Article2014

The Impact of Principles-Based versus Rules-Based Accounting Standards on Auditors' Motivations and Evidence Demands

Marietta Peytcheva · Arnold M. Wright · Barbara Majoor

50 citations0/0 files storedBehavioral Research in Accounting

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance Accounting Theory and Financial Reporting Accounting and Organizational Management

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Auditing research has investigated the effects of different accounting standards on auditors' decisions to constrain aggressive reporting by clients. Missing from this literature is evidence on how the type of accounting standard influences auditors' cognitive motivations and demand for audit evidence. This study addresses this gap in the literature, which is important since the financial statements are the joint product of management's and the auditor's actions. An experiment was conducted with U.S. and Dutch auditors to examine the manner in which principles-based versus rules-based accounting standards influence auditors' process accountability, epistemic motivation, and demands for audit evidence. The study proposes and supports a theoretical model in which principles-based accounting standards increase auditors' process accountability—the expectation of having to justify to others the decision process used, regardless of the outcome of the decision (Markman and Tetlock 2000; Libby, Salterio, and Webb 2004). Greater process accountability in turn increases auditors' epistemic motivation—the desire to develop and maintain a rich and accurate understanding of the problem at hand (Kruglanski 1989). The heightened epistemic motivation induced by principles-based accounting standards then ultimately increases auditors' demands for audit evidence. Thus, the results suggest the important influence of accounting standards on auditors' motivations and consequent program planning decisions.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 50 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.1998Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling 1992Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit 2011Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It 1986The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion 1990Structural Model Evaluation and Modification: An Interval Estimation Approach 2007Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course 1999Accounting for the effects of accountability.

Cited by

2020The impact of the precision of accounting standards on the expanded auditor’s report in the European Union 2025The necessity of AI audit standards boards 2019Are changes in international accounting standards making them more complex?2021Principles-Based Accounting Standards and Audit Outcomes: Empirical Evidence 2022The effect of financial reporting regimes on audit report lags and audit fees: evidence from firms cross-listed in the USA

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.