In this study, we incorporate taxpayers' threat /opportunity perceptions into our analysis of taxpayer behavior in order to refine and extend our understanding of the internal cognitive forces that shape taxpayer behavior. Decision‐making frames (that is, the gain and loss domains from the prospect theory value function) and individual perceptions (that is, perceptions of decision alternatives as being threats or opportunities) are both likely to influence behavior, yet prior research has generally ignored the behavioral effects of individual perceptions. The results of our experiment reveal that taxpayers who are due a tax refund (owe additional taxes) prior to considering a judgemental tax deduction tend to perceive the conservative (aggressive) tax deduction to be more of an opportunity/less of a threat. In turn, we find that taxpayer frames have a direct effect on taxpayer behavior and an indirect effect on behavior through their effect on taxpayers' threat/opportunity perceptions. Perhaps the most important message of this study is that researchers can advance our understanding of the internal cognitive processes that shape taxpayer behavior by incorporating taxpayer perceptions into their research designs.

A questioning nature and professional skepticism are fundamental requirements for auditors to conduct high quality audits and facilitate appropriate financial reporting. This study considers whether computer-mediated communication (CMC) reduces auditors' questioning during interactions with the client, compared to face-to-face (FTF) communication. We also examine how nonverbal cues commonly associated with deception affect auditors' skeptical behavior. Based on partner interviews and a survey comparing partners/managers with staff, we find that partners are concerned with the increased use of CMC for a variety of reasons, and that staff are more comfortable using CMC in a wider array of audit settings than are managers and partners. Experimental results based on Social Presence Theory (SPT) demonstrate that FTF interactions include more content and follow-up questions (a key aspect of skepticism) than CMC. Additionally, auditors engage in fewer relationship-building statements when communicating electronically. Also consistent with SPT, auditors communicating electronically request more documentation, though they ask fewer questions in general. Finally, using a unique measure of auditor skepticism based on revealed behavior, we find that auditors were more skeptical if the controller displayed nonverbal cues associated with deception, than when these specific cues were not present or not observable (CMC). Our findings suggest that communication mediums with reduced channels (e.g., no audio or visual channels), such as CMC, are less appropriate for complex and unique problem solving tasks. When paired with the concern that younger staff auditors are more likely to engage in CMC, skeptical behavior could be stunted in the modern audit environment, impacting financial statement quality.

Professional skepticism is an essential element of a healthy audit. In this study, we present a framework in which the two elements of professional skepticism—skeptical judgment and skeptical action—differ in that skeptical judgment involves paying attention to audit risks, whereas skeptical action often involves overcoming personal risks. This distinction suggests that the optimal conditions for skeptical judgment may differ from the optimal conditions for converting that judgment to skeptical action. Specifically, interventions that promote vigilance will facilitate judgment because they make potential accounting issues salient, but such a focus will also draw attention to potential adverse consequences of taking action. To test this proposition, we conduct two studies in which we align skeptical judgment and skeptical action with two pairs of distinct and contrasting mindsets to operationalize differential vigilance. Our results suggest a duality in skepticism which has important implications for researchers and practitioners designing interventions to improve audit quality.

Auditors must frequently multitask in order to complete their work efficiently. However, the potential impact of multitasking on auditors’ judgment quality is poorly understood. Using Ego Depletion Theory and a laboratory experiment, we predict and find that auditors become less able to identify seeded errors after multitasking, and that this effect is most prominent in the identification of conceptual, rather than mechanical, errors. These negative consequences of multitasking are mitigated when auditors are exposed to an intervention based on a theoretical countermeasure of replenishing depleted self‐control resources, in that multitasking auditors identify more seeded errors with the intervention than without. Given that multitasking is a pervasive feature of the current audit environment, these findings have direct implications for audit practice. Beyond identifying multitasking as a cause of impaired performance in auditing, this study's results provide initial evidence that such negative effects can be mitigated, resulting in improved audit quality and, by extension, improved financial statement quality.

Although the financial statements of an organization are considered a product of management, prior research suggests that a company's financial statements may be affected by the negotiation strategy employed by the auditor when resolving audit differences with management. However, little subsequent research discusses the potential strategies that auditors may employ during the negotiation process. Our study extends the literature by investigating, in a post–Sarbanes‐Oxley environment, whether auditors will employ a reciprocity‐based strategy for the resolution of audit differences and what client characteristics (client management's negotiating style and client retention risk) increase the extent to which it is utilized. Further, we explore the potential effect of a reciprocity‐based strategy on the quality of the financial statements. Such a strategy involves bringing inconsequential items to management and subsequently waiving these items in an effort to encourage management to be more cooperative in the posting of significant income‐decreasing adjustments. The results of experiment 1 indicate that client management's negotiating style and retention risk have an interactive effect on auditors' use of a reciprocity‐based strategy. Specifically, auditors are more likely to utilize a reciprocity‐based strategy when management's negotiating style is competitive and client retention risk is high. Experiment 2 findings suggest that the auditor's use of reciprocity during negotiation can actually result in more conservative financial statements by helping the auditor manage perceived client pressures to waive or reduce proposed adjustments.

The audit environment operates using an apprenticeship model, where more experienced auditors are responsible for the training and development of junior auditors. Academic research has investigated this model primarily as a quality control mechanism for the subordinate’s work product. In contrast, we investigate what effect the apprenticeship model has on supervising auditors. We theorize that coaching an apprentice activates norms that are accompanied by an ideal audit quality focus. In an experiment with experienced auditors, we find that salient apprenticeship norms result in a higher-quality sample selection. Although work-life conflict has an overall negative effect on quality, we find no evidence that apprenticeship norms attenuate this effect. Finally, auditors faced with client pressure improve the quality of their subsequent inventory testing selections only when apprenticeship norms are salient. Our findings expand our understanding of the ways the traditional audit environment encourages quality behavior, with important implications for research and practice.

This study provides both survey and experimental evidence to consider how social interactions between staff-level auditors and client management may affect staff auditors' perceptions and influence their decisions regarding the collection of audit evidence. During fieldwork, staff-level auditors have extensive interaction with client management. Survey evidence suggests that these staff-level auditors are often “mismatched” with client management, in terms of their experience, age, and accounting knowledge. Experimental results indicate that staff-level auditors may reduce the extent to which they collect evidence to avoid these interactions. Finally, the use of email communication with client management helped to mitigate the reduction in evidence collected caused by avoiding in-person interactions. Interestingly, when not collecting all the evidence, approximately half of the participants documented their findings in a vague or inappropriate manner, which would likely reduce the likelihood that reviewing auditors would identify a problem. Given the extent of audit evidence collected by young staff auditors, these findings have direct implications for workpaper and audit quality. Data Availability: Data and materials used in this study are available upon request.

This study compares auditors' and chief financial officers' pre‐negotiation judgments and considers the potential differential impact the end of the audit (deadline pressure) has on each party. General negotiation literature suggests that individuals change their behaviors as deadline pressure increases (i.e., when there is less time in which to conduct a negotiation) in order to increase the probability of reaching an agreement. In an audit context, the end‐of‐engagement deadline is often based on regulatory filing deadlines (e.g., SEC filings for public companies), which are not determined by either negotiating party. The audit context is also unique in that there are asymmetric consequences for each party (the auditor and client management) for failing to reach an agreement and different negotiation tactics used by the two parties potentially leading to differing levels of concessions. We predict that auditors, who are in a stronger negotiation position, will generally concede less than client management when determining their pre‐negotiation position and will tend to use more contentious strategies. However, such contentious strategies require time. Thus, we expect, based on negotiation theory, that as deadline pressure increases, auditors' concessionary behavior will be more affected than that of client management. Consistent with expectations, results of our experiment suggest that CFOs concede more than auditors in general; however, auditors are more reactive to deadline pressure and increase concessions when faced with high deadline pressure, while CFOs do not. We also measure planned strategy use and find results to be consistent with theory: when deadline pressure is high, auditors are less likely to use contentious tactics, while CFOs' strategy choices are unaffected by deadline pressure. These results suggest that characteristics of the unique auditor–client negotiation environment, such as deadline pressures, have potentially differential effects on both parties due to the differing negotiation strategies employed by these parties.