Author
Abstract
Purpose - To investigate the effects of auditor interaction on problem representation, information acquisition, and performance in the going‐concern task. Design/methodology/approach - Participants were asked to evaluate the going‐concern status of a company. The study used a pretest‐posttest control group (CG) experimental design. Half of participating accountants were randomly assigned to the CG and the other half to the experimental group (EG). In stage one, participants in both CG and EG performed the entire task individually. In stage two, participants in EG performed the experimental task as an interacting dyad while participants in CG performed the experimental task again individually. Findings - The results showed that interacting auditors' “shared problem representation” focus more on relationship between information and less focus on the simple facts or abstraction. Interacting auditors acquired fewer total number of cues, spent more time, visited financial cues fewer times, and acquired fewer liquidity and management cues than did individual auditors. The results also showed that the effects of auditor interaction were maximized when the member of a dyad were heterogeneous. Research limitations/implications - The paper used a going‐concern task and non‐hierarchical dyads. Future studies might investigate the effects of: different tasks other than going‐concern evaluation, hierarchical dyads (e.g. senior‐manager) after statistically controlling for the power variable, and different types of dyads (e.g. traditioned vs staticized) on group decision making. Practical implications - The results can be used for training purposes for auditors to increase their performance. Originality/value - The study is one of the first to work in the area of multi‐person audit judgment (especially in interacting auditor judgment).
Suggested Citation
Inshik Seol, 2006.
"The effect of auditor interaction on decision making in the going‐concern task,"
Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(6), pages 582-597, July.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:majpps:02686900610674870
DOI: 10.1108/02686900610674870
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:eme:majpps:02686900610674870. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.