The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Are M.B.A. Students a Good Proxy for Nonprofessional Investors?
Abstract
We investigate a key assumption underlying much of the experimental research in financial accounting that graduate business students are a good proxy for nonprofessional investors. To conduct our investigation, we categorize recent experimental studies in financial accounting, based on the relative level of integrative complexity inherent in each study's task. We then conduct experiments using two tasks, one that is relatively low in integrative complexity and one that is relatively high in integrative complexity, and compare the responses of two groups of M.B.A. students and nonprofessional investors. Our results suggest that using M.B.A. students as a proxy for nonprofessional investors is a valid methodological choice, provided researchers give careful consideration to aligning a task's integrative complexity with the appropriate level of M.B.A. student. M.B.A. students who have completed their core M.B.A. courses and are enrolled in or have completed a financial statement analysis course are a good proxy for nonprofessional investors in tasks that are relatively low in integrative complexity. Though less definitive, the majority of our tests also suggest that these students are a good proxy for nonprofessional investors in tasks that are relatively high in integrative complexity. However, care must be taken when using students in the first-year core financial accounting course. In tasks that are relatively low in integrative complexity, these students perform similarly to nonprofessional investors except when they are asked to make an investment decision. In tasks that are relatively high in integrative complexity, these students acquire information similarly to nonprofessional investors, but they do not appear to integrate the information in a similar manner.
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
Accounting for the effects of accountability.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 · Cited by 2,383
Accountability and complexity of thought.
Tetlock, P. E. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.74 · Cited by 995
Cited by
Hodge, K., Subramaniam, N., & Stewart, J. (2009) · Australian Accounting Review · doi:10.1111/j.1835-2561.2009.00056.x · Cited by 375
The Impact of Strategic Relevance and Assurance of Sustainability Indicators on Investors' Decisions
Cheng, M. M., Green, W. J., & Ko, J. C. W. (2015) · AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory · doi:10.2308/ajpt-50738 · Cited by 317
TAN, H., YING WANG, E., & ZHOU, B. (2014) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1475-679x.12039 · Cited by 299
Baier, C., Göttsche, M., Hellmann, A., & Schiemann, F. (2022) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04719-7 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Elliott, W. B., Hodge, F. D., Kennedy, J. J., & Pronk, M.
- Venue
- The Accounting Review
- Publisher
- American Accounting Association
- Published
- 2007-01-01
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 139-168
- ISSN
- 0001-4826 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-7967
- OpenAlex
- W3123217102
- Cited by
- 405
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 52.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Are M.B.A. Students a Good Proxy for Nonprofessional Investors? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2308/accr.2007.82.1.139
- The paper
- Elliott, W. B., Hodge, F. D., Kennedy, J. J., & Pronk, M. (2007). Are M.B.A. Students a Good Proxy for Nonprofessional Investors? The Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2007.82.1.139
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.