IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v4y1987i1p287-313.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Good judgment in public accounting: Quality and justification

Author

Listed:
  • CRAIG EMBY
  • MICHAEL GIBBINS

Abstract

. A description of factors contributing to good judgment is developed by considering both the process of exercising judgment and the results of having exercised it. Factors are developed from public accountants' perceptions of important components in characterizing good professional judgment in public accounting. Descriptive data about important judgment quality factors are presented and hypotheses concerning justification are tested using responses to a process†oriented questionnaire. The emphasis is on the natural environment of the professional accountant and the types of judgment situations which occur in the field, with reliance on respondents to interpret their own comments. The questionnaire results provide a description of judgment factors which professional accountants see as important. Factor categories related to expectation, outcome, and justification perspectives on judgment quality are shown to play a role in defining good judgment, with variations related to position (level of responsibility) in the accounting firm. The results also indicate that justification is perceived differently by people in different positions. Résumé. Les auteurs décrivent les facteurs contribuant à la qualité du jugement en prenant en considération à la fois le processus d'exercice du jugement et les résultats de ce processus. Ces facteurs ont été déterminés à partir des éléments perçus par les experts†comptables comme étant importants dans la définition de ce qu'est un bon jugement professionnel, en expertise comptable. Les auteurs présentent des données descriptives au sujet des principaux indices de qualité du jugement et testent certaines hypothèses relatives à la justification, à partir de réponses à un questionnaire axé sur le processus. Ils s'intéressent à l'environnement naturel du comptable professionnel et aux cas de jugement qu'on retrouve dans la pratique, en confiant aux répondants le soin d'interpréter leurs propres observations. Les résultats du questionnaire offrent une description des facteurs que les comptables professionnels jugent importants dans l'évaluation de la qualité d'un jugement. Il semble que les catégories de facteurs reliées à une évaluation en termes d'attentes, de résultats et de justification jouent un certain rôle dans la définition de ce qu'est un bon jugement, qui varie selon le poste occupé (niveau de responsabilité) à l'intérieur du cabinet comptable. Les résultats indiquent également que l'on perçoit la justification différemment selon le poste.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig Emby & Michael Gibbins, 1987. "Good judgment in public accounting: Quality and justification," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 287-313, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:4:y:1987:i:1:p:287-313
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1987.tb00668.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1987.tb00668.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1987.tb00668.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. Ashton, Rh, 1974. "Experimental Study Of Internal Control Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 143-157.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Gibbins, M, 1984. "Propositions About The Psychology Of Professional Judgment In Public Accounting," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 103-125.
    4. Waller, William S. & Felix, William Jr., 1984. "The auditor and learning from experience: Some conjectures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(3-4), pages 383-406, October.
    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. Dinuja Perera & Parmod Chand & Rajni Mala, 2020. "Confirmation bias in accounting judgments: the case for International Financial Reporting Standards for small and medium‐sized enterprises," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 4093-4119, December.

    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. Brown, Lawrence D., 1996. "Influential accounting articles, individuals, Ph.D. granting institutions and faculties: A citational analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(7-8), pages 723-754.
    2. Sadok Mansour, 2007. "Modelisation Du Risque Dans Les Methodologies D'Audit : Apport Des De La Psychometrie," Post-Print halshs-00543217, HAL.
    3. Owhoso, Vincent & Weickgenannt, Andrea, 2009. "Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting domain audits," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-21.
    4. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3528 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Jean Bã‰Dard, 1991. "Compétence et qualité des décisions de vérification," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 223-252, September.
    6. Alexander Gelardi, 2010. "Information Quantity and Order in Students’ Tax Research Judgements," Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, Macrothink Institute, vol. 2(1), pages 2546-2546, December.
    7. Noel Harding, 2010. "Understanding the structure of audit workpaper error knowledge and its relationship with workpaper review performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 50(3), pages 663-683, September.
    8. Craig Emby & David Finley, 1997. "Debiasing Framing Effects in Auditors' Internal Control Judgments and Testing Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 55-77, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Simnett, Roger, 1996. "The effect of information selection, information processing and task complexity on predictive accuracy of auditors," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(7-8), pages 699-719.
    11. Cindy Moeckel & Joanne Deahl Williams, 1990. "The role of source availability in inference verification," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 850-858, March.
    12. W. Robert Knechel & William F. Messier, 1990. "Sequential auditor decision making: Information search and evidence evaluation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 386-406, March.
    13. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    14. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    15. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    18. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    19. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    20. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    21. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.

    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:wly:coacre:v:4:y:1987:i:1:p:287-313. 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.