We examine how client importance affects judgment conservatism depending on auditors’ career concerns. We argue that auditors will interpret being assigned to a client of major importance as a more powerful signal of their promotion chances under strong competition than under weak competition for advancement and, hence, that they will consider their promotion opportunities to a greater extent in their judgments. We therefore predict that auditors exhibit more conservatism in their judgments regarding more important clients when competition for advancement is strong but not when it is weak. Using an experiment, we generally find results in line with this prediction. Unexpectedly, yet interestingly, we also find that less important clients are judged less conservatively under strong competition than under weak competition for advancement. Data Availability: Contact the authors. JEL Classifications: M42; M52.
{"title":"The Effects of Client Importance and Career Concerns on Auditors’ Judgment Conservatism","authors":"J. Pruijssers, Marcel van Rinsum","doi":"10.2308/bria-2022-031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2022-031","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 We examine how client importance affects judgment conservatism depending on auditors’ career concerns. We argue that auditors will interpret being assigned to a client of major importance as a more powerful signal of their promotion chances under strong competition than under weak competition for advancement and, hence, that they will consider their promotion opportunities to a greater extent in their judgments. We therefore predict that auditors exhibit more conservatism in their judgments regarding more important clients when competition for advancement is strong but not when it is weak. Using an experiment, we generally find results in line with this prediction. Unexpectedly, yet interestingly, we also find that less important clients are judged less conservatively under strong competition than under weak competition for advancement.\u0000 Data Availability: Contact the authors.\u0000 JEL Classifications: M42; M52.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47427695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Corporate fraud imposes significant costs on stakeholders. Accordingly, firms strive to deter fraud ex ante and detect fraud ex post. Using a sample of experienced business managers, we experimentally examine the degree to which selected whistleblowing incentives provisions and a strong corporate governance culture serve ex ante to deter complicity in fraudulent financial reporting by increasing the perceived likelihood that observed violations will be reported. We find that reward provisions marginally increase perceived risks compared to a control condition, whereas penalty provisions significantly increase perceived risks. We also find that the existence of a stronger (compared to a weaker) corporate governance culture increases perceptions that observed violations will be reported; but greater Machiavellianism leads to diminished perceptions of risk. Additionally, we find that the influence of whistleblowing incentives provisions only manifest among participants low in Machiavellianism. We conclude by discussing the contributions of our research and by suggesting future research. Data Availability: The data are available from the authors upon request.
{"title":"The Deterrence Effects of Whistleblowing Provisions, Corporate Governance Culture, and Machiavellianism","authors":"D. Lowe, Philip M. J. Reckers","doi":"10.2308/bria-2022-041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2022-041","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Corporate fraud imposes significant costs on stakeholders. Accordingly, firms strive to deter fraud ex ante and detect fraud ex post. Using a sample of experienced business managers, we experimentally examine the degree to which selected whistleblowing incentives provisions and a strong corporate governance culture serve ex ante to deter complicity in fraudulent financial reporting by increasing the perceived likelihood that observed violations will be reported. We find that reward provisions marginally increase perceived risks compared to a control condition, whereas penalty provisions significantly increase perceived risks. We also find that the existence of a stronger (compared to a weaker) corporate governance culture increases perceptions that observed violations will be reported; but greater Machiavellianism leads to diminished perceptions of risk. Additionally, we find that the influence of whistleblowing incentives provisions only manifest among participants low in Machiavellianism. We conclude by discussing the contributions of our research and by suggesting future research.\u0000 Data Availability: The data are available from the authors upon request.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48678733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rachel Daniel, A. Douglass, Abagail Kluetz, Julie S. Persellin
Given that many significant decisions in accounting are made by groups of professionals, it is important to understand the impact of group interactions on ethical decision making. We examine how group dynamics can influence an individual’s ethical evaluations and intentions and whether the effect of these group interactions persists in the future. We also explore the ethical orientations used by participants to inform their ethical judgments. Our results indicate that individual initial assessments of ethical scenarios are consistently more ethical than group assessments of the same ethical scenarios. Groups consistently viewed questionable actions as more acceptable than individuals and were more likely to say that they or their peers would perform the action. This less ethical perspective persists in future individual ethical assessments, demonstrating a contagion effect on ethical judgments. Furthermore, our results show that justice and relativism are the moral constructs utilized by most participants to form ethical evaluations. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors.
{"title":"The Effect of Group Dynamics on Individual Ethical Decision Making","authors":"Rachel Daniel, A. Douglass, Abagail Kluetz, Julie S. Persellin","doi":"10.2308/bria-2022-008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2022-008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Given that many significant decisions in accounting are made by groups of professionals, it is important to understand the impact of group interactions on ethical decision making. We examine how group dynamics can influence an individual’s ethical evaluations and intentions and whether the effect of these group interactions persists in the future. We also explore the ethical orientations used by participants to inform their ethical judgments. Our results indicate that individual initial assessments of ethical scenarios are consistently more ethical than group assessments of the same ethical scenarios. Groups consistently viewed questionable actions as more acceptable than individuals and were more likely to say that they or their peers would perform the action. This less ethical perspective persists in future individual ethical assessments, demonstrating a contagion effect on ethical judgments. Furthermore, our results show that justice and relativism are the moral constructs utilized by most participants to form ethical evaluations.\u0000 Data Availability: Data are available from the authors.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47172439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jeremy M. Vinson, Byron J Pike, Lawrence Chui, Mingjun Zhou
Framing effects are a phenomenon where individuals respond differently to equivalent information presented in a positive or negative manner. Whether framing effects within audit evidence affect auditor judgment is unknown. We conduct a simulated client inquiry experiment to investigate whether the framing of an inquiry evidence item (positive versus negative) and the timing of the frame within the inquiry evidence series (at the beginning versus end) influences auditor judgment. More consistent with attribute framing than belief-adjustment predictions, our findings suggest a primacy effect where participants who receive a positive frame at the beginning of the inquiry are less likely to change their initial assessments of misstatement than participants who receive a “neutral” perspective (i.e., both positive and negative frames simultaneously). Our results imply that positively framed initial evidence, relative to other settings, may constrain auditors’ consideration of subsequent evidence when making judgments about the account in question. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors on request.
{"title":"The Influence of Audit Evidence Framing on Auditors’ Judgment","authors":"Jeremy M. Vinson, Byron J Pike, Lawrence Chui, Mingjun Zhou","doi":"10.2308/bria-2020-055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2020-055","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Framing effects are a phenomenon where individuals respond differently to equivalent information presented in a positive or negative manner. Whether framing effects within audit evidence affect auditor judgment is unknown. We conduct a simulated client inquiry experiment to investigate whether the framing of an inquiry evidence item (positive versus negative) and the timing of the frame within the inquiry evidence series (at the beginning versus end) influences auditor judgment. More consistent with attribute framing than belief-adjustment predictions, our findings suggest a primacy effect where participants who receive a positive frame at the beginning of the inquiry are less likely to change their initial assessments of misstatement than participants who receive a “neutral” perspective (i.e., both positive and negative frames simultaneously). Our results imply that positively framed initial evidence, relative to other settings, may constrain auditors’ consideration of subsequent evidence when making judgments about the account in question.\u0000 Data Availability: Data are available from the authors on request.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48816586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kris Hardies, Fynn Ohlrogge, Jo Mentens, Jonas Vandennieuwenhuysen
Literature reviews can potentially contribute to our knowledge and understanding of a particular topic. However, consistent with anecdotal evidence, we document that literature reviews in auditing are of low quality in implementing best practice guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews. We rely on existing guidelines and best practices in other domains to offer accounting researchers a step-by-step guide for conducting and reporting systematic literature reviews. We hope this guide will help to improve the quality of literature reviews in accounting and the assessment of such reviews by editors and reviewers.
{"title":"A Guide for Accounting Researchers to Conduct and Report Systematic Literature Reviews","authors":"Kris Hardies, Fynn Ohlrogge, Jo Mentens, Jonas Vandennieuwenhuysen","doi":"10.2308/bria-2022-042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2022-042","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Literature reviews can potentially contribute to our knowledge and understanding of a particular topic. However, consistent with anecdotal evidence, we document that literature reviews in auditing are of low quality in implementing best practice guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews. We rely on existing guidelines and best practices in other domains to offer accounting researchers a step-by-step guide for conducting and reporting systematic literature reviews. We hope this guide will help to improve the quality of literature reviews in accounting and the assessment of such reviews by editors and reviewers.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47521094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Regulators rely heavily on “no-fault” settlements in their enforcement, where targets avoid costly litigation by accepting sanctions without admitting or denying fault. Considerable public debate surrounds the issue, but prior research has typically focused on financial dimensions of sanctions such as the magnitude of fines. I conduct an economic experiment where individuals face a costly compliance choice in the presence of sanctions that may either be greater than or less than the benefits of violating and may also require admission of fault. I observe that compliance quality is greater when sanctions assign fault. I also observe that, relative to strong sanctions, the frequency of compliance decreases under weak no-fault sanctions but does not decrease under weak fault sanctions. Lastly, I observe that non-decision-making participants struggle with the task of anticipating compliance, believing that compliance quality will increase in sanction strength but not fault although the opposite is true. Data Availability: Data are available on request from the author.
{"title":"The Compliance Consequences of Fault Assignment and Sanction Strength in Sanctions","authors":"Matthew Sooy","doi":"10.2308/bria-2022-034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2022-034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Regulators rely heavily on “no-fault” settlements in their enforcement, where targets avoid costly litigation by accepting sanctions without admitting or denying fault. Considerable public debate surrounds the issue, but prior research has typically focused on financial dimensions of sanctions such as the magnitude of fines. I conduct an economic experiment where individuals face a costly compliance choice in the presence of sanctions that may either be greater than or less than the benefits of violating and may also require admission of fault. I observe that compliance quality is greater when sanctions assign fault. I also observe that, relative to strong sanctions, the frequency of compliance decreases under weak no-fault sanctions but does not decrease under weak fault sanctions. Lastly, I observe that non-decision-making participants struggle with the task of anticipating compliance, believing that compliance quality will increase in sanction strength but not fault although the opposite is true.\u0000 Data Availability: Data are available on request from the author.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45828036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Auditing standards emphasize the importance of strong auditor communications with the audit committee to enhance financial reporting quality. This study examines the effects of audit committee skepticism and reward power, two pervasive audit committee characteristics, on auditor communications with the audit committee. Drawing on accountability theory, we predict and find that greater audit committee skepticism and reward power induce the auditor to communicate more information and report on a more timely basis. Seventy-nine audit partners and managers participated in an experiment where we manipulate between-subjects high or low audit committee skepticism (quantity of probing questions) and high or low reward power (exercising full authority to hire/compensate the auditor versus relying on management). Participants responded to a realistic case regarding an inventory obsolescence issue. A follow-up experiment with 30 participants indicates significant mediation for accountability. The findings underscore the importance of audit committee skepticism and reward power in enhancing auditor communications.
{"title":"The Impact of Audit Committee Skepticism and Reward Power on Auditor Communications with the Audit Committee","authors":"G. Krishnamoorthy, A. Wright, Nicole S. Wright","doi":"10.2308/bria-2022-024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2022-024","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Auditing standards emphasize the importance of strong auditor communications with the audit committee to enhance financial reporting quality. This study examines the effects of audit committee skepticism and reward power, two pervasive audit committee characteristics, on auditor communications with the audit committee. Drawing on accountability theory, we predict and find that greater audit committee skepticism and reward power induce the auditor to communicate more information and report on a more timely basis. Seventy-nine audit partners and managers participated in an experiment where we manipulate between-subjects high or low audit committee skepticism (quantity of probing questions) and high or low reward power (exercising full authority to hire/compensate the auditor versus relying on management). Participants responded to a realistic case regarding an inventory obsolescence issue. A follow-up experiment with 30 participants indicates significant mediation for accountability. The findings underscore the importance of audit committee skepticism and reward power in enhancing auditor communications.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44720617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Task interruptions are ubiquitous and can systematically affect decision-making, even when they are nondiagnostic and thus irrelevant. We report the results of an experiment employing experienced investors as participants to solidify the theoretical foundation underpinning the impact of interruption on investor decision-making. We consider the joint effects of interruption and risk/return preferences on experienced investor decision-making, as well as the effectiveness of two theory-driven mitigating strategies. Consistent with the expanded Goal-Based Choice (GBC) Model, but, inconsistent with other theoretical explanations proposed to date, we provide evidence that interruption exacerbates the influence of risk/return preferences on investment decisions and that a mitigating strategy derived from the expanded GBC Model effectively eliminates this effect. Overall, the expanded GBC Model provides the best theoretical explanation for these phenomena, enhancing our understanding of the underlying mechanisms and the generalizability of prior research. JEL Classifications: M40; M41.
{"title":"Buy, Sell, or…Hold That Thought: The Impact of Task Interruption on Investor Decision-Making","authors":"K. A. Basoglu, James H. Long","doi":"10.2308/bria-2022-020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2022-020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Task interruptions are ubiquitous and can systematically affect decision-making, even when they are nondiagnostic and thus irrelevant. We report the results of an experiment employing experienced investors as participants to solidify the theoretical foundation underpinning the impact of interruption on investor decision-making. We consider the joint effects of interruption and risk/return preferences on experienced investor decision-making, as well as the effectiveness of two theory-driven mitigating strategies. Consistent with the expanded Goal-Based Choice (GBC) Model, but, inconsistent with other theoretical explanations proposed to date, we provide evidence that interruption exacerbates the influence of risk/return preferences on investment decisions and that a mitigating strategy derived from the expanded GBC Model effectively eliminates this effect. Overall, the expanded GBC Model provides the best theoretical explanation for these phenomena, enhancing our understanding of the underlying mechanisms and the generalizability of prior research.\u0000 JEL Classifications: M40; M41.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49487043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stephen H. Fuller, Tracey J. Riley, Andrew C. Stuart
This paper reviews and synthesizes the behavioral literature on the various antecedents of auditor identities and explains, through social identity theory, how they influence audit outcomes. We discuss the four identities most relevant to auditors (client, firm, team, and profession), first reviewing the psychology literature to describe each of these identities and then reviewing the auditing literature to understand how these identities emerge and impact audit quality. Overall, we find that whereas all four auditor identities have been examined in the literature, much of the research focuses on client identification due to the risk to auditor independence and objectivity. Further, identities can impact audit quality positively or negatively depending on contextual factors. Also, we find few studies investigate whether multiple auditor identities interact to affect audit quality, which provides opportunities for future research with the hope that it can help the profession identify ways of improving audit outcomes.
{"title":"Antecedents and Outcomes of Auditor Identities: Evidence from the Behavioral Literature and Directions for Future Research","authors":"Stephen H. Fuller, Tracey J. Riley, Andrew C. Stuart","doi":"10.2308/bria-2022-019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2022-019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper reviews and synthesizes the behavioral literature on the various antecedents of auditor identities and explains, through social identity theory, how they influence audit outcomes. We discuss the four identities most relevant to auditors (client, firm, team, and profession), first reviewing the psychology literature to describe each of these identities and then reviewing the auditing literature to understand how these identities emerge and impact audit quality. Overall, we find that whereas all four auditor identities have been examined in the literature, much of the research focuses on client identification due to the risk to auditor independence and objectivity. Further, identities can impact audit quality positively or negatively depending on contextual factors. Also, we find few studies investigate whether multiple auditor identities interact to affect audit quality, which provides opportunities for future research with the hope that it can help the profession identify ways of improving audit outcomes.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47766923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study expands understanding of auditor relationships and turnover by introducing the measurement of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) to an audit setting. LMX—which considers overall quality of subordinates’ relationships with their supervisor—is well established in the management literature but has previously only been referred to as a theoretical construct in the audit literature. Utilizing a well-validated scale, we measure LMX with 167 practicing auditors. We find LMX with a single supervisor significantly impacts retention via organizational commitment. This finding is novel in the LMX literature given the unique audit setting where subordinates have multiple supervisors and transitory teams. In an exploratory analysis, we also find female subordinates form lower-quality relationships with supervisors, regardless of supervisor sex, which in turn can influence the impact of LMX on organizational commitment. Results demonstrate the value of measuring LMX in audit research and practically highlight the importance of fostering positive, strong auditor-supervisor relationships. Data Availability: Contact the authors. JEL Classifications: L2; M40; M42; M50.
本研究通过将Leader Member Exchange（LMX）的测量引入审计环境，扩展了对审计师关系和营业额的理解。LMX——考虑下属与上司关系的整体质量——在管理文献中已经得到了很好的确立，但以前在审计文献中只被称为一种理论结构。利用经过充分验证的量表，我们对167名执业审计师的LMX进行了测量。我们发现，只有一名主管的LMX会通过组织承诺显著影响留任。鉴于下属有多个主管和临时团队的独特审计环境，这一发现在LMX文献中是新颖的。在探索性分析中，我们还发现，无论主管性别如何，女性下属都会与主管形成较低质量的关系，这反过来会影响LMX对组织承诺的影响。研究结果证明了衡量LMX在审计研究中的价值，并在实践中强调了培养积极、牢固的审计师与监事关系的重要性。数据可用性：联系作者。JEL分类：L2；M40；M42；M50。
{"title":"The Impact of Supervisor Relationships on Auditor Turnover Intentions Using Leader-Member Exchange Theory","authors":"E. D. Almer, Nathan H. Cannon, Joleen Kremin","doi":"10.2308/bria-2022-017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2022-017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study expands understanding of auditor relationships and turnover by introducing the measurement of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) to an audit setting. LMX—which considers overall quality of subordinates’ relationships with their supervisor—is well established in the management literature but has previously only been referred to as a theoretical construct in the audit literature. Utilizing a well-validated scale, we measure LMX with 167 practicing auditors. We find LMX with a single supervisor significantly impacts retention via organizational commitment. This finding is novel in the LMX literature given the unique audit setting where subordinates have multiple supervisors and transitory teams. In an exploratory analysis, we also find female subordinates form lower-quality relationships with supervisors, regardless of supervisor sex, which in turn can influence the impact of LMX on organizational commitment. Results demonstrate the value of measuring LMX in audit research and practically highlight the importance of fostering positive, strong auditor-supervisor relationships.\u0000 Data Availability: Contact the authors.\u0000 JEL Classifications: L2; M40; M42; M50.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46429228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：