Noel Harding

User involvement in the standard-setting process: A research note on the congruence of accountant and user perceptions of decision usefulness☆

Abstract This is an exploratory study which examines whether accountants and users of financial statements hold congruent or incongruent views on the decision usefulness of accounting information. This issue is important to the question of whether users require direct involvement in the standard-setting process, or whether their views may be adequately represented in the process by other participants such as accountants. Drawing on the sociology of professions literature under which professionals, such as accountants, are assumed to seek to maintain the judgement domain and indeterminacy of their professional task, it is hypothesised that accountant and user views on decision usefulness will be incongruent in those situations where a change in accounting method reduces judgement domain or indeterminacy. Specifically, it is hypothesised that, compared to users, accountants will perceive a lower degree of decision usefulness to be associated with a change in accounting method that reduces judgement domain or indeterminacy. Using a survey questionnaire, developed around a series of accounting method change scenarios, and administered to a sample of accountants and investment analysts (as an example of users), support was found for our hypothesis in relation to judgement domain, but not for indeterminacy.

The importance in accounting of ambiguity tolerance at the national level: Evidence from Australia and China

Purpose - The aim of the research is to examine potential differences in the levels of ambiguity tolerance between Australian and Chinese accountants at the national, rather than individual, level. Design/methodology/approach - Ambiguity tolerance levels of final year accounting students (proxying for entry level accountants) and first year accounting students from Australia and China were measured using the MacDonald AT-20 Ambiguity Tolerance Index. Comparisons were made across the four subject pools with a view to identifying national level differences suggested by the cultural, sociological, historical, and contemporary issues impacting on the accounting profession in the two countries. Findings - Entry level accountants in China are less tolerant of ambiguity than their Australian counterparts. There are, however, no statistically significant differences in the levels of ambiguity tolerance between first year accounting students in China and Australia. Research limitations/implications - The research employed final year accounting students as surrogates for entry level accountants. Future research could usefully extend this research to practicing accountants at different ranks. Practical implications - Given the central role of ambiguity in contemporary accounting practice, the potential implications are broad. This is particularly the case with regard to the harmonization of accounting practices in that accountants with different tolerances for ambiguity might make different decisions in the face of similar accounting standards and circumstances. Interestingly, the results from the research suggest that differences in ambiguity tolerance are attributable to events occurring while students are studying. Originality/value - This research examines ambiguity tolerance at the national level (rather than the individual level), thereby allowing practical implications to be prescribed.

Auditor Calibration in the Review Process

A recent change to audit workpaper review has been the movement toward delegating more review tasks to senior auditors and including more staff auditors in the review process. This study investigates the efficiency and effectiveness implications of this change. It considers the calibration of reviewers of different levels of experience on both conceptual and mechanical errors. The results reveal that reviewers are miscalibrated (overconfident) in their workpaper error judgments. No differences are found in the calibration of staff and senior auditors across hierarchical level or type of error. The implications for audit effectiveness are discussed in the paper.

Elevating professional scepticism: An exploratory study into the impact of accountability pressure and knowledge of the superior’s preferences

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether accountability pressure and ignorance with regard to the preferences and views of the superior are necessary characteristics of the decision environment to effectively encourage pre-emptive self-criticism and elevate professional scepticism. Auditors continue to be called to account for a perceived lack of professional scepticism in the conduct of their audits. Pre-emptive self-criticism has been proposed as one means by which the level of professional scepticism exercised by auditors may be enhanced. Design/methodology/approach - – The role of accountability pressure and knowledge of the superior’s preferences in an experimental setting has been investigated, eliciting self-assessed measures of accountability pressure and manipulating whether the superior’s preferences were known or unknown. Judgements are made in the context of a preliminary analytical review setting. Findings - – It was found that greater application of pre-emptive self-criticism is associated with the presence of perceived accountability pressure, but only when the superior’s preferences are not known. Research limitations/implications - – Prior research reports that the effectiveness of prompts to be self-critical is limited. Findings suggest that pre-emptive self-criticism may be more effective in elevating professional scepticism than the findings of these studies suggest, and that the absence of an effect may be the result of low levels of accountability pressure in previous research settings. The results of this study imply that future research investigating pre-emptive self-criticism as a means of elevating professional scepticism should incorporate, as is the case in actual audit environments, accountability pressure in the decision setting. Practical implications - – Qualified by the need for further research, our study guides audit firms in their efforts to meet the expectations of regulators, oversight bodies, standard setters and the public at large for an elevated level of professional scepticism. Our findings suggest that placing auditors under accountability pressure might assist audit firms in meeting these expectations. Our findings also encourage auditors to exercise caution when making their preferences known to subordinates. Originality/value - – Despite its potential to help auditors meet demands for an elevated level of professional scepticism, pre-emptive self-criticism has received very little attention in the audit literature. Moreover, the few studies that have examined pre-emptive self-criticism find that prompts to be self-critical elevate professional scepticism in only limited circumstances. We make an original contribution towards an explanation for these findings, and guide future research by showing that accountability pressure is an important characteristic of the decision environment that should be in place before attempting to elevate professional scepticism through the encouragement of pre-emptive self-criticism.

Understanding the Structure of Audit Workpaper Error Knowledge and its Relationship with Workpaper Review Performance

This study examines the veracity of two important, yet untested, premises underlying the interpretation of hierarchical variation in workpaper review performance. Prior research has argued that auditors at different hierarchical levels structure their knowledge of workpaper errors differently, and that these differences in knowledge structure give rise to hierarchical variation in the ability of auditors to identify mechanical and conceptual workpaper errors. This study directly examines the way in which audit firm managers, seniors and staff auditors structure their knowledge of audit workpaper errors and finds variation across hierarchical levels. These differences in knowledge structure were found to be associated with variation in workpaper review performance as they related to the identification of conceptual errors, but not, as proposed in prior research, mechanical workpaper errors. These results guide future research efforts aimed at improving workpaper review performance.

The impact of differences in ambiguity tolerance on accounting standard interpretation: implications and responses

Motivated 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.

Financial reporting comparability: evidence on the impact of ambiguity tolerance and accounting standard guidance

In this study, we investigate whether the provision of formal guidance in the interpretation of ambiguous principles-based accounting standard provisions contributes to, or detracts from, financial reporting comparability. Analysing judgments made by Chinese accountants working in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, our results highlight that the presentation of comparable financial information is hindered by the presence of guidance. These results suggest that if national and international comparability is desired, standard setting authorities should exercise caution when incorporating guidance into accounting standards.