Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The Effect of the Social Mismatch between Staff Auditors and Client Management on the Collection of Audit Evidence
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The Effect of the Social Mismatch between Staff Auditors and Client Management on the Collection of Audit Evidence
Do you wish to request the book?
The Effect of the Social Mismatch between Staff Auditors and Client Management on the Collection of Audit Evidence
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The Effect of the Social Mismatch between Staff Auditors and Client Management on the Collection of Audit Evidence
2013
Overview
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.
