Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Hsiang-Lin Chih
Chung-Hua Shen
Feng-Ching Kang
Introduction
In light of recent allegations of accounting fraud at
Enron and, in close succession, similar allegations at
Tyco, BMY, WorldCom, Xerox, and Merck, among
others and so on, it seems to many that insiders have
been increasingly using their discretion to mislead
outsiders through their financial reporting. A great
deal of commentary has attributed such accounting
180
181
182
Earnings smoothing
As Leuz et al. (2003) explains, insiders may use their
discretion to report accounting accruals that offset
economic shocks to a firms operating cash flow that
183
Earnings aggressiveness
In line with Bhattacharya et al. (2003), we measure
earnings aggressiveness (EM2 in our notation below)
of firm i at time t of Accruals divided by lagged total
assets:
EM2it Accrualsit =TAit1
According to Bhattacharya et al. (2003), earnings
aggressiveness is the tendency to delay the recognition of losses and accelerate the recognition of gains.
This implies that if cash flow realizations are held
constant, then Accruals are expected to increase as
earnings aggressiveness increases. Accordingly, the
higher greater (lower) the extent of EM2 is, the
higher greater (lower) is the extent of earnings
aggressiveness.
184
intervals in earnings and those in changes in earnings, which are both scaled by lagged total assets.
Following the suggestion of Silverman (1986) and
Scott (1992), we calculate the interval widths of
twice the interquartile range of earnings (and changes in earnings) and multiply them by the negative
cube root of the sample size.6 Once we determine
the intervals, we follow the method of Burgstahler
and Dichev (1997) to calculate the statistic z which
is the difference between the actual and expected
number of observations for the interval immediately
to the right of zero earnings (and zero changes in
earnings).
zEM3A and EM3B=
AQi EQi
;
SDi
Econometric model
Does CSR impact earnings smoothing and earnings
aggressiveness?
In this section, we test if CSR has an impact on the
extent to which firms conduct earnings smoothing
and earnings aggressiveness. First, we classify companies included in the FTSE All-World Developed
Index into two groups: (1) the CSR Group, in
which companies are included in the FTSE4Good
Global Index, and (2) the Non-CSR Group, in
which companies are not included in the FTSE4Good Global Index. Second, Equation (1) tests the
relationship between CSR and EM. It is:
185
186
TABLE I
Descriptive statistics of CSR, EM, and institutional variables across 46 countries
Country
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Number
Number
CSR GDP per-capita Earnings
Earnings
Legal
Antidirector
of FTSE of CSR = 1 ratio (%) (constant 1995 smoothing aggressiveness enforcement
rights
global
U.S.$)
companies
(19932002
Average)
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Russian
Federation
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
9
45
17
12
24
72
13
50
3
0
9
3
5
0
31
0
0
0
0.00
20.00
17.65
41.67
0.00
43.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
7,883.21
22,165.41
30,921.40
28,913.97
4,499.85
21,144.48
4,989.48
704.24
5,192.82
1.1953
1.2269
1.0823
1.3790
NA
1.0996
1.2640
1.3613
0.7868
)0.0223
)0.0049
)0.0012
)0.0062
0.0102
0.0457
0.0056
)0.0078
0.0010
5.790
9.507
9.357
9.440
6.130
9.750
6.523
4.777
NA
4
4
2
0
3
5
5
3
NA
16
3
7
33
28
44
31
4
36
12
6
19
18
280
48
14
2
10
21
18
15
3
14
7
7
4
9
0
4
13
14
5
3
0
0
0
1
0
9
48
0
0
0
4
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
56.25
0.00
57.14
39.39
50.00
11.36
9.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.67
0.00
50.00
17.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.00
9.52
33.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
36,345.87
1,120.86
28,435.83
28,243.39
31,134.28
12,175.55
23,118.14
4,866.80
421.61
1,038.33
22,882.69
16,301.35
19,895.79
43,535.19
4,528.00
3,491.05
1,361.08
28,930.97
17,195.36
36,082.93
503.48
2,284.69
1,123.85
3,248.34
11,825.83
2,829.99
0.9747
1.2576
1.2581
1.1664
0.9275
1.7300
0.9409
1.2331
1.2825
1.1768
0.9672
1.1454
0.8599
1.2134
1.2387
1.1901
NA
1.0601
0.9916
1.1313
1.3037
0.8487
1.3711
1.0549
1.0424
0.4574
0.0196
0.0460
)0.0211
0.0019
0.0146
0.1076
0.1947
0.0187
0.0296
0.0153
0.0719
0.0296
0.0132
)0.0111
0.0180
)0.0179
)0.0245
0.0234
0.0101
)0.0074
)0.0093
)0.0091
)0.0092
0.0389
0.0691
0.0796
10.000
4.847
10.000
8.677
9.053
6.817
8.913
NA
5.583
2.877
8.357
7.717
7.070
9.167
7.720
5.373
NA
10.000
10.000
10.000
3.670
4.650
3.467
NA
7.187
NA
2
2
3
3
1
2
5
NA
5
2
4
3
1
4
4
1
NA
2
4
4
5
3
3
NA
3
NA
32
28
31
13
24
1
0
0
3
10
3.13
0.00
0.00
23.08
41.67
25,320.70
3,949.74
11,786.70
16,049.78
28,910.47
1.4034
1.1039
1.3605
1.9125
1.0211
0.0032
)0.0076
)0.0042
0.0224
0.0045
8.930
6.447
5.550
7.143
10.000
4
5
2
4
3
187
TABLE I
continued
Country
41
42
43
44
45
46
Number Number
CSR GDP per-capita Earnings
Earnings
Legal
Antidirector
of FTSE of CSR = 1 ratio (%) (constant 1995 smoothing aggressiveness enforcement
rights
global
U.S.$)
companies
(19932002
Average)
Switzerland
15
Taiwan
71
Thailand
28
Turkey
16
United Kingdom 98
United States
352
Total
1,653
Average
6
0
0
0
68
146
400
40.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
69.39
41.48
44,977.58
12,347.00
2,811.60
2,958.31
20,847.61
29,641.98
1.2423
1.5317
1.2712
1.0671
0.8876
1.0132
0.0165
0.0437
0.0119
0.0932
0.0179
0.0841
10.000
7.373
4.893
4.787
9.223
9.543
15.90
15,411.69
1.160
0.022
7.471
2
3
2
2
5
5
3.146
188
Descriptive statistics
Corporate social responsibility
As shown in Table I, the number of CSR and NonCSR companies in our sample is 400 and 1,253,
respectively. The first column shows the name of the
46 sample countries in this study, and the second
column reports the number of sample firms included
in the FTSE All-World Developed Index (Global)
for each country. The countries with the highest
number of firms in the Index are the U.S. (352),
Japan (280), and the U.K. (98), while those with the
lowest number of firms are Morocco (2), Peru (3),
the Czech Republic (3), and Egypt (3). The third
and fourth columns show the number of CSR firms
and the CSR ratios, respectively, where the latter are
equal to the proportion of CSR firms to total firms
for each country. The five countries with the highest
CSR ratios are the U.K. (69.39%), Finland
(57.14%), Denmark (56.25%), Germany (50%), and
Italy (50%), and it should be noted that the CSR
ratios for most of the emerging markets are zero,
implying that CSR companies are concentrated in
developed countries. This may reflect the fact that
developed countries care more about CSR, but it
may also be due to the fact that companies in
developed countries are better known to FTSE
analysts. About 24 countries have no firms in the
FTSE4Good Global Index, and therefore, the CSR
ratios are equal to zero.12 For example, although
Taiwan has as many as 76 firms in the FTSE AllWorld Developed Index (Global), not one of them
is included in the FTSE4Good Global Index.
Earnings management and investor protection
As concerns the measurement of EM, the sixth
column of Table I presents the extent of earnings
smoothing by country, which is the simple average
value across firms. Recall that a higher score represents a higher extent of earnings smoothing. The five
countries with the highest scores are Spain (1.9125),
Greece (1.7300), Taiwan (1.5317), Singapore
(1.4034), and Belgium (1.3790). By contrast, the
Financial variables
Table II presents the average value of the financial
variables across years and sample companies by
country. First, the countries with the highest
average value of (the natural logarithm of) Total
Assets of firms are France, Germany, Italy, the
Russian Federation, and Spain, and while those
with the lowest average are Morocco, Egypt,
Greece, Poland, and Pakistan. It appears that
companies in large countries have relatively larger
assets. Second, the countries with the highest
average values of the Debt-to-Equity ratio are
Indonesia, Japan, Ireland, Thailand, and Sweden,
whereas the those countries with the lowest average
values are Peru, the Russian Federation, Poland,
South Africa, and Hong Kong. Three countries in
the former group could perhaps have been slightly
affected by the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Third,
on the question of the average value of the Marketto-Book ratio, Brazil, Argentina, India, the Netherlands, and Denmark are the five countries with
the highest scores, and the five transition countries,
189
TABLE II
Descriptive statistics of firm-specific financial variables across 46 countries (19932002)
Country
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Number of firms Total assets Debt-to-Equity ratio (%) Auditor Market-to-Book ratio (%)
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Czech Republic
Denmark
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Russian Federation
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Average
9
45
17
12
24
72
13
50
3
16
3
7
33
28
44
31
4
36
12
6
19
18
280
48
14
2
10
21
18
15
3
14
7
7
4
32
28
31
13
24
15
71
28
16
98
352
6.7333
7.6977
7.2183
7.8668
8.3810
7.9260
7.0817
6.9480
8.2337
7.0942
5.5508
8.4219
9.6228
9.5706
5.9254
8.5043
6.9602
6.3778
6.7342
7.5342
6.7926
8.9951
8.6841
6.7430
8.2480
4.9716
8.8211
6.3354
7.0978
6.1094
6.4064
6.8344
6.0583
8.2996
8.9061
7.2925
6.9693
8.3631
8.8867
8.4394
8.8607
7.0594
6.5482
6.3467
8.4898
8.7157
7.514
30.3578
59.2932
74.3111
39.7099
34.2828
72.3784
73.3993
28.1616
31.6752
48.3390
76.1630
59.9690
109.8506
46.8010
46.6424
28.0552
32.9825
36.7863
151.6913
133.8890
60.5114
75.4509
137.2788
58.9501
65.1524
NA
78.4765
86.7289
82.9702
67.3968
14.4495
43.9736
20.2005
105.5232
19.6674
45.0997
27.6790
74.9218
64.1358
122.6012
46.1182
35.5996
127.4963
45.9377
55.7141
77.8813
63.437
0.3582 26.6947
0.7007 3.3807
0.5351 2.6450
0.5880 2.5284
0.6681 32.8861
0.7465 3.6303
0.6282 1.7702
0.4995 1.1276
0.7063 0.7137
0.6104 6.5991
0.1111 2.4855
0.3980 3.9243
0.5941 4.3926
0.5587 2.6728
0.2806 5.8545
0.5316 2.9162
0.6548 2.1025
0.0373 8.2954
0.6133 3.9631
0.7407 4.7511
0.4094 2.8246
0.8284 3.7086
0.0000 3.3560
0.5567 3.2147
0.5541 1.5618
0.7083 3.2260
0.7867 7.6361
0.6329 3.3281
0.8772 5.6936
0.0074 1.8242
0.7222 0.9500
0.2591 2.0125
0.6810 2.9744
0.4535 3.4471
0.3929 1.3992
0.6705 2.9282
0.7385 2.6879
0.0828 2.5565
0.7333 2.0964
0.5296 1.7666
0.5602 2.8633
0.5849 2.7731
0.2799 3.2561
0.3041 6.6945
0.5807 6.6213
0.7512 10.4622
0.527
4.678
***, **, and * represent the level of significance at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10, respectively.
0.140***
0.180***
0.132***
)0.159***
0.061**
)0.043*
0.270***
0.381***
0.137***
0.447***
CSR
Legal enforcement
Antidirector rights
Per-capita GDP
Total assets
Debt-to equity ratio
Auditor
Market-to-Book ratio
Earnings smoothing
0.314***
0.145***
0.397***
0.195***
0.767***
0.171***
)0.031
0.038
0.005
0.101***
0.144***
Earnings
smoothing
Market-to-Book
ratio
Auditor
Debt-to-Equity
ratio
Total
assets
Per-capita
GDP
Antidirector
rights
Legal
enforcement
Relation among EM, CSR, investor protection and firm-specific financial variables across firms of in 46 countries
TABLE III
Earnings
aggressiveness
190
Empirical results
Tables IV and V present the estimated determinants
of earnings smoothing (EM1) and earnings aggressiveness (EM2), respectively. As mentioned earlier, a
higher EM1 is an indicator of there being a greater
incentive to smooth earnings, while a higher EM2 is
a sign of there being a greater extent of earnings
aggressiveness.
Of particular interest here are the coefficients of
CSR. There are eight specifications in each table,
with each having a different combination of the
control variables. The first four specifications do not
consider the interactions among the variables,
whereas the latter do take such interaction variables
into account.
1.171***
(61.652)
0.005
0.005
1,444
)0.103***
()2.960)
1.526***
(9.858)
0.009
0.008
1,387
)0.037***
()2.325)
)0.077**
()2.099)
(B)
1.441***
(14.635)
0.016
0.012
1,387
)0.034
()0.919)
)0.028**
()2.354)
)0.001
()1.424)
0.0001
(1.014)
)0.117***
()3.096)
(C)
1.568***
(16.412)
0.019
0.016
1,387
)0.051
()1.351)
)0.028*
()1.955)
)0.035***
()3.059)
(D)
***, **, and * represent the level of significance at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10, respectively.
R2
Adj-R2
Number of Obs.
Antidirector
rights CSR
Legal enforcement
CSR
Per-capita GDP
CSR
Constant
CSR
Antidirector
rights
Legal
enforcement
Per-capita GDP
Market-to-Book
ratio
Debt-to-Equity
ratio
Auditor
Total assets
(A)
)3.988***
()2.759)
0.026
(1.002)
0.040
(0.530)
0.332**
(2.434)
1.166***
(59.673)
0.011
0.008
1,387
(E)
TABLE IV
)3.539**
()2.346)
0.033
(1.231)
0.048
(0.619)
0.284**
(2.018)
1.422***
(13.916)
0.019
0.013
1,331
)0.027**
()2.222)
)0.001
()1.472)
0.0001
(1.072)
)0.098**
()2.543)
(F)
)4.476***
()3.090)
0.078**
(2.464)
0.075
(0.976)
0.332**
(2.434)
1.655***
(16.970)
0.030
0.026
1,387
)0.052***
()2.935)
)0.035***
()2.916)
(G)
)3.973***
()2.627)
0.089***
(2.771)
0.076
(0.966)
0.281**
(1.991)
1.757***
(14.360)
0.034
0.027
1,331
)0.017
()1.268)
)0.001
()1.463)
0.0001
(1.069)
)0.076*
()1.940)
)0.057***
()3.212)
)0.025*
()1.890)
(H)
192
0.022***
(7.256)
0.006
0.006
1,574
0.036**
(2.022)
0.039**
(1.985)
0.006
0.005
1,509
)0.002
()0.817)
0.036**
(2.010)
(B)
0.096***
(4.439)
0.474
0.473
1,512
0.027**
(2.355)
)0.012***
()4.995)
0.004***
(3.868)
)0.00003***
()2.544)
0.012
(1.523)
(C)
0.002
(0.119)
0.009
0.007
1,509
0.034*
(1.880)
0.009***
(2.825)
)0.002
()1.129)
(D)
***, **, and * represent the level of significance at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10, respectively.
R2
Adj-R2
Number of Obs.
Antidirector
rights CSR
Legal enforcement
CSR
Per-capita
GDP CSR
Constant
CSR
Per-capita GDP
Legal enforcement
Antidirector rights
Auditor
Market-to-Book
ratio
Debt-to-Equity ratio
Total assets
(A)
0.029
(0.086)
0.028***
(2.584)
)0.011
()0.629)
)0.001
()0.037)
0.023***
(7.246)
0.014
0.011
1,509
(E)
TABLE V
)0.343*
()1.758)
0.014***
(2.894)
)0.005
()0.687)
0.284**
(2.018)
0.105***
(4.532)
0.479
0.476
1,448
)0.014***
()5.089)
0.004***
(3.843)
)0.00003**
()2.524)
0.014*
(1.722)
(F)
0.036
(0.105)
0.027**
(2.367)
)0.011
()0.627)
)0.001
()0.037)
0.016
(1.015)
0.014
0.010
1,509
0.002
(0.665)
)0.00001
()0.004)
(G)
)0.302
()1.561)
0.015***
(2.868)
)0.013*
()1.764)
0.037**
(1.983)
0.069***
(3.702)
0.483
0.479
1,448
)0.016***
()4.930)
0.004***
(3.860)
)0.00003***
()2.609)
0.012
(1.368)
)0.001
()0.447)
0.008***
(3.180)
(H)
194
Be f o r e - t a x e a r n i n g s w i t h o u t e x t r a o r d i n a r y i t e m s
CS R= 0
CS R= 1
2000
2000
1750
1750
N o . o f Ob s . = 9 , 5 0 5
EM3 A = 2 7 . 9 4 7
1500
N o . o f Ob s . = 3 , 4 1 1
EM3 A = 7 . 7 6 4
1500
1250
1250
1000
1000
750
750
500
500
250
250
0
-54
-36
-18
18
36
54
-54
-36
-18
Be f o r e - t a x e a r n i n g s w i t h e x t r a o r d i n a r y i t e m s
CS R= 0
2000
18
36
54
CS R= 1
2000
1750
1750
N o . o f Ob s . = 9 , 3 0 6
EM3 A = 2 7 . 3 6 0
1500
N o . o f Ob s . = 3 , 4 1 7
1500
1250
1250
1000
1000
750
750
500
500
250
250
EM3 A = 7 . 4 5 1
0
-54
-36
-18
18
36
-54
54
-36
-18
18
36
54
Be f o r e - t a x e a r n i n g s w i t h o u t e x t r a o r d i n a r y
CS R= 1
CS R= 0
1000
1000
750
750
N o . o f Ob s . = 8 , 2 2 4
EM3 B = 7 . 8 9 3
500
500
250
250
N o . o f Ob s . = 3 , 0 1 5
EM3 B = 4 . 9 7 2
0
-54
-36
-18
18
36
54
-54
-36
-18
18
36
54
Be f o r e - t a x e a r n i n g s w i t h e x t r a o r d i n a r y i t e m s
CS R= 0
CS R= 1
1000
1000
N o . o f Ob s . = 7 , 9 9 5
EM3 B = 8 . 1 2 6
750
N o . o f Ob s . = 3 , 0 1 9
EM3 B = 6 . 3 0 3
750
500
500
250
250
0
-54
-36
-18
18
36
54
-54
-36
-18
18
36
54
195
Conclusions
The article examines the relationships between CSR
and EM across 1,653 companies in 46 countries.
Four hypotheses are investigated. The myopia avoidance hypothesis postulates that CSR and EM are
negatively related. The multiple objective hypothesis
postulates that they are positively related. The institutional hypothesis, however, postulates that there is
no relationship. Last, like the multiple objectives
hypothesis, the predictable earnings hypothesis postulates
that they are also positively related.
The sample companies are classified into two
groups: the CSR group, with these companies
included in both the FTSE All-World Developed
Index (Global) and the FTSE4Good Global Index,
and the Non-CSR group, with these companies
included in the FTSE All-World Developed Index
(Global) but not included in the FTSE4Good Global
Index. Three kinds of EM are also investigated here,
i.e., earnings smoothing, earnings aggressiveness and
earnings losses and earning decreases avoidance.
We find that the type of relationship between
CSR and EM depends on which EM we consider.
When EM is proxied by earnings smoothing, an
increases in CSR mitigates earnings smoothing,
which supports the myopia avoidance hypothesis but
clearly rejects the predictable earnings hypothesis. When
EM is proxied by earnings aggressiveness, an increase
in CSR increases earnings aggressiveness, which
supports the multiple objectives hypothesis. When EM is
proxied by earnings losses avoidance, an increase in
CSR mitigates earnings losses (and earnings
decreases) avoidance, which again supports the
myopia avoidance hypothesis.
In sum, a firm with CSR in mind tends not to
smooth earnings, and displays less interest in
196
avoiding earnings losses and decreases. It is, however, prone to engage in more earnings aggressiveness, but this tendency can be mitigated in a country
with strong legal enforcement.
Notes
1
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the comments and suggestions of Prof. A. C. Michalos, Prof. Y. H. Yeh, Dr. F.
L. Hong, Prof. R. S. Snell, Prof. R. OBrien, and participants at the 2006 World Business Ethics Forum
(WBEF). We also gratefully acknowledge the financial
support from the National Science Council (NSC).
References
Barth, M. E., J. A. Elliot and M. W. Finn: 1999, Market
Rewards Associated with Patterns of Increasing
Earnings, Journal of Accounting Research 37, 387413.
Becker, C. L., M. L. DeFond, J. J. Jiambalvo and K. R.
Subramanyam: 1998, The Effect of Audit Quality on
Earnings Management, Contemporary Accounting
Research 15, 124.
Bhattacharya, U., H. Daouk and M. Welker: 2003, The
World Price of Earnings Opacity, The Accounting
Review 78, 641678.
Burgstahler, D. and I. Dichev: 1997, Earnings Management to Avoid Earnings Decreases and Losses, Journal
of Accounting and Economics 24, 99126.
Christian Aid: 2004, Behind the Mask: The Real Face of
Corporate Social Responsibility, http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/0401csr/index.htm.
197
198
Schipper, K.: 1989, Commentary on Earnings Management, Accounting Horizons 3(4), 91102.
Scott, D. W.: 1992, Multivariate Density Estimation: Theory, Practice, and Visualization (Wiley, New York).
Shen, C.-H. and H.-L. Chih: 2005, Investor Protection,
Prospect Theory, and Earnings Management: An
International Comparison of the Banking Industry,
Journal of Banking and Finance 29, 26752697.
Shleifer, A.: 2004, Does Competition Destroy Ethical
Behavior?, Working Paper, Harvard University.
Silverman, B. W.: 1986, Density Estimation for Statistics and
Data Analysis (Chapman & Hall, London).
Simpson, W. and T. Kohers: 2002, The Link Between
Social and Financial Performance: Evidence from the
Banking Industry, Journal of Business Ethics 35, 97
109.
Skinner, D. and R. Sloan: 2002, Earnings Surprises,
Growth Expectations and Stock Returns, Review of
Accounting Studies 7(2), 289312.
Sweeney, A. P.: 1994, Debt-Covenant Violations and
Managers Accounting Responses, Journal of Accounting
and Economics 17, 281308.
The Economist: 2004, Two-Faced Capitalism, The
Economist Print Edition (Jan 22nd 2004).
Hsiang-Lin Chih
Department of Cooperative Economics,
Commerce College, National Taipei University,
151, University Road, Sansia, Taipei, 273, Taiwan
E-mail: hlchih@mail.ntpu.edu.tw
Chung-Hua Shen
Department of Money and Banking,
Commerce College, National Chengchi University,
Taipei, 116, Taiwan
E-mail: chshen@nccu.edu.tw
Feng-Ching Kang
Department of Social Welfare,
National Chung Cheng University,
Chiayi, Taiwan
E-mail: amykang@sw.ccu.edu.tw