The Effect of Review Mode and Reviewer Preference on Auditors' Performance

核閱方式與核閱者立場對查核績效之影響

杜榮瑞(Rong-Ruey Duh) ； 林靖傑(Ching-Chieh Lin) ； 廖容翎(Jung-Ling Liao)

《會計評論》 63期 (2016/07) Pp. 47-76

https://doi.org/10.6552/JOAR.2016.63.2

摘要

本文探討查核過程中，核閱方式與核閱者立場等兩種解釋責任對查核績效的聯合影響，是否查核人員在電子核閱下能減少其策略性行為。經以78 位查核人員實驗後發現，在面對面核閱下，若受試者主管傾向懷疑客戶解釋，相對於主管傾向信任客戶，受試者對於應收帳款餘額評以較低程度允當表達，此種策略性態度移轉在電子核閱下並未減輕。此外，在面對面核閱下，懷疑組的受試者比信任組搜尋更多反向（更少正向）的查核證據，在電子核閱下，正向與反向證據量差距縮小。本文認為，核閱方式在查核人員傾向主管立場的行為中，具調節效果，但此調節效果僅存在於過程而非結果的解釋責任。

關鍵字

解釋責任 ； 核閱方式 ； 核閱者立場 ； 查核績效

並列摘要

This study examines the joint effect on auditor performance of two accountability features in the audit review process: review mode and reviewer preference. It investigates whether the auditors' strategic behavior can be mitigated under the e-mail review mode. Seventy-eight auditors participated in an experiment. Results suggest that, under the face-to-face review mode, auditors whose supervisors are known to be skeptical about client-provided explanations make lower likelihood assessment that the explanations can substantially account for the fluctuation of accounts receivable balance than auditors whose supervisors are known to trust the client-provided explanations. Such attitudinal shift is not reduced under the e-mail review mode. In addition, under the face-to-face review mode, auditors in the skeptical condition search for more opposing (less supporting) audit evidence than those in the credence condition. However, such differences diminish under the e-mail review mode. Our finding suggests that auditors' conformity to the reviewer preference can be moderated by review mode for process accountability but not outcome accountability.

並列關鍵字

Accountability ； Review mode ； Reviewer preference ； Auditor performance

參考文獻

Agoglia, C. P.,Brazel, J. F.,Hatfield, R. C.,Jackson, S. B.(2010).How do audit workpaper reviewers cope with the conflicting pressures of detecting misstatements and balancing client workloads?.AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory.29,27-43.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants=AICPA(2006).Planning and Supervision. Statement on Auditing Standards No.108.New York, N.Y.:AICPA.

Ashton, R. H.(1990).Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: Paradoxical effect of incentives, feedback, and justification.Journal of Accounting Research.28(Supplement),148-180.

Bible, L.,Graham, L.,Rosman, A.(2005).The effect of electronic audit environments on performance.Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance.20,27-42.

Brazel, J. F.,Agoglia, C. P.,Hatfield, R. C.(2004).Electronic versus face‐ to‐ face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors' performance.The Accounting Review.79,949-966.