The effect of auditor interaction on decision making in the going-concern task

被引:3
|
作者
Seol, Inshik [1 ]
机构
[1] Clark Univ, Grad Sch Management, Worcester, MA 01610 USA
关键词
Auditing; Decision making;
D O I
10.1108/02686900610674870
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
Purpose - To investigate the effects of auditor interaction on problem representation, information acquisition, and performance in the going-concern task. Design/methodology/approach - Participants were asked to evaluate the going-concern status of a company. The study used a pretest-posttest control group (CG) experimental design. Half of participating accountants were randomly assigned to the CG and the other half to the experimental group (EG). In stage one, participants in both CG and EG performed the entire task individually. In stage two, participants in EG performed the experimental task as an interacting dyad while participants in CG performed the experimental task again individually. Findings - The results showed that interacting auditors' "shared problem representation" focus more on relationship between information and less focus on the simple facts or abstraction. Interacting auditors acquired fewer total number of cues, spent more time, visited financial cues fewer times, and acquired fewer liquidity and management cues than did individual auditors. The results also showed that the effects of auditor interaction were maximized when the member of a dyad were heterogeneous. Research limitations/implications - The paper used a going-concern task and non-hierarchical dyads. Future studies might investigate the effects of: different tasks other than going-concern evaluation, hierarchical dyads (e.g. senior-manager) after statistically controlling for the power variable, and different types of dyads (e.g. traditioned vs staticized) on group decision making. Practical implications - The results can be used for training purposes for auditors to increase their performance. Originality/value - The study is one of the first to work in the area of multi-person audit judgment (especially in interacting auditor judgment).
引用
收藏
页码:582 / +
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Audit fees, non-audit fees and auditor going-concern reporting decisions in the United Kingdom
    Basioudis, Ilias G.
    Papakonstantinou, Evangelos
    Geiger, Marshall A.
    ABACUS-A JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING FINANCE AND BUSINESS STUDIES, 2008, 44 (03): : 284 - 309
  • [42] The effectiveness of the auditor's going-concern evaluation as an external governance mechanism: Evidence from loan defaults
    Bhimani, Alnoor
    Gulamhussen, Mohamed Azzim
    Lopes, Samuel
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING, 2009, 44 (03): : 239 - 255
  • [43] Going-concern initial public offerings
    Willenborg, M
    McKeown, JC
    JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS, 2000, 30 (03): : 279 - 313
  • [44] Discovering auditing criteria for the going-concern disclaimer
    Murphy, Catherine Kuenz
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER APPLICATIONS IN TECHNOLOGY, 2008, 33 (2-3) : 138 - 145
  • [45] Going-Concern Decisions and the Global Financial Crisis
    Rickling, Maria F.
    Bitter, Michael E.
    West, Jessica
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 2020, 25 (01): : 21 - 44
  • [46] Does Client Importance Affect Auditor Independence at the Office Level? Empirical Evidence from Going-Concern Opinions
    Li, Chan
    CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, 2009, 26 (01) : 201 - +
  • [47] A COGNITIVE MODEL OF THE AUDITORS GOING-CONCERN JUDGMENT
    SELFRIDGE, M
    BIGGS, SF
    KRUPKA, GR
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, 1992, 7 (05) : 393 - 417
  • [48] The auditor's going-concern disclosure as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A discrete-time survival analysis
    Louwers, TJ
    Messina, FM
    Richard, MD
    DECISION SCIENCES, 1999, 30 (03) : 805 - 824
  • [49] THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUDIT TECHNOLOGY, CLIENT RISK PROFILES, AND THE GOING-CONCERN OPINION DECISION
    MUTCHLER, JF
    WILLIAMS, DD
    AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE & THEORY, 1990, 9 (03): : 39 - 54
  • [50] THE APPLICATION OF NEURAL NETWORKS AND A QUALITATIVE RESPONSE MODEL TO THE AUDITORS GOING-CONCERN UNCERTAINTY DECISION
    LENARD, MJ
    ALAM, P
    MADEY, GR
    DECISION SCIENCES, 1995, 26 (02) : 209 - 227