Prior academic and practitioner literature argues that the ethical tone at the top of an organization is a key factor in establishing an effective internal control environment. Drawing on self-concept maintenance theory and in-group bias theory, this study predicts that entry-level staff auditors will disregard a company's ethical standards unless they observe a strong ethical tone from both their partner (tone at the top) and their supervising senior (tone at the bottom). Also, this study predicts that staff auditors will be more influenced by the tone of their supervising senior than the partner when these two individuals provide conflicting tones. In a 2 × 2 experiment that manipulates the tone set by a staff auditor's supervising senior and engagement partner, this study provides evidence consistent with predictions. Further analyses suggest that participants make less ethical decisions because they are less likely to view the situation as an ethical dilemma when either the senior or partner exhibits low tone. The results of this study emphasize that tone at the top is not, by itself, sufficient to produce ethical decision making; organizations must strive to foster a strong ethical tone throughout the entire organization, especially at lower levels of the organization.

Prior research indicates that most audit legal disputes settle. There is, however, little evidence of the factors that drive the settlement norm and its exceptions in audit legal disputes. To better understand these factors, we rely on theory related to how professionals manage risks and, as a result, how professions defend jurisdictional claims. We use this theoretical lens to help motivate four research questions that we probe by interviewing 27 prominent attorneys experienced in audit litigation. Consistent with our lens, our interview data indicate that attorneys manage their risks, including the risk of reputational loss, by settling based on their expectations of trial verdicts. Unlike trials, settlements simultaneously enable attorneys on both sides to limit costs and avoid catastrophic jury verdicts and, by doing so, claim “wins” for their clients. Attorneys also stress that they settle many audit disputes without any legal filings. Thus, a large subset of disputes is invisible to the public and researchers. Attorneys characterize trials as exceptions to the settlement norm that emerge due to abnormal conditions sometimes present in disputes. However, trial verdicts in these abnormal conditions help attorneys justify the use of settlements to clients, as attorneys stress that by settling they can avoid the dreaded possibility of extreme unfavorable verdicts. We conclude that as individual attorneys manage their risks, especially the risk of reputational loss, their profession maintains its public image and thereby defends its jurisdictional claims. Among the many questions we pose for future research is whether the settlement norm reduces society's ability to monitor the audit profession and, more generally, whether this norm's benefits outweigh its drawbacks.

This paper ranks individual accounting researchers based on their research productivity in the most recent six, 12, and 20 years. We extend prior individual faculty rankings by providing separate individual faculty research rankings for each topical area commonly published in accounting journals (accounting information systems [AIS], audit, financial, managerial, and tax). In addition, we provide individual faculty research rankings for each research methodology commonly used by accounting researchers (analytical, archival, and experimental). These findings will be of interest to potential doctoral students and current faculty, as well as accounting department, business school, and university administrators as they make decisions based on individual faculty members' research productivity.

We examine how jurors' negligence judgments and attorneys' out-of-court settlements are differently impacted by two features of a materially misstated accounting estimate-the amount of estimate uncertainty and whether the misstated account is disaggregated into its own line-item or aggregated with other accounts into a single financial statement line-item. We predict and find that jurors and attorneys react to estimate uncertainty in opposite directions under common conditions. This finding is important because when jurors' judgments and attorneys' settlements differ, research into juror judgments alone may not capture a complete picture of auditor liability because the vast majority of audit litigation is resolved by attorneys in out-of-court settlement without ever going to trial. Consistent with attribution theory, results from our first experiment show that jurors hold auditors more responsible for misstatements of lower estimate uncertainty when the misstated account is disaggregated, as opposed to misstatements that are of higher uncertainty and/or aggregated with other, accurate accounts. However, in a second experiment we find that attorneys negotiate auditor settlements under the incorrect assumption that jurors will hold auditors more responsible for failing to prevent misstatements of higher uncertainty. Our results illustrate that accounting research should not focus solely on juror judgments in the study of how specific factors impact auditor liability, and that attorneys would benefit from a better understanding of juror decision making.

ChatGPT, a language-learning model chatbot, has garnered considerable attention for its ability to respond to users’ questions. Using data from 14 countries and 186 institutions, we compare ChatGPT and student performance for 28,085 questions from accounting assessments and textbook test banks. As of January 2023, ChatGPT provides correct answers for 56.5 percent of questions and partially correct answers for an additional 9.4 percent of questions. When considering point values for questions, students significantly outperform ChatGPT with a 76.7 percent average on assessments compared to 47.5 percent for ChatGPT if no partial credit is awarded and 56.5 percent if partial credit is awarded. Still, ChatGPT performs better than the student average for 15.8 percent of assessments when we include partial credit. We provide evidence of how ChatGPT performs on different question types, accounting topics, class levels, open/closed assessments, and test bank questions. We also discuss implications for accounting education and research.