在客户询问设置中,多名审计师对欺骗检测的影响

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE Behavioral Research in Accounting Pub Date : 2018-03-01 DOI:10.2308/BRIA-51909
D. KipHolderness
{"title":"在客户询问设置中,多名审计师对欺骗检测的影响","authors":"D. KipHolderness","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-51909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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, and whether two auditors are more likely to act upon deceptive cues than a single auditor (as measured by subsequent audit judgments). Results of a path analysis suggest that deceptive behavioral cues are more apparent in the presence of two auditors, and that two auditors are more likely than a single auditor to successfully incorporate behavioral cues in...","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":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of Multiple Auditors on Deception Detection in a Client Inquiry Setting\",\"authors\":\"D. KipHolderness\",\"doi\":\"10.2308/BRIA-51909\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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, and whether two auditors are more likely to act upon deceptive cues than a single auditor (as measured by subsequent audit judgments). Results of a path analysis suggest that deceptive behavioral cues are more apparent in the presence of two auditors, and that two auditors are more likely than a single auditor to successfully incorporate behavioral cues in...\",\"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\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral Research in Accounting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-51909\",\"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-51909","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: 3

摘要

摘要:审计人员经常通过客户咨询来收集信息。在这些调查中,审计人员应该警惕来自客户人员的口头和非口头暗示,这些暗示可能表明欺诈行为。现存关于欺诈的文献表明,使用单一审计师进行客户询问的一般做法可能会限制审计师发现欺诈的能力。使用硕士水平的会计学生作为入门级审计师的代理,我研究了使用一名或两名审计师如何影响客户人员的行为线索(紧张和讨论),这些线索可能表明在询问期间存在欺骗行为,以及两名审计师是否比一名审计师更有可能根据欺骗性线索采取行动(通过随后的审计判断来衡量)。路径分析的结果表明,欺骗行为线索在两名审核员在场时更为明显,而且两名审核员比一名审核员更有可能成功地将行为线索纳入……
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
The Effect of Multiple Auditors on Deception Detection in a Client Inquiry Setting
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, and whether two auditors are more likely to act upon deceptive cues than a single auditor (as measured by subsequent audit judgments). Results of a path analysis suggest that deceptive behavioral cues are more apparent in the presence of two auditors, and that two auditors are more likely than a single auditor to successfully incorporate behavioral cues in...
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
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