IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijoais/v12y2011i3p225-242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Team discourse explains media richness and anonymity effects in audit fraud cue brainstorming

Author

Listed:
  • Cockrell, Cam
  • Stone, Dan N.

Abstract

This article contributes by extending media richness (MRT) and media synchronicity theories (MST) to explore how media richness and anonymity influence team interactions and success in audit fraud brainstorming. Sixty-three, three-person teams, with 189 student participants from two Universities, identified fraud risk cues in a SAS 99 audit planning case. Participants were assigned to one of three conditions: electronic anonymity (EA; n=18 teams), electronic identified (EI; n=28 teams), or identified face-to-face (FtF; n=17 teams). Compared with teams in the low media richness conditions, i.e., the EA and EI, discussions in FtF teams produced more and better dialog, which resulted in better identification of fraud risk cues. Additionally, compared with the discussions in the EA teams, FtF team discussions evidenced less narcissism and were more focused and inhibited. Mediation analyses of team interactions indicated that the quantity of dialog (team production) completely explains, fully mediates, the effects of media richness and anonymity on risk assessments. Contributions include extending MRT and MST, and using automated content analysis, to explicate the role of media richness, anonymity, and team interactions in explaining audit team fraud identification success. The concluding section identifies the sample, design, and method limitations, and, discusses the potential for group support technologies to enhance or detract from audit team processes, depending on task, context, and technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Cockrell, Cam & Stone, Dan N., 2011. "Team discourse explains media richness and anonymity effects in audit fraud cue brainstorming," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 225-242.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijoais:v:12:y:2011:i:3:p:225-242
    DOI: 10.1016/j.accinf.2011.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467089511000340
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.accinf.2011.04.001?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. Schwenk, Charles R., 1990. "Effects of devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 161-176, October.
    2. Ken T. Trotman & Roger Simnett & Amna Khalifa, 2009. "Impact of the Type of Audit Team Discussions on Auditors' Generation of Material Frauds," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1115-1142, December.
    3. Jeffrey T. Hancock & Michael T. Woodworth & Saurabh Goorha, 2010. "See No Evil: The Effect of Communication Medium and Motivation on Deception Detection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 327-343, July.
    4. Valacich, Joseph S. & Schwenk, Charles, 1995. "Devil's Advocacy and Dialectical Inquiry Effects on Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 158-173, August.
    5. Libby, Robert & Bloomfield, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2002. "Experimental research in financial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 775-810, November.
    6. Ashton, Robert H., 1986. "Combining the judgments of experts: How many and which ones?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 405-414, December.
    7. John R. Carlson & Joey F. George, 2004. "Media Appropriateness in the Conduct and Discovery of Deceptive Communication: The Relative Influence of Richness and Synchronicity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 191-210, March.
    8. Jean‐Lin Seow, 2009. "Cue usage in financial statement fraud risk assessments: effects of technical knowledge and decision aid use," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 49(1), pages 183-205, March.
    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. Smith, Antoinette L. & Murthy, Uday S. & Engle, Terry J., 2012. "Why computer-mediated communication improves the effectiveness of fraud brainstorming," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 334-356.

    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. Schulz-Hardt, Stefan & Jochims, Marc & Frey, Dieter, 2002. "Productive conflict in group decision making: genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 563-586, July.
    2. Torchia, Mariateresa & Calabrò, Andrea & Gabaldon, Patricia & Kanadli, Sadi Bogac, 2018. "Women directors contribution to organizational innovation: A behavioral approach," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 215-224.
    3. Goodson, Brian M. & Grenier, Jonathan H. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2023. "When law students think like audit litigation attorneys: Implications for experimental research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. Luo, Bing, 2019. "Effects of auditor-provided tax services on book-tax differences and on investors' mispricing of book-tax differences," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    5. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    6. Stocks, Morris H. & Harrell, Adrian, 1995. "The impact of an increase in accounting information level on the judgment quality of individuals and groups," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(7-8), pages 685-700.
    7. Abeysekera, Indra, 2016. "Does the classification of intangibles matter? An equivalence testing," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 135-142.
    8. David Hirshleifer & Sonya S. Lim & Siew Hong Teoh, 2011. "Limited Investor Attention and Stock Market Misreactions to Accounting Information," The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 35-73.
    9. Cade, Nicole L., 2018. "Corporate social media: How two-way disclosure channels influence investors," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 68, pages 63-79.
    10. Han, Jun, 2013. "A literature synthesis of experimental studies on management earnings guidance," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 49-70.
    11. Anna P. Kireyenko, 2015. "Methods of investigating taxation in today’s foreign literature," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 1(2-3), pages 209-228.
    12. Karen Green & Benson Wier, 2015. "Influence of Ethical Position and Information Asymmetry on Transfer Price Negotiations," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-30, February.
    13. Hirshleifer, David & Kewei Hou & Teoh, Siew Hong & Yinglei Zhang, 2004. "Do investors overvalue firms with bloated balance sheets?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 297-331, December.
    14. Borozan, Miloš & Loreta, Cannito & Riccardo, Palumbo, 2022. "Eye-tracking for the study of financial decision-making: A systematic review of the literature," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    15. Leite, Rodrigo de Oliveira & Cardoso, Ricardo Lopes & Jelihovschi, Ana Paula Gomes & Civitarese, Jamil, 2020. "Job market compensation for cognitive reflection ability," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 87-93.
    16. Acosta, Hernando & Wu, Dongrui & Forrest, Barrie M., 2010. "Fuzzy experts on recreational vessels, a risk modelling approach for marine invasions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(5), pages 850-863.
    17. Elli Nikolaidou & Ian Walker & David Coley & Stephen Allen & Daniel Fosas & Matthew Roberts, 2022. "Towards Active Buildings: Stakeholder Perceptions of the Next Generation of Buildings," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, August.
    18. Vicky Arnold, 2018. "The changing technological environment and the future of behavioural research in accounting," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(2), pages 315-339, June.
    19. Satoshi Taguchi & Yoshio Kamijo, 2018. "Intentions behind disclosure to promote trust under short-termism: An experimental study," Working Papers SDES-2018-8, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Oct 2018.
    20. Herron, Eddward T. & Cornell, Robert M., 2021. "Creativity amidst standardization: Is creativity related to auditors’ recognition of and responses to fraud risk cues?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 314-326.

    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:ijoais:v:12:y:2011:i:3:p:225-242. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-accounting-information-systems/ .

    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.