The Effect of Multiple Auditors on Deception Detection in a Client Inquiry Setting

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE Behavioral Research in Accounting Pub Date : 2018-03-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2600975
Kip Holderness
{"title":"The Effect of Multiple Auditors on Deception Detection in a Client Inquiry Setting","authors":"Kip Holderness","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2600975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Auditors frequently gather information by conducting client inquiries. During these inquiries, auditors should be alert to verbal and nonverbal cues emanating from members of client personnel that might be indicative of deception. Extant literature on deception suggests that the general practice of using a single auditor to conduct client inquiries may limit the ability of auditors to detect deception. Using Master’s-level accounting students as a proxy for entry-level auditors, I examine how the use of one or two auditors affects the behavioral cues (nervousness and discussion) of client personnel that may indicate deception during inquiries. In addition, I study whether two auditors are more likely than a single auditor to detect deception during inquiries. Results suggest that the number of auditors taking part in an inquiry significantly impacts deceptive clients’ behavioral cues, as well as how those cues affect auditors’ perceptions of client honesty and subsequent write-down recommendations. Specifically, results of a mediation analysis suggest that two auditors, but not single auditors, are able to detect deception through the use of behavioral cues. This paper contributes to prior studies on client inquiries and interpersonal deception theory.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2600975","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2600975","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Auditors frequently gather information by conducting client inquiries. During these inquiries, auditors should be alert to verbal and nonverbal cues emanating from members of client personnel that might be indicative of deception. Extant literature on deception suggests that the general practice of using a single auditor to conduct client inquiries may limit the ability of auditors to detect deception. Using Master’s-level accounting students as a proxy for entry-level auditors, I examine how the use of one or two auditors affects the behavioral cues (nervousness and discussion) of client personnel that may indicate deception during inquiries. In addition, I study whether two auditors are more likely than a single auditor to detect deception during inquiries. Results suggest that the number of auditors taking part in an inquiry significantly impacts deceptive clients’ behavioral cues, as well as how those cues affect auditors’ perceptions of client honesty and subsequent write-down recommendations. Specifically, results of a mediation analysis suggest that two auditors, but not single auditors, are able to detect deception through the use of behavioral cues. This paper contributes to prior studies on client inquiries and interpersonal deception theory.
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
在客户询问设置中,多名审计师对欺骗检测的影响
审计人员经常通过向客户查询来收集信息。在这些询问过程中,审计师应警惕客户人员发出的可能表明欺骗的言语和非言语暗示。关于欺骗的现有文献表明,使用单一审计师进行客户调查的一般做法可能会限制审计师发现欺骗的能力。我以会计学硕士生为初级审计师的代理人,研究了使用一两名审计师如何影响客户人员的行为线索(紧张和讨论),这些行为线索可能表明在询问过程中存在欺骗行为。此外,我还研究了两名审计师是否比一名审计师更有可能在调查中发现欺骗行为。结果表明,参与调查的审计师人数显著影响欺骗性客户的行为线索,以及这些线索如何影响审计师对客户诚实的看法和随后的减记建议。具体来说,中介分析的结果表明,两名审计员,而不是一名审计员,能够通过使用行为线索来检测欺骗行为。本文对先前关于客户询问和人际欺骗理论的研究做出了贡献。
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
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Audit Committee Strength on the Influence of Management Team Likeability Seeing the Trees: How a Concrete versus Abstract Mindset Improves Performance on Low-Level Assurance Tasks Preliminary Evidence on the Impact of the Felt Presence of Peers on Auditor Skeptical Judgment and Action in a Remote Work Setting Why Do Investors Rely on Low-Quality Investment Advice? Experimental Evidence from Social Media Platforms Strategic Bias in Team Members’ Communication about Relative Contributions: The Effects of Voluntary Communication and Explanation
×
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