SYNOPSIS: With the movement toward adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) worldwide, a question arises as to whether the adoption of a principles-based approach, such as IFRS, will ultimately result in higher-quality financial reporting. This issue is particularly relevant because, even though for now the SEC is not adopting IFRS, the securities markets and the SEC still need to ponder the implications of a decision that may lead to the ultimate adoption of, or at least some degree of convergence with, IFRS in the U.S. To examine this issue, we employ an experiment with 97 experienced auditors as participants. Using a case setting involving the classification of a lease (operating versus capital), we manipulate the accounting standard type as rules-based or principles-based, and the regulatory regime as stronger or weaker. The lease setting is one where there are indications of management's incentives to leave the debt off of the balance sheet and, hence, engage in aggressive reporting. We find, as expected, that auditors are more likely to constrain aggressive reporting under principles-based accounting standards than under rules-based standards, under both stronger and weaker regulatory regimes. Importantly, from a public policy perspective, the results indicate that auditors' judgments under principles-based standards, regardless of the strength of the financial regulatory regime, lead to more conservative reporting when compared to rules-based standards coupled with a stronger financial regulatory regime, which is the way the U.S. environment is often characterized.

Auditing research has investigated the effects of different accounting standards on auditors' decisions to constrain aggressive reporting by clients. Missing from this literature is evidence on how the type of accounting standard influences auditors' cognitive motivations and demand for audit evidence. This study addresses this gap in the literature, which is important since the financial statements are the joint product of management's and the auditor's actions. An experiment was conducted with U.S. and Dutch auditors to examine the manner in which principles-based versus rules-based accounting standards influence auditors' process accountability, epistemic motivation, and demands for audit evidence. The study proposes and supports a theoretical model in which principles-based accounting standards increase auditors' process accountability—the expectation of having to justify to others the decision process used, regardless of the outcome of the decision (Markman and Tetlock 2000; Libby, Salterio, and Webb 2004). Greater process accountability in turn increases auditors' epistemic motivation—the desire to develop and maintain a rich and accurate understanding of the problem at hand (Kruglanski 1989). The heightened epistemic motivation induced by principles-based accounting standards then ultimately increases auditors' demands for audit evidence. Thus, the results suggest the important influence of accounting standards on auditors' motivations and consequent program planning decisions.

No abstract

While tone at the top is widely regarded as an important predictor of ethical behavior in organizations, we argue that recent research overlooks the various confl icting ethical tones present in many multi-organizational work settings. Further, we propose that the resolution processes promulgated in many fi rms and professional associations to reconcile this confl ict reinforce the tone at the bottom or a tone at the top of the employee's organization, and that both of these approaches can confl ict with the tone at the top of other important organizations such as professional and regulatory organizations. Here we adapt Integrative Social Contract Theory's priority rules to propose a multi-tone reconciliation process which prioritizes confl icting ethical tones based upon features of the organization and the effects on society. Using three contextualizations (overbilling, worker safety and client advocacy), we demonstrate the effectiveness of the multi-tone reconciliation process over current processes. We conclude with recommendations for future research and implications for practice.

Purpose – This paper aims to study the effects of two different types of state skepticism prompts, as well as the effect of the trait of professional skepticism on auditor cognitive performance in a hypothesis-testing task. It examines the effect of a professional skepticism prompt, based on the presumptive doubt view of professional skepticism, as well as the effect of a cheater-detection prompt, based on social contracts theory. Design/methodology/approach – Seventy-eight audit students and 85 practising auditors examine an audit case and determine the evidence needed to test the validity of a management's assertion in a Wason selection task. The experiment manipulates the presence of a professional skepticism prompt and the presence of a cheater-detection prompt. The personality trait of professional skepticism is measured with Hurtt's scale. Findings – The presence of a professional skepticism prompt improves cognitive performance in the sample of students, but not in the sample of auditors. The presence of a cheater-detection prompt has no significant effect on performance in the student or auditor sample. The personality trait of professional skepticism is a significant predictor of cognitive performance in the sample of students but not in the sample of auditors. Research limitations/implications – Results suggest that increasing the states of skepticism or suspicion toward the client firm's management may have no incremental effect on the normative hypothesis testing performance of experienced auditors. However, actively encouraging skeptical mindsets in novice auditors is likely to improve their cognitive performance in hypothesis testing tasks. Originality/value – The study is the first to examine the joint effects of two specific types of state skepticism prompts, a professional skepticism prompt and a cheater-detection prompt, as well as the effect of the personality trait of professional skepticism, on auditor cognitive performance in a hypothesis-testing task. The study contributes to the literature by bringing together the psychology theory of social contracts and auditing research on professional skepticism, to examine auditors' reasoning performance in a hypothesis-testing task.