Feasibility of using student subjects in accounting experiments: a review

Pacific Accounting Review

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 47-67

  Liyanarachchi, Gregory A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Behavioural accounting; Experimentation; Students

Indexed keywords

EID: 79551576579     PISSN: 01140582     EISSN: 20415494     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/01140580710754647     Document Type: Review

References (74)

1. Abdel-khalik, A.R. (1974), “On the efficiency of subject surrogation in accounting research”, The Accounting Review, October, pp. 743-50.
2. Aronson, E. and Carlsmith, J.M. (1968), “Experimentation in social psychology”, in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., 2, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, pp. 1-79.
3. Aronson, E., Brewer, M. and Carlsmith, J.M. (1985), “Experimentation in social psychology”, in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed., Vol. 1, Random House, New York, NY, pp. 441-86.
4. Arnold, V., Collier, P.A., Leech, S.A. and Sutton, S.G. (2000), “The effect of experience and complexity on order and recency bias in decision making by professional accountants”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 40, pp. 109-34.
5. Ashton, R.H. (1974), “An experimental study of internal control judgments”, Journal of Accounting Research, Spring, pp. 143-57.
6. Ashton, R.H. and Kramer, S.S. (1980), “Students as surrogates in behavioral accounting research: some evidence”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 18, pp. 1-15.
7. Bass, A.R. and Firestone, I.J. (1980), “Implications of representativeness for generalizability of field and laboratory research findings”, American Psychologist, Vol. 35, pp. 463-4.
8. Bazerman, M.H., Loewenstein, G. and Moore, D.A. (2002), “Why good accountants do bad audits”, Harvard Business Review, November, pp. 97-102.
9. Bedard, J. (1991), “Expertise and its relation to audit decision quality”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 8, pp. 198-221.
10. Belkaoui, A. (1980), “The impact of socio-economic accounting statements on the investment decision: an empirical study”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 5, pp. 263-83.
11. Berkowitz, L. and Donnerstein, E. (1982), “External validity is more than skin deep”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37, pp. 245-57.
12. Birnberg, J.G. and Nath, R. (1968), “Laboratory experimentation in accounting research”, The Accounting Review, January, pp. 38-45.
13. Brownell, P. (1995), Research Methods in Management Accounting, Coopers & Lybrand.
14. Butler, S.A. (1986), “Anchoring in the judgmental evaluation of audit samples”, The Accounting Review, January, pp. 101-11.
15. Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959), “Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56, pp. 81-105.
16. Chan, C.C. and Milne, M.J. (1999), “Investor reactions to corporate environmental saints and sinners: an experimental analysis”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 29, pp. 265-79.
17. Chapman, G.B., Bergus, G.R. and Elstein, A.S. (1996), “Order of information affects clinical judgment”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 9, pp. 201-11.
18. Church, B.K. (1991), “An examination of the effect that commitment to a hypothesis has on auditors' evaluations of confirming and disconfirming evidence”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 7, pp. 513-34.
19. Copeland, R.M., Francia, A.J. and Strawser, R.H. (1973), “Students as subjects in behavioral research”, The Accounting Review, April, pp. 365-72.
20. De Zoort, F.T. and Lord, A.T. (1997), “A review and synthesis of pressure effects research in accounting”, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 16, pp. 28-85.
21. Dickhaut, J.W., Livingstone, J.L. and Watson, D.J. (1972), “On the use of surrogates in behavioral experimentation”, Report of the Committee on Research Methodology in Accounting, The Accounting Review, Vol. 47, Supplement, p. 468.
22. Dipboye, R.L. and Flanagan, M.F. (1979), “Research settings in industrial and organizational psychology: are findings in the field more generalizable than in the laboratory?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 34, pp. 141-50.
23. Dipboye, R.L. and Flanagan, M.F. (1980), “Reply to Willems and Howard (Comment)”, American Psychologist, Vol. 35, pp. 388-90.
24. Dobbins, G.H., Lane, I.M. and Steiner, D.D. (1988), “A note on the laboratory methodologies in applied behavioral research: don't throw out the baby with the bath water”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, pp. 281-6.
25. Eames, M.J., Glover, S.M. and Kennedy, J.J. (2006), “Stock recommendations as a source of bias in earnings forecasts”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 18, pp. 37-51.
26. Einhorn, H. and Hogarth, M. (1981), “Behavioral decision theory: processes of judgment and choice”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 53-88.
27. Glover, S.M. (1997), “The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 35, pp. 213-26.
28. Gordon, M.E., Slade, L.A. and Schmitt, N. (1986), “The science of sophomore revisited: from conjecture to empiricism”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 191-207.
29. Green, M.C., Visser, P.S. and Tetlock, P.E. (2000), “Coping with accountability cross-pressures: Low-effort evasive tactics and high-effort quest for complex compromises”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 11, pp. 1380-91.
30. Greenberg, J. (1987), “The college sophomore as guinea pig: setting the record straight”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 157-9.
31. Hackenbrack, K. (1992), “Implications of seemingly irrelevant evidence in audit judgment”, Journal of Accounting Research, Spring, pp. 126-36.
32. Hackenbrack, K. and Nelson, M.W. (1996), “Auditors' incentives and their application of financial accounting standards”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 71, pp. 43-59.
33. Hoffman, V.B. and Patton, J.M. (1997), “Accountability, dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 35, pp. 227-37.
34. Hofstedt, T.R. (1972), “Some behavioral parameters of financial analysis”, The Accounting Review, October, pp. 679-92.
35. Houghton, K.A. and Hronsky, J.J.F. (1993), “The sharing of meaning between accounting students and members of the accounting profession”, Accounting and Finance, November, pp. 131-47.
36. Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L. and Jackson, G.B. (1982), Meta-analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
37. Jermias, J. (2001), “Cognitive dissonance and resistance to change: the influence of commitment, confirmation and feedback on judgment usefulness of accounting systems”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 26, pp. 141-60.
38. Joyce, E.J. and Biddle, G.C. (1981), “Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 19, pp. 120-45.
39. Kennedy, J., Mitchell, T. and Sefcik, S.E. (1998), “Disclosure of contingent environmental liabilities: some unintended consequences?”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 36, pp. 257-77.
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, Vol. 77, pp. 265-85.
41. Kinney, W.R. and Uecker, W.C. (1982), “Mitigating the consequences of anchoring in auditor judgments”, The Accounting Review, January, pp. 55-69.
42. Kruglanski, A.W. (1975), “The human subject in the psychology experiment: fact and artifact”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY.
43. Lerner, J.S. and Tetlock, P.E. (1999), “Accounting for the effect of accountability”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125, pp. 255-75.
44. Libby, R., Bloomfield, R. and Nelson, M.W. (2002), “Experimental research in financial accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27, pp. 775-810.
45. Lindsay, R.M. (1995), “Reconsidering the status of tests of significance: an alternative criterion of adequacy”, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, Vol. 20, pp. 35-53.
46. Lindsay, R.M. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1993), “The design of replicated studies”, American Statistician, August, pp. 217-28.
47. Liyanarachchi, G.A. and Milne, M.J. (2005), “Comparing the investment decisions of accounting practitioners and students: an empirical study on the adequacy of student surrogates”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 29, pp. 121-35.
48. Locke, E.A. (1986), Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD.
49. McGrath, J.E. (1982), “Dilemmatics: the study of research choices and dilemmas”, in McGrath, J.E., Martin, J. and Kulka, R.A. (Eds), Judgment Calls in Research, Sage, Beverley Hills, CA, pp. 69-102.
50. McGrath, J.E., Martin, J. and Kulka, R.A. (1982), Judgment Calls in Research, Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, CA.
51. Merchant, K.A. and Van der Stede, W.A. (2006), “Field research in accounting: accomplishments and prospects”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 18, pp. 117-34.
52. Miller, G. (1956), “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information”, Psychological Review, March, pp. 81-97.
53. Miller, H.E. (1966), “Discussion of the accounting period concept and its effect on management decision”s, Empirical Research in Accounting: Selected Studies, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 4 (Supplement), pp. 15-17.
54. Milne, M.J. and Patten, D.M. (2002), “Securing organizational legitimacy: an experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 372-405.
55. Monroe, G.S. and Ng, J. (2000), “An examination of order effects in auditors' inherent risk assessments”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 40, pp. 153-68.
56. Newell, A. and Simon, H. (1972), Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
57. Nisbett, R.E., Zukier, H. and Limley, R.E. (1981), “The dilution effect: nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information”, Cognitive Psychology, April, pp. 248-77.
58. Payne, J. (1982), “Contingent decision behavior”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 92, pp. 382-402.
59. Quinn, A. and Schlenker, B.R. (2002), “Can accountability produce independence? Goals as determinants of the impact of accountability on conformity”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28, pp. 472-83.
60. Runkel, P.J. and McGrath, J.E. (1972), Research on Human Behavior: A Systematic Guide to Method, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., Orlando, FL.
61. Salterio, S. (1996), “The effects of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 21, pp. 467-86.
62. Sears, D.O. (1986), “College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 515-30.
63. Shields, M.D. and Young, S.M. (1993), “Antecedents and consequents of participative budgeting: evidence on the effects of asymmetrical information”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Fall, pp. 265-80.
64. Simon, H.A. (1990), “Invariants of human behavior”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 1-19.
65. Schulz, A.K-D. (1999), “Experimental research method in a management accounting context”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 39, pp. 29-51.
66. Smith, J.F. and Kida, T. (1991), “Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 109, pp. 472-89.
67. Tan, C.E.L., Jubb, C.A. and Houghton, K.A. (1997), “Auditor judgments: the effects of the partner's views on decision outcomes and cognitive effort”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 9, pp. 157-75.
68. Tetlock, P.E. (1992), “The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: toward a social contingency model”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 331-76.
69. Trotman, K.T. (1996), Research Methods for Judgment and Decision Making Studies in Auditing, Coopers & Lybrand.
70. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1971), “Belief in the law of small numbers”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 2, pp. 105-10.
71. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973), “Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 207-32.
72. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1982), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
73. Ward, E.A. (1993), “Generalizability of psychological research from undergraduates to employed adults”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 133, pp. 513-9.
74. Watson, D.J.H. (1974), “Students as surrogates in behavioral business research: some comments”, Accounting Review, July, pp. 530-7.