The objective of this research was to constructively replicate the research of Brabham and Thoreson (1973) and Mitchell and Frederickson (1975) that led to the conclusion that handicapped counselors are preferred. Subjects were 337 male and female volunteers enrolled in psychology 101 which was taught during the Fall Quarter, 1984, at Utah State University. All subjects were asked to indicate their preference when considering 20 hypothetical problem situations for one counselor from among six photographs of handicapped and non-handicapped counselors. The 20 situations consisted of three types (personal, vocational, and educational). Each subject's score was the total number of times that the subject selected a handicapped counselor. T-tests for independent means were conducted to determined whether or not the group had a statistically significant preference for either handicapped or non-handicapped counselor when the subjects were considering all problems together and when subjects were considering specific problem types. Results indicate that subjects have no significant preference for either handicapped or non-handicapped counselor when all problems were considered. For Personal problems subjects preferred handicapped counselors. For vocational problems subjects preferred non-handicapped counselors. For educational problems subjects had no statistical significant preference. Interpretation of the results suggested preference for a handicapped or non-handicapped counselor is differentially affected by the problem type. It was recommended that much research remains to measure the magnitude of these preferences and the influence of these preferences on the process and outcome of therapy.

The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate auditors' judgments and decisions in the presence of an explicitly stated client preference. This investigation considers two factors. First, the temporal placement (i.e., timing) of the client preference is varied to allow for an examination of differential effects associated with the receipt of an early client preference and a late client preference. Second, client trustworthiness is varied so that participants may have a basis upon which to evaluate the client's representations (i.e., preferences). Practicing auditors, who were either managers or senior managers at a national accounting firm, participated in the study by completing two audit tasks in which the two factors were manipulated. Findings indicate that explicitly stated client preferences resulted in significantly different decision processes, but did not significantly influence auditors' judgment processes. However, further analysis indicated that there was no significant client preference (CP) effect observed for auditors' final decisions. Therefore, it appears that the influence of the client's preference was transitory. Taken together, these findings suggest that the CP did not result in a loss of auditors' objectivity. Auditors' judgments and decisions were sensitive to the client's relative trustworthiness. This finding suggests that auditors are responsive to a client's credibility when evaluating the client's representations. This result is expected given since generally accepted auditing standards require auditors to consider a source's credibility. However, it is surprising that auditors' evidence evaluation efforts were not differentially sensitive to the client's trustworthiness. Such a finding may indicate that the participating auditors' evidence evaluation efforts are more influenced by firm policy than individual judgment. / Ph. D.

Auditors regularly make judgments regarding whether a client’s chosen accounting policy is appropriate and in accordance with generally accepted accounting Principles (GAAP). However, to form this judgment, auditors must either possess adequate topic-specific knowledge or must gain such knowledge through information search. This search is subject to numerous biases, including a bias toward confirmation of a client’s preference. It is important to further our understanding of bias in auditors’ information search to identify its causes and effects. Furthering our understanding is necessary to provide a basis for recommending and evaluating a potential debiaser, such as accountability. the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) annually inspects the audit files of selected engagements, which introduces a new form of accountability within the auditing profession. This new form of accountability has come at great cost, however, there is little empirical evidence regarding its effects on auditors’ processes. As such, it is important to understand whether the presence of accountability from the PCAOB is effective in modifying auditors’ search behaviors to diminish confirmation bias. Using an online experiment, I manipulate client preference (unknown vs. known) and PCAOB accountability pressure (low vs. high) and measure search type (information –focus or decision-focus), search depth (shallow or deep) and documentation quality. I investigate whether auditors’ information search behaviors differ based on knowledge of client’s preference and in the presence of accountability from an expected PCAOB inspection. I also investigate whether differences in auditors’ information search behaviors influence documentation quality, which is the outcome of greatest concern to the PCAOB. I hypothesize and find a client preference effect on information search type such that auditors with knowledge of the client preference consider guidance associated with the client’s preference longer than those without knowledge of the client’s preference. Contrary to expectations, PCAOB accountability pressure does not influence information search depth. with respect to documentation quality, I find that auditors engaged in a more information-focused search have higher documentation quality. Further, as expected, auditors who initially engage in a decision-focus and deep search have higher documentation quality than those auditors who initially engaged in a decision-focused but shallow search.