Search results

The Compliance Assurance Process (CAP) is a federally funded IRS corporate audit program. The program’s goal is to determine the best tax treatment for complex transactions before a corporation files its tax return. The US Department of the Treasury has voiced concerns regarding resource constraints and whether the program enhances public (nonprofessional investor) and investor confidence. We conduct a behavioral experiment using 176 Master of Business Administration and Master of Accounting students as proxies for nonprofessional investors. In the experiment, we examine the effects of CAP participation and corporate tax risk profile on judgments about financial statement credibility. We use a 2 × 2 experimental design with corporate tax risk profile manipulated as high risk or low risk and participation in CAP manipulated as participatory or non-participatory. This research investigates whether CAP program participation and/or tax risk level influence nonprofessional investors’ perceptions of the certainty and accuracy of the provision for income taxes. The results suggest both CAP program participation and tax risk influence nonprofessional investors’ perceptions of the certainty of the income tax provision; and tax risk also influences nonprofessional investors’ perception of the accuracy of the income tax provision.

Research has shown evidence of the use of impression management strategies in corporate disclosures as a means of presumably tempering and swaying investors’ perceptions. These impression management strategies include shifts in the tone used when providing disclosures. However, recent research also provides evidence that such techniques can have a contrary effect when the tone of the message appears to be “too good to be true.” This study explores how the use of optimism and certainty in the Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) portion of the annual report affects nonprofessional investors’ investment decisions – a class of investors known to heavily rely on the MD&A portion of annual reports. We theorize a bifurcated effect where optimism and certainty have a positive and direct effect on investor willingness to invest, but at the same time optimism and certainty have a negative indirect effect on willingness to invest that is mediated through decreased perceptions of disclosure credibility. The results provide evidence supporting such a bifurcated effect from the use of tone in management disclosures.

This paper synthesizes existing experimental research in the area of investor perceptions and offers directions for future research. Investor-related experimental research has grown substantially, especially in the last decade, as it has made valuable contributions in establishing causal links, examining underlying process measures, and examining areas with little available data. Within this review, I examine 121 papers and identify three broad categories that affect investor perceptions: information format, investor features, and disclosure credibility. Information format describes how investors are influenced by information salience, information labeling, reporting and accounting complexity, financial statement recognition, explanatory disclosures, and proposed disclosure changes. Investor features describes investors’ use of heuristics, investor preferences, and the effect of investor experience. Disclosure credibility is influenced by external and internal assurance, management credibility, disclosure characteristics, and management incentives. Using this framework, I summarize the existing research and identify areas that would benefit from additional research.

This study investigates how disclosure of the board of directors’ leadership and role in risk oversight (BODs oversight disclosure) influences investors’ judgments when information on risk exposures is disclosed. The theoretical lens through which we examine this issue involves negativity bias. Sixty-two stock market investors who engage in the evaluation and/or investment of stocks on a regular or professional basis participated in our study. Our results reveal that the addition of BODs oversight disclosure (positive information) does not carry significant weight on investor judgments (i.e., attractiveness and investment) when financial statement disclosures indicate a high level of operational and financial risk exposures (negative information). In contrast, under the condition of a low level of risk exposures, BODs oversight disclosure causes investors to assess higher risk in terms of worry, catastrophic potentials and unfamiliarity about risk information and, in turn, make less favorable investor judgments. Our findings add to the literature on negativity bias and contribute to the debate on the usefulness of disclosures about risk.

Investors frequently make judgments and decisions in the presence of affect (i.e., mood or emotion). Investors' moods may influence the extent to which they incorporate available financial information in their investment judgments. I propose that investors interpret their moods as signals of the extent to which financial information should be processed to make investment judgments, but only when other, more direct signals regarding the need for in-depth processing are unavailable. Consistent with research in psychology, my experimental results suggest that investors experiencing positive mood exert less effort to process available financial information than investors experiencing negative mood. Consequently, positive mood results in lower-quality financial judgments in my setting. However, when investors receive cues suggesting that initially received information is subjective, the effect of mood on effort to process financial information is mitigated. Overall, my results suggest that factors associated with positive investor mood (e.g., positive market sentiment) reduce the depth of investor analysis and lower judgment quality absent signals regarding the subjectivity of financial information.

This paper aims to review and synthesize the corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure literature in order to (1) develop a comprehensive definition of disclosure quality; (2) review the evolution of disclosure quality proxies used by accounting researchers; (3) describe the antecedents to disclosure quality; (4) describe the outcomes of disclosure quality; and (5) identify gaps in the current literature and offer suggestions for future research.

This study conducted a systematic review capturing articles examining CSR disclosure quality. The researchers first searched EBSCO, identifying all relevant articles by searching for “corporate social responsibility,” “CSR,” “ESG” and “sustainability reporting” anywhere in the article. Then, the results were filtered to focus on 23 of the most prominent accounting journals. The search resulted in 592 articles which were individually reviewed for relevance to the authors’ review. This study includes all articles that examine disclosure and provide insight into elements that influence disclosure quality or provide evidence of the effects of disclosure quality on user decision-making.

It is found that a comprehensive definition of CSR disclosure quality has yet to be developed and that proxies for CSR disclosure quality have evolved over time. This study synthesizes the literature on the antecedents of CSR disclosure quality, and how CSR disclosure quality affects users' decision-making and related outcomes. Overall, the review of this study suggests that assurance and a number of corporate features have important effects on disclosure quality. Also, high-quality disclosures are positively associated with many benefits to market participants.

This study complements Huang and Watson's (2015) CSR literature review by comprehensively reviewing and synthesizing the CSR disclosure quality literature that was only emerging when their review was published. Importantly, this study contributes to the CSR disclosure literature by developing a comprehensive definition of CSR disclosure quality that is grounded in the accounting literature and aligned with current frameworks.

This study aims to investigate how professional financial statement users use carbon accounting information in their decisions and whether this use is sensitive to changing the decision context from an investment to a donation.

Using a sample of 173 US professional financial statement users, the authors conduct an experiment that manipulates an investment or donation choice to evaluate how differing levels of carbon sequestration affect decision-making across contexts.

Carbon sequestration information affects users’ donation decisions but does not affect investment decisions. Variation in the reliability of the information and whether the information is linked to strategy do not affect users’ decision-making.

This study is performed by an experiment and informs our understanding of the relevance to users of carbon sequestration disclosure. Results indicate that carbon sequestration disclosure has value for donation but not investment decisions. The authors interpret this as evidence of some value of this type of disclosure in professional financial statement users’ decision-making but not for a financially focused evaluation.

This paper provides unique insights into the effect of reporting carbon sequestration on decision-making. There has been significant research on the broader topic of corporate sustainability, and capital markets research indicates that the market values increased sustainability disclosure. This study extends the research by examining a specific component of carbon disclosure that is not currently widely reported and by the use of information for different types of evaluations. The results find evidence that the value of this type of carbon disclosure does not stem from a purely financial perspective but instead, from other nonpecuniary factors.

This study empirically examines perceptions of environmental report believability based on a firm's relative performance and level of assurance obtained on environmental activities under the recently clarified and recodified attestation standards in the United States.

The paper uses a 2 × 3 between-subjects experiment to identify differences in 153 non-expert environmental report users' perceptions of report believability based on positive or negative firm performance and (level of) assurance provided by an accounting firm.

Results show a main effect in that negative performance reports are perceived to be more believable than positive performance reports, as driven by negative performance reports being significantly more believable when no assurance is present. The firm performance effect is eliminated once limited or reasonable assurance is provided. Further, positive performance reports with limited, but not reasonable, assurance are perceived to be more believable than reports without assurance. No differences are identified within the negative performance condition.

Limited assurance might be used as an impression management tool to enhance the believability of positive performance environmental reports. Users, practitioners, and standard-setters should also be aware that users might believe environmental reports are assured, even when no such assurance has been provided.

This paper examines the impact of assured environmental reporting on users that review firms' environmental reports outside of a shareholder/investor role. The study also demonstrates conditions in which firm performance and assurance impact perceptions of report believability.