Investors commonly screen potential investments using financial and nonfinancial criteria (Kinder 2005). Although use of financial investment screens such as financial ratios is widespread, one out of every nine dollars invested has been exposed to a screening process that uses nonfinancial measures for items such as corporate governance or customer satisfaction (Invested Interests 2006). Despite the popularity of nonfinancial measures, academic literature offers little evidence regarding potential problems associated with using nonfinancial measures to screen potential investments. Nonfinancial measures often use unique scales (eg, rank versus rate values)(FASB 2001), as opposed to financial measures that typically are denominated in dollars. I argue that investors are more likely to rely on nonfinancial measures whose scales are comparable to the scale used to depict the investment screen than on measures presented on scales that are not comparable to the investment screen. This biased reliance is commonly referred to as the scale compatibility effect (Slovic, Griffin, and Tversky 1990; Tversky, Sattoth, and Slovic 1988). Scale compatibility effects are problematic because they can reduce the effectiveness of an investor’s nonfinancial screen. For example, when ranking companies on a customer satisfaction screen, investors, whose judgements exhibit scale compatibility effects, will place relatively more weight on nonfinancial measure inputs that are presented as rankings (ie, are scale compatible) than on input measures that are presented as ratings (ie, are scale incompatible). Relying more on scale-compatible, nonfinancial measures than on equally relevant scaleincompatible measures could allow the investor’s set of potential investments to exclude desirable companies or include companies he or she would otherwise deem inappropriate. Thus, scale compatibility effects suggest that superficial