审前准备因素如何影响审计诉讼结果:来自审计诉讼人的见解

Eldar Maksymov, Mark E. Peecher, Jeffrey Pickerd, Yuepin Zhou
{"title":"审前准备因素如何影响审计诉讼结果:来自审计诉讼人的见解","authors":"Eldar Maksymov, Mark E. Peecher, Jeffrey Pickerd, Yuepin Zhou","doi":"10.2308/tar-2021-0305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Research indicates that auditors have an impoverished understanding of trial preparation factors that, independent of audit quality, can significantly elevate audit litigation risk. As the scholarly literature sheds little insight about the nature and implications of these factors, we identify what factors audit litigators consider in trial preparation, how they expect these factors to affect litigation outcomes, and how they attempt to leverage these factors. To do so, we interview 39 audit litigators, who identify factors germane to trial venues, jury pools, and case arguments. Guided by the elaboration likelihood model, we construct a framework that predicts these factors influence litigation outcomes by changing jurors’ motivation and/or capability to elaborate. Importantly, we find that litigators who defend (sue) auditors strategically maneuver these factors to increase (decrease) the likelihood of higher juror elaboration, because higher elaboration is favorable to auditors. We discuss implications of our results for practice and research. JEL Classifications: K22; K40; K41; M4; M41; M42.","PeriodicalId":22240,"journal":{"name":"The Accounting Review","volume":"20 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Trial Preparation Factors Influence Audit Litigation Outcomes: Insights from Audit Litigators\",\"authors\":\"Eldar Maksymov, Mark E. Peecher, Jeffrey Pickerd, Yuepin Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.2308/tar-2021-0305\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Research indicates that auditors have an impoverished understanding of trial preparation factors that, independent of audit quality, can significantly elevate audit litigation risk. As the scholarly literature sheds little insight about the nature and implications of these factors, we identify what factors audit litigators consider in trial preparation, how they expect these factors to affect litigation outcomes, and how they attempt to leverage these factors. To do so, we interview 39 audit litigators, who identify factors germane to trial venues, jury pools, and case arguments. Guided by the elaboration likelihood model, we construct a framework that predicts these factors influence litigation outcomes by changing jurors’ motivation and/or capability to elaborate. Importantly, we find that litigators who defend (sue) auditors strategically maneuver these factors to increase (decrease) the likelihood of higher juror elaboration, because higher elaboration is favorable to auditors. We discuss implications of our results for practice and research. JEL Classifications: K22; K40; K41; M4; M41; M42.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Accounting Review\",\"volume\":\"20 3\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Accounting Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2021-0305\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Accounting Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2021-0305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究表明,审计人员对审前准备因素的认识不足,而审前准备因素与审计质量无关,会显著提高审计诉讼风险。由于学术文献对这些因素的性质和影响知之甚少,我们确定了审计诉讼律师在审判准备中考虑的因素,他们如何期望这些因素影响诉讼结果,以及他们如何试图利用这些因素。为此,我们采访了39名审计诉讼律师,他们确定了与审判地点、陪审团和案件辩论相关的因素。在阐述可能性模型的指导下,我们构建了一个框架来预测这些因素通过改变陪审员的动机和/或阐述能力来影响诉讼结果。重要的是,我们发现为审计师辩护(起诉)的诉讼律师策略性地操纵这些因素,以增加(减少)陪审员更详细阐述的可能性,因为更详细阐述对审计师有利。我们讨论了我们的结果对实践和研究的意义。JEL分类:K22;K40;K41;M4;M41;M42。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Trial Preparation Factors Influence Audit Litigation Outcomes: Insights from Audit Litigators
ABSTRACT Research indicates that auditors have an impoverished understanding of trial preparation factors that, independent of audit quality, can significantly elevate audit litigation risk. As the scholarly literature sheds little insight about the nature and implications of these factors, we identify what factors audit litigators consider in trial preparation, how they expect these factors to affect litigation outcomes, and how they attempt to leverage these factors. To do so, we interview 39 audit litigators, who identify factors germane to trial venues, jury pools, and case arguments. Guided by the elaboration likelihood model, we construct a framework that predicts these factors influence litigation outcomes by changing jurors’ motivation and/or capability to elaborate. Importantly, we find that litigators who defend (sue) auditors strategically maneuver these factors to increase (decrease) the likelihood of higher juror elaboration, because higher elaboration is favorable to auditors. We discuss implications of our results for practice and research. JEL Classifications: K22; K40; K41; M4; M41; M42.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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