Based on the above background, the authors are interested in conducting research on AuditJudgment entitled Effect of Audit experience, complexity of the task andAgainst Pressure the Audit Judgmentobedience. Research on auditjudgment conducted by researchers before the results of the research are still different. As has been done by Fitriani (2012) which states that obedience pressure does not affect AuditJudgment, task complexity does not affect theaudit Jugment, only ethical perceptions that influence auditjudgment. while Jamilah (2007) states that obedience pressure influences audit judgmentwhile Yustrianthe's findings (2012) state that the pressure of obedience and the complexity of tasks affect AuditJudgment. But Gender and experience actually show no influence on AuditJudgment. Rachmawati et al (2013) found that audit experience influenced the auditor's judgment. Similar to the results of research conducted by Susetyo (2009) which revealed auditor experience did not affect the auditor's judgment. The research conducted by Dwi Wijaya (2016) states that client experiences and preferences influence auditjudgment. According to Budi Setyo (2009) the audit experience did not affect the AuditJudgment while Made Edi Septian Santosa (2016) stated the audit experience had an effect on the AuditJudgment.
With reference to the results of hypothesis testing as shown in table 2, it can be discovered that both obedience pressure and audit expertise affect auditjudgment. The excessive obedience pressure received by the auditor from the boss or client causes dysfunctional behavior and violates professional standards. They tend to fulfill the client requests or supervisor's instructions to tolerate mistakes in the financial statements. It was also found that low audit expertise would result in a lesser understanding of the audit problem faced and vice versa. Furthermore, an auditor with high audit expertise will be able to provide professional considerations even for a difficult auditing problem.Furthermore, from the result of the study, the lack of influence of task complexity on auditjudgment is contrary to the logic that more complex tasks assigned causes difficulties in determining the potential misstatement of financial statements. This may be due to the difficulty in collecting, processing, and evaluating audit evidence which increases the possibility of errors in making an auditjudgment. However, the result can be associated with the proper planning of the audit process by the supervisor which makes it easy to find a solution to any complex problem found in order to avoid the reduction in the quality of audit judgment.The implications of these findings for the Public Accountant Firms include (1) paying attention to the needs of auditors to attend audit workshops and continuing professional education organized by public accountant professional associations in order to understand the supervisor instructions or client requests that conflict with professional ethics and standards, (2) Indonesian Public Accountants Institute pay attention to and anticipate the influence of obedience pressure
In conducting their audit, the auditor performs audits with many judgment and considerations. An auditor in performing his/her duties makes auditjudgment influenced by many factors, both technical and non-technical. The auditor's perspective in responding to information relates to audit responsibilities and risks to be faced by the auditor in relation to the judgment they make. Many factors influence the perception of the auditor in responding and evaluating the information and evidence they get in their audit assignments, one of which is the skepticism of the auditors themselves. The Standards of Public Accounting Professionals (SPAP), 2001: 230.2, express professional auditors' skepticism as an attitude that includes thoughts that are always questioning and critically evaluating audit evidence.
The role of internal auditor is still very much needed in helping to ensure governance in developing countries such as Indonesia. Fraud actions such as corruption, manipulation of financial statements and embezzlement of funds which have occurred in Indonesian government are still alarming, so that internal auditor becomes public spotlight. Weak supervision is suspected to be a major factor in corruption cases. The internal auditor as the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus (APIP) has a role as supervisor, assistant and protector of management, as well as being an independent advisor to the government which should be able to prevent fraud which could harm the country. This study aimed to empirically prove the correlation of professional skepticism, organizational- professional conflict and performance evaluation toward AuditJudgment with auditor dysfunctional behavior as a moderating variable. This research was conducted on the auditor of the Government's Internal Supervisory Apparatus who worked in the Financial Supervisory Agency and Development Representative of East Java Province and the Inspectorate of East Java Province. Sampling was done by purposive sampling method. Questionnaires which were successfully collected were 81 questionnaires. The results showed that Professional Skepticism, Organizational Professional Conflict and Performance Evaluation had an effect on auditjudgment, but auditor dysfunctional behavior could not moderate the influence of professional skepticism, professional organizational conflict and performance evaluation of auditjudgment.
Auditors cannot guarantee clients or other users of financial statements, that audited financial statements were accurate. They do not check every audited transaction and cannot ensure that all transactions occurred have been recorded, summarized, classified and compiled properly into financial statements (Mulyadi, 2014). Auditors can give guarantee the sufficient and competent evidence as confirmed by Indonesian Institute of Certified Public Accountants (IAPI, 2015), in professional standards of public accountants / statement of auditing standards - standard field work, sufficient competent audit evidence must be obtained through inspection, observations, information requests, and confirmations as an adequate basis to express opinions on audited financial statements. In order to get sufficient evidence as the basis for audit opinion, it needs an auditjudgment. IAPI (2015) stated that audit considerations regarding the adequacy (quantity) of competent audit evidence play an important role. It has strong implications on audit quality or opinion on fairness of audited financial statements.
The relevance of my proposal can be summed up in the following way. A theology of informed judgment renders a phenomenological account of the landscape of contemporary theology. It observes concrete ways in which contemporary theologians go about their business. Obviously, the aim of a particular theological option will impact division of labor. For example, option 1 places a high premium on philosophical inquiry; options 2 and 3 rely heavily on insights from biblical studies and history; option 4 depends on insights from political philosophy and sociology. Option 5 tries to correlate the Christian message with insights from various fields of knowl- edge. Nevertheless, all work with implicit philosophical assumptions. The key is balance rather than uncritical endorsement of one resource of theological reflection. Comprehensiveness and specificity are essential poles of theological reflection. Insulating Christian theological discourse from broader philosophical thought creates the problem of relativism while subsuming theological discourse into an epistemic scheme compromises the integrity of Christian faith.
However the terms business/commercial judgment have also been applied to a wider, eclectic, range of decisions. In England strategic decisions to cut costs by laying off staff because of the view that there was not a market appetite for the company’s products; 86 and not to follow up on opportunities that lay outside the main business objective of the company have been treated as legitimate business or commercial judgments. 87 In Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co Ltd Romer J also stated that ‘the manner in which the work of a company is to be distributed between the board of directors and the staff is a business matter to be decided on business lines.’ 88 Business judgments are thus broader than purely economic decisions. The approach of the English courts seems in line with thinking elsewhere. Thus Austin J in ASIC v Rich recognised as business judgments: corporate personnel decisions, decisions to end litigation and ‘setting policy goals and the division of responsibilities between the board and senior management.’ Nevertheless, he quoted Redmond who referred to these as ‘less explicitly business decisions.’ 89 Meanwhile the Australian Companies and Securities Law Review Committee thought that judgments as to the company’s goals, plans
This article has considered the problem faced by an entrepreneur when raising capital to finance a risky business activity. In order to shield his assets from future tort claimants, and to secure capital at lower cost, the entrepreneur has a strong incentive to issue claims that are senior to any future claims by tort victims. Holding the level of borrowing fixed, the entrepreneur’s private decision to use senior debt is also socially desirable: senior debt leads to higher levels of precaution and hence a higher social surplus than either junior debt or outside equity. The entrepreneur will tend to borrow too much, however, and this leads to lower precautions. Public policies that prevent strategic judgment proofing may or may not be in society’s interest ex ante. Debt subordination and lender liability both eliminate overleveraging. By itself, this is a good thing: lower levels of borrowing implies higher levels of precaution. But holding the level of borrowing as fixed, both policies lead to suboptimal precautions and higher levels of social harm (lender liability performing worst). The Limited Seniority Rule allows senior debt only up to a predetermined limit, and thus limits the scope of the elevation of the torts’ bankruptcy status. Although least protective of the interest of tort claimants compared with other policies, this rule achieves the constrained social optimum: it prevents overleveraging and also creates the highest achievable incentives for care.
In this scientific topic is imperative to assume wide theoretical frameworks, Psychology, Sociology, and Philosophy are disciplines that help to clarify related concepts. In the present article, similarly to Timon Herrero and Sastre Vilarrasa (2003), I determined that is very important to assume theoretical contexts that include individual and social visions. From the perspective of brain reactions, James (1989) stipulates that the moral emotional stimuli have a relationship with the moral judgment (Prinz, 2007). Here, Greene, Nystrom, Engell, Darley and Cohen (2004), Greene and Haidt (2002), have shown, by neuroimaging, an evi- dence on socio-emotional in the ethical intuition processing: the cingulate gyrus anterior and posterior, the precuneus, bilateral temporoparietal junction, among others (Englander, Haidt, & Morris, 2012). However, following the basis of Vélez García & Ostrosky-Solís (2006), I can conclude that the differential characteris- tics of affective brain circuits are missing because the amygdala, insula, thala- mus, and brain, for example, also are excited by an emotional stimulation with or without moral weight.
Joining in Justice Ginsburg’s McIntyre dissent was Justice Sotomayor, whose nomination in 2009 had touched off controversy over whether practical wisdom is part of the job description for a Supreme Court justice. The national conversation about her began with empathy-gate. 19 In his nominating speech, President Obama praised Justice Sotomayor for bringing empathy to the task of judging. 20 Critics portrayed empathy as the antithesis of objective reasoning, accusing the president of believing that “judging should be shaped by ‘empathy’ as much or more than by reason.” 21 But empathy is not the opposite of reason. As Schwartz and Sharpe explain, “empathy—the capacity to imagine what someone else is thinking and feeling—is critical for the perception that practical wisdom demands.” 22 Rather than interfering with reasoned judgment, empathy makes emotion “an ally of reason.” 23
The second example of anchoring above was Wilson’s determination concerning the CCO’s basis-point change. It appears that Wilson was anchored to the CCO’s adjustment of 150 bps because, while he knew that it should be more, he did not increase it sufficiently. Wilson only thought it should be adjusted to 175 bps, but in reality it should have been 250 bps. Recall that Wilson believed the qualitative adjustment should be at least 175 bps because the company of another comparable savings and loan that Wilson is familiar with was experiencing charge-offs at that level and because of the prior-year auditing procedures that Wilson followed. Here, anchoring led to biased expectations compared to what Wilson might have developed had he reviewed and considered the other test work of the entire audit engagement team and the circumstances specific to the K-H audit, which found subsequent actual charge offs of 250 bps.
1. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants, American Arc Management Corporation, Family Care, Inc., National Association of Preferred Providers, Association Health Care Management, Inc., A.H.C.M. Training Institute, Inc., Liberty Arc, Inc., International Benefits System, Inc., Kristopher A. Rabie, and Mahmoud Rabie, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and any other persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Agreed Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise, whether acting directly or through any trust, corporation, subsidiary, division, or devise, shall be restrained from engaging in the following acts or practices:
1114 A KRON L AW R EVIEW [43:1107 a substantial volume of comments, and those comments reflected significant disagreement, 45 two factors that are sufficient to derail rulemaking changes, as the Rules Enabling Act process is currently implemented. 46 Faced with substantial disagreement and lack of briefing procedures (ultimately referred to as the ―point-counterpoint‖ amendment) that would require the moving party to file a statement of material facts that are not in dispute, the nonmoving party to respond to the statement of purportedly uncontested facts, and the movant to file a final submission; (2) to address explicitly in the Rule common practices nationwide that were not codified, such as the practice to permit partial summary judgment; and (3) to continue to permit the standard for summary judgment to be governed by judicial decision. Id. at 1153. Perhaps the most controversial of these amendments was the so-called ―point-counterpoint‖ proposal, which would have included in Rule 56 detailed requirements for parties to assert, support, and contest the statements of fact offered in support of or in opposition to a summary judgment motion, and which the Advisory Committee ultimately abandoned. See, e.g., Schneider, Disparate Impact, supra note 6, at 521-22 & n.22, 542, 557-61.
Because people encounter information that challenges their prior evaluations almost every day, the determinants of judgment revision need to be better understood. It is obvious that judgment revision will depend on the relative scale value of the challenging information. Various streams of research suggest that judgment revision may also be inversely related to the amount and elabora- tion of the information that supports the prior evaluation. The present research investigated the role of a hitherto unexamined factor—opportunity for compari- son produced by the challenge—in judgment revisions. Consistent with the comparison–revision hypothesis, the results from four experiments indicate that whenever challenges facilitate comparisons between the target and its competitors, these comparisons generally carry a disproportionate weight in the revised judgments. Strong opportunities for comparison may attenuate and, at times, reverse the previously documented negative relationship between amount and elaboration of prior information and judgment revision.
At least three aspects can be noticed from the above data. First, in both clusters the most relevant factor relates to couples’ relationship stability. Second, couples’ sexual orientation was only relevant to low acceptability cluster. Here, adoption by gays (M = 1.5) and lesbians (M = 1.4) was considered less acceptable than adoption by heterosex- ual couples (M = 5). Third, in the less favorable judgment cluster the civil state of a couple factor seemed more relevant than couples’ years of relationship. This is not the case for the first Cluster.