The impact of differences in ambiguity tolerance on accounting standard interpretation: implications and responses
AbstractMotivated by both the pervasiveness of ambiguity in accounting and the desire to achieve comparability in financial reporting, this study investigates the relationship between different levels of ambiguity tolerance, provisions of accounting standards that might reduce ambiguity and accounting judgements. We propose that different levels of ambiguity tolerance lead to different judgements being made in the face of similar circumstances. We further propose, contrary to what might be expected, that the provision of guidance in accounting standards will exacerbate the differences in judgement rather than reduce them. While we find only weak support for the belief that different levels of ambiguity tolerance will lead to different judgements, the provision of guidance differentially affected the judgements made by those exhibiting high versus low levels of ambiguity tolerance. Our results suggest that comparability may be best served by not providing guidance relating to ambiguous accounting standard requirements.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Inderscience Enterprises Ltd in its journal Afro-Asian J. of Finance and Accounting.
Volume (Year): 1 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=214
accounting judgement; accounting standard guidance; accounting standard interpretation; accounting standards; ambiguity tolerance; Australia; comparable financial reporting; harmonisation; China; significant influences.;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Graham Langley).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.