The results of our evaluation of the effect of IV dexamethasone versus saline control on analgesia and nausea and vomiting after intrathecal neostigmine and tetracaine suggest that IV dexamethasone did not enhance the analgesic effect of neostigmine or reduce the incidence of emesis after intrathecal administration.

This study seeks to identify emotional intelligence (EI) as a key factor in dealing with emotions and pressures in an audit context. In this paper, we focus on how EI may influence the relation between job pressures (i.e., time budget pressure and client pressure) and auditors' judgment. Specifically, we investigate the moderating effect of EI on auditors' third‐person assessments of an auditor's actions when subject to internal and external pressures. The results suggest that the moderating influence of EI can effectively reduce auditors' tendency to engage in dysfunctional behavior and improve audit quality. Further, moderation analysis suggests that EI is a significant mechanism that moderates the effects of different types of pressure on auditors' judgments.

Counterproductive behaviors are of concern for all organizations. In addition to explicit financial costs, these behaviors can be detrimental to interpersonal and intraorganizational dynamics and morale, and they can generate negative reputational effects. The accounting literature has long maintained that job autonomy is critical in allowing accountants to apply accounting standards. Prior accounting literature calls for research investigating job autonomy and accounting professionalism. This study answers that call for research. We employ structural equation modeling to evaluate a sample of experienced Chinese accountants from a variety of industries and find a direct, positive, and deleterious effect between job autonomy and counterproductive behaviors. However, this effect is compensated for and reversed by a set of indirect and advantageous effects exerted through the influence of job satisfaction and perceived organizational support.

This paper reports the results of an experiment examining whether estimate source (developed by an external consultant or the audit client) interacts with social pressure (obedience pressure from a superior or conformity pressure from a peer) to influence Chinese auditors' judgments of fair value estimates. The results reveal an interaction between the source of the estimate and the type of social pressure. Specifically, Chinese auditors' risk assessments and judgments regarding whether an auditor will investigate further are not influenced by relevant information about a fair value estimate's source when advised to use a questionable estimate by a superior. However, when the same advice is received from a peer, the likelihood of further investigation and auditors' risk assessments are impacted by the estimate's source.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a research model to examine the perception of non-professional investors toward the cybersecurity reporting framework developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Design/methodology/approach The proposed hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling with data collected from Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform. Findings The findings conclude that investors' perceived benefits of the cybersecurity risk framework are positively related to investment intention. Information quality and cybersecurity awareness also positively influence perceived benefits of the risk framework and investment intention. Practical implications Findings of this study are relevant to both regulatory bodies and firms because non-professional investors’ perceptions of the benefits of the AICPA’s reporting framework are unveiled. Originality/value Findings from this research help to provide a more in-depth understanding of the impact of various factors on investor’s decision-making process and also significant insights into the non-professional investor’s attitude toward the AICPA’s framework.