【正文】 aw 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。 Sheridan amp。 overall assessments of the potential asset impairment based on the mixed evidence provided. This variable is consistent with idea in SFAS No. 144 that assets need only be tested for impairment if there is sufficient reason to believe that an asset impairment is possible. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The results provide some evidence of the applicability of the Catastrophe Theory of Attitudes (CTA) in the accounting domain. The parison of the probability estimates of the involvement group subjects with those of the control group subjects (see Figure 4) reveals some characteristics predicted by the CTA. In the CTA model, the attitudes of the subjects who are not involved in an issue will change in a linear fashion with changes in the positivity of information (., the magnitude of the normal factor). As individuals bee more involved, the pattern changes and bees discontinuous, perhaps even catastrophic. In Figure 4, the means for both groups of subjects appear to be changing in relation to the degree of positivity of asset impairment evidence. However, the involved subjects were slower than the control group subjects to incorporate the negative news into their probability assessments. This is consistent with CTA’s hystersis prediction. While the behavior exhibited by the involved subjects did not reflect a truly catastrophic change (as the CTA would predict for highly involved subjects), it does give some indication that involved subjects were reacting differently to the asset impairment evidence than the control group subjects. One reason why the differences are not dramatic may be that the involvement manipulation was not strong enough. In the context of the CTA model, the involvement manipulation may have only moved subjects a little to the front of the model on the involvement dimension (., the splitting factor) and, thus, created only small differences in the way subjects responded. Small differences in responses would be consistent with the CTA model because the discontinuous change in the attitude only develops as the level of involvement bees high. The finding that accountability mitigates involvement is consistent with prior studies showing that accountability reduces judgment biases. In every year except Year 4, involved subjects who had to justify their probability assessments estimated higher probabilities that the entertainment plex assets were impaired than the involved subjects who did not justify their assessments. Thus, accountability appears to attenuate the effects of the prior involvement in the asset investment decision. This finding is important because the CTA predicts a primacy effect. Acco。 Guastello, 1988。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。 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 accountant’s biases. This study looks at one source of bias suggested in the escalation of mitment literature: involvement in the original decision to invest in the asset. The escalation of mitment literature demonstrates that when a