Researching Juror Judgment and Decision Making in Cases of Alleged Auditor Negligence: A Toolkit for New Scholars

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE Behavioral Research in Accounting Pub Date : 2018-03-01 DOI:10.2308/BRIA-51878
Jonathan H. Grenier, Andrew Reffett, Chad A. Simon, Rick C. Warne
{"title":"Researching Juror Judgment and Decision Making in Cases of Alleged Auditor Negligence: A Toolkit for New Scholars","authors":"Jonathan H. Grenier, Andrew Reffett, Chad A. Simon, Rick C. Warne","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-51878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT: This paper provides methodological guidance to individuals interested in audit-related, juror judgment and decision-making (JDM) research. Specifically, we discuss key issues surrounding experimental design including participant selection, case selection and design, and identifying important independent, process, and dependent variables—discussions often omitted from published research in this area. We also address several issues encountered during the review process and through discussions with or presentations by other scholars. Overall, this paper is aimed at (1) increasing scholars', particularly newer scholars', awareness of the different design options that are available when planning juror JDM studies; (2) enhancing scholars' understanding of the costs and benefits of those options; and (3) helping scholars better foresee how different design choices ultimately will impact the inferences that can be drawn from their studies. Thus, this paper provides an easily accessible resource to help ...","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":"30 1","pages":"99-110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"31","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-51878","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

Abstract

ABSTRACT: This paper provides methodological guidance to individuals interested in audit-related, juror judgment and decision-making (JDM) research. Specifically, we discuss key issues surrounding experimental design including participant selection, case selection and design, and identifying important independent, process, and dependent variables—discussions often omitted from published research in this area. We also address several issues encountered during the review process and through discussions with or presentations by other scholars. Overall, this paper is aimed at (1) increasing scholars', particularly newer scholars', awareness of the different design options that are available when planning juror JDM studies; (2) enhancing scholars' understanding of the costs and benefits of those options; and (3) helping scholars better foresee how different design choices ultimately will impact the inferences that can be drawn from their studies. Thus, this paper provides an easily accessible resource to help ...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
审计师过失案件中陪审员的判断与决策研究——一个新学者的工具包
摘要:本文为从事审计相关、陪审员判断与决策(JDM)研究的个人提供了方法论指导。具体来说,我们讨论了围绕实验设计的关键问题,包括参与者选择、病例选择和设计,以及确定重要的独立变量、过程变量和因变量——这些讨论在该领域发表的研究中经常被省略。我们还通过与其他学者的讨论或报告来解决在审查过程中遇到的几个问题。总体而言,本文旨在(1)提高学者,特别是新学者,在规划陪审员JDM研究时可使用的不同设计选项的意识;(2)加强学者对这些选择的成本和收益的理解;(3)帮助学者更好地预见不同的设计选择最终将如何影响从他们的研究中得出的推论。因此,本文提供了一个易于获取的资源来帮助……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Relative Performance Information and Rule-Breaking: The Moderating Effect of Group Identity In All Fairness: A Meta-Analysis of the Tax Fairness–Tax Compliance Literature I’m Working Hard, but It’s Hardly Working: The Consequences of Motivating Employee Effort That Fails to Achieve Performance Targets Auditor Materiality Disclosures and Investor Trust: How to Address Conditional Risks of Disclosure Mandates The Conservatism Principle and Asymmetric Preferences over Reporting Errors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1