The ability to adapt decision making to the features of decision tasks and contexts is likely an important component of professional decision making, but not all professionals will exhibit this adaptivity. One explanation for decision makers' failure to adapt when adaptivity is appropriate is that they do not possess relevant knowledge of the features of decision tasks and contexts, or institutional knowledge. In this study, I examine the relations between institutional knowledge, information search adaptivity, and performance using an experimental research design in the tax decision-making setting. The results of the study are consistent with predictions. Tax professionals with relevant institutional knowledge responded to the differential features of the taxplanning and compliance contexts by conducting broader and more extensive information search in planning than in compliance; professionals lacking institutional knowledge did not exhibit such information search adaptivity. In addition, tax research performance increased with information search adaptivity, and that adaptivity mediated the relation between institutional knowledge and tax research performance. This study extends the accounting and psychology adaptivity literatures and contributes to tax practice and education.

This study examines the value relevance of financial statement data and nonfinancial statement information within and across the pre-IPO venture capital and post-IPO public equity markets. For a sample of U.S. biotechnology firms, I find that financial statements are highly value-relevant in the venture capital market, and that the signs of the associations between equity values and financial statement data in that market are similar to those in the public equity market, despite significant structural differences between the two. I also find that the value relevance of financial statements generally increases as firms mature, consistent with financial statements capturing the increasing intensity of assets-in-place relative to future investment options. In contrast, the value relevance of nonfinancial statement information decreases as firms mature, indicating that, in a dynamic sense, financial statements and nonfinancial statement information of venture-backed pre-IPO biotech companies are information substitutes in valuation, not complements.

Negotiations are a pervasive feature of the audit process (e.g., the resolution of proposed audit adjustments and disclosures). The results of such negotiations are of great importance to the capital markets, the client, and the auditor. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of three promising, pragmatic intervention methods for enhancing auditor negotiation performance: a role-playing intervention—assuming the client's position in a mock negotiation; a passive intervention—explicitly considering the client's interests and options; and a practice intervention—engaging in a mock negotiation prior to the client negotiation. We posit that the role-playing intervention will improve negotiation results, because this approach requires direct experience in considering and arguing the client's position and more cognitive effort in obtaining an understanding of the counterpart's position, a critical factor identified in the negotiation literature for successful performance. Forty-five audit managers and partners were provided a realistic case based on an actual scenario involving the potential writedown of inventory due to obsolescence. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (role-playing, passive, or practice) and asked to negotiate the issue with a confederate playing the role of the CFO. Auditor conservatism and a large actual subsequent writedown suggest that a significant adjustment is warranted. The results indicate that the role-playing intervention method led to an enhanced negotiation outcome (greater writedown) compared to the passive and practice groups. Process improvements on a number of dimensions were also found, particularly for the role-playing group compared to the practice group.

Earnings press releases provide managers a forum to present their firm's quarterly financial information and perhaps influence perceptions of the firm's stakeholders. We explore the use of managerial emphasis as a disclosure tool and contribute to the debate over pro forma earnings. We examine (1) the determinants of emphasis placed on pro forma and GAAP earnings within quarterly earnings press releases, (2) whether there has been a shift away from emphasizing pro forma earnings toward GAAP earnings, and (3) whether stock market reactions to earnings news were influenced by emphasis placed on metrics within the press release. We find that firms emphasize metrics that are more value-relevant and portray more favorable firm performance. We also find that the extent of a firm's media coverage affects managers' emphasis decisions. Further, our results indicate a highly significant shift toward GAAP emphasis and away from pro forma emphasis in 2002 relative to 2001. Finally, our stock market tests suggest that greater emphasis on an earnings metric results in a stronger market reaction to the surprise in that metric. Overall, these findings are consistent with managers using emphasis in the earnings press release as a disclosure tool and this emphasis influencing at least one important stakeholder group—investors.