The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Principles-Based versus Rules-Based Accounting Standards: The Influence of Standard Precision and Audit Committee Strength on Financial Reporting Decisions
Open accessAbstract
ABSTRACT: Recent accounting scandals have resulted in regulatory initiatives designed to strengthen audit committee oversight of corporate financial reporting and have led to a concern that U.S. GAAP has become too rules-based. We examine issues related to these initiatives using two experiments. CFOs in our experiments exhibit more agreement and are less likely to report aggressively under a less precise (more principles-based) standard than under a more precise (more rules-based) standard. Our results also indicate that CFOs applying a more precise standard are less likely to report aggressively in the presence of a strong audit committee than a weak audit committee. We find no effect of audit committee strength when the standard is less precise. Finally, we find support for a three-path mediating model examining mechanisms driving the effect of standard precision on aggressive reporting decisions. These results should be of interest to U.S. policymakers as they continue to contemplate a shift to more principles-based accounting standards (e.g., IFRS).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory and practice of corporate finance: evidence from the field
Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2001) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/s0304-405x(01)00044-7 · Cited by 5,939
Earnings management and corporate governance: the role of the board and the audit committee
Xie, B., Davidson, W. N., & DaDalt, P. J. (2003) · Journal of Corporate Finance · doi:10.1016/s0929-1199(02)00006-8 · Cited by 2,777
Estimating Mediated Effects in Prevention Studies
Mackinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993) · Evaluation Review · doi:10.1177/0193841x9301700202 · Cited by 1,937
Audit Committee Characteristics and Restatements
Abbott, L. J., Parker, S., & Peters, G. F. (2004) · AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory · doi:10.2308/aud.2004.23.1.69 · Cited by 1,664
Box, G. E. P. (1954) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728786 · Cited by 1,513
Be´dard, J., Chtourou, S. M., & Courteau, L. (2004) · AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory · doi:10.2308/aud.2004.23.2.13 · Cited by 1,392
Experimental research in financial accounting
Libby, R., Bloomfield, R., & Nelson, M. W. (2002) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/s0361-3682(01)00011-3 · Cited by 1,201
Does the Market Value Financial Expertise on Audit Committees of Boards of Directors?
DEFOND, M. L., HANN, R. N., & HU, X. (2005) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-679x.2005.00166.x · Cited by 1,145
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
(2008) · Encyclopedia of Finance · doi:10.1007/0-387-26336-5_844 · Cited by 1,095
Evidence from Auditors about Managers' and Auditors' Earnings Management Decisions
Nelson, M. W., Elliott, J. A., & Tarpley, R. L. (2002) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr.2002.77.s-1.175 · Cited by 1,041
Cited by
Formal accountability, perceived accountability and aggressive reporting judgements
Pan, P., & Patel, C. (2022) · Accounting and Business Research · doi:10.1080/00014788.2020.1836469 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Agoglia, C. P., Doupnik, T. S., & Tsakumis, G. T.
- Venue
- The Accounting Review
- Publisher
- American Accounting Association
- Published
- 2011-05-01
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 747-767
- ISSN
- 0001-4826 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-7967
- OpenAlex
- W2155796253
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 75.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Principles-Based versus Rules-Based Accounting Standards: The Influence of Standard Precision and Audit Committee Strength on Financial Reporting Decisions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2308/accr.00000045
- The paper
- Agoglia, C. P., Doupnik, T. S., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2011). Principles-Based versus Rules-Based Accounting Standards: The Influence of Standard Precision and Audit Committee Strength on Financial Reporting Decisions. The Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.00000045
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.