IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedawp/98-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Uncertain litigation cost and seller behavior: Evidence from an auditing game

Author

Listed:
  • Lucy F. Ackert
  • Bryan K. Church
  • Ping Zhang

Abstract

This paper reports the results of two experiments, each consisting of six sessions, designed to investigate difficulties that arise in estimating expected litigation costs in an auditing game. In each experimental session, the game consists of a series of periods in which sellers submit sealed offers to computerized buyers and, if hired, choose an effort level (low or high). The effort level affects the certain (direct) and uncertain (litigation) costs of performing the engagement. Across the two experiments, we vary the uncertainty surrounding the determination of the expected litigation cost. Our results strongly suggest that cognitive limitations hinder sellers' abilities to estimate total expected litigation costs. Across both experiments we observe a nontrivial number of suboptimal effort choices. Moreover, as the uncertainty of determining the expected litigation cost increases, the frequency of observed fee offers below the total expected cost of an engagement increases markedly.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucy F. Ackert & Bryan K. Church & Ping Zhang, 1998. "Uncertain litigation cost and seller behavior: Evidence from an auditing game," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 98-17, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedawp:98-17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/documents/research/publications/wp/1998/wp9817.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dopuch, Nicholas & Ingberman, Daniel E. & King, Ronald R., 1997. "An experimental investigation of multi-defendant bargaining in 'joint and several' and proportionate liability regimes," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 189-221, July.
    2. Dopuch, N & King, Rr & Schatzberg, Jw, 1994. "An Experimental Investigation Of Alternative Damage-Sharing Liability Regimes With An Auditing Perspective," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32, pages 103-130.
    3. Lipshitz, Raanan & Strauss, Orna, 1997. "Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 149-163, February.
    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. Jérémy Lévêque & Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2020. "A Model of the Innovative Purpose for Responsible Innovation : Towards Design-Based Governance," Post-Print hal-02489027, HAL.
    2. Venkatesh, Viswanath & Maruping, Likoebe M. & Brown, Susan A., 2006. "Role of time in self-prediction of behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 160-176, July.
    3. Zeijlmans, Kirti & López, Mónica & Grietens, Hans & Knorth, Erik J., 2017. "Matching children with foster carers: A literature review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 257-265.
    4. Vera Angelova & Olivier Armantier & Giuseppe Attanasi & Yolande Hiriart, 2014. "Relative performance of liability rules: experimental evidence," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 531-556, December.
    5. Yongqiang Gao & Ya Lisa Lin & Haibin Yang, 2017. "What’s the value in it? Corporate giving under uncertainty," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 215-240, March.
    6. Ralf Meinhardt & Sebastian Junge & Martin Weiss, 2018. "The organizational environment with its measures, antecedents, and consequences: a review and research agenda," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 195-235, April.
    7. Sevtap ÜNAL & F. Görgün DEVECİ & Tuğba YILDIZ, 2019. "The main aim of this study is determining which consumption motives and personal and social factors affect organic food buying decisions. Ajzen’s Planned Behavior Theory (TPB) is used to explain consu," Istanbul Business Research, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 48(1), pages 1-35, May.
    8. Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2009. "Naked Exclusion: An Experimental Study of Contracts with Externalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1850-1877, December.
    9. Noémie Berlin & Jan Dul & Marco Gazel & Louis Lévy-Garboua & Todd Lubart, 2023. "Creative Cognition as a Bandit Problem," CIRANO Working Papers 2023s-11, CIRANO.
    10. Nakkas Alper, 2010. "Settling with Multiple Litigants," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 125-144, June.
    11. Werth, Lioba & Strack, Fritz & Forster, Jens, 2002. "Certainty and Uncertainty: The Two Faces of the Hindsight Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 323-341, March.
    12. Ronan Kervenoael & Alexandre Schwob & Inci Toral Manson & Chatlada Ratana, 2022. "Business-to-business and self-governance practice in the digital knowledge economy: learning from pharmaceutical e-detailing in Thailand," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(4), pages 598-622, September.
    13. Bryce, Cormac & Webb, Rob & Cheevers, Carly & Ring, P. & Clark, G., 2016. "Should the insurance industry be banking on risk escalation for solvency II?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 131-139.
    14. van Schie, Ron J.G. & Donkers, Bas & Dellaert, Benedict G.C., 2012. "Savings adequacy uncertainty: Driver or obstacle to increased pension contributions?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 882-896.
    15. Serge Garcia & Julien Jacob & Eve-Angéline Lambert, 2017. "Comparison of liability sharing rules for environmental damage: An experiment with different levels of solvency," Working Papers of BETA 2017-12, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    16. Tobias Frese & Ingmar Geiger & Florian Dost, 2020. "An empirical investigation of determinants of effectual and causal decision logics in online and high-tech start-up firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 641-664, March.
    17. Giuseppe Attanasi & Laura Concina & Caroline Kamaté & Valentina Rotondi, 2020. "Firm’s protection against disasters: are investment and insurance substitutes or complements?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 121-151, February.
    18. Bao, Xing & Diabat, Ali & Zheng, Zhongliang, 2020. "An ambiguous manager's disruption decisions with insufficient data in recovery phase," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    19. Saïna Hassanzadeh & Didier Gourc & François Marmier & Sophie Bougaret, 2011. "Decision-making in R&D projects, a framework based on fuzzy logic," Post-Print hal-00745290, HAL.
    20. Keeling, Kathleen & McGoldrick, Peter & Beatty, Susan, 2010. "Avatars as salespeople: Communication style, trust, and intentions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 793-800, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Accounting;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:fip:fedawp:98-17. 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: Rob Sarwark (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbatus.html .

    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.