al.  A Review of the Effects of Financial Incentives on Performance in Laboratory Tasks: Implications for Management Accounting , 2000 .

[4]  Rohini Ahluwalia Examination of psychological processes underlying resistance to persuasion , 2000 .

[5]  Thomas Kida,et al.  The effects of encoded memory traces for numerical data on accounting decision making , 1998 .

[6]  Rebecca Elmore-Yalch,et al.  The Effect of Numbers on the Route to Persuasion , 1984 .

[7]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[8]  H. Tan,et al.  Are Reviewers' Judgements Influenced by Memo Structure and Conclusions Documented in Audit Workpapers?* , 2001 .

[9]  P. Healy,et al.  A Review of the Earnings Management Literature and its Implications for Standard Setting , 1998 .

[10]  Reid Hastie,et al.  Revision of beliefs when a hypothesis is eliminated from consideration. , 1985 .

[11]  Ann Oakley,et al.  Trust in Numbers , 1995 .

[12]  Ken T. Trotman,et al.  The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective , 1997 .

[13]  Vicky Arnold,et al.  A Methodology for Developing Measurement Criteria for Assurance Services: An Application in Information Systems Assurance , 1999 .

[14]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  Processing of Numerical and Verbal Product Information , 1996 .

[15]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[16]  E. E. Jones,et al.  From Acts To Dispositions The Attribution Process In Person Perception1 , 1965 .

[17]  Peter H. Ditto,et al.  Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions , 1992 .

[18]  B Fischhoff,et al.  Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[19]  R. Peterson A Meta-analysis of Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha , 1994 .

[20]  Ross L. Watts,et al.  Positive Accounting Theory , 2006 .

[21]  S. Mulaik,et al.  EVALUATION OF GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES FOR STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELS , 1989 .

[22]  Randall R. Kleinhesselink,et al.  Seeking and avoiding belief-discrepant information as a function of its perceived refutability. , 1975 .

[23]  B. J. Winer Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[24]  William R. Kinney,et al.  Does Mandated Audit Communication Reduce Opportunistic Corrections to Manage Earnings to Forecasts , 2000 .

[25]  Geoffrey B. Sprinkle,et al.  The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research , 2002 .

[26]  M H Birnbaum,et al.  Combining information from sources that vary in credibility , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[27]  E. Bamber,et al.  Expert Judgment in the Audit Team: A Source Reliability Approach , 1983 .

[28]  James F. Smith,et al.  The encoding and retrieval of numerical data for decision making in accounting contexts: Model development , 1995 .

[29]  Clark Leavitt,et al.  The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response , 1978 .

[30]  D. Hirst,et al.  Auditors Sensitivity To Source Reliability , 1994 .

[31]  Kathryn Kadous,et al.  The Role of Incentives to Manage Earnings and Quantification in Auditors' Evaluations of Management‐Provided Information , 2004 .

[32]  Lisa Koonce,et al.  Evaluating the Sufficiency of Causes in Audit Analytical Procedures , 1998 .

[33]  Geoffrey B. Sprinkle The Effect of Incentive Contracts on Learning and Performance , 2000 .

[34]  B. Byrne Structural equation modeling with EQS : basic concepts, applications, and programming , 2000 .

[35]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[36]  Eric Flamholtz,et al.  The process of measurement in managerial accounting: A psycho-technical systems perspective , 1980 .

[37]  Joseph Webb McLeary By the Numbers: Using Facts and Figures to Get Your Projects, Plans, and Ideas Approved , 2000 .

[38]  M. Sherif,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1946, Psychological review.

[39]  Theodore J. Mock,et al.  A review of human resource accounting measurement systems from a measurement theory perspective , 1977 .

[40]  D. R. Shaffer,et al.  Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. , 1987 .

[41]  B. J. Winer,et al.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 2nd Edition. , 1973 .

[42]  Jerry Martin,et al.  Presentation graphics , 1984, SIGUCCS '84.

[43]  Edward E. Rigdon,et al.  A Comparative Review of Interaction and Nonlinear Modeling , 1998 .

[44]  Peter Wright,et al.  Persuasion Knowledge , 2022 .

[45]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[46]  Theodore J. Mock Measurement and accounting information criteria , 1976 .

[47]  Richard Langendorf,et al.  Presentation Graphics , 1995 .

[48]  Kathryn Kadous,et al.  The Role of Reporting Incentives and Quantification in Auditors' Evaluations of Earnings Fluctuations , 2001 .

[49]  J. Rich Reviewers' Responses to Expectations about the Client and the Preparer , 2004 .

[50]  The Relevance of the Value Relevance Literature For Financial Accounting Standard Setting: Another View , 2001 .

[51]  J. Frank Yates,et al.  Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality , 1996 .

[52]  Amna Kirmani,et al.  Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent , 2000 .