The Effect of Audit Partners' Preferences on Auditors' Professional Skepticism Judgments with Emphasis on Social Influence Theory

Hajiha, Zohreh; ,

[Home ] [Archive]

[ فارسی ]

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Articles archive

For Authors

For Reviewers

Registration

Contact us

Site Facilities

Search in website

Receive site information

year 17, Issue 65 (2025)

fa 2025, 17(65): 1-19

Back to browse issues page

The Effect of Audit Partners' Preferences on Auditors' Professional Skepticism Judgments with Emphasis on Social Influence Theory

Zohreh Hajiha¹

1- Department of accounting, ST. C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract: (10 Views)

Professional skepticism is one of the important concepts in the audit process, and researchers and standard-setters have always emphasized the importance of applying an appropriate level of professional judgment in conducting an audit. The purpose of this study is to investigate the moderating effect of auditors ' perceived social influence on the relationship between the audit partners' priorities and their judgments based on professional skepticism. This research uses the concept of social influence theory to identify the drivers that influence auditors' judgments that go beyond the pressure of accountability. The statistical population of the research is all auditors working in private sector audit institutions, of which 286 people were selected as the research sample in 1403 by random sampling. Multiple linear regressions and spss version 26 software were used to analyze and test the research hypothesis. The findings show that audit partners' preferences have a positive effect on auditors' judgments based on professional skepticism, and social influence moderates the effect of partners' preferences on auditors' professional doubt judgments. Also, there is a negative and significant relationship between the position of the auditors and the social influence perceived by the audit partner. The results of this research determine the importance of recognizing the perceived social influence of auditors in managing the relationship between partners and members of the audit team for the Iranian public accountant community and lawmakers. Therefore, it is necessary to take necessary measures to manage such pressures, such as holding training courses for employees and careful hiring of people.

Article number: 1

Keywords: Partners' Preferences, Professional Skepticism, Social Influence Theory, Ton at the Top, Auditing Judgment.

Full-Text [PDF 678 kb] (14 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

References

1. Altiero, E.C., Y.J. Kang & M.E. Peecher. (2022). Motivated perspective taking: Why prompting auditors to take an investors’ perspective make them treat identified audit differences as less materials. Contemporary Accounting Research 39(1): 339-370.

2. Asch, S. (1999). Description of social influence. Retrieved from internte: www.youtube.com.

3. Bennett, G.B., & R.C. Hatfield. (2013). The Effect of the Social Mismatch between Staff Auditors and Client Management on the Collection of Audit Evidence. The Accounting Review 88(1): 31–50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41721934.

4. Bierstaker, J.L., & A. Wright. (2005). The Effect of Partner Preferences on the Development of Risk-Adjusted Program Plans. Advances in Accounting 21: 1–23.

5. Bishop, C.C., F.T. DeZoort & D.R. Hermanson. (2016). The Effect of CEO Social Influence Pressure and CFO Accounting Experience on CFO Financial Reporting Decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 36(1): 21–41.

6. Bobek, D.D., A.M. Hageman & R.R. Radtke. (2015). The Influence of Roles and Organizational Fit on Accounting Professionals' Perceptions of Their Firms' Ethical Environment. Journal of Business Ethics 126(1): 125–141.

7. Burksa, J.J., D.W. Randolph & J.A. Seidaa. (2019). Modeling and interpreting regressions with interactions. Journal of Accounting Literature 42(3): 61-79.

8. Carpenter, T.D., & J.L. Reimers, (2013). Professional Skepticism: the Effects of a Partner's Influence and the Level of Fraud Indicators on Auditors' Fraud Judgments and Actions. Behavioral Research in Accounting 25(2): 45–69.

9. Cialdini, R.B. & N.J. Goldstein. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review of Psychology 55: 591–621.

10. David, B., & J.C. Turner, (2001), Majority and Minority Influence: a Single Process Self-Categorization Analysis. In: De Dreu, C.K.W. & De Vries, N.K. (Eds.) Group Consensus and Minority Influence: Implications for Innovation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-06672-005

11. Davis, S., F.T. DeZoort & L.S. Kopp. (2006). The Effect of Obedience Pressure and Perceived Responsibility on Management Accountants' Creation of Budgetary Slack. Behavioral Research in Accounting 18(1): 19–35.

12. DeZoort, F.T., P. Harrison & M. Taylor. (2006) Accountability and Auditors' Materiality Judgments: the Effects of Differenential Pressure Strength on Cnservatism, Variability, and Effort. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31: 373–390.

13. Free, C., A.J. Trotman & K.T. Trotman. (2021) How Audit Committee Chairs Address Information-Processing Barriers. The Accounting Review 6(1): 147–169.

14. Gardner, H.K. (2012). Performance Pressure as a Double-Edged Sword: Enhancing Team Motivation but Undermining the Use of Team Knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly 57(1): 1–46.

15. Ghauri, E., & R. Adler. (2024). Performance evaluation of academics: A social influence theory perspective. Accounting & Finance 64(3): 2545-2575.

16. Glover, S.M., & D.F. Prawitt. (2014). Enhancing Auditor Professional Skepticism: the Professional Skepticism Continuum. Current Issues in Auditing 8(2): 1–10.

17. Gong, Y.F., S. Kim & N. Harding. (2014) Elevating Professional Scepticism: an Exploratory Study into the Impact of Accountability Pressure and Knowledge of the Superior's Preferences. Managerial Auditing Journal 29(8): 674–694.

18. Gunz, S., & L. Thorne. (2015) Introduction to the Special Issue on Tone at the Top. Journal of Business Ethics 126(1): 1–2.

19. Harding, N., & K.T. Trotman. (2017). The effect of partner communications of fraud likelihood and skeptical orientation on auditors' professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 36(2): 111-131.

20. Ho, Sh.Y, S.Y. Phang & R. Moroney. (2021). The combined effect of perspective-taking and incentives on professional skepticism. Managerial Auditing Journal 37(1): 129-150.

21. Hoos, F., J.L. Pruijssers & M.W. Lander. (2019). Who's Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors' Professional Skepticism. Journal of Business Ethics 156(2): 563–575.

22. Hurtt, R.K. (2010) Development of a Scale to Measure Professional Skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 29(1): 149–171.

23. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board Hurtt, R.K., H. Brown-Liburd, C.E. Earley & G. Krishnamoorthy. (2013) Research on Auditor Professional Skepticism: Literature Synthesis and Opportunities for Future Research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 32: 45–97.

24. (IAASB). (2018) Professional Skepticism Lies at the Heart of a Quality Audit. Available from: https://www.Ifac.org/Publications-Resources/Professional-Skepticism-Lies-Heart -Quality-Audit

25. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2012). Handbook of International Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance, and Related Services Pronouncements. New York: IFAC.

26. Juma'h, A.H., & Y. Li. (2023). The effects of auditors’ knowledge, professional skepticism, and perceived adequacy of accounting standards on their intention to use blockchain. International Journal of Accounting Information 51(2): 31–50. DOI:10.1016/j.accinf.2023.100650

27. Kim, S., & N. Harding, (2017). The Effect of a Superior's Perceived Expertise on the Predecisional Distortion of Evidence by Auditors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 36(1): 109–127.

28. Ko, J.C.W., & S.Y. Phang. (2025). How Motivation Traits and Incentives Interact to Influence Auditor Professional Skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory, Forthcoming 44(2): 27-49.

29. Lerner, J.S., & P.E. Tetlock. (1999). Accounting for the Effects of Accountability. Psychological Bulletin 125(2): 255–275.

30. Nolder, C.J., & K. Kadous. (2018) Grounding the Professional Skepticism Construct in Mindset and Attitude theory: a Way Forward. Accounting, Organizations and Society 67: 1–14. DOI:10.1016/j.aos.2018.03.010

31. Otley, D.T., & B.J. Pierce. (1996). Auditor Time Budget Pressure: Consequences and Antecedents. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9(1): 31–58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271508995

32. Peytcheva, M., & P.R. Gillett. (2011). How Partners' Views Influence Auditor Judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 30(4): 285–301.

33. Pitesa, M., & S. Thau. (2013). Compliant Sinners, Obstinate Saints: How Power and Self-Focus Determine the Effectiveness of Social Influences in Ethical Decision Making. Academy of Management Journal 56(3): 635–658.

34. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2013). Remarks on the Global Audit. Available from: ttps://Pcaobus.org/News/Speech/Pages/02082013_Texas.aspx

35. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2016) Remarks on the Global Audit. Available from: https:// caobus.org/News/Speech/Pages/02082013_Texas.aspx

36. Rader, C.A., R.P. Larrick & J.B. Soll. (2017). Advice as a form of Social Influence: Informational Motives and the Consequences for Accuracy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 11(8): 1–17.

37. Rauthmann, J.F., & R.A. Sherman. (2019). Toward a Research Agenda for the Study of Situation Perceptions: a Variance Componential Framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review 23(3): 238–266.

38. Rauthmann, J.F., D. Gallardo-Pujol, E.M. Guillaume, E. Todd, C.S. Nave, R.A. Sherman, M. Ziegler, A.B. Cooper & D. Funder. (2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: a Taxonomy of Major Dimensions of Situation Characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107(4): 677–718.

39. See, K.E., E.W. Morrison, N.B. Rothman & J.B. Soll. (2011). The Detrimental Effects of Power on Confidence, Advice Taking, and Accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116(2): 272–285.

40. Smith, J.R., D.J. Terry & M.A. Hogg. (2007). Social Identity and the Attitude–Behaviour Relationship: Effects of Anonymity and Accountability. European Journal of Social Psychology 37(2): 239–257.

41. Uy, K.J.D., T.E.B. Bongcales, A.A. Balunan, L.O. Igot, J.M.L. Laude & J.J.D. Mojados. (2023). Auditor’s Professional Skepticism and its Relationship with Their Thinking Styles. Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal 10(2): 1-17.

42. Wallace, D.S., R.M. Paulson, C.G. Lord & C.F. Jr. Bond. (2005). Which Behaviors do Attitudes Predict? Metaanalyzing the Effects of Social Pressure and Perceived Difficulty. Review of General Psychology 9(3): 214–227.

43. Yang, L., A.G. Brink & B. Wier. (2018). The Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Auditor Judgment. International Journal of Auditing 22(1): 83–97.

Add your comments about this article

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Hajiha Z. The Effect of Audit Partners' Preferences on Auditors' Professional Skepticism Judgments with Emphasis on Social Influence Theory. fa 2025; 17 (65) : 1
URL: http://qfaj.mobarakeh.iau.ir/article-1-2803-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

year 17, Issue 65 (2025)

Back to browse issues page

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.17 seconds with 35 queries by YEKTAWEB 4725