FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2051663174> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2051663174 endingPage "39" @default.
• W2051663174 startingPage "26" @default.
• W2051663174 abstract "Given scant research on the influence of the AICPA’s Code of Conduct, this study examines the effects of professional standards for advocacy and integrity on a financial reporting decision. Based on the availability and priming literature, we test whether the current wording of two AICPA professional standards influence financial reporting decisions. Prior accounting research has documented cases where professionals were inclined toward a conservative or skeptical bias (Francis & Krishnan, 1999; Jenkins & Lowe, 1999) while other studies have documented an inclination toward a client-confirming bias (Hackenbrack & Nelson, 1996; Roberts, 2010). Our study examines whether using AICPA ethical standards as primes results in a neutral, unbiased financial reporting decision in a context in which there is substantial, yet inconclusive, evidence. Roberts (2010) documents the tendency for professionals to view integrity and advocacy as segregated objectives: one for promoting unbiased reporting, associated frequently with accounting-related decisions, and the other condoning client advocacy, typically associated with tax-related judgments. Hence, we test for availability effects based on separately-stated standards. However, the literature on comparative analysis explains that a combined concept containing counterbalancing features allows the participant to form causal relationships between the distinguishing components. This type of mental process brings the causal knowledge into working memory. Hence, a joint presentation of countervailing standards should result in a more balanced judgment, reflecting neither a conservative nor pro-client tendency. The psychology literature suggests that heuristics, such as availability priming and comparative analysis, are more likely to affect novice decision makers (e.g., jurors, clients, new hires, students) than experts whose work experiences could drive the results. This study examines the responses of upper-level accounting majors, and the results show that the participants are inclined toward conservative decision making. Participants exposed to a separately-stated standard for integrity respond conservatively, just as they do in a control group without explicit access to the professional standard. Similarly, even when exposed to AICPA Rule 102-6 allowing client advocacy, they report conservatively. In contrast, when the prime is a joint presentation of the standards, participants respond with an unbiased decision, which differs significantly from the consistently conservative response by the control group as well as by the participants primed with an isolated standard. We conclude that two AICPA standards (as currently worded) are best understood when they are aggregated. Whether this finding holds for professionals is an empirical question for future research. The implication is that accountants’ decision making could be enhanced by a revised professional standard reminding them to jointly consider the goals of unbiased decision making and justifiable client advocacy." @default.
• W2051663174 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2051663174 creator A5015006744 @default.
• W2051663174 creator A5022121460 @default.
• W2051663174 creator A5041825566 @default.
• W2051663174 date "2014-04-01" @default.
• W2051663174 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2051663174 title "The impact of professional standards on accounting judgments: The role of availability and comparative information" @default.
• W2051663174 cites W1608032002 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W1766289418 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W1968682167 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W1974493553 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W1975183646 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W1984663196 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2009822858 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2016134950 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2023812519 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2024505469 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2036104680 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2047460809 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2049350934 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2050237941 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2058885824 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2060466353 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2063535377 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W207693194 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2081933749 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2085218441 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2086432822 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2087570547 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2088876502 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2099298979 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2101273523 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2110146231 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2116485500 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2127588140 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2139690285 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2141968006 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2149893809 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2156204700 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2163991815 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2167903605 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2319536614 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W2496328896 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W3121332068 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W3122500382 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W3123266489 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W3123605669 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W3124408392 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W3125113873 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W3125140980 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W3126003931 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W4239816899 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W4243539170 @default.
• W2051663174 cites W4247730308 @default.
• W2051663174 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.racreg.2014.02.003" @default.
• W2051663174 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2051663174 type Work @default.
• W2051663174 sameAs 2051663174 @default.
• W2051663174 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2051663174 countsByYear W20516631742016 @default.
• W2051663174 countsByYear W20516631742019 @default.
• W2051663174 countsByYear W20516631742023 @default.
• W2051663174 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2051663174 hasAuthorship W2051663174A5015006744 @default.
• W2051663174 hasAuthorship W2051663174A5022121460 @default.
• W2051663174 hasAuthorship W2051663174A5041825566 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C100701293 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C162118730 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C163867264 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C18296254 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C2776035688 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C544937707 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C59822182 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C81444415 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConceptScore W2051663174C100701293 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConceptScore W2051663174C111472728 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConceptScore W2051663174C121955636 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConceptScore W2051663174C138885662 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConceptScore W2051663174C144133560 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConceptScore W2051663174C151730666 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConceptScore W2051663174C15744967 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConceptScore W2051663174C162118730 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConceptScore W2051663174C163867264 @default.
• W2051663174 hasConceptScore W2051663174C17744445 @default.

• next