IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/joares/v55y2017i4p963-994.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prompting the Benefit of the Doubt: The Joint Effect of Auditor‐Client Social Bonds and Measurement Uncertainty on Audit Adjustments

Author

Listed:
  • STEVEN J. KACHELMEIER
  • BEN W. VAN LANDUYT

Abstract

We design an incentivized experiment to test whether measurement uncertainty elevates the risk that social bonds between auditors and reporters compromise audit adjustments. Results indicate that, when audit evidence is characterized by some residual uncertainty, the adjustments our auditor‐participants require are sensitive to whether auditors have an opportunity to form a modest but friendly social bond with reporters. In contrast, although auditors do not adjust fully even when misstatements are known with certainty, social bonding has no effect in this scenario. Accordingly, our experiment contributes beyond the main effects of social bonding and measurement uncertainty demonstrated in prior research by showing that these forces interact. A practical implication is that regulators and practitioners should consider both the technical and the social challenges facing audits of complex estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven J. Kachelmeier & Ben W. Van Landuyt, 2017. "Prompting the Benefit of the Doubt: The Joint Effect of Auditor‐Client Social Bonds and Measurement Uncertainty on Audit Adjustments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 963-994, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:55:y:2017:i:4:p:963-994
    DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.12171
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12171
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1475-679X.12171?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily E. Griffith & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Kathryn Kadous & Donald Young, 2015. "Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 49-77, March.
    2. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    3. Zimbelman, MF & Waller, WS, 1999. "An experimental investigation of auditor-auditee interaction under ambiguity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37, pages 135-155.
    4. Shibano, T, 1990. "Assessing Audit Risk From Errors And Irregularities," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28, pages 110-140.
    5. Salterio, S. & Koonce, L., 1997. "The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 573-587, August.
    6. Jeremy B. Griffin, 2014. "The Effects of Uncertainty and Disclosure on Auditors' Fair Value Materiality Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1165-1193, December.
    7. Moers, Frank, 2005. "Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 67-80, January.
    8. Paul K. Chaney & Kirk L. Philipich, 2002. "Shredded Reputation: The Cost of Audit Failure," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 1221-1245, September.
    9. Michael Gibbins & Steven Salterio & Alan Webb, 2001. "Evidence About Auditor–Client Management Negotiation Concerning Client’s Financial Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 535-563, December.
    10. Iris Bohnet & Fiona Greig & Benedikt Herrmann & Richard Zeckhauser, 2008. "Betrayal Aversion: Evidence from Brazil, China, Oman, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 294-310, March.
    11. Rasso, Jason Tyler, 2015. "Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 44-55.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dan Dacian Cuzdriorean, 2018. "Auditing Research: A Review Of Recent Research Advances," Eurasian Journal of Economics and Finance, Eurasian Publications, vol. 6(4), pages 14-26.
    2. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Zachary T. Kowaleski & Brian W. Mayhew & Amy C. Tegeler, 2018. "The Impact of Consulting Services on Audit Quality: An Experimental Approach," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 673-711, May.
    4. Abdel-Rahim, Heba Y. & Lorenz, Melanie P. & Zaher, Angie Abdel, 2022. "How do cultural difference, cultural exposure, and CQ affect interpretations of trust from contract choices? Evidence from dyadic cross-country experiments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. W. Brooke Elliott & Stephanie M. Grant & Frank D. Hodge, 2018. "Negative News and Investor Trust: The Role of $Firm and #CEO Twitter Use," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(5), pages 1483-1519, December.
    6. Jessen L. Hobson & Matthew T. Stern & Aaron F. Zimbelman, 2020. "The Benefit of Mean Auditors: The Influence of Social Interaction and the Dark Triad on Unjustified Auditor Trust," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 1217-1247, June.
    7. Lin, Hsiao-Lun & Yen, Ai-Ru, 2022. "Auditor rotation, key audit matter disclosures, and financial reporting quality," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Pinto, Inês & Morais, Ana Isabel & Quick, Reiner, 2020. "The impact of the precision of accounting standards on the expanded auditor’s report in the European Union," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    4. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    5. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    6. Carolyn Mactavish & Susan McCracken & Regan N. Schmidt, 2018. "External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 387-426, September.
    7. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    8. Emett, Scott A. & Libby, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2018. "PCAOB guidance and audits of fair values for Level 2 investments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 57-72.
    9. Gerry Gallery & Emerson Cooper & John Sweeting, 2008. "Corporate Disclosure Quality: Lessons from Australian Companies on the Impact of Adopting International Financial Reporting Standards," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 18(3), pages 257-273, September.
    10. Numata, Shingo & Takeda, Fumiko, 2010. "Stock market reactions to audit failure in Japan: The case of Kanebo and ChuoAoyama," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 175-199, June.
    11. Stephan A. Fafatas, 2010. "Auditor conservatism following audit failures," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(7), pages 639-658, July.
    12. Aaron Saiewitz & Elaine (Ying) Wang, 2020. "Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross‐National Auditor Judgment Differences," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1854-1881, September.
    13. Ray Ball, 2009. "Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 277-323, May.
    14. Peecher, Mark E. & Schwartz, Rachel & Solomon, Ira, 2007. "It's all about audit quality: Perspectives on strategic-systems auditing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 463-485.
    15. Heltzer, Wendy & Mindak, Mary P. & Shelton, Sandra W., 2012. "The relation between aggressive financial reporting and aggressive tax reporting: Evidence from ex-Arthur Andersen clients," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 96-104.
    16. Ashley A. Austin & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Michael A. Ricci, 2020. "Improving Auditors' Consideration of Evidence Contradicting Management's Estimate Assumptions†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 696-716, June.
    17. Bugeja, Martin, 2011. "Takeover premiums and the perception of auditor independence and reputation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 278-293.
    18. repec:agr:journl:v:2(602):y:2015:i:2(602):p:151-162 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Koch, Christopher & Weber, Martin & Wüstemann, Jens, 2007. "Can auditors be independent? : Experimental evidence," Papers 07-59, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    20. Li, Chan & Raman, K.K. & Sun, Lili & Wu, Da, 2017. "The effect of ambiguity in an auditing standard on auditor independence: Evidence from nonaudit fees and SOX 404 opinions," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-51.
    21. Loréa Baïada-Hirèche & Ghislaine Garmilis, 2016. "Accounting Professionals’ Ethical Judgment and the Institutional Disciplinary Context: A French–US Comparison," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 139(4), pages 639-659, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:55:y:2017:i:4:p:963-994. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-8456 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.