An empirical Investigation of the Effects of Moderating and Mediating Variables in Business Research : Insights from an Auditing Report

• Autorzy: Mohammad Namazi , Navid Reza Namazi
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study examines the empirical impacts of moderating (MO) and mediating (ME) variables in business research, within the context of auditing reports. size, complexity of the operation, and risk of the firm were selected as the independent variable, moderating variable, and mediating variable, respectively. The selection was attempted over 15 years of research (1455 year-firm data) for the firms listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE). The following techniques were employed for testing the hypothesis: Pearson correlation, Levin, Lin, and Chu test, Hausman unit root, and multiple regression. The results revealed that there is a significant relationship between the size of the firm and the type of the auditing report. Moreover, a significant relationship between the size of the company and the type of auditing report is shown in the inventory value of the moderating variables. Furthermore, the same has been displayed in return on the assets and institutional ownership of the mediating variables. However, inventory and institutional ownership demonstrate a significant statistical relationship when moderating and mediating variables are considered simultaneously. The implication of this study is to demonstrate the moderating and mediating variables as significant impediments in the type of auditing report. This would change the design, theory, and implications of this research. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Reporting; Research results

PL

Raportowanie; Wyniki badań

• Czasopismo: Contemporary Economics
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 11
• Numer: nr 4
• Strony: 459--470

Twórcy

autor

Mohammad Namazi

• Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

autor

Navid Reza Namazi

• Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Bibliografia

• Baron R.M., & Kenny D.A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
• Blandón J.G., & Bosch M.A. (2013). Audit firm tenure and qualified opinions: New evidence from Spain. Spanish Accounting Review, 16, 118-125.
• Bruynseels L., & Willekens M. (2012). The effect of strategic and operating turnaround initiatives on audit reporting for distressed companies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37, 223-241.
• Cohen J., Krishnamoorthy G., & Wright A. (2007). The impact of roles of the board on auditors risk assessments and program planning decisions. Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory, 26(1), 91-112.
• Chen P.F., He S., Ma Z., & Derrald S. (2016). The information role of audit opinions in debt contracting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 61(1), 121-144.
• Corbella S., Florio C., Gotti G., & Mastrolia S.A. (2015). Audit firm rotation, audit fees and audit quality: The experience of Italian public companies. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 25, 46-66.
• Davies A., & Mackenzie I. (2014). Project complexity and systems integration: constructing the London 2012, olympics and paralympics games. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 773-790.
• Diaz M.C. (2016). Assembling the opinion: An active learning exercise for audit students. Journal of Accounting Education, 34, 30-40.
• Earnhart D., & Leonard M. (2013). Determinants of environmental audit frequency: The role of firm organizational structure. Journal of Environmental Management, 128, 497-513.
• Geiger M.A., Raghunandan K., & Rama D.V. (2006). Auditor decision-making in different litigation environments: The private securities litigation reform act, audit reports and audit firm size. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(3), 332-353.
• Habib A., & Jiang H. (2015). Corporate governance and financial reporting quality in China: A survey of recent evidence. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 24, 29-45.
• Heliodoro P.A., Carreira F.A., & Lopes M.M. (2016). The change of auditor: The Portuguese case. Spanish Accounting Review, 19(2), 181-186.
• Ho J.L.Y., & Kang F. (2013). Auditor choice and audit fees in family firms: Evidence from the S&P 1500. Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(4), 71-93.
• Hylas R., Ashton R.H. (1982). Audit detection of financial statement errors. The Accounting Review, 57, 751-765.
• Jensen M.C., & Meckling W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
• Kardes I.O.A., Cavusgil S.T., & Cavusgil E. (2013). Managing global megaprojects: Complexity and risk management. International Business Review, 22(6), 905-917.
• Liu S. (2015). Effects of control on the performance of information systems projects: The moderating role of complexity risk. Journal of Operations Management, 36, 46-62.
• Messier W.F., & Austen L.L. (2000). Inherent risk and control risk assessments: Evidence on the effect of pervasive and specific risk factors. Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(2), 119-131.
• Milch V., & Laumann K. (2016). Interorganizational complexity and organizational accident risk: A literature review. Safety Science, 82, 9-17.
• Muller D., Judd C.M., & Yzerbyt V.Y., (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852-863.
• Namazi M. (1985). Theoretical developments of principal-agent employment contract in accounting: The state of the Art. Journal of Accounting Literature, 4, 113-163.
• Namazi M. (2013). Role of the agency theory in implementing management's control. Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 5(2), 38-47.
• Namazi M., & Namazi N.R. (2016). Conceptual analysis of moderator and mediator variables in business research. Procedia Economics and Finance, 36, 6540-554.
• Paracini H., Malsch B., & Paillé A.M. (2014). Fear and risk in the audit process. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(4), 264-288.
• Ro H. (2012). Moderator and mediator effects in hospitality research. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 952-961.
• Rodríguez A.L., Eldridge S., Roldán J.L., Leal-Millán A.G., & Ortega-Gutiérrez J. (2014). Organizational unlearning, innovation outcomes, and performance: The moderating effect of firm size. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 803-809.
• Smith M. (2014). Research Methods in Accounting (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publishing.
• Sun W., & Cui K. (2014). Linking corporate social responsibility to firm default risk. European Management Journal, 32(2), 275-287.
• Taffler R.J., Lu J., & Kausar A. (2004). In denial? Stock market underreaction to going-concern audit report disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 38(1), 263-296.
• Tsipouridou M., & Spathis C. (2014). Audit opinion and earnings management: Evidence from Greece. Accounting Forum, 38(1), 38-54.
• Wang C., & Dou H. (2015). Does the transformation of accounting firms' organizational form improve audit quality? Evidence from China. China Journal of Accounting Research, 8, 279-293.
• Wilken R., Jacob F., & Prime N. (2013). The ambiguous role of cultural moderators in intercultural business negotiations. International Business Review, 22(4), 736-753.
• Xie Z., Cai C., & Ye J. (2010). Abnormal audit fees and audit opinion - further evidence from China's capital market. China Journal of Accounting Research, 3, 51-70.
• Youn H., Hua N., & Lee S. (2015). Does size matter? Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 127-134.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5709/ce.1897-9254.256