{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021922428330522766, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.982352941176471, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
EXPLORING THE ADEQUACY OF STUDENT SURROGATES IN BEHAVIORAL ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

The non-availability of ‘real subjects’ (e.g., accountants) is one of the disturbing realities of experimental methods. The availability of pragmatic and cost effective alternatives, such as accounting students, demand that accounting researchers explore such alternatives fully, before conducting expensive experiments with accounting practitioners. Many criticisms against student surrogates are based on simple student-practitioner comparisons. These comparisons, in attempting to determine the adequacy of student surrogates, have ignored the impact of the unique characteristics of accounting, the social context, and the robustness of the psychological properties commonly shared by individuals. It is argued here that by recognising the richness of the accounting environment and the individual judgement behaviour (in general), one can identify areas where students are likely to be adequate surrogates for practitioners. The present paper attempts to develop a framework, which may be useful in identifying areas where students can be justified as adequate surrogates for accounting practitioners.