Abstract
Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies (SFAS No. 5), relies on verbal probability phrases to guide recognition or disclosure decisions for loss contingencies. One of the challenges facing accountants is that verbal probability terms are vague and may have multiple meanings; thus, different accountants may interpret the same probability phrase differently. Given this background, our study addresses the difficulty of interpreting verbal probability phrases and explores a simple way to improve judgment quality. Evidence from our experiment suggests that supplementing verbal probabilities with their corresponding numerical values reduces interpersonal variability in interpreting SFAS No. 5 terms.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
