PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to attempt to analyze client influence on valuation in both Taiwan and Singapore. Both countries are chosen because of the similar level of economic development as well as professionalism amongst valuers. However, although both are Chinese‐dominated by population, the culture and language used are substantially different.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses a survey questionnaire to sample valuers' response to client influence in both Taiwan and Singapore. The questionnaire is organized into five parts: social economic data, client influence situation, potential factors, influence method, and influence abilities. The survey findings were analyzed using SPSS and subjected to a number of standard procedures to check for missing values and multivariate normality. Mean difference and F‐test were used to judge whether the valuers in the two countries have significantly different views on client influence.FindingsThe results show that client influence on valuation practices does exist in both Taiwan and Singapore. This is despite the differences in the market structures, development background and modes of doing business. Furthermore, the study finds that the degree and extent of the problem are different. These differences, as reflected in the differing views and opinions on the causes and factors leading to client pressure, are largely due to the systemic differences in the two countries, particularly, in the way businesses are conducted as well as the medium of communication being used.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to the research on client influence on valuation through a comparative study of two countries with substantially different business environments and language of communication. These differences seem to have an impact on how valuers view client influence despite their similar economic, educational and professional backgrounds.

Objective: This study tested the efficacy of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), compared with Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy (CBT), in alleviating academic procrastination. Method: A total of 60 (53.3% male) undergraduates suffering from academic procrastination were randomly assigned to two treatment groups (ACT and CBT) and a control group. The procrastination symptoms and related psychological mechanisms were assessed immediately after the closure of treatment and at 3-month follow-up (FU). Results: Both therapies showed remarkable short-term effects in decreasing procrastination, but ACT had a better long-term effect. Participants achieved self-esteem enhancement through treatment of both ACT and CBT. While ACT significantly decreased negative affect and improved neuroticism, CBT had a stronger effect on time management. Conclusion: The findings suggest that both CBT and ACT are effective interventions for procrastinators but may have different therapeutic mechanisms.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract