Search results

The purpose of this study is to construct and test a new measure of auditor orientation using two audit quality-related tasks.

The sample consists of 66 Dutch and US graduate auditing students. Participants complete two tasks: one involving a lease classification and another, supplemental experiment involving a contingent liability judgment. The purpose is to construct a new measure for rules-based/ principles-based orientation. Rigorous, psychometric testing confirms that parts of tolerance for ambiguity (TOA) and need for cognition (NFC), together, form a new construct the authors identify as auditor orientation. The authors next conduct a main and supplemental experiment with novice auditor participants from both the USA and the Netherlands.

The authors begin with rigorous, psychometric testing using participants from the USA and the Netherlands. The resulting 10-item scale combines parts of TOA and NFC to reflect auditor orientation. The common themes across scale items are high (low) adaptability to complexity and a substance-over-form (form-over-substance) preference for principles-oriented (PO) (rules-oriented [RO]) auditors. Conducting two experiments, results from two distinct tasks confirm our research question; novice auditors classified as RO (PO) are more (less) likely to recommend a more aggressive/client-favorable disclosure judgment.

Auditor orientation (i.e. rules or principles) has a significant impact on the application of rules-based or principles-based standards. How the standards are applied, therefore, influences auditor decision-making and thus audit quality. However, there is a paucity of auditor orientation research to date, including a validated measure. The study contributes a new measure for future research in the related accounting standards and audit quality literatures, while also identifying a potentially important construct in auditor training.

The purpose of this study is to provide a harmonisation framework for the diverse accounting practices by extractive industries.

The study takes a three-stage approach. The first involves a comprehensive literature review of the historical evolution of accounting regulations by extractive industries. The second involves constructing an accounting practice index for extractive industries. The third involves constructing a harmonisation framework.

The accounting practice index provides empirical evidence of the wide diversity of accounting practices by extractive industries. Analysis of the literature review addresses the several attempts by accounting and regulatory bodies to standardise the diverse practices of accounting by extractive industries and reasons for the lack of successful standardisations. The authors extract lessons from these previous attempts and propose a harmonisation framework.

The proposed harmonisation framework can be used to align together the diverse accounting practices by extractive industries and enhance comparability and consistency of accounting figures and statements produced by these industries. Harmonising the diverse accounting practices is crucial for investment decision-making.

The harmonisation framework is the first of its kind that could enhance the comparability of accounts of extractive industries’ firms and be used to harmonise diverse accounting practices by other industries.

This study aims to demonstrate how pressures (incentives) in the audit environment can lower audit quality because of a breakdown between professionally skeptical (PS) judgment (risk assessment) and PS action (testing).

The authors used a Qualtrics-based experiment with attitude change as a proxy measure of cognitive dissonance (CD). The authors analyze the results using a one-way independent between-group ANOVA with post hoc tests and t-tests.

The authors find that auditors experience CD when they fail to take appropriate high PS action (audit tests) that are in line with high PS judgment (risk assessments). The motivational force to reduce CD drives auditors to revise their assessments upward (rank higher), lower diagnostic audit tests (PS actions) and lower risk assessments (PS judgments). This leads to lower overall professional skepticism, and hence lower audit quality.

This investigation provides an empirical investigation of Nelson’s (2009) model of professional skepticism and demonstrates a specific mechanism for how incentives in the audit environment lower audit quality. Based on the findings, treatments to enhance audit quality can benefit by strengthening the critical link between PS judgments (risk assessments) and PS actions (audit tests).