Search results

This paper ranks university faculties, accounting doctoral programs, individual behavioral accounting researchers, and the most influential articles based on Google Scholar citations to publications in Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (AABR). All articles published in AABR in its first 15 volumes are included and four citation metrics are used. The paper identifies the articles, authors, faculties, and doctoral programs that made the greatest contribution to the development of AABR. Such an analysis provides a useful basis for understanding the direction the journal has taken and how it has contributed to the literature (Meyer & Rigsby, 2001). The h-index and m-index for AABR indicates it compares favorably among its peers. Potential doctoral students with an interest in behavioral accounting research, “new” accounting faculty with an interest in behavioral accounting research, current behavioral accounting research faculty, department chairs, deans, and other administrators will find these results informative.

The kinds of decisions people make or how they react to certain situations could differ according to the society, atmosphere or environment those people come from. Studies about the influence of human behaviors on economics, business and actions were initiated by analyzing human behaviors and those studies carry on into behavioral finance and behavioral accounting.

In previous years, the models used were based on the assumption that people behave rationally while making decisions. These models lost validity recently and behavioral accounting started to search for the influences affecting human behaviors. They started considering not only the people who prepare accounting data but also the people who take advantage of this data. People’s environment, cultural differences, psychological and sociological factors have entered into the accounting’s field of interest as factors that have an influence on behavior.

The aim of this study is to try to analyze the theoretical bases and extent of behavioral accounting, which focuses on the human behavior factors being observed while creating or using financial reports. The authors also aim to contribute to the literature by including the neuroaccounting dimension into the analysis.

This chapter discusses the benefits, limitations, and challenges in developing research projects that integrate a combination of archival, behavioral, and qualitative research methods. By demonstrating the inherent strengths and weaknesses of using a single method in isolation, this chapter aims to broaden our understanding of why and how research that examines various issues from the different perspectives is richer than employing any single method and enhances our understanding of a given accounting phenomenon. This chapter also discusses how investigating an issue through multiple research methods can help researchers improve the generalizability of findings and present a panoramic view of a particular phenomenon.

Outside influences affect the progression of research in any discipline, including accounting. These influences offer one explanation for problems of replicability or comparability to previous studies, a common concern today. This article examines “who” participates in behavioral experiments and surveys involving accountants. This issue is important because of nontrivial differences in the composition of those in the accounting profession (and thus, participants in subject pools) over approximately 50 years of behavioral accounting research. Based on the theory of individual differences, we explore whether differences in the population of accounting research participants through the years could impact the replication or comparability of current-day research to earlier studies.

Our reading of available literature suggests that our profession has become more diverse in terms of gender and country of origin and that the oft-referenced characteristics of the millennial generation may also represent a distinct difference from previous generations of accountants. We discuss instances in which this changing nature of our profession, and thus our research population, could have implications for current-day behavioral accounting research.

Behavioral accounting research has flourished over the past 40 years and vastly improved our understanding of accounting judgment and decision-making, human behavior as it is affected by accounting information and processes, and influences on organizational and social structures. However, to increase the validity and reliability of the work, researchers have generally narrowed the area of study to exclude many of the environmental factors that can influence the resulting behaviors that are observed. One environmental factor that has largely been ignored by the broader accounting research community is the rapidly increasing impact of information technology (IT) on all aspects of accounting. The purpose of this chapter is to elaborate on the predominance of IT in all areas of accounting and to urge behavioral accounting researchers to integrate IT aspects into their research to enhance the value and relevance of our research. Each of the major areas of accounting disciplinary research is considered (i.e., financial accounting, managerial accounting, auditing, and tax). This disciplinary focus is not intended to exclude the area of accounting information systems as is often the case in commentaries on behavioral accounting research but rather to focus on how accounting information systems are fundamentally integrated across the decision environments of every aspect of the accounting discipline.

This chapter presents a seven-part case developed for use in a graduate-level tax planning class. The case is organized in a taxpayer/business “life-cycle” approach. Over the semester the case follows a married couple as they consider a number of investments, start a business, and expand the business. As the case progresses, the couple faces increasingly complex tax and business issues. The couple eventually winds down their involvement in the business and begins to plan for their retirement years. This chapter also provides a review of behavioral tax research published in the top accounting journals over the period 2004–2013. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the case could be adapted by behavioral tax researchers in their research programs and perhaps by accounting firms in their training programs.

This chapter traces the evolution of personality trait research in the behavioral accounting literature and offers suggestions for past and future trends. These personality traits include, among others, those measured by the Myers-Briggs Type and Five Factor models (FFMs), Type A/B, tolerance for ambiguity, locus of control, authoritarianism, and the Dark Triad components of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. In a broad spectrum analysis of accounting journals without regard to timing or geographics, we attempt to capture the major phases of personality trait research and provide suggestions as to the surrounding environment for such progressions in the literature. In addition to more established research streams, this chapter also discusses other personality traits that have only been marginally investigated in the accounting literature, and possible directions for future research.

This chapter combines quantitative studies of the connections between stressors and performance in accounting settings and identifies the mediators and moderators of stressors–performance relationships. Using meta-analyses and path analyses, this research compiles 72 studies to investigate the relationships of stressors with accountant and auditor performance. As hypothesized, bivariate meta-analyses results indicate that work-related stressors negatively affect performance, and burnout and stress are negatively related to performance, whereas motivation is positively related to performance. Moreover, a meta-analytical structural equation modeling indicates that role stressors have significant direct and indirect effects (through burnout and stress) on job performance. Accumulation of multiple samples through meta-analysis bolsters statistical power compared to single-sample studies and thus reveals the sign of residual direct effects of role stressors on job performance in accounting settings.

This paper examines the influence of stress arousal and burnout as mediators of the negative relations between role stressors and job outcomes (satisfaction, performance, and turnover intentions) among a sample of AICPA members working in public accounting. It extends prior research which examined these linkages (Chong & Monroe, 2015; Fogarty, Singh, Rhoads, & Moore, 2000; Smith, Davy, & Everly, 2007) by evaluating a model that simultaneously incorporates stress arousal and the three fundamental dimensions of burnout, i.e., emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. This paper also utilizes a recently validated stress arousal measure designed to capture the worry and rumination aspects of arousal posited to be responsible for a number of negative personal outcomes.

The results indicate that role stressors, mediated by stress arousal and the individual burnout dimensions, have a negative influence on job outcomes. In line with predictions regarding the temporal ordering of stress arousal and burnout in the model, each of the job stressors had a significant positive influence on accountants’ stress arousal, and the influence of the individual role stressors on each burnout dimension was either partially or fully mediated via their relations with stress arousal. In turn, the influence of stress arousal on each of the job outcomes was either partially or fully mediated through its relations with emotional exhaustion.

This research note investigates the relationship between the constructs of professional skepticism and client advocacy as they relate to accountants’ roles as auditors and tax professionals. Although Pinsker, Pennington, and Schafer (2009) implicitly treat advocacy and professional skepticism as opposing constructs, the purpose of this research note is to explicitly examine whether an accounting professional can be both a professional skeptic and a client advocate. Two hundred and six experienced accounting professionals with a mixture of accounting and tax backgrounds responded to a client advocacy scale (Pinsker et al., 2009) and a professional skepticism scale (Hurtt, 2010). Results indicate that while tax professionals have higher levels of client advocacy than auditors, both groups have similar levels of professional skepticism. Moreover, no correlation emerges between participants’ responses to the advocacy and the full professional skepticism scale or five of its six sub-scales. These results provide evidence that client advocacy is a separate and distinct construct from professional skepticism. These findings have implications for behavioral accounting researchers by demonstrating that these two constructs are not related; thus, it is important to separately measure client advocacy and professional skepticism when they are relevant to a research question.