In this paper, we investigate what we call “financial statement users’ institutional logic,” defined as users’ expressed fundamental views and beliefs about accounting information. We analyze users’ comment letters to standard setters in response to the proposed standards on lease accounting to identify the dimensions of the institutional logic that underlie their views on accounting information. Our qualitative analysis identified and validated ten principal dimensions, namely economics and substance, due process issues, measurement, readiness and relevance for use, conceptual foundations, clarity, presentation and disclosure, cost-benefit issues, comparability and consistency, and financial statement manipulation. Quantitative analyses revealed that four of these dimensions, i.e. due process issues, readiness and relevance for use, comparability and consistency, and cost-benefit issues, occupy a medium or large amount of space in users’ comments and are referred to in strong terms, while economics and substance and measurement, although also widely discussed, are addressed in weaker terms. Overall, our study begins to fill a gap in the literature by providing insights into users’ views on accounting information. These insights challenge the “homo economicus user” currently constructed in standard-setting debates.

在本文中，我们研究了所谓的“财务报表用户的制度逻辑”，即用户对会计信息表达的基本观点和信念。我们根据拟议的租赁会计标准分析用户对标准制定者的评论信，以识别作为其对会计信息观点基础的制度逻辑的各个方面。我们的定性分析确定并验证了十个主要方面，即经济性和实质性，正当程序问题，度量，使用准备和相关性，概念基础，清晰度，表述和披露，成本效益问题，可比性和一致性以及财务报表操纵。定量分析显示，其中四个方面，即正当程序问题，使用准备和相关性，可比性和一致性，成本效益问题在用户的评论中占据中等或很大的空间，并且用强烈的术语提及，而经济学，实质性和度量（尽管也得到了广泛讨论）则用较弱的术语解决。总体而言，我们的研究通过提供对用户对会计信息观点的见解开始填补文献中的空白。这些见解挑战了目前在标准制定辩论中构建的“经济人”。我们的研究通过提供用户对会计信息观点的见解，开始填补文献中的空白。这些见解挑战了目前在标准制定辩论中构建的“经济人”。我们的研究通过提供用户对会计信息观点的见解，开始填补文献中的空白。这些见解挑战了目前在标准制定辩论中构建的“经济人”。