The influence of the source of professional standards on juror decision making

Article Abstract:

The effect of the source of professional audit standards on jurors' decisions in auditor malpractice suits is examined. Compliance with generally accepted auditing standards is the conventional defense in such cases. Jury pools were made to vote for or against the auditor/defendant based on four fact patterns. These were varied according to whether or not professional auditing standards were established by the federal government or by the auditing profession, and according to instructions on whether or not to base their decision on purely auditing standards alone. The results indicate that jurors are more likely to vote in favor of the defendant when federally-established standards are offered in defense. Similarly, when instructed to consider auditing standards as the only criterion for the decision, jurors often accept standards as a justifiable defense, regardless of their source.

---

A comment on 'The Influence of the Source of Professional Standards on Juror Decision Making.' (comment on article by F.A. Buckless and R.L. Peace in this issue, p. 164) (Shorter Articles)

Article Abstract:

Buckless and Peace's (1993) study on the effect of the source of auditing standards on juror decisions in auditor malpractice cases is misleading. The study tested whether or not compliance with government-established auditing standards is perceived by jurors as a better defense than compliance with those established by the accounting profession. In addition, jury verdicts in response to instructions to base their decision on purely audting standards alone or on other considerations is analyzed. Given these four cases, examination of the matrix of choices used in the study indicates that some combinations were neglected. Also, jurors were forced to decide on insufficient information about the standards involved and other pertinent evidence. Thus, their results indicate only that standards source and decision basis are related to jury decisions in auditor malpractice suits.

---

Contrast coding: a refinement of ANOVA in behavioral analysis

Article Abstract:

New behavioral accounting research has used more complex research designs. Single factor designs are initially used to research new topic areas, typically yielding significant effects and a significant amount of explained variation. ANOVA is the statistical analysis approach traditionally used to test research hypotheses, but an ANOVA approach is limited to detecting substantial differences among cell means. ANOVA does not reveal the functional relationships among cell means. Contrast coding, a refinement of ANOVA, should be employed by researchers to test hypotheses. Contrast coding, which requires a priori specification of the functional relationship between cell means, offers greater statistical power.

Research, Accounting and auditing, Behavioral assessment

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: The effect of changes in tax laws on corporate reorganization activity. Tax, incentive, and risk-sharing issues in the allocation of property rights: the generalized lease-or-buy problem
• Abstracts: 'It looked marvellous in the prospectus': TAURUS, information and decision making. Another fine mess: time for quality in decision-making
• Abstracts: Organizational influences on the new product development process in financial services. How involving more functional areas within a firm affects the new product process
• Abstracts: What pension should the state provide? Should the basic state pension be a contributory benefit? Housing benefit and financial returns to employment for tenants in the social sector
• Abstracts: 'Tis the season for 'slamming.' (long-distance telephone service scam) Dealing with jobless sons and daughters

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.