Search results

Commentators express concern that when auditors investigate for but fail to detect fraud, jurors might effectively penalize the auditors for having investigated for the fraud (AICPA, 2004; Coffee, 2004; Golden, Skalak, & Clayton, 2006). Consistent with these concerns, Reffett (2010) finds that, in a between-participants setting, evaluators in cases of undetected fraud are more likely to hold auditors liable for damages when the auditors identified the perpetrated fraud as a fraud risk and then investigated for the fraud, relative to when the auditors did neither. What remains unclear, however, is the extent to which identifying versus investigating fraud risks increases evaluators’ between-participants assessments of auditor liability. That is, when auditors investigate for, but fail to detect fraud, is the increase in evaluators’ liability assessments due to the fact that the auditors identified (i.e., were aware of) the fraud risk but did not detect the fraud, or that the auditors unsuccessfully investigated for the fraud (or both)? This study addresses these questions by reporting evidence that both identifying and investigating fraud risks can each, in isolation, increase evaluators’ perceptions of auditor negligence. The processes by which identifying and investigating fraud risks increase evaluators’ negligence verdicts, however, appear to differ.

A growing literature has recognized the importance of mental simulation (e.g., imagining alternatives to reality) in sparking creativity. In this chapter, we examine how counterfactual thinking, or imagining alternatives to past outcomes, affects group creativity. We explore these effects by articulating a model that considers the influence of counterfactual thinking on both the cognitive and social processes known to impact group creative performance. With this framework, we aim to stimulate research on group creativity from a counterfactual perspective.

This paper aims to examine counterfactual thinking as a key mediator of the effects of failed recovery (vs. failed delivery) on negative electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). The authors further investigate the effectiveness of using recovery co-creation in minimizing customers’ counterfactual thinking.

This research includes textual analysis of online reviews (Study 1) and three scenario-based experiments (Studies 2, 3a and 3b). In addition to using item-response scales, the authors analyze negative online reviews and participants’ open-ended responses to capture their counterfactual thinking.

Failed recovery (vs failed delivery) increases counterfactual thinking, which, in turn, increases negative eWOM. These mediating effects of counterfactual thinking are consistent across textual analyses and experimental studies, as well as across different measures of counterfactual thinking. Counterfactual thinking also impacts customer anger in experiments; however, anger alone does not explain the effects of failed recovery on negative eWOM. Counterfactual thinking can be minimized by co-created recovery, especially when it is used proactively.

The findings demonstrate the detrimental effects of counterfactual thinking and offer managerial insights into co-creation as a strategy to minimize customers’ counterfactual thinking. The authors also highlight the importance and ways of tracking counterfactual thinking in digital outlets.

The authors contribute to counterfactual thinking and service recovery research by demonstrating the effects of failed recovery on counterfactual thinking that, in turn, impacts negative eWOM and offering a novel way to measure its expression in online narratives. The authors provide guidance on how to use co-creation in the service recovery process to minimize counterfactual thinking.

This paper aims to investigate the relationships among repatriates' perceived psychological contract fulfillment, counterfactual thinking, and job attitudes.

The paper sampled 135 repatriates from 16 multinational companies (MNCs) in Taiwan through a survey questionnaire. The paper used hierarchical regression analyses to test its hypotheses.

The study results showed that repatriates' perceived fulfillment of their psychological contracts was negatively related to turnover intent and positively related to organizational commitment, after controlling for the variables of change assessments. The study also finds a positive relationship between upward counterfactual thinking and turnover intent and between downward counterfactual thinking and organizational commitment. Moreover, repatriates' perceived fulfillment of their psychological contracts was found to be related to upward counterfactual thinking but not downward counterfactual thinking.

A subjective perception of psychological contract fulfillment is a more important predictor of job attitudes than actual changes in position, pay, and skill improvement. Therefore, it is important for MNCs to maintain open communications with their repatriates to ensure clear understanding of the agreement existing between employees and the organization.

In the international human resource literature, it is unclear whether the relationship between expatriates' (or repatriates') perceived fulfillment of their psychological contract with their job attitudes are simply due to their assessments of actual changes in pay, position, and skills. In the case of repatriation, the paper clarifies the phenomenon by distinguishing both repatriates' assessments of changes before and after expatriation and their perceived fulfillment of psychological contracts (and their counterfactual thinking).

The purpose of the paper is to develop a theoretical framework with testable propositions discussing the role of counterfactual thinking in fostering accurate decision-making in groups and preventing catastrophes, being mediated by information searching, sharing, task conflict and conflict management mechanisms, moderated by task complexity, cognitive complexity, cognitive closure and tolerance of ambiguity.

A theoretical framework is formulated and propositions are postulated involving independent, mediating, moderating and dependent variables.

This paper recommends a helpful framework for understanding of how counterfactual thinking affects information searching, sharing and decision-making accuracy in groups, thereby preventing catastrophes.

The proposed framework might be of assistance in managing complex group decision-making and information sharing in organizations. Decision-makers may become aware that activating counterfactual mind-set enables them to search for critical information facilitating accurate decision-making in groups leading to catastrophe prevention.

This paper adds value to the field of counterfactual thinking theory applied to group decision-making. Moreover, the paper provides a novel framework for group decision-making which sheds light on pertinent variables, which can either ameliorate or exacerbate the accuracy of decision-making by information searching and sharing in groups under varying context of high/low task complexity. The ramifications of task conflict, conflict management mechanisms, team diversity and size are explored alongside the moderating role of cognitive complexity, cognitive closure and tolerance for ambiguity.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce counterfactual analysis and reasoning to the study of accounting history. The counterfactual focus is the institutionalisation of public accountancy in the UK.

The study adopts a counterfactual research design using Ferguson and Bunzl and asks a “what if” question of an event of importance to accounting historians in order to create a plausible counterfactual outcome that is grounded in rationality and causal analysis. The specific counterfactual question relates to the royal charter granted to public accountants practicing in Edinburgh in 1854. The counterfactual outcome is compared to the actual timeline of public accountancy institutionalisation in the UK.

The “alternative” history reveals uncertainties that confronted public accountants in the past and provides a basis for suggesting that the current fractured and inefficient state of institutionalised public accountancy in the UK has its origins at least partially in the 1854 royal charter. It also suggests that attempts to register and unify public accountants in the UK have been hindered by nineteenth century royal charters.

The study argues that counterfactual analysis is a useful historical tool with which to understand the consequences of historical decisions made in the professional project of British public accountancy. In addition, the study reveals the potential for counterfactual analysis to illumine the consequences of decisions in other areas of accounting and auditing history.

This study is the first counterfactual analysis in the accounting history literature and therefore provides a template for further studies and improved research design.

We examine the cardinal gap between wage distributions of the incumbents and newly hired workers based on entropic distances which are well-defined welfare theoretic measures. Decomposition of several effects is achieved by identifying several counterfactual distributions of different groups. These go beyond the usual Oaxaca–Blinder decompositions at the (linear) conditional means. Much like quantiles, these entropic distances are well-defined inferential objects and functions whose statistical properties have recently been developed. Going beyond these strong rankings and distances, we consider weak uniform ranking of these wage outcomes based on statistical tests for stochastic dominance. The empirical analysis is focused on employees with at least 35 hours of work in the 1996–2012 monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Among others, we find incumbent workers enjoy a better distribution of wages, but the attribution of the gap to wage inequality and human capital characteristics varies between quantiles. For instance, highly paid new workers are mainly due to human capital components, and in some years, even better wage structure.

Building on recent advances in inverse probability weighted identification and estimation of counterfactual distributions, the authors examine the history of wage earnings for women and their potential wage distributions in the United States. These potentials are two counterfactuals, what if women received men’s market “rewards” for their own “skills,” and what if they received the women’s rewards but for men’s characteristics? Using the Current Population Survey data from 1976 to 2013, the authors analyze the entire counterfactual distributions to separate the “structure” and human capital “composition” effect. In contrast to Maasoumi and Wang (2019), the reference outcome in these decompositions is women’s observed earnings distribution, and inverse probability methods are employed, rather than the conditional quantile approaches. The authors provide decision theoretic measures of the distance between two distributions, to complement assessments based on mean, median, or particular quantiles. We assess uniform rankings of alternate distributions by tests of stochastic dominance in order to identify evaluations robust to subjective measures. Traditional moment-based measures severely underestimate the declining trend of the structure effect. Nevertheless, dominance rankings suggest that the structure (“discrimination”?) effect is bigger than human capital characteristics.

Prior studies have paid close attention to the impact of political risk on financial markets. Following this strand of literature, this paper aims to focus on the causality link between political shocks and their impacts on emerging stock markets.

This paper highlights an innovative counterfactual model for political risk assessment. Based on a natural experiment, i.e. the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1995-1996, this study utilizes one data-driven approach, e.g. the synthetic control methods (SCMs), to estimate causal impact of this political shock on Taiwan’s stock market.

Major findings in this study are consistent with existing literature on the price of political risk, e.g. political uncertainty commands a risk premium. The SCM estimations suggest that Taiwan’s stock prices dramatically underperformed its newly industrialized peers and other developed markets during the crisis. The SCM results are statistically significant and robust to various cross-validation tests.

Findings in this study indicate that political risks could generate enormous impacts on emerging financial markets. In particular, political uncertainty following new geopolitical dynamics requires proper identification and assessment.

To the author’s knowledge, this paper is the first rigorous counterfactual study to the causality relationship between political uncertainty and stock prices in emerging markets. This paper is distinct from previous studies in applying a data-driven approach to combine the features of learning from others (cross-sectional) and learning from the past (time series).

This study tests a research model for promoting understanding of the responsibility attribution process.

A between-subjects experiment was conducted to test the hypotheses.

The results reveal that counterfactual thinking about how a system failure could have been prevented moderates the effect of cause of misstatement on perceived control. Counterfactual thinking about how an audit failure could have been avoided also moderates the effect of perceived control on causal account. Additionally, causal account mediates the effect of perceived control on responsibility judgment of an audit firm. Inclusion of audit firm size and auditor systems competency as control variables in the hypothesis tests and as grouping variables in the invariance tests does not alter the model results.

Research can guide the audit profession on development of innovative strategies for detecting fraud to protect the interests of decision-makers. Strategies can also be devised to prompt users to consider relevant factors to enhance their ability to arrive at an accurate assessment of an audit firm’s responsibility for an audit failure.

Regulators may need to address whether availability of advanced data analytic tools increases the audit firms’ responsibility for presenting convincing evidence suggesting due diligence in the audit work in the event of an audit failure.

This study examines the process variables influencing responsibility judgment of an audit firm. Elicitation of counterfactual thoughts before the participants responded to the questions measuring the process and dependent variables facilitates discernment of the intensity of counterfactual thinking on the variables examined in the research model.