影响中国会计的因素

Factors Affecting Accounting Judgments: A Comparative Study of Australian and Chinese Culture Abstract This study investigates whether the presumed benefits of increased comparability of financial reports is likely to be realized by global adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs). The study extends prior cross- cultural research by examining the influence of national culture, acculturation and accounting education on the judgments of Australian and Chinese tertiary accounting students when interpreting selected IFRSs that contain uncertainty expressions. Consistent with the cultural values of Australian and Chinese students, the results provide strong support for the notion that Chinese accounting students are more conservative than Australian accounting students in assigning probabilities to in-context uncertainty expressions contained in IFRSs. The results obtained from the acculturation instrument suggest that Chinese Australian accounting students are more acculturated to the Australian culture than Chinese students from China. Consistent with Australian and Chinese students’ acculturated values, the results show that the difference in judgments between Anglo-Celtic and Chinese Australian accounting students is lower compared to the difference in the judgments between Anglo-Celtic and Chinese accounting students. Furthermore, the results support the argument that an interaction exists between the level of accounting education and national culture while influencing the judgments of tertiary accounting students. An important implication of this study is that the adoption of IFRSs in different countries alone may not result in uniformity in financial reporting as IFRSs may not be consistently applied by those countries because of differences in cultural as well as non-cultural factors. Keywords: Cultural factors, non-cultural factors, acculturation, accounting education, accounting judgments 2 1. Introduction The adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) is gaining global prevalence. Many countries have adopted or are planning to adopt IFRSs (IASB 2009). One of the major advantages of adopting IFRSs for a country is that reporting entities can produce a set of financial statements that are comparable and understandable globally. Comparability is an important qualitative characteristic of financial statements in the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Framework which enhances the decision usefulness of financial reports (IASB 2008). As a qualitative characteristic of financial reports, comparability is defined as the quality of information that enables users to identify similarities and differences between two sets of economic phenomena (IASB 2008). High comparability of financial reports assists users (equity investors, lenders and other creditors) in evaluating relative financial reports when making their decisions. Comparability is especially important in an international environment as accountants and regulators across countries may have different views on the interpretation of contentious accounting issues (Benston et al. 2006). Schipper (2003) rationalizes the relationship between consistent application of standards and comparability as follows: … if similar things are accounted for the same way, either across firms or over time, it becomes possible to assess financial reports of different entities, or the same entity at different points in time, so as to discern the underlying economic events (62). It is generally accepted that comparability of financial reports is achieved through compliance with IFRSs (Ball 2006; Barth et al. 2009). However, application of a common set of accounting standards alone does not necessarily guarantee cross-national comparability. This is because interpretation of the rules or principles contained in the IFRSs may be different across nations, which in turn threatens comparability (Doupnik and Richter 2004). IFRSs typically require preparers to exercise judgment in accounting for transactions and events without providing sufficient structure to frame that judgment (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Report 2003). This is because IFRSs are largely principle-based standards emphasizing broad principles and the substance of transactions (Sleigh-Johnson 2002; Wriston 2002; Sawers 2008). For example, the ambiguous nature of uncertainty expressions such as “probable”, “reasonable assurance” and “likely” requires interpretation from preparers of financial 3 statements (Chesley 1986; Simon 2002; Doupnik and Ritcher 2003, 2004). Several cross-cultural studies provide evidence that uncertainty expressions might not be consistently interpreted and applied across nations (Doupnik and Richter 2003, 2004; Doupnik and Riccio 2006). While these studies demonstrate the importance of culture, their insights may be limited because they have not, at the same time, considered the impacts of other non-cultural factors that may affect consistency in interpretation and application (Patel and Psaros 2000). IFRSs were issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) with the expectation that a single set of standards would add to cross-national comparability of financial reports. Financial information is comparable if it is collected and transformed applying the same accounting methods (Krisement 1997). Differences in interpretation of accounting standards can lead to lower comparability of financial reports. Therefore, findings on whether standards are being applied consistently across nations will have significant implications for the usefulness of financial reports. The current study investigates whether the presumed benefits of increased comparability of financial reports are likely to be realized by the global adoption of IFRSs. The study contends that interpretation of the same accounting standards could differ among individuals. In particular, it examines the influence of national culture, acculturation and accounting education on the judgments of Australian and Chinese tertiary accounting students when interpreting selected IFRSs that contain uncertainty expressions. Accounting students have been widely used as surrogates for practising accountants in the accounting judgment literature. In particular, students may be good surrogates for accountants involving human information processing and decision-making tasks (see Liyanarachchi 2007, 62). Furthermore, in this study the focal constructs are culture, acculturation and education, phenomena that is observable and generalizable across many groups of respondents. The study contributes to the accounting literature in four ways. First, the study enriches cross-cultural studies examining the application of IFRSs by expanding the cultural areas to a Confucian cultural background. Previous studies on cross-national differences in interpretations of uncertainty expressions have compared Anglo, Germanic and Latin cultures (Doupnik and Richter 2004, Doupnik and Riccio 2006). As China adopted the IFRSs in 2007, it is now important to consider whether IFRSs are applied in a consistent manner in that country. Second, this study contributes to the development of interdisciplinary social science research by embracing sociological and psychological literature in its theory development and research design rather than solely relying on the Hofstede (1980)-Gray (1988) framework. 4 Third, the study also adds to the accounting and acculturation literature by considering the change in cultural values of individuals and its potential impact on accounting judgment as a result of cross-cultural contact. Acculturation is not receiving the attention it deserves in the accounting literature, but it is particularly relevant within the current globalization trend that is creating an increasing number of expatriate employees working in foreign countries and people migrating to other countries. The study differs from the limited accounting acculturation literature, in that it incorporates an acculturation scale to measure the extent of acculturation rather than merely using the length of stay in the host country as a proxy. Furthermore, the effect of acculturation on accounting judgments is also examined. Fourth, in addition to cultural factors the study also considers the effects of non-cultural factors such as education on the interpretation of uncertainty expressions. The findings will provide evidence about whether similarity in accounting education could potentially improve the comparability of financial reports by moderating the differences in interpretation of accounting standards caused by cultural differences between accountants within and across countries. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the Hofstede-Gray framework and shows the cultural differences between Australia and China. Section 3 discusses the relevant theory and formulates the research hypotheses. Section 4 outlines the research methods, followed by the results and discussion in section 5. The conclusion and implications are provided in the final section. 2. Hofstede-Gray Framework and Cultural Differences between Australia and China 2.1 Hofstede-Gray Framework The most widely adopted cultural framework in accounting research is that of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural values. Hofstede theorizes societal values (national culture) through the interaction of four components: outside influences, ecological factors, societal norms, and institutional consequences. Ecological factors are the physical and social environment of a nation such as its geography, history and demography, which are under the influence of outside factors such as trade and scientific discovery. These ecological factors then proceed to shape societal norms or values. According to Hofstede, societal values establish the structure and functioning of institutions in the society such as its family patterns, social stratification, educational systems and political structure. Subsequently, these institutions would reinforce the outside influences and societal norms (Hofstede 1980). 5 Culture is defined by Hofstede as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another” (1980, 25). Culture manifests itself through symbols, heroes, rituals and values. Hofstede (2001, 5) contends that value, being “a broad tendency to prefer certain states of affairs over others” is the core element of culture. The idea is consistent with Williams (1968) who states that culture is a shared value. Cultural values are broken down into dimensions and quantitative measures of these dimensions are provided to act as an independent variable in statistical analyses. Hofstede (1980) examined the work-related value patterns of a sample of employees obtained from two rounds of surveys conducted in one of the world’s largest multi-national organizations, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). Four cultural dimensions were developed in the first, largest and most influential cross-cultural value study (Goodwin 1999). These dimensions were Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism, Power Distance and Masculinity. In addition to the original four, Hofstede and Bond (1988) developed the fifth cultural dimension, Long-term Orientation in the Chinese Value Survey (hereafter CVS). To achieve a closer link between culture and accounting, Gray (1988) expressed Hofstede’s cultural dimensions at the level of accounting subculture by proposing four accounting values that have a positive or negative influence on financial disclosure in different countries. In the four values, professionalism and uniformity signify authority and enforcement of accounting practice while conservatism and secrecy relate to the measurement and disclosure of accounting information. The current study explicitly tests Gray’s framework with respect to conservatism values at the individual level. Conservatism, also known as prudence, is the differential verifiability required for the recognition of accounting gains versus losses that leads to an understatement of net assets (Basu 1997). It is a significant accounting value and is described as the most pervasive principle of accounting valuation (Sterling 1967). Gray (1988) hypothesizes that conservatism is most closely linked with the uncertainty avoidance dimension with a positive relationship. A preference for more conservative measures of profit is consistent with high uncertainty avoidance following from a concern with security and a need to adopt a cautious approach to cope with the uncertainty of future events. Conservatism is also negatively related to individualism and masculinity, since an emphasis on individual achievement and performance helps foster a less conservative approach to measurement. Long-term orientation, similar to uncertainty avoidance, is most closely linked to conservatism, since a less conservative approach to 6 measurement is expected with a short-term orientation where quick results are anticipated. Also a more optimistic approach is adopted compared to conserving resources and investing for long-term results (Radebaugh and Gray 2002). No relationship between power distance and conservatism was determined by any of the researchers. Given the complexity of culture as a construct, the results from previous research adopting a Hofstede-Gray framework on conservatism are mixed. Eddie (1990) finds support for all four of Gray’s hypotheses by examining 13 Asia-Pacific countries. In their single-country study of Indonesia, Sudarwan and Fogarty (1996) find a strong positive association between uncertainty avoidance and conservatism. On the other hand, contrary to Gray’s suggestion of a negative association, they find a positive relationship between individualism and conservatism. In his study of 39 countries, Hope (2003) fails to link culture with financial disclosure using Gray’s accounting values. More recently, Tsakumis (2007) reports no significant difference between Greek and U.S. accountants’ judgments with regard to recognition decisions involving both contingent assets and contingent liabilities. Using the Hofstede-Gray framework, Greek accountants are expected to be more likely to recognize contingent liabilities and less likely to recognize contingent assets when compared to U.S. accountants. A summary of the findings from previous studies on the cultural values relating to conservatism is provided in Table 1. The Hofstede-Gray framework has greatly benefited international accounting research. However, the mixed findings outlined above indicate that the validity of the hypotheses needs further testing. The current study extends the testing of the hypotheses by assessing the Hofstede-Gray framework in the contemporary Australian and Chinese context. In an effort to remedy the potential validity issues of the framework, a broad range of social literature was relied on in addition to Hofstede-Gray’s ranking and hypotheses. Since the interpretation of uncertainty expressions could be influenced by a number of other factors in addition to culture, the current study adopts a holistic approach and examines the effects of acculturation and education on accounting judgments. 2.2 Cultural Differences between Australia and China Numerous studies have established, both theoretically and empirically, that there are significant differences between Chinese and Western cultures. For example, Scarborough (1998) shows that the differences in ethics, religion and government could lead to different levels of power distance, collectivism and uncertainty avoidance. 7 Chinese culture is considered to be highly collective, with the goal of fulfilling one’s Confucian obligations to others (Scarborough 1998). In contrast, individualism is an important survival tool for Australians both cognitively and physically (Borrie 1989). Hofstede’s analysis of Australia reflects a high level of individuality. Australia’s individualism index ranking is 90, the second highest score of any country in Hofstede’s survey, behind the U.S. at 91. Chinese culture, on the other hand, is ranked low in individualism due to the fundamental assumption of Confucianism (the dominant school of thought in Chinese history) that people exist in relationship to others (Bond and Hwang 1986). In other words, the Chinese are encouraged to avoid conflicts in order to maintain good relationships with each other and ultimately achieve a harmonious society. People are less inclined to pose opposite opinions and are less likely to speak up if they hold a point of view different from that held by the majority. Furthermore, an individual’s action is not only related to his/her own reputation, but also to his/her extended family’s reputation. As a result, all the above traits render Chinese high in collectivism, and low in individualism. Previous anthropological literature that looks at differences between American and Chinese cultures also indicates that there is a significant difference in the Masculinity and Femininity dimension. Hsu (1972) argues that being more situation-centred, Chinese are more socially or psychologically dependent on others. Consistent with this general stereotype, the Chinese express happiness and sorrow less since these emotions are shared with others. On the other hand, emotional restraint is also observed amongst Australians. However, the underlying assumption for such behaviour is entirely different and based on the belief that Australians have more characteristics of the masculine image. This extends to a preference for not disclosing private feelings, whether positive or negative, unless under specific social circumstances an outward display of emotions is allowed (Feather 1986). This finding is consistent with Hofstede’s cultural value findings on Australians and Chinese indicating that Australians manifest a higher level of masculinity compared to Chinese. Since Gray (1988) hypothesizes that high masculinity is negatively related to conservatism, both anthropological and cross-cultural theories support the argument that the Chinese are more conservative than Australians. To investigate the uncertainty avoidance dimension, the cross-cultural risk research is relevant since making judgments on uncertainty expressions bears some similarities to risk-taking. Rohrmann and Chen (1999) investigate differences in Australian and Chinese risk perceptions, and report significant cross-national variation. They report differences between professional groups in the judgment and evaluation of hazards in that Chinese data indicated a notably low risk acceptance. 8 Similarly, Yates and Lee (1996) conclude that for Chinese decision-makers, risk is repugnant, that high-risk options are more likely to be rejected and that there is a common risk-aversion attitude in Chinese society. It is then plausible to assume that the Chinese rank higher in terms of uncertainty avoidance compared to Australians, which would render them more conservative according to the Hofstede-Gray framework. However, this conclusion should be relied upon with caution since Hofstede (2001) explicitly specifies that there is a distinction between risk aversion and uncertainty avoidance. Risk, like fear, has an object and uncertainty avoidance, like anxiety, does not need an object. Additional socio-psychological and sociological data are necessary for a com