This study complements and extends prior decision aid (DA) research by examining the DA reliance behavior of professional buy-side financial analysts in the context of their actual work environment. A large mutual fund company provided data on buy-side analysts' earnings forecasts over the course of one year, during which forecasts were made at the end of each quarter for the following four consecutive quarters. As part of the decision process, all analysts could voluntarily access a DA to assist them in forecasting earnings. Consistent with extant DA theory, the results indicate that analysts with greater performance-contingent incentives were less likely to rely on the DA and analysts with more complex portfolios were more likely to rely on the DA. Contrary to the results of most DA research and inconsistent with extant DA theory, analysts with greater task ability relied more on the DA than analysts with lesser ability. Finally, when DA reliance was high, analysts' forecast accuracy was also high, regardless of DA accuracy. The results provide valuable insight into the use of DAs by professional decision makers and the influence of DA reliance on their judgments in light of real-world pressures and performance consequences. The theoretical and practical implications of this study call for more research into why, how, and under what conditions highly skilled knowledge workers rely on the advice of DAs.

ABSTRACT: The current study examines the outcomes of three fraud brainstorming procedures—nominal group, round robin, and open discussion—via a randomized between-participant field experiment involving 150 audit clients and 2,614 auditors who participated in natural, hierarchical audit teams. The results indicate that nominal group and round robin brainstorming resulted in equivalent numbers of unique fraud risks and comparable increases in planned audit hours, while open discussion brainstorming yielded the least number of unique ideas and the smallest increase in planned audit hours. Furthermore, nominal group and round robin brainstorming yielded more changes/additions to the nature and timing of substantive testing than open discussion brainstorming. Study findings offer theoretical and practical insight into fraud brainstorming.

Prior research indicates that analysts do not fully adjust for the general downward bias in earnings guidance issued by management. We report the results of two experiments designed to investigate how guidance track record and analysts’ incentives jointly explain the extent to which analysts adjust for guidance bias. Our results suggest that analysts with accuracy incentives adjust for management’s track record of downwardly biased guidance when the bias is relatively small (one cent), but those with relationship incentives do not. Furthermore, the difference in adjustment is larger when the bias track record is inconsistent than when it is consistent. Also, when guidance bias is larger (two cents) relative to smaller (one cent), analysts with relationship incentives partially adjust, as they appear to strike a balance between accuracy and their desire to please management. These findings hold implications for investors, regulators, and the interpretation of prior research.

Prior research indicates that analysts do not fully adjust for the general downward bias in earnings guidance issued by management. We report the results of two experiments designed to investigate how guidance track record and analysts incentives jointly explain the extent to which analysts adjust for guidance bias. Our results suggest that analysts with accuracy incentives adjust for managements track record of downwardly biased guidance when the bias is relatively small (one cent), but those with relationship incentives do not. Furthermore, the difference in adjustment is larger when the bias track record is inconsistent than when it is consistent. Also, when guidance bias is larger (two cents) relative to smaller (one cent), analysts with relationship incentives partially adjust, as they appear to strike a balance between accuracy and their desire to please management. These findings hold implications for investors, regulators, and the interpretation of prior research.

Les études précédentes indiquent que les analystes n’ajustent pas totalement leurs évaluations en fonction du biais général à la baisse des annonces de résultats prévisionnels faites par les directions d’entreprises. Les auteurs rapportent les résultats de deux expériences visant à déterminer comment la feuille de route des entreprises en ce qui a trait à la publication de résultats prévisionnels et les enjeux motivant les analystes expliquent de concert la mesure dans laquelle ces derniers ajustent leurs évaluations en fonction du biais des annonces de résultats prévisionnels. Ces résultats d’expérience semblent indiquer que les analystes pour qui l’enjeu est celui de l’exactitude ajustent leurs évaluations selon la feuille de route de la direction en ce qui a trait à la publication de résultats prévisionnels biaisés à la baisse lorsque le biais est relativement modeste (un cent), mais que les analystes pour qui l’enjeu est celui de leur relation avec la direction s’en abstiennent. Au surplus, la différence dans l’ajustement est plus importante lorsque la feuille de route de l’entreprise en matière de biais est irrégulière que lorsqu’elle est régulière. Aussi, lorsque le biais des annonces de résultats prévisionnels est plus important que moins (deux cents par rapport à un cent), les analystes pour qui l’enjeu est celui de la relation avec la direction procèdent à un ajustement partiel, paraissant ainsi rechercher un équilibre entre exactitude et volonté de plaire à la direction. Ces constatations ont des répercussions pour les investisseurs, les autorités de réglementation et l’interprétation des études précédentes.