a“probabilistic” world-view) would make finer discriminations in degrees of uncertainty than would Chinese people(who have a““fatalistic” world-view) and that numerical assessments of probabilities would be more meaningful for the English than for the Chinese. Their experimental

—_

results generally support their hypotheses.

Accounting Research

Much of the research on uncertainty expressions in the accounting domain relates to the interpretation of the uncertainty expressions used in FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards(SFAS) No. 5 for determining when a contingency should be recognized or disclosed. SFAS 5 requires no disclosure when the contingent loss is“remote”, footnote disclosure when it is“reasonably possible”, and financial statement recognition when the contingent loss ıs "probable."

Schultz and Reckers(1981) found that auditors' interpretations of SFAS 5 expressions were affected by the materiality of the potential loss, and that the variability of responses was reduced after individuals were involved in group processing of the disclosure issue. Jiambalvo and Wilner's(1985) results show considerable between subject variability in assıgnment of probability ranges to the words"remote,""reasonably possible," and"probable." Subsequent analysis implied that the variability was due to different interpretations of the words rather than in an inability to express feelings in terms of probabilities. In contrast to Schultz and Reckers, they did not find materiality of loss to affect decisions regarding disclosure. Harrison and Tomassini(1989) examined auditors' interpretations of probability thresholds for"remote", "reasonably possible," and"probable" across different types of contingencies. They found little

difference in thresholds across the various contingencies although there was less consensus about