| A wealth of research in communications and linguistics indicates that certain aspects of verbal communication can bias recipients' assessments of the messenger and the message content (Wheeless and McCroskey, 1973). For example, a message containing attributes such as hedges, hesitations, and faulty grammar (powerless linguistic delivery style) is often perceived as less persuasive and the messenger as less credible, than the same message not containing hedges, hesitations, and faulty grammar (powerful linguistic delivery style). This study introduces linguistic delivery style to research in auditing and explores whether, and to what extent, auditors' judgments are influenced by the linguistic delivery style management uses when providing audit evidence. The context of this study is the auditors' analytical review and the task is the auditors' inquiry of management regarding a significant financial statement fluctuation.; The construct client credibility defined as the client's objectivity, trustworthiness, and competence, and the construct linguistic delivery style were each manipulated at two levels (high and low) for a total of four experimental conditions. Two hundred auditors were assigned to one of the four conditions and the auditors' cognitive and behavioral responses to the manipulation were measured.; The auditors' cognitive responses to the manipulation were captured through the auditors' (1) assessments of the likelihood that the client-provided explanation accounted for the fluctuation and (2) confidence in the likelihood assessment. The results indicated that as auditors' perceptions of the power of language increased, auditors' assessments of the likelihood that the explanation accounted for the fluctuation also increased. Similarly, the likelihood assessments of auditors in the high credibility/powerful language condition were significantly greater than the likelihood assessments of auditors in the three other conditions.; The auditors' behavioral responses were measured through (1) the likelihood that the auditors would change the substantive tests related to the account under investigation, (2) the direction and magnitude of this change in substantive tests, and (3) the likelihood that the auditors would inquire of another member of management regarding the fluctuation. All participants indicated that they would increase rather than decrease substantive tests related to the account under investigation; however, the likelihood of implementing this change in substantive tests and the magnitude of its increase significantly differed among the conditions. (Abstract shortened by UMI.). |
