Advertisement

Behavioral Accounting Experiments in Market and Game Settings

  • William S. Waller
Chapter

Abstract

Behavioral accounting research concerns the implications of empirically valid assumptions about human behavior for economic decision-making in relation to accounting systems. Past experiments in the area typically used non-interactive settings. This paper discusses the prospects for re-setting the setting of behavioral accounting experiments to include interactive processes. As background, the first section explains the unique role of behavioral ac­counting research, relative to other areas of accounting research. The second and third sections discuss the prospects for behavioral accounting experiments in market and game settings, respectively. The last section provides conclud­ing remarks.

Keywords

Loss Aversion Ambiguity Aversion Price Offer Historical Cost Market Setting 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (1999). Professional Auditing Standards. NY: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.Google Scholar
  2. Arkes, H. R., and C. Blumer (1985). “The Psychology of Sunk Cost.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Performance 35, 124–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashton, R. H. (1976). “Cognitive Changes Induced by Accounting Changes: Experimental Evidence on the Functional Fixation Hypothesis.” Journal of Accounting Research 14, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashton, R. H., and A. H. Ashton (1995). Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting and Auditing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baiman, S. (1982). “Agency Research in Managerial Accounting: A Survey.” Journal of Accounting Literature 1, 154–213.Google Scholar
  6. Baiman, S. (1990). “Agency Theory in Managerial Accounting: A Second Look.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 15, 341–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, G. P. et al. (1988). “Compensation and Incentives: Practice vs. Theory.” Journal of Finance 43, 593–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beaver, W. (1998). Financial Reporting: An Accounting Revolution. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Berg, J. et al. (1995). “The Individual versus the Aggregate.” In Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting and Auditing, edited by R. H. Ashton and A. H. Ashton, 102–34. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blaug, M. (1992). The Methodology of Economics. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bloomfield, R. (1995). “Strategic Dependence and Inherent Risk Assessment.” The Accounting Review 70, 71–90.Google Scholar
  12. Bloomfield, R. (1997). “Strategic Dependence and the Assessment of Fraud Risk: A Laboratory Study.” The Accounting Review 72, 517–38.Google Scholar
  13. Bolton, G. E., and A. Ockenfels (2000). “ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition.” American Economic Review 90, 166–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Budescu, D. V. et al. (1999). Games and Economic Behavior: Essays in Honor of Amnon Rapoport. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Camerer, C. F. (1987). “Do Biases in Probability Judgment Matter in Markets? Experimental Evidence.” American Economic Review 77, 981–97.Google Scholar
  16. Camerer, C. F. (1990). “Behavioral Game Theory.” In Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn, edited by R. M. Hogarth, 311–42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Camerer, C. F. (1997). “Progress in Behavioral Game Theory.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11, 167–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Camerer, C. F., and T. Ho (1999). “Experience-Weighted Attraction Learning in Normal Form Games.” Econometrica 67, 827–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Camerer, C. E, and M. Weber (1992). “Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 325–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Connolly, T. et al. (2000). Judgment and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cook, T., and D. Campbell (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  22. Cox, J., and D. Grether (1996). “The Preference Reversal Phenomenon: Response Mode, Markets and Incentives” Economic Theory 34, 381–405.Google Scholar
  23. Cyert, R. M., and J. G. March (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Demski, J. S., and G. A. Feltham (1976). Cost Determination: A Conceptual Approach. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Demski, J. S., and G. A. Feltham (1978). “Economic Incentives in Budgetary Control Systems.” The Accounting Review 53, 336–59.Google Scholar
  26. Dorward, N. (1987). The Pricing Decision: Economic Theory and Business Practice. London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  27. Duh, R., and S. Sunder (1986). “Incentives, Learning and Processing of Information in a Market Environment: An Examination of the Base Rate Fallacy.” In Laboratory Market Research, edited by S. Moriarty, 50–79. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
  28. Elster, J. (1998). “A Plea for Mechanisms.” In Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, edited by P. Hedstorm and R. Swedberg, 45–73. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Erev, I., and A. Roth (1998). “Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria.” American Economic Review 88, 848–81.Google Scholar
  30. Fellingham, J., and P. Newman (1985). “Strategic Considerations in Auditing” Accounting Review 60, 639–50.Google Scholar
  31. Frederickson, J., and W. Waller (2000). “Contract Framing and Learning in a Principal-Agent Setting.” Manuscript in process, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  32. Frisch, D., and J. Baron (1988). “Ambiguity and Rationality.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1, 149–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gangully, A. et al. (1994). “The Effects of Biases in Probability Judgments on Market Prices.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 19, 678–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gode, D. K., and S. Sunder (1993). “Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality.” Journal of Political Economy 111, 119–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Govindarajan, V., and R. Anthony (1983). “How Firms Use Cost Data in Price Decisions.” Management Accounting 65, 30–36.Google Scholar
  36. Graetz, M. J. et al. (1986). “The Tax Compliance Game: Toward an Interactive Theory of Law Enforcement.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 2, 1–32.Google Scholar
  37. Hilton, R. W. et al. (1988). “Product Pricing, Accounting Costs, and Use of Product-Costing Systems.” Accounting Review 53, 195–215.Google Scholar
  38. Hoffinan, P. J. (1960). “The Paramorphic Representation of Clinical Judgment.” Psychological Bulletin 57, 116–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hogarth, R. M., and M. W. Reder (1986). “Editors’ Comments: Perspectives from Economics and Psychology.” Journal of Business 59, S185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kachelmeier, S. (1996). “Do Cosmetic Reporting Variations Affect Market Behavior? A Laboratory Study of the Accounting Emphasis on Unavoidable Costs.” Review of Accounting Studies 1, 115–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky (1972). “Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness.” Cognitive Psychology 3, 430–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaplan, R. S., and A. A. Atkinson (1998). Advanced Management Accounting. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Kim, C., and W. Waller (2000). “Ambiguity Aversion and Strategic Interaction in Tax Setting.” Manuscript in process, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.Google Scholar
  44. King, R., and D. Wallin (1995). “Experimental Tests of Disclosure with an Opponent” Journal of Accounting and Economics 19, 139–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kinney, W. R. (1975). “A Decision Theory Approach to the Sampling Problem in Auditing.” Journal of Accounting Research 13, 117–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kreps, D. M. (1990). Game Theory and Economic Modeling. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Libby, R. (1989). “Experimental Research and the Distinctive Features of Accounting Settings.” In The State of Accounting Research as We Enter the 1990s, edited by T. J. Frecka, 126–47. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  48. Lopes, L. (1994). “Psychology and Economics: Perspectives on Risk, Cooperation, and the Marketplace.” Annual Review of Psychology 45, 197–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Luft, J. (1994). “Bonus and Penalty Incentives: Contract Choice by Employees.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 18, 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Milgrom, S., and J. Roberts (1992). Economics, Organization and Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  51. Mukerji, S. (1998). “Ambiguity Aversion and Incompleteness of Contractual Form.” American Economic Review 88, 1207–31.Google Scholar
  52. Nagel, R. (1995). “Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study.” American Economic Review 85, 1313–26.Google Scholar
  53. Nelson, R. R., and S. G. Winter (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
  54. Newman, P., and J. Noel (1989). “Error Rates, Detection Rates, and Payoff Functions in Auditing.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 8, 50–63.Google Scholar
  55. Orchard, L. (2000). “The Effects of Bonus vs. Penalty Incentives in a Laboratory Market Setting.” Manuscript in process, University of Houston.Google Scholar
  56. Oxenfeldt, A., and W. Baxter (1961). “Approaches to Pricing: Economist versus Accountant” Business Horizons 3, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Plott, C. R. (1996). “Rational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes: The Discovered Preference Hypothesis.” In The Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior, edited by K. Arrow et al., 225–50. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Prendergart, C. (1999). “The Provision of Incentives in Firms.” Journal of Economic Literature 37, 7–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rapoport, A. (1999). “Game Theory: Contributions to the Study of Human Cognition.” Cognitive Studies 6, 142–67.Google Scholar
  60. Shibano, T (1990). “Assessing Audit Risk from Errors and Irregularities.” Journal ofAccounting Research 28, 110–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Simon, H. (1986). “Rationality in Psychology and Economics.” Journal of Business 59, S209–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Slovic, P., and S. Lichtenstein (1983). “Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective.” American Economic Review 73, 596–605.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, V. (1991). “Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology.” Journal of Political Economy 99, 877–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith, V. et al. (1987). “Experimental Economics and Auditing.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 7, 71–93.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, V., and J. Walker (1993). “Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics.” Economic Inquiry 31, 245–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Swieringa, R. et al. (1979). “Empirical Evidence about the Effects of an Accounting Change on Information Processing.” In Behavioral Experiments in Accounting 2, edited by T. Burns, 225–59. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  67. Thaler, R. H. (1997). “Giving Markets a Human Dimension.” The Financial Times, p. 6.Google Scholar
  68. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions.” The Journal of Business 59, S251–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman (1991). “Loss Aversion in Risldess Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 1039–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vera-Munoz, S. (1998). “The Effects of Accounting Knowledge and Context on the Omission of Opportunity Costs in Resource Allocation Decisions.” Accounting Review 73, 47–72.Google Scholar
  71. Waller, W. S. (1995). “Decision-Making Research in Managerial Accounting: Return to Behavioral-Economics Foundations.” In Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting and Auditing, edited by R. H. Ashton and A. H. Ashton, 29–54. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Waller, W. S. (2000). “Accounting as Behavioral Constraint: Effects of Alternative Costing Systems on Employee Behavior” Manuscript in process, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.Google Scholar
  73. Waller, W. S. et al. (1999). “Do Cost-Based Pricing Biases Persist in Laboratory Markets?” Accounting, Organizations and Society 24, 717–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yim, A. T. (1999). “Reduced Cost of Law Enforcement: A Model with Ambiguity Aversion.” Manuscript in process, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.Google Scholar
  75. Zimbelman, M. F., and W. S. Waller (1999). “An Experimental Investigation of Auditor-Auditee Interaction under Ambiguity.” Journal of Accounting Research 37, 135–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zwick, R., and X. Chen (1999). “What Price Fairness? A Bargaining Study.” Management Science 45, 804–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • William S. Waller
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ArizonaUSA
  2. 2.Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyHong Kong

Personalised recommendations