[Firms expend costly resources on audit-based monitoring schemes to improve interdivisional coordination. This study investigates the premise that the effectiveness of and demand for audit-based monitoring may be sensitive to societal factors. Data from a between-subjects experiment involving 60 compensated groups of four (a total of 240 subjects) indicates an interaction between the experiment's two factors: (1) country (20 groups conducted in Canada, 20 in Hong Kong and 20 in the People's Republic of China (PRC)), and (2) the degree of anonymity in internal reporting. Specifically, we find that audit-based monitoring is less effective and less demanded in Hong Kong and the PRC than in Canada, but this difference arises only in a setting with a low degree of anonymity. The interaction with anonymity supports the attribution of results to differing cultural values.]

Several experimental sessions were conducted to elicit certainty equivalents for a sequence of lotteries involving real monetary outcomes. The opportunity to conduct sessions in the People's Republic of China afforded the ability to offer very large monetary incentives relative to subjects' living costs; in the highest payoff condition, subjects earned three times their normal monthly revenue in the course of a two-hour experiment. Results indicate a statistically significant impact of the level of monetary incentives on revealed risk preferences. However, even under extreme monetary incentives, subjects demanded amounts well in excess of expected value for low-probability gain prospects.

Bennett and Hatfield (2018) conduct a role-playing experiment that provides important evidence on how face-to-face communication enhances the professional skepticism of auditors' inquiries, relative to written (email) communication. However, their study captures only part of the richness of auditor-client communication, with findings that could possibly interact with the effects of computer-mediated communication on the propensity for auditors to undertake an inquiry (e.g., Bennett & Hatfield, 2013) or on how client personnel choose to respond (e.g., Saiewitz & Kida, 2018). Experiments of this nature are limited by the fact that participants play only one role, with the other role fixed by design. This commentary challenges future researchers to push the frontier beyond these settings by considering the potential for truly interactive studies that examine how auditor and client personnel respond to each other.

[A between-subjects experiment was used to examine the effects of a decision aid in the AICPA's Audit Sampling Audit Guide on the magnitude and variability of auditor sample size judgments. Audit seniors were given background case information for a hypothetical audit task and were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: (1) an intuitive judgment group, (2) a decision aid group who calculated sample sizes using the AICPA Guide formula, or (3) a group who provided only the formula parameters from which the researchers later computed implied sample sizes. It was hypothesized that the sample sizes of group 2 would be larger than those of group 1 (due to insensitivity to power considerations), and that the implied sample sizes for group 3 would exceed those of group 2 (due to a tendency for auditors to "work backwards" toward an intuitive sample size). Both of these hypotheses were supported by the data. However, a test for differences in variability indicated that the decision aid led to a greater degree of inconsistency in sample size judgments. Results were consistent over two levels of internal control.]

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Citation Steven J. Kachelmeier; Annual Report and Editorial Commentary for The Accounting Review. The Accounting Review 1 November 2011; 86 (6): 2197–2233. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10141 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe Accounting Review Search Advanced Search

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Citation Steven J. Kachelmeier; Introduction to a Forum on Individual Differences in Accounting Behavior. The Accounting Review 1 July 2010; 85 (4): 1127–1128. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.4.1127 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe Accounting Review Search Advanced Search

I am grateful for helpful feedback and suggestions from Linda Bamber, Jean Bedard, and Tracie Majors on an earlier version of this report, though I assume full responsibility. I also thank Mary Capps for painstakingly checking the current affiliations in the Appendix of ad hoc reviewers. Annual Report and Editorial Commentary for The Accounting Review

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Citation Steven J. Kachelmeier; Annual Report and Editorial Commentary for The Accounting Review. The Accounting Review 1 November 2009; 84 (6): 2047–2075. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.6.2047 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe Accounting Review Search Advanced Search