This study uses an experiment to examine three alternative theoretical explanations for the unintended effects of preannouncements on investor reactions to earnings news. The theoretical explanations are cue consistency, recency effects, and diminishing marginal reactions. The experiment varies the amount of a management preannouncement at five different levels while holding constant consensus analyst expectations prior to the preannouncement and the subsequent earnings announcement. Participants provide preliminary forecasts of current‐ and next‐period earnings per share (EPS) prior to the preannouncement, after the preannouncement, and after the earnings announcement. The pattern of participants' final next‐year EPS forecasts and the results of follow‐up analyses appear most consistent with the predictions of diminishing marginal reactions and, to a somewhat lesser extent, cue consistency, suggesting that both mechanisms play a role in determining the effects of preannouncements. There is little evidence supporting recency effects. Finally, supplemental evidence indicates that participants are unaware that preannouncements influence their reactions to earnings news, suggesting that the effects are unintended. This study has implications for managers who make preannouncement disclosure decisions and for academics who wish to understand and interpret prior research on earnings preannouncements.

This paper presents an experiment that examines the effect of pro forma earnings disclosures on the judgments of analysts (i.e., more sophisticated investors) and nonprofessional (i.e., less sophisticated) investors. In the experiment, participants developed stock price assessments after reviewing background financial information and a current earnings announcement for a company. The earnings announcement was manipulated to report only GAAP earnings in one condition and both pro forma and GAAP earnings in the other condition. Consistent with empirical evidence, the pro forma earnings in our experiment exceeded GAAP earnings. The results indicate that nonprofessional investors who received an earnings announcement that contained both pro forma and GAAP disclosures assessed a higher stock price than did nonprofessionals who received an announcement containing only GAAP disclosures. Financial analysts' stock price judgments were not affected by the pro forma disclosures. Followup analyses suggest that analysts and nonprofessional investors used different valuation models and information processing. Analysts used well-defined valuation models, based on either earnings-multiples or cash flows, while the nonprofessional investors were more likely to use simpler, heuristic-based valuation models. The pro forma disclosure did not cause nonprofessional investors to assess a higher earnings number for determining a stock price, but rather caused nonprofessionals to perceive the earnings announcement as more favorable, which in turn caused them to convert earnings or some other performance metric into a higher stock price. This effect appears to be due to unintentional cognitive effects, rather than nonprofessionals relying on pro forma earnings information because they perceived it to be informative.