A Systematic Review of Experimental Research on Accountability in Auditing

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Amy M. Donnelly, David P. Donnelly
{"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}
引用次数: 1

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.
审计问责制实验研究述评
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
11
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信