IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v68-69y2018ip42-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Staff auditors' proclivity for computer-mediated communication with clients and its effect on skeptical behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Bennett, G. Bradley
  • Hatfield, Richard C.

Abstract

A questioning nature and professional skepticism are fundamental requirements for auditors to conduct high quality audits and facilitate appropriate financial reporting. This study considers whether computer-mediated communication (CMC) reduces auditors' questioning during interactions with the client, compared to face-to-face (FTF) communication. We also examine how nonverbal cues commonly associated with deception affect auditors' skeptical behavior. Based on partner interviews and a survey comparing partners/managers with staff, we find that partners are concerned with the increased use of CMC for a variety of reasons, and that staff are more comfortable using CMC in a wider array of audit settings than are managers and partners. Experimental results based on Social Presence Theory (SPT) demonstrate that FTF interactions include more content and follow-up questions (a key aspect of skepticism) than CMC. Additionally, auditors engage in fewer relationship-building statements when communicating electronically. Also consistent with SPT, auditors communicating electronically request more documentation, though they ask fewer questions in general. Finally, using a unique measure of auditor skepticism based on revealed behavior, we find that auditors were more skeptical if the controller displayed nonverbal cues associated with deception, than when these specific cues were not present or not observable (CMC). Our findings suggest that communication mediums with reduced channels (e.g., no audio or visual channels), such as CMC, are less appropriate for complex and unique problem solving tasks. When paired with the concern that younger staff auditors are more likely to engage in CMC, skeptical behavior could be stunted in the modern audit environment, impacting financial statement quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Bennett, G. Bradley & Hatfield, Richard C., 2018. "Staff auditors' proclivity for computer-mediated communication with clients and its effect on skeptical behavior," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 68, pages 42-57.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:68-69:y:2018:i::p:42-57
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2018.05.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368218302423
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2018.05.003?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Storper & Anthony J. Venables, 2004. "Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 351-370, August.
    2. Valley, Kathleen L. & Moag, Joseph & Bazerman, Max H., 1998. "'A matter of trust':: Effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 211-238, February.
    3. Pentland, Brian T., 1993. "Getting comfortable with the numbers: Auditing and the micro-production of macro-order," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(7-8), pages 605-620.
    4. Saiewitz, Aaron & Kida, Thomas, 2018. "The effects of an auditor's communication mode and professional tone on client responses to audit inquiries," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 33-43.
    5. 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.
    6. Richard L. Daft & Robert H. Lengel, 1986. "Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 554-571, May.
    7. Kimberly D. Westermann & Jean C. Bedard & Christine E. Earley, 2015. "Learning the “Craft†of Auditing: A Dynamic View of Auditors' On†the†Job Learning," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 864-896, September.
    8. Jessen L. Hobson & William J. Mayew & Mark E. Peecher & Mohan Venkatachalam, 2017. "Improving Experienced Auditors’ Detection of Deception in CEO Narratives," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(5), pages 1137-1166, December.
    9. Baltes, Boris B. & Dickson, Marcus W. & Sherman, Michael P. & Bauer, Cara C. & LaGanke, Jacqueline S., 2002. "Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 156-179, January.
    10. Chen, Qiu & Kelly, Khim & Salterio, Steven E., 2012. "Do changes in audit actions and attitudes consistent with increased auditor scepticism deter aggressive earnings management? An experimental investigation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 95-115.
    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. Madher E. Hamdallah & Salem Al-N’eimat & Anan F. Srouji & Manaf Al-Okaily & Khaldoon Albitar, 2022. "The Effect of Apparent and Intellectual Sustainability Independence on the Credibility Gap of the Accounting Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-22, November.
    2. Aghazadeh, Sanaz & Joe, Jennifer R., 2022. "Auditors' response to management confidence and misstatement risk," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. Dongshan Ma & Shengqiang Zhang & Jiayu Zhao, 2022. "The High-Speed Railway Opening and Audit Fees: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-19, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Parker, Lee D. & Schmitz, Jana, 2022. "The Reinvented accounting firm office: Impression management for efficiency, client relations and cost control," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    6. Ethan LaMothe & Donna Bobek, 2020. "Are Individuals More Willing to Lie to a Computer or a Human? Evidence from a Tax Compliance Setting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 157-180, November.

    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. Rockmann, Kevin W. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 2008. "To be or not to be trusted: The influence of media richness on defection and deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 106-122, November.
    2. Tangirala, Subrahmaniam & Alge, Bradley J., 2006. "Reactions to unfair events in computer-mediated groups: A test of uncertainty management theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Sandy Jap & Diana C. Robertson & Ryan Hamilton, 2011. "The Dark Side of Rapport: Agent Misbehavior Face-to-Face and Online," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1610-1622, January.
    4. Enrique Claver-Cortés & Bartolomé Marco-Lajara & Pedro Seva-Larrosa & Lorena Ruiz-Fernández & Eduardo Sánchez-García, 2020. "Explanatory Factors of Entrepreneurship in Food and Beverage Clusters in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-22, July.
    5. Aros, Susan K. & Gibbons, Deborah E., 2018. "Exploring communication media options in an inter-organizational disaster response coordination network using agent-based simulation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 451-465.
    6. Ingmar Geiger, 2014. "Media Effects on the Formation of Negotiator Satisfaction: The Example of Face-to-Face and Text Based Electronically Mediated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 735-763, July.
    7. Bryan K. Church & Narisa Tianjing Dai & Xi (Jason) Kuang & Xuejiao Liu, 2020. "The Role of Auditor Narcissism in Auditor–Client Negotiations: Evidence from China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1756-1787, September.
    8. Hambley, Laura A. & O'Neill, Thomas A. & Kline, Theresa J.B., 2007. "Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 1-20, May.
    9. Lionel P. Robert & Alan R. Dennis & Manju K. Ahuja, 2008. "Social Capital and Knowledge Integration in Digitally Enabled Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 314-334, September.
    10. Michael Ahearne & Yashar Atefi & Son K. Lam & Mohsen Pourmasoudi, 2022. "The future of buyer–seller interactions: a conceptual framework and research agenda," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 22-45, January.
    11. Emily E. Griffith, 2020. "Auditors, Specialists, and Professional Jurisdiction in Audits of Fair Values†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 245-276, March.
    12. Thomas A. O’Neill & Samantha E. Hancock & Katarina Zivkov & Nicole L. Larson & Stephanie J. Law, 2016. "Team Decision Making in Virtual and Face-to-Face Environments," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 995-1020, September.
    13. Tinsley, Catherine H. & O'Connor, Kathleen M. & Sullivan, Brandon A., 2002. "Tough guys finish last: the perils of a distributive reputation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 621-642, July.
    14. Mareike Schoop & Frank Köhne & Dirk Staskiewicz & Markus Voeth & Uta Herbst, 2008. "The antecedents of renegotiations in practice—an exploratory analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 127-139, March.
    15. Ahammad, Mohammad Faisal & Tarba, Shlomo Y. & Liu, Yipeng & Glaister, Keith W. & Cooper, Cary L., 2016. "Exploring the factors influencing the negotiation process in cross-border M&A," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 445-457.
    16. Ingmar Geiger, 2020. "From Letter to Twitter: A Systematic Review of Communication Media in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 207-250, April.
    17. Aghazadeh, Sanaz & Joe, Jennifer R., 2022. "Auditors' response to management confidence and misstatement risk," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    18. Gajendran, Ravi S. & Loewenstein, Jeffrey & Choi, Hyeran & Ozgen, Sibel, 2022. "Hidden costs of text-based electronic communication on complex reasoning tasks: Motivation maintenance and impaired downstream performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    19. Laurence Daoust & Bertrand Malsch, 2020. "When the Client Is A Former Auditor: Auditees' Expert Knowledge and Social Capital as Threats to Staff Auditors' Operational Independence†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1333-1369, September.
    20. Madher E. Hamdallah & Salem Al-N’eimat & Anan F. Srouji & Manaf Al-Okaily & Khaldoon Albitar, 2022. "The Effect of Apparent and Intellectual Sustainability Independence on the Credibility Gap of the Accounting Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-22, November.

    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:eee:aosoci:v:68-69:y:2018:i::p:42-57. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.