[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 5, Issue 9 (8-2020) ::
2020, 5(9): 117-151 Back to browse issues page
Irrelevant Information, Minor Error, Dirty Documents, Skeptical Action, Trait Professional Skepticism.
Nasrin Yousefzadeh1, Omid Pourheidari 2, Ahmad Khodamipour3
1- Ph.D.Student of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Economics, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.(n.yousefzade@yahoo.com)
2- Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Economics, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran. (Corresponding Auther) , opourheidari@uk.ac.ir
3- Associate Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Economics, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran (khodamipour@uk.ac.ir)
Abstract:   (1414 Views)
The purpose of this study is to investigate how auditors are influenced by irrelevant information and minor error in client records. Also, this study investigates the role of trait skepticism in the assessment of dirty documents and the auditorchr('39')s skeptical action. In the regard, this study conducts a 2 by 2 experiment to examine how auditors respond to client’ dirty documents containing irrelevant information and minor error. The statistical sample consisted of 207 auditors working in trusted audit institutions of Tehran Securities & Exchange Organization in 2019 who were selected by random sampling. To investigate hypotheses, an analysis of variance and the structural equation modeling approach were used. Results indicate that the presence of irrelevant information and minor error influence auditor’s skeptical actions. Specifically, this results suggests that the presence of irrelevant information and minor error lead to increase in sample size. This finding suggests that client dirty documents may contribute to over auditing, which is a waste of financial resources and an unnecessarily stressful misuse of audit staff. Also, Consistent with the models developed in Nelson (2009) and Hurrt et al. (2013), the results suggest that the trait professional skepticism influenced an auditorchr('39')s skeptical action. The results indicate that auditors with higher levels of trait professional skepticism are more likely to take more skeptical actions when evaluating audit evidence and select a larger sample size. Furthermore, the results indicate that trait professional skepticism moderated the relationship between dirty documents and sample size. In other words, the effect of client dirty documents on the auditorschr('39') skeptical action depends on their level of trait professional skepticism.
Keywords: Irrelevant information, Minor error, Dirty documents, Skeptical action, Trait Professional skepticism
Full-Text [PDF 306 kb]   (125 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2019/12/16 | Accepted: 2020/03/6 | Published: 2020/08/22
References
1. Allen, R. D., and R. J Elder. 2005. A longitudinal investigation of auditor error projection decisions. Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (2): 69–84.
2. Blay, A. 2005. Independence threats, litigation risk, and the auditor’s decision process. Contemporary Accounting Research 22 (4): 759–789.
3. Bonner, S.E. 2008. Judgment and Decision Making in Accounting. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Brazel, J.F., C.Gimbar, E.Maksymov, and T.R,Schaefer. 2019. The Outcome Effect and Professional Skepticism: A Replication and a Failed Attempt at Mitigation. Behavioral Research in Accounting 31 (2): 135-143.
5. Carpenter, T. D., and J. L. Reimer. 2013. Professional Skepticism: The Effects of a Partner's Influence and the Level of Fraud Indicators on Auditors' Fraud Judgments and Actions. Behavioral Research in Accounting 25 (2), 45-69.
6. Cohen, J.R., Krishnamoorthy, G., Peytcheva, M., and Wright, A.M. 2013. How does the strength of the financial regulatory regime influence auditors' judgments to constrain aggressive reporting in a principles-based versus rules-based accounting environment? Accounting Horizons 27 (3): 579-601.
7. Cushing, B. E. 2003. Economic analysis of skepticism in an audit setting. Working paper.
8. Dreu, C. D., and Carnevale, P. J. D. 2003. Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. Advances in experimental social psychology 35: 235-291.
9. Durney, M., , R.J.Elder, and S.M. Glover.2013. Field data on accounting error rates and audit sampling. Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 33(2): 79-110.
10. Glover, S. M. 1997. The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors’processing of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (Autumn): 213–227.
11. Glover, S. M., and D. F. Prawitt. 2013. Enhancing auditor professional skepticism. White Paper Series of the Standards Working Group of the Global Public Policy Committee.
12. Hackenbrack, K. 1992. Implications of seemingly irrelevant evidence in audit judgment. Journal of Accounting Research 30: 126–136.
13. Hackenbrack, K., and M. W.Nelson.1996. Auditors’ incentives and their application of financial accounting standards. The Accounting Review 71 (1): 43–59.
14. Hoffman, V. B., andJ. M Patton. 1997. Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors’ fraud judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 35: 227–238.
15. Hoogduin, L. A., Hall, T. W., and Tsay, J. J. 2010. Modified sieve sampling: A method for single- and multi-stage probability-proportional-to-size sampling. Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (1): 125–148.
16. Hurtt, K. 2010. Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism. Auditing. A Journal of Practice and Theory 29(1): 149-171.
17. Hurtt, K., H., C. Brown-Liburd, C. E. Earley, and G. Krishnamoorthy. 2013. Research on auditor professional skepticism: literature synthesis and opportunities for future research. Auditing. A Journal of Practice and Theory 32: 45-97.
18. Hurtt, R. K., M. Eining, and R. D Plumle. 2008. An experimental evaluation of professional skepticism. Working paper, Baylor University.
19. Kemmelmeier, M. 2004. Separating the wheat from the chaff: does discriminating between diagnostic and nondiagnostic information eliminate the dilution effect? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 17(3): 231-243.
20. Knechel, W. R. 2000. Behavioral Research in Auditing and Its Impact on Audit Education. Issues in Accounting Education 15(4): 695-712.
21. Kreutzfeldt, R. W., and Wallace, W. A. 1986. Error characteristics in audit populations: Their profile and relationship to environmental factors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 6 (1): 20–43.
22. Kruglanski, A.W. 1989. The psychology of being "right": The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin 106 (3): 395-409.
23. Lynch, E. 2017. The Effects of Irrelevant Information and Minor Errors in Client Documents on Assessments of Misstatement Risk and Sample Size, Virginia Commonwealth University.
24. Nelson, M.W. 2009. A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 28 (2): 1-34.
25. Nigrini, M. J. 2017. Audit Sampling Using Benford’s Law: A Review of the Literature with Some New Perspectives. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 14 (2): 29–46.
26. Nisbett, R. E., H.Zukier, and R. E.Lemley. 1981. The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology 13: 248-277.
27. Quadackers, L., T.Groot, and A.Wright. 2014. Auditors’ professional skepticism: Neutrality versus presumptive doubt. Contemporary Accounting Research 31(3): 639-657.
28. Rennie, M., Kopp, L., and W. Lemo. 2007. Exploring trust and the auditor-client relationship. Working paper, Universities of Lethbridge, Waterloo, and Regina.
29. Scholten, L., D.Van Knippenberg, B.A.Nijstad, and C. K.De Dreu. 2007. Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (4): 539-552.
30. Shaub, M. K. 1996. Trust and suspicion: The effects of situational and dispositional factors on auditors’ trust of clients. Behavioral Research in Accounting 8: 154–174.
31. Shelton, S. W. 1999. The effect of experience on the use of irrelevant evidence in auditor judgment. The Accounting Review 74 (2): 217–224.
32. Siegel-Jacobs, K., and J.F Yates. 1996. Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65 (1): 1-17.
33. Tetlock, P. E. 1983. Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 74–83.
34. Vogel. J. 2010. Bonjour on explanation and skepticism, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41: 413–421.
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA



XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Yousefzadeh N, Pourheidari O, Khodamipour A. Irrelevant Information, Minor Error, Dirty Documents, Skeptical Action, Trait Professional Skepticism.. Valued and Behavioral Accountings Achievements. 2020; 5 (9) :117-151
URL: http://aapc.khu.ac.ir/article-1-767-en.html


Volume 5, Issue 9 (8-2020) Back to browse issues page
فصلنامه دستاوردهای حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری Valued and Behavioral Accountings Achievements
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.07 seconds with 30 queries by YEKTAWEB 4258