1-20 of 1304
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account

Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Close Modal
Sort by
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory (2022) 41 (4): i–vii.
Published: 01 November 2022
Journal Articles
AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory (2022) 41 (4): bmi–bmii.
Published: 01 November 2022
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Images
Key Elements of Social Presence in Communication  <sup>a</sup> Physical pre...
Published: 01 November 2022
EXHIBIT 1 Key Elements of Social Presence in Communication a Physical presence can also involve physical distance. For example, an in-person interaction involves less distance than a live video chat and generally has greater social presence (e.g., O'Malley et al. 1996 ). Similarly, Short et al. (1976) note that a phone call has different implications when made by someone who is miles away versus someone who is sitting down the hall, since the latter implies that the conversation lacks enough importance to meet in person. b Text-based communication can have varying levels of synchronicity depending on the response time delay. Text messaging and instant messaging are often nearly synchronous communication methods, although senders can delay their responses. Email is generally asynchronous, but responses can be more versus less delayed. Sheldon, Thomas-Hunt, and Proell (2006) note that the impact of such delays depends on whether the behavior involves an expectancy violation. c In this exhibit, “audio” is meant to represent communication that only includes audio without visual elements. Visual communication generally but not always includes audio as well (e.g., in-person communication provides both visual and audio cues, while text-based messages with a still image of the communicator include visual elements but not audio). More
Images
Classification of Experimental Methods Used to Incorporate Auditor-Client C...
Published: 01 November 2022
EXHIBIT 2 Classification of Experimental Methods Used to Incorporate Auditor-Client Communication in Audit Research For purposes of this categorization, we focus on how the researchers operationalize interactivity, primarily based on who responds to the participant and whether elements of physical presence are included in the study. Interactivity is also influenced by temporal presence (e.g., whether the communication is synchronous versus asynchronous). Generally, email-based interactions are asynchronous and face-to-face interactions are synchronous. However, text-messaging or instant messaging are examples of synchronous text-based communication. Researchers can also vary the length of response delays. a In these studies, a participant may read or view an interaction between parties but the participant does not engage in any interaction of their own with any of the parties. As in many experimental settings, having a participant simply read or view an interaction may be adequate to trigger a reaction of interest (e.g., affect). b Although Pickard et al. (2020) involves participants responding to various automated interview questions, the study is not actually “interactive” because the automated interviewer does not change any questions based on the interviewee's response. However, as a proof of concept, it is a good example of how future automated interaction studies can be conducted. c Very few studies incorporating auditor-client communication have investigated live face-to-face interactions between participants, particularly professional participants ( Lee and Welker 2011 used students). Some group audit decision-making research has used live face-to-face interactions between professional participants (e.g., brainstorming research such as Dennis and Johnstone 2018 ; Trotman, Simnett, and Khalifa 2009 ). More
Images
Images
Non-Latent Path Analysis Results of Hypothesized Relations Among Firm Guida...
Published: 01 November 2022
FIGURE 2 Non-Latent Path Analysis Results of Hypothesized Relations Among Firm Guidance (Support versus Oppose), Information Search and Evaluation, Risk of Material Misstatement, and Auditors' Recommended Fair Value Estimates *, **, *** Represent significance levels of 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01, respectively. Guidance was coded such that lower scores represent the support condition and higher scores represent the oppose condition. Standardized path estimates are shown. More
Images
Non-Latent Path Analysis Results of Hypothesized Relations Among Firm Guida...
Published: 01 November 2022
FIGURE 3 Non-Latent Path Analysis Results of Hypothesized Relations Among Firm Guidance (Bi-directional versus Support), Information Search and Evaluation, Risk of Material Misstatement, and Auditors' Recommended Fair Value Estimates *, **, *** Represent significance levels of 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01, respectively. Guidance was coded such that lower scores represent the support condition and higher scores represent the bi-directional condition. Standardized path estimates are shown. More
Images
Non-Latent Path Analysis Results of Hypothesized Relations Among Firm Guida...
Published: 01 November 2022
FIGURE 4 Non-Latent Path Analysis Results of Hypothesized Relations Among Firm Guidance (Bi-directional versus Oppose), Information Search and Evaluation, Risk of Material Misstatement, and Auditors' Recommended Fair Value Estimates *, **, *** Represent significance levels of 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01, respectively. Guidance was coded such that lower scores represent the oppose condition and higher scores represent the bi-directional condition. Standardized path estimates are shown. More
Images
Average <em>DLRE</em> for Full Sample  This chart shows the yearly ...
Published: 01 November 2022
FIGURE 1 Average DLRE for Full Sample This chart shows the yearly average discretionary loss reserve estimates (DLRE) for the property-casualty insurance industry. The line indicates the loss reserve estimates for the entire sample: 1998, −1.24 percent; 1999, −0.03 percent; 2000, −1.57 percent; 2001, −2.60 percent; 2002, −3.39 percent; 2003, −2.95 percent; 2004, 1.27 percent; 2005, 1.68 percent; 2006, 4.27 percent; 2007, 4.29 percent. Yearly mean values are based on all property-casualty companies with available data. More
Images