Research studies in behavioral accounting can take two possible approaches. One approach, advanced by Hofstedt and Kinard [1970] and followed, for example, by Dickhaut and Ronen [1972], attempts to discover universal relationships between accounting variables and the behavior of information users. Alternatively, accounting researchers can assume initially that the population of users of accounting information is made up of far too many separate and distinct groups to yield to this approach. A second approach, therefore, makes use of differences among individuals as determinants or moderators in information/user-behavior models. It is my belief that the latter approach more closely approximates the realities of the accounting situation and will prove more fruitful in providing meaningful results (e.g., Dermer [1973]). Furthermore, I expect that individual difference studies will become a popular type of behavioral accounting research. Hence, I welcome this study as evidence of the validity of my beliefs. However, as is evidenced by the abundance of individual difference studies in behavioral science and marketing journals, there exist a multitude of constructs and measures which may be of potential use in accounting studies. Thus, if accounting researchers are to avoid becom ing engulfed in a confusing wave of disjointed individual difference studies, a strong theoretical foundation as well as an appropriate and precisely applied methodology must be the hallmarks of this type of research. It therefore troubles me that Lusk's study cannot lay claim to either of these.