IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v12y1995i1p25-39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Context†Dependence of Auditors' Interpretations of the SFAS No. 5 Probability Expressions

Author

Listed:
  • TAREK AMER
  • KARL HACKENBRACK
  • MARK NELSON

Abstract

. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 5 requires accrual of contingent losses which are deemed probable. This disclosure criterion is intended to be applied uniformly across a variety of contexts. We performed an experiment which examined whether audit managers' interpretations of the SFAS No. 5 probability expressions are influenced by one contextual feature, event base rate. Counter to the intention of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), interpretations of the expression probable were positively associated with event base rate. Résumé. Le SFAS no 5 exige l'imputation à l'exercice des pertes éventuelles qui sont jugées «probables». La règle ainsi établie veut que ce critère de présentation d'information soit appliqué uniformément dans des contextes très divers. Les auteurs procèdent à une expérience dans le cadre de laquelle ils examinent si la façon dont les responsables de mission interprètent la gamme de probabilités, au sens du SFAS no 5, est influencée par une caractéristique contextuelle, la fréquence relative de l'événement. Contrairement au résultat visé par le FASB, les interprétations du terme «probable» sont en relation positive avec la fréquence relative de l'événement.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:12:y:1995:i:1:p:25-39
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1995.tb00479.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1995.tb00479.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1995.tb00479.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. Banks, Dw & Kinney, Wr, 1982. "Loss Contingency Reports And Stock-Prices - An Empirical-Study," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 240-254.
    2. Frost, Ca, 1991. "Loss Contingency Reports And Stock-Prices - A Replication And Extension Of Banks And Kinney," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 157-169.
    3. Kida, T, 1984. "The Impact Of Hypothesis-Testing Strategies On Auditors Use Of Judgment Data," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 332-340.
    4. Lewis, Bl, 1980. "Expert Judgment In Auditing - An Expected Utility Approach," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 594-602.
    5. Joyce, Ej & Biddle, Gc, 1981. "Are Auditors Judgments Sufficiently Regressive," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 323-349.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Holt, Doris L., 1987. "Auditors and base rates revisited," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 12(6), pages 571-578, October.
    9. Swieringa, R & Gibbins, M & Larsson, L & Sweeney, Jl, 1976. "Experiments In Heuristics Of Human Information-Processing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14, pages 159-187.
    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. 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.
    2. K. Raghunandan, 1993. "Predictive Ability of Audit Qualifications for Loss Contingencies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 612-634, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Stuart, Iris & Shin, Yong-Chul & Cram, Donald P. & Karan, Vijay, 2013. "Review of choice-based, matched, and other stratified sample studies in auditing research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 88-113.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Koku, Paul Sergius & Qureshi, Anique A. & Akhigbe, Aigbe, 2001. "The effects of news on initial corporate lawsuits," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 49-55, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Waymond Rodgers & Andrés Guiral & José Gonzalo, 2009. "Different Pathways that Suggest Whether Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions are Ethically Based," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 347-361, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Sadok Mansour, 2007. "Modelisation Du Risque Dans Les Methodologies D'Audit : Apport Des De La Psychometrie," Post-Print halshs-00543217, HAL.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    17. Petersen, Knut & Patzke, Henning, 1986. "Individuelles Informationsverhalten als Gegenstand des "Behavioral Accounting": Eine Meta-Analyse der empirischen Forschung," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 177, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    18. 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.
    19. Mario J. Maletta, 1993. "An Examination of Auditors' Decisions to Use Internal Auditors as Assistants: The Effect of Inherent Risk," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 508-525, March.
    20. Janne Chung & Gary Monroe, 1999. "The effects of counterexplanation and source of hypothesis on developing audit judgment," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 111-126.

    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:12:y:1995:i:1:p:25-39. 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.