This study presents the results of an experiment that examines how two underlying characteristics of pro forma earnings announcements, pro forma emphasis and the presence of a quantitative reconciliation, influence nonprofessional investors' and analysts' reliance on pro forma disclosures. The results indicate that the emphasis management places on pro forma earnings, not the mere presence of pro forma earnings, influences nonprofessional investors' judgments and decisions, but that this influence is mitigated by the presence of a quantitative reconciliation. Further analysis reveals that the influence of pro forma emphasis on nonprofessional investors' judgments and decisions seems to be the result of an unintentional cognitive effect as opposed to the perceived informativeness of the earnings figure emphasized by management. Analysts' judgments and decisions were also affected by the presence of reconciliation, but in the opposite direction to those of nonprofessional investors. Specifically, the presence of a quantitative reconciliation led analysts to view pro forma earnings as more reliable, increasing their reliance on the pro forma disclosure in judging the earnings performance of the firm.

Press releases accompanying earnings restatements attempt to minimize negative reactions by explaining the reasons for the restatement. Although text-based press releases have been the norm for years, firms have recently begun using online video for such announcements. We examine the implications of doing so, and find that when a CEO accepts responsibility by making an internal attribution for a restatement, investors viewing the announcement online via video recommend larger investments in the firm than do investors viewing the announcement online via text. In contrast, when the CEO denies responsibility by making an external attribution for the restatement, investors viewing the announcement online via video recommend smaller investments in the firm than do investors viewing the announcement online via text. Our results also reveal that investor trust mediates the effect of disclosure venue and attribution on investment recommendations. These findings are important given the economic significance and trust-damaging implications of restatements, as well as the increased use of online video to make important announcements. Data Availability: Contact the authors for data and video.

We investigate a key assumption underlying much of the experimental research in financial accounting that graduate business students are a good proxy for nonprofessional investors. To conduct our investigation, we categorize recent experimental studies in financial accounting, based on the relative level of integrative complexity inherent in each study's task. We then conduct experiments using two tasks, one that is relatively low in integrative complexity and one that is relatively high in integrative complexity, and compare the responses of two groups of M.B.A. students and nonprofessional investors. Our results suggest that using M.B.A. students as a proxy for nonprofessional investors is a valid methodological choice, provided researchers give careful consideration to aligning a task's integrative complexity with the appropriate level of M.B.A. student. M.B.A. students who have completed their core M.B.A. courses and are enrolled in or have completed a financial statement analysis course are a good proxy for nonprofessional investors in tasks that are relatively low in integrative complexity. Though less definitive, the majority of our tests also suggest that these students are a good proxy for nonprofessional investors in tasks that are relatively high in integrative complexity. However, care must be taken when using students in the first-year core financial accounting course. In tasks that are relatively low in integrative complexity, these students perform similarly to nonprofessional investors except when they are asked to make an investment decision. In tasks that are relatively high in integrative complexity, these students acquire information similarly to nonprofessional investors, but they do not appear to integrate the information in a similar manner.

We present new theory and experimental findings indicating that investors ascribe value to firms that use higher financial reporting quality (FRQ), controlling for the influence of higher FRQ on their estimates of these firms' fundamental value. To guide our investigation, we draw on the cooperation literature in accounting, finance, and psychology. We identify expanded audit reports, particularly auditor commentary, as a mechanism that credibly communicates whether a firm uses higher FRQ. Auditor commentary increases investors' willingness to pay (WTP) more for shares of a firm using higher FRQ than a competing firm using lower FRQ. We also provide process evidence that investors perceive higher FRQ as cooperative behavior by measuring their affective responses and cognitive beliefs, which mediate the influence of audit commentary on investors' increased WTP for higher FRQ. A second experiment bolsters the link between investors' affective and cognitive responses to a firm's FRQ and perceived cooperative behavior.

Prior literature suggests that investors react less strongly to information in less readable disclosures. We extend this literature by considering how disclosure readability affects the sensitivity of investors' valuation judgments to the information contained in outside (i.e., non-firm) sources of information. Using an experiment, we present investors with a disclosure containing mixed news about the valence of firm performance, and this disclosure varies in readability. We find that investors who initially view a less readable firm disclosure provide valuation judgments that incorporate the outside information to a greater extent, such that their valuation judgments are more sensitive to whether outside information is relatively more or less supportive of management's positive forward-looking statements. We find evidence that this occurs primarily because investors who view a less readable initial disclosure feel less comfortable evaluating the firm and, in turn, rely more on the outside information. We also find that viewing a less readable firm disclosure indirectly increases the extent to which participants search outside information. Combined, our results suggest that investors' valuation judgments may be more influenced by outside sources of information when managers provide less readable firm disclosures, potentially limiting the extent to which managers can benefit from strategically issuing less readable disclosures to obfuscate poor performance. These findings also imply that investors might over-rely on more readable disclosures while discounting outside sources of information about the firm. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

This study examines disaggregated management forecasts as a mechanism to reduce investors’ fixation on announced earnings. Our experimental results suggest that investors’ earnings fixation is reduced when they initially observe a disaggregated management forecast (earnings and its components) versus when they observe an aggregated forecast (earnings only). We also provide theory-consistent evidence that this reduction in earnings fixation is associated with investors interpreting the summary net income figure as one of several similarly important evaluation inputs rather than a substantially more important input (relative to its components). Finally, we provide evidence that suggests our results are not bounded by the level of emphasis on net income in the subsequent earnings announcement, and not fully explained by three plausible alternative explanations. Our study extends the voluntary disclosure literature by providing evidence that the form of management disclosures can influence investors’ interpretation of subsequently announced information, and contributes to practice by providing a potential alternative to stopping earnings guidance.

We provide theory and experimental evidence consistent with an unintended, causal relation between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) performance and investors' estimates of fundamental value that can be attenuated by investors' explicit assessment of CSR performance. Consistent with “affect-as-information” theory from psychology, we find that investors who are exposed to, but do not explicitly assess, CSR performance derive higher fundamental value estimates in response to positive CSR performance, and lower fundamental value estimates in response to negative CSR performance. Explicit assessment of CSR performance, however, significantly diminishes this effect, indicating that the effect among investors who do not explicitly assess CSR performance is unintended; i.e., they unintentionally use their affective reactions to CSR performance in estimating fundamental value. Supplemental findings shed light on consequences of these fundamental value estimates: investors who do not explicitly assess CSR performance rely on their unintentionally influenced estimates of fundamental value to increase the price they are willing to pay to invest in the stock of a firm with positive CSR performance. Overall, our theory and findings contribute to the CSR and affect literatures in accounting by revealing the contingent nature of how and to what extent CSR performance influences investors' beliefs about firm value and the bids these investors are likely to make in equity markets. Data Availability: Contact the authors.