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.

Regulators and the financial press have criticized credit rating agencies (CRAs) for exacerbating the financial crisis by providing overly optimistic debt ratings. Allegedly, CRAs departed from their quantitative models in order to please security issuers with higher credit ratings. In response, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 required the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct a study on alternative models for compensating CRAs. We conduct an experiment exploring how the credit ratings of M.B.A. students, who assume the role of credit rating analysts, are affected by two proposals for reform: (1) changing who pays the CRAs, and (2) requiring analysts to justify departures from a quantitative model. We find that credit ratings are highest when the borrower pays CRAs for ratings and a justification requirement is not in place. Implementing either proposed reform independently reduces credit ratings, but credit ratings are not further reduced when both reforms are implemented together. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.

This study examines whether the perceived independence and financial expertise of audit committee members affect external auditors' exposure to legal liability. We use an experiment in which potential jurors make judgments about auditor independence and legal liability for a case involving an audit failure. We find that perceptions of audit committee independence from management are positively associated with judgments of auditor independence and negatively associated with auditor liability. However, financial expertise of audit committee members can be a double‐edged sword. Our experiment finds that judgments of auditor liability are higher when the audit committee is perceived to have higher financial expertise but lower independence from management. In assessing litigation risk of current and prospective clients, auditors may want to carefully consider the independence of audit committee members from management, particularly when audit committee members have financial expertise. In the event of an audit failure, the financial expertise of nonindependent audit committee members can negatively affect jurors' perceptions of auditor independence and liability.

Managers who generate financial reports often rely on subordinates who possess private information to provide inputs. When managers have incentives to manipulate reports, they may request biased inputs from subordinates. However, subordinates can act as informal controls and constrain managers' opportunism. We experimentally examine two potential determinants of subordinates' willingness to serve as informal controls: their perception of the subordinate-manager relationship quality and their beliefs about the ethical nature of the task. Subordinates who perceive a high-quality relationship with their manager provide more bias, despite a compensation scheme that makes compliance costly. This result suggests that managers who cultivate close working relationships with subordinates may undermine the control system. Subordinates' beliefs about the ethical nature of the task also reduce compliance, but more so when the manager requests income-increasing estimates. Our findings contribute to the management accounting literature by providing insights into the role of subordinate employees as informal controls.

We use plain-English, figures, and simple math to explain how to use path analysis to test for mediation and moderation.  Many theories in accounting research can be conceptualized as mediated, moderated or moderated-mediation models to investigate both simple and complex hypothesized relationships.  Analyses using these models capture the dependent nature of an entire set of relationships rather than attempting to make piecemeal inferences from a series of individual regressions that may not be as revealing and may even yield misleading inferences.  We introduce tools that help build theory, reduce the number of inferential tests that are relied on, and use bootstrapping for inferential tests of moderated mediation that do not rely on distributional assumptions.  We provide two examples from published research to illustrate and apply these concepts.  Tools for analysis include PROCESS (Hayes 2020) and structural equation modeling (SEM).