题名

The Effect of Review Mode and Reviewer Preference on Auditors' Performance

并列篇名

核閱方式與核閱者立場對查核績效之影響

DOI

10.6552/JOAR.2016.63.2

作者

杜榮瑞(Rong-Ruey Duh)；林靖傑(Ching-Chieh Lin)；廖容翎(Jung-Ling Liao)

关键词

解釋責任 ； 核閱方式 ； 核閱者立場 ； 查核績效 ； Accountability ； Review mode ； Reviewer preference ； Auditor performance

期刊名称

會計評論

卷期/出版年月

63期（2016 / 07 / 01）

页次

47 - 76

内容语文

英文
中文摘要

本文探討查核過程中，核閱方式與核閱者立場等兩種解釋責任對查核績效的聯合影響，是否查核人員在電子核閱下能減少其策略性行為。經以78 位查核人員實驗後發現，在面對面核閱下，若受試者主管傾向懷疑客戶解釋，相對於主管傾向信任客戶，受試者對於應收帳款餘額評以較低程度允當表達，此種策略性態度移轉在電子核閱下並未減輕。此外，在面對面核閱下，懷疑組的受試者比信任組搜尋更多反向（更少正向）的查核證據，在電子核閱下，正向與反向證據量差距縮小。本文認為，核閱方式在查核人員傾向主管立場的行為中，具調節效果，但此調節效果僅存在於過程而非結果的解釋責任。
英文摘要

This study examines the joint effect on auditor performance of two accountability features in the audit review process: review mode and reviewer preference. It investigates whether the auditors' strategic behavior can be mitigated under the e-mail review mode. Seventy-eight auditors participated in an experiment. Results suggest that, under the face-to-face review mode, auditors whose supervisors are known to be skeptical about client-provided explanations make lower likelihood assessment that the explanations can substantially account for the fluctuation of accounts receivable balance than auditors whose supervisors are known to trust the client-provided explanations. Such attitudinal shift is not reduced under the e-mail review mode. In addition, under the face-to-face review mode, auditors in the skeptical condition search for more opposing (less supporting) audit evidence than those in the credence condition. However, such differences diminish under the e-mail review mode. Our finding suggests that auditors' conformity to the reviewer preference can be moderated by review mode for process accountability but not outcome accountability.
主题分类 社會科學 > 財金及會計學
参考文献
  1. Agoglia, C. P.,Brazel, J. F.,Hatfield, R. C.,Jackson, S. B.(2010).How do audit workpaper reviewers cope with the conflicting pressures of detecting misstatements and balancing client workloads?.AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory,29,27-43.
  2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants=AICPA(2006).Planning and Supervision. Statement on Auditing Standards No.108.New York, N.Y.:AICPA.
  3. Ashton, R. H.(1990).Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: Paradoxical effect of incentives, feedback, and justification.Journal of Accounting Research,28(Supplement),148-180.
  4. Bible, L.,Graham, L.,Rosman, A.(2005).The effect of electronic audit environments on performance.Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance,20,27-42.
  5. Brazel, J. F.,Agoglia, C. P.,Hatfield, R. C.(2004).Electronic versus face‐ to‐ face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors' performance.The Accounting Review,79,949-966.
  6. Brtek, M. D.,Motowidlo, S. J.(2002).Effects of procedure and outcome accountability on interview validity.Journal of Applied Psychology,87,185-191.
  7. Chang, H. H.,Chen, J. F.,Duh, R. R.,Li, S. H.(2011).Productivity growth in public accounting industry: The role of information technology and human capital.AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory,30,21-48.
  8. Chang, L. J.,Cheng, M. M.,Trotman, K. T.(2013).The effect of outcome and process accountability on customer-supplier negotiations.Accounting, Organizations and Society,38,93-107.
  9. Chen, S.,Chaiken, S.(1999).Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology.New York, N.Y.:Guilford Press.
  10. De Dreu, C. K. W.,Koole, S. L.,Steinel, W.(2000).Unfixing the fixed pie: A motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,79,975-987.
  11. Dukerich, J. M.,Nichols, M. L.(1991).Causal information search in managerial decision making.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50,106-122.
  12. Fargher, N. L.,Mayorga, D.,Trotman, K. T.(2005).A field-based analysis of audit workpaper review.AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory,24,85-110.
  13. Favere-Marchesi, M.(2006).Audit review: The impact of discussion timing and familiarity.Behavioral Research in Accounting,18,53-64.
  14. Galletta, D. F.,Hartzel, K. S.,Johnson, S. E.,Joseph, J. L.,Rustagi, S.(1996).Spreadsheet presentation and error detection: An experimental study.Journal of Management Information Systems,13,45-63.
  15. Gibbins, M.,Newton, J. D.(1994).An empirical exploration of complex accountability in public accounting.Journal of Accounting Research,32,165-186.
  16. Glover, S. M.(1997).The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information.Journal of Accounting Research,35,213-226.
  17. Hoffman, V. B.,Patton, J. M.(1997).Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments.Journal of Accounting Research,35,227-237.
  18. Janvrin, D.,Bierstaker, J.,Lowe, D. J.(2008).An examination of audit information technology use and perceived importance.Accounting Horizons,22,1-21.
  19. Johnson, V. E.,Kaplan, S. E.(1991).Experimental evidence on the effects of accountability on auditor judgments.AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory,10(Supplement),96-107.
  20. Kadous, K.,Sedor, L. M.(2004).The efficacy of third‐ party consultation in preventing managerial escalation of commitment: The role of mental representations.Contemporary Accounting Research,21,55-82.
  21. Kennedy, J.(1995).Debiasing the curse of knowledge in audit judgment.The Accounting Review,70,249-273.
  22. Kennedy, J.(1993).Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results.Journal of Accounting Research,31,231-245.
  23. Kirk, R. E.(1995).Experimental Design.Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole Publishing.
  24. Knechel, W. R.,Krishnan, G. V.,Pevzner, M.,Shefchik, L. B.,Velury, U.K.(2013).Audit quality: Insights from the academic literature.AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory,32(Supplement),385-421.
  25. Koch, C.,Weber, M.,Wüstemann, J.(2012).Can auditors be independent? Experimental evidence on the effects of client type.European Accounting Review,21(4),797-823.
  26. Kock, N.(2005).Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication tools.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,48,117-130.
  27. Koonce, L.,Anderson, U.,Marchant, G.(1995).Justification of decisions in auditing.Journal of Accounting Research,33,369-384.
  28. Kunda, Z.(1990).The case for motivated reasoning.Psychological Bulletin,108,480-498.
  29. Lerner, J. S.,Tetlock, P. E.(1999).Accounting for the effects of accountability.Psychological Bulletin,125,255-275.
  30. Libby, R.,Luft, J.(1993).Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment.Accounting, Organizations and Society,18,425-450.
  31. Libby, R.,Trotman, K. T.(1993).The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments.Accounting, Organizations and Society,18,559-574.
  32. Libby, T.,Salterio, S. E.,Webb, A.(2004).The balanced scorecard: The effects of assurance and process accountability on managerial judgment.The Accounting Review,79,1075-1094.
  33. Lord, A. T.(1992).Pressure: A methodological consideration for behavioral research in auditing.AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory,11,89-108.
  34. Nelson, M.,Tan, H. T.(2005).Judgment and decision making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective.AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory,24(Supplement),41-71.
  35. Peecher, M. E.(1996).The influence of auditors' justification process on their decisions: A cognitive model and experiment evidence.Journal of Accounting Research,34,125-140.
  36. Peecher, M. E.,Solomon, I.,Trotman, K. T.(2013).An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions.Accounting, Organizations and Society,38,596-620.
  37. Rich, J. S.(2004).Reviewers' responses to expectations about the client and the preparer.The Accounting Review,79,497-517.
  38. Rich, J. S.,Solomon, I.,Trotman, K. T.(1997).The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective.Accounting, Organizations and Society,22,481-505.
  39. Rosman, A.,Biggs, S.,Graham, L.,Bible, L.(2007).Successful audit workpaper review strategies in electronic environments.Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance,22,57-83.
  40. Siegel-Jacobs, K.,Yates, J. F.(1996).Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,65,1-17.
  41. Sim, J.,Wright, C. C.(2005).The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements.Physical Therapy,85,257-268.
  42. Simonson, I.,Staw, B. M.(1992).Deescalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action.Journal of Applied Psychology,77,419-426.
  43. Solomon, I.(1987).Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research.Journal of Accounting Literature,6,1-25.
  44. Stefaniak, C.,Robertson, J. C.(2010).When auditors err: How mistake significance and superiors' historical reactions influence auditors' likelihood to admit a mistake.International Journal of Auditing,14,41-55.
  45. Tan, C. E. L.,Jubb, C. A.,Houghton, K. A.(1997).Auditor judgments: The effects of the partner's views on decision outcomes and cognitive effort.Behavioral Research in Accounting,9(Supplement),157-175.
  46. Tan, H. T.(1995).Effects of expectations, prior involvement, and review awareness on memory for audit evidence and judgment.Journal of Accounting Research,33,113-135.
  47. Tan, H. T.,Kao, A.(1999).Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity.Journal of Accounting Research,37,209-223.
  48. Tan, H. T.,Shankar, P. G.(2010).Audit reviewers' evaluation of subordinates' work quality.AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory,29,251-266.
  49. Tan, H. T.,Trotman, K. T.(2003).Reviewers' responses to anticipated stylization attempts by preparers of audit workpapers.The Accounting Review,78,581-604.
  50. Tan, H. T.,Yip-Ow, J.(2001).Are reviewers' judgments influenced by memo structure and conclusions documented in audit workpapers?.Contemporary Accounting Research,18,663-678.
  51. Tetlock, P. E.(1985).Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error.Social Psychology Quarterly,48,227-236.
  52. Tetlock, P. E.(1983).Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions.Social Psychology Quarterly,46,285-292.
  53. Tetlock, P. E.(1983).Accountability and complexity of thought.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,45,74-83.
  54. Tetlock, P. E.,Kim, J. I.(1987).Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52,700-709.
  55. Tetlock, P. E.,Skitka, L.,Boettger, R.(1989).Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57,632-640.
  56. Turner, C. W.(2001).Accountability demands and the auditor's evidence search strategy: The influence of reviewer preferences and the nature of the response (belief vs. action).Journal of Accounting Research,39,683-706.
  57. Wilks, T. J.(2002).Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real‐ time audit review.The Accounting Review,77,51-71.
print cancel