臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

專業懷疑是審計人員執行查核工作時不可或缺的元素。在面臨重視原則而非細則基礎的財務報導環境下，敏銳的審計專業懷疑，將是平衡效率與品質，降低審計風險的重要關鍵。但是，目前的研究對專業懷疑的定義卻相當混淆，因此，研究的結論，對於如何培養審計人員的專業懷疑、提高審計獨立性及維持審計品質，無法提供具體的建言。本研究依據Nelson(2009)的模式，將目前的審計專業懷疑研究內容，區分為天生的懷疑特質、懷疑判斷，以及懷疑行動等三項構念，探討影響關係，並分析事務所高階主管的態度對於審計人員專業懷疑的影響。
以134位事務所審計人員和108位會計系所高年級學生為樣本的實驗研究，比較相同審計證據下，高階主管支持與否對於懷疑判斷與懷疑行動的影響。結果發現，審計人員的懷疑特質及信任傾向，並不會影響懷疑判斷及懷疑行動。在受到高階主管支持之前的懷疑行動會受到懷疑判斷的正向影響。但是當高階主管支持程度較低時，會使懷疑行動做出重大的負向調整。
本研究的結果顯示，審計人員的專業懷疑是以審計證據為依據的評估結果，懷疑行動會受懷疑判斷的重大影響，不會因為個人特質而有偏見，此一結果，與過去研究的發現，並不相同，值得後續研究者的注意。其次，事務所高階主管的支持態度，並不會大幅增加懷疑行動，沒有造成過度審計的疑慮，另一方面，高階主管的不支持，卻會大幅降低懷疑行動。顯示審計人員的獨立判斷，仍會受到高階主管態度的干預。
知識與經驗的傳承，是事務所教育訓練的必要環節，但是，如何鼓勵審計人員，培養敏銳的專業懷疑，並不受干預地維持審計獨立性，仍將是會計師事務所在面臨原則基礎的審計新環境時，所必需面對的挑戰，而本研究的結果，對於事務如何訓練審計人員的專業懷疑判斷與決策，將可以提供啟發。

Professional skepticism is an indispensable element in auditing tasks. Keen professional skepticism will be the key to balance efficiency and quality, and to lower the audit risk, and it is especially true, when auditors involved in a principle-based financial reporting environment than a rule-based one. Nevertheless, the definition of professional skepticism in recent research is confused. Therefore, the result can’t provide definite suggestions about how to train auditors professional skepticism, enhance the audit independence and maintain the audit quality. This study is based on the mode of Nelson(2009), separating research of audit professional skepticism into three constructs─innate skeptical characteristic, skeptical judgment and skeptical action, exploring their relationship, and analyzing the impact of the top management’ attitude on professional skepticism of auditors.
This research uses 134 auditors of audit firms and 108 senior students of accounting department as experiment sample. Under the same evidence, the study compares whether the top management support will affect skeptical judgment and skeptical action or not. The results show that skeptical characteristic and trust propensity of auditors won’t influence skeptical judgment and skeptical action. Skeptical judgment has a positive effect on skeptical action before top management support; but the top management support has negative effect on the number of skeptical action adjustment.
The results show that auditor’s professional skepticism depends on audit evidence evaluated. Skeptical judgment has great impact on skeptical action, and won’t cause bias by personal traits. This result is different from prior research, and it is worthwhile to explore for future researchers. Moreover, the attitude of top management support won’t increase skeptical action substantially, so it won’t cause over auditing; on the other hand, when top management nonsupport will substantially decrease the skeptical action. The attitude of top management will intervention in auditor’s independence judgment.
To pass on knowledge and experience is an essential component for the firm education and training. However, how to encourage auditors to develop a keen professional skepticism and free from attitude of top management intervention is a challenge for audit firm when facing the new audit environment which focuses on principle-based. The results can provide audit firm edification about how to train its auditors’ professional skepticism judgment and decision.

目錄
摘要 I
Abstract II
致謝詞 III
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
一、釐清專業懷疑的定義及內涵 5
二、探討壓力對專業懷疑的影響 5
第三節 研究流程圖 8
第四節 論文章節安排 9
第二章 文獻探討 10
第一節 審計獨立性 10
一、實質上的獨立 12
二、形式上的獨立 12
第二節 審計專業懷疑 12
第三節 懷疑行動的形成 22
一、證據的輸入 23
二、懷疑判斷 25
三、個人特質 27
四、事務所高階主管支持 32
第四節 證據輸入對懷疑判斷的影響 34
第五節 懷疑判斷對懷疑行動的影響 35
第六節 人格特質對專業懷疑的影響 37
一、懷疑特質對懷疑判斷的影響 37
二、懷疑特質對懷疑行動的影響 37
三、信任傾向對懷疑判斷的影響 38
四、信任傾向對懷疑行動的影響 39
第三章 研究設計 40
第一節 研究模式 40
第二節 變數定義及測量 41
一、名詞定義 41
二、實驗設計 44
三、變數測量 44
四、變數定義及測量彙總表 49
第三節 假說發展 50
一、懷疑判斷對懷疑行動的影響 50
二、審計人員個人特質對調整前懷疑行動及懷疑判斷的影響 51
三、調整前懷疑行動和高階主管支持對調整後懷疑行動的影響 53
四、高階主管支持對懷疑行動調整量的影響 55
第四節 問卷發展與資料蒐集計畫 57
第五節 資料分析方法 57
一、操弄檢測分析 58
二、樣本特性檢測 58
三、測量工具檢測 58
四、敘述性統計 59
五、研究假說檢定 59
第四章 資料分析 60
第一節 資料回收分析 60
第二節 樣本基本資料分析 60
第三節 變數測量檢查 62
一、因素分析 62
二、內容效度與表面效度 66
三、變數信度與敘述統計分析 66
四、實驗樣本分配 67
第四節 實驗效果檢測 70
一、劇景對研究變數之影響 70
第五節 假說檢定 73
一、單變量分析 73
二、多變量分析 75
第五章 結論與討論 84
第一節 研究結論 84
第二節 研究貢獻 87
一、理論意涵 87
二、實務意涵 87
第三節 研究限制與建議 88
參考文獻 90
附錄A、劇景問卷 100
一、高階主管強調效率 100
二、高階主管強調品質 104

表目錄
表2.2.1 專業懷疑分類相關文獻整理 19
表2.2.2 專業懷疑的定義 21
表2.3.1 懷疑行動的衡量因素 23
表2.3.2 影響審計人員懷疑判斷的因素 26
表2.3.3 懷疑判斷的衡量因素 27
表2.3.4 懷疑特質衡量因素 30
表2.3.5 信任傾向衡量因素 32
表2.5.1 審計人員的四種懷疑類型 36
表3.2.1 懷疑行動量表 45
表3.2.2 審計人員懷疑特質量表 47
表3.2.3 懷疑特質量表反向題題項 48
表3.2.4 個人信任傾向量表 48
表3.2.5 變數定義及測量彙總表 49
表4.2.1 樣本基本資料統計表 61
表4.2.2 審計人員基本資料統計表 62
表4.3.1 懷疑特質及信任傾向因素分析適合度之KMO及Bartlett檢定表 63
表4.3.2 懷疑特質因素分析適合度之KMO及Bartlett檢定表 64
表4.3.3 懷疑特質因素結構表 65
表4.3.4 懷疑特質及信任傾向構面信度分析表 66
表4.3.5 各變數敘述統計表 67
表4.3.6 實驗操弄之樣本分配表 69
表4.4.1 劇景對主要變數影響之敘述統計表 70
表4.4.2 劇景對主要變數影響之變異數分析表 72
表4.5.1 Pearson相關係數之單變量分析 74
表4.5.2 調整前懷疑行動迴歸分析表 77
表4.5.3 懷疑判斷迴歸分析表 79
表4.5.4 調整後懷疑行動及懷疑行動調整量迴歸分析表 81
表4.5.5 假說結果彙整表 83

圖目錄
圖1.3.1 研究流程圖 8
圖2.2.1 專業懷疑模型 14
圖2.6.1 Hurtt et al.專業懷疑模型 38
圖3.1.1 研究模式圖 41
圖4.4.1 不同劇景之調整前後懷疑行動 72

參考文獻
中文部分：
江忠儀，2001，會計師獨立性規範之跨國比較暨我國遵行狀況之研究，國立台灣大學會計系碩士論文。
吳清在與曾玉琦，2008，會計師事務所合併對審計獨立性之影響，會計評論，第47期：29-60。
李東峰，2010，「信任會影響審計專業懷疑嗎？」，中國北京，大陸首都經濟貿易大學主辦，第九屆財務理論與實踐研討會暨「經濟與管理研究」創刊20週年學術研討會論文集。
馬秀如與侯宜廷，2007，企業失敗VS.審計失敗－力霸案之省思，會計研究月刊，第261期。
陳怡婷，2002，解釋責任、核閱者立場與審計工作對審計判斷影響之研究，國立台灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
詹景益，1999，會計專業超然獨立之實證分析，國立中正大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
蕭萬龍，2003，會計師簽證民事責任之研究，中原大學財經法學系碩士學位論文。
英文部分：
Ajzen, I., 2005, Berkshire: open university press, Attitudes, Personality and Behavior.
Allen, D., D.Hermanson, T.Kozloski, and R.Ramsay, 2006, Auditor risk assessment: Insights from the academic literature, Accounting Horizons, 20 (2): 157-177.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), 1997, Due care in the performance of work, statement on auditing standards No.1, NewYork, NY: AICPA.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), 2002, Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit, statement on auditing standards No.99, New York, NY: AICPA.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA),2003, AICPA Practice aid series, fraud detection in a GAAS audit: SAS No. 99 Implementation Guide, New York, NY: AICPA.
Antle, R., 1982, The auditor as an economic agent, Journal of Accounting Research, 20:503-527.
Antle, R, 1984, Auditor independence, Journal of Accounting Research, Spring: 1-20.
Asare, S., and A. Wright, 2004, The effectiveness of alternative risk assessment and programplanning tools in a fraud setting, Contemporary Accounting Research, Summer(21): 325-352.
Baiman, S., J.Evans III, and J.Nagarajan, 1991, Collusion in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 29 (Spring): 1-18.
Bailey, D., C.Daily, and T.Philips Jr, 2006, A study of kruglanski’s need for closure construct and its implications for judgment and decision making in accounting and auditing, Working paper.
Bamber, M., and V.Iyer, 2007, Auditors’ identification with their clients and its effect on auditors’ objectivity, Auditing: A Journal of Practice &; Theory, 26 (November): 1-24.
Bartlett,W., 1993, A scale of perceived independence:new evidence on an oldoncept, Accounting Auditing &;Accountability Journal, 52-67.
Bazerman, H., D.Moore, P.Tetlock, and L.Tanlu, 2006, Reports of solvingthe conflicts of interest in auditing are highly exaggerated, Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 1-7.
Beasley, M., J.Carcello, and D.Hermanson, 1999, Fraudulent financial reporting: 1987-1997:An analysis of U.S. public companies, committee of Sponsoring organizations of the treadway commission, Jersey City.
Becker, L.C., 1996, Trust as noncognitive security about motives, Ethics, 10:743-761.
Bell, T.B., M.E.Peecher, and I.Solomon, 2005, The 21st century public company audit. New York, NY: KPMG LLP.
Brazel, J., T.Carpenter, and G.Jenkins, 2010, Auditors’ use of brainstorming in the consideration of fraud: reports from the field, The Accounting Review, 85(4): 1273-1301.
Bunge, M., 1991, A skeptic’s beliefs and disbeliefs, New Ideas in Psychology, 9(2): 131-149.
Carmichael, D., and R.Swieringa, 1968, The compatibility of auditing, independence and management services-an identification of issues, The Accounting Review, (October):697-705.
Carpenter, T., J. Reimers, 2011, Professional skepticism the effects of a partners influence and the presence of fraud on auditors fraud judgments and actions.
Choo, F., and K.Tan, 2000, Instruction, skepticism, and accounting students’ ability to detect fraudsin auditing, The Journal of Business Education , 1(Fall):72-87.
Cohen, J., and T.Kida, 1989, The impact of analytical review results, internal control reliability, and experience on auditors’ use of analytical review, Journal of Accounting Research, (Autumn): 263-277.
CostaPaul,T., and R.McCrae, 1992, Four ways five factors are basic, Personality and Individual Differences,13(6):653-665.
DeAngelo,L.E., 1981, Auditor size and audit quality, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(December):183-199.
DeFond, M.L., K.Raghunandan, and K.R.Subramanyam, 2002, Do non-auditservice fees impair auditor independence?Evidence from going concern auditopinions, Journal of Accounting Research, 40(September):1247-1274.
DeZoort, F.T., R.W.Houston, and M.Peters, 2001, The impact of internal auditor compensationand role on external auditors’ planning judgments and decisions, Contemporary AccountingResearch, 18 (2):257-281.
Diacont, G., 1996, A conversation with george diacont,Chief Accountant,SEC EnforcementDivision, The CPA Journal , 66(6): 24-26.
Duh, R.R., 2004, Towards the convergence with international financial reporting standards: the experience of Taiwan, Joint APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC), Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) Conference, Taipei, Taiwan.
Forsyth, D.R, 1980, A taxonomy of ethical ideologies, Journal of Personalityand SocialPsychology, 39:175-184.
Fullerton, R.R., and C.Durtschi, 2004, The effect of professional skepticism on the fraud detection skills of internal auditors, Workingpaper, Utah State University.
Earley, C.E, 2002, The differential use of information by experienced and novice auditors in the performanceof ill-structured audit tasks, Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(4):595-614.
Gaumnitz, B. R., T.R.Nunamaker, J.J.Surdick, and M.F.Thomas, 1982, Auditor consensus internalcontrol evaluation and audit program planning, Journal of Accounting Research, 20(Autumn part II):745-755.
Gefen, D., 2000, E-Commerce:the role of familiarity and trust, Omega:the International Journal of Management Science, 28:725-737.
Gibbins, M., and J.D.Newton, 1994, An empirical exploration of complexaccountability in public accounting, Journal of Accounting Research, (Fall):165-186.
Glanville, J.L., and P.Paxton, 2007, How do we learn to trust? A confirmatory tetrad analysis of the cources of generalized trust, Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(3): 230-242.
Glover, S.M., 1997, The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors’ processing of nondiagnostic information, Journal of Accounting Research, 35 (Autumn): 213-227.
Glover, S.M., J.Jiambalvo, and J.Kennedy, 2000, Analytical procedures and audit-planning decisions, Auditing: A Journal of Practice &; Theory, 19(2): 27-45.
Glover, S., D.Prawitt, J.Schultz, and M.Zimbelman, 2003, A test of changes in auditor’s fraud related planning judgments since the issuance of SAS No.82, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 22(2): 237-251.
Goldsteen, R., J.K.Schorr, and K.S.Goldsteen, 1989, Longitudinal study of appraisal at three mile island: implications for life event research, Social Science and Medicine, 28:389-398.
Hackenbrack, K., 1992, Implications of seemingly irrelevant evidence in audit judgment, Journal of Accounting Research, 30(Spring): 126-136.
Hardin, R., 2002, Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hellriegel, D., J.W.Slocum, and R.W.Woodman, 1989, Organizational Behavior, 5th ed., N.Y.:West Publishing.
Hoffman, V.B., and J.M.Patton, 1997, Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism inauditors’ fraud judgments, Journal of Accounting Research, 35 (Autumn): 227-238.
Hoffman, V., and M.F.Zimbelman, 2009, Do strategic reasoning and brainstorming helpauditors change their standard audit procedures in response to fraud risk?, The Accounting Review, 84(3): 811-837.
Hofstede, G., 1980, Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?, Organizational Dynamics, 9(1): 42-63.
Hurtt, R.K., M.Eining and D.Plumlee, 2003, Professional skepticism: A model with implications for research, practice and education, Working paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Hurtt, R.K., 2007, Professional skepticism: An audit specific model andmeasurement scale, Working paper, Baylor University.
Hurtt, R.K., M.Eining, and D.Plumlee, 2008, An experimental examination ofprofessional skepticism, Working paper.
Jones, K., 1996, Trust as an affective attitude, Ethics, 10: 74-125.
Kaplan, S.E., 1985, An examination of the effects of environment and explicit internal control evaluationon planned audit hours, Auditing:A Journal of Practice &; Theory, 5(Fall): 12-25.
Kaiser, H., 1974, An index of factorial simplicity, Psychometrika, (39):31-36.
King, R.R., 2002, An experimental investigation of self-serving biases in an auditing trust game: the effect of group affiliation, The Accounting Review, 77(2): 265-284.
Kini, A., and J.Coobineh, 1998, Trust in electronic commerce：definition and theoretical considerations, IEEE.
Knapp, M.C., 1985, Audit conflict: an empirical study on the perceived ability of auditors to resist management pressure, The Accounting Review, 60:202-11.
Kurtz, P, 1992, The new skepticism: inquiry and reliable knowledge, New York: Prometheus Books, Buffalo.
Lefcourt, H.M., 1991, Locus of control, Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes,1:413-500.
Lewis, J.D., and A.Weigert, 1985, Trust as a social reality, Social Forces, 63: 967-985.
Libby, R., 1985, Availability and the generation of hypotheses in analytical review, Journal ofAccounting Research, 23(Autumn): 648-667.
Magee, R.P., and M.Tseng, 1990, Audit pricing and independence, The Accounting Review, (April):315-336.
Mayer, R.C., J.H.Davis, and F.D. Schoorman, 1995, An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709-734.
McAllister, D., 1995, Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations forinterpersonal cooperation in organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 38(1):24-59.
McKnight, D.H., L.L.Cummings, and N.L.Chervany, 1998, Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships, The Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 473-490.
McMillan, J.J., and R.A.White, 1993, Auditors’ belief revisions and evidence search: the effect ofhypothesis frame, confirmation and professional skepticism, The Accounting Review, 68 (3):443-465.
McGrath, S., A.Siegel, T.W.Dunfee, A.S.Glazer, and H.R.Jaenicke, 2001, Aframework for auditor independence, Journal of Accountancy, 191(January): 39-42.
McKinley, S., K.Pany, and P.M.J.Reckers, 1985, An examination of the influence of CPA firm type, size, and mas provision on loan officers decisions and perceptions, Journal of Accounting Research, (Autumn):887-896.
Mock, T., and A.Wright, 1993, An exploratory study of auditors’ evidential planning judgments, Auditing: A Journal of Practice &; Theory, 12 (Fall): 39-61.
Mock, T.J., and J.L.Turner, 2005. Auditor identification of fraud risk factors and their impacton audit programs, International Journal of Auditing, 9: 59-77.
Nelson, M., J.A.Elliott, and R.L.Tarpley, 2002, Evidence from auditors about managers and auditors earnings management decisions, The Accounting Review 77(Supplement):175-202.
Nelson, M., 2004, A review of experimental and archival conflicts-of-interest research in auditing, InConflicts of Interest: Problems and Solutions In Law, Medicine, and Organizational Settings, Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, M., 2006, Ameliorating conflicts of interest in auditing: Effects of recent reforms on auditors andtheir clients, Academy of Management Review.
Nelson, M., 2009, A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing, Auditing: A Journal ofPractice and Theory, 28(2):103-132.
Ng, P., and H.Tan, 2003, Effects of authoritative guidance availability and audit committee effectiveness on auditors’ judgments in an auditor-client negotiation context, The AccountingReview, 78 (3): 801-818.
Payne, E.A., and R.J.Ramsay, 2005, Fraud risk assessments and auditors’ professional skepticism, Managerial Auditing Journal, 20(3):321-330.
Pany, K., and P.Reckers., 1988, Auditor performance of mas: a study of its effects ondecisions and perceptions. Accounting Horizons, (June):31-38.
PCAOB, 2007, Observations of auditors’ implementation of pcaob standards relating toauditors’ responsibilities with respect to fraud, 1(January):22,Washington D.C.
Pearson, M., and J.Jr.Ryan, 1982, Perceptions of an auditor-management conflict.
Peecher, M.E., 1996, The influence of auditors’ justification processes on their decisions: A cognitivemodel and experimental evidence, Journal of Accounting Research, 34 (Spring): 125-140.
Phillips, F., 1999, Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting, Journal ofAccounting Research, 37(1):167-189.
Popova, V., 2006, The influence of skepticism and previous experience onauditor judgments, Working paper.
Previts, G. J., and B. D. Merino, 1998, A history of accountancy in the united states: the cultural significance of accounting, Working paper, Ohio State University Press.
Quadackers, L., T.Groot, and A.Wright, 2009, Auditors’ skeptical characteristics and their relationship toskeptical judgments and decisions, Working paper, Vrie University.
Remus, I., and A.Timothy, 2002,Understeading the dynamic relationships among personality, mood, and job satisfaction：a filed experience sampling study, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2):1119.
Rennie, M.D., S.Kopp, and W.M.Lemon, 2010, Exploring trust and the auditor-client relationship: factors influencing the auditor's trust of a client representative, Auditing: A Journal of Practice &; Theory, 29(1):279-293.
Rest, J.R., 1986, DIT: manualjor the defining issues test. Minneapolis, MN: university of Minnesota center for the study of ethical development.
Robbins, S.P., 2001, Organizational behavior, 9th ed., N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Rose, J.M., 2007, Attention to evidence of aggressive financial reporting andintentional misstatement judgments: effects of experience and trust. BehavioralResearch In Accounting, 19: 215-229.
Rosenberg, M., 1956, Misanthropy and political ideology, American Sociological Review, 21: 690-695.
Rotter, J.B., 1966, Generalized expectancies for internal versus external controlof reinforcement, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80 (1):1-28.
Rotter, J.B., 1967, A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust, Journal of Personality, 35: 651-665.
Rotter, J.B., 1971, Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust, American Psychologist, 26:443-452.
Rotter, J.B., 1980, Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility, American Psychologist, 35 (1): 1-7.
Schuetze, W., 1994, Commentary: A mountain or a molehill?, Accounting Horizon, 8(1):69-75.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 2000, Hearing on auditor independence, (July):26.
Shaub, M. K., 1989, An empirical examination of the determinants ofauditors' ethical sensitivity, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, TexasTech University, Lubbock, TX.
Shaub, M., 1996, Trust and suspicion: the effects of situation and dispositional factorson auditors’ trust of clients, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8:154-174.
Shaub, M.K., and J.E.Lawrence, 1996, Ethics, experience, and professional skepticism: A situational analysis, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8 (Supplement): 124-157.
Shaub, M.K., and J.E.Lawrence, 1999, Differences in auditors’ professional skepticism across career levels in thefirm, Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 2: 61-83.
Shaub, M.K., and J.E.Lawrence, 2002, A taxonomy of auditors’ professional skepticism, Research on AccountingEthics, 8: 167-194.
Shelton, S.W., 1999, The effect of experience on the use of irrelevant evidence in auditor judgement, The Accounting Review, 74 (2): 217-224.
Shelton, O., R.Whittington, and D.Landsittel, 2001, Auditing firms’ fraud risk assessment practices, Accounting Horizons, 15 (1): 19-33.
Shockley, R.A, 1981, Perceptions of auditors’ independence: An empirical analysis, The Accounting Review, 56 (October): 785-800.
Tetlock, P.E., 1983, Accountability and the complexity of thought, Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, (July): 74-83.
Treadway Commission, 1987, Report of the national commission on fraudulent financial reporting.
Tsui, J.S., and F.A.Gul,1996, Auditors’ behaviour in an audit conflict situation: aresearch note on the role of locus of control and ethical reasoning, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(1): 41-51.
Tversky, A., and D.Kahneman, 1974, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science, 185(4157): 1124-1131.
Turner, L., 2000, Independence matters, speech at the 28th annual national conference on current sec developments.
Turner, C.W., 2001, Accountability demands and the auditor’s evidence searchstrategy: The influence of reviewer preferences and the nature of theresponse (Belief vs. Action), Journal of Accounting Research, (December):683-706.
United States General Accounting Office (GAO), 2003, Public accounting firms:andated study on consolidation and competition, (July):GAO-03-864.
Webster, D.M., and A.W. Kruglanski, 1994, Individual differences in need for cognitive closure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6): 1049-1062.
Whitener, E. M., S.E.Brodt, M.A.Korsgaard, and J.M.Werner, 1998, Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior, Academy of Management Review, 23:513-530.
Wicks, A.C., S.L.Berman, and T.M.Jones, 1999, The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications, Academy of Management review, 24(1):99-116.
Wilks, T.J., 2002, Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real-time audit review, The Accounting Review, 77 (1): 51-71.
Wrightsman, L.S., 1964, Measurement of Philosophies of Human Nature, Psychological Reports, 14: 743-751.
Wrightsman, L.S, 1974, Assumptions about human nature: a social-psychological approach, Monterey,CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Yosano, A., and N.Havashi, 2005, Social stratification, intermediary groups, and creation of trustfulness, Sociological Theory and Methods, 20: 27-44.
Zimbardo, P.G., 1988, Psychology and life, 12th ed.
Zimbelman, M., 1997, The effects of SAS No. 82 on auditors’ attention to fraud risk factorsand audit planning decisions, Journal of Accounting Research, 35 (Supplement): 75-104.