The effect of Mental Metaphors on Professional Skepticism Auditors on Fraud Risk Assessment and Audit Quality

Subject Areas : Management Accounting

Morteza Shafati ¹ (Faculty Member, Accounting, Payame Noor University.)
Hasan Valiyan ² (Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran.)
Mohammadreza Abdoli ³ (Associate Professor, Department of Accounting, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran)

Received: 2018-07-20 Accepted : 2018-09-30 Published : 2020-03-20

Keywords: Mental Metaphors, Professional Skepticism, Fraud Risk Assessment, Audit quality,

Abstract :

Metaphor is one of the ways to improve the effectiveness of operations and business functions in society can be, because it creates a positive mindset for an increase in commitment and job responsibilities, particularly in the auditing profession. Metaphorization in auditing can lead to auditors' professional skepticism to perform quality work and to examine all aspects of the performance of the clients. The purpose of this research is The effect of Mental Metaphors on Professional Skepticism Auditors on Fraud Risk Assessment and Audit Quality. In this research, two metaphors were used based on the researches of Parlee et al. (2014), Mubako & O'Donnell (2017) to better understand the suspicions of auditors in assessing the risk of fraud in the financial statements and the quality of the audit. Data were collected by questionnaire and for analyzing the hypothesis of the research, multivariate Manua multivariate tests, repeated variance analysis and follow-up tests were used to compare the time. The results of the research showed that auditors' differences in terms of their perceptions of audit metaphors increase the risk of corporate fraud and audit quality.

References:

*      گودرزی، احمد.، همتی، هدی.، رفیعی شیشوان، مرضیه. (1394). جایگاه حرفه حسابداری در اذهان عمومی بر اساس استعاره‌های موجود. حسابداری مدیریت, 8(26), 113-130.

*      نجف لو، محمود.، زنگی آبادی، مصطفی.، غلامی، پرویز. (1396). تأثیر عوامل خطر تقلب بر تعدیل برنامه حسابرسی، فصلنامه دانش حسابرسی، سال هفدهم، شماره 68، پاییز، 261-279.

*      نیکومرام، هاشم.، هرمزی، شیر کوه.، رویایی، رمضانعلی.، رهنمای رودپشتی، فریدون. (1395). بررسی تاثیر سوگیری های روانشناختی بر تردید حرفه ای حسابرس، پژوهش‌های تجربی حسابداری، سال ششم، شماره 23، زمستان، 122-148.

*      وکیلی فرد، حمیدرضا.، جبارزاده کنگرلوئی، سعید.، پوررضا سلطان احمدی، اکبر. (1388). بررسی ویژگی‌های تقلب در صورت‌های مالی، حسابداری، سال بیست و چهارم، شماره 210.

*    ولیان، حسن.، عبدلی، محمدرضا.، کریمی، شبنم. (1396). طراحی مدل تحلیل تفسیری-ساختاری ( ) عوامل موثر بر تردید‌حرفه‌ای حسابرسان. فصلنامه حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری. ۱۳۹۶; ۲ (۴) :۲۱۵-۲۴۶.

*      Anderson, S., and J. Wolfe. 2002. A perspective on audit malpractice claims. Journal of Accountancy 194 (3): 59–66.

*      Andreas, H., Zarefar, A., Rasuli, H. M. (2016). ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE AUDITORS’ PROFESSIONAL SCEPTICISM AND AUDIT RESULT QUALITY-THE CASE OF INDONESIAN GOVERNMENT AUDITORS, I J A B E R, Vol. 14, No. 6, 3807-3817.

*      Asbahr, K., Klaus, A. (2017). Real Effects of Reporting Key Audit Matters on Auditors' Judgment of Accounting Estimates (March 3). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3069755 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3069755

*      Bargh, J. A. and T. L. Chartrand. 1999. The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist 54(7): 462 - 479.

*      Bargh, J. A., P. M. Gollwitzer, A. Lee-Chai, K. Barndollar and R. Troetschel. 2001. The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(6): 1014 - 1027.

*      Becker, C. L., DeFond, M. L., Jiambalvo, J., & Subramanyam, K. R. (1998). The effect of audit quality on earning management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(1), 1-24.

*      Bell, T. B., M. E. Peecher and I. Solomon. 2005. The 21st Century Public Company Audit: Conceptual Elements of KPMG's Global Audit Methodology. U.S.A., KPMG International.

*      Benston, G.J., and A.L. Hartgraves. 2002. Enron: What happened and what we can learn from it. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy: 105-127

*      Boroditsky, L. 2016. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors.

*      Boroditsky, L., and M. Ramscar. 2002. The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science 13: 185–188

*      Choo, F., and K. Tan. 2000. Instruction, skepticism, and accounting students’ ability to detect frauds in auditing. Journal of Business Education Fall: 72-87.

*      Cohen, J, R., Gaynor, L, M., Montague, N, R., Wayne, J. (2016). The Effect of Framing on Information Search and Information Evaluation in Auditors’ Fair Value Judgments. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2602783 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2602783

*      Dirsmith, M, W., Covaleski, M, A., Mcallister, J, P. (1985). Of paradigms and metaphors in auditing thought, Contemporary Accounting Research Vol. 2 No. 1 pp. 46-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1985.tb00606.x

*      Doty, J. R. 2011. What the PCAOB Expects for the Coming Year and Beyond. December, 5, 2011. Washington D.C.: PCAOB.

*      Franzel, J. 2012. Statement on Public Meeting on Auditor Independence and Audit Firm Rotation. June 28, 2012. San Francisco, CA: PCAOB.

*      Galinsky, A. D., and Glucksberg, S. 2000. Inhibition of the literal: metaphors and idioms as judgmental primes. Social Cognition 18: 35–54.

*      Gibbs, R. 1992. Categorization and metaphor understanding. Psychological Review 99: 572-577.

*      Goldfarb, L., D. Aisenberg, and A. Henik. 2011. Think the thought, walk the walk – Social priming reduces the Stroop effect. Cognition 118 (2): 193-200

*      Grenier, J. 2011. Encouraging professional skepticism in the industry specialization era: A dualprocess model and an experimental test. Working paper. Miami University.

*      Harding, N., Azim, M., Jidin, R., Muir, J, P. (2016). A Consideration of Literature on Trust and Distrust as they Relate to Auditor Professional Skepticism, Volume26, Issue3; 243-254. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12126

*      Hilton, J., S. Fein, and D. Miller. 1993. Suspicion and dispositional inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19: 501-512

*      Hurtt, R. K., M. Eining, and D. Plumlee. 2012. An Experimental Examination of Professional Skepticism. Working paper. Baylor University and University of Utah

*      Hurtt, R.K. 2007. Professional Skepticism: An Audit Specific Model and Measurement Scale. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory. Vol. 29, No. 1, 2010,pp: 149-171

*      KPMG. 2016. Elevating Professional Judgment in Accounting and Auditing: The KPMG Professional Judgment Framework

*      Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453-486

*      Libby, R. 1985. Availability and the generation of hypotheses in analytical review. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 648–667.

*      Libby, R., and D. M. Frederick. 1990. Experience and the ability to explain audit findings. Journal of Accounting Research 28: 348-67.

*      McMillan, J.J., and R.A. White. 1993. Auditors' belief revisions and evidence search: The effect of hypothesis frame, confirmation and professional skepticism. The Accounting Review 68: 443-465.

*      Michael, J., Fischer, S., Dirsmith, M, W. (2011). Strategy, Technology, and Social Processes With in Professional Cultures: A Negotiated Order, Ethnographic Perspective, Symbolic Interaction, 18, 4, (381-412).

*      Mubako, G., O'Donnell, E. (2017). Effect of fraud risk assessments on auditor skepticism: Unintended consequences on evidence evaluation, International Journal of Auditing, Volume22, Issue1; 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12104

*      Nelson, M. W. 2009. A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 28 (2): 1-34.

*      Nolder, Ch, J., Kadous, J. (2018). Grounding the professional skepticism construct in mindset and attitude theory: A way forward, Accounting, Organizations and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.03.010

*      Olsen, C., Gold, A. (2018). Future research directions at the intersection between cognitive neuroscience research and auditors’ professional skepticism, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2018.03.006

*      Parlee, M, C., Rose, J, M., Thibodeau, J, C. (2014). Metaphors and Auditor Professional Judgment: Can Non-Conscious Primes Activate Professionally Skeptical Mindsets?.

*      PCAOB. 2010a. Report on Observations of PCAOB Inspectors Related to Audit Risk Areas Affected by the Economic Crisis. Release No. 2010-06, September 29, 2010. Washington D.C.: PCAOB

*      Peecher, M. 1996. The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 34(1): 125 - 141.

*      Phillips, F. 1999. Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research 37: 167-189.

*      Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2008. Report on the PCAOB’s 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 Inspections of Domestic Annually Inspected Firms. Release No. 2008-008. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB

*      Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2012. Staff Audit Practice Alert No. 10: Maintaining and Applying Professional Skepticism in Audits. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.

*      Quadackers, L., T. Groot, and A. Wright. 2013. Auditors’ professional skepticism: Neutrality versus presumptive doubt. Contemporary Accounting Research. In press

*      Rose, J. 2007. Attention to aggressive and potentially fraudulent reporting: Effects of experience and trust. Behavioral Research in Accounting 19: 215-230.

*      Schul, Y., E. Burnstein, and A. Bardi. 2016. Dealing with deceptions that are difficult to detect: Encoding and judgment as a function of preparing to receive invalid information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 32: 228-253.

*      Shani N. Robinson, Mary B. Curtis, and Jesse C. Robertson (2018) Disentangling the Trait and State Components of Professional Skepticism: Specifying a Process for State Scale Development. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory: February 2018, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 215-235. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51738

*      Shaub, M.K., and J.E. Lawrence. 1996. Ethics, experience, and professional skepticism: A situational analysis. Behavioral Research in Accounting. Supplement: 124-157.

*      Slobin, D. I. 2003. Language and thought online: cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157–192). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

*      Thibodeau, P., and L. Boroditsky. 2011. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE 6(2).

*      Young J. 2001. Risk(ing) metaphors. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 12: 607–25.

*      Zimbelman, M. 1997. The effects of SAS No. 82 on auditors’ attention to fraud risk factors and audit planning decisions. Journal of Accounting Research 35: 75-94