branga cercetator

8/2/2019 branga cercetator

1/14

Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 3, Spring 2003 (2003)

A RESEARCH TOOL TO INCREASEATTENTION TO EXPERIMENTAL

MATERIALS: MANIPULATINGPRESENTATION FORMAT

Elizabeth Dreike AlmerPortland State University

Jill R. HopperMiddle Tennessee State University

Steven E. KaplanArizona State University

ABSTRACT: Experimental approaches require researchers in a variety of ap-plied business disciplines to design experimental materials. This research is of-ten busy and difficult to secure high-level professionals; thus, researchers mustensure sufficient attention to experimental materials to provide usable data. Thecurrent study suggests an experimental design feature to encourage participantsto thoroughly process information contained in experimental materials. Basedon Reynolds (1992) selective attention strategy (SAS) model, variations in pre-sentation format were expected to influence the relative salience of informationpresented. Two aspects of presentation format were manipulated to increase sa-lience: display (paragraph vs. bullet point) and typeface (standard vs. boldunderlined). Results indicate display improved ability to retrieve information,but typeface did not. Implications for the design of experimental materials arediscussed.

KEY WORDS: experimental materials; research design, information format.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Jordan Lowe, David Williams,and Samantha Chan.

Address correspondence to Professor Elizabeth Almer, School of Business Administra-tion, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751; [email protected].

405

0889-3268/03/0300-0405/0 2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.


2/14

406 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Across a wide variety of business disciplines, behavioral research isconducted using experimental materials and subjects who are businessprofessionals. One of the most difficult and necessary design aspects ofthis research is to ensure that participants sufficiently attend to the ex-perimental materials. These participants, who may be reluctant volun-teers, are often high-level professionals such as corporate executives,board members or CPAs. As researchers, we compete for participantsscarce and valuable time and must consider how studies can be designedto get participants full attention, or at minimum, sufficient attention totest the research questions of interest. If participants dont attend toimportant dimensions of experimental materials, there has been a lackof inclusion importance (Yates, 1990, p. 376), which precludes getting

a response to that dimension we are interested in studying (Tan andYates, 1995). The practical implication for researchers is that we musteliminate these participants from subsequent analyses because theyhave not passed the basic manipulation checks. This then requires re-searchers to either go through the difficult and costly process of securingmore of these high level participants, or to accept the reduced statisticalpower resulting from a smaller sample.

Traditionally, researchers have relied on several methods to gainparticipant attention to experimental materials: altruistic motives ofparticipants, incentives or accountability. Given the positions of many ofthese participants, hoping they want to advance science through theirparticipation may not be the most reliable means to ensure attention toexperimental materials. Incentives too are problematic. Incentives thatare sufficient to increase attention for experienced professionals arelikely to be quite high and thus, are often cost prohibitive. Finally, astrong accountability manipulation precludes participant confidentialityor alternatively, may interject controversial deceptive methods into astudy (Dopuch, 1992). For example, the complexity of holding profes-sional respondents accountable for a task has led some researchers todeceive participants by only promising accountability, but then not fol-lowing through (Lord, 1992). While careful use of deception may be fairlyaccepted in psychology research (Adair et al., 1985), in other professionalfields such as accounting (Gibbins, 1992) and marketing (Kimmel, 2001),it is much more controversial. For these reasons, a significant portion ofexperimental applied business research does not include explicit means

of elevating the level of participants motivation. Thus, researchers areleft with a perplexing dilemma: How to enhance participant attention toexperimental materials without relying on participants to be self-moti-vated or incurring the difficulties brought about by accountability andincentives.

In an effort to address this problem and to aid researchers, the cur-


3/14

407E. D. ALMER, J. R. HOPPER, AND S. E. KAPLAN

rent study investigates an experimental design feature that can poten-tially improve participant attention when neither accountability nor in-centives will be used in the study. Following prior research which hasfound that effort-minimizing individuals are likely to use more salientinformation (Payne, Bettman and Johnson, 1993; MacGregor and Slovic,1986), this study examines whether variations in the presentation for-mat of information will increase the salience of that information, thusleading to increased attention by participants.

Experimental researchers make a variety of choices in designing andconducting research. One of the important choices made is the presenta-tion format for key information such as background data or informationabout independent variables. Historically, researchers have treated pre-

sentation format as an item to be controlled. This control has beenachieved by simply presenting information in a similar manner to allparticipants. While it may remove presentation format as an explanationfor results, this approach does not necessarily foster vigilant processingof information by participants.

The current study extends previous research by focusing on presen-tation format as a research tool for experimental design. It is importantto examine subtle variations in presentation format because these fea-tures are controllable by the researcher, their use is relatively transpar-ent in the study, and yet may influence the extent to which participantsattend to the experimental materials. The current study presents exactlythe same set of information to participants, but manipulates two aspectsof presentation format: display and typeface. Under display, informationis presented in either paragraph form or in bullet point form. Undertypeface, information is presented in either standard form or in a boldand underlined form. Information presented in a bullet point form or ina bold and underlined form is expected to be more salient, and thus, re-ceive greater attention and be more readily retrievable. The set of finan-cially related information in this study was manipulated in a betweensubjects design and was presented as part of an overall auditing caseinvolving assessing the financial ability of a company to sustain opera-tions for another year (i.e., going concern status an audit client). Resultssupport the expectation that information displayed in a bullet point for-mat resulted in better subsequent retrieval of information than para-graph display of information. However, contrary to expectations, manip-

ulating the typeface of information did not appear to affect retrieval ofinformation. This finding has significant implications for applied busi-ness researchers since it suggests that altering the presentation formatof information in experiments can be a viable and virtually costlessmeans of increasing the amount of attention accorded by participants toexperimental materials.


4/14


SALIENCE, ATTENTION, AND PRESENTATION FORMAT

The concept of salience is quite basic, defined by Webster as theproperty of standing out. Fiske and Taylor (1991, p. 246) elaborate onthis definition somewhat, characterizing salience as the extent to whichparticular stimuli stand out relative to others in their environment.They also contend that there are multiple sources of salience. Of particu-lar interest to the current study is the role of figural emphasis as asource of salience. Individuals have been found to spontaneously dividetheir perceptual field into figure and ground (Kahneman, 1973) with theportion that stands out in perception being considered the figurewhereas other elements in the field represent the ground. Research in

various areas of psychology has demonstrated that the figural stimuliare interpreted as being more salient (Kahneman, 1973; McArthur andPost, 1977) and that the level of attention directed to the figural stimuliis a function of the contrast between figure and ground (McArthur andPost, 1977).

Attention to information represents one of the crucial first steps ininformation processing (Fiske and Taylor, 1991) and is part of the pro-cess by which external stimuli are transformed into internal representa-tions. Thus, it provides the foundation for subsequent cognitive activitiessuch as learning and decision-making. The literature on text learning isdirectly related to the manner in which presentation format is expectedto impact attention and retrieval in the current study. Reynolds (1992)reviews and evaluates theoretical and empirical research on text learn-ing based upon his selective attention strategy (SAS) model of learning.The SAS model posits a linear, causal relationship between text salienceand attention as well as between attention and subsequent learning.This model indicates that salience is critical to the initial stage of thelearning process as information that is more salient receives more atten-tion and is, therefore, more readily learned.

The current study examines the role of salience in an audit judg-ment context. All participants were provided with exactly the same setof financially related client information. However, while the informationpresented was the same, display and typeface were manipulated as amechanism to alter information salience. These two presentation formatvariables are used to vary the extent to which the financially related

client information will appear figural and thus, require less cognitiveeffort and be more easily processed.The first presentation format variable is display. Display refers to

whether the financially related client information was shown in para-graph form (e.g., as a series of consecutive sentences) or in a series ofsentences organized as individual bullet points. While sentence contentand order were exactly the same, the bullet point presentation is ex-


5/14


pected to make the sentences appear more isolated from one another,and thus, more figural. The second presentation format variable is type-face. With the typeface manipulation, certain key words were eitherhighlighted through the use of a bold and underlined typeface or pre-sented in standard typeface. Key words that are presented in bold type-face and underlined should appear more prominent, and thus, more fig-ural. With both manipulations, the increased figure/ground contrast isexpected to increase salience of and subsequent attention to the informa-tion, thus improving acquisition of it. The improved acquisition shouldin turn, improve the extent to which the information is retrievable frommemory. This discussion leads to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Retrieval of financially related client information dis-played in a bullet point format will be greater than when displayedin a paragraph format.

Hypothesis 2: Retrieval of financially related client information pre-sented in a bold and underlined typeface will be greater than whenpresented in a standard typeface.

METHOD

Participants and Task

Participants for this study were undergraduate auditing students.Auditing students represented an appropriate group for the study be-cause of the interest in attention and retrieval processes as opposed to

judgment and choice. Also, relative to professional auditors, a large num-ber of auditing students was more readily accessible. A total of 247 stu-dents from four universities participated in the study and completed re-sponses were obtained from 225 students (107 male and 118 female). Allstudents had covered auditors responsibility for a going concern and thegoing concern audit report in their class prior to completing the task,thus they were sufficiently familiar with the topic contained in the exper-imental materials.

Participants were instructed that the task involved reading a case

in which they needed to assess the going concern status of a hypotheticalaudit client, EDA Inc. The case materials contained all the relevantpieces of information necessary to make such an assessment: a finan-cially related written description of the client, comparative financialstatements, selected ratios and the explanatory language that would beincluded in a going concern audit report if it was determined to be neces-sary. Information contained in the case materials was the same for all


6/14


participants, but the presentation format of the financially related infor-mation varied between subjects. After reading the case materials, partic-ipants were instructed to place them in a provided envelope and removean enclosed questionnaire. Participants were told to not look back at thecase materials as they completed the questionnaire. The case materialsand questionnaire were printed on different colors of paper in order toaid instructors monitoring students to ensure they did not look back atthe case materials while completing the questionnaire. No students werefound to look back at the case after the questionnaire was removed fromthe envelope.

The questionnaire first asked participants to specify the type ofaudit report they would issue for the client. Participants were then asked

specific questions about the nine pieces of financially related informationincluded in the case. Researchers employed both recall and recognitiontests in experimental material manipulation checks. Generally, recall isconsidered the cognitively more challenging task and the ability to recallan item would presumably represent a stronger test of whether an indi-vidual attended to an item. Thus, both types of retrieval were used toelicit participant responses in the current study. For approximately halfthe participants, the questions were in the form of a recognition test,whereas for the remaining participants the questions were in the formof a recall test. These questions served as measures of retrieval to testthe hypotheses. After answering retrieval questions, participants alsowere asked to indicate how many retrieval questions they believed theyanswered correctly. Lastly, participants completed a debriefing question-naire in which they were asked to provide demographic informationabout their gender, age, accounting experience, professional goals andacademic standing.

Participating auditing students did not receive any course credit fortheir involvement in the study and they responded anonymously to thequestionnaire. They were told, however, to do their best as it was criticalto success of the research project. These incentives (or lack thereof) wereused because they mimic those commonly used in much experimentalapplied business research.

Independent Variables

Display. The first independent variable was the manner in which thefinancially related information was displayed in the case (DISPLAY).There were two levels of DISPLAY, paragraph or bullet point, randomlyassigned between subjects. In the paragraph format, consecutive sen-tences in a paragraph provided the nine pieces of financially related in-formation to participants. For the bullet point format, these nine sen-


7/14


tences were presented in the same order, in nine consecutive bulletpoints.

Typeface. The second independent variable is typeface (TYPE). TYPE isthe typeface that the specific financially related information was pre-sented in. There were two levels of the variable, standard and boldunderlined, randomly assigned between subjects. In the standard for-mat, all financially related information was presented in a standardtypeface. In the bold underlined condition, the portion of financially re-lated information that is specifically asked about in the retrieval ques-tions was typed as bold and underlined.

Dependent Variable

Accuracy of retrieval was measured by the proportion of nine ques-tions answered correctly about financially related information presentedin the case. These questions addressed the following items stated in thecase: service provided, ownership structure, industry, failure rate, cashflow position, management ability in turning troubled companiesaround, Pacific Rim contract, level of interest rate and stability of inter-est rate. The questions were formulated to require either recall or recog-nition of specific information for each of these items.1 Because resultsdid not differ depending upon the format of the retrieval question, re-sponses were pooled for analysis purposes.

In an effort to understand the underlying process by which salience

impacts retrieval, a measure of participants self-insight was also elic-ited. Specifically, after responding to the retrieval questions, partici-pants were asked how many questions they believed were answered cor-rectly. This measure provides some indication of whether the participantswere aware of the extent to which they devoted attention to the finan-cially related information.

RESULTS

Retrieval

In order to evaluate H1 and H2, the effect of information format onretrieval was tested in a 2 2 ANCOVA model. The dependent variablein the analysis was the proportion of financially related information

1Recall responses were coded independently by two graduate assistants. In all cases,agreement between the graduate assistants was in excess of 90%. After measuring agree-ment, coding differences were reconciled by one of the authors.


8/14


questions answered correctly.2 The denominator for this proportion wasnine since there were nine financially related information questions.Two of the demographic variables were significantly associated with theretrieval, and thus, included in the model: accounting GPA (ACCGPA)and location (LOC) in which the data was collected. The results of the

ANCOVA model and descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1.The results shown in Table 1 Panel A indicate that there is a signifi-

cant main effect for DISPLAY (p < .0001). H1 predicts that more finan-cially related information will be accurately retrieved if it was presentedin bullet point format rather than paragraph format. Descriptive statis-tics by treatment are presented in Table 1 Panel B. As predicted, partici-pants who received the financially related information organized in bul-

let point format correctly retrieved 7.98 out of 9 items (89%), as comparedto only 6.74 items (75%) if the information was presented in paragraphform. However, H2 was not supported since the main effect for TYPEwas not significant (p < .6475). Retrieval was not associated with the

Table 1

ANCOVA Accuracy of Retrieval

Panel A: ANCOVA Results

Source of Variation SS Df MS F p-value

Covariates ACCGPA 34.05 1 34.05 12.22 .0006LOC 12.20 1 12.20 4.38 .0375

Main EffectsDISPLAY 83.84 1 83.84 30.10 .0001TYPE .62 1 .62 .22 .6380

DISPLAY*TYPE 2.06 1 2.06 .74 .3906Error 610.09 220 2.78

Panel B: Adjusted Treatment Means

DISPLAY TYPE

Paragraph Bullet Point Plain Bold Underline(n = 111) (n = 114) (n = 111) (n = 114)

Mean 6.74 7.98 7.31 7.41

(Std. Deviation) (1.68) (1.68) (1.67) (1.67)

2It could be argued that that because the proportion was based upon a binary responsevariable, the data should be analyzed as a logistic regression (SAS 1990) or an ANCOVAwhere the response has been transformed using an arcsine transformation. Data was ana-lyzed using both these methods. However, since the results do not differ qualitatively, forease of interpretation, the ANCOVA analysis is reported in the paper.


9/14


form of the typeface. In addition, ACCGPA and LOC were both signifi-cant (p < .0004 and .0349, respectively). Students reporting higher ac-counting GPAs correctly retrieved more financially related information.Location controlled for university-related differences such as instructoror student caliber and motivation.

Additional Analysis

As demonstrated above, the display manipulation was differentiallysalient. If participants were aware of the level of attention devoted tothe information, they should report more questions answered correctlyin the bullet-point than paragraph format. On the other hand, since the

typeface manipulation did not affect information salience, participantswould not be expected to report different numbers of questions answeredcorrectly in the standard versus bold and underlined typeface. To exam-ine whether participants appear to be aware of their level of attentionand memory accuracy, a supplemental analysis was conducted. Table 2presents the results of an ANCOVA model on the number of questionsparticipants believed they answered correctly. As before, the indepen-dent variables in the model are DISPLAY, TYPE, ACCGPA, and LOC.

The results shown in Table 2 Panel A indicate that there is a signifi-

Table 2

ANCOVA Participant Reported Number of Questions Answered Correctly

Panel A: ANCOVA Results

Source of Variation SS Df MS F p-value

Covariates ACCGPA 17.79 1 17.79 8.65 .0036LOC 4.03 1 4.03 1.96 .1630

Main EffectsDISPLAY 120.55 1 120.55 58.61 .0001TYPE 17.80 1 17.80 3.21 .0744

DISPLAY*TYPE 3.39 1 3.39 1.65 .2009Error 450.47 220 2.06

Panel B: Adjusted Treatment Means

DISPLAY TYPE

Paragraph Bullet Point Plain Bold Underline(n = 111) (n = 114) (n = 111) (n = 114)

Mean 6.35 7.84 6.93 7.27(Std. Deviation) (1.43) (1.41) (1.46) (1.44)


10/14


cant main effect for DISPLAY (p < .0001). Descriptive statistics by treat-ment are presented in Table 2 Panel B. The higher number of questionsreported to be answered correctly in the bullet point format indicatesthat participants were aware of having paid more attention to informa-tion when it was presented in bullet point format than when it was pre-sented in paragraph format. The difference between the number of ques-tions reported to be answered correctly under the standard versus boldunderlined typeface was marginally significant (p < .0744). As shown inTable 2 Panel B, the number of questions participants reported answer-ing correctly was greater under the bold underlined typeface. Thus, eventhough the plain typeface did not influence actual retrieval it was mar-ginally associated with a weak perception of accuracy.

DISCUSSION

Consistent with the effort-accuracy paradigm that has received sub-stantial support within psychology (Payne et al., 1993), the premise forthe current study is that individuals tend to be effort minimizing whenparticipating in experimental sessions. Researchers in applied businesssettings have attempted to mitigate this tendency by utilizing incentivesor accountability in experiments, often at substantial cost (Boatsman,Moeckel, and Pei, 1997). However, researchers are commonly unable toincorporate either of these features into their experimental research. Theabsence of these features raises concerns that participants will not at-tend to the experimental materials. This failure to attend to importantdimensions of the experimental materials leads to a lack of inclusionimportance (Yates, 1990; Tan and Yates, 1995). From a practical stand-point, these participants do not pass the manipulation checks and arethen eliminated from subsequent analyses.

The aim of the current study was to examine the relatively subtlefactor of presentation as a means to improve participant attention. Thisstudy examined the role of information salience on directing partici-pants effort and attention to certain financially related informationalitems in the hypothetical case. It was expected that variations in presen-tation format would impact the figure/ground contrast of these items,thus increasing their salience and the attention they are accorded. Be-

cause we were not certain on how to best manipulate the figure/groundcontrast, the current study involved two different manipulations. Onemanipulation involved display while the other involved typeface. Each ofthese manipulations was intended to make key information item standout to the reader and draw attention to the item.

Turning to the results, the study found that display had a significantimpact on participants ability to retrieve information. Specifically, indi-


11/14


viduals whose case materials presented the financially related informa-tion in bullet point format were better able to retrieve more of that infor-mation than individuals who received that information in paragraphformat. Thus, the results from our study offer support for hypothesis one.However, contrary to our hypothesis two, typeface (i.e., whether keywords or phrases were bold and underlined) did not affect the partici-pants ability to retrieve information. Our results indicate that simplyhighlighting specific information in bold and underlined typeface is notlikely to increase subjects ability to subsequently retrieve that informa-tion.

In considering our pattern of results, it is important to note that ourpurpose was not to test the theory on the relationship between figure and

ground. Prior research has established that individuals tend to attendto items that stand out (Kahneman, 1973; McArthur and Post, 1977).Instead, our purpose was to apply this theory by identifying specificforms of presentation form that represent sufficient means to allow cer-tain key items to stand out and thus, enhance attention. Our findingssuggest that the display manipulation provides a sufficient means forfinancial items to stand out whereas the typeface manipulations did not.

The findings from this study have several implications for research-ers who design and use experimental materials. Well-designed materialsare critical not only to ensure experimental control, but also to ensurethat adequate attention is expended on the part of participants to facili-tate testing specific theories. It is plausible that in testing certain theo-ries, insignificant findings could be found not because of shortcomings inthe theory, but because of a lack of attention by participants. This studydemonstrates that when designing experiments, it is possible to improveparticipant attention without the complications that arise from the ac-countability or incentive features previously used by applied businessresearchers. As evidenced by our lack of findings for typeface, not allforms of salience enhancements will translate into differential attentionand encoding. The current results on bullet point versus paragraph dis-play demonstrate that specific formats of information presentation canincrease retrieval accuracy. The results should be particularly useful toothers planning on conducting an experimental study in the often en-countered situation where participants incentives and/or their account-ability will be low.

However, two potential cautions related to this study should benoted. First, the use of salience enhancing presentations may raise aquestion about demand effects. The potential exists that highlighting in-formation may represent a signal that leads participants to discern thestudys underlying hypothesis, and respond in a manner to make thehypothesis true. In considering this potential, several points should benoted. Concerns over demand effects, typically are raised for studies em-


12/14


ploying repeated measures (Harsha and Knapp, 1990). In a repeatedmeasures design, participants are able to observe multiple levels of amanipulated variable, which provides a direct signal to participantsabout the focus of the study. Even when certain information is mademore salient, as long as the variable is between subjects participants willonly be exposed to one level of the variable. Further, if this is a concern,enhancing the salience of several pieces of information could reduce thispotential.

A second caution of manipulating presentation format may involvea trade-off with external validity. That is, while a bullet point displayappears to represent the most salient form of information presentation,it is possible that this form would not typically be used to present certain

kinds of information in the real world. Thus, for researchers choosingto increase attention through presentation format rather than throughpotentially problematic incentives or accountability, appropriate designof experimental materials must be carefully considered in order to avoidunnecessary noise in a study.

The analysis of participants reported number of questions answeredcorrectly offers some preliminary evidence as to whether participants areaware of the level of attention accorded to information. Consistent withthe retrieval results, the number of questions participants reported an-swering correctly was greater under a bullet point display than a para-graph display. Surprisingly, typeface marginally influenced the numberof questions participants reported answering correctly, even though ithad no influence on actual accuracy. While participant awareness maynot have a direct impact on experimental design, it is of interest to re-searchers attempting to increase information salience, and thereby, par-ticipant attention.

The current study represents an initial study into the role of infor-mation presentation as a means of increasing participant attention toexperimental materials and ensuring inclusion importance (Yates,1990). It suggests that applied business researchers can improve atten-tion to experimental materials even when the study does not use eitherincentives or accountability. An important consequence for researchersis that such techniques may lead to the loss of fewer valuable partici-pants due to manipulation check failures. However, this study does nottest the relative effectiveness of presentation format, accountability and

incentives. A worthwhile endeavor would be to make this explicit com-parison between these attention-increasing techniques.Another potential area for future research is to examine the impact

of presentation format on retrieval for longer and more complex informa-tion sets. Participants in the current study were presented with onlynine pieces of information that were a relatively short and simple infor-


13/14


mation set. Further, none of the pieces of information in the current casewas inconsistent with a troubled client. The use of both consistent andinconsistent information would represent one approach to creating amore complex information set. Notable in this regard, the current studysfocus on a relatively short information set actually worked against find-ing statistically significant differences between treatment levels. Thus,it is possible that the effects of typeface could be significant for a longeror more complex information set. The role of differential salience in pre-sentation formats for such information sets represents an area for fur-ther research.

In closing, it is worth reiterating that participants in the currentstudy were provided with no monetary or other incentives and were not

explicitly held accountable for their responses. This setting is typical ofthe setting commonly used in experimental studies in business wherethe incentives and pressures of real life environments are absent. Thus,results should be particularly useful to others planning on conductingan experimental study where participants incentives will be low. It is,however, unclear from the current study whether the effects found fordisplay will generalize to an environment where participants face greaterincentives or accountability.

REFERENCES

Adair, J.G., Dushenko, T.W. and Lindsay, R.C.L. (1985). Ethical Regulations And Their

Impact On Research Practice. American Psychologist, 40(1), 5972.Andersen, J.C. and Reckers, P.M.J. (1992). An Empirical Investigation of the effects ofPresentation Format and Personality on Auditors Judgment in Applying AnalyticalProcedures. Advances in Accounting, 10, 1943.

Boatsman, J., R., Moeckel, C, and Pei, B. K. W. (1997). The Effects of Decision Conse-quences on Auditors Reliance on Decision Aids in Audit Planning. Organizational Be-havior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 211247.

Doupich, N. (1992). Another Perspective on the Use of Deception in Auditing Experiments.Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 11(2), 109112.

Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social Cognition, New York: McGraw-Hill.Gibbins, M. (1992). Deception: A Tricky Issue for Behavioral Research in Accounting and

Auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 11(2), 113 126.Harsha, P.D. and Knapp, M.C. (1990). The Use of Within- and Between-Subjects Experi-

mental Designs in Behavioral Accounting Research: A Methodological Note. Behav-ioral Research in Accounting, 2, 5062.

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kimmel, A.J. (2001). Deception in Marketing Research and Practice: An Introduction. Psy-

chology and Marketing, 18(7), 657661.MacGregor, D.G. and Slovic, P. (1996). Graphical Representation of Judgmental Informa-tion. Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 179200.

McArthur, L.Z. and Post, D.L. (1977). Figural Emphasis and Person Perception. Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 520535.

Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R. and Johnson, E.J. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker, Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.


14/14


Reynolds, R.E. (1992). Selective Attention and Prose Learning: Theoretical and EmpiricalResearch. Educational Psychology Review, 4(4), 345389.

SAS (1990). SAS/STAT Users Guide, Volume 2, Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Tan, H. and Yates, J.F. (1995). Sunk Cost Effects: The Influences of Instruction and Future

Return Estimates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(3),311319.

Yates, J.F. (1990). Judgment and Decision Making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

branga cercetator

Documents

Transcript of branga cercetator