Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of attribute frames and justifications on capital budgeting decisions and to examine whether the requirement to provide justification for a capital budgeting decision moderates the effect of attribute frames.

One-hundred and eleven participants made a capital budgeting decision in an experimental case that manipulated the frame of the financial evidence provided and the requirement to provide a justification.

Results suggest that both attribute frames and justifications affect capital budgeting decisions but the requirement to provide justifications did not moderate the effect of attribute frames.

This study contributes to the capital budgeting literature by identifying two factors that may bias judgments. This study also contributes to the framing literature by examining one potential method of moderating framing effects – requiring justification for decisions.

Capital budgeting projects fail about as often as they succeed. Recent research shows that accountants may frame information related to capital budgeting projects to be consistent with their preference for the project (e.g., accept or reject), perhaps in order to persuade management to agree with them. Psychology research consistently shows that framed information results in systematic differences in judgments. The purpose of this study is to examine whether framed information affects capital budgeting decisions, and to examine whether this effect is moderated by the importance of the potential project. Results from an experimental case completed by 173 participants indicate attribute frames affect capital budgeting decisions, however, the effect is moderated by the importance of the decision.

Capital budgeting decisions frequently go awry. We investigate whether the party gathering the data utilizes persuasive communications when presenting the information to a superior. Specifically, we analyze whether the information is framed differently depending on his or her opinion. Since prior research has shown that differential framing of the same information affects decisions this may be one contributor to capital budgeting failures. We found that participants did frame the information differently depending on whether they chose to accept or reject the project. Our control group, no decision required, was materially different from the reject group but not materially different from the accept group.

As noted in chapter 3, workplace bullying has been proven to disproportionately affect those who are outside of the mainstream culture because of race, gender, or organizational position. In short, those who do not confirm to the hegemonic culture’s expectations are more likely to be the targets of bullying. This fact remains particularly evident in the examination of the gender and sexual minority (GSM) sample of this data collection. Rarely is 100% of one sample affected by bullying, as is the case of GSM employees working in community colleges. Therefore, this conceptual essay will use Allport’s (1979) theory on prejudice and descriptive statistics to reflect on the campus cultures that allow for GSMs to consistently face such abuse on the community college campus.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the social stigmatization of the formerly incarcerated identity and how this affects employment post-release. The authors consider the characteristics of this identity and the identity management strategies that individuals draw from as they navigate employment.

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 men at various stages of release from federal institutions in Canada. Participants were actively searching for employment, intending to or would consider searching for employment, or had searched for employment in the past post-incarceration. Participant data were simultaneously collected, coded and analyzed using an inductive approach (Gioia et al., 2012).

Formerly incarcerated individuals have a unique awareness of the social stigmatization associated with their criminal record and incarceration history. They are tasked with an intentional choice to disclose or conceal that identity throughout the employment process. Six identity management strategies emerged from their accounts: conditional disclosure, deflection, identity substitution, defying expectations, withdrawal and avoidance strategies. More specifically, distinct implications of criminal record and incarceration history on disclosure decisions were evident. Based on participants’ accounts of their reintegration experiences, four aspects that may inform disclosure decisions include: opportune timing, interpersonal dynamics, criminal history and work ethic.

The authors explore the formerly incarcerated identity as a socially stigmatized identity and consider how individuals manage this identity within the employment context. The authors identify incarceration history and criminal record as having distinct impacts on experiences of stigma and identity management strategic choice, thus representing the experience of a “double stigma”.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.