Abstract We report on an experiment in which experienced auditors (1) determine whether to allow a client to adopt an aggressive reporting method when the auditors have an incentive to do so, and (2) justify aggressive reporting by their interpretations of financial accounting standards. In the experiment, the appropriate reporting method depends upon whether an amount can be "reasonably estimated" as that term is used in an applicable accounting standard. The accounting standard relevant to determining the appropriate reporting method was manipulated between subjects (thus varying whether judging that an amount can be reasonably estimated would justify an aggressive or conservative method), as was engagement risk. The results indicate that the auditors responded to moderate engagement risk by permitting the aggressive reporting method and justified their choice with aggressive interpretations of accounting standards. When faced with high engagement risk, the auditors responded by requiring conservative reporting and justified their choice with conservative interpretations of accounting standards.

ABSTRACT We report the results of two experiments that provide evidence that investors' risk judgments are affected by the numerical format used to describe outcomes within accounting disclosures. Consistent with prior research in psychology, investors assess higher risk in response to dollar-formatted disclosures than to equivalent percentage-formatted disclosures. Consistent with the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad and Wright 1994), this effect is moderated when investors have both (1) awareness that management has discretion over format, and (2) sufficient cognitive capacity to consider its implications. Our results provide insight about the effects of current disclosure formats and suggest implications for managers who choose formats, investors who interpret formatted information, and regulators who consider whether to further prescribe the formats that are used in financial disclosures.

Abstract This paper reports the results of an experiment that examines the influence of uncertainty about the probability that a future loss will occur ("ambiguity") on auditors and financial statement users' judgments about appropriate reference to contingent losses in audit reports. Application of Einhorn and Hogarth's (1985) ambiguity model suggests that, with respect to losses of tow (high) probability, both auditors and users will act as if an ambiguous probability of loss is higher (lower) than a precise probability of the same magnitude, thus demonstrating a conservative (unconservative) reaction to ambiguity. In addition, since auditors may jeopardize client relations when they unnecessarily make audit report reference to contingent losses, auditors may react less conservatively to ambiguity than do users. The results of the experiment support these predictions.

This paper reports the results of an experiment that examines the influenceof uncertaintyabouttheprobabilitythatafuturelosswilloccur (ambiguity) on auditors' and financial statement users' judgments about appropriate reference to contingent losses in audit reports. Application of Einhorn and Hogarth's (1985) ambiguity model suggests that, with respect to losses of low (high) probability, both auditors and users will act as if an ambiguous probability of loss is higher (lower) than a precise probability of the same magnitude, thus demonstrating a conservative (unconservative) reaction to ambiguity. In addition, since auditors may jeopardize client relations when they unnecessarily make audit report reference to contingent losses, auditors may react less conservatively to ambiguity than do users. The results of the experiment support these predictions.

Dichev, Graham, Harvey and Rajgopal (DGHR, in this issue) survey chief financial officers (CFOs) to elicit their views on earnings quality, broader trends in financial reporting, and the prevalence of earnings management. They provide some interesting insights on these issues. We discuss how CFOs' incentives in the financial reporting process are likely to affect what we can learn from them about earnings quality. We also discuss how DGHR's methodological choices regarding survey sample and question design affect their inferences, including what we can infer about the prevalence and magnitude of earnings management.

Abstract Accountants making judgments with respect to a particular set of standards are increasingly aware of standards from other reporting regimes that offer additional or conflicting guidance. In fact, IFRS encourages reliance on out‐of‐regime standards when IFRS lacks guidance. This paper reports the results of two experiments which provide evidence that auditors in such circumstances are vulnerable to contrast effects , whereby reporting judgments under IFRS are systematically influenced away from the accounting treatment supported by standards from another regime (U.S. GAAP ). Contrast effects are observed (i) when out‐of‐regime standards are considered before making a reporting judgment under IFRS , and (ii) when out‐of‐regime standards are applied as local GAAP for a subsidiary of a foreign parent that reports under IFRS . We also find that contrast effects are reduced when auditors believe IFRS lacks guidance. These results have implications for financial statement preparers and auditors in the current incomplete‐convergence environment.

We examine whether information in footnotes might lack reliability because auditors permit more misstatement in disclosed, as opposed to recognized, amounts. In both the stock-compensation and lease settings, audit partners require greater correction of misstatements in recognized amounts than in the equivalent disclosed amounts. Debriefing questions indicate that the partners make these decisions knowingly, even though they expect greater client resistance to correcting recognized amounts, because they view recognized amounts as more material. Partners also spend more time on correction decisions for recognized information. While prior literature suggests that amounts are often relegated to footnotes because they are less reliable, our results suggest that the actual choice to disclose versus recognize can also reduce information reliability. These results have implications for the interpretation of prior research on the reliability of recognized and disclosed numbers, for financial-accounting standard setters who may want to consider the reliability effects of their recognition versus disclosure decisions, and for auditing standard setters who may wish to clarify auditors' responsibilities for preventing misstatements in disclosed amounts.

This paper reports analyses of data obtained using a field-based questionnaire in which 253 auditors from one Big 5 firm recalled and described 515 specific experiences they had with clients who they believe were attempting to manage earnings. This approach enables us to analyze separately managers' decisions about how to attempt earnings management and auditors' decisions about whether to prevent earnings management by requiring adjustment of the financial statements. Our results indicate that managers are more likely to attempt earnings management, and auditors are less likely to adjust earnings management attempts, which are structured (not structured) with respect to precise (imprecise) standards. We also find that managers are more likely to make attempts that increase current-year income, but auditors are more likely to require that those attempts be adjusted, that managers are more likely to make attempts that decrease current-year income with unstructured transactions and/or when standards are imprecise, and that auditors are more likely to require adjustment of attempts that they identify as material or that are attempted by small clients.