Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

MEASURING THE MEANING OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT TERMINOLOGY: A PSYCHOLINGUISTICS APPROACH

MEASURING THE MEANING OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT TERMINOLOGY: A PSYCHOLINGUISTICS APPROACH Abstract: Measuring the meaning of communication between and among producers (certified public accountants, academic accountants, and private accountants) and users (chartered financial analysts, commercial bank loan officers, and shareholders) of financial statements is the purpose of this study. Two psycholinguistic techniques, classification analysis and association analysis, were used in a field experiment to measure the intergroup and intragroup transference of denotative (objective) and connotative (subjective) meaning, respectively. The study concluded that we are somewhere in between the “worst” and the “best” on a communication continuum. The evidence indicated only one communication problem — a problem involving the transfer of connotative (subjective) meaning on an intergroup basis, that is, between producers and users. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Accounting & Finance Wiley

MEASURING THE MEANING OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT TERMINOLOGY: A PSYCHOLINGUISTICS APPROACH

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/measuring-the-meaning-of-financial-statement-terminology-a-j0eSfgY88D

References (35)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 1989 Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand
ISSN
0810-5391
eISSN
1467-629X
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-629X.1989.tb00154.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract: Measuring the meaning of communication between and among producers (certified public accountants, academic accountants, and private accountants) and users (chartered financial analysts, commercial bank loan officers, and shareholders) of financial statements is the purpose of this study. Two psycholinguistic techniques, classification analysis and association analysis, were used in a field experiment to measure the intergroup and intragroup transference of denotative (objective) and connotative (subjective) meaning, respectively. The study concluded that we are somewhere in between the “worst” and the “best” on a communication continuum. The evidence indicated only one communication problem — a problem involving the transfer of connotative (subjective) meaning on an intergroup basis, that is, between producers and users.

Journal

Accounting & FinanceWiley

Published: May 1, 1989

There are no references for this article.