Behavioral accounting researchers have historically been constrained in their ability to reach externally valid research participants. The purpose of this paper is to familiarize researchers with two relatively new and innovative ways to overcome this issue. First, this paper discusses two online instrument delivery services provided by SurveyMonkey and Qualtrics that can be used to distribute experimental materials to geographically distributed participants quickly and inexpensively. Second, it reviews a number of participant recruitment services that behavioral accounting researchers can use to identify and recruit externally valid research participants. Specifically, this paper discusses commercial participant recruitment services provided by SurveyMonkey Audience, Qualtrics, Amazon's Mechanical Turk, and other commercial firms, as well as several non-commercial participant recruitment services associated with industry and professional organizations. Each service is evaluated against three criteria that are important to behavioral accounting researchers: (1) cost, (2) flexibility, and (3) access to populations of interest.

SUMMARY Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS5) allows external auditors (EAs) to rely on the internal audit function (IAF) when the internal audit activities meet certain criteria and the EAs would find efficiencies in relying on their work (PCAOB 2007). This paper reviews the extant literature on the EAs' reliance on IAF, identifies gaps in the literature, and proposes a series of research questions aimed at closing these gaps. We focus our review on research pertaining to how environmental factors and IAF-specific factors influence initial EAs' reliance decisions, the nature and extent of EAs' reliance on IAF, and the observable outcomes as a result of EAs' reliance decisions. Our review finds that the environment in which EAs must make a reliance decision is complex—involving several factors that must be considered simultaneously. Moreover, an evolving set of auditing standards introduces several necessary intermediary judgments that the EAs must process before, and during, reliance on the IAF. In addition, our review indicates that we continue to know very little about how, and to what extent, EAs are currently evaluating IAF's quality factors. Similarly, while we find that the nature and extent of EAs' reliance on IAF is influenced by account risk, inherent risk, and IAF sourcing, how the EAs choose task environments (e.g., revenue recognition versus payroll), and the types of tests to be relied upon within these task environments, is not completely understood. Finally, we find that there is a paucity of research concerning the effects of EAs' reliance on IAF in terms of external audit quality.

participants of the Southeast AAA, and participants at the national AAA meeting in Hawaii for helpful comments and suggestions on previous drafts. We would also like to thank Mark DeFond (the Associate Editor) and two anonymous reviewers for comments and recommendations that have helped us to improve this paper.

No abstract

SUMMARY: In the last decade internal auditing services has been a significant area of growth for public accounting firms. Unlike the provision of external audits, the provision of outsourced internal audit services does not prohibit accounting firms from providing the client with additional services. This study investigates some implications of an outsourced internal auditor providing nonaudit services. Specifically, 89 experienced external auditors completed an experiment to investigate whether external auditors will evaluate and rely on an outsourced internal auditor’s work differently when the internal auditor also provides nonaudit services. Results indicate that evaluations of the outsourced internal auditors’ objectivity were negatively affected by the provision of nonaudit services. Further, the differences in objectivity perceptions are tempered by the use of different personnel to provide consulting services. Competence perceptions were not affected. Results also indicate that external auditor reliance on internal audit and suggested audit fees are affected. However, these results do not appear to be tempered by audit and nonaudit staffing decisions.