Behavioral evidence on the effects of principles- and rules-based standards

Accounting Horizons

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 91-104

  Nelson, Mark W ^a  

^a Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745030430     PISSN: 08887993     EISSN: 15587975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/acch.2003.17.1.91     Document Type: Note

References (69)

1. Amer, T., K. Hackenbrack, and M. Nelson. 1994. Between-auditor differences in the interpretation of probability phrases. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13: 126-136.
2. Amer, T., K. Hackenbrack, and M. Nelson. 1995. Context-dependence of auditorsí interpretations of the SFAS No. 5 probability expressions. Contemporary Accounting Research 12 (1): 25-39.
3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1992. The Meaning of "Present Fairly in Conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" in the Independent Auditorsí Report. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 69. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. Asare, S. K., and L. S. McDaniel. 1996. The effects of familiarity with the preparer and task complexity on effectiveness of the audit review process. The Accounting Review 71 (2): 139-159.
5. Ashton, R. H. 1990. Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: Paradoxical effects of incentives, feedback and justification. Journal of Accounting Research 28: 148-186.
6. Bazerman, M. H., K. P. Morgan, and G. F. Loewenstein. 1997. The impossibility of auditor independence. Sloan Management Review (Summer): 89-94.
7. Beeler, J. D., and J. E. Hunton. 2002. Contingent economic rents: Insidious threats to auditor independence. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (forthcoming).
8. Beresford, D. R. 1999. Itís time to simplify accounting standards. Journal of Accountancy 187: 65-67.
9. Bonner, S. E., and B. L. Lewis. 1990. Determinants of auditor expertise. Journal of Accounting Research: 1-20.
10. Bonner, S. E., and B. L. Lewis. 1994. A model of the effects of audit task complexity. Accounting, Organizations and Society 19 (3): 213-244.
11. Buchman, T. A., P. E. Tetlock, and R. O. Reed. 1996. Accountability and auditorsí judgments about contingent events. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 23 (3): 379-398.
12. Calegari, M. J., J. W. Schatzberg, and G. R. Sevcik. 1998. Experimental evidence of differential auditor pricing and reporting strategies. The Accounting Review 73 (2): 254-275.
13. Caplan, D., and M. Kirschenheiter. 2002. A model of auditing under bright-line accounting standards. Working paper, Iowa State University.
14. Carmichael, D. R., and R. J. Swieringa. 1968. The compatibility of auditing independence and management services-An identification of issues. The Accounting Review (October): 697-705.
15. Christensen, P. O., J. S. Demski, and H. Frimor. 2002. Accounting policies in agencies with moral hazard and renegotiation. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (4): 1071-1090.
16. Cloyd, C. B. 1995. Prior knowledge, information search behaviors, and performance in tax research tasks. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 17: 82-107.
17. Cuccia, A. D., K. Hackenbrack, and M. W. Nelson. 1995. The ability of professional standards to mitigate aggressive reporting. The Accounting Review 70 (2): 227-248.
18. Dilla, W. N., and D. N. Stone. 1997. Representations as decision aids: The asymmetric effects of words and numbers on auditorsí inherent risk judgments. Decision Sciences 28: 708-743.
19. Dyckman, T. R. 1964. On the investment decision. The Accounting Review 39 (2): 285-295.
20. Dye, R. A. 2002. Classifications manipulation and Nash accounting standards. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (4): 1125-1162.
21. Farmer, T. A., L. E. Rittenberg, and G. M. Trompeter. 1987. An investigation of the impact of economic and organizational factors on auditor independence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 7 (1): 1-14.
22. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1975. Accounting for Contingencies. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
23. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1976. Accounting for Leases. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 13. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
24. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1980. Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information. Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 2. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
25. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1992. Accounting for Income Taxes. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
26. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1996. Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 125. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
27. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 2002a. Proposal: Principles-Based Approach to U.S. Standard Setting. File Reference No. 1125-001. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
28. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 2002b. Project Updates: Simplification and Codification Project. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
29. Gibbins, M. 2001. Incorporating context into the study of judgment and expertise in public accounting. International Journal of Auditing 5 (3).
30. Gibbins, M., S. Salterio, and A. Webb. 2001. Evidence about auditor-client management negotiation concerning clientís financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research 39 (3): 534-563.
31. Hackenbrack, K., and M. W. Nelson. 1996. Auditorsí incentives and their application of financial accounting standards. The Accounting Review 71 (1): 43-59.
32. Hopkins, P. E. 1996. The effect of financial statement classification of hybrid financial instruments on financial analystsí stock price judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 34 (Supplement): 33-50.
33. Hronsky, J. J. F., and K. A. Houghton. 2001. The meaning of a defined accounting concept: Regulatory changes and the effect on auditor decision making. Accounting, Organizations and Society 26 (2): 123-139.
34. Imhoff, E. A., and J. K. Thomas. 1988. Economic consequences of accounting standards: The lease disclosure rule change. Journal of Accounting and Economics 10 (4): 277-310.
35. Johnson, L. M. 1993. An empirical investigation of the effects of advocacy on preparers' evaluations of judicial evidence. Journal of the American Taxation Association: 1-22.
36. Kachelmeier, S. J., and R. R. King. 2002. Using laboratory experiments to evaluate accounting policy issues. Accounting Horizons 16 (3): 218-232.
37. Kaplow, L. 2000. General characteristics of rules. In Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Volume V. The Economics of Crime and Litigation, edited by B. Bouckaert, and G. De Geest, 502-528. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
38. Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research 31 (2): 231-245.
39. Kennedy, J, D. N. Kleinmuntz, and M. E. Peecher. 1997. Determinants of the justifiability of performance in ill-structured audit tasks. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (Supplement): 105-130.
40. King, R. R. 2002. An experimental investigation of self-serving biases in an auditing trust game: The effect of group affiliation. The Accounting Review 77 (2): 265-284.
41. Knapp, M. C. 1987. An empirical study of audit committee support for auditors involved in technical disputes with client management. The Accounting Review 62 (3): 577-588.
42. Koonce, L., U. Anderson, and G. Marchant. 1995. Justification of decisions in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (2): 369-384.
43. Lewis, B. L. 1980. Expert judgment in auditing: An expected utility approach. Journal of Accounting Research 18 (2): 594-602.
44. Libby, R., and H-T. Tan. 1994. Modeling the determinants of audit expertise. Accounting, Organizations and Society 19 (8): 701-716.
45. Libby, R., and W. R. Kinney. 2000. Does mandated audit communication reduce opportunistic corrections to manage earnings to forecasts? The Accounting Review 75 (4): 383-404.
46. Libby, R., R. Bloomfield, and M. Nelson. 2002. Experimental research in financial accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27 (8): 775-810.
47. Marchant, G., J. Robinson, U. Anderson, and M. Schadewald. 1993. The use of analogy in legal argument: Problem similarity, precedent, and expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 55 (1): 94-119.
48. Mayhew, B. W., J. W. Schatzberg, and G. R. Sevcik. 2001. The effect of accounting uncertainty and auditor reputation on auditor objectivity. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 20 (2): 49-70.
49. Nelson, M. W., and W. R. Kinney. 1997. The effect of ambiguity on auditors' loss contingency reporting judgments. The Accounting Review 72 (2): 257-274.
50. Nelson, M. W., J. A. Elliott, and R. L. Tarpley. 2002. Evidence from auditors about managers' and auditors' earnings management decisions. The Accounting Review 77 (Supplement): 175-202.
51. Ng, T. B., and H-T. Tan. 2002. Effects of authoritative guidance availability and audit committee effectiveness on auditors' judgments in auditor-client negotiations of audit adjustments. Working paper, Nanyang Technological University.
52. Pany, K., and P. M. J. Reckers. 1988. Withinvs. between-subjects experimental designs: A study of demand effects. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 7 (1): 39-53.
53. Peecher, M. 1996. The contingent nature of justification demands' influence on auditors' decision processes. Journal of Accounting Research 34 (Spring): 125-135.
54. Phillips, F. 2002. The distortion of criteria after decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88: 769-784.
55. Reimers, J. L., S. Wheeler, and R. Dusenbury. 1993. The effect of response mode on auditors' control risk assessments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 12 (2): 62-78.
56. Salterio, S., and L. Koonce. 1997. The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (6): 573-587.
57. Schatzberg, J. W., G. R. Sevcik, and B. P. Shapiro. 1996. Exploratory experimental evidence on independence impairment conditions: aggregate and individual results. Behavioral Research in Accounting 8 (Supplement): 173-195.
58. Shaw, J. 1995. Audit failure and regulatory overload. Accountancy 115 (1219): 82-83.
59. Spilker, B. C. 1995. The effects of time pressure and knowledge on key word selection behavior in tax research. The Accounting Review 70 (1): 49-70.
60. Stone, D. N., and W. N. Dilla. 1994. When numbers are better than words: The joint effects of response representation and experience on inherent risk judgments. Auditing 13: 1-19.
61. Tan, H-T. 1995. Effects of expectations, prior involvement, and review awareness on memory for audit evidence and judgment. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (1): 113-135.
62. Tan, H-T., and A. Kao. 1999. Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity. Journal of Accounting Research 37 (1): 209-223.
63. Tan, H-T., T. B-P. Ng, and B. W-Y. Mak. 2002. The effects of task complexity on auditors' performance: The impact of accountability and knowledge. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 21 (2): 81-95.
64. Trompeter, G. 1994. The effect of partner compensation schemes and generally accepted accounting principles on audit partner judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13: 56-71.
65. Turner, C. W. 2001. Accountability demands and the auditor's evidence search strategy: The influence of reviewer preferences and the nature of the response (belief vs. action). Journal of Accounting Research 39 (3): 683-706.
66. Wallsten, T. S, D. V. Budescu, and R. Zwick. 1993. Comparing the calibration and coherence of numerical and verbal probability judgments. Management Science 39 (2): 177-190.
67. Wilks, T. J. 2002. Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real-time audit review. The Accounting Review 77 (1): 51-71.
68. Wood, R. E. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37 (1): 59-82.
69. Zimbelman, M. F., and W. S. Waller. 1999. An experimental investigation of auditor-auditee interaction under ambiguity. Journal of Accounting Research 37: 135-156.