How does depletion interact with auditors' skeptical dispositions to affect auditors' challenging of managers in negotiations?

IF 3.2 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Lori Shefchik Bhaskar, Tracie M. Majors, Adam Vitalis
{"title":"How does depletion interact with auditors' skeptical dispositions to affect auditors' challenging of managers in negotiations?","authors":"Lori Shefchik Bhaskar,&nbsp;Tracie M. Majors,&nbsp;Adam Vitalis","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.12891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We use multiple methods to examine how depletion and auditors' skeptical dispositions interact to affect auditors' challenging of managers in negotiations over financial statement amounts. We expect auditors are likely depleted from effortfully exercising self-regulation during the busy times when these negotiations occur. Individuals in a depleted state tilt toward natural, less effortful behaviors. Thus, we posit that the effects of depletion will diverge depending on the auditor's skeptical disposition—a determinant of how natural or effortful they will find the skeptical behaviors (e.g., challenging) versus client service behaviors (e.g., maintaining the client relationship and audit efficiency) required for negotiations. We predict that client service auditors (i.e., low skeptics) will challenge managers less in negotiations when depleted versus non-depleted, while high skeptic auditors will challenge more when depleted. We test this interactive prediction in an abstract experiment where we manipulate depletion and measure auditors' skeptical dispositions using trait skepticism. Findings support our predictions. We also develop a new measure of auditors' client service–skeptic disposition based on the skepticism literature that adds nuance to the traditional lower versus higher skeptic labels. In a second study, interviews with audit partners validate the realism of our depletion and client service–skeptic constructs and corroborate our experimental findings. Our study sheds light on depletion effects in auditors' negotiations with their clients and how the effects differ based on auditor personalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1911-3846.12891","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Accounting Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1911-3846.12891","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We use multiple methods to examine how depletion and auditors' skeptical dispositions interact to affect auditors' challenging of managers in negotiations over financial statement amounts. We expect auditors are likely depleted from effortfully exercising self-regulation during the busy times when these negotiations occur. Individuals in a depleted state tilt toward natural, less effortful behaviors. Thus, we posit that the effects of depletion will diverge depending on the auditor's skeptical disposition—a determinant of how natural or effortful they will find the skeptical behaviors (e.g., challenging) versus client service behaviors (e.g., maintaining the client relationship and audit efficiency) required for negotiations. We predict that client service auditors (i.e., low skeptics) will challenge managers less in negotiations when depleted versus non-depleted, while high skeptic auditors will challenge more when depleted. We test this interactive prediction in an abstract experiment where we manipulate depletion and measure auditors' skeptical dispositions using trait skepticism. Findings support our predictions. We also develop a new measure of auditors' client service–skeptic disposition based on the skepticism literature that adds nuance to the traditional lower versus higher skeptic labels. In a second study, interviews with audit partners validate the realism of our depletion and client service–skeptic constructs and corroborate our experimental findings. Our study sheds light on depletion effects in auditors' negotiations with their clients and how the effects differ based on auditor personalities.

Abstract Image

损耗如何与审计师的怀疑倾向相互作用,从而影响审计师在谈判中对管理者的挑战?
我们使用多种方法来检查损耗和审计师的怀疑倾向如何相互作用,以影响审计师在财务报表金额谈判中对管理人员的挑战。我们预计,在这些谈判发生的繁忙时期,审计师可能会因努力行使自我监管而筋疲力尽。处于枯竭状态的个体倾向于自然的、不那么费力的行为。因此,我们假设损耗的影响将根据审计师的怀疑倾向而有所不同——这决定了他们会发现谈判所需的怀疑行为(例如,挑战)与客户服务行为(例如,维护客户关系和审计效率)之间的自然或努力程度。我们预测,客户服务审核员(即低怀疑论者)在被耗尽与未被耗尽时,在谈判中会较少挑战经理,而高怀疑论者在被耗尽时,会挑战更多。我们在一个抽象的实验中测试了这种互动预测,在这个实验中,我们操纵损耗并使用特质怀疑主义来衡量审计师的怀疑倾向。研究结果支持了我们的预测。我们还根据怀疑论文献开发了一种新的衡量审计师客户服务怀疑倾向的方法,该方法在传统的低怀疑标签与高怀疑标签之间增加了细微差别。在第二项研究中,与审计合伙人的访谈验证了我们的枯竭和客户服务怀疑结构的现实性,并证实了我们的实验结果。我们的研究揭示了审计师与客户谈判的耗竭效应,以及这种效应如何根据审计师的个性而不同。
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
6.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) is the premiere research journal of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, which publishes leading- edge research that contributes to our understanding of all aspects of accounting"s role within organizations, markets or society. Canadian based, increasingly global in scope, CAR seeks to reflect the geographical and intellectual diversity in accounting research. To accomplish this, CAR will continue to publish in its traditional areas of excellence, while seeking to more fully represent other research streams in its pages, so as to continue and expand its tradition of excellence.
×
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