The importance in accounting of ambiguity tolerance at the national level

Abstract

Purpose The aim of the research is to examine potential differences in the levels of ambiguity tolerance between Australian and Chinese accountants at the national, rather than individual, level. Design/methodology/approach Ambiguity tolerance levels of final year accounting students (proxying for entry level accountants) and first year accounting students from Australia and China were measured using the MacDonald AT‐20 Ambiguity Tolerance Index. Comparisons were made across the four subject pools with a view to identifying national level differences suggested by the cultural, sociological, historical, and contemporary issues impacting on the accounting profession in the two countries. Findings Entry level accountants in China are less tolerant of ambiguity than their Australian counterparts. There are, however, no statistically significant differences in the levels of ambiguity tolerance between first year accounting students in China and Australia. Research limitations/implications The research employed final year accounting students as surrogates for entry level accountants. Future research could usefully extend this research to practicing accountants at different ranks. Practical implications Given the central role of ambiguity in contemporary accounting practice, the potential implications are broad. This is particularly the case with regard to the harmonization of accounting practices in that accountants with different tolerances for ambiguity might make different decisions in the face of similar accounting standards and circumstances. Interestingly, the results from the research suggest that differences in ambiguity tolerance are attributable to events occurring while students are studying. Originality/value This research examines ambiguity tolerance at the national level (rather than the individual level), thereby allowing practical implications to be prescribed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.