IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v63y2023i3p3193-3215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of partners' known preferences on auditors' sceptical judgements: The moderating role of perceived social influence pressure

Author

Listed:
  • Sammy Xiaoyan Ying
  • Chris Patel
  • Aeson Luiz Dela Cruz

Abstract

We examine the moderating effect of auditors' perceived social influence pressure on the influence of partners' known preferences on auditors' sceptical judgements in China. We invoke social influence theory to provide complementary insights into the driving forces behind auditors' judgements, over and above the pressure arising from accountability. We hypothesise that the influence of partners' known preferences on auditors' sceptical judgements is stronger for auditors who perceive higher social influence pressure than those who perceive lower pressure. Our results support the hypothesis and establish the value of understanding auditors' perceived social influence pressure in managing partners' communication with audit teams.

Suggested Citation

  • Sammy Xiaoyan Ying & Chris Patel & Aeson Luiz Dela Cruz, 2023. "The influence of partners' known preferences on auditors' sceptical judgements: The moderating role of perceived social influence pressure," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3193-3215, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:63:y:2023:i:3:p:3193-3215
    DOI: 10.1111/acfi.13030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13030
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/acfi.13030?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. Florian Hoos & Jorien Louise Pruijssers & Michel W. Lander, 2019. "Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 563-575, May.
    2. Helen Brown-Liburd & Jeffrey Cohen & Greg Trompeter, 2013. "Effects of Earnings Forecasts and Heightened Professional Skepticism on the Outcomes of Client–Auditor Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(2), pages 311-325, August.
    3. Yujie Zhao & Nianhang Xu & Donghua Zhou & Kam C. Chan, 2020. "Audit partner rotation and negative information hoarding: evidence from China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(5), pages 4693-4722, December.
    4. Sally Gunz & Linda Thorne, 2015. "Erratum to: Introduction to the Special Issue on Tone at the Top," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 167-167, January.
    5. Jianlei Han & Jing He & Zheyao Pan & Jing Shi, 2018. "Twenty Years of Accounting and Finance Research on the Chinese Capital Market," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(4), pages 576-599, December.
    6. David T. Otley & Bernard J. Pierce, 1996. "Auditor time budget pressure: consequences and antecedents," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 9(1), pages 31-58, March.
    7. Yi Fei Gong & Sarah Kim & Noel Harding, 2014. "Elevating professional scepticism: An exploratory study into the impact of accountability pressure and knowledge of the superior’s preferences," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 29(8), pages 674-694, August.
    8. Carmen Olsen & Anna Gold, 2018. "Future research directions at the intersection between cognitive neuroscience research and auditors’ professional skepticism," Journal of Accounting Literature, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41(1), pages 127-141, March.
    9. Velina Popova, 2012. "Exploration of skepticism, client-specific experiences, and audit judgments," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 28(2), pages 140-160, December.
    10. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    11. Cynthia Williams Turner, 2001. "Accountability Demands and the Auditor’s Evidence Search Strategy: The Influence of Reviewer Preferences and the Nature of the Response (Belief vs. Action)," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 683-706, December.
    12. Luc Quadackers & Tom Groot & Arnold Wright, 2014. "Auditors’ Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 639-657, September.
    13. Sarah Kim & Ken T. Trotman & Neil Fargher, 2015. "The comparative effect of process and outcome accountability in enhancing professional scepticism," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 55(4), pages 1015-1040, December.
    14. Olsen, Carmen & Gold, Anna, 2018. "Future research directions at the intersection between cognitive neuroscience research and auditors’ professional skepticism," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 127-141.
    15. Jonathan H. Grenier, 2017. "Encouraging Professional Skepticism in the Industry Specialization Era," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 241-256, May.
    16. Rui Zhang & Raymond M. K. Wong & Gaoliang Tian & Mohan M. Fonseka, 2021. "Positive spillover effect and audit quality: a study of cancelling China’s dual audit system," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 205-239, March.
    17. Nolder, Christine J. & Kadous, Kathryn, 2018. "Grounding the professional skepticism construct in mindset and attitude theory: A way forward," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1-14.
    18. Mohammad Jahanzeb Khan & Noel Harding, 2020. "Why is trait scepticism not consistently reflected in state scepticism? An exploratory study into the role of aesthetic engagement," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 3743-3774, December.
    19. Treviño, Linda Klebe & Weaver, Gary R. & Brown, Michael E., 2008. "It’s Lovely at the Top: Hierarchical Levels, Identities, and Perceptions of Organizational Ethics," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 233-252, April.
    20. Lord, Alan T. & Todd DeZoort, F., 2001. "The impact of commitment and moral reasoning on auditors' responses to social influence pressure," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 215-235, April.
    21. Jeffrey R. Cohen & Gregory M. Trompeter, 1998. "An Examination of Factors Affecting Audit Practice Development," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 481-504, December.
    22. Sammy X. Ying & Chris Patel & Peipei Pan, 2020. "The influence of peer attitude and inherent scepticism on auditors’ sceptical judgments," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 179-202, February.
    23. Sally Gunz & Linda Thorne, 2015. "Introduction to the Special Issue on Tone at the Top," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 1-2, January.
    24. Mo, Phyllis L.L. & Rui, Oliver M. & Wu, Xi, 2015. "Auditors' going Concern Reporting in the pre- and post-bankruptcy Law Eras: Chinese Affiliates of Big 4 Versus Local Auditors," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-30.
    25. Lennox, Clive & Wu, Xi & Zhang, Tianyu, 2016. "The effect of audit adjustments on earnings quality: Evidence from China," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 545-562.
    26. Peecher, ME, 1996. "The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 125-140.
    27. Donna Bobek & Amy Hageman & Robin Radtke, 2015. "The Influence of Roles and Organizational Fit on Accounting Professionals’ Perceptions of their Firms’ Ethical Environment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 125-141, January.
    28. repec:eme:jal000:j.acclit.2018.03.006 is not listed on IDEAS
    29. repec:eme:aaaj00:09513579610109969 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Koch, Christopher & Weber, Martin & Wüstemann, Jens, 2007. "Can auditors be independent? : Experimental evidence," Papers 07-59, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    2. Sammy Xiaoyan Ying & Chris Patel, 2015. "The Influence of Partners? Views on Chinese Auditors? Judgments Related to Professional Scepticism," Proceedings of Business and Management Conferences 2304228, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    3. Peters, Christian P. H., 2023. "The microfoundations of audit quality," Other publications TiSEM 6a2b12a5-6060-4544-883b-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    5. Aziza Laguecir & Bernard Leca, 2022. "Organized Decoupling of Management Control Systems: An Exploratory Study of Traders’ Unethical Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 153-169, November.
    6. Jonathan H. Grenier, 2017. "Encouraging Professional Skepticism in the Industry Specialization Era," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 241-256, May.
    7. Yi (Dale) Fu & Noel Harding & David C. Hay & Mohammad Jahanzeb Khan & Tom Scott & Harj Singh & Sarka Stepankova & Nigar Sultana, 2023. "Comments of the AFAANZ Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee on Proposed International Standard on Auditing 500 (Revised) Audit Evidence," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4805-4812, December.
    8. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    9. Aghazadeh, Sanaz & Joe, Jennifer R., 2022. "Auditors' response to management confidence and misstatement risk," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    10. Jonathan Farrar & Dawn W. Massey & Errol Osecki & Linda Thorne, 2021. "The Association Between Vertical Equity and Presidential Voting Behavior and Taxpayers’ Compliance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 101-114, August.
    11. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    12. Dela Cruz, Aeson Luiz & Patel, Chris & Ying, Sammy & Pan, Peipei, 2020. "The relevance of professional skepticism to finance professionals’ Socially Responsible Investing decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    13. Mina Ličen & Sergeja Slapničar, 2022. "Can process accountability mitigate myopic biases? An experimental analysis," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-26, March.
    14. Dawn W. Massey, 2017. "Discussion of “Recognizing Ethical Issues: An Examination of Practicing Industry Accountants and Accounting Students”," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 277-283, May.
    15. Maciej Ciołek & Izabela Emerling, 2019. "Can We Shape Trait Professional Skepticism through University Accounting Programs? Evidence from Polish University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-30, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Jani Saastamoinen & Hannu Ojala & Kati Pajunen & Pontus Troberg, 2018. "Analyst Characteristics and the Level of Critical Perception of Goodwill Accounting," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(4), pages 538-555, December.
    18. Fakhroddin MohammadRezaei & Omid Faraji & Zabihollah Rezaee & Reza Gholami-Jamkarani & Mehdi Yari, 2024. "Substantive or symbolic compliance with regulation, audit fees and audit quality," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(1), pages 32-51, March.
    19. Olsen, Carmen & Gold, Anna, 2018. "Future research directions at the intersection between cognitive neuroscience research and auditors’ professional skepticism," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 127-141.
    20. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Knechel, W.R. & Wallage, P., 2008. "The Effect of Audit Standards on Fraud Consultation and Auditor Judgment," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 11687, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    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:acctfi:v:63:y:2023:i:3:p:3193-3215. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    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.