审计问责制实验研究述评

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE Behavioral Research in Accounting Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.2308/bria-2021-050
Amy M. Donnelly, David P. Donnelly
{"title":"审计问责制实验研究述评","authors":"Amy M. Donnelly, David P. Donnelly","doi":"10.2308/bria-2021-050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Accountability research in auditing has spanned several decades, highlighting its importance in better understanding auditors’ judgments and decision-making processes. This study provides a systematic review of experimental audit research on accountability. We identify how previous research findings relate to theory, offer design considerations for future research, and provide future research opportunities. Relevant research was identified utilizing two databases. After removing duplicate records and applying exclusion criteria, a final population of 47 manuscripts is included in this review. We find that prior research results largely align with Tetlock’s social contingency model of accountability. This research stream is ripe with opportunities to enhance our understanding of accountability in auditing. Avenues for future research include investigating auditors’ responses to multiple accountability pressures, developing a measure of accountability, better understanding accountability in a post-COVID work environment, and considering ways to improve audit quality by shifting from a punitive to a more rewards-based system. Data Availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the database sources cited in the text.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review of Experimental Research on Accountability in Auditing\",\"authors\":\"Amy M. Donnelly, David P. Donnelly\",\"doi\":\"10.2308/bria-2021-050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Accountability research in auditing has spanned several decades, highlighting its importance in better understanding auditors’ judgments and decision-making processes. This study provides a systematic review of experimental audit research on accountability. We identify how previous research findings relate to theory, offer design considerations for future research, and provide future research opportunities. Relevant research was identified utilizing two databases. After removing duplicate records and applying exclusion criteria, a final population of 47 manuscripts is included in this review. We find that prior research results largely align with Tetlock’s social contingency model of accountability. This research stream is ripe with opportunities to enhance our understanding of accountability in auditing. Avenues for future research include investigating auditors’ responses to multiple accountability pressures, developing a measure of accountability, better understanding accountability in a post-COVID work environment, and considering ways to improve audit quality by shifting from a punitive to a more rewards-based system. Data Availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the database sources cited in the text.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral Research in Accounting\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral Research in Accounting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2021-050\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2021-050","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: 1

摘要

审计问责制研究已经有几十年的历史了,它对更好地理解审计人员的判断和决策过程具有重要意义。本研究对问责制的实验审计研究进行了系统回顾。我们确定以前的研究结果与理论的关系,为未来的研究提供设计考虑,并提供未来的研究机会。利用两个数据库确定了相关研究。在删除重复记录并应用排除标准后,本综述最终纳入了47篇稿件。我们发现先前的研究结果与Tetlock的社会权变问责模型基本一致。这一研究方向为加强我们对审计问责制的理解提供了成熟的机会。未来研究的途径包括调查审计人员对多重问责压力的反应,制定问责制措施,更好地理解后covid工作环境中的问责制,以及考虑通过从惩罚性制度转向更加基于奖励的制度来提高审计质量的方法。数据可用性:支持本研究结果的数据可从文中引用的数据库来源获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Systematic Review of Experimental Research on Accountability in Auditing
ABSTRACT Accountability research in auditing has spanned several decades, highlighting its importance in better understanding auditors’ judgments and decision-making processes. This study provides a systematic review of experimental audit research on accountability. We identify how previous research findings relate to theory, offer design considerations for future research, and provide future research opportunities. Relevant research was identified utilizing two databases. After removing duplicate records and applying exclusion criteria, a final population of 47 manuscripts is included in this review. We find that prior research results largely align with Tetlock’s social contingency model of accountability. This research stream is ripe with opportunities to enhance our understanding of accountability in auditing. Avenues for future research include investigating auditors’ responses to multiple accountability pressures, developing a measure of accountability, better understanding accountability in a post-COVID work environment, and considering ways to improve audit quality by shifting from a punitive to a more rewards-based system. Data Availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the database sources cited in the text.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Relative Performance Information and Rule-Breaking: The Moderating Effect of Group Identity In All Fairness: A Meta-Analysis of the Tax Fairness–Tax Compliance Literature I’m Working Hard, but It’s Hardly Working: The Consequences of Motivating Employee Effort That Fails to Achieve Performance Targets Auditor Materiality Disclosures and Investor Trust: How to Address Conditional Risks of Disclosure Mandates The Conservatism Principle and Asymmetric Preferences over Reporting Errors
×
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