000			02024nab a2200241 a 4500
999			_c199766 _d199766
003			OSt
005			20200226102104.0
008			200210s2015 xxu|||||r|||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aCO-BoUGC _cCO-BoUGC
100	1		_aBowlin, Kendall O. _9179253
245	1	4	_aThe effects of auditor rotation, professional skepticism, and interactions with managers on audit quality _cKendall O. Bowlin, Jessen L. Hobson & M. David Piercey
300			_aPáginas 1363 a la 1393
520	3		_aWe examine whether the effect of mandatory auditor rotation on audit quality depends on the mental frame auditors adopt in evaluating management representations. In practice, auditors can alternately frame their assessments of management representations in terms of their potential dishonesty (what we term skepticism) or potential honesty. Using psychology theory and a laboratory experiment, we predict and find that mandatory rotation improves audit quality when an auditor takes an honesty frame, but that this effect reverses when an auditor takes a skeptical frame. Thus, the benefit of using a skeptical frame occurs when auditors do not rotate, but requiring rotation can reduce audit effort for auditors using a skeptical frame. An implication of our study is that focusing auditors on a skeptical assessment frame rather than mandating auditor rotation may be a less costly way to reduce low-effort audits and aggressive reporting.
650	1	4	_991036 _aContabilidad _vPublicaciones seriadas
650	2	4	_9177445 _aAuditores _xResponsabilidad profesional _vPublicaciones seriadas
650	2	4	_991050 _aAuditoría _vPublicaciones seriadas
650	2	4	_aTeoría de los juegos _vPublicaciones seriadas _9179254
690			_aEscepticismo profesional _9179255
700	1		_aHobson, Jessen L. _9179256
700	1		_aPiercey, M. David _9176472
773	0		_082265 _9368138 _aThe accounting review 2015 V.90 No. 4 (Jul) _o0000002030740 _x0001-4826 (papel) _h27 páginas _nIncluye tablas, figuras y referencias bibliográficas
942			_2ddc _cART