Email versus In-Person Audit Inquiry: Recent Research and Additional Survey Data

IF 0.8 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Aaron Saiewitz
{"title":"Email versus In-Person Audit Inquiry: Recent Research and Additional Survey Data","authors":"Aaron Saiewitz","doi":"10.2308/CIIA-52267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Recent research suggests that an auditor's choice to conduct audit inquiry via email versus in person can adversely impact both auditor and client behavior. In this study, I review recent research on this important topic, and I present additional survey-based evidence that describes how clients perceive auditor email versus in-person inquiries. I find that clients generally view auditors' in-person requests as more important and urgent than email requests, and clients feel they can more carefully craft their responses to support their company's preferred reporting position via email compared to in person. Further, clients expect that auditors will question an aggressive response more quickly in person than over email. Although audit partners have expressed concerns that email communication could impede auditor-client relationship building, I find no differences in how much clients like the auditor or in clients' willingness to work again with the auditor after receiving an email or in-person request. However, recent research suggests that email requests can lead to more negative feelings toward the auditor, which could affect the auditor-client relationship over time. I discuss implications for audit firms and provide suggestions for future research.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2308/CIIA-52267","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Issues in Auditing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/CIIA-52267","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: 10

Abstract

Recent research suggests that an auditor's choice to conduct audit inquiry via email versus in person can adversely impact both auditor and client behavior. In this study, I review recent research on this important topic, and I present additional survey-based evidence that describes how clients perceive auditor email versus in-person inquiries. I find that clients generally view auditors' in-person requests as more important and urgent than email requests, and clients feel they can more carefully craft their responses to support their company's preferred reporting position via email compared to in person. Further, clients expect that auditors will question an aggressive response more quickly in person than over email. Although audit partners have expressed concerns that email communication could impede auditor-client relationship building, I find no differences in how much clients like the auditor or in clients' willingness to work again with the auditor after receiving an email or in-person request. However, recent research suggests that email requests can lead to more negative feelings toward the auditor, which could affect the auditor-client relationship over time. I discuss implications for audit firms and provide suggestions for future research.
电子邮件与面对面审计查询:最近的研究和额外的调查数据
最近的研究表明,审计师选择通过电子邮件而不是亲自进行审计调查,会对审计师和客户的行为产生不利影响。在这项研究中,我回顾了最近关于这一重要主题的研究,并提出了其他基于调查的证据,描述了客户如何看待审计师的电子邮件和面对面的询问。我发现,客户通常认为审计师的当面请求比电子邮件请求更重要、更紧迫,而且客户觉得,与当面请求相比,他们可以更仔细地通过电子邮件做出回应,以支持公司的首选报告立场。此外,客户预计审计人员会当面比通过电子邮件更快地质疑积极的回应。尽管审计合作伙伴表示担心电子邮件沟通可能会阻碍审计师与客户关系的建立,但我发现客户对审计师的好感程度,以及客户在收到电子邮件或当面请求后再次与审计师合作的意愿没有差异。然而,最近的研究表明,电子邮件请求会导致对审计师产生更多的负面情绪,随着时间的推移,这可能会影响审计师与客户的关系。我讨论了对审计公司的影响,并为未来的研究提供了建议。
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
Current Issues in Auditing
Current Issues in Auditing BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
19
×
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