This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: 0 to the trust audit, 1 to the Nash audit, and 2 to the
defensive audit. These values are averaged and multiplied by 100. Thus, a lower audit index score indicates the
auditor is more trusting. I calculated the manager’s fraud index by assigning a value of 0 to the cooperate fraud
level, 1 to the Nash fraud level, and 2 to the cheat fraud level. These values are averaged and multiplied by 100.
Thus, a lower fraud index score indicates the manager is more cooperative. The payoff difference measure is
calculated by subtracting the auditor’s total expected payoffs from the manager’s expected payoff. Results for H3: Comparing the WG and the SG settings
Hypothesis 3 investigates the extent of the SG treatment on auditors’ choices. Figure
2, Panels C and D summarize audit and fraud choices. Notice the frequency of the trust/
cheat combination appears somewhat higher in the YP/SG setting (shown in Panel D) than
in the NP/SG setting (shown in Panel C). This ﬁnding is reinforced in Table 3, which
shows that auditors are less trusting in the SG setting than in...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 01/27/2014 for the course ACCY 405 taught by Professor Staff during the Fall '08 term at University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.
- Fall '08