فصلنامه علمی کارافن

فصلنامه علمی کارافن

آزمون نقش رویکردهای تدوین استانداردهای حسابداری در سطح اطمینان و سطح شواهد تشخیصی و غیرتشخیصی درخواستی حسابرسان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی (کاربردی)

نویسندگان
1 هیئت علمی، گروه حسابداری، دانشگاه ملی مهارت، تهران، ایران.
2 استاد، گروه حسابداری، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران.
چکیده
استانداردهای حسابداری یکی از مهم‌ترین مواردی است که در حوزه گزارشگری مالی، حسابرسان در معرض آن هستند و به دلیل واکنش حرفه حسابداری و حسابرسی به تغییرات و انفعالات محیط کسب و کار، استانداردهای مذکور به‌طور دائم دستخوش تغییر و به‌روزرسانی می‌شوند. شیوه تدوین این استانداردها تحت تأثیر رویکردهایی (رویکرد مبتنی بر اصول و مبتنی بر قواعد) است که تدوین‌کنندگان استاندارد به هنگام تنظیم و مصوب کردن آنان برمی‌گزینند. پژوهش حاضر به دنبال بررسی تأثیر رویکردهای تدوین استانداردهای حسابداری در سطح اطمینان و سطح شواهد تشخیصی و غیرتشخیصی درخواستی حسابرسان است. در این راستا با استفاده از الگوسازی معادلات ساختاری و یک سناریوی شبه‌آزمایشی که از نظر استاندارد حسابداری در دو سطح مبتنی بر اصول و مبتنی بر قواعد دست‌کاری شده است، به بررسی این موضوع پرداخته شده است. یافته‌های حاصل از مشارکت 212 عضو جامعه حسابداران رسمی ایران (حسابرسان مستقل) حاکی از آن است که استانداردهای مبتنی بر اصول تأثیر مثبت و معناداری بر سطح شواهد درخواستی تشخیصی و غیرتشخیصی حسابرس دارد. این نتیجه گواه بر آن است که ابهام موجود در استانداردهای مبتنی بر اصول، منجر به تلاش حسابرس برای کسب شواهد بیشتر از هر دو نوع تشخیصی و غیرتشخیصی خواهد شد. افزون بر این، نتایج به‌دست‌آمده نشان داد رویکردهای تدوین استانداردهای حسابداری تأثیر معناداری بر سطح اطمینان در تصمیم‌گیری آزمودنی‌های پژوهش ندارد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Examining the Role of Accounting Standards Setting Approaches in the Level of Confidence and the Level of Diagnostic and Non-diagnostic Evidence Requested by Auditors

نویسندگان English

Amir Sarvestani 1
Gholamhossein Mahdavi 2
1 Faculty Member, Department of Accounting, National University of Skill (NUS), Tehran, Iran.
2 Professor, Department of Accounting, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.
چکیده English

Accounting standards are one of the most important items that auditors are exposed to in the field of financial reporting, and due to the reaction of the accounting and auditing profession to the changes in the business environment, the aforementioned standards are constantly being changed and updated. The setting of standards is influenced by the approaches (principle-based approach and rule-based approach) that the setters of standards choose when setting and approving them. The current research sought to investigate the impact of accounting standards development approaches on the assurance level and the level of diagnostic and non-diagnostic evidence requested by auditors. In this regard, this issue was investigated by using the modelling of structural equations and a quasi-experimental scenario that was manipulated in two levels. The findings from the participation of 212 members of Iranian CPAs (independent auditors) indicated that principles-based standards have a positive and significant effect on the level of diagnostic and non-diagnostic evidence requested by the auditor. This result proves that the ambiguity in principles-based standards will lead to the auditor's effort to obtain more evidence of both diagnostic and non-diagnostic types. In addition, the obtained results showed that the accounting standards-setting approaches do not have a significant effect on the level of confidence in the decision-making of the research subjects.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Accounting Standards
Audit Evidence
Auditing Institute
Standard Setting Approaches
Alizadeh, H., Malekian, E., & Kamyabi, Y. (2022). Investigating Barriers to the Development of Joint Audits in Iran. Quarterly Scientific Journal of National University of Skills, 19(Special Issue), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.48301/kssa.2022.325029.1955
Auditing Organization. (2016). Audit Evidence - Revised 2016 (500). Auditing. https://audit.org. ir/WFrmCodificatedStandardView.aspx?Id=1
Backof, A. G., Bamber, E. M., & Carpenter, T. D. (2016). Do auditor judgment frameworks help in constraining aggressive reporting? Evidence under mor precise and less precise accounting standards. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 51, 1-11. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.aos.2016.03.004
Benston, G. J., Bromwich, M., & Wagenhofer, A. (2006). Principles- versus rules-based accounting standards: the FASB's standard setting strategy. Abacus, 42(2), 165-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2006.00196.x
Boyle, E. S. (2024). How do auditors’ use of industry norms differentially impact management evaluations of audit quality under principles-based and rules-based accounting standards? Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 54(3), 100598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2024.100598
Braun, G. P., Haynes, C. M., Lewis, T. D., & Taylor, M. H. (2015). Principles-based vs. rules-based accounting standards: The effects of auditee proposed accounting treatment and regulatory enforcement on auditor judgments and confidence. Research in Accounting Regulation, 27(1), 45-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.racreg.2015.03.005
Chung, J., & Monroe, G. (2000). The effects of experience and task difficulty on accuracy and confidence assessments of auditors. Accounting & Finance, 40(2), 135-151. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-629X.00040
Cohen, J. R., Krishnamoorthy, G., Peytcheva, M., & Wright, A. M. (2013). How Does the Strength of the Financial Regulatory Regime Influence Auditors' Judgments to Constrain Aggressive Reporting in a Principles-Based Versus Rules-Based Accounting Environment? Accounting Horizons, 27(3), 579-601. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-50502
Day, R. (2004). A critical review of accounting standard setting and the role of Government from 1980 to 1990. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 7(2), 80-133. https://doi.org/1 0.1108/96754260480001038
De George, E. T., Ferguson, C. B., & Spear, N. A. (2013). How Much Does IFRS Cost? IFRS Adoption and Audit Fees. The Accounting Review, 88(2), 429-462. https://doi.org/10.23 08/accr-50317
Donelson, D. C., McInnis, J. M., & Mergenthaler, R. D. (2012). Rules-Based Accounting Standards and Litigation. The Accounting Review, 87(4), 1247-1279. https://doi.org/1 0.2308/accr-10274
Douthit, J. D., Kachelmeier, S. J., & Van Landuyt, B. W. (2024). Does auditor assurance of client prosocial activities affect subsequent reporter-auditor negotiations? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 112(4), 101550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2024.101550
Favere-Marchesi, M., & Pincus, K. V. (2006). The impact of accountability on the processing of nondiagnostic evidence. In V. Arnold, B. D. Clinton, P. Luckett, R. Roberts, C. Wolfe, & S. Wright (Eds.), Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (pp. 1-25). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1488(06)09001-6
Folsom, D., Hribar, P., Mergenthaler, R. D., & Peterson, K. (2017). Principles-Based Standards and Earnings Attributes. Management Science, 63(8), 2592-2615. https://doi.org/10.12 87/mnsc.2016.2465
Georgiou, G. (2010). The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users. The British Accounting Review, 42(2), 103-118. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.bar.2010.02.003
Gipper, B., Lombardi, B. J., & Skinner, D. J. (2013). The politics of accounting standard-setting: A review of empirical research. Australian Journal of Management, 38(3), 523-551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896213510713
Glover, S. M. (1997). The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(2), 213-226. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2491361
Hackenbrack, K., & Nelson, M. W. (1996). Auditors' incentives and their application of financial accounting standards. The Accounting Review, 71(1), 43-59. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/248354
Harrer, T., & Lehner, O. M. (2024). Assuring the unknowable: a reflection on the evolving landscape of sustainability assurance for financial auditors. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 67, 101413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101413
Jamal, K., & Tan, H.-T. (2010). Joint Effects of Principles-Based versus Rules-Based Standards and Auditor Type in Constraining Financial Managers’ Aggressive Reporting. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1325-1346. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.4.1325
Jamei, R., & Heydari, A. (2022). Investigating the Role of Loan Guarantees on Auditing Fees with Emphasis on Social Responsibility. Quarterly Scientific Journal of National University of Skills, 19(2), 547-566. https://doi.org/10.48301/kssa.2022.298447.1655
Jamei, R., & Lotfi Joo, N. (2021). The Impact of Political Relations on Auditor's Opinion with Emphasis on Market Characteristics of Companies Listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. Quarterly Scientific Journal of National University of Skills, 18(2), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.48301/kssa.2021.128445
Kadous, K., & Mercer, M. (2012). Can Reporting Norms Create a Safe Harbor? Jury Verdicts against Auditors under Precise and Imprecise Accounting Standards. The Accounting Review, 87(2), 565-587. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10203
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological review, 80(4), 237-251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747
Kim, J.-B., Liu, X., & Zheng, L. (2012). The Impact of Mandatory IFRS Adoption on Audit Fees: Theory and Evidence. The Accounting Review, 87(6), 2061-2094. https://doi.org/10.23 08/accr-50223
Larson, R. (2002). Corporate Lobbying of the International Accounting Standards Committee. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 8(3), 175-203. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-646X.00024
Larson, R. K. (2007). Constituent Participation and the IASB's International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee. Accounting in Europe, 4(2), 207-254. https://doi.org/10.108 0/17449480701727981
Libby, R., & Luft, J. (1993). Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(5), 425-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)90040-D
Libby, T., Salterio, S. E., & Webb, A. (2004). The Balanced Scorecard: The Effects of Assurance and Process Accountability on Managerial Judgment. The Accounting Review, 79(4), 1075-1094. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2004.79.4.1075
Lin, H.-L., & Yen, A.-R. (2016). The effects of IFRS experience on audit fees for listed companies in China. Asian Review of Accounting, 24(1), 43-68. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-02-2014-0028
Mahdavi , G., & Sarvestani, A. (2018). The Role of Accounting Standards Setting Approaches on the Psychological Characteristics of Auditors. Journal of Accounting Knowledge, 8(4), 65-92. https://doi.org/10.22103/jak.2017.10252.2393
Maradona, A. F. (2020). A qualitative exploration of heuristics and cognitive biases in auditor judgements. Accountability, 9(2), 94-112. https://doi.org/10.32400/ja.30634.9.2.2020.9 4-112
McEnroe, J. E., & Sullivan, M. (2013). An examination of the perceptions of auditors and chief financial officers regarding principles versus rules based accounting standards. Research in Accounting Regulation, 25(2), 196-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.racreg.2013.08.008
Mintzberg, H. (1990). Strategy formation: Schools of thought. In J. W. Frederickson (Ed.), Perspectives on strategic management (pp. 105-235). Harper Business. https://mintzberg. org/articles/strategy-formation-schools-thought
Mohsenin, S., & Esfidani, M. (2013). Structural equations based on partial least squares approach using Smart-PLS software. Mehraban Nash Institute of Books. https://www. gisoom.com/book/11022991
Ng, T. B. P., & Tan, H. T. (2003). Effects of Authoritative Guidance Availability and Audit Committee Effectiveness on Auditors' Judgments in an Auditor‐Client Negotiation Context. The Accounting Review, 78(3), 801-818. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2003.78. 3.801
Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 248-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90010-4
Peytcheva, M., Wright, A. M., & Majoor, B. (2014). The Impact of Principles-Based versus Rules-Based Accounting Standards on Auditors' Motivations and Evidence Demands. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 26(2), 51-72. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-50707
Rahimian, N. (2005). Judgment and decision making in auditing. Chartered Accountant, 2(6), 103-120. https://www.noormags.ir/view/en/articlepage/317463
Rojouie, M. (2008). Managing uncertainty in strategic decisions. Imam Reza University Management Special Quarterly, 22(1), 9-12. https://www.magiran.com/p705815
Saghafi, A., & Jamalianpour, M. (2016). Approach for using Accounting Standards. Financial Accounting Research, 8(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.22108/far.2016.20612
Sanborn, A. N., Noguchi, T., Tripp, J., & Stewart, N. (2020). A dilution effect without dilution: When missing evidence, not non-diagnostic evidence, is judged inaccurately. Cognition, 196, 104110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104110
Segovia, J., Arnold, V., & Sutton, S. G. (2009). Do principles- vs. rules-based standards have a differential impact on U.S. auditors' decisions? In V. Arnold (Ed.), Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (pp. 61-84). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-1488(2009)0000012006
Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Yates, J. F. (1996). Effects of Procedural and Outcome Accountability on Judgment Quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0001
Smith, S. D., Tayler, W. B., & Prawitt, D. F. (2016). The Effect of Information Choice on Auditors' Judgments and Confidence. Accounting Horizons, 30(3), 393-408. https://doi. org/10.2308/acch-51493
Stadler, C., & Nobes, C. W. (2018). Accounting for government grants: Standard-setting and accounting choice. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 37(2), 113-129. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.02.004
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cs da.2004.03.005
Tetlock, P. E., & Kim, J. I. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 700-709. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.700
Trompeter, G. (1994). The Effect of Partner Compensation Schemes and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles on Audit Partner Judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 13(2), 56-68. https://www.proquest.com/openview/798941915c3dee21843da6 75f9c28c92/1?cbl=31718&pq-origsite=gscholar
Van Lent, L. (1997). Pressure and Politics in Financial Accounting Regulation: The Case of the Financial Conglomerates in the Netherlands. Abacus, 33(1), 88-114. https://doi.org/10. 1111/1467-6281.00005
Verrecchia, R. E. (1990). Information quality and discretionary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 12(4), 365-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(90)90021-U
دوره 21، شماره 2
علوم انسانی
تابستان 1403
صفحه 685-708

  • تاریخ دریافت 24 مرداد 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری 10 شهریور 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش 15 آبان 1403