Manipulation Check. Confirming that the manipulation was successful, participants in the scarcity condition reported a stronger experience of financial scarcity (n = 31, M = 5.98, SD = 0.89) compared to participants in the abundance condition (n = 31, M = 2.82, SD = 1.07, t[57.9] = 12.63, p < .001, g = 3.21). Gaze data
Manipulation Check. To check the effectiveness of the manipulation and to test the implication of the motivational information, we used two subscales (one for the intrinsic and one for the extrinsic information condition). Both subscales consisted of four items with a 7-point Likert scale (‘is very unlike me’ versus ‘is very like me’). A principal component analysis (PCA) on the intrinsic motivation manipulation check (‘I believe this task will be useful when I work on other school assignments and when reading leisure texts’: = .81) for the data in experiment one showed a good fit for
Manipulation Check. We checked the effectiveness of the information source manipulation in the same way as in Study 4.1.
Manipulation Check. Accountability Recall that auditors in the accountability condition are held accountable for their judgment process according to the relevant accounting standards (AS 2810 and AS 1015). Relative to auditors in the other conditions, auditors in the accountability conditions indicated that it was more important to 1) “review relevant evidence, regardless of whether it appears to corroborate or to contradict management’s assertions” (i.e., AS 2810 requirements) (one-tailed p = 0.02); and 2) “think about the audit evidence objectively” (i.e., AS 1015 requirements) (one-tailed p < 0.01). This indicates a successful manipulation of accountability in the study.11 Auditor Incentive After auditors read the audit firm’s concern that was used to manipulate auditor incentives, they were asked to describe the firm’s concern in their own words. While this 10 For example, if one participant viewed two evidence items during the information search and evaluated the item A at 7.0 and item B at 4.5 on the 11-point Likert scale and the average evaluation of item A and item B by all participants is 7.3 and 5.5 respectively, then the value for Evaluation for this participant is calculated as: ((7.0/7.3) + (4.5/5.5))/2 = 0.89. In this case, the participant evaluated the evidence more conservatively than did the average participant. Standardization of the evidence evaluation measure is necessary because it makes information evaluation comparable across different participants when each participant viewed a different combination of positive and negative items.
Manipulation Check the manipulation check consists of 3 questions included in the medical decision-making task that talk about the complexity of the medical scenario, participant’s comfort level interacting with the patient, and severity of symptoms (see Appendix B). Participants are asked to rate each question on a 5 point scale. An example question includes “how complex is the medical scenario?” with a 5 point scale of 1 not at all to 5 very complex. Pro-social Rating Scale. Confederates (rated verbal and non-verbal pro-social behavior) and coders (rated verbal pro-social behavior) were given a rating sheet and were asked to rate on a 5-point scale ranging from not at all (1) to very much (5) how warm and supportive the participant’s reactions are (see Appendix C1 and Appendix C2). Example statements include “the participant attended to the upset confederate” and “the participant verbally expressed that the confederate was cared for.” Coders and confederates were also given descriptions of certain behaviors to look for in each statement. For example, in the “the participant attended to the upset confederate” statement sample descriptions included “showing a look of concern” and “patted the confederate on the back.” If the participant showed one of the reaction descriptions listed underneath each statement they would get a 2 rating. If participants showed 2 reactions they received a 3 rating, and so forth. Participants received a 1 if no response listed was exhibited according to the coder and confederate. An additional item that stated, “the participant judges the confederate for his/her emotional reaction” was also removed from the study as it had no variability. Coders rated the participants on 5-items as the first item consisted of non-verbal behavior. Confederates were given a 6-item rating sheet. The coders and confederates were unaware of the participant’s attachment style, empathic levels and whether the participant received the empathy prime or not. As soon as the study ended, confederates rated the participant in the room by themselves to avoid influence by the co-investigator. Coders had the lab room with the audio recordings to
