2019
DOI: 10.24818/jamis.2019.01002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The interpretation of the verbal probability expressions used in the IFRS – The differences observed between Polish and British accounting professionals

Abstract: Research Question: Do Polish and British accounting professionals interpret verbal probability expressions (VPEs) differently when presented with identical excerpts from IFRS? Motivation: Our research has been motivated by the ongoing debate of consistent interpretation of VPEs. The major difficulty in the interpretation of these terms is the imperative for the accountants to express their individual subjective judgements. Previous research shows that these expressions may have low communication efficiency (Si… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
(105 reference statements)
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In these and other areas (e.g., Morgan, 1998), experts typically assess and communicate probabilities with words such as "likely" rather than numeric quantifiers such as "75% chance." This is true even in stereotypically quantitative professions such as accounting (Kolesnik et al, 2019) and is consistent with the preference of communication senders who tend to favor the use of verbal over numeric probabilities Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Department of National Defence. Juanchich & Sirota, 2020;Olson & Budescu, 1997;Wallsten, Budescu, Zwick, & Kemp, 1993).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 62%
“…In these and other areas (e.g., Morgan, 1998), experts typically assess and communicate probabilities with words such as "likely" rather than numeric quantifiers such as "75% chance." This is true even in stereotypically quantitative professions such as accounting (Kolesnik et al, 2019) and is consistent with the preference of communication senders who tend to favor the use of verbal over numeric probabilities Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Department of National Defence. Juanchich & Sirota, 2020;Olson & Budescu, 1997;Wallsten, Budescu, Zwick, & Kemp, 1993).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 62%
“…Experts routinely make probabilistic judgments under conditions of uncertainty to aid decision-making. For instance, climate scientists predict the effects of global climate change (Budescu et al, 2009); epidemiologists project the public health impacts of COVID-19 (Ioannidis et al, 2020); Even in highly quantitative fields such as accounting (Koleśnik et al, 2019) and meteorology (Lenhardt et al, 2020), experts often convey probabilistic judgments using words (e.g., likely) instead of numeric quantifiers (e.g., 75% chance). This tendency reflects a well-documented preference pattern known as the communication mode preference paradox: in general, people prefer to send verbal probabilities, and especially when the uncertainty they are characterizing is internal or epistemic (Juanchich & Sirota, 2020), but they prefer to receive numeric probabilities (Brun & Teigen, 1988;Erev & Cohen, 1990;Wallsten et al, 1993; for a review of recent developments on this topic, see Dhami & Mandel, 2022).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The interindividual variability in numeric interpretations of verbal probabilities [51] continues to be observed in English-speaking samples, and is evident among experts/professionals [25][26][27]30,34,35,52,53] as well as lay people (e.g., [17,19,20,24,32,36,[44][45][46][47]54,55]). Such variability is also documented among non-native English-speakers, where probability terms may or may not be translated [7,28,35,49,56,57]. These non-native language users have reduced numeric discriminability of terms that lie above and below the mid-point of the probability scale [7,49,57].…”
Section: Variability Across Individualsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Whereas some ask participants to select or respond to probability terms from a predefined list (e.g., [23][24][25][26][27][28]), others capture free-text responses or uncertainty language use in natural settings (e.g., [29][30][31][32][33]). Several recent studies have examined terms in existing official uncertainty communication policies (e.g., [34][35][36]). However, many examine one or a few probability terms (e.g., [12,17,19,37,38]).…”
Section: Verbalizing Uncertaintymentioning
confidence: 99%