IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/arjpps/arj-06-2019-0128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To be or not to be in the sample? On using manipulation checks in experimental accounting research

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Kotzian
  • Thomas Stoeber
  • Florian Hoos
  • Barbara E. Weissenberger

Abstract

Purpose - Manipulation checks are a recommended for experimental accounting research. Usage of information gained by manipulation checks varies. In some studies, participants who failed the manipulation check are removed from the sample. Other studies report the results of the manipulation checks but still use the full sample. Some authors recommend removing participants who failed the manipulation check as a means to increase the power of the statistical analysis. Others warn that removing these participants endangers the randomization as a crucial precondition for gaining valid insights from experimental research. Until now, there is little research on how sensitive results react to exclusion of participants. The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of removing participants failing the manipulation checks on the evaluation of a hypothesis and the development of alternative usages of the information gained from manipulation checks. Design/methodology/approach - Based on an analytical model and a simulation, the authors show how removing participants who fail the manipulation check affects experimental findings. Findings - Simulations show that statistical results and conclusions drawn from an experiment differ substantially, depending on whether participants who failed the manipulation check are removed from the sample. As the participants who are removed are no random sub-sample, but share a certain property, the experimental results react strongly, typically showing significant results, where there are actually none. Originality/value - This paper is, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the first to address the sensitivity of experimental results to removing participants who fail the manipulation check from the sample and the implications for the validity of conclusions drawn from experimental accounting research. This paper’s contribution is a better way of using information gained in the manipulation check in the statistical analysis of the experimental data.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Kotzian & Thomas Stoeber & Florian Hoos & Barbara E. Weissenberger, 2020. "To be or not to be in the sample? On using manipulation checks in experimental accounting research," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 33(3), pages 469-482, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:arjpps:arj-06-2019-0128
    DOI: 10.1108/ARJ-06-2019-0128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ARJ-06-2019-0128/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ARJ-06-2019-0128/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/ARJ-06-2019-0128?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mundaca, Luis & Román-Collado, Rocío & Cansino, José M., 2022. "Assessing the impacts of social norms on low-carbon mobility options," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    2. Yang, Xisi & Thøgersen, John, 2022. "When people are green and greedy: A new perspective of recycling rewards and crowding-out in Germany, the USA and China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 217-235.

    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:eme:arjpps:arj-06-2019-0128. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.