東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Rules versus principles, accountants...

Stetson, Tracy Elizabeth.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Rules versus principles, accountants' cognitive styles and professional penalties.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Rules versus principles, accountants' cognitive styles and professional penalties./
Author:	Stetson, Tracy Elizabeth.
Description:	95 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-01, Section: A, page: 0247.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International67-01A.
Subject:	Business Administration, Accounting. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3206889
ISBN:	9780542533075

Rules versus principles, accountants' cognitive styles and professional penalties.
Stetson, Tracy Elizabeth.

Rules versus principles, accountants' cognitive styles and professional penalties. - 95 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-01, Section: A, page: 0247.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Oklahoma, 2006.

This study examined the effect of accountants' cognitive styles and the severity of potential professional penalties under rules-based versus principles-based standards in the context of client pressure to approve of an inappropriately aggressive transaction. Cognitive style was operationalized using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. With respect to the individual elements of cognitive style, the Perceiving (SN) mental function was not significant and did not interact significantly with standard precision (rules-based versus principles-based standards, or rules versus principles). The Judging (TF) mental function interacted marginally significantly with standard precision and was significant under rules but not under principles, with Thinkers (T) under rules exhibiting greater aggressiveness (21.5% mean chance of approving an inappropriately aggressive transaction versus 9.00%, 12.73% and 13.64%). This differential effect of the Judging (TF) mental function may be enhanced if the Thinker (T) is also a Sensor (S) and a Judging (J) type (STJ) (29% mean chance of approving an inappropriately aggressive transaction for STJs versus 21.5% chance of doing so for Thinkers (T)).

ISBN: 9780542533075Subjects--Topical Terms:

1020666
Business Administration, Accounting.

Rules versus principles, accountants' cognitive styles and professional penalties.
LDR:03286nmm 2200325 4500 001 1830404
005 20070430071639.5
008 130610s2006 eng d
020 $a 9780542533075
035 $a (UnM)AAI3206889
035 $a AAI3206889
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Stetson, Tracy Elizabeth. $3 1919237
245 1 0 $a Rules versus principles, accountants' cognitive styles and professional penalties.
300 $a 95 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-01, Section: A, page: 0247.
500 $a Advisers: Terry L. Crain; Dipankar Ghosh.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Oklahoma, 2006.
520 $a This study examined the effect of accountants' cognitive styles and the severity of potential professional penalties under rules-based versus principles-based standards in the context of client pressure to approve of an inappropriately aggressive transaction. Cognitive style was operationalized using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. With respect to the individual elements of cognitive style, the Perceiving (SN) mental function was not significant and did not interact significantly with standard precision (rules-based versus principles-based standards, or rules versus principles). The Judging (TF) mental function interacted marginally significantly with standard precision and was significant under rules but not under principles, with Thinkers (T) under rules exhibiting greater aggressiveness (21.5% mean chance of approving an inappropriately aggressive transaction versus 9.00%, 12.73% and 13.64%). This differential effect of the Judging (TF) mental function may be enhanced if the Thinker (T) is also a Sensor (S) and a Judging (J) type (STJ) (29% mean chance of approving an inappropriately aggressive transaction for STJs versus 21.5% chance of doing so for Thinkers (T)).
520 $a While 40.2% of the general U.S. population are Thinkers (T), 70.5% of accounting professionals are Thinkers (T). While 20.3% of the general U.S. population are STJs, 39.1% of accounting professionals are STJs and the STJ cognitive style combination is the most prevalent cognitive style combination for accounting professionals. Thus, this study provides some evidence that the cognitive style preferences materially more prevalent among accounting professionals than the general U.S. population may lead to more willingness to approve an inappropriately aggressive transaction under rules but not under principles.
520 $a Surprisingly, under both rules-based and principles-based standards, greater aggressiveness was indicated when potential professional penalties were high (three times the fee obtained for the opinion) rather than low ( $2 50). Thus, this study provides some evidence that heightening the monetary amount of potential professional penalties may not lower and may even increase the willingness of accountants to approve an aggressive transaction under either rules or principles.
590 $a School code: 0169.
650 4 $a Business Administration, Accounting. $3 1020666
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
650 4 $a Psychology, Personality. $3 1017585
690 $a 0272
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0625
710 2 0 $a The University of Oklahoma. $3 1021915
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 67-01A.
790 1 0 $a Crain, Terry L., $e advisor
790 1 0 $a Ghosh, Dipankar, $e advisor
790 $a 0169
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2006
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3206889