This paper examines the relationship between audit seniors discussing their own experiences with committing and correcting errors (modeling fallibility), and audit juniors' thinking about errors and error communication (openly discussing their own self-discovered errors). The paper investigates the direct relationship between senior modeling fallibility and juniors' responses, and whether the relationship is mediated through error strain and error-related self-efficacy. Survey data from 266 audit juniors from two Big 4 Canadian accounting firms showed a direct positive association between audit senior modeling fallibility and audit juniors' thinking about errors, and error communication. This relationship is positively mediated through error-related self-efficacy. We also found that the relationship is mediated by error strain. However, although audit senior modeling fallibility was associated with reduced error strain, error strain was positively related to both thinking about errors and error communication, contrary to our hypothesis. The paper discusses the theoretical and practical implications of these results.
{"title":"Audit Senior Modeling Fallibility: The Effects of Reduced Error Strain and Enhanced Error-Related Self-Efficacy on Audit Juniors' Responses to Self-Discovered Errors","authors":"Craig Emby, Bin Zhao, J. Sieweke","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-52471","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-52471","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper examines the relationship between audit seniors discussing their own experiences with committing and correcting errors (modeling fallibility), and audit juniors' thinking about errors and error communication (openly discussing their own self-discovered errors). The paper investigates the direct relationship between senior modeling fallibility and juniors' responses, and whether the relationship is mediated through error strain and error-related self-efficacy. Survey data from 266 audit juniors from two Big 4 Canadian accounting firms showed a direct positive association between audit senior modeling fallibility and audit juniors' thinking about errors, and error communication. This relationship is positively mediated through error-related self-efficacy. We also found that the relationship is mediated by error strain. However, although audit senior modeling fallibility was associated with reduced error strain, error strain was positively related to both thinking about errors and error communication, contrary to our hypothesis. The paper discusses the theoretical and practical implications of these results.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47601536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Eilifsen, Natalia V. Kochetova, William F. Messier
This paper investigates the potential of using a frequency response mode to reduce the dilution effect of non-diagnostic evidence on auditors' fraud risk judgments. In two experiments, we test one hypothesis and examine a research question related to the dilution effect where response mode (frequency versus probability) and type of non-diagnostic or irrelevant information are manipulated between-participants. Results of the hypothesis tests show that auditors' fraud risk judgments demonstrate a significantly lower dilution effect when they evaluate diagnostic and non-diagnostic or irrelevant evidence using a frequency response mode, as compared to the probability response mode; this effect is most pronounced when auditors are provided with favorable non-diagnostic or irrelevant evidence. JEL Classifications: M4; M40; M420. Data Availability: Summary data are available from the authors upon request.
{"title":"Mitigating the Dilution Effect in Auditors' Judgments Using a Frequency Response Mode","authors":"A. Eilifsen, Natalia V. Kochetova, William F. Messier","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-52467","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-52467","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper investigates the potential of using a frequency response mode to reduce the dilution effect of non-diagnostic evidence on auditors' fraud risk judgments. In two experiments, we test one hypothesis and examine a research question related to the dilution effect where response mode (frequency versus probability) and type of non-diagnostic or irrelevant information are manipulated between-participants. Results of the hypothesis tests show that auditors' fraud risk judgments demonstrate a significantly lower dilution effect when they evaluate diagnostic and non-diagnostic or irrelevant evidence using a frequency response mode, as compared to the probability response mode; this effect is most pronounced when auditors are provided with favorable non-diagnostic or irrelevant evidence.\u0000 JEL Classifications: M4; M40; M420.\u0000 Data Availability: Summary data are available from the authors upon request.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43786635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
William D. Brink, Lorraine S. Lee, Jonathan S. Pyzoha
ABSTRACT The external validity of conclusions from behavioral accounting experiments is in part dependent upon the representativeness of the sample compared to the population of interest. Researche...
行为会计实验结论的外部有效性在一定程度上取决于样本与感兴趣人群相比的代表性。研究。。。
{"title":"Values of Participants in Behavioral Accounting Research: A Comparison of the M-Turk Population to a Nationally Representative Sample","authors":"William D. Brink, Lorraine S. Lee, Jonathan S. Pyzoha","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-52103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-52103","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The external validity of conclusions from behavioral accounting experiments is in part dependent upon the representativeness of the sample compared to the population of interest. Researche...","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49632269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Richard Clune, D. Hermanson, James G. Tompkins, Z. Ye
ABSTRACT The Governance Committee (GC) is responsible for overseeing the effective functioning of the board of directors, but no previous research has been done on the GC process. Through in-depth ...
治理委员会(GC)负责监督董事会的有效运作，但之前没有对GC流程进行过研究。通过深入……
{"title":"The Governance Committee Process for U.S. Publicly Traded Firms","authors":"Richard Clune, D. Hermanson, James G. Tompkins, Z. Ye","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-52102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-52102","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Governance Committee (GC) is responsible for overseeing the effective functioning of the board of directors, but no previous research has been done on the GC process. Through in-depth ...","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44865545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Accounting research is dominated by three philosophical paradigms—positivism, interpretivism, and critique. Positivistic research dominates “top ranked” accounting journals. This paper argues that this is not because such research succeeds in discovering invariant “scientific laws” that enable prediction and control but because it is aligned with key beliefs and values in liberal democracies. Despite this inability to generate law-like generalizations, the perceived status of positivistic research could be entrenched by the rise of university rankings, thus reducing research diversity. This paper proposes that there are countervailing forces: differences in stakeholder interests in different national jurisdictions, some emergent diversity in North American journals, and the use of “mixed” research methods or qualitative research methods for positivistic purposes. These enable the ongoing development of interpretive and critical research. Through greater engagement with the complexities of practice, it is hoped that deeper research collaboration will occur, and I outline how this could happen.
{"title":"Radical Developments in Accounting Thought? Reflections on Positivism, the Impact of Rankings and Research Diversity","authors":"W. Chua","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-52377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-52377","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Accounting research is dominated by three philosophical paradigms—positivism, interpretivism, and critique. Positivistic research dominates “top ranked” accounting journals. This paper argues that this is not because such research succeeds in discovering invariant “scientific laws” that enable prediction and control but because it is aligned with key beliefs and values in liberal democracies. Despite this inability to generate law-like generalizations, the perceived status of positivistic research could be entrenched by the rise of university rankings, thus reducing research diversity. This paper proposes that there are countervailing forces: differences in stakeholder interests in different national jurisdictions, some emergent diversity in North American journals, and the use of “mixed” research methods or qualitative research methods for positivistic purposes. These enable the ongoing development of interpretive and critical research. Through greater engagement with the complexities of practice, it is hoped that deeper research collaboration will occur, and I outline how this could happen.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48251101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sascha Matanovic, Maximilian Schmidt, Arnt Wöhrmann
{"title":"Why Management Accountants Are Punished for Reporting Bad News: Understanding the Cognitive Processes","authors":"Sascha Matanovic, Maximilian Schmidt, Arnt Wöhrmann","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3313746","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3313746","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/ssrn.3313746","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68584024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Steve Buchheit, Derek Dalton, Troy Pollard, Shane R. Stinson
The use of online workers as research participants has grown in recent years, prompting interest in how online workers compare to traditional accounting research participants. To date, no study has compared the relative intelligence of online workers to student subjects. Such a comparison may be important to behavioral accounting researchers given the homogeneity of accounting students relative to online subject pools and given prior research suggesting accounting students have relatively high analytic ability. While graduate students outperform both undergraduate and MTurk participants on common intelligence tests and across two reasonably complex tasks, we find that MTurk participants perform similarly to undergraduate accounting students. Overall, our results provide incremental assurance that MTurk participants are suitable subjects when accounting expertise is not explicitly required. We also provide evidence that screening MTurk workers on intelligence scores may benefit researchers who require participants with relatively high cognitive ability.
{"title":"Crowdsourcing Intelligent Research Participants: A Student versus MTurk Comparison","authors":"Steve Buchheit, Derek Dalton, Troy Pollard, Shane R. Stinson","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-52340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-52340","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The use of online workers as research participants has grown in recent years, prompting interest in how online workers compare to traditional accounting research participants. To date, no study has compared the relative intelligence of online workers to student subjects. Such a comparison may be important to behavioral accounting researchers given the homogeneity of accounting students relative to online subject pools and given prior research suggesting accounting students have relatively high analytic ability. While graduate students outperform both undergraduate and MTurk participants on common intelligence tests and across two reasonably complex tasks, we find that MTurk participants perform similarly to undergraduate accounting students. Overall, our results provide incremental assurance that MTurk participants are suitable subjects when accounting expertise is not explicitly required. We also provide evidence that screening MTurk workers on intelligence scores may benefit researchers who require participants with relatively high cognitive ability.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43478354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joseph F. Brazel, Christine Gimbar, Eldar M. Maksymov, T. Schaefer
In this research note, we replicate Brazel, Jackson, Schaefer, and Stewart's (2016) study of how auditors evaluate skeptical behavior. Like the original study, we find that evaluators reward audit staff who exercise appropriate levels of skepticism and identify a misstatement (positive outcome). However, when no misstatement is identified (negative outcome), evaluators penalize staff who exercise appropriate levels of skepticism. One factor causing this outcome effect may be that exercising skepticism typically causes budget overages due to additional testing. Hence, we examine whether formally attributing the budget overage to skeptical judgments and actions in the audit budget file reduces outcome effects. However, while replicating the initial effect across three separate studies, we have been unable to reduce this effect. Thus, it is clear that the outcome effect in this context is very robust. Data Availability: Contact the authors.
{"title":"The Outcome Effect and Professional Skepticism: A Replication and a Failed Attempt at Mitigation","authors":"Joseph F. Brazel, Christine Gimbar, Eldar M. Maksymov, T. Schaefer","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-52306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-52306","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this research note, we replicate Brazel, Jackson, Schaefer, and Stewart's (2016) study of how auditors evaluate skeptical behavior. Like the original study, we find that evaluators reward audit staff who exercise appropriate levels of skepticism and identify a misstatement (positive outcome). However, when no misstatement is identified (negative outcome), evaluators penalize staff who exercise appropriate levels of skepticism. One factor causing this outcome effect may be that exercising skepticism typically causes budget overages due to additional testing. Hence, we examine whether formally attributing the budget overage to skeptical judgments and actions in the audit budget file reduces outcome effects. However, while replicating the initial effect across three separate studies, we have been unable to reduce this effect. Thus, it is clear that the outcome effect in this context is very robust.\u0000 Data Availability: Contact the authors.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48459185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The purpose of this experiment is to examine how outcome information affects individual ethical attitudes and intentions to behave. In the present study, a scenario manager employs revenue manipulation by prematurely forcing a product through distribution channels. This investigation employs a 1 × 3 between-subjects and randomized experimental design where the scenario manager's unethical behavior is associated with three behavior-based organizational outcomes: favorable, moderately unfavorable, and unfavorable. We model individual ethical reasoning using the expanded Theory of Reasoned Action. Our findings suggest that the theory provides an appropriate and parsimonious fit for modeling individual ethical reasoning in the channel stuffing context. Specifically, we also find that as organizational outcomes of the scenario manager's coercive behavior shift from unfavorable to favorable, participants judge unethical behavior less harshly, a concerning finding for regulators and policymakers. These findings have significant implications for new revenue recognition standards, such as IFRS 15 and ASC 606. Data Availability: Data available upon request. Please contact the authors.
{"title":"How Outcome Information Affects Ethical Attitudes and Intentions to Behave","authors":"Gary M. Fleischman, S. Valentine","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-52273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-52273","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The purpose of this experiment is to examine how outcome information affects individual ethical attitudes and intentions to behave. In the present study, a scenario manager employs revenue manipulation by prematurely forcing a product through distribution channels. This investigation employs a 1 × 3 between-subjects and randomized experimental design where the scenario manager's unethical behavior is associated with three behavior-based organizational outcomes: favorable, moderately unfavorable, and unfavorable. We model individual ethical reasoning using the expanded Theory of Reasoned Action. Our findings suggest that the theory provides an appropriate and parsimonious fit for modeling individual ethical reasoning in the channel stuffing context. Specifically, we also find that as organizational outcomes of the scenario manager's coercive behavior shift from unfavorable to favorable, participants judge unethical behavior less harshly, a concerning finding for regulators and policymakers. These findings have significant implications for new revenue recognition standards, such as IFRS 15 and ASC 606.\u0000 Data Availability: Data available upon request. Please contact the authors.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46145427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Greenhouse gas (GHG) assurance is increasingly used by companies as a means to increase stakeholder confidence in the quality of externally reported carbon emissions. The multidisciplinary nature of these engagements means that assurance is performed primarily by multidisciplinary teams. Prior research suggests the effectiveness of such teams could be affected by team composition and team processes. We employ a retrospective field study to examine the impact of educational diversity and team member elaboration on multidisciplinary GHG assurance team effectiveness. Results show that team processes such as sufficiency of elaboration on different team member perspectives significantly increases the perceived effectiveness of the teams. While educational diversity is not found to directly improve perceived team effectiveness, it is found to have a positive effect through increasing perceived sufficiency of elaboration. These findings have important implications for standard setters and audit firms undertaking GHG assurance engagements.
{"title":"The Effect of Diversity and the Mediating Role of Elaboration on Multidisciplinary Greenhouse Gas Assurance Team Effectiveness","authors":"Erboon Ekasingh, R. Simnett, Wendy Green","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-52285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-52285","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Greenhouse gas (GHG) assurance is increasingly used by companies as a means to increase stakeholder confidence in the quality of externally reported carbon emissions. The multidisciplinary nature of these engagements means that assurance is performed primarily by multidisciplinary teams. Prior research suggests the effectiveness of such teams could be affected by team composition and team processes. We employ a retrospective field study to examine the impact of educational diversity and team member elaboration on multidisciplinary GHG assurance team effectiveness. Results show that team processes such as sufficiency of elaboration on different team member perspectives significantly increases the perceived effectiveness of the teams. While educational diversity is not found to directly improve perceived team effectiveness, it is found to have a positive effect through increasing perceived sufficiency of elaboration. These findings have important implications for standard setters and audit firms undertaking GHG assurance engagements.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41875698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：