Creativity and innovation have been identified by senior executives as some of the most desired characteristics of corporate culture. Accordingly, managers strive to build these cultures within their organizations. However, research in psychology suggests that these attempts may have unintended negative consequences. In this study, I predict and find that managers in a more (versus less) innovative company culture will engage in higher levels of real earnings management (REM). I then test two construal level theory (CLT)‐based interventions designed to reduce REM. As I predict, I find that in more innovative corporate cultures an intervention that makes downside risk more salient reduces REM, but an intervention that encourages managers to consider the “big‐picture” impact of their decision reduces REM to a greater extent. Unexpectedly, I also find that the effect of the “big‐picture” intervention reverses in a less innovative corporate culture leading to an increase in REM. My findings contribute to the emerging accounting literature regarding REM. I also extend the psychology literature investigating the link between opportunistic behavior and creativity, and I also expand research into how interventions based on CLT can affect judgment and decision making in an accounting context.

This study uses a controlled experiment to examine the trade‐off between managers’ use of non‐GAAP and GAAP earnings to satisfy market expectations and how this relationship can be moderated by both formal and informal regulatory attention to non‐GAAP earnings. Our key takeaway is that allowing financial reporting discretion in an alternative disclosure channel, that is, non‐GAAP earnings, can reduce firms’ opportunistic GAAP reporting. However, statements by regulators about increased attention to non‐GAAP earnings constrain this channel, and this can result in more aggressive GAAP earnings management and reduced GAAP earnings quality. We triangulate these findings with a survey and archival analyses and find results that are consistent with this primary message. Our study provides evidence relevant to standard setters and regulators that non‐GAAP measures may serve an important role even if they can be used opportunistically.

We examine how information dissemination via mobile device applications (apps) affects nonprofessional investors' judgments. In response to the prevalence of mobile device use, the media ungroups content into smaller pieces to accommodate users, and apps use push notifications to highlight this content. These changes increase users' ability to access investment information in real time, leaving some investors feeling as if they are missing out if they are not continuously connected. We validate a scale to capture investors' fear of missing out on investment information (I-FoMO) and document that I-FoMO is distinct from traditional FoMO that occurs in social settings. Then, using an experiment, we find that receiving ungrouped content via a mobile device has a greater effect on investment allocations in the presence, rather than absence, of push notifications. Further, we find that these results hold for higher, but not for lower, I-FoMO investors. JEL Classifications: G23; M41; M48; M49. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

Contrast analysis has become prevalent in experimental accounting research since Buckless and Ravenscroft (1990) introduced it to the accounting literature over 25 years ago. Since its initial introduction, the scope of contrast testing has expanded, yet guidance as to the most appropriate methods of specifying, conducting, interpreting, and exhibiting these tests has not. We survey the use of contrast analysis in the recent literature and propose a three-part testing approach that provides a more comprehensive picture of contrast results. Our approach considers three pieces of complementary evidence: the visual evaluation of fit, traditional significance testing, and quantitative evaluation of the contrast variance residual. Our measure of the contrast variance residual, q2, is proposed for the first time in this work. After proposing our approach, we walk through six common contrast testing scenarios where current practices may fall short and our approach may guide researchers. We extend Buckless and Ravenscroft (1990) and contribute to the accounting research methods literature by documenting current contrast analysis practices that result in elevated Type I error and by proposing a potential solution to mitigate these concerns.

This paper discusses the role of process evidence in accounting research. We define process evidence broadly as data providing insight into how and why cause-effect relationships occur, and we provide a framework to guide the provision and evaluation of process evidence in accounting studies. Our definition allows for an expanded understanding of techniques for gathering process evidence. The framework highlights the importance of the study's goals and theory in choosing how to provide process evidence, as well as how much process evidence to provide. The paper also outlines the strengths and limitations of three approaches to providing process evidence: mediation, moderation, and multiple-study-based designs. We provide recommendations for best practices for each approach to minimize threats to validity and maximize the value of process evidence.