Cognitive dissonance and auditor professional skepticism

IF 2.8 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Managerial Auditing Journal Pub Date : 2024-01-09 DOI:10.1108/maj-08-2022-3653
Ruwan Adikaram, Julia Higgs
{"title":"Cognitive dissonance and auditor professional skepticism","authors":"Ruwan Adikaram, Julia Higgs","doi":"10.1108/maj-08-2022-3653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>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).</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>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 <em>t</em>-tests.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>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.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>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).</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":47823,"journal":{"name":"Managerial Auditing Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Managerial Auditing Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/maj-08-2022-3653","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Originality/value

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).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认知失调与审计师的职业怀疑态度
目的本研究旨在说明审计环境中的压力(激励)如何会降低审计质量,因为专业怀疑(PS)判断(风险评估)与专业怀疑行动(测试)之间的关系出现了裂缝。作者使用单向独立组间方差分析以及事后检验和 t 检验对结果进行了分析。研究结果作者发现,当审计人员未能采取与高 PS 判断(风险评估)相一致的适当高 PS 行动(审计测试)时,他们就会经历 CD。减少 CD 的动力促使审计师上调评估(排名靠前)、降低诊断性审计测试(PS 行动)和降低风险评估(PS 判断)。这项研究对纳尔逊(2009 年)的专业怀疑主义模型进行了实证调查,并展示了审计环境中的激励机制如何降低审计质量的具体机制。根据研究结果,提高审计质量的方法可通过加强专业怀疑主义判断(风险评估)与专业怀疑主义行动(审计测试)之间的关键联系而获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
13.80%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The key areas addressed are: ■Audit and Assurance (financial and non-financial) ■Financial and Managerial Reporting ■Governance, controls, risks and ethics ■Organizational issues including firm cultures, performance and development In addition, the evaluation of changes occurring in the auditing profession, as well as the broader fields of accounting and assurance, are also explored. Debates concerning organizational performance and professional competence are also covered.
期刊最新文献
How hours allocated to year-round auditing procedures affect audit quality Ambiguity in international financial reporting standards (IFRS) and its impact on judgments of auditors Product market competition and audit fees: new evidence The impact of remote auditing on audit quality: the moderating role of technology readiness CEO inside debt and industry specialist auditor
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1