IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reacre/v23y2011i1p67-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving consistency in interpreting SFAS 5 probability phrases

Author

Listed:
  • Du, Ning
  • Stevens, Kevin T.
  • McEnroe, John E.

Abstract

Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies (SFAS No. 5), relies on verbal probability phrases to guide recognition or disclosure decisions for loss contingencies. One of the challenges facing accountants is that verbal probability terms are vague and may have multiple meanings; thus, different accountants may interpret the same probability phrase differently. Given this background, our study addresses the difficulty of interpreting verbal probability phrases and explores a simple way to improve judgment quality. Evidence from our experiment suggests that supplementing verbal probabilities with their corresponding numerical values reduces interpersonal variability in interpreting SFAS No. 5 terms.

Suggested Citation

  • Du, Ning & Stevens, Kevin T. & McEnroe, John E., 2011. "Improving consistency in interpreting SFAS 5 probability phrases," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 67-70.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:23:y:2011:i:1:p:67-70
    DOI: 10.1016/j.racreg.2011.03.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105204571100004X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.racreg.2011.03.003?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schultz, Jj & Reckers, Pmj, 1981. "The Impact Of Group Processing On Selected Audit Disclosure Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 482-501.
    2. Kenneth E. Harrison & Lawrence A. Tomassini, 1989. "Judging the probability of a contingent loss: An empirical study," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 642-648, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. K. Raghunandan & Richard A. Grimlund & Albert Schepanski, 1991. "Auditor evaluation of loss contingencies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 549-569, March.
    2. Tarek Amer & Karl Hackenbrack & Mark Nelson, 1995. "Context†Dependence of Auditors' Interpretations of the SFAS No. 5 Probability Expressions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 25-39, September.
    3. T. S. Amer & Phil Drake, 2005. "Qualitative Expressions of Magnitude: The AuditorÕs Responsibility," American Journal of Business, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 20(1), pages 29-36.
    4. Marc Badia & Miguel Duro & Bjorn N. Jorgensen & Gaizka Ormazabal & Hans B. Christensen, 2020. "The Informational Effects of Tightening Oil and Gas Disclosure Rules," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1720-1755, September.
    5. Joseph Aharony & Amihud Dotan, 2004. "A Comparative Analysis of Auditor, Manager and Financial Analyst Interpretations of SFAS 5 Disclosure Guidelines," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3‐4), pages 475-504, April.
    6. Stocks, Morris H. & Harrell, Adrian, 1995. "The impact of an increase in accounting information level on the judgment quality of individuals and groups," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(7-8), pages 685-700.
    7. Doupnik, Timothy S. & Richter, Martin, 2003. "Interpretation of uncertainty expressions: a cross-national study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 15-35, January.
    8. Dafydd Mali & Hyoung‐joo Lim, 2021. "Do Relatively More Efficient Firms Demand Additional Audit Effort (Hours)?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 31(2), pages 108-127, June.
    9. McKinley, William & Ponemon, Lawrence A. & Schick, Allen G., 1996. "Auditors' perceptions of client firms: The stigma of decline and the stigma of growth," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 193-213.
    10. Kenneth E. Harrison & Lawrence A. Tomassini, 1989. "L‘évaluation de la probabilité des pertes éventuelles: une étude empirique," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 649-656, March.
    11. Jim Psaros, 2007. "Do principles‐based accounting standards lead to biased financial reporting? An Australian experiment," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 47(3), pages 527-550, September.
    12. K. Raghunandan, 1993. "Predictive Ability of Audit Qualifications for Loss Contingencies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 612-634, March.
    13. Kenneth E. Harrison & Lawrence A. Tomassini, 1989. "Judging the probability of a contingent loss: An empirical study," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 642-648, March.
    14. Johnson, Eric N., 1995. "Effects of information order, group assistance, and experience on auditors' sequential belief revision," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 137-160, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Ning Du & Kevin Stevens, 2011. "Numeric-to-verbal translation of probability expressions in SFAS 5," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(3), pages 248-262, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Sumit Sarkar & Ram S. Sriram, 2001. "Bayesian Models for Early Warning of Bank Failures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1457-1475, November.
    19. Steven Salterio & Ross Denham, 1997. "Accounting Consultation Units: An Organizational Memory Analysis," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 669-691, December.
    20. Ken T. Trotman & Roger Simnett & Amna Khalifa, 2009. "Impact of the Type of Audit Team Discussions on Auditors' Generation of Material Frauds," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1115-1142, December.

    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:eee:reacre:v:23:y:2011:i:1:p:67-70. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-accounting-regulation .

    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.