Developing a Judicial Accounting Paradigm in the Fluctuation of the Level of Protection of Shareholders' Profits in Companies: An Analysis Based on the Thorndike's Theory Test

Subject Areas : Management Accounting

Somayeh Sharifi ¹ (PhD Student, Department of Accounting, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran)
Seyed Ali Vaez ² (Invited Associate Professor, Department of Accounting, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz,Iran Shahid Chamran State University)
mehdi basirat ³ (Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran)

Received: 2021-06-05 Accepted : 2021-06-05 Published : 2021-05-22

Keywords: Thorndike's Theory, Judicial Accounting Paradigm, Protection of Shareholders' Pr,

Abstract :

The Purpose of this research is developing a Judicial Accounting Paradigm in the Fluctuation of the Level of Protection of Shareholders' profits in Companies by Thorndike's Theory Test. In this study, which was conducted in the period of one year in 2018-2019, the collection tool included two parts of a questionnaire and the data disclosed in the financial statements of Tehran Stock Exchange companies. In fact, in order to improve the level of innovation in the relationship between judgmental and quantitative processes in accounting research, a standard questionnaire was used to collect data on the development of the judicial paradigm and entropy analysis was used to collect data on the protection of Shareholders' profits. Then, the total results of companies' evaluation in terms of judicial accounting effectiveness were examined based on two criteria of companies with protection of high shareholders' interests and protection of low shareholders' profits by multivariate maneuver tests, repeated measures analysis of variance and post hoc tests. The results of the research hypothesis test showed that the judicial accounting paradigm in companies with high protection of shareholders 'interests compared to companies with low protection of shareholders' interests is significantly different. In fact, this result shows the link between the judicial accounting paradigm as a stimulus and a factor to protect the interests of shareholders which aims to create a coherent approach to comply with accounting outputs with laws and regulations and detect financial irregularities to increase sensitivities to protect the interests of shareholders and has the function of building trust among shareholders in the company.

References:

*      ابراهیمی، کاظم.، بهرامی‌نسب، علی.، باغیان، جواد. (۱۳۹۶). تأثیر کیفیت حسابرسی و رعایت حقوق سهامداران بر احتمال گزارشگری متقلبانه، دانش حسابرسی، ۱۷(۶۹): ۱۲۵-۱۴۹.

*      اسکندری، حسین.، فردانش، هاشم.، سجادی، سیدمهدی. (۱۳۸۸). ارتباط گرایی: در رقابت یا همسویی با دیگر نظریه‌های یادگیری؟، روانشناسی تربیتی، ۵(۳): ۱۶-۳۳.

*      پورسید، سیدبهزاد.، حسینی، سیدمحمدرضا.، سهرابی، لیلا. (۱۳۹۵). راهکارهای بهبود نظام حاکمیت شرکتی ایران، با تأکید بر شاخص حمایت از سهامداران خرد بانک جهانی، فصلنامه پژوهشنامه بازرگانی، ۸۱(۴): ۵۷-۹۵.

*      جلیلی، صابر.، معصوم پور، یلدا. (۱۳۹۷). اثر حقوق سهامداران و مالکیت درونی بر مدیریت سود، تححقیقات حسابداری و حسابرسی، ۳۷(۱): ۱۶۳-۱۸۰.

*      دیانتی‌دیلمی، زهرا.، سلطانی، اصغر.، عمرانی، حامد. (۱۳۹۷). تدوین برنامه درسی کارشناسی ارشد رشته حسابداری قضایی(دادگاهی) و ضد تقلب، فصلنامه حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری، ۳(۵): ۴۱-۱۰۰

*      زیوری‌کامران، محمدجعفر.، فخاری، حسین. (1398). تبیین الگوی حسابرسی داخلی اثربخش از منظر ذینفعان، مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، 16(64): 81-111.

*      شفیع‌زاده، بهاره.، حسینی، سیدعلی.، رحمانی، علی.، سلطانی، محمد. (1397). نقش گزارشگری مالی، شفافیت و راهبری شرکتی در حمایت از حقوق سرمایه گذاران، فصلنامه بورس اوراق بهادار، 11(42): 74-95.

*      فخاری، حسین.، اسکو، وحید. (۱۳۹۷). تقلب در صورت های مالی: نیاز به تغییر الگو به سمت حسابداری دادگاهی، مطالعات حسابداری و حسابرسی، ۲۶(۲): ۴۵-۶۰.

*      گل‌محمدی‌شورکی، مجتبی.، پورحیدری، امید.، بهارمقدم، مهدی. (1396). بررسی تأثیر مدیریت ذی‎نفعان بر سود تقسیمی و ارزش شرکت، بررسی‏‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 24(3): 371-394

*      میرزائی، سعیده.، عبدلی، محمدرضا.، کوشکی جهرمی، علیرضا. (1399). بررسی تاثیر لحن بدبینانه گزارشگری مالی بر گزارشگری مالی متهورانه: حفاظت از حقوق سهامداران، مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، 16(65): 109-138

*      ACFE. (2014). Report to the Nations On Occupational Fraud and Abuse, Austin: Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.

*      Agrawal, A. K. (2013). The Impact of Investor Protection Law on Corporate Policy and Performance: Evidence from the Blue Sky Laws, Journal of Financial Economics, 107 (3): 417-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.08.019

*      AICPA, A. I. o. C. P. A., (2014). Forensic services audits, and corporate governance: Bridging the gap, New York: Author.

*      Altaf, N., Ahamad Shah, F. (2018). Ownership concentration and firm performance in Indian firms: does investor protection quality matter? Journal of Indian Business Research, 10(1): 33-52.

*      Armour, J., Deakin, S., Sarkar, P., Siems, M., Singh, A. (2009). Shareholder Protection and Stock Market Development: An Empirical Test of the Legal Origins Hypothesis, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(3): 343-80.

*      Awolowo, I. F., (2014). The Relevance of Forensic Accounting in Mitigating the Audit Expectation Gap. s.l., University of Portsmouth.

*      Brown, J, R., Martinsson, G., Petersen, B, C. (2013). Law, Stock Markets, and Innovation. Journal of Finance, 68(3): 1517-1549. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12040

*      Burkart, M., Gromb, D., Mueller, H, M., Panunzi, F. (2014). Legal Investor Protection and Takeovers, Journal of Finance, 69(4): 1129-1165. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12142

*      Catania, A. (1999). Thorndike’s Legacy: Learning, Selection, And the Law of Effect, Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72(3): 211-259. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1999.72-425

*      Chung Yan, G, A., Cronshaw, S, F. (2010). A critical re‐examination and analysis of cognitive ability tests using the Thorndike model of fairness, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4): 489-509. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317902321119709

*      Dong, R. (2011). Research on Legal Procedural Functions of Forensic Accounting, Energy Procedia, Elsevier Ltd, 2147-2151, CC BY-NCND license.

*      Emden, A. (1884). The Shareholders’ Legal Guide; Being a Statement of the Law Relating to Shares, and of the Legal Rights and Responsibilities of Shareholders. London: William Clowes and Sons.

*      Gray, R. O. & Moussalli, S. D., (2006). “Forensic Accounting and Auditing United Again: A Historical Perspective”. Journal of Business Issues, 2: 15-24.

*      Haidar, J, I. (2009). Investor protections and economic growth, Economics Letters, 103(1): 1-4

*      Hamdan, M, W. (2018). The Role of Forensic Accounting in Discovering Financial Fraud, International Journal of Accounting Research, 6(2): 1-6. , https://doi.org/10.35248/2472-114X.18.6.176

*      Hsu, Y, F., Waszak, F. (2012). Stimulus-classification traces are dominant in response learning, International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86(3): 262-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.10.002

*      James, A. D. (2010). An Empirical Investigation of the Relevant Skills of Forensic Accountants, Journal of Education for Business, 83(6): 331-338, https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.6.331-338

*      Kamarudin, K, A., Ariff, A, M., Jaafar, A. (2020). Investor protection, cross-listing and accounting quality, Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 16(1): 100-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2019.100179

*      Karadut, A, P. (2012). Effects of E. L. Thorndike's Theory of Connectionism Rudiments on Developing Cello Playing Skills for Beginners, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69(24): 298-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.413

*      Kumari Tiwari, R. and Debnath, J. (2017). Forensic accounting: a blend of knowledge", Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 25(1): 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRC-05-2016-0043

*      LaPorta, R., Lopez, F., Shleifer , A., & Vishny, R.W. (2000). Investor Protection and Corporate Governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1): 3-27.

*      Nevin, J. (1999). Analyzing Thorndike’s Law of Effect: The Question Of Stimulus–response Bonds, Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72(3): 183-209. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1999.72-447

*      Persakis, A, Iatridisa, G. (2016). Audit quality, investor protection and earnings managementduring the financial crisis of 2008: An international perspective. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 12(2): 73–101.

*      Phiri, J. and Guven-Uslu, P. (2019). Social networks, corruption and institutions of accounting, auditing and accountability, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 508-530. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2017-3029

*      Reeve, Ch, L., Bonaccio, S. (2009). Measurement Reliability, the Spearman–Jensen Effect and the Revised Thorndike Model of Test Bias, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(1): 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00451.x

*      Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A Survey of Corporate Governance. Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737-783

*      Shleifer, A., & Wolfenzon, D. (2002). Investor protection and equity markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 66(1): 3-27.

*      Singleton, T, W., Singleton, A, J. (2010). Fraud Auditing and Forensic Accounting. 4th edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New Jersey.

*      Steininger, M. (1979). Objectivity and value judgments in the psychologies of E. L. Thorndike and W. McDougall, Journal of The History of the behavioral Sciences, 15(3): 263-281.

*      Zhang, H., Wang, M., Jiang, J. (2018). Investor protection and stock crash risk, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 43(9): 256-266.