Voter rationality, the use of accounting information and voting behavior: evidence from a referendum

IF 2.1 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Pacific Accounting Review Pub Date : 2023-08-04 DOI:10.1108/par-01-2023-0006
Makoto Kuroki
{"title":"Voter rationality, the use of accounting information and voting behavior: evidence from a referendum","authors":"Makoto Kuroki","doi":"10.1108/par-01-2023-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to investigate whether objective and subjective rationality affects individual voters’ use of accounting information and if such use affects voting behavior. While prior accounting studies assume voter rationality concerning financial performance and political outcomes, this study distinguishes between two types of voters: objective rational voters (who make voting decisions about multiple alternatives based on objective information) and subjective rational voters (who make decisions based on their subjective values, and thus do not explore information or explore only information biased toward one alternative). This study expects that accounting information can influence the voting behavior of objective and subjective rational voters.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nFocusing on the 2020 Osaka Metropolitan Plan Referendum, this study used an online survey conducted on 768 respondents after the referendum.\n\n\nFindings\nThis study finds that objective rational voters use accounting information more than subjective rational voters, voters who used accounting information were more likely to vote against the referendum, and voting behavior is not directly affected by the type of rationality of voters; rather, objective rational voters are more likely to use accounting information that has a mediating effect on voting behavior.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe results advance the understanding of public sector accounting research and practices by providing evidence of the individual voter’s use of accounting information and their voting behavior in political contexts.\n","PeriodicalId":46088,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Accounting Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Accounting Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/par-01-2023-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to investigate whether objective and subjective rationality affects individual voters’ use of accounting information and if such use affects voting behavior. While prior accounting studies assume voter rationality concerning financial performance and political outcomes, this study distinguishes between two types of voters: objective rational voters (who make voting decisions about multiple alternatives based on objective information) and subjective rational voters (who make decisions based on their subjective values, and thus do not explore information or explore only information biased toward one alternative). This study expects that accounting information can influence the voting behavior of objective and subjective rational voters. Design/methodology/approach Focusing on the 2020 Osaka Metropolitan Plan Referendum, this study used an online survey conducted on 768 respondents after the referendum. Findings This study finds that objective rational voters use accounting information more than subjective rational voters, voters who used accounting information were more likely to vote against the referendum, and voting behavior is not directly affected by the type of rationality of voters; rather, objective rational voters are more likely to use accounting information that has a mediating effect on voting behavior. Originality/value The results advance the understanding of public sector accounting research and practices by providing evidence of the individual voter’s use of accounting information and their voting behavior in political contexts.
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
选民理性、会计信息使用与投票行为——来自公民投票的证据
目的本研究旨在探讨客观理性与主观理性是否会影响个体选民对会计信息的使用,以及会计信息的使用是否会影响投票行为。虽然之前的会计研究假设选民对财务绩效和政治结果具有理性,但本研究区分了两种类型的选民:客观理性选民(根据客观信息对多个选择做出投票决定)和主观理性选民(根据他们的主观价值观做出决定,因此不探索信息或只探索偏向于一个选择的信息)。本研究期望会计信息能够影响客观理性选民和主观理性选民的投票行为。设计/方法/方法聚焦2020年大阪都市计划公投,本研究采用了公投后对768名受访者进行的在线调查。研究发现:客观理性选民比主观理性选民更多地使用会计信息,使用会计信息的选民更有可能投票反对公投,投票行为不受选民理性类型的直接影响;相反,客观理性的选民更有可能使用对投票行为有中介作用的会计信息。原创性/价值研究结果通过提供个人选民在政治背景下使用会计信息及其投票行为的证据,促进了对公共部门会计研究和实践的理解。
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
Pacific Accounting Review
Pacific Accounting Review BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Pacific Accounting Review is a quarterly journal publishing original research papers and book reviews. The journal is supported by all New Zealand Universities and has the backing of academics from many universities in the Pacific region. The journal publishes papers from both empirical and theoretical forms of research into current developments in accounting and finance and provides insight into how present practice is shaped and formed. Specific areas include but are not limited to: - Emerging Markets and Economies - Political/Social contexts - Financial Reporting - Auditing and Governance - Management Accounting.
期刊最新文献
Auditor mood and audit quality: evidence from music sentiment measure Dissatisfaction with professional accountant training: the role of learning styles CSR disclosure quantity to CSR disclosure quality – in pursuit of a disclosure quality index Social capital and business strategy Corporate tax performance and the COVID-19 pandemic: empirical evidence from Indonesia
×
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