Internal auditors’ use of interpersonal likability,arguments, and accounting information in a corporate governance setting

Internal auditors play an important role in influencing managers’ judgments. Yet, the practitioner literature indicates that, because internal audit lacks the client services incentives of external audit, internal auditors often adopt a “policeman approach” that can lead to negative interpersonal relationships with managers. We investigate three variables fundamental to internal auditors’ ability to influence managers: (1) internal auditors’ interpersonal likability, (2) the information used to support their positions, and (3) whether they present that information in a thematically organized argument. We find that managers agree more with an internal auditor who is both likable and uses a thematically organized argument. We find further that this joint effect occurs regardless of whether the internal auditor’s information is relatively supportive or unsupportive of his position. Overall, our theory and findings suggest that an internal auditor can achieve agreement from managers on important corporate governance issues with this fairly straightforward presentation tactic, even when the underlying information is relatively unsupportive and managers otherwise tend not to agree with the internal auditor’s position. Our study contributes to accounting, psychology, and writing and discourse theories with new evidence of the effects of an argument structure (holding the underlying information constant) on users’ judgments, and how those effects depend on the likability of the source of information. Our findings have important implications for internal auditors, managers, external auditors, and others interested in corporate governance.     

The effect of constrained processing on auditors’ judgments

This study examines whether constraining experienced auditors’ processing by having them process evidence in a pre-established sequence (an experimental control technique used in previous studies) prevents them from using their usual processing strategies and thereby affects their judgments. We compare the relative attention to evidence and judgments of experienced and inexperienced auditors in a constrained versus an unconstrained processing condition. Consistent with expectations, experienced auditors’ going-concern judgments differed from inexperienced auditors’ judgments only when processing was unconstrained. This difference in judgments was the result of differential attention to evidence. These results demonstrate that the failure to consider how experienced auditors process evidence can result in inadvertently adopting control techniques that limit the generalizability of experimental findings. Although our study used a going-concern task, our conclusions are likely to apply to a variety of ill-structured audit tasks that require a goal-oriented, directed evaluation of evidence.     

The comparative effect of process and outcome accountability in enhancing professional scepticism

Responding to concerns about insufficient professional scepticism in audits (e.g. PCAOB, 2011 , 2012 ; ASIC, 2012 ), we investigate the effect of process and outcome accountability in enhancing the level of professional scepticism and the differences in effects across audit experience levels. In our experiment, we manipulate the type of accountability (outcome versus process) for both novice auditors and audit seniors. We examine the effect on four measures of professional scepticism and find that auditors show greater levels of professional scepticism when they are expected to justify their judgment process, rather than their final judgments. Our results also show that the professional scepticism of novice auditors improves to a greater extent than that of more experienced auditors (audit seniors) under process accountability.     

Triangulation of audit evidence in fraud risk assessments

Drawing on the triangulation framework of audit evidence ( and ), we experimentally test for the conditions, if any, under which financial-statement auditors alter their fraud-risk assessments based on whether external evidence provides positive or negative news about underlying business performance. We focus on the condition in which two kinds of management-controlled audit evidence – evidence from the financial statements and evidence from internal data depicting performance of a key business process – is contradicted by external evidence suggesting that a key business objective has not been attained. According to the triangulation framework, such contradictory external evidence should heighten auditors’ skepticism about the veracity of management-controlled evidence and increase their assessment of fraud risk.     

Auditor liability: A comparison of judge and juror verdicts

This research examines differences between judges and jurors in rendering liability judgments in auditor litigation cases. While any number of case contexts would allow us to contrast and compare judges and jurors, we chose one that we believed would also address a second timely issue, auditor reliance or non-reliance upon the work of others. Within the general context of litigation of an alleged audit failure, we manipulated, between-participants, external auditor reliance on the work of others (relied on outsourced work, relied on in-house internal auditors’ work or did not rely). Our results show differences in the liability assessments of judges and jurors. Judges assign more liability to auditors that rely on the work of in-house internal auditors, less liability to auditors that rely on outsourced internal auditors and the least liability to auditors that choose not to rely on the work of internal auditors (but re-perform the work themselves) while jurors assess higher liability regardless of the work done by the auditors. Mediation analyses suggests the differences found in the overall liability assessments of jurors and judges are partially driven by their divergent attitudes towards the public accounting profession with jurors’ unfavorable attitudes leading to them assign liability regardless of the work performed. Further analysis suggests juror insensitivity to our reliance manipulations may reflect a strict liability perspective (consistent with prior work by Charron and Lowe (2008)); while judges consider other factors when making liability assessments.     

Does auditor designation by the regulatory authority improve audit quality? Evidence from Korea

In Korea, the regulatory authority designates external auditors for firms that are deemed to have strong incentives and/or great potential for opportunistic earnings management, and mandates these firms to replace their incumbent auditors with new designated auditors and to retain them for a certain period, typically one to three years. We call this regulatory regime ‘auditor designation’. This paper investigates whether the auditor designation rule in Korea is effective in deterring managers from making income-increasing earnings management. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find that the level of discretionary accruals is significantly lower for firms with designated auditors than firms with a free selection of auditors. We also find that firms with mandatory auditor changes (i.e., auditor designation) report significantly lower discretionary accruals compared to firms with voluntary auditor changes. The above findings are robust to a battery of robustness checks. Overall, our results are consistent with the notion that the auditor designation enhances audit quality and thus the credibility of financial reporting.     

The necessary characteristics of environmental auditors: a review of the contribution of the financial auditing profession

The business community faces many pressures from the green consumer, environmental groups, employees and investors to accept its environmental accountabilities and to provide information about its environmental performance. This information is becoming increasingly important to a broad range of corporate stakeholders because it is a key resource in managing a business’s response to the issue of environmental accountability. Businesses need to ascertain whether potential responsibilities for environmental implications on business are considered within their companies. A number of arguments have emerged concerning the relevance of the financial auditing profession in contributing to this area of environmental concerns. The paper is principally concerned with (1) reviewing the literature in an attempt to answer the questions: (i) can the financial audit profession make a contribution in the area of environmental audits? (ii) are financial auditors in a position to assess environmental implications for business and take part in environmental auditing? (2) The paper goes on to suggest a general framework of the necessary characteristics of environmental auditors.     

Accountability and auditors’ materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism,variability, and effort

This study investigates the effects of differential accountability pressure strength on auditors’ materiality judgments. We evaluate whether incremental levels of accountability (i.e., review, justification, feedback) increase judgment conservatism, decreases judgment variability, and increases effort. One hundred sixty auditors participated in a between-subjects experiment that included a planning materiality task and a proposed audit adjustment materiality task. As predicted, auditors under higher levels of accountability pressure (i.e., justification, feedback) provided more conservative materiality judgments and had less judgment variability than auditors under lower levels of pressure (i.e., review, anonymity). The results also indicate that accountability strength was positively related to the amount of time spent on the task, explanation length, and consideration of qualitative materiality factors. Finally, the results show that use of a planning materiality decision aid influenced the accountability effects for the planning materiality judgment. These judgments were more conservative and less variable when the planning materiality decision aid was available. We consider implications for research, practice, and policy in the context of the study’s limitations.     

Fear and risk in the audit process

Relying on an ethnographic study conducted in the French branch of a big audit firm and using a psychodynamic perspective to interpret the collected data, we show that auditors’ sense of comfort (Pentland, 1993) arises only at the end of the audit process, and that the rest of the time, public accountants are inhabited primarily by fear. Fear plays a crucial but ambivalent role in auditing. On one hand, auditors and audit firms cultivate this feeling through informal and formal techniques to stimulate vigilance, encourage self-surpassment, mitigate the anesthetizing effect of habit and maintain reputation. On the other hand, audit teams’ members strive to alleviate their fear in order to form and convey their conclusions with a certain degree of comfort. In the field, driven by fear, they manage to finally become comfortable either by mobilizing their ‘practical intelligence’ (an intelligence of the body which helps them handle that which, in their mission, cannot be obtained through the strict execution of standardized procedures) or by adopting defensive strategies (such as distancing themselves from work-related problems, mechanically applying audit methodologies or relaxing their conception of a job well done). Fear and risk are closely related phenomena. Michael Power (2007a, p. 180) notes that ‘the significant driver of the managerialization of risk management is an institutional fear and anxiety’. Yet the experience of fear and the role that fear plays in risk management processes is most often overlooked in the literature. In this respect, our study contributes to ‘emotionalize’ and challenge the cognitive and technical orientation adopted by most academics and regulators in their understanding of audit risks and auditors’ scepticism. We also discuss a number of avenues for future research with a view to encouraging further examination of the role that emotions play in the audit process.     

Litigation environment and auditors’ decisions to accept clients’ aggressive reporting

This study contributes to accounting and auditing literature by addressing two empirical questions: (1) whether litigation environment affects auditors’ decisions to accept clients’ aggressive reporting and (2) whether litigation environment, client business risk, and client retention pressure interact and jointly affect auditors’ decisions to go along with clients’ preferred accounting choices. Fifty-nine (59) US and sixty-one (61) Hong Kong auditors employed by the Big-4 accounting firms participated in this study. The result shows that litigation environment has a significant effect on auditors’ decisions. Auditors who practice in more litigious environments tend to be less willing to go along with clients’ aggressive reporting than those who practice in less litigious environments. This study also confirms that there is a significant interactive effect between litigation environment, client business risk, and client retention pressure on auditors’ decisions to accept clients’ aggressive reporting choices. Implications of the empirical findings for policymakers, standard-setting organizations, and international accounting firms, as well as directions for future studies, are discussed.     

How do mentoring rewards influence experienced auditors?

The benefits of mentoring are well documented, and include lower employee turnover, heightened employee success, and higher employee satisfaction. In an effort to acquire these benefits, audit firms are structuring rewards for mentoring. However, we predict that rewarding mentors can prove problematic, leaving needy young auditors without a mentor or perhaps receiving advice that might prove detrimental. We test our expectations in an experiment with 111 Big 4 auditor participants. As expected, we find that in the presence of mentoring rewards, experienced auditors are less willing to mentor the young auditors who likely would benefit the most. We also find that in the presence of mentoring rewards, experienced auditors are more likely to provide advice that might be counterproductive. Yet interestingly, in our study, when rewards are absent, experienced auditors are more willing to mentor and more likely to provide beneficial advice. Our results inform the audit mentoring literature though our focus on mentor behavior, as opposed to protégé behavior. Our results also have implications for audit firms as they consider the structure of mentoring rewards, training on mentoring advice, and the effects of this advice.     

The effects of audit firm rotation on perceived auditor independence and audit quality

Our study explores loan officers’ perceptions of auditors’ independence and audit quality under three experimental audit firm rotation scenarios. We use a case experiment with a between-subjects design to determine whether rotation of the audit firm impacts financial statement users’ perceptions of auditor’s independence and quality. Findings based on 212 useable responses indicate that loan officers do perceive an increase in independence when the company follows an audit firm rotation policy. However, the length of auditor tenure within rotation fails to significantly change loan officers’ perceptions of independence. Findings also indicate that neither the presence of a rotation policy nor the length of the auditor tenure within rotation significantly influences the loan officers’ perceptions of audit quality.     

地方党政主要领导干部经济责任同步审计的探索和实践

领导干部经济责任审计无论是从世界范围来看还是从我国来看,都是比较新的课题。本文对目前党中央、国务院关于地方党政领导干部经济职责的文件规定进行了归纳综述,据此总结和分析了地方党政领导干部经济责任审计的主要内容和范围。并以审计署首次开展的省部级地方党委政府主要领导干部经济责任同步审计实践为基础,提出了开展经济责任审计应采取"自上而下"与"自下而上"相结合等3个基本方法,探讨了界定党政领导干部经济责任的主要原则及其在实践中的运用,并针对目前经济责任审计的难点问题给出了明确责任划分标准、建立规范的经济责任评价框架、进一步构建经济责任审计大格局等3点建议。     

Mandatory audit firm rotation: Fresh look versus poor knowledge

Our aim in this paper is to investigate the effects of mandatory audit firm rotation (MAR) on companies’ investment decision and auditor choice in a capital market setting. We compare a MAR regime with a non-MAR regime in a setting in which auditors’ independence and companies’ opinion shopping are real concerns. To capture auditor independence and opinion shopping, we model auditor biases (a conservative bias or an aggressive bias) and client firms’ incentives to engage auditors with desired biases. We find that when firms engage in opinion shopping, MAR improves investment efficiency for some firms but impairs investment efficiency for other firms. More generally, we contribute to the literature by demonstrating the real effects of auditing on corporate resource allocation decisions.     

An Investigation of Auditors’ Judgments When Companies Release Earnings Before Audit Completion

The majority of U.S. public companies release annual earnings prior to the completion of audit fieldwork. We investigate this phenomenon in a controlled experiment with audit partners and senior managers. We find that releasing earnings before completion of the audit pressures auditors to adopt the goals of management, thereby reducing the likelihood of post‐announcement audit‐adjustment recommendations. We also examine the effect of audit committee (AC) strength in improving auditors’ judgments after annual earnings are released. When ACs are actively involved in accounting issues and proactively communicating with auditors—characteristics currently lacking in most ACs—the negative effects on auditors’ judgments are completely mitigated. Our study provides evidence on potential unintended consequences of early release of earnings and the importance of investing in high‐quality ACs to mitigate adverse effects of client pressures on audit judgment and financial reporting quality.     

The effect of strategic and operating turnaround initiatives on audit reporting for distressed companies

Empirical research on the effect of turnaround initiatives on audit reporting is scant. This paper addresses this gap by examining audit reporting for distressed companies and its association with a broad array of strategic and operating turnaround initiatives. In particular, we study the association between business risk information and going-concern decisions for distressed clients. Using a sample of distressed firms in the US manufacturing industry, we find that both short-term cash flow potential as well as strategic growth and hence long-term cash flow potential are necessary for strategic turnaround initiatives to have a mitigating impact on the auditor’s going-concern decision. Strategic turnaround initiatives for which only one of these two conditions holds and operating turnaround initiatives appear to function as going-concern risk factors as they are associated with a higher likelihood that a going-concern opinion will be issued. We also find that specialist and non-specialist auditors assess the mitigating potential of some but not all turnaround initiatives differently. Overall, our results suggest that auditors’ strategic risk assessment (typically done in a business risk auditing context) is associated with the outcome of the audit process (the opinion).     

A test of the auditor reliability framework using lenders’ judgments

Taylor et al. (2003) challenged the longstanding notion that independence is the capstone of the audit profession by proposing a conceptual framework that emphasizes reliability, rather than independence, as the professional endgame for auditors. Although the reliability framework has attracted attention from policymakers, it has not been tested empirically in an audit context to assess its validity from a user’s perspective. The objective of this study is to test the auditor reliability framework and its formative ethical constructs (i.e., integrity, expertise, independence, objectivity, and reliability) with a sample of 168 commercial lenders. We also extend the reliability framework to examine the extent that perceived auditor reliability affects lenders’ judgments of financial reporting reliability and default risk in a hypothetical lending scenario. Finally, we evaluate the extent that lenders’ judgments are affected by auditor provision of nonaudit bookkeeping and payroll services to a prospective borrower in violation of current independence rules. The results provide strong empirical support for the relations predicted in the reliability framework. Structural equation model results indicate that auditor integrity is the foundation of the framework, directly affecting lenders’ assessments of auditor expertise, independence, objectivity, and reliability. Further, although integrity and objectivity directly affect perceived auditor reliability, independence and expertise only affects reliability indirectly through its impact on objectivity. Finally, we find that lenders perceive no decrease in auditor objectivity or reliability when existing independence rules are violated by combining audit services with nonaudit services for prospective borrowers.     

Strategic organizational conditions for risks reduction and earnings management: A combined strategy and auditing paradigm

Business world is complex and fast changing. This paper brings strategy paradigms to the auditing domain in an attempt to advance existing understanding on the audit risk reduction and firms’ economic performance. Grounded in existing literatures, we establish some crucial convergence points between the external auditors’ audit processes and the firms’ strategic management agendas. A theoretical framework that embeds some proposed strategic organizational conditions, which align organizational internal and external effects for performance, and the theories of the firm is then presented. The literature review suggests that the integration of the audit processes and the organizational conditions is inherently beneficial to both auditors and firms. The routine from such integration can be a tacit knowledge asset or capability hard to be emulated. It shall reduce audit risks and sustain earnings performance. Hence, the practices and leveragabilities of such routine merit further managerial and research attention. We highlight at the end how our works can be tested in future research.     

Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates

Auditors experience significant problems auditing complex accounting estimates, and this increasingly puts financial reporting quality at risk. Based on analyses of the specific errors that auditors commit, we propose that auditors need to be able to think more broadly and incorporate information from a variety of sources in order to improve audit quality for these important accounts. We experimentally demonstrate that a deliberative mindset intervention improves auditors’ ability to identify unreasonable estimates by improving their ability to identify and incorporate into their analyses contradictory information from diverse parts of the audit and improving their ability to think critically about the evidence. We perform additional analyses to demonstrate that our intervention improves auditor performance by causing them to think differently rather than simply to work harder. We demonstrate that critical thinking can improve the identification of unreasonable estimates and, in doing so, we provide new directions for addressing audit quality issues.     

Costs and Returns on Graduates of the University of Bradford

Global repercussions of the Enron scandal and particularly the enactment of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) in the USA, resulted in significant changes in the UK regulatory regime for audit and corporate governance, including an increased role for audit committees and independent inspection of audit firms. UK-listed company chief financial officers, audit committee chairs (ACCs) and audit partners were surveyed in 2007 to obtain views on the impact of 36 economic and regulatory factors on audit quality post-SOX. Four hundred and ninety-eight usable responses were received, representing a response rate of 36%. All groups rated various audit committee interactions with auditors among the factors most enhancing audit quality. However, International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and the audit inspection regime, aspects of the ‘standards-surveillance-compliance’ regulatory system, are viewed as less effective. Exploratory factor analysis reduces the 36 factors to nine independent dimensions: economic risk; audit committee activities; risk of regulatory action; audit firm ethics; economic independence of auditor; audit partner rotation; risk of client loss; audit firm size and, lastly, ISAs and audit inspection. Post-SOX regulations have introduced additional dimensions to the factors influencing audit quality. Respondents commented that aspects of the changed regime are largely process and compliance driven, with high costs for limited benefits, a finding consistent with regulatory over-reaction.