• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Encouraging professional skepticism in the industry specialization era: A dual-process model and an experimental test.
【24h】

Encouraging professional skepticism in the industry specialization era: A dual-process model and an experimental test.

机译：在行业专业化时代鼓励专业怀疑论者：双重过程模型和实验测试。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

I develop a framework that elucidates how the primary target of auditors' professional skepticism -- audit evidence or their own judgment and decision making -- interacts with other factors to affect auditors' professional judgments. As an initial test of the framework, I conduct an experiment that examines how the target of auditors' skepticism and industry specialization jointly affect auditors' judgments. When working inside their specialization, auditors make more automatic, intuitive judgments. Automaticity naturally manifests for industry specialists as a result of industry experience, social norms to appear knowledgeable and decisive, and their own expectations to proficiently interpret audit evidence. Priming industry specialists to be skeptical of audit evidence, therefore, has little influence on their judgments. In contrast, priming such auditors to be skeptical of their otherwise automated, intuitive judgment and decision making substantially alters their decision processing. They begin to question what they do and do not know, in an epistemological sense and, as a result, elevate their overall concern about material misstatements due to well-concealed fraud. This pattern of results is consistent with my framework's predictions and suggests that specialization is more about improving the interpretation and assimilation of domain evidence rather than enhancing reflective, self-critical thinking. It also suggests it would be beneficial to identify other factors that promote industry specialists' skepticism towards their judgment and decision making to make them more circumspect about the possibility of management fraud (cf., Bell, Peecher, and Solomon 2005).
机译：我开发了一个框架，阐明了审计师专业怀疑的主要目标（审计证据或他们自己的判断和决策）如何与其他因素相互作用，从而影响审计师的专业判断。作为对该框架的初步测试，我进行了一个实验，以检验审计师的怀疑目标和行业专业化目标如何共同影响审计师的判断。在专业领域内工作时，审核员会做出更加自动，直观的判断。由于行业经验，对社会准则的了解和果断表现以及对熟练地解释审计证据的期望，对行业专家而言，自动化自然体现出来。因此，使行业专家对审计证据表示怀疑，对他们的判断影响很小。相反，使这类审计师对他们本来可以自动化，直观的判断和决策表示怀疑的话，则会大大改变他们的决策流程。他们从认识论的意义上开始质疑自己做什么和不知道什么，结果，他们加深了对由于隐瞒欺诈而造成的重大错报的整体关注。这种结果模式与我的框架的预测相一致，并表明专业化更多是关于改进领域证据的解释和同化，而不是增强反思性的，自我批评的思维。这也表明，找出其他有助于促使行业专家对其判断和决策持怀疑态度的因素，使他们对管理舞弊的可能性更加谨慎，将是有益的（参见，Bell，Peecher和Solomon 2005）。

著录项

  • 作者

    Grenier, Jonathan Hallberg.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.;

  • 授予单位 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.;
  • 学科 Education Curriculum and Instruction.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2010
  • 页码 73 p.
  • 总页数 73
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号