In GAAP We Trust: Examining How Trust Influences Nonprofessional Investor Decisions Under Rules-Based and Principles-Based Standards

Author:

Bailey Wendy J.1,Sawers Kimberly M.2

Affiliation:

1. Northeastern University

2. Seattle Pacific University

Abstract

ABSTRACTIn this study, we investigate whether and how trust in our current, more rules-based financial reporting system and type of accounting standard affects nonprofessional investor decision making. In an experiment, 151 nonprofessional investors analyzed two companies that were economically identical except for a single underlying financial reporting difference that allowed one company to more positively report its financial results. By itself, the type of standard (rules-based, principles-based) did not affect investment choices or allocation decisions. However, when trust was considered, nonprofessional investors who are less trusting of our current financial reporting system chose to invest in a company with more positive financial results only when evaluating principles-based financial statements. Conversely, the type of standard did not affect investor decision making for nonprofessional investors who trust our current financial reporting system. These results have implications for standard setters as we move to a more principles-based accounting system.Data Availability: Available on request.

Publisher

American Accounting Association

Subject

Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Accounting

Reference39 articles.

1. Baker, R. 2002. Testimony to the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

2. The accounting debate: Principles vs. rules;Berkowitz;Wall Street Journal,2002

3. Readers response to the debate surrounding principles vs. rules;Berkowitz;Wall Street Journal,2002

4. SEC's top accountant faults U.S. accounting rules;Burns;Wall Street Journal,2002

5. Integrating variable risk preference, trust, and transaction cost economics;Chiles;The Academy of Management Review,1996

Cited by 17 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3