IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v108y2009i2p330-341.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context

Author

Listed:
  • Piercey, M. David

Abstract

A perplexing yet persistent empirical finding is that individuals assess probabilities in words and in numbers nearly equivalently, and theorists have called for future research to search for factors that cause differences. This study uses an accounting context in which individuals are commonly motivated to reach preferred (rather than accurate) conclusions. Within this context, I predict new differences between verbal and numerical probability assessments, as follows: first, individuals will justify an optimistic verbal assessment (e.g., somewhat possible) by retaining the option of re-defining it, in case of negative outcomes, as though the phrase really means something different, and, for that matter, means more things. This re-definition will maintain some connection to the original meaning of the phrase, but de-emphasized relative to the new meaning. Second, based on this behavior, I also predict individuals' verbal probability assessments to be (1) more biased and yet (2) perceived as more justifiable than their numerical assessments. I find supportive evidence in an experiment designed to test the hypotheses. This study contributes to motivated reasoning and probability assessment theories (1) with new evidence of how individuals can word-smith in multiple attributes of a phrase to justify reaching a preferred conclusion, and (2) with new, reliable differences between verbal and numerical probability assessments. This study has important theoretical and practical implications relevant to organizational contexts in which people assess the likelihoods of uncertainties in words or numbers, and with motivations to reach a preferred conclusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Piercey, M. David, 2009. "Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 330-341, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:108:y:2009:i:2:p:330-341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(08)00071-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Womack, Kent L, 1996. "Do Brokerage Analysts' Recommendations Have Investment Value?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(1), pages 137-167, March.
    2. Schweitzer, Maurice E & Hsee, Christopher K, 2002. "Stretching the Truth: Elastic Justification and Motivated Communication of Uncertain Information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 185-201, September.
    3. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Brun, Wibecke, 1999. "The Directionality of Verbal Probability Expressions: Effects on Decisions, Predictions, and Probabilistic Reasoning, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 155-190, November.
    4. Hershey, John C. & Baron, Jonathan, 1992. "Judgment by outcomes: When is it justified?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 89-93, October.
    5. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    6. Kennedy, J & Kleinmuntz, DN & Peecher, ME, 1997. "Determinants of the justifiability of performance in ill-structured audit tasks," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35, pages 105-123.
    7. Erev, Ido & Cohen, Brent L., 1990. "Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-18, February.
    8. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "Elastic Justification: How Unjustifiable Factors Influence Judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 122-129, April.
    9. Libby, Robert & Bloomfield, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2002. "Experimental research in financial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 775-810, November.
    10. Peecher, ME, 1996. "The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 125-140.
    11. Thomas S. Wallsten & David V. Budescu & Rami Zwick, 1993. "Comparing the Calibration and Coherence of Numerical and Verbal Probability Judgments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 176-190, February.
    12. Hamm, Robert M., 1991. "Selection of verbal probabilities: A solution for some problems of verbal probability expression," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 193-223, April.
    13. Budescu, David V. & Wallsten, Thomas S., 1990. "Dyadic decisions with numerical and verbal probabilities," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 240-263, August.
    14. Hershey, John C. & Baron, Jonathan, 1995. "Judgment by Outcomes: When Is It Warranted?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 127-126, April.
    15. Budescu, David V. & Wallsten, Thomas S., 1985. "Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 391-405, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wainberg, James S. & Kida, Thomas & David Piercey, M. & Smith, James F., 2013. "The impact of anecdotal data in regulatory audit firm inspection reports," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 621-636.
    2. Zhaobo Chen & Gangzhu Qiao & Jianchao Zeng, 2019. "Study on the Relationship between Worker States and Unsafe Behaviours in Coal Mine Accidents Based on a Bayesian Networks Model," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(18), pages 1-16, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:108:y:2009:i:2:p:330-341. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.