Auditing Section Research Summaries Space

A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice

This is a public Custom Hive  public

research summary

    The Impact of Principles-Based versus Rules-Based Accounting...
    research summary posted July 20, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.03 Adequacy of Evidence, 15.0 International Matters, 15.02 IFRS Changes – Impacts 
    377 Views
    Title:
    The Impact of Principles-Based versus Rules-Based Accounting Standards on Auditors' Motivations and Evidence Demands.
    Practical Implications:

    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. The findings provide valuable information to regulators in their evaluation of how or whether to move forward with potential IFRS adoption or convergence of U.S. GAAP with IFRS. In a principles environment, audit firms must take measures to guard against this potential bias, e.g., review of proposed audit programs and results of tests.

    Citation:

    Peytcheva, M., Wright, A. M., & Majoor, B. 2014. The Impact of Principles-Based versus Rules-Based Accounting Standards on Auditors' Motivations and Evidence Demands. Behavioral Research In Accounting 26 (2): 51-72.

    Keywords:
    auditing, epistemic motivation, principles-based standards, process accountability, rules-based standards, IFRS, auditor judgment
    Purpose of the Study:

    There has been considerable discussion about the effects of principles-based versus rules-based accounting standards on financial reporting quality, particularly given the debate concerning the adoption of, or convergence with, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the United States. 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.

    This is the first study to examine the effects of the type of accounting standard on auditors’ cognitive motivations and information search patterns.  The authors address an important, and missing, piece of the puzzle: are there fundamental differences in the psychological processes employed by auditors who face principles versus rules accounting guidance? If there are differences, are auditors’ motivations under principles-based accounting standards driven by simple self-interest as opposed to a desire to understand the economic substance of the transaction at hand?

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The theoretical model is tested using an experiment with 104 auditors from the U.S. and 48 auditors from The Netherlands. The experiment manipulates the type of accounting standard between participants at two levels: rules-based or principles-based. The evidence was gathered prior to January 2014.

    Findings:

    Findings from this experiment suggest that principles-based versus rules-based standards lead to significant differences in the judgment processes of professional auditors. In turn, greater process accountability induces higher epistemic motivation in auditorsa desire to obtain a rich and thorough understanding of the problem at hand. High levels of epistemic motivation stimulated by principles-based accounting standards then induce a greater demand for both total desired evidence and diagnostic audit evidence. These findings suggest that, while bright-line rules and thresholds can limit cognitive effort, accounting standards based on broad principles are likely to evoke systematic and thorough information processing, thereby leading auditors to strive for a rich and accurate understanding of the issues under consideration.

    The results also indicate that, although auditors exposed to IFRS over a prolonged period (e.g., Dutch auditors) may experience lower process accountability and epistemic motivation when working with principles-based standards than U.S. auditors, principles-based accounting standards still induce greater epistemic motivation than rules-based accounting standards in these auditors, suggesting a greater desire to obtain a rich understanding of the matter at hand.

    Category:
    Auditor Judgment, International Matters
    Sub-category:
    Adequacy of Evidence, IFRS Changes – Impacts