Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 839–865 | Cite as

Does concrete language in disclosures increase willingness to invest?

  • W. Brooke Elliott
  • Kristina M. Rennekamp
  • Brian J. WhiteEmail author


As part of its push for more plain English in disclosures, the SEC argues that firms should use more concrete language to make abstract concepts clearer to investors. We use two experiments to show that, when concrete language is highlighted in a prospectus, investors are significantly more willing to invest in a firm than when abstract language is highlighted. Furthermore, we show the effect of concrete language is particularly important when investors feel more psychologically distant from a firm. Drawing on psychology theory, we predict and find that concrete language increases investors’ feelings of comfort in their ability to evaluate an investment. Our study contributes to the literature on how language choices in disclosures affect investors’ judgments by demonstrating that a simple, yet potentially powerful reporting tool of emphasizing concrete language may attract investors who may otherwise be reluctant to invest.


Corporate disclosure Local bias Concrete language Investor comfort Psychological distance 

JEL Classification

M41 D83 C91 G02 



We thank Tim Bauer, Rob Bloomfield, Jason Brown, Max Hewitt, Frank Hodge, Pat Hopkins, Joseph Johnson, Lisa Koonce, Susan Krische, Bob Libby, Mark Nelson, Mark Peecher, Stephen Rowe, Nick Seybert, D. Shores, and seminar participants at Cornell University, Indiana University, London Business School, Texas Tech University, the University of Central Florida, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the University of Maryland, and the University of Washington for helpful comments. We also thank Steph Grant, Zheng Leitter, and Ben Van Landuyt for research assistance and Andy Warfel for graphic design work.


  1. Alter, A., & Oppenheimer, D. (2008). Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science, 19, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Core, J. (2001). A review of the empirical disclosure literature: A discussion. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31, 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coval, J., & Moskowitz, T. (1999). Home bias at home: Local equity preference in domestic portfolios. The Journal of Finance, 54, 2045–2073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coval, J., & Moskowitz, T. (2001). The Geography of Investment: Informed Trading and Asset Prices. Journal of Political Economy, 109, 811–841.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, A., Ge, W., Matsumoto, D., & Zhang, J. (2014). The effect of manager-specific optimism on the tone of earnings conference calls. Working paper.
  7. Davis, A., Piger, J., & Sedor, L. (2012). Beyond the numbers: Measuring the information content of earnings press release language. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29, 845–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, A., & Tama-Sweet, I. (2012). Managers use of language across alternative disclosure outlets: Earnings press releases versus MD&A. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29, 804–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Demers, E., & Vega, C. (2011). Linguistic tone in earnings announcements: News or noise? Working paper.
  10. Douglas, K., & Sutton, R. (2006). When what you say about others says something about you: Language abstraction and inferences about describers’ attitudes and goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Douglas, K., & Sutton, R. (2010). By their words ye shall know them: Language abstraction and the likeability of describers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 366–374.Google Scholar
  12. Elliott, W. B. (2006). Are investors influenced by pro forma emphasis and reconciliations in earnings announcements? The Accounting Review, 81, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman, R., Govindaraj, S., Livnat, J., & Segal, B. (2010). Management’s tone change, post earnings announcement drift and accruals. Review of Accounting Studies, 15, 915–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frederickson, J., & Miller, J. (2004). The effects of pro forma earnings disclosures on analysts’ and nonprofessional investors’ equity valuation judgments. The Accounting Review, 79, 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. French, K., & Poterba, J. (1991). Investor diversification and international equity markets. The American Economic Review, 81, 222–226.Google Scholar
  16. Graham, J., Harvey, C., & Huang, H. (2009). Investor competence, trading frequency, and home bias. Management Science, 55, 1094–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grinblatt, M., & Keloharju, M. (2001). How distance, language, and culture influence stockholdings and trades. The Journal of Finance, 56, 1053–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hales, J., Kuang, J., & Venkataraman, S. (2011). Who believes the hype? An experimental investigation of how language affects investor judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 49, 223–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1576–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preferences and beliefs: Ambiguity and the competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henry, E. (2008). Are investors influenced by how earnings press releases are written? Journal of Business Communications, 45, 363–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hirst, D. E., & Hopkins, P. E. (1998). Comprehensive income reporting and analysts’ valuation judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 36, 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirst, D. E., Koonce, L., & Venkataraman, S. (2007). How disaggregation enhances the credibility of management earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 45, 811–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huberman, G. (2001). Familiarity breeds investment. The Review of Financial Studies, 14, 659–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hutton, A. P., Miller, G. S., & Skinner, D. J. (2003). The role of supplementary statements with management earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 41, 867–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iacobucci, D. (2009). Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structural equations modeling) but were afraid to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 673–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ivković, Z., & Weisbenner, S. (2005). Local does as local is: Information content of the geography of individual investors common stock investments. Journal of Finance, 60, 267–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jeske, K. (2001). Equity home bias: Can information cost explain the puzzle? Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 86, 31–42.Google Scholar
  31. Kadous, K., Krische, S., & Sedor, L. (2006). Using counter-explanation to limit analysts’ forecast optimism. The Accounting Review, 81, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kang, J., & Stulz, R. (1997). Why is there a home bias? An analysis of foreign portfolio equity ownership in Japan. Journal of Financial Economics, 46, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim, H., Rao, A., & Lee, A. (2009). Its time to vote: The effect of matching message orientation and temporal frame on political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 877–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kothari, S. P., Li, X., & Short, J. (2009). The effect of disclosures by management, analysts, and business press on cost of capital, return volatility, and analyst forecasts: A study using content analysis. The Accounting Review, 84, 1639–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lawrence, A. (2013). Individual investors and financial disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56, 130–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, A., Keller, P. A., & Sternthal, B. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 735–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewis, K. (1999). Trying to explain home bias in equities and consumption. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 571–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Li, F. (2008). Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45, 221–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li, F. (2010). Textual analysis of corporate disclosures: A survey of the literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 29, 143–165.Google Scholar
  41. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. Kruglanski & E. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 353–381). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lundholm, R., Rogo, R., & Zhang, J. (2014). Restoring the tower of babel: How foreign firms communicate with US investors. The Accounting Review, 89, 1453–1485.Google Scholar
  43. Maines, L. A., & McDaniel, L. S. (2000). Effects of comprehensive-income characteristics on nonprofessional investors’ judgments: The role of financial-statement presentation format. The Accounting Review, 75, 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller, B. (2010). The effects of reporting complexity on small and large investor trading. The Accounting Review, 85, 2107–2143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  46. Rennekamp, K. (2012). Processing fluency and investors’ reactions to disclosure readability. Journal of Accounting Research, 50, 1319–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Securities and Exchange Commission. (1998). A plain English handbook: How to create clear SEC disclosure. Washington, DC: SEC Office of Investor Education and Assistance.
  48. Sedor, L. (2002). An explanation for unintentional optimism in analysts’ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review, 77, 731–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Semin, G. (2001). Language and social cognition. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 159–180). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Semin, G. (2008). Language puzzles: A prospective retrospective on the linguistic category model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Semin, G., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Semin, G., & Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2011). The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tan, H.-T., Wang, E., & Zhou, B. (2013). How does readability influence investors’ judgments? Consistency of benchmark performance matters. Working paper.
  55. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Nieuwerburgh, S., & Veldkamp, L. (2009). Information immobility and the home bias puzzle. Journal of Finance, 64, 1187–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. White, B. (2014). How do fair value disclosures affect investors’ judgments of estimate uncertainty and firm value? The role of investment horizon. Working paper, the University of Texas.
  60. Wigboldus, D., & Douglas, K. (2007). Language, stereotypes and intergroup relations. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 79–106). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  61. You, H., & Zhang, X. (2009). Financial reporting complexity and investor underreaction to 10-K information. Review of Accounting Studies, 14, 559–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhu, N. (2003). The local bias of individual investors. Working paper, Yale University.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Brooke Elliott
    • 1
  • Kristina M. Rennekamp
    • 2
  • Brian J. White
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.McCombs School of BusinessUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations