架构效应与模糊效应对会计判断之影响
The Influence of Frame Effect and Ambiguity Effect on Accounting Judgment

作者: 颜信辉 , 陈慧玲 :淡江大学会计学系,新北市;

关键词: 架构效应模糊效应决策判断Framing Effect Ambiguity Effect Decision Judgment

摘要:

本研究探讨架构效应与模糊效应对决策偏好之影响。采用实验设计,操弄“信息陈述用语(正面陈述与负面陈述)”与“信息模糊程度(精确信息、大区间模糊与小区间模糊)”。实证结果发现,受试者对或有负债会计处理之决策判断会受到信息陈述用语之影响,采负面陈述时受试者会计处理较为保守。本研究未发现显著之模糊效应,且大区间模糊与小区间模糊对会计判断之影响亦仅出现于正面陈述组。

This study explored the effects of the framing effect and the ambiguity effect on decision preference. Using experimental method, two independent variables “information statement” (positive and negative statements) and the “information ambiguity” (precise, small interval and big interval ambiguity) were tested to determine how they affected the accounting judgment. Empirical results indicated that, the significant framing effect was found. That is, negative statements about the consequences of a decision induced higher levels of conservative than positive statements. However, this study did not find significant ambiguity effect. In addition, the difference of accounting judgment between large and small ambiguity was only found in positive statements.

文章引用: 颜信辉 , 陈慧玲 (2014) 架构效应与模糊效应对会计判断之影响。 国际会计前沿, 3, 1-7. doi: 10.12677/FIA.2014.34B001

参考文献

[1] Simon, H.A. (1957) A behavioral model of rational choice. In: Models of Man, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 241- 260.

[2] Ellsberg, D. (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643-669.

[3] Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

[4] Kennedy, J., Mitchell, T. and Sefcik, S.E. (1998) Disclosure of contingent environmental liabilities: Some unintended consequences? Journal of Accounting Research, 36, 257­277.

[5] Beaver, W.H. (1991) Problems and paradoxes in the financial reporting of future events. Accounting Horizons, 5, 122- 134.

[6] Harrison, K.E. and Tomassini, L.A. (1989) Judging the probability of a contingent loss: An empirical study. Contemporary Accounting Research, 5, 642-648.

[7] Amer, T.S., Hackenbrack, K. and Nelson, M.W. (1994) Between-auditor differences in the interpretation of probability phrases. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 13, 126-136.

[8] Sawers, K., Wright, A. and Zamora, V. (2011) Does greater risk-bearing in stock option compensation reduce the influence of problem framing on managerial risk-taking behavior? Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23, 185-201.

[9] Levin, I.P. and Gaeth, G.J. (1988) How consumer are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.

[10] O’Clock, P. and Devine, K. (1995) An investigation of framing and firm size on the auditor’s going concern decision. Accounting and Business Research, 25, 197-207.

[11] Fox, C.R. and Tversky, A. (1995) Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 585-603.

[12] Frisch, D. and Baron, J. (1994) Ambiguous probabilities and the paradoxes of expected utility. In: Wright, G. and Ayton, P., Eds., Subjective Probability, Wiley, Chichester, 273-294.

[13] Nelson, M.W. and Kinney Jr., W.R. (1997) The effect of ambiguity on loss contingency reporting judgments. Accounting Review, 72, 257-274.

分享
Top