Eric E. Spires

Validating the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale: Effects of Cognitive Style and Computer Courses on Computer Anxiety.

Abstract In this paper, the validity of a newly developed computer anxiety questionnaire, the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (CARS) of Heinssen, Glass, and Knight (1987), is tested. Expectations are developed about how a valid measure of computer anxiety would behave in response to several demographic traits and cognitive styles, and evidence is gathered about the expectations. Factor analysis is used to identify factors of computer anxiety underlying the CARS. In general, the CARS is found to be a valid instrument. Four items in the CARS, however, systematically behave differently from expectations and therefore may not properly measure computer anxiety. Cognitive style is shown to be an important determinant of computer anxiety, with intuitive and thinking individuals exhibiting lower anxiety than their sensing and feeling counterparts. Computer courses may be useful in reducing anxiety for some anxiety factors for some cognitive styles.

The Joint Effects of Effort and Quality on Decision Strategy Choice with Computerized Decision Aids

Research has recently focused on the effort-reduction or minimization role of computerized decision aids, and how users may employ aids to manage their effort, which in turn affects their choice of decision strategies. In this paper, it is argued that consideration of effort reduction or minimization by itself is not sufficient for inducing changes in decision strategy. Instead, decision aid effects on effort must be considered jointly with the decision quality associated with the various decision strategies. This is true even if the decision aid has no effect on decision quality. We adapt and extend a theoretical framework that can be used to evaluate the joint effects of effort and quality on decision strategy choice. In addition, we reinterpret past research results in light of the framework and present new experimental evidence on the descriptive validity of the framework.

Perceptions of accuracy and effort of decision strategies

Abstract A critical tenet of cost-benefit theories of decision strategy choice is that decision makers’ perceptions of accuracy and effort determine strategy selection. However, little research has been conducted on human perceptions of decision strategy accuracy and effort. Instead, researchers have substituted deductively derived inferences on strategy accuracy and effort for perceptions in interpreting decision processes. In this study, we used a survey to study perceptions of decision strategies. The results indicate that participants as a group understood the accuracy and effort dimensions of decision strategies. The participants’ perceptions of the accuracy and effort of various decision strategies largely agreed with researchers’ deductions. However, there was substantial variation across individuals in perceptions of various decision strategies and in the composition of efficient frontiers of decision strategies.

Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Analyze Multiattribute Decisions.

Since its introduction a decade ago, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been used by decision makers in many contexts. The vast majority of these applications has involved allocating resources or making choices from among alternatives. This article discusses how AHP may be used in a different manner: to assist researchers in the analysis of decisions. AHP is briefly compared with other decision-analysis techniques, such as multiattribute utility measurement, conjoint measurement, and general linear models (regression and analysis of variance). Some of the possible insights into decision processes that can be obtained using AHP are illustrated with data gathered from practicing auditors of financial statements.

Decision Processes and Use of Decision Aids Comparing Two Closely Related Nations in East Asia

The authors report the results of a controlled laboratory experiment comparing the decision processes of participants from Taiwan and Japan. These two nations have very close geographical, cultural, historical, and economic ties. The results show that decision processes of Taiwanese differed from those of Japanese. Specifically, decision processes adopted by Taiwanese participants were more consistent with compensatory processes than were those adopted by Japanese participants. The authors identify cultural factors that may explain the differences. These results demonstrate the danger of generalizing decision theories across national boundaries, even when the nations are seemingly closely related. The results also indicate that the differences in decision processes among nations cannot easily be characterized as East versus West.

Evidence order and belief revision in management accounting decisions

Abstract One of the primary functions of management accounting is to provide inputs for management decisions. These inputs, or pieces of evidence, are used in making judgements about an organizations activities. We focus on situations in which an individuals degree of belief in a specific cause, or hypothesis, is sequentially revised as additional evidence is received. These types of situations are numerous in management accounting contexts (e.g. performance evaluation, variance analysis, and resource allocation). Effects of evidence order and currently held beliefs (anchors) on judgements and decisions are investigated using Hogarth & Einhorns belief-adjustment model (Order Effects in Belief Updating: The Belief-Adjustment Model, Working paper, 1990). Business students taking a management accounting course processed eight cases, four “generic” (i.e. nonaccounting) and four “management accounting”. Model predictions were supported for both groups: recency effects were present for mixed evidence; anchor size did not affect the magnitude of the recency effect; and anchor size had the predicted impact on changes in belif. For generic cases, as predicted. no order effect existed for consistent evidence. For accounting cases, some recency effects were found for consistent evidence, whereas the model predicts none. Mixed evidence order effects (i.e. recency) did not consistently impact action-oriented decisions in either generic or accounting cases. Prior research is reinterpreted in light of these findings. Implications of these findings for developing descriptive models of accounting judgements and decisions, as well as applications within management accounting contextsm are discussed.

The Behavioral Implications of Aggregation and Delay on Budget Approval Decisions

An experiment with three treatments is used to evaluate the social efficiency of budgeting protocols induced by other-regarding preferences. In disaggregated superiors receive three individual proposals in iterated fashion, and must decide whether to accept each project without knowledge of the forthcoming proposals by the subordinate. In aggregated three projects are bundled together, and subordinates submit an aggregate proposal that is intended to cover the cost of all the projects combined. Superiors can accept all of the projects to which the proposal pertains, or none of them. In delayed subordinates submit individual proposals as in disaggregated, but superiors delay making a decision on any of them until they receive all three proposals. The results indicate that superiors are slightly more demanding in aggregated than in the other two treatments, and subordinates submit lower proposals for high-cost projects. However, superiors are not so demanding that the social benefit of aggregation is completely undone: the likelihood of project acceptance under aggregated is significantly greater than under disaggregated and delayed, especially for the highest cost projects. It therefore appears that the aggregation of budget requests into a single proposal to cover all costs is somewhat efficacious in increasing project acceptance. Interestingly, only when the superior is forced to consider an aggregated budget is social welfare improved. In this sense, aggregation may be thought of as a substitute for a commitment to view only the total budget proposed, and not its components. More generally our results provide a rationale for restricting the level of information in the evaluation of subordinates when superiors cannot commit to how they will use the information.

Unobservable Commitment and Management Control: An Experiment

We conduct an experiment designed to investigate unobservable commitment in a management control setting with a privately informed subordinate. The experimental setting follows closely that found in Evans, Hannan, Krishan and Moser [2001] and Rankin, Schwartz and Young [2003]. In one treatment the superior makes an unobservable, but binding commitment regarding her future behavior. In the other treatment the superior reacts to the subordinate’s actions without having made a prior commitment. In both treatments the superior sends a non-binding announcement regarding her intended response. Arguments are presented for how an unobservable commitment might affect the superior’s resolve to punish undesirable behavior by the subordinate. We find that unobservable commitment weakens the superiors’ willingness to inflict costly punishment on the subordinate and, in turn, subordinates eventually learn to be more aggressive. One possible implication is in some circumstances it may be better for superiors to let their emotions have “free rein” if their goal is to convince subordinates of their willingness to retaliate against them for their unfair behavior.

A teaching note on the controllability “Principle” and performance measurement

Purpose - The purpose of this note is to expose accounting students and others to recent findings in management control, specifically to the relationship between the informativeness of a performance measure and its usefulness in performance evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - Numerical examples illuminate key ideas and are easy to follow and replicate by students. Findings - Seemingly in contradiction to the controllability principle, performance measures that are informative about actions taken by employees are not necessarily useful for performance evaluation. This occurs when the performance being measured is related to an intermediate task, such as prepping items prior to final assembly. If prepping is an important factor in the quality of not only the intermediate good but also the finished good, and the quality of the finished good can be reasonably measured, it may not be useful to measure the prepping performance. This result holds even if obtaining the intermediate measure is costless and the intermediate measure provides unique information on the effort given to the intermediate task. Originality/value - Opportunities to measure employees’ intermediate outputs are ubiquitous; therefore, judicious decisions should be made regarding the use of limited monitoring resources. This note contains intuitive, easy-to-follow illustrations (based on recent findings) that will help students and others identify situations where such evaluations are more and less useful.