Impairment of assets – the role of norm reminders in non-compliant accounting decisions. An experimental investigation of gender differences

• Authors: Kołodziej Sabina , Maruszewska Ewa Wanda

Title variants

PL

Wpływ przypomnienia normy na decyzje niezgodne z zasadami rachunkowości w zakresie odpisów aktualizujących. Różnice między kobietami i mężczyznami w badaniu eksperymentalnym

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Objective: This article examines the impact of accounting norm reminders on a decision about the impairment of two groups of assets: receivables and inventories. It also investi-gates the ethical judgment of a non-compliant decision. Method: The examination is performed via a laboratory experiment. Results: A non-compliant decision was found to have a significant impact in the groups of males and females. Men’s propensity to non-compliance was higher regardless of the group of assets, suggesting that imprecise accounting regulations are perceived as a gateway to manipulations. Women’s propensity to make a non-compliant decision after recalling a norm was different, depending on the type of asset. The ethical evaluation was affected by gender: women evaluated a non-compliant decision of two groups of assets differently after recalling a norm. The main contribution of the study indicates that accountants may decide the opposite to the norm’s intention when the norm is less precise. Limitations: The study was conducted in one country and among masters’ degree account-ing students. The number of males was relatively small. Practical implications: The results should be of interest to behavioral researchers, academic teachers, and Polish standards setters as they continue to develop national accounting standards. Contribution: We provide evidence that the interaction of norm recall, the type of asset, as well as the gender of the decision-maker impacts non-compliant decisions.

PL

Cel: W artykule zbadano wpływ przypomnienia normy rachunkowości na decyzję o odpisie trwałej utraty wartości dla dwóch grup aktywów: należności oraz zapasów. W badaniu opisuje się też etyczną ocenę decyzji niezgodnej z zasadami rachunkowości. Metodyka: Badanie miało formę eksperymentu laboratoryjnego. Wyniki: Istotny wpływ przypomnienia normy na decyzję niezgodną z zasadami rachunko-wości stwierdzono w grupach kobiet i mężczyzn. Skłonność mężczyzn do decyzji niezgodnej z zasadami rachunkowości była wyższa, niezależnie od grupy aktywów, co sugeruje, że nieprecyzyjne regulacje rachunkowości mogą stanowić czynnik umożliwiający manipulacje. Po przypomnieniu normy, skłonność kobiet do podejmowania decyzji niezgodnej z zasadami była różna w zależności od rodzaju aktywów. Na etyczną ocenę decyzji wpływ miała płeć: kobiety decyzję niezgodną z normą oceniały odmiennie, w zależności od grupy aktywów. Ograniczenia: Badanie zostało przeprowadzone w jednym kraju i wśród studentów stu-diów II stopnia na kierunku rachunkowość. Liczba mężczyzn uczestniczących w badaniu była stosunkowo niewielka. Praktyczne implikacje: Wyniki badania mogą zainteresować naukowców zajmujących się badaniami behawioralnymi, nauczycieli akademickich oraz regulatora tworzącego i udoskonalającego polskie standardy rachunkowości. Oryginalność: Badanie wskazuje, że interakcja przypomnienia normy i rodzaj aktywów, jak też płeć osoby przygotowującej sprawozdanie finansowe wpływają na decyzję o odstą-pieniu od dokonania odpisów aktualizujących.

Keywords

EN

discretional accounting decision; financial reporting; norms, compliance; gender

PL

dyskrecjonalne decyzje w rachunkowości; sprawozdania finansowe; normy; zgodność; płeć

• Publisher: Stowarzyszenie Księgowych w Polsce (SKwP), Zarząd Główny, Rada Naukowa
• Journal: Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości
• Year: 2021
• Issue: 45(2)
• Pages: 103-120

Contributors

author

Kołodziej Sabina

• Kozminski University, Centre for EconomicPsychology and Decision Sciences

author

Maruszewska Ewa Wanda

• University of Economics in Kato-wice, Department of Business Informatics and International Accounting

References

• Abbasian M.M., Yaghoob-Nezhad A., Royaee R., Yeganeh Y.H. (2015), The influence of accounting standard precision on auditors’ decisions, “European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences”, 4 (1), pp. 191–198.
• Agoglia Ch.P., Doupnik T.S., Tsakumis G.T. (2011), Principles-based versus rules-based accounting standards: the influence of standard precision and audit committee strength on financial reporting, “The Accounting Review”, 86 (3), pp. 747-767, DOI: 10.2308/ accr.00000045.
• Ariely D. (2012), The honest truth about dishonesty: How we lie to everyone—especially ourselves, HarperCollins, New York.
• Backof A.G., Bamber E.M., Carpenter T.D. (2016), Do auditor judgment help in constrain-ing aggressive reporting? Evidence under more precise and less precise accounting standards, “Accounting, Organizations and Society”, 51, pp. 1–11, DOI: 10.1016/ j.aos.2016.03.004.
• Barkan R., Ayal, S., Gino, F., Ariely, D. (2012), The pot calling the kettle black: Distancing response to ethical dissonance, “Journal of Experimental Psychology: General”, 141, pp. 757–773. DOI: 10.1037/a0027588.
• Beekun R.I., Hamdy R., Wersterman J.W., Hassabelnaby H.R. (2008), An exploration of ethical decision-making processes in the United States and Egypt, “Journal of Business Ethics”, 82, pp. 587–605, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9578-y.
• Botosan Ch.A., Koonce L., Ryan S.G., Stone M.S., Wahlen J.M. (2005), Accounting for liabili-ties: conceptual issues, standards setting, and evidence from academic research, “Accounting Horizons”, 19 (3), pp. 159–186, DOI: 10.2308/acch.2005.19.3.159.
• Boyle E.S. (2015), Management perceptions of audit quality: a qualitative and quantitative investigation, A dissertation to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfill-ment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration, pp. 1–164.
• Byrnes J.P., Miller D.C., Schafer W.D. (1999), Gender difference in risk taking: A meta-analysis. “Psychological Bulletin”, 125, pp. 367–383, DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367.
• Cardinaels E., Yin H. (2015), Think Twice Before Going for Incentives: Social Norms and the Principal’s Decision on Compensation Contracts, “Journal of Accounting Research”, 53 (5), pp. 985–1015, DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.12093.
• Cardoso R.L., Barcellos L.P., de Aquino A.C.B. (2014), Evidences of vagueness in the accounting standards and their consequences for the principles- versus rules-based debate, “SSRN Electronic Journal”, pp. 1–18.
• Cardoso R.L., de Aquino A.C.B. (2009), An experimental investigation of vagueness on the left side of the balance sheet, “Brazilian Business Review”, 6 (2), pp. 198–216, DOI: 10.15728/bbr.2009.6.2.6.
• Chang C.J., Nen-Chen R.H. (2003), The impact of retention incentives and client business risk on auditors’ decisions involving aggressive practices, “Auditing”, 22 (2), pp. 207–218, DOI: 10.2308/aud.2003.22.2.207.
• Chung-Wen CH., Tuliao K., Cullen J., Chang Y-Y. (2016), Does gender influence managers’ ethics? A cross-cultural analysis, “Business Ethics: A European Review”, 25 (4), pp. 345–362, DOI: 10.1111/beer.12122.
• Cialdini R.B., Demaine L., Sagarin B.J., Barret D.W., Rhoads K., Winter P.L. (2006), Man-aging social norms for persuasive impact, “Social Influence”, 1, pp. 3–15, DOI: 10.1080/15534510500181459.
• Cooter R. (1998), Expressive law and economics, ”Journal of Legal Studies”, 27 (2), pp. 585–608, DOI: 10.1086/468036.
• Costa A.J., Pinheiro M.M., Ribeiro M.S. (2016), Ethical perception of accounting students in a Portuguese university, “Accounting Education”, 25 (4), pp. 327–348, DOI: 10.1080/ 09639284.2016.1191270.
• Cyr D., Heroux S., Fontaine R. (2020), Auditor’s judgment subordination and the theory of planned behavior, “Managerial Auditing Journal”, 36 (8), pp. 1189–1211, DOI: 10.1108/MAJ-12-2018-2110.
• Dye R.A. (2002), Classification Manipulation and Nash Accounting Standards, “Journal of Accounting Research”, 40 (4), pp. 1125–1162, DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.00084.
• Elango B., Paul K., Kundu. S.K., Paudel S.K. (2010), Organizational ethics, individual ethics, and ethical intentions in international decision-making, “Journal of Business Ethics”, 97, pp. 543–561, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-010-0524-z.
• Eweje G., Brunton M. (2010), Ethical perceptions of business students in a New Zealand university: do gender, age and work experience matter? “Business Ethics: A European Review”, 19 (1), pp. 95–111, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2009.01581.x.
• Feldman Y. (2009). The expressive function of trade secret law: Legality, cost, intrinsic moti-vation, and consensus, “Journal of Empirical Legal Studies”, 6 (1), pp. 177–212, DOI:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01141.x.
• Festinger L. (1957), A theory of cognitive dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
• Gao P. (2013), A two-step representation of accounting measurement, “Accounting Hori-zons”, 27 (4), pp. 861–866, DOI: 10.2308/acch-10367.
• Greiner J.H., Pomeroy B., Stern M.T. (2015), The effect of accounting standard precision, auditor task experience, and judgment frameworks on audit firm litigation exposure, “Contemporary Accounting Research”, 32 (1), pp. 336–357, DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12092.
• Greiner J.H., Pomeroy B., Stern M.T., Zielinski N.B. (2020), The effect of accounting stand-ard precision, auditor task expertise, and judgment frameworks on audit firm litigation exposure, “Current Issues in Auditing”, 14 (2), pp. 19–30, DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12092.
• Hoogervorst H. (2012), The imprecise world of accounting, International Association for Accounting Education and Research (IAAER) Conference, Amsterdam, 20 June 2012.
• Hopkins W.E., Hopkins S.A., Mitchell B.S. (2008), Ethical consistency in managerial deci-sions, “Ethics and Behavior”, 18 (1), pp. 26–43, DOI: 10.1080/10508420701519544.
• Kadous K., Mercer M. (2012), Can reporting norms create a safe harbor? Jury verdicts against auditors under precise and imprecise accounting standards, “The Accounting Review”, 87 (2), pp. 565–587, DOI: 10.2308/accr-10203
• Kadous K., Mercer M. (2016), Are juries more likely to second-guess auditors under impre-cise accounting standards, “Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory”, 35 (1), pp. 101–117, DOI: 10.2308/accr-10203.
• Kim S., Bay D. (2017), Cognitive dissonance as an explanation of goodwill write-offs, “Jour-nal of Behavioral Finance”, 18 (1), pp. 14–28, DOI: 10.1080/15427560.2017.1274755.
• Kołodziej S., Maruszewska E.W. (2016), Skłonność do unikania i uchylania się od opodat-kowania w świetle teorii moralnego rozwoju Kohlberga – zagadnienia etyczne w rachun-kowości, „Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości”, 86 (142), pp. 35–52, DOI: 10.5604/ 16414381.1199231.
• Maas V., van Rinsum M. (2015), How control system design influences performance misre-porting, “Journal of Accounting Research”, 51 (5), pp. 1159–1186, DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.12025.
• Majors T.M. (2016), The interaction of communicating measurement uncertainty and the dark triad of managers’ reporting, “The Accounting Review”, 91 (3), pp. 973–992, DOI: 10.2308/accr-51276.
• Mala R., Chand P. (2015), Judgment and decision-making research in auditing and ac-counting: future research implications of person, task, and environment perspective, “Ac-counting Perspectives”, 14 (1), pp. 1–50, DOI: 10.1111/1911-3838.12040.
• Marques P.A., Azevedo-Pereira J. (2009), Ethical ideology and ethical judgments in the Portuguese accounting profession, “Journal of Business Ethics”, 86, pp. 227–242, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-9845-6.
• McCabe A.C., Ingram R., Dato-on M.C. (2006), The business of ethics and gender, “Journal of Business Ethics”, nr 64(2), pp. 101–106, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-005-3327-x.
• Mulder L.B., Nelissen R. (2010). When rules really make a difference: The effect of coopera-tion rules and self-sacrificing leadership on moral norms in social dilemmas, “Journal of Business Ethics”, 95, pp. 57–72, DOI:10.1007/ s10551-011-0795-z.
• Mulder L.B., Jordan J., Rink F.A. (2015), The effect of specific and general rules on ethical decisions, “Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processesˮ, 126, pp. 115–129, DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.11.002.
• Mulder L.B., Rink F.A., Jordan J. (2020), Constraining temptation: How specific and gen-eral rules mitigate the effect of personal gain on unethical behavior, “Journal of Econom-ic Psychology”, 76, DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2019.102242.
• Nadeem M., Suleman T., Ahmed, A. (2019). Women on boards, firm risk and the profitability nexus: Does gender diversity moderate the risk and return relationship? “International Review of Economics & Finance”, 64, pp. 427–442, DOI: 10.1016/j.iref.2019. 08.007.
• Nekhili M., Javed F., Nagati H. (2021), Audit partner gender, leadership and ethics: the case of earnings management, “Journal of Business Ethics”, pp. 1–28, DOI: 10.1007/ s10551-021-04757-9.
• Penno M.C. (2008), Rules and accounting: vagueness in Conceptual Frameworks, “Account-ing Horizons”, 22 (3), pp. 339–351, DOI: 10.2308/acch.2008.22.3.339.
• Plieger T., Grunhage T., Duke E., Reuter M. (2020), Predicting Stock Market Performance: The Influence of Gender and Personality on Financial Decision Making, “Journal of In-dividual Differences”, 42 (2), pp. 64–73, DOI:10.1027/1614-0001/a000330.
• Powell M., Ansic D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behavior in financial decision mak-ing: An experimental analysis. “Journal of Economic Psychology”, 18 (6), pp. 605–628, DOI: 10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00026-3.
• Psaros J., Trotman K.T. (2004), The impact of the type of accounting standards on prepar-ers’ judgments, “Abacus”, 40 (1), pp. 76–93, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2004.00144.x.
• Schipper K. (2003), Principles-based accounting standards. Commentary, “Accounting Horizons”, 17 (1), pp. 61–72.
• Sellami Y.M., Cherif I. (2020). How does the individual auditor gender affect the audit report lag? Conference: German-Arab Transformation Partnership, Conference Paper, December 2020.
• Smieliauskas W., Bewley K., Gronewold U., Menzefricke U. (2018), Misleading forecasts in accounting estimates: a form of ethical blindness in accounting standards? “Journal of Business Ethics”, 152 (2), pp. 437–457, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3289-1.
• Tayler W. B., Bloomfield, R. J. (2011). Norms, Conformity, and Controls. “Journal of Accounting Research”, 49 (3), pp. 753–790, DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2011.00398.x.
• Valentine S.R., Rittenburg T.L. (2007), The ethical decision making of men and women executives in international business situations, “Journal of Business Ethics”, 71 (2), pp. 125–134, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9129-y.
• van Rinsum M., Maas V.S., Stolker D. (2018), Disclosure checklist and auditors’ judgments of aggressive accounting, “European Accounting Review”, 27 (2), pp. 383–399, DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2017.1304228.
• Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting (2018), International Accounting Stand-ards Board, www.ifrs.org (access 21.03.2021).
• Kelly K., Murphy P.R. (2016), The Interactive Effects of Ethical Norms and Subordinate Recommendations on Accounting Decisions, University of Illinois 22nd Symposium on Audit Research, https://pages.business.illinois.edu/accountancy/wp-content/uploads/ sites/12/2016/08/Kelly-Murphy.pdf (access 21.03.2021).
• Young D. (2015), Anticipating Human Behavior: How Social Norms and Social Ties Influ-ence Compliance with Financial Reporting Standards, Working Paper, https://cear.gsu. edu/files/2015/09/Session-3-Young-Paper.pdf (access 21.03.2021).