Information Processing Biases in Impairment Decisions: Effect of Reversibility of Impairment Losses and Disclosure Transparency
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We investigate the effect of regulatory requirements on impairment decisions and managers' search for and evaluation of impairment information. We manipulate reversibility of impairment losses (“can be reversed” versus “cannot be reversed”) and transparency in disclosures of impairment assumptions (more transparent versus less transparent) in a 2 × 2 experiment. We find that managers are more willing to impair when impairment losses can be reversed than when they cannot be reversed, but this effect does not vary with disclosure transparency. We also find that managers display information search bias in all four experimental conditions, however, regulatory requirements do not result in differences in the level of information search bias across the conditions. In contrast, regulatory requirements affect the differences in the level of information evaluation bias across conditions. We find that when impairment losses cannot be reversed, information evaluation bias is higher when disclosures are more transparent than less transparent. JEL Classification: M40; M41.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it