{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Results for h3 comparing the wg and the sg settings

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

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

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online