Mitigating advocacy bias: The effect of the reviewer role on tax professional judgment
Journal of the American Taxation Association, ISSN: 1558-8017, Vol: 43, Issue: 2, Page: 137-156
2021
- 16Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures16
- Readers16
- 16
Article Description
This study examines the effect of the reviewer role on tax professionals’ advocacy bias. Prior research establishes the prevalence of advocacy bias and focuses on whether reviewers can detect preparers’ advocacy bias; however, this study examines whether the reviewer role influences tax professionals’ judgment and decision-making processes. In an experiment randomly assigning 75 tax professionals to the reviewer and preparer roles, I find professionals who occupy the reviewer role report similar advocacy attitudes to preparers but are significantly less likely to exhibit advocacy bias than preparers. Reviewers also employ a more consistent decision process than those in a preparer role. Results highlight the reviewer role as a moderator of advocacy bias, demonstrating the importance of the reviewer role for firms and clients. Understanding the effects of review responsibilities on professionals at all levels is increasingly important as firms leverage emerging technology to complete tasks traditionally assigned to less experienced professionals.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know