IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijoais/v9y2008i2p104-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An examination of contextual factors and individual characteristics affecting technology implementation decisions in auditing

Author

Listed:
  • Curtis, Mary B.
  • Payne, Elizabeth A.

Abstract

While computer-assisted audit techniques (CAATs) have the potential to increase efficiency and effectiveness of audit engagements, research in this area suggests that such techniques are under-utilized in public accounting. We propose that this condition is due to performance evaluation pressure and the use of budgets for multiple purposes, which result in the misalignment of firm and individual employee goals. We apply technology acceptance and budgeting theories to test this contention as well as potential organizational strategies for reducing the impediments to technology acceptance in the audit profession.

Suggested Citation

  • Curtis, Mary B. & Payne, Elizabeth A., 2008. "An examination of contextual factors and individual characteristics affecting technology implementation decisions in auditing," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 104-121.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijoais:v:9:y:2008:i:2:p:104-121
    DOI: 10.1016/j.accinf.2007.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146708950800016X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.accinf.2007.10.002?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. Fischer, Michael J., 1996. ""Real-izing" the benefits of new technologies as a source of audit evidence: An interpretive field study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 219-242.
    2. 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.
    3. Hopwood, Ag, 1972. "Empirical Study Of Role Of Accounting Data In Performance Evaluation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10, pages 156-182.
    4. B. Pierce & B. Sweeney, 2004. "Cost-quality conflict in audit firms: an empirical investigation," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 415-441.
    5. Shields, J. F. & Shields, M. D., 1998. "Antecedents of participative budgeting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 49-76, January.
    6. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    7. James G. March & Zur Shapira, 1987. "Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1404-1418, November.
    8. Hartmann, Frank G. H. & Moers, Frank, 1999. "Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research: an evaluation of the use of moderated regression analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 291-315, May.
    9. Rose, Jacob M. & Wolfe, Christopher J., 2000. "The effects of system design alternatives on the acquisition of tax knowledge from a computerized tax decision aid," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 285-306, April.
    10. Wang, X. T., 1996. "Framing Effects: Dynamics and Task Domains," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 145-157, November.
    11. Sickar, Michael J. & Highhouse, Scott, 1998. "Looking Closer at the Effects of Framing on Risky Choice: An Item Response Theory Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 75-91, July.
    12. Merchant, Kenneth A., 1990. "The effects of financial controls on data manipulation and management Myopia," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 297-313.
    13. 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.
    14. Hopwood, Ag, 1972. "Empirical Study Of Role Of Accounting Data In Performance Evaluation - Reply," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10, pages 189-193.
    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. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 169-249.
    2. Hartmann, Frank G. H. & Moers, Frank, 1999. "Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research: an evaluation of the use of moderated regression analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 291-315, May.
    3. Marginson, David & Ogden, Stuart, 2005. "Coping with ambiguity through the budget: the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers' budgeting behaviours," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 435-456, July.
    4. Matthias Mahlendorf, 2015. "Allowance for failure: reducing dysfunctional behavior by innovating accountability practices," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 19(3), pages 655-686, August.
    5. Hartmann, Frank G. H. & Moers, Frank, 2003. "Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research using moderated regression analysis: a second look," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(7-8), pages 803-809.
    6. David Marginson & Laurie McAulay & Melvin Roush & Tony Van Zijl, 2010. "Performance measures and short‐termism: An exploratory study," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 353-370.
    7. R. Murray Lindsay, 2018. "Construct Clarity in Management Accounting (With a Specific Application to Interactive Control Systems)," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 555-587, December.
    8. Chong, Vincent K. & Eggleton, Ian R.C. & Leong, Michele K.C., 2005. "The impact of market competition and budgetary participation on performance and job satisfaction: a research note," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 115-133.
    9. Klaus Derfuss, 2015. "Relating Context Variables to Participative Budgeting and Evaluative Use of Performance Measures: A Meta-analysis," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(2), pages 238-278, June.
    10. B. Pierce & B. Sweeney, 2004. "Cost-quality conflict in audit firms: an empirical investigation," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 415-441.
    11. Hartmann, Frank G. H., 2000. "The appropriateness of RAPM: toward the further development of theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 451-482, May.
    12. Prabhu Sivabalan & Peter Booth & Teemu Malmi & David A. Brown, 2009. "An exploratory study of operational reasons to budget," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 49(4), pages 849-871, December.
    13. Arnold, Markus C. & Gillenkirch, Robert M., 2015. "Using negotiated budgets for planning and performance evaluation: An experimental study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-16.
    14. Rodney Coyte & Martin Messner & Shan Zhou, 2022. "The revival of zero‐based budgeting: drivers and consequences of firm‐level adoptions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 3147-3188, September.
    15. Chenhall, Robert H. & Moers, Frank, 2015. "The role of innovation in the evolution of management accounting and its integration into management control," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-13.
    16. Bellora-Bienengräber, Lucia & Radtke, Robin R. & Widener, Sally K., 2022. "Counterproductive work behaviors and work climate: The role of an ethically focused management control system and peers’ self-focused behavior," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    17. Sholihin, Mahfud & Pike, Richard & Mangena, Musa & Li, Jing, 2011. "Goal-setting participation and goal commitment: Examining the mediating roles of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust in a UK financial services organisation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 135-146.
    18. Tuan Zainun Tuan Mat* & Nur Shahirah Adilah Mohd Sairazi & Fadzlina Mohd Fahmi & Sharifah Nazatul Faiza Syed Mustapha Nazri & Sharina Tajul Urus, 2018. "Determinants of Budgetary Slack Creation: A Study in Malaysian Local Authorities," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 1040-1050:5.
    19. Bedford, David S. & Speklé, Roland F. & Widener, Sally K., 2022. "Budgeting and employee stress in times of crisis: Evidence from the Covid-19 pandemic," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    20. repec:arp:tjssrr:2019:p:173-183 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Davila, Tony & Wouters, Marc, 2005. "Managing budget emphasis through the explicit design of conditional budgetary slack," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(7-8), pages 587-608.

    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:9:y:2008:i:2:p:104-121. 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.