IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/joares/v45y2007i4p699-730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accounting Standards, Implementation Guidance, and Example‐Based Reasoning

Author

Listed:
  • SHANA CLOR‐PROELL
  • MARK W. NELSON

Abstract

This paper examines interpretation of accounting standards that provide implementation guidance via affirmative or counter examples. Based on prior psychology research, we predict that practitioners engage in “example‐based reasoning” such that they are more likely to conclude that their case qualifies for the same treatment as the example. We test our predictions in two experiments in which participants judge the appropriateness of income‐statement recognition. Experiment 1 uses Masters of Business Administration (MBA) students and varies example type (affirmative, counter) and case (revenue recognition, expense recognition) in a 2 × 2 design. Experiment 1 supports our predictions. Experiment 2 uses more experienced practitioners, and varies example type (affirmative, counter, both) in a 1 × 3 design. Experiment 2 supports the use of example‐based reasoning, and indicates that practitioners in the “both” condition respond as if they had only received an affirmative example. These results have implications for understanding how guidance that accompanies accounting standards can result in aggressive or conservative application of standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Shana Clor‐Proell & Mark W. Nelson, 2007. "Accounting Standards, Implementation Guidance, and Example‐Based Reasoning," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 699-730, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:45:y:2007:i:4:p:699-730
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2007.00248.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2007.00248.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2007.00248.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bryan K. Church, 1991. "An examination of the effect that commitment to a hypothesis has on auditors' evaluations of confirming and disconfirming evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 513-534, March.
    2. Glover, SM, 1997. "The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 213-226.
    3. Marchant, Garry & Robinson, John & Anderson, Urton & Schadewald, Michael, 1991. "Analogical transfer and expertise in legal reasoning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 272-290, April.
    4. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    5. Salterio, Steven, 1996. "The effects of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 467-486, July.
    6. Frederick, Dm & Libby, R, 1986. "Expertise And Auditors Judgments Of Conjunctive Events," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 270-290.
    7. Karen Wilken Braun, 2001. "The Disposition of Audit†Detected Misstatements: An Examination of Risk and Reward Factors and Aggregation Effects," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 71-99, March.
    8. Salterio, S. & Koonce, L., 1997. "The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 573-587, August.
    9. Bamber, E. Michael & Ramsay, Robert J. & Tubbs, Richard M., 1997. "An examination of the descriptive validity of the belief-adjustment model and alternative attitudes to evidence in auditing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(3-4), pages 249-268.
    10. Hackenbrack, K, 1992. "Implications Of Seemingly Irrelevant Evidence In Audit Judgment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 126-136.
    11. Hoffman, VB & Patton, JM, 1997. "Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 227-237.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shana Clor‐Proell & Lisa Koonce & Brian White, 2016. "How Do Experienced Users Evaluate Hybrid Financial Instruments?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1267-1296, December.
    2. Brown, Rhoda & Jones, Michael, 2015. "Mapping and exploring the topography of contemporary financial accounting research," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 237-261.
    3. Jessen L. Hobson & William J. Mayew & Mark E. Peecher & Mohan Venkatachalam, 2017. "Improving Experienced Auditors’ Detection of Deception in CEO Narratives," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(5), pages 1137-1166, December.
    4. Mark Penno, 2022. "Concepts‐based Accounting Standards," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 58(2), pages 209-232, June.
    5. Xu, Yin & Doupnik, Timothy, 2016. "The impact of different types and amounts of guidance on the implementation of an accounting principle," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 66-76.
    6. Lim, Yingzhee & Azmi, Anna & Devi, S. Susela & Mahzan, Nurmazilah, 2017. "Implementation Guidance for Standards and Revenue Trend in Aggressive Reporting," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 342-353.
    7. Mala, Rajni & Chand, Parmod, 2014. "Impacts of Additional Guidance Provided on International Financial Reporting Standards on the Judgments of Accountants," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 263-288.
    8. Messier, William F. & Quick, Linda A. & Vandervelde, Scott D., 2014. "The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 59-74.
    9. Thomas, Tyler F., 2016. "Motivating revisions of management accounting systems: An examination of organizational goals and accounting feedback," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-16.
    10. Griffith, Emily E. & Kadous, Kathryn & Proell, Chad A., 2020. "Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    11. Odette M. Pinto, 2015. "Effects of Advice on Effectiveness and Efficiency of Tax Planning Tasks," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 307-329, December.
    12. Rajat Deb, 2019. "Accounting Theory Coherence Revisited," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 44(1), pages 36-57, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    2. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    3. Jennifer R. Joe & Scott D. Vandervelde, 2007. "Do Auditor†Provided Nonaudit Services Improve Audit Effectiveness?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 467-487, June.
    4. Salterio, Steven, 1996. "The effects of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 467-486, July.
    5. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    6. Waller, William S. & Zimbelman, Mark F., 2003. "A cognitive footprint in archival data: Generalizing the dilution effect from laboratory to field settings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 254-268, July.
    7. Tamara A. Lambert & Marietta Peytcheva, 2020. "When Is the Averaging Effect Present in Auditor Judgments?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 277-296, March.
    8. Aleksandra Wasowska, 2013. "Heurystyki i bledy poznawcze jako zrodlo niepowodzen audytu zewnetrznego (Heuristics and cognitive biases as a reason of external audit failures)," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 11(43), pages 189-202.
    9. Heribert Gierl & Tina Großmann, 2008. "Imply-Benefit-Attribute im Bereich häufig gekaufter Konsumgüter," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 60(4), pages 355-384, June.
    10. Kimberly K. Moreno & Sudip Bhattacharjee & Duane M. Brandon, 2007. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Training Techniques on Analytical Procedures Performance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 983-1014, September.
    11. Jean‐Lin Seow, 2009. "Cue usage in financial statement fraud risk assessments: effects of technical knowledge and decision aid use," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 49(1), pages 183-205, March.
    12. Ashley Gangloff & Karen Schnatterly & Neal M. Snow & Patrick Wheeler & James Whitworth, 2023. "The Role Of Voluntarily Disclosed Information On Crowdfunding Success: Evidence From Kickstarter," Accounting & Taxation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 15(2), pages 31-54.
    13. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    14. Quick, Reiner & Schmidt, Florian, 2018. "Do audit firm rotation, auditor retention, and joint audits matter? – An experimental investigation of bank directors' and institutional investors' perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-21.
    15. Hurley, Patrick J., 2015. "Ego depletion: Applications and implications for auditing research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 47-76.
    16. Roger Simnett & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Research Methods for Examining Independence Issues: Experimental and Economics-of-Auditing Approaches," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 12(28), pages 23-31, November.
    17. Messier, William F. & Quick, Linda A. & Vandervelde, Scott D., 2014. "The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 59-74.
    18. Ozlem Arikan, 2018. "Financial estimates against investors’ preferences: anchoring, denial and spillover effects," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 299-320, April.
    19. Salterio, S. & Koonce, L., 1997. "The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 573-587, August.
    20. J. Edward Russo & Margaret G. Meloy & T. Jeffrey Wilks, 2000. "Predecisional Distortion of Information by Auditors and Salespersons," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 13-27, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:45:y:2007:i:4:p:699-730. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-8456 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.