.png){kind=icon}
返回
Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1111/1911-3846.12509.png)
.png){kind=icon}
原文求助.png){kind=icon}
分享.png){kind=icon}
收藏
摘要
En 中文
The current audit environment encourages auditors to conduct defensive auditing procedures in lieu of using new, innovative, and potentially more effective audit procedures, due to concerns these procedures may be second-guessed in litigation or by audit inspectors such as the PCAOB. As a result, auditors may prefer traditional generally accepted procedures over innovative procedures that are potentially more effective. We test recent proposals that an Audit Judgment Rule (AJR) encourages the use of innovative, and potentially more effective, audit procedures analogous to the similar Business Judgment Rule that affords legal protections to corporate directors. Under an AJR, litigators or audit inspectors could not second-guess auditor judgments, even if they perceive that alternate judgments would have ordinarily been reached, provided the auditor's judgment was made in good faith and in a rigorous manner. However, the AJR's requirements that auditors must defend the rigor of their innovative judgments could potentially backfire and lead auditors to select more traditional procedures. Under the framework of goal activation theory, we conduct an experiment with audit managers and seniors and find that an AJR makes auditors less likely to select innovative audit procedures, particularly when audit risk is high. They do so despite believing the innovative procedures to be more effective than the traditional procedures. Findings from a supplementary experiment with experienced auditors further suggest that national office affirmation of the reasonableness of the procedures does not help overcome this effect. Overall, our findings suggest that an AJR may have the unintended consequence of further increasing auditors' focus on more traditional, and potentially less effective, audit procedures.
Keyword:
PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICISM
RISK
MANAGERS
CLIENT
PERSPECTIVES
ACCEPTANCE
DECISIONS
STANDARDS
QUALITY
AI总结
对已上传原文的论文进行重点信息的提取，主要内容包括：简要概述、研究摘要、背景介绍、关键亮点、图文解析、展望与总结。
期刊
IF:
3.8
论文数:
1.5K
被引数:
8.9K
机构
引用论文
The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members' professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates审计判断规则对审计委员会成员职业怀疑的影响: 以会计估计为例
PREAI
分享收藏Disclaiming the Future: Investigating the Impact of Cautionary Disclaimers on Investor Judgments Before and After Experiencing Economic Loss.png)
ACCOUNTING REVIEW
ACCOUNTING REVIEWIF4.4
PREAI
分享收藏
An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions财务报表审计师的受托责任框架及相关研究问题
PREAI
分享收藏The Effects of Auditor Affinity for Client and Perceived Client Pressure on Auditor Proposed AdjustmentsACCOUNTING REVIEW
ACCOUNTING REVIEWIF4.4
PREAI
分享收藏
查看更多内容