Information order effects in the context of management commentary—initial experimental evidence
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
The exploration of information order effects has been a prominent topic in judgment and decision-making research in accounting in the last decades. While the vast majority of this research has focused on auditors’ and tax professionals’ judgments, the effects of information order on nonprofessionals’ belief revisions in a financial reporting context has largely remained unexamined. In the present paper, we provide initial experimental evidence on the impact that order effects have on the processing and evaluation of information provided in the management commentary. We find that the order in which management provides information about a firm’s risks and chances has a significant influence on individuals’ assessment of the economic position and prospects of the firm. In particular, our results show that whether the last pieces of information presented are positive or negative, financial statement users weight these items more heavily than the initially obtained ones. The paper outlines the major implications of these results as well as some opportunities for future research.
- Accounting Directives Act (1985). Gesetz zur Durchführung der Vierten, Siebten und Achten Richtlinie des Rates der Europäischen Gemeinschaften zur Koordinierung des Gesellschaftsrechts (Bilanzrichtlinien-Gesetz) v. 19.12.1985
- Arnold, V., Collier, P. A., Leech, S. A., & Sutton, S. G. (2000). The effect of experience and complexity on order and recency bias in decision making by professional accountants. Accounting and Finance, 40, 109–134. CrossRef
- Asare, S. K. (1992). The auditor’s going-concern decision: interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence. The Accounting Review, 67, 379–393.
- Asare, S. K., & Messier, W. F. Jr. (1991). A review of audit research using the belief-adjustment model. In L. A. Ponemon & D. R. L. Gabhart (Eds.), Auditing: advances in behavioral research (pp. 75–92). New York: Springer.
- Ashton, A. H., & Ashton, R. H. (1988). Sequential belief revision in auditing. The Accounting Review, 63, 623–641.
- Ashton, R. H., & Kennedy, J. (2002). Eliminating recency with self-review: the case of auditors’ ‘going concern’ judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 221–231. CrossRef
- Baird, J. E., & Zelin, R. C. (2000). The effects of information ordering on investor perceptions: an experiment utilizing presidents’ letters. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions, 13(3), 71–80.
- Bar-Gill, O., & Bebchuk, L. A. (2003). Misreporting corporate performance. The Harvard John M. Olin discussion paper series, Discussion paper No. 400, December 2002.
- Beasley, M., Carcello, J., Hermanson, D., & Lapides, P. D. (2000). Fraudulent financial reporting: consideration of industry traits and corporate governance mechanisms. Accounting Horizons, 14(4), 441–454. CrossRef
- Beurskens, M. (2010). Gesellschaftsrecht. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
- Bonner, S. E. (2008). Judgment and decision making in accounting. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
- Brewer, M. B. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 3–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Carcello, J. V., & Neal, T. L. (2000). Audit committee composition and auditor reporting. The Accounting Review, 75(4), 453–467. CrossRef
- Cohen, J. G., Krishnamoorty, G., & Wright, A. (2004). The corporate governance mosaic and financial reporting quality. Journal of Accounting Literature, 23, 87–152.
- Cuccia, A. D., & McGill, G. A. (2000). The role of decision strategies in understanding professionals’ susceptibility to judgment bias. Journal of Accounting Research, 38, 419–435. CrossRef
- Cushing, B. E., & Ahlawat, S. S. (1996). Mitigation of recency bias in audit judgment: the effect of documentation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 15(2), 110–122.
- Dechow, P., Sloan, R., & Sweeney, A. (1996). Causes and consequences of earnings manipulation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 13, 1–36. CrossRef
- Dillard, J. F., Kauffman, N. L., & Spires, E. E. (1991). Evidence order and belief revision in management accounting decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16, 619–633. CrossRef
- Dobler, M. (2004). Auditing corporate risk management—a critical analysis of a German particularity. The ICFAI Journal of Auditing Practice, 1(2), 49–64.
- Dobler, M. (2005). National and international developments in risk reporting: may the German accounting Standard 5 lead the way internationally? German Law Journal, 6(8), 1191–1200.
- Elliot, B., Hodge, F., Kennedy, J., & Pronk, M. (2007). Are M.B.A. students a good proxy for nonprofessional investors? The Accounting Review, 82(1), 139–168. CrossRef
- Favere-Marchesi, M. (2006). “Order effects” revisited: the importance of chronology. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 25(1), 69–83. CrossRef
- GASB (2010a). German accounting standard No. 5 „Risk reporting“ (amended 2010)
- GASB (2010b). German accounting standard No. 15 „Management reporting“ (amended 2010)
- Guiral, A., & Esteo, F. (2006). Are Spanish auditors skeptical in going concern evaluations? Managerial Auditing Journal, 21, 598–620. CrossRef
- Hogarth, R. M. (1987). Judgment and choice: the psychology of decision (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
- Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief-updating: the belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55. CrossRef
- Holt, C. A., & Smith, A. M. (2009). An update on Bayesian updating. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69, 125–134. CrossRef
- IASB (2009). Exposure draft ED/2009/6 “Management commentary”.
- IASB (2010). IFRS practice statement “Management commentary”.
- Kahle, J., Pinsker, R., & Pennington, R. (2005). Belief revision in accounting: a literature review of the belief-adjustment model. In V. Arnold (Ed.), Advances in accounting behavioral research (Vol. 8, pp. 1–40). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
- Kajüter, P., & Blaesing, D. (2010). Die DRS zur Lageberichterstattung auf dem Prüfstand. Der Betrieb, 63(9), 457–465.
- Kennedy, J. (1993). Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: a framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research, 31, 231–245. CrossRef
- Krull, G. Jr., Reckers, P. M. J., & Wong-on-Wing, B. (1993). The effect of experience, fraudulent signals and information presentation order on auditors’ beliefs. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 12(2), 143–153.
- Lipe, M. G. (2008). Discussion of “Judging audit quality in light of adverse outcomes: evidence of outcome bias and reverse outcome bias”. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25, 275–282. CrossRef
- Liyanarachchi, G., & Milne, M. (2005). Comparing the investment decision of accounting practitioners and students: an empirical study on the adequacy of student surrogates. The Accounting Forum, 29(2), 121–135. CrossRef
- Loewenstein, G. (1999). Experimental economics from the vintage point of behavioural economics. Economic Journal, 109, F25–F34. CrossRef
- Messier, W.F. Jr., & Tubbs, R. M. (1994). Recency effects in belief revision: the impact of audit experience and the review process. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 13(1), 57–72.
- Monroe, G. S., & Ng, J. (2000). An examination of order effects in auditor’s risk assessments. Accounting and Finance, 40, 153–168. CrossRef
- Myers, A., & Hansen, C. H. (2005). Experimental psychology (6th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
- Pei, B. K. W., Reckers, P. M. J., & Wyndelts, R. W. (1990). The influence of information order on professional tax judgment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 119–146. CrossRef
- Pei, B. K. W., Reckers, P. M. J., & Wyndelts, R. W. (1992). Tax professionals belief revision: the effects of information presentation sequence, client preference, and domain experience. Decision Sciences, 23, 175–199. CrossRef
- Pinsker, R. (2011). Primacy or recency? A study of order effects when nonprofessional investors are provided a long series of disclosures. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23, 161–183. CrossRef
- Pinsker, R. (2007). Long series of information and nonprofessional investors’ belief revisions. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19, 197–214. CrossRef
- Rutledge, R. (1995). The ability to moderate recency effects through framing of management accounting information. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7, 27–40.
- Tesch, J., & Wißmann, R. (2009). Lageberichterstattung (2nd ed.). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
- Theis, J. C. (2011). How do investors perceive risks that a company discloses within the management commentary? (Working paper). In EAA annual congress, Rome, Italy.
- Trotman, K. T., & Wright, A. (1996). Recency effects: task complexity, decision mode, and task-specific experience. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8, 175–193.
- Tubbs, R. M., Messier, W.F. Jr, & Knechel, W. R. (1990). Recency effects in the auditor’s belief-revision process. The Accounting Review, 65, 452–460.
- Information order effects in the context of management commentary—initial experimental evidence
Journal of Management Control
Volume 23, Issue 2 , pp 133-150
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Financial reporting
- Management commentary
- Belief-adjustment model
- Information order effects