|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Full Text : |
| This study seeks to investigate the motivation for impression management among Malaysian public listed firms. The sample used in this study consists of 80 firms classified into two categories; fraudulent financial reporting firms and non-fraudulent financial reporting firms. Content analysis of impression management technique of self-presentational dissimulation in the use of accounting narratives is performed based on the methodology introduced and refined by Merkl-Davies et al. (2011). The findings indicate that firms do not use impression management to create an inaccurate image of organisational outcomes which is inconsistent with the view held by management (self-presentational dissimulation). Specifically, the result indicate that fraudulent financial reporting firms have no greater motivation to engage in selfpresentational dissimulation than their non-fraudulent financial reporting counterparts. The implication of this study suggests that impression management motivations and strategies can also be explained from social psychological perspective and complements the use of economics-based theories in this research area. |
| References |
1. Aghghaleh, S.F., Takiah, M.I. & Zakiah, M.M. (2014). Fraud risk factors of fraud triangle and the likelihood of fraud occurrence: Evidence from Malaysia. Information Management and Business Review, 6(1), 1 – 7.
2. Akers, M., Giacomino, A. & Gissel, J. L. (2007). Earnings management and its implications. The CPA Journal, 77(8), 64–68.
3. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (2008). Fraud examinations and forensic accounting services [online]. Available: http://www.forensicinvspec.com
4. Belkaoui, A.R. (2004). Accounting Theory (5thed).London: Thomson Learning.
5. Brennan, N.M. and Merkl-Davies, D.M. (2013). Accounting narratives and impression management. In Jack, L. Davidson, J. and Craig, R. (2013). The Routledge Companion to Communication in Accounting, Chapter 8, 109-132. London: Routledge
6. Brennan, N.M., Merkl-Davies, D.M. & Beelitz, A. (2013). Dialogism in corporate social responsibility communications: Conceptualising verbal interaction between organisations and their audiences. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 665 – 679.
7. Cohen, J., Gaynor, L.M., Krishnamoorthy, G. & Wright, A. (2008). Academic research on communications among external auditors, the audit committee, and the board: Implications and recommendations for practice. Current Issues in Accounting, 2, 1 – 8.
8. DePaulo, B.M., Lindsay, J.J., Malone, B.E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charleton, K. and Cooper, H. (2003).
Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin,129 (1), 74 – 188.
9. Hawariah, D., Amrizah, K., Zuraidah, M.S. and KhairunSyafiza, K. (2014). Detecting fraudulent financial reporting through financial statement analysis. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 2(1), 17-22.
10. Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management – new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 55-68.
11. Hosseini Nia, S. (2015). Financial ratios between fraudulent and non-fraudulent firms: Evidence
from Tehran Stock Exchange. Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 7(3), 38 – 44.
12. Khairul Anuar, K. & Wan Adibah, W.I. (2014). The effects of audit committee attributes on fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 10(5), 507 – 514.
13. McNeil, I. (1992). Ruling out an academic argument. The Times, March, 27.
14. Merkl-Davies, D.M., Brennan, N.M. and McLeay, S.J. (2011). Impression management and retrospective sense-making in corporate narratives: a social psychology perspective. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 24(3), 315-344.
15. Mohamed Yusof, K., Ahmad Khair, A.H. and Simon, J. (2015). Fraudulent financial reporting: An application of fraud models to Malaysian public listed companies. The Macrotheme Review, 4(3), 126 – 145.
16. Nelson, S.P. (2012). Pre fraud: An empirical in Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and
Finance Studies, 4(1), 143 – 1515.
17. Neu, D. (1991). Trust, impression management and the auditing profession. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 2(4), 295-313.
18. Newman, M.L., Pennebaker, J.W., Berry, D.S., and Richards, J.M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (5), 665 – 675.
19. PwC (2014). Economic crime: the danger within [online]. Available http://www.pwchk.com/webmedia/doc/635291163026896490_forensic_economic_crime_survey_2014.pdf
20. Rahman, S. (2012). Impression management motivations, strategies and disclosure credibility of corporate narratives. Journal of Management Research, 4(3), 1 – 14.
21. Raziah, B.M.S., Roudaki, J., Clark, M.B. & Norhayati, A. (2010). Corporate fraud: An analysis of Malaysian Securities Commission enforcement releases. International Journal or Social, Behavioural, Educational, Economic and Management Engineering, 4(6), 1180 – 1189.
22. Saliza, S., Danbatta, B.L. & Rashidah, A.R. (2014). Figure massaging practices in Malaysian firms: Are they fraudulent? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 145, 29 – 39.
23. Tausczik, Y.R. & Pennebaker, J.W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis method. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24 – 54.
24. Zaimee, A. (2007). Mini-ENRONS shaking up Malaysia’s corporate governance? Accountants Today, July, 20-27.
25. Zhou, L., Burgoon, J.K., Nunamaker, J.F. Jr. & Twitchell, D. (2004). Automated linguistic-based
cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13 (1), 81 - 106 |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |