The impact of communication style on psychological comfort and trust in audit services

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to examine the extent to which clients’ perceptions of a financial auditor’s communication style affect their psychological comfort and trust when considering whether to retain the incumbent firm for future financial audits.

Design/methodology/approach

A multistage method was used comprising integrated results from a literature review and findings from five in-depth interviews with chief financial officers of listed firms. A cross-sectional survey then yielded valid responses from 190 incorporated firms listed on The Stock Exchange of Thailand or Market for Alternative Investment.

Findings

The results reveal that, consistent with social interaction theory, an affiliation communication style positively influenced client’s psychological comfort and trust in an auditor. On the other hand, a dominant communications style negatively impacted psychological comfort. Cognitive social capital was found to moderate the links between dominant communication–psychological comfort, psychological comfort–trust and trust–relationship commitment.

Practical implications

From a managerial perspective, an affiliation communication style is fundamental for building client comfort and trust, especially for professional service firms, but especially in Eastern collectivist cultures that are relationship rich, where people seek to avoid conflict and prefer indirect communication styles over more direct styles.

Originality/value

This research highlights the central role that interpersonal communication style plays in developing psychological comfort and trust with a professional service firm. In addition, this study introduces the role of client psychological comfort as a key mediator between communications and trust.

Citation

Sarapaivanich, N., Sampet, J. and Patterson, P.G. (2019), "The impact of communication style on psychological comfort and trust in audit services", Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 642-661. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-06-2017-0097