【正文】 “to the extent that (a) suboptimal performance resulted from a lack of selfcritical attention to the judgment process and (b) improvement required no special training in formal decision rules, only greater attention to the information provided” (263). Similarly, in a review of the accountability literature in auditing, Messier and Quilliam (1992) conclude that accountability tends to increase the auditor39。 Guastello, 1988。 Sheridan amp。 Guastello, 1984。Tesser amp。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。 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。 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。 Nowak, 1994). As a result, the study helps to link the escalation of mitment literature with a psychological theory which, up to now, has not been applied in an accounting domain. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The next section provides a bri