Prospective evaluation of a new audit standard: Expert rhetoric and flexibility in cost‐benefit analysis

IF 3.2 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Contemporary Accounting Research Pub Date : 2024-08-29 DOI:10.1111/1911-3846.12973
Stephanie Donahue, Bertrand Malsch
{"title":"Prospective evaluation of a new audit standard: Expert rhetoric and flexibility in cost‐benefit analysis","authors":"Stephanie Donahue, Bertrand Malsch","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.12973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this research is to better understand experts' contributions to the prospective evaluation of a new audit standard—in this case, key audit matter (KAM) reporting. To this end, we assisted the Canadian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board by leading its consultation of 22 expert financial statement users. The methodology employed to observe our participants' opinions and cognitive processes involves thought protocol and interviews. By analyzing the rhetorical base of experts' prospective analysis, we show that our participants' arguments are often laden with postulates and lack data points, leading to generalizations. Sounder arguments entail more nuanced views but lead to uncertainties. We therefore highlight a tension between the rhetorical content of experts' insights and the calculative rationality of a cost‐benefit analysis. We also find that experts with less cognitive flexibility are less likely to be supportive of the adoption of a standard implying a change of habits in the way they process information. This tension and cognitive bias generate a significant interpretive challenge to determine a clear and dominant stance in the consultation. We discuss the implications of these findings for the legitimacy of prospective evaluations and the conduct of cost‐benefit consultations with experts. We also contribute to the literature on KAMs by substantiating concerns about the value of extended auditor reports to users.","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"109 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Accounting Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12973","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this research is to better understand experts' contributions to the prospective evaluation of a new audit standard—in this case, key audit matter (KAM) reporting. To this end, we assisted the Canadian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board by leading its consultation of 22 expert financial statement users. The methodology employed to observe our participants' opinions and cognitive processes involves thought protocol and interviews. By analyzing the rhetorical base of experts' prospective analysis, we show that our participants' arguments are often laden with postulates and lack data points, leading to generalizations. Sounder arguments entail more nuanced views but lead to uncertainties. We therefore highlight a tension between the rhetorical content of experts' insights and the calculative rationality of a cost‐benefit analysis. We also find that experts with less cognitive flexibility are less likely to be supportive of the adoption of a standard implying a change of habits in the way they process information. This tension and cognitive bias generate a significant interpretive challenge to determine a clear and dominant stance in the consultation. We discuss the implications of these findings for the legitimacy of prospective evaluations and the conduct of cost‐benefit consultations with experts. We also contribute to the literature on KAMs by substantiating concerns about the value of extended auditor reports to users.
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
新审计准则的前瞻性评估:成本效益分析中的专家言论和灵活性
本研究的目的是更好地了解专家们对新审计准则--这里指的是关键审计事项(KAM)报告--的前瞻性评估所做的贡献。为此,我们协助加拿大审计与鉴证准则委员会领导了对 22 位财务报表用户专家的咨询工作。为了观察参与者的观点和认知过程,我们采用了思想协议和访谈的方法。通过分析专家前瞻性分析的修辞基础,我们发现参与者的论点往往充满假设,缺乏数据点,导致以偏概全。合理的论据会带来更细致入微的观点,但也会导致不确定性。因此,我们强调了专家见解的修辞内容与成本效益分析的计算理性之间的矛盾。我们还发现,认知灵活性较低的专家不太可能支持采用一种意味着改变他们处理信息的习惯的标准。这种紧张关系和认知偏差为在磋商中确定明确的主导立场带来了巨大的解释挑战。我们讨论了这些发现对前瞻性评估的合法性以及与专家进行成本效益磋商的影响。我们还通过证实对扩展审计师报告对用户价值的担忧,为有关 KAMs 的文献做出了贡献。
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
6.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) is the premiere research journal of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, which publishes leading- edge research that contributes to our understanding of all aspects of accounting"s role within organizations, markets or society. Canadian based, increasingly global in scope, CAR seeks to reflect the geographical and intellectual diversity in accounting research. To accomplish this, CAR will continue to publish in its traditional areas of excellence, while seeking to more fully represent other research streams in its pages, so as to continue and expand its tradition of excellence.
期刊最新文献
Performance effects of insulating and non-insulating cost allocations in stable and unstable production environments Leader versus lagger: How the timing of financial reports affects audit quality and investment efficiency Bank audit committee financial expertise and timely loan loss recognition CAR 2024 Reviewer Recognition Program / Programme de reconnaissance des réviseurs 2024 de RCC Control issues: How providing input affects auditors' reliance on artificial intelligence
×
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