In this study, we examine how norms about the use of negotiation strategies by different parties in an auditor–client negotiation influence the relative efficacies of these negotiation strategies. We conduct an experiment with experienced auditors/financial managers as participants, who enter into a negotiation on an income‐decreasing audit adjustment with a hypothetical client/auditor who uses a strategy where the same concessions are given either at the start, gradually, or the end of the negotiation. We find that the concession‐end strategy is more effective than the concession‐start strategy when used by auditors; however, the reverse is true when these same strategies are used by financial managers. The concession‐gradual strategy leads to superior outcomes when used by either auditors or clients. We also provide evidence that auditors’ and financial managers’ perceptions of the norms relating to the use of these strategies correspond to what we propose in our theory.

Disclosure standards mandate the quantitative disclosure of hedging‐instrument‐related risks but not the disclosure of hedged‐item‐related risks. We examine how a match (mismatch) in formats, caused by making quantitative (qualitative) hedged item disclosures alongside quantitative hedging instrument disclosures, affects investors' integration of information from these two related disclosures. Our first experiment varies the hedged item disclosure format (quantitative or qualitative) and the portion of risk hedged (small or large). We find that when disclosure formats are mismatched, the less comparable nature of the two disclosures caused investors to neglect the offsetting relationship when assessing net risks. As a result, risk and investment judgments were influenced by the more prominent quantitative hedging instrument disclosures. Our second experiment finds that the use of a qualitative debiaser that clarifies the relationship between the two disclosures led to the integration of information and mitigated this effect.