Purpose This study aims to explore consumers’ motivations in the adoption of either print or digital forms of media, given the fluctuation of trends and attitudes in magazine consumption in the USA. This paper utilizes cognitive lock-in and the power law of practice to further the understanding of digital adoption through an interdisciplinary lens. Design/methodology/approach In this study, initially, five focus group sessions, including 53 qualifying non-student participants randomly placed into groups of 10 or 11, were held. Next, a 2 × 2 between-subjects quasi-experiment, using 163 undergraduate students at a large public university, was conducted. Findings The findings show that although the digital medium is considered less expensive, more convenient and more environmentally friendly, the print medium is regarded as more familiar, personal and visual. Further, whether the media type is a book or a magazine, consumers report higher perceived value, hedonic value and attitude toward print versus digital media. Practical implications The potential to digitally attract and lock-in consumers in the media industry has immense implications. Individuals consume media because of fashion marketing, personal space and advertisements, among other reasons. Originality/value This paper contributes to existing research by uncovering qualitative and quantitative insights into media consumption through a multilayered analysis of focus group participants and a quantitative experiment. The findings indicate that both the power law of practice theory and cognitive lock-in are plausible explanations for the choice of print over digital media format.

Engagement quality review (EQR) is designed to be a quality control mechanism for improving the quality of audit engagements. This paper updates the findings of Messier, Kozloski, and Kochetova-Kozloski (2010) on enforcement actions against engagement quality (EQ) reviewers, especially in light of the December 2009 implementation of the new standard on engagement quality review, Auditing Standard No. 7 (AS7). We identified 16 enforcement actions since 2009 that involve some type of sanction against an EQ reviewer. Only two cases involved a Big 4 firm. Thus, the vast majority of cases involved EQRs from smaller public accounting firms. Six cases occurred prior to the implementation of AS7, nine cases occurred after AS7 took effect, and one case involved violations both prior to and after AS7 implementation. All of the pre-AS7 cases involved sanctions resulting from an inadequate EQR. In contrast, all of the post-AS7 cases involved sanctions resulting from a failure to perform an EQR. Our review of these post-AS7 cases suggests that some small firms were either unable or unwilling to bring in qualified outside reviewers. Our findings provide important implications for practitioners, regulators, and researchers interested in engagement quality review and in improving the overall quality of audit engagements.