Despite the frequent mention of Bitcoin in recent years in the press and business publications, many people are still uncertain what this cryptocurrency is or how it works. And although bitcoins (BTCs) are now an accepted medium of exchange for some businesses and not‐for‐profit organizations, no specific accounting guidance has been issued for these transactions. This article provides some basic information about BTCs and addresses six specific financial accounting issues: asset classification, mining activity, investment holdings, exchanges, merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions, and disclosure.

Software development is moving from procedural programming towards object-oriented programming (OOP). Past studies in cognitive aspects of programming have focused primarily on procedural programming languages. Object-oriented programming is a new paradigm for computing. Industry is finding that programmers are having difficulty shifting to this new programming paradigm.Findings in prior research revealed that procedural programming requires Piaget's formal operation cognitive level. New from this research is that OOP also requires Piaget's formal operation cognitive level. Also new is that OOP appears to be unrelated to hemispheric cognitive style. OOP appears to be hemispheric style friendly, while procedural programming is preferential to left hemispheric cognitive style.The conclusion is that cognitive requirements are not the cause for the difficulty in shifting from procedural to OOP. An alternative possibility to the difficulty is proactive interference of learning procedural programming prior to learning object oriented programming.

Research suggests that two methods of introducing dissent, the dialectic inquiry (DI) and devil's advocate (DA) methods, show promise for increasing the cognitive complexity of decision makers. We investigated the joint effects of formalized dissent and group cognitive complexity by manipulating the formalized dissent method (DI or DA) used by 25 interacting groups engaged in a complex, ill-structured planning task. Participants were classified as either high or low cognitive complexity and assigned to stratified groups with members of homogeneous complexity. Results indicated that: (1) DA groups produced higher quality assumptions but took longer to generate plans than did DI groups, (2) high complexity groups generated more recommendations relative to low complexity groups, and (3) DA groups with low complexity members produced lower quality recommendations and participated less equally in decision making than did the other groups. We conclude by discussing the implications of the results for formalized dissent, cognitive complexity, and assessing managerial performance.

No abstract

No abstract