IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v149y2018i4d10.1007_s10551-016-3064-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Auditors’ Sense of Responsibility for Detecting Fraud Within Organizations

Author

Listed:
  • F. Todd DeZoort

    (The University of Alabama)

  • Paul D. Harrison

    (Wichita State University)

Abstract

The objective of this study is to evaluate auditors’ perceived responsibility for fraud detection. Auditors play a critical role in managing fraud risk within organizations. Although professional standards and guidance prescribe responsibility in the area, little is known about auditors’ sense of responsibility for fraud detection, the factors affecting perceived responsibility, and how responsibility affects auditor performance. We use the triangle model of responsibility as a theoretical basis for examining responsibility and the effects of accountability, fraud type, and auditor type on auditors’ perceived fraud detection responsibility. We also test how perceived responsibility affects auditor brainstorming performance given the importance of brainstorming in audits. A sample of 878 auditors (241 external auditors and 637 internal auditors) participated in an experiment with accountability pressure and fraud type manipulated randomly between subjects. As predicted, accountable auditors report higher detection responsibility than anonymous auditors. We also find a significant fraud type × auditor type interaction with external auditors perceiving the most detection responsibility for financial statement fraud, while internal auditors report similar detection responsibility for all fraud types. Analysis of the triangle model’s formative links reveals that professional obligation and personal control are significantly related to responsibility, while task clarity is not. Finally, the results indicate that perceived responsibility positively affects the number of detection procedures brainstormed and partially mediates the significant accountability–brainstorming relation.

Suggested Citation

  • F. Todd DeZoort & Paul D. Harrison, 2018. "Understanding Auditors’ Sense of Responsibility for Detecting Fraud Within Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(4), pages 857-874, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:149:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3064-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3064-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-016-3064-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-016-3064-3?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. Jeffrey Cohen & Yuan Ding & Cédric Lesage & Hervé Stolowy, 2010. "Corporate Fraud and Managers’ Behavior: Evidence from the Press," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(2), pages 271-315, September.
    2. Bahram Soltani, 2014. "The Anatomy of Corporate Fraud: A Comparative Analysis of High Profile American and European Corporate Scandals," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 120(2), pages 251-274, March.
    3. Norman, Carolyn Strand & Rose, Anna M. & Rose, Jacob M., 2010. "Internal audit reporting lines, fraud risk decomposition, and assessments of fraud risk," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 546-557, July.
    4. Kennedy, J, 1993. "Debiasing Audit Judgment With Accountability - A Framework And Experimental Results," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 231-245.
    5. William Kerler & Larry Killough, 2009. "The Effects of Satisfaction with a Client’s Management During a Prior Audit Engagement, Trust, and Moral Reasoning on Auditors’ Perceived Risk of Management Fraud," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 109-136, March.
    6. Gladys Lee & Neil Fargher, 2013. "Companies’ Use of Whistle-Blowing to Detect Fraud: An Examination of Corporate Whistle-Blowing Policies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 283-295, May.
    7. Braun, Robert L., 2000. "The effect of time pressure on auditor attention to qualitative aspects of misstatements indicative of potential fraudulent financial reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 243-259, April.
    8. Knapp, Carol A. & Knapp, Michael C., 2001. "The effects of experience and explicit fraud risk assessment in detecting fraud with analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 25-37, January.
    9. Jennifer R. Joe, 2003. "Why Press Coverage of a Client Influences the Audit Opinion," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 109-133, March.
    10. Stephen K. Asare & Arnold M. Wright, 2004. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Risk Assessment and Program Planning Tools in a Fraud Setting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 325-352, June.
    11. Donna Bobek & Amy Hageman & Robin Radtke, 2010. "The Ethical Environment of Tax Professionals: Partner and Non-Partner Perceptions and Experiences," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(4), pages 637-654, April.
    12. Shani Robinson & Jesse Robertson & Mary Curtis, 2012. "The Effects of Contextual and Wrongdoing Attributes on Organizational Employees’ Whistleblowing Intentions Following Fraud," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(2), pages 213-227, March.
    13. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    14. Hoffman, VB & Patton, JM, 1997. "Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 227-237.
    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. Liangcheng Wang & Siying Li & Bikun Zhang & Yifan Zhang & Tao Peng, 2024. "The effect of auditor experience on stock price crash risk," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 64(1), pages 411-444, March.
    2. Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Seong Mi Bae & Javier Manzanares & Jong Dae Kim, 2019. "Board Directors’ Expertise and Corporate Corruption Disclosure: The Moderating Role of Political Connections," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Waseem Yousaf & Raheel Jamil, 2020. "Does Moral Intensity Affect the Whistleblowing Intentions?," iRASD Journal of Management, International Research Alliance for Sustainable Development (iRASD), vol. 2(2), pages 84-99, December.
    4. So-Jin Yu & Jin-Sung Rha, 2021. "Research Trends in Accounting Fraud Using Network Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-26, May.
    5. Madzivire E.T & Nyamwanza L & Mushonga W & Takachicha M. T & Mulonda D, 2020. "An Investigation on the Effectiveness of Forensic Audit as a Tool for Fraud Detection and Prevention," Journal of Accounting, Business and Finance Research, Scientific Publishing Institute, vol. 10(2), pages 49-67.
    6. Hanen Khemakhem & Richard Fontaine & Nadia Smaili & Mahbub Zaman, 2023. "Whistleblowing regulations and the role of audit committees: insight from interviews," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(1), pages 131-151, March.
    7. Ala'a Zuhair Mansour & Aidi Ahmi & Oluwatoyin Muse Johnson Popoola, 2021. "The Interaction Effect of Personality Factor on Capability and Competence Requirement," Business and Economic Research, Macrothink Institute, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, March.

    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. Monica Ramos Montesdeoca & Agustín J. Sánchez Medina & Felix Blázquez Santana, 2019. "Research Topics in Accounting Fraud in the 21st Century: A State of the Art," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-31, March.
    2. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    3. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    4. Florian Hoos & Grégoire Bollmann, 2012. "Is accountability a double-edged sword? Experimental evidence on the effectiveness of internal controls to prevent fraud," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 115-132, November.
    5. Elizabeth Sheedy & Dominic S. B. Canestrari‐Soh, 2023. "Does executive accountability enhance risk management and risk culture?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4093-4124, December.
    6. Hurley, Patrick J., 2015. "Ego depletion: Applications and implications for auditing research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 47-76.
    7. Neu, Dean & Everett, Jeff & Rahaman, Abu Shiraz, 2015. "Preventing corruption within government procurement: Constructing the disciplined and ethical subject," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 49-61.
    8. Dennis, Sean A. & Johnstone, Karla M., 2018. "A natural field experiment examining the joint role of audit partner leadership and subordinates’ knowledge in fraud brainstorming," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 14-28.
    9. Florian Hoos & Jorien Louise Pruijssers & Michel W. Lander, 2019. "Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 563-575, May.
    10. Sanaz Aghazadeh & Yoon Ju Kang & Marietta Peytcheva, 2023. "Auditors’ scepticism in response to audit committee oversight behaviour," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2013-2034, June.
    11. Jessen L. Hobson & William J. Mayew & Mark E. Peecher & Mohan Venkatachalam, 2017. "Improving Experienced Auditors’ Detection of Deception in CEO Narratives," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(5), pages 1137-1166, December.
    12. Lee, Gladys & Xiao, Xinning, 2018. "Whistleblowing on accounting-related misconduct: A synthesis of the literature," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 22-46.
    13. Harold Hassink & Roger Meuwissen & Laury Bollen, 2010. "Fraud detection, redress and reporting by auditors," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(9), pages 861-881, October.
    14. Desai, Naman, 2015. "The Effects of Fraud Risk Factors and Client Characteristics on Audit Procedures," IIMA Working Papers WP2015-03-15, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    15. Martin Mutschmann & Tim Hasso & Matthias Pelster, 2022. "Dark Triad Managerial Personality and Financial Reporting Manipulation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 763-788, December.
    16. Mina Ličen & Sergeja Slapničar, 2022. "Can process accountability mitigate myopic biases? An experimental analysis," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-26, March.
    17. Cohen, Jeffrey & Ding, Yuan & Lesage, Cedric & Stolowy, Hervé, 2008. "The role of managers’ behavior in corporate fraud," HEC Research Papers Series 900, HEC Paris.
    18. Hideaki Sakawa & Naoki Watanabel, 2022. "Accounting Frauds and Main-Bank Monitoring in Japanese Corporations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 605-621, October.
    19. Anna M. Cianci & James Lloyd Bierstaker, 2009. "The effect of performance feedback and client importance on auditors' self- and public-focused ethical judgments," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(5), pages 455-474, May.
    20. Holm, Claus & Langsted, Lars Bo & Seehausen, Jesper, 2007. "An Examination of Actual Fraud Cases With a Focus on the Auditor’s Responsibility," Accounting Research Center Working Papers A-2007-05, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Business Studies.

    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:kap:jbuset:v:149:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3064-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.