Abstract
We examine whether audit-clients’ experience level affects their reactions when auditors use different negotiation tactics to help resolve a material audit issue. Using business owners as experienced clients and accounting students as naive clients, we find that experienced clients react significantly when auditors compromise on an issue (i.e., split the difference), but naive clients do not. These results are driven by large negative reactions by experienced clients when auditors do NOT compromise .We attribute this effect to differences in expectations regarding negotiation outcomes. Experienced clients expect auditors to compromise, and are disappointed when they don’t. Since naive clients have no expectations, they don’t react significantly either way. We also find that both experienced and naive clients react positively when auditors use immaterial items to create integrative solutions (i.e., cost cutting, non-specific compensation) in resolving a material audit issue, but only when NOT used simultaneously with compromise. We interpret this as indicating that client reactions to integrative tactics are not related to expectations, but are instead likely to be interpreted as signals of auditor empathy or concern for the client’s position. Compromise appears to interfere with these signals.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.