In this study, Ajzen's (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior is used as a theoretical framework to extend prior research examining taxpayers' compliance intentions. Specifically, moral obligation is added to the theory's explicit constructs: attitude, subjective norms (i.e., peer influence), and perceived behavioral control. Moral obligation was expected to be a moderating influence (Reckers et al. 1994), and therefore interaction effects were hypothesized. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, a procedure was used to determine the outcome beliefs that underlie taxpayers' attitudes. These beliefs were incorporated into an attitude measure used in the second phase in which subjects responded to two of three tax-compliance scenarios. The data from phase two were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. The results indicate that the model including moral obligation, provides a significant explanation of tax noncompliance in the three different scenarios. However, the interaction effect of moral obligation appears to be more complex than the relationship suggested by Reckers et al. (1994).

SUMMARY Using structured interviews and surveys of practicing audit partners, this study examines their perceptions with regard to mandatory partner rotation and cooling-off periods, and how recently enacted, more stringent rules, may negatively impact auditors' quality of life to the detriment of audit quality. Results suggest rotation, in general, increases partners' workloads and the likelihood of relocation. Additionally, results suggest that in response to accelerated rotation (and an extended cooling-off period), partners would rather learn a new industry than relocate. Importantly, partners perceive audit quality suffers from retraining, but not from relocating. Thus these results suggest an indirect, negative impact, and unintended consequence, of accelerated rotation/extended cooling-off periods on audit quality. Data Availability: The survey instrument is available upon request. Individual audit partner responses are confidential.

Due to recent technological advancements such as online workpapers and email, audit firms have alternative methods of workpaper review that they did not have in the past. While audit workpaper preparers typically know they will be reviewed, and know the form their review will take, prior research has focused on comparing the judgments of auditors who expect to be reviewed with auditors who expect to remain anonymous. This study examines the effects on preparers of using two different methods of review: face-to-face and electronic review. The study also compares both review groups to a no-review control group. Consistent with the Heuristic-Systematic Model, we find that the method of review affects preparer effectiveness and efficiency. Specifically, preparers anticipating a face-to-face review are more concerned with audit effectiveness, produce higher quality judgments, are less efficient at their task, are less likely to be influenced by prior year workpapers, and feel more accountable than preparers in both the electronic review and no-review conditions. Interestingly, electronic review preparers generally do not differ from the no-review group. These results suggest that how a review will be conducted, and not merely the expectation that a review will occur, affects the decision-maker's judgments and perceptions.

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.

No abstract