【正文】 c A significant adverse change in legal factors or in the business climate that could affect the value of a longlived asset (asset group), including an adverse action or assessment by a regulator d An accumulation of costs significantly in excess of the amount originally expected for the acquisition or construction of a longlived asset (asset group) e A currentperiod operating or cash flow loss bined with a history of operating or cash flow losses or a projection or forecast that demonstrates continuing losses associated with the use of a longlived asset (asset group) F A current expectation that, more likely than not, a longlived asset (asset group) will be sold or otherwise disposed of significantly before the end of its previously estimated useful life. Identifying the presence of impairment indicators is critical to the recognition of asset the accountant determines that an indicator is present, no further action will be taken. To plicate matters, some impairment indicators may be unfamiliar to the accountant because they are nonfinancial in nature and may e from sources external to the accounting organization. As a result, this step relies heavily on the judgment of the accountant, whic h may be biased. This study focuses on this step in the decisionmaking process. The remaining two steps of the asset impairment process are as follows. If the accountant determines that one or more impairment indicators are present, the accountant then conducts a recoverability test. This test involves forecasting the future cash flows expected to be generated by the asset and paring the sum of the undiscounted future cash flows with the carrying amount of the asset. If the undiscounted future cash flows will not recover the carrying amount of the asset, the asset is considered to be final step in the process is to measure the amount of the impairment loss and reduce the carrying amount of the asset to its fair value. Like the first step in the process, each of these steps relies heavily on the potentially biased judgment of the accountant. LITERATURE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESIS The idea that prior involvement in an investment decision could affect subsequent judgments made by a decision maker was explored by Brown and Solomon (1987). In a study examining the effects of oute information on evaluations of managerial decisions (specifically, a decision made by a capital budgeting mittee), Brown and Solomon found that evaluations made by subjects who had prior involvement in the mittee39。s decision process did not reflect the oute information. For subjects who were not involved in the mittee’s decision, oute information affected the evaluation of the decision. Jeffrey (1992) examined the effect on auditors39。 loan evaluation judgments of personal involvement in sequential audits. The study provided evidence that involvement in a previous evaluation of a loan affects subsequent evaluations of the same loan when those evaluations are made by inexperienced the escalation of mitment literature as a theoretical basis, Jeffrey observed that previous involvement in the loan evaluation process may induce a tendency to make subsequent decisions conform to a prior evaluation (p. 805). In a recent study of personal responsibility and escalation of mitment, Schulz and Cheng (2020) find a significant positive relationship between high personal involvement and escalation of mitment to a project, even in the face of negative project information. In this capital budgeting context, Schulz and Cheng also find that reducing information asymmetry does not work as a deescalation strategy. Staw (1976) presented evidence of the escalation of mitment phenomenon in an investment decision context. In the study, subjects who were responsible for a prior investment decision that had produced negative consequences increased their level of mitment to that failing course of action when given the opportunity. However, this escalating mitment to a previously chosen course of action did not occur for actions that had produced positive consequences. Staw concluded that subjects were not merely trying to remain consistent in their choices of action. Using research on selfjustification as a basis, Staw argued that individuals take concrete actions to reduce negative consequences for which they are responsible in the hope of restoring an appearance of rationality to the previous choice of action. While the escalation of mitment phenomenon has been documented in many studies (see Staw amp。 Ross 1987 for a review), Brockner (1992) notes that there is much theoretical controversy over the explanation of escalation. Brockner argues that selfjustification theory provides an important, but only partial explanation of the escalation behavior. He notes that to explain escalation more pletely, other theoretical perspectives (., expectancy theory and prospect theory) must be considered. One theory which may offer insight into behaviors such as escalation of mitment is catastrophe theory. Catastrophe theory helps explain why smooth or continuous changes in inputs to a system canresult in discontinuous responses by the system (Zeema n, 1977). For example, economic indicators may change in a smooth, somewhat linear manner over time, but stock market indices may exhibit sudden jumps or discontinuities in response to economic news. Catastrophe theory provides a basis for studying such occurrences because it helps model psychological and other phenomena where changes in system responses (., behavior) are not linear In nature. Flay (1978) proposed a series applications of catastrophe theory to attitudes and social behavior. Flay based many of the applications on one particular model of catastrophe, the cusp catastrophe.