下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
［1］王登峰、崔红，2006，行为的跨情境一致性及人格与行为的关系——对人格内涵及其中西方差异的理论与实证分析，《心理学报》，第38卷第4期，第543—552页。
［2］杨明增、张继勋，2007，审计判断中的锚定效应研究，《审计研究》，第4期，第43—47页。
［3］张继勋，2002，审计判断研究：回顾与前瞻，《审计研究》，第1期，第17—21页。
［4］张继勋、杨明增，2008，审计判断中代表性启发法下的偏误研究——来自中国的实验证据，《会计研究》，第1期，第73—80页。
［5］中国证监会上市公司监管部，2005，《上市公司2004年年报事后审核分析报告集》。
［6］Agoglia, C.P., T.Kida and D.M. Hanno, 2003, The effects of alternative justification memos on the judgments of audit reviewees and reviewers, Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 33—46.
［7］Ashton, R.H., 1974, An experimental study of internal control judgments, Journal of Accounting Research , 12(1), 143—157.
［8］Ashton, R.H.and S.S.Kramer, 1980, Students as surrogates in behavioral accounting research: Some evidence, Journal of Accounting Research , 18(1), 1—15.
［9］Figueredo, A.J., J.A.Sefcek, G.Vásquez, B.H.Brumbach, J.E.King and W.J.Jacobs, 2005, Evolutionary personality psychology.In Buss, D.M.,(Ed.), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp.851—877).Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
［10］Figueredo, A.J., P.R.Gladden, G.Vásquez, P.S.A.Wolf and D.N.Jones, 2009, Evolutionary theories of personality.In Corr, P.J., & Matthews, G.,(Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology: Part IV.Biological Perspectives (pp.265—274).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
［11］Fogarty, T.J., 1996, The imagery and reality of peer review in the U.S.: Insights from institutional theory, Accounting, Organizations and Society , 21(2/3), 243—267.
［12］Gibbins, M., S.Salterio and A.Webb, 2001, Evidence about auditor-client management negotiation concerning client's financial reporting, Journal of Accounting Research , 39(3), 535—563.
［13］Lennox, C., 2005, Audit quality and executive officers' affiliations with CPA firms, Journal of Accounting and Economics , 39(2), 201—231.
［14］Libby, R.and J.Luft, 1993, Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment, Accounting, Organizations and Society , 18(5), 425—450.
［15］Menon, K.and D.D.Williams, 2004, Former audit partners and abnormal accruals, The Accounting Review , 79(4), 1095—1118.
［16］Mischel, W., Y.Shoda and R.E.Smith, 2004, Introduction to Personality: Toward An Integration , 7th edn.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
［17］Nelson, M.and H.T.Tan, 2005, Judgment and decision making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 24 (Supplement), 41—71.
［18］Shaw, M.and P.Costanzo, 1982, Theories of Social Psychology (2nd ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill.
［19］Smith, M., 1999, Personality issues and their impact on accounting and auditing, Managerial Auditing Journal , 14(9), 453—460.
［20］Tsui, J.S.L.and F.A.Gul, 1996, Auditors' behaviour in an audit conflict situation: A research note on the role of locus of control and ethical reasoning, Accounting, Organizations and Society , 21, 41—51.
［21］Zimbardo, P.G., 2007, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil .New York: Random House.
Abstract Objective assessment of auditor's work helps to improve audit quality and the environment of public accounting profession.The assessment of auditor's work often involves peer auditors and external parties such as regulators, investors, and the common public. During an audit, the auditor and the client management may have different judgments about the same accounting issue, which could be resolved through negotiation(Gibbins et al., 2001). The third party, however, need to make his/her own judgment to assess the auditor's work.
Standard setters and regulators normally require the accounting standards being interpreted and applied consistently among accounting and auditing practitioners. This suggests that such interpretations and judgments should be consistent both among individuals and within each individual(either as an auditor, a client manager, or a third-party assessor). Specifically, an underlying assumption is that each individual has his/her very own judgment given an accounting issue.
In prior accounting judgment literature, researchers have attempted to understand the differences in accounting judgments and attributed such differences to cross-sectional differences in cognitive ability, knowledge, environment, incentive, and personality(Libby and Luft, 1993; Smith, 1999; Nelson and Tan, 2005). For the same individual, the literature also suggests that the judgment is quite stable over time(Ashton, 1974). However, the evidence is confined to judgments made by individuals acting in a single role(e.g., an auditor). It is not known whether the conclusion holds if an individual makes judgments across situations(or even confrontational roles).
In personality psychology, it is one of the most hotly debated topics that whether an individual's personality is consistent over time or across situations(Figueredo et al., 2005, p.858). There are two incentives inside an individual, i.e., inner consistency and situational adaptation; while the external behavior of an individual is affected simultaneously by these two motives. When the inner consistency motive is stronger(weaker)than the situational adaptation motive, an individual is more likely to exhibit cross-situational consistency(inconsistency). In the area of accounting judgment research, no direct empirical evidence has been available regarding the existence of cross-situational(in)consistency.
Using experimental questionnaires collected from 261 third-year undergraduates, our study shows that a subject expresses more support to the auditee(auditor)when the subject role-plays a preparer(an auditor)of financial information. Our evidence suggests that with regard to the accounting judgment behavior, the incentive for adapting to the environment dominates the incentive for inner consistency, thus leading to an individual's cross-situational inconsistency.
This study contributes to prior literature in a number of ways. First, it helps to better understand the characteristics of accounting judgment by providing a psychological interpretation. Second, we demonstrate the potentially fundamental challenge to accounting standard implementation by showing a lack of consistent accounting interpretation even within a single individual. Third, our evidence suggests that an objective assessment of auditor's work may be difficult because the assessor's judgment can be sensitive to the situation to which the assessor belongs. Finally, our findings help to understand the consequences of a revolving door practice. Specifically, a client manager with a previous auditor experience may be less expected to be supportive to an incumbent auditor's position, given the change of situations faced by the previous auditor(who now becomes a financial statement preparer).
Key words Personality Characteristics, Cross-situational Inconsistency, Accounting Professional Judgment, Auditor-client Conflicts