Experimental research has made significant contributions to accounting research and promises continued future contributions.

There are certain strengths of this method of research which distinguishes it from other methods. Firstly, experiment research is able to address important accounting issues for which archival data do not exist or are unavailable due to companies concerns about the proprietary nature of data. In some cases, experiments provide the only avenue to studying issues for which data do not exist or are unavailable. Secondly, experimental research has the ability to study human behaviour at various levels from micro-level information-processing behaviour to macro-level market behaviour. This ability allows experiments to examine why relations between variables exist and the situations under which such relations will and will not occur. Experiments can also use this strength to compliment archival studies by subsequent testing of causes of documented observed regularities. For example, archival studies have documented that the stock market under reacts to accounting information and have posited several theories to the cause of this finding. Experimental research has tested these theories and established a casual link between individuals information processing and under reaction to accounting information. (Maines and Hands 1996) Third, the high internal and construct validity associated with experiments is its strength in creating belief revision about issues where archival data comprise multiple constructs. Experimental researchers are able to disentangle and isolate multiple constructs to examine their individual and interactive effects. Finally, the knowledge that accounting experimental researchers often posses about sociology and psychology provide both a means for belief revision and a foundation for a different perspective than accounting based research. There are also some weaknesses in experimental research. First, there are research issues better suited to research methods other than experiments. Second, the freedom associated with experimental research places a greater burden on experimental researchers. Researchers must capture the key elements of a decision setting in their experimental materials, but not succumb to the lure of everyday realism that can destroy the internal validity that is a key factor in experiments leading to belief revision. Researchers also must take extreme care in designing and executing experiments so as not to inadvertently lead participants to a particular response.