Table 1 categorizes published papers that address conceptual framework issues using experimental methods and that have been published since 1990. The table is organized by the FASB’s current conceptual framework. When concept statements to which research was originally directed have been superseded, we reference the current concept statement.

​

Table 2 categorizes published papers that address standard-setting issues using experimental methods and that have been published since 1990. The table is organized along two dimensions. The first dimension is based on the FASB’s codification. Authoritative accounting standards with a codification placement in the 200’s are related to presentation matters. Those referenced by 300s, 400s, and 500s capture asset, liability, and equity issues, respectively. Standards coded as 600s and 700s represent revenue and expense issues, respectively. Finally, the 800s and 900s are related to broad transactions and industry issues, respectively. Broad transactions include matters such as business combinations, derivatives and hedging, foreign currency, leases, and transfers and servicing. Industry pertains to accounting matters related to airlines, extractive industries, entertainment, real estate, software, and others. See the FASB’s codification for more information (https://asc.fasb.org/Login​). When standards to which research was originally directed have been superseded, we reference the current standard. The second dimension is based on how the FASB organizes their technical agenda—namely, by recognition/measurement and presentation/disclosure. The FASB defines recognition and measurement as involving "whether, and at what amount, to include items on the face of the financial statements.” They define presentation as pertaining to “the display of line items, totals, and subtotals on the face of the financial statements,” while disclosure addresses “information included in the notes to the financial statements” (https://www.fasb.org/technicalagenda).

​

Following the approach taken in the Routledge chapter, both tables also classify papers into one of following eight categories based on the theory tested in the research:

​

• Heuristic judgments: Intuitive judgments often based on the accessibility of an attribute or value of an attribute.

• Interpersonal judgments: Judgments based on the prior or anticipated attitudes, beliefs, or actions of other individuals or organizations.

• Explanation-based judgments: Judgments based on a mental model (e.g., story, narrative, scenario, simulation) constructed to make sense of a situation.

• Causal Reasoning: The process by which people judge causal relationships between events, often ignoring or underweighting probability.

• Individual differences: Stable psychological characteristics that distinguish one person from another.

• Goal-directed reasoning: Allowing a preferred outcome to affect the process of forming impressions, determining one’s beliefs and attitudes, evaluating evidence, and making decisions.

• Economic incentives    : The (financial) benefit or cost associated with a particular action or decision.

• Descriptive: Studies that describe a particular phenomenon or effect but do not test or rely on a particular theory.

​

To identify the papers categorized in the original AOS article, we conducted a five-step process. First, we obtained a listing of accounting publications classified as financial experimental (from twelve journals) in the byuaccounting.net database beginning in 1990 and ending in October 2022 (Coyne, Summers, Williams and Wood 2010). The nature of the database is that papers may be categorized as financial on the basis of their dependent variable even if the independent variables are not related to financial accounting. For instance, many papers classified as financial manipulate components of the audit report (e.g., going concern opinions, critical audit matter paragraphs) and elicit participants’ investment judgments. Because of this, not all of the papers are necessarily related to standard setting. Therefore, our second step was to narrow the listing by searching the electronically searchable papers for specific terms that could indicate possible relevance for standard setters. Our search terms were: “FASB,” “IASB,” “standards,” “standard set” (covers standard setters/setting), and “regulat” (covers regulat-ion/ory/or).

​

Third, from this reduced set of papers, two authors independently evaluated each paper to judge its relevance to FASB or IASB standard setting. In large part, our criteria for determining whether a paper is pertinent to standard setting is based on the manipulated variables. We exclude papers that have independent variables that are either audit-related or manipulate features of the accounting information environment that are not related to financial accounting standard setting. The latter would include, for example, manipulations of management/firm or analyst characteristics (e.g., language choices, prior forecast accuracy, disclosure medium such as video, social media, etc.). It is important to note that we do not exclude papers solely on the basis of participants or participant proxies, and so our final set of papers includes investors, managers, analysts and auditors (or proxies thereof) as study participants.

 

Fourth, we performed a thorough search of the “online early” articles for each of the twelve journals in the byuaccounting.net database to identify additional papers that fit the criteria described above.

​

The fifth step was to categorize each paper in our final population within the two tables. We base the categorization of each paper on the study’s description in the paper’s title, abstract,  introduction, as well as a review of their method and experimental instrument. In most cases, the appropriate categorization is straightforward. Two authors independently evaluated each paper for the appropriate categorization. In guiding our categorization, we relied on a few coding rules to ensure consistency across papers and manageability within our tables. First, each paper could have a maximum of two citations to the Codification (i.e., two accounting standard citations, referred to as ASC xxx where the xxx refers to a particular section within the codification) and/or conceptual framework standards. Doing so allowed us to focus on the most important contributions of a given study. Second, we always coded a paper for the context in which its experiment was set. So if a paper was about recognition and measurement in the stock-based compensation setting, we also included it in expenses (i.e., ASC 710). Doing so avoided difficult decisions about whether the authors intended the context to be important in its own right or perhaps merely a “means to a different end.” Third, for Table 2, while most papers appearing there usually focused on either recognition and measurement or presentation and disclosure, it is possible that some captured both features with their experimental design. Accordingly, we coded some papers in both columns of Table 2. However, if a paper pertained to recognition versus measurement, we included those papers solely within the recognition and measurement column of Table 2 as the focus of that paper would be whether to recognize or disclosure. 

​

We update the tables annually by reviewing all papers published and online early in the previous calendar year and classifying identified papers according to the process described above. 

​

Notes and references

 

We are grateful to David Wood for providing us with a listing of all papers classified as experimental financial from a list of twelve journals for the years 1990 to 2022 from the byuaccounting.net database (see http://www.byuaccounting.net/rankings/univrank/rankings.php).

​

Coyne, J. G., S. L. Summers, B. Williams, & D. A. Wood. (2010). Accounting program research rankings by topical area and methodology. Issues in Accounting Education, 25, 631-645.