【正文】 n involvement/accountability group which made an investment remendation and justified (in writing) their probability assessments. The dependent variable in the study is the estimated probability of asset impairment. The dependent variable is measured five times (., once for each year of data)。 Guastello, 1988。 Guastello, 1984。s opinion on an issue would be controlled by a normal factor, bias, and by a splitting factor, involvement. Based on this suggestion, it is not surprising that differing levels of involvement were associated with differing evaluations in each of these studies. Drawing on the Zeeman39。 however, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) did not intend for the list of impairment indicators to be exhaustive. TABLE 1 Example Asset Impairment Indicators Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144 (FASB, 2020) a A significant decrease in the market price of a longlived asset (asset group) b A significant adverse change in the extent or manner in which a longlived asset (asset group) is being used or in its physical condition 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。 THE EFFECTS OF PRIOR INVOLVEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ON ASSET IMPAIRMENT DECISIONS Randall W. Rentfro Nova Southeastern University ABSTRACT This study examines whether longlived asset impairment decisions are biased when the decision maker was also involved in the original decision to invest in the asset. In addition, the study tests whether accountability for impairment decisions attenuates bias in the judgments made by individuals who were involved in the investment decision. The theoretical bases for the study’s research question and hypothesis e from the accountability and escalation of mitment literatures as well as a psychological theory previously untested in the accounting domain, the Catastrophe Theory of Attitudes (CTA). The study’s findings suggest that CTA may have potential to explain certain behaviors of accountants. Furthermore, accountability appears to mitigate bias stemming from prior involvement in the investment decision. INTRODUCTION This study examines (1) whether longlived asset impairment decisions are affected by decisionmaker’s involvement in the decision to invest in the asset and (2) whether accountability for the asset impairment decision mitigates biases in the decisionmaker’s judgment resulting from that prior involvement. The motivation for the study stems from the decisionmaking process required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of LongLived Assets(Financial Accounting Standards Board, 2020). The decisionmaking process begins with the accountant scanning the environment for indicators of asset impairments. If the accountant determines that an indicator is present, the accountant performs a recoverability test, which involves forecasting future cash flows from the asset, to determine if the asset is impaired. If the test shows that the asset is impaired, the accountant writes down the asset to its fair value. Throughout this process, the accountant must exercise significant professional judgment. As a result, the accountant’s asset impairment decisions may be affected by the acc