IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ami/journl/v18y2019i1p25-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Interpretation of the Verbal Probability Expressions Used in The IFRS – The Differences Observed Between Polish and British Accounting Professionals

Author

Listed:
  • Katarzyna Kolesnik
  • Sylwia Silska-Gembka
  • Jerzy Gierusz

    (University of Gdansk, Poland)

Abstract

Research Question: Do Polish and British accounting professionals interpret verbal probability expressions (VPEs) differently when presented with identical excerpts from IFRS? Motivation: Our research has been motivated by the ongoing debate of consistent interpretation of VPEs. The major difficulty in the interpretation of these terms is the imperative for the accountants to express their individual subjective judgements. Previous research shows that these expressions may have low communication efficiency (Simon, 2002) as they give way to ‘wide variations in interpretation’ (Chesley, 1986: 196). The lack of consistency in the interpretation of VPEs may limit the usefulness of the financial statements prepared on their basis (Simon, 2002). Idea: We examine the interpretational differences between Poles and the British. We also survey whether the principle of prudence will impact the interpretation manner of the Polish and the British accounting professionals. Data: For the purpose of our study we distributed a questionnaire. 332 questionnaires from Poland and 75 questionnaires from the UK included answers that were subject to the analysis. Tools: We asked a sample of professional accountants from Poland and the UK to interpret the “in context” VPEs used in IFRS establishing the threshold for recognition of various accounting elements. Findings: Our results show that there are differences in the manner the Poles and the British interpret VPEs. Additionally, we indicate that the Polish accountants’ attachment to the prudence principle affects their manner of interpretation. However, we were not able to state whether this principle would not affect the level of probability assigned by the British accountants. Contribution: Our paper provides the first comparative results for Poland and the UK, in terms of surveying professional judgement under with relation to the IFRS.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarzyna Kolesnik & Sylwia Silska-Gembka & Jerzy Gierusz, 2019. "The Interpretation of the Verbal Probability Expressions Used in The IFRS – The Differences Observed Between Polish and British Accounting Professionals," Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, Faculty of Accounting and Management Information Systems, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 25-49, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ami:journl:v:18:y:2019:i:1:p:25-49
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://online-cig.ase.ro/RePEc/ami/articles/18_1_2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schultz, Joseph Jr. & Lopez, Thomas J., 2001. "The impact of national influence on accounting estimates: Implications for international accounting standard-setters," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 271-290, September.
    2. Hamm, Robert M., 1991. "Selection of verbal probabilities: A solution for some problems of verbal probability expression," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 193-223, April.
    3. Wehrfritz, Martin & Haller, Axel, 2014. "National influence on the application of IFRS: Interpretations and accounting estimates by German and British accountants," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 196-208.
    4. 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.
    5. Jon Simon, 2002. "Interpretation of probability expressions by financial directors and auditors of UK companies," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 601-629.
    6. 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.
    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. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 363-393, March.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed 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. Siti Mariana Taliyang & Safrul Izani Mohd Salleh & Rosmaria Jaffar Harun, 2013. "Accounting Convergence: Issues On Translation & Interpretation: Evidence In Malaysia," Far East Journal of Psychology and Business, Far East Research Centre, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Nancy Segura, 2008. "Contribution à la connaissance de la production de l'information financière : Le cas des provisions pour litiges," Post-Print halshs-00525982, HAL.
    4. Li, Chan & Raman, K.K. & Sun, Lili & Wu, Da, 2017. "The effect of ambiguity in an auditing standard on auditor independence: Evidence from nonaudit fees and SOX 404 opinions," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-51.
    5. 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.
    6. Zhang, Yuqian & De Zoysa, Anura & Cortese, Corinne, 2023. "Foreign language effect in accounting uncertainty expressions: Interpretation and probabilistic estimation," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    7. Kettunen, Jaana, 2017. "Interlingual translation of the International Financial Reporting Standards as institutional work," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 38-54.
    8. Klimczak Katarzyna, 2017. "Cross-country Differences in Reporting Practices – the Case of Provisions for Liabilities," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 25(3), pages 20-33, September.
    9. Noh, Minyoung & Cho, Moon Kyung, 2022. "Cultural tightness and accounting conservatism," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    10. Ricardo Lopes Cardoso & Rodrigo de Oliveira Leite & André Carlos Busanelli de Aquino, 2023. "Probable at First Glance, but Unlikely After Closer Look: The Role of Cognitive Reflection Ability on the Assessment of Probabilistic Expressions," The International Journal of Accounting (TIJA), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 58(02), pages 1-31, June.
    11. Vassili Joannides & Danture Wickramasinghe & Nicolas Berland, 2012. "Critiques On Gray-Hofstede'S Model: What Impact On Cross-Cultural Accounting Research?," Post-Print hal-00690933, HAL.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Vassili Joannides & Danture Wickramasinghe & Nicolas Berland, 2012. "Critiques on gray-hofstede’s model: what impact on cross-cultural accounting research?," Post-Print hal-01661667, HAL.
    14. Johnathon Cziffra & Steve Fortin & Zvi Singer, 2023. "Differences in government accounting conservatism across jurisdictions, their determinants, and consequences: the case of Canada and the United States," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 1035-1073, June.
    15. Vassili Joannides & Danture Wickramasinghe & Nicolas Berland, 2012. "Critiques on gray-hofstede’s model: what impact on cross-cultural accounting research?," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-01661667, HAL.
    16. Bryson, Noel (Kweku-Muata) & Mobolurin, Ayodele, 1999. "A process for generating quantitative belief functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 624-633, June.
    17. Hellmann, Andreas & Patel, Chris, 2021. "Translation of International Financial Reporting Standards and implications for judgments and decision-making," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    18. repec:dau:papers:123456789/9497 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Robert N. Collins & David R. Mandel, 2019. "Cultivating credibility with probability words and numbers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(6), pages 683-695, November.
    20. Parmod Chand & Michael White, 2006. "The Influence of Culture on Judgments of Accountants in Fiji," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 16(40), pages 82-88, November.
    21. Doupnik, Timothy S. & Riccio, Edson Luiz, 2006. "The influence of conservatism and secrecy on the interpretation of verbal probability expressions in the Anglo and Latin cultural areas," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 237-261.
    22. Walid Guermazi, 2023. "International financial reporting standards adoption in the European Union and earnings conservatism: a review of empirical research," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(2), pages 200-211, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    IFRS; interpretation; professional judgement; verbal probability expressions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting

    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:ami:journl:v:18:y:2019:i:1:p:25-49. 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: Cristina Tartavulea (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.