BUKTI KORESPONDENSI ARTIKEL JURNAL INTERNASIONAL ...

BUKTI KORESPONDENSI

ARTIKEL JURNAL INTERNASIONAL BEREPUTASI (TERINDEKS SCOPUS)

Judul Artikel : Public Accounting Profession and Fraud Detection Responsibility

Jurnal : Journal of Financial Crime, Volume 28, Nomor 2, Juni 2021, 613-627

Penulis : Ni Wayan Rustiarini, Anik Yuesti, Agus Wahyudi Salasa Gama

No Perihal Tanggal

1. Bukti konfirmasi submit artikel dan artikel yang

disubmit.

15 Juli 2020

2. Bukti konfirmasi artikel accepted. 31 Juli 2020

3. Bukti konfirmasi melakukan proofreading artikel. 11 Oktober 2020

4. Bukti konfirmasi artikel published online (in press). 5 November 2020

5. Bukti konfirmasi artikel mendapatkan volume dan

nomor.

9 Juni 2021

1. Bukti Konfirmasi Submit Artikel

dan Artikel yang Disubmit

(15 Juli 2020)

9/15/21, 10:29 PM Yahoo Mail - Journal of Financial Crime - JFC-07-2020-0140

1/1

Journal of Financial Crime - JFC-07-2020-0140

Dari: Journal of Financial Crime ([email protected])

Kepada: [email protected]

Tanggal: Rabu, 15 Juli 2020 22.55 GMT+8

15-Jul-2020

Dear Mrs. Rustiarini,

Your manuscript entitled "Public Accounting Profession and Fraud Detection Responsibility" has been successfullysubmitted online and is presently being given full consideration for publication in the Journal of Financial Crime.

Your manuscript ID is JFC-07-2020-0140.

Please mention the above manuscript ID in all future correspondence or when calling the office for questions. Ifthere are any changes in your street address or e-mail address, please log in to ScholarOne Manuscripts athttps://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jfc and edit your user information as appropriate.

You can also view the status of your manuscript at any time by checking your Author Centre after logging in tohttps://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jfc.

Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there arepermissions outstanding, please upload these when you submit your revision or send directly to Emerald if yourpaper is accepted immediately. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

Open Access?

All of our subscription journals give you the option of publishing your article open access, following payment of anarticle processing charge (APC). To find the APC for your journal, please refer to the APC price list:http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/openaccess/apc_price_list.pdf

Emerald has established partnerships with national consortium bodies to offer a number of APC vouchers for eligibleregions and institutions. To check your eligibility please refer to the open access partnerships page:http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/openaccess/oapartnerships.htm

If you would like to publish your article open access please contact [email protected]

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Journal of Financial Crime.

Yours sincerely,Journal of Financial Crime Editorial Office

https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jfc

http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/openaccess/apc_price_list.pdf

http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/openaccess/oapartnerships.htm

mailto:[email protected]

Rusti

Highlight

Journal of Financial Crime

Public Accounting Profession and Fraud Detection Responsibility

Journal: Journal of Financial Crime

Manuscript ID Draft

Manuscript Type: Scholarly Article

Keywords: audit expectation gap, fraud, goal orientation, self-efficacy



Public Accounting Profession and Fraud Detection Responsibility

Abstract:Purpose – The study aims to examine the influence of auditor personal factors, such as goal orientation, self-efficacy, and professional commitment to auditor's responsibility to detect the fraudulent, particularly in small accounting firms.

Design/methodology/approach – Researchers surveyed 86 auditors are working in small accounting firms in Bali Province, Indonesia.

Findings – The results prove the role of self-efficacy as a mediating variable in the relationship of goal orientation and auditor responsibility. This result at once confirms that self-efficacy can improve individual performance even in complex tasks. This study also proves the role of professional commitment as a mediator variable.

Research limitations/implications – Given that respondents came from small accounting firms, these findings not intended to be generalized with auditors in large accounting firms.

Practical implications – These findings highlight essential efforts to reduce audit expectation gaps between auditors and the public. The small accounting firms' leaders must to alignment workplace organizational goals and organization professional goals. A dualism of purpose causes the auditor to fail to fulfill the responsibility of fraud detection.

Social implications – There is a severe audit expectation gap related to the auditor's role in detecting fraud. This finding expected to answer public questions related to auditors' ability and responsibility in small accounting firms in detecting fraud.

Originality/value –There is limited research on auditor responsibility, particularly in small audit firms in developing countries. Also, there is still debate scientific about the influence of goal orientation, self-efficacy, and professional commitment to auditor performance.

Keywords: audit expectation gap; fraud; goal orientation; self-efficacy

Paper type: Research paper

Page 1 of 15 Journal of Financial Crime

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


IntroductionThe Enron scandal has raised public concern over fraud. This condition requires the auditor profession to actively find illegal actions in the company (Alleyne and Howard, 2005). Although Audit Standards (SAS) No. 99 has determined that external auditors can deliver "reasonable assurance" (AICPA, 2002), the fact is not all auditors can fulfill this responsibility (DeZoort and Harrison, 2018). This study examines the effect of the auditor's characteristics, namely goal orientation, self-efficacy, and professional commitment to responsibility in detecting fraud. Self-efficacy is a person's belief in his ability to complete specific tasks, while goal orientation refers to individual motives for completing tasks. The professional commitment factor is needed to direct the auditor to obey the assignment's moral and ethical values (Hsieh et al., 2007; Shafer et al., 2016).

This research was motivated by four things. First, there is an audit expectation gap related to the auditor's role in detecting fraud. Global financial studies reveal that external auditors can only identify four percent of corporate fraud (ACFE, 2020). The low detection rate is contrary to significant fraud cases (DeZoort and Harrison, 2018). Lack of auditor's responsibility raises public questions about the ability and seriousness of auditors to detect fraud indications. Second, based on the scientific literature review, no previous study has discussed goal orientation on fraud detection responsibility. In auditing context, goal orientation becomes a reason that motivates auditors on audit judgment performance (Iskandar et al., 2012; Mohd‐Sanusi and Mohd‐Iskandar, 2007; Nasution and Östermark, 2012; Sanusi et al., 2018). This study interacts with goal orientation with self-efficacy to maximize performance achievement, which has not much discussed in audit research.

Third, there is still scientific debate regarding the role of self-efficacy in complex tasks. On the one hand, researchers previously stated that cognitive ability acts as the best predictor determining individual performance, particularly in complex tasks (Hunter, 1986; Hunter and Hunter, 1984; Ree and Earles, 1991). As a social cognitive construct, self-efficacy will increase an individual's confidence in perform specific tasks (Bandura, 1991). On the other hand, self-efficacy cannot be a predictor of complex tasks (Sanusi et al., 2018; Svanberg et al., 2019). Fourth, auditors' willingness to fulfill fraud detection responsibility determines by their commitment to their profession (Shafer et al., 2016). Nevertheless, previous research has mixed results. Some researchers found that professional commitment had a positive relationship on rule observance attitude (Jeffrey et al., 1996), whistleblowing (Meutia et al., 2018; Taylor and Curtis, 2010), and audit judgment (Nasution and Östermark, 2012). In contrary, other studies failed to identify this effect (Kaplan and Whitecotton, 2001; Lord and DeZoort, 2001; Shaub et al., 1993; Yetmar and Eastman, 2000).

Fifth, there is limited research on auditor responsibility carried out on small audit firms, particularly in developing countries. Most research on auditor responsibility carried out at large audit firms (Big 4) (DeZoort and Harrison, 2018). Not much research has revealed the ability of auditors in small companies to fulfill these responsibilities. Alleyne & Howard (2005) study investigating 43 auditors in Barbados revealed that auditors consider the detection of fraud as the responsibility of management, not the auditor. Nonetheless, the professional standards of public accountants have established that auditors have particular responsibilities in detecting fraud. Based on these conditions, this research investigates personal factors that can improve auditors' ability to fulfill the responsibility of fraud detection.

This study aims to examine auditor's factors, namely goal orientation, self-efficacy, and professional commitment auditor's perception of fraud detection responsibility. Researchers surveyed 86 auditors working in 12 small accounting firms in Bali Province, Indonesia.

Page 2 of 15Journal of Financial Crime

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


Consistent with Cognitive Social Theory, self-efficacy is mediate the relationship between goal orientation and fraud detection responsibility. The professional commitment was moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibility.

This study has theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, these findings expand the literature in the auditing field, specifically about fraud detection. This study also enriches the previous empirical results that self-efficacy has a role in improving auditor performance even in complex tasks. In practice, these findings provide essential notes to small accounting firms' leaders to improve auditors’ self-efficacy and professional commitment. The leaders also must to alignment organizational goals and professional goals. A dualism of purpose causes the auditor to fail to fulfill the responsibility of fraud detection. This finding also provides new insight for regulators that auditor's self-efficacy can increase the auditor's responsibility. Furthermore, regulators and leaders of accounting firms can design training activities to strengthen the auditor's self-efficacy.

This paper organizes as follows. The second part outlines the Social Cognitive Theory and formulates six research hypotheses. Next, the researcher explains the method of continuing research by discussing research results. The fifth section discusses the conclusions, implications, and study limitations.

Literature review and hypothesis developmentSocial cognitive theoryThe Social Cognitive Theory popularized by Bandura (1986) assumes that humans have cognitive abilities to be active information processors. Personal beliefs arise about their ability to perform tasks. Previous research combines Social Cognitive Theory with the role of internal auditors in using information technology (Wongpinunwatana and Panchoo, 2014). This theory also used to evaluate accountants' perceptions of ethical climate in organizations, including the extent to which accountants will tolerate unethical behavior (Domino et al., 2015). In auditing literature, self-efficacy can improve audit judgment (Iskandar and Sanusi, 2011; Sanusi et al., 2018) and auditors' skepticism (Hussin et al., 2019).

Goal orientation and fraud detection responsibilityThe task of detecting fraud is not an easy task. The auditor must have a goal orientation to fulfill these responsibilities. Goal orientation measured using three dimensions: learning goal orientation, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance (Sanusi et al., 2018; Stasielowicz, 2019; Vandewalle, 1997). Learning goal orientation is a concept that motivates individuals to develop competencies through the learning process (Sanusi et al., 2018; Stasielowicz, 2019; Yperen et al., 2015), such as formal education, training, or experience. The learning process carried out continuously can improve the ability of individuals to perform tasks (Sanusi et al., 2018). Performance-approach not only motivates individuals to obtain the best performance but also facilitates individuals to have a positive perception from others (Radosevich et al., 2004; Sanusi et al., 2018; Yperen et al., 2015). Individuals will compare their performance with others, such as peers (Yperen et al., 2015). Another dimension is performance-avoidance, which is the tendency of individuals to avoid difficult tasks, tend to fail, or indicate an inability to work (Schmidt and Ford, 2003). This action aims to prevent poor performance or negative perceptions of others (Vandewalle, 1997).

In the audit context, auditors with high goal orientation will accept responsibility for detecting fraud. The auditor considers this task to increase knowledge and skills related to fraud detection strategies and techniques. Individuals with high goal orientation will make fewer mistakes to perform better (Stasielowicz, 2019). Conversely, individuals with low goal


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


orientation tend to make more mistakes and have low performance (Che-Ha et al., 2014). Thus, this process can be directly improved the auditor performance and reputation. The previous results indicate that auditors with high goal orientation (learning and performance-approach) will show high audit judgment (Sanusi et al., 2018). The hypothesis formulated as follows:H1: Goal orientation has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility.

Goal orientation and self-efficacyIndividuals strive to improve self-competence and performance. Additional knowledge or excellent performance achievement will increase self-efficacy to accept challenging tasks. When these individuals get positive feedback, they become more confident performing the task (Coutinho and Neuman, 2008). Previous studies revealed that goal orientation and self-efficacy have a positive relationship when done on simple tasks. Conversely, it produces a negative correlation in a complex and challenging task (Coutinho and Neuman, 2008). Nevertheless, this study remains optimistic that goal orientation will have a positive effect on self-efficacy. The hypothesis formulated as follows:H2: Goal orientation has a positive effect on self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibilitySelf-efficacy represents to individual's belief that he was able to succeed at work (Sanusi et al., 2018; Slatten, 2014; Svanberg et al., 2019). Individuals with high self-efficacy consider complex tasks as challenges that need not avoided (Bandura, 1997). Auditors with high self-efficacy will not find it difficult in audit assignments when looking for accurate audit evidence in a limited time (McCracken et al., 2008). The auditor can also reveal the audit findings, convince other parties of the truth of the results, and provide arguments if the client refutes the findings. Self-efficacy helps auditors produce objective audit opinions (Svanberg et al., 2019) and audit judgment (Iskandar et al., 2012; Sanusi et al., 2018). Auditors will try various efforts to complete the audit task (Iskandar and Sanusi, 2011). The hypothesis formulated as follows:H3: Self-efficacy has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility.

Professional commitment and fraud detection responsibilityProfessional commitment refers to three points, namely: (1) trust in the goals and values of the profession, (2) willingness to maintain the name of the profession, and (3) a desire to maintain membership status in the profession (Porter et al., 1974). Conceptually, professional commitment consists of three dimensions: affective, normative, and continuance commitment (Meyer et al., 1993; Smith and Hall, 2008). This study focuses on two-dimension, namely affective and normative commitment. In accounting and auditing literature, most empirical studies focus on affective commitment (Hall et al., 2005; Lord and DeZoort, 2001).

Professional commitment will direct auditors' behavior to protect the public interest without any desire to damage their profession (Lord and DeZoort, 2001). Individuals will be more sensitive to professional, ethical issues (Aranya et al., 1981). For example, tax accountants will avoid tax fraud (Shafer et al., 2016) and be lower in earnings management practices (Greenfield et al., 2008). Psychologically, individuals will have affective reactions when facing unethical behavior (Rustiarini et al., 2019). This commitment at once increases auditor intention to conduct whistleblowing (Meutia et al., 2018). In the auditing context, auditors who are less experienced but have high commitment are less accepting of underreporting time. The auditor will tend to avoid dysfunctional behavior (Herda and Martin, 2016). Thus, auditors who have high professional commitment will fulfill their responsibility to detect fraud. The hypothesis formulated as follows: H4: Professional commitment has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


Goal orientation, self-efficacy, and fraud detection responsibilityReferring to the Social Cognitive Theory, self-efficacy is a cognitive construct that directs an individual's choice, determines targets, has persistence, and assesses the level of success of performance (Bandura, 1991; Hsieh et al., 2007; Sanusi et al., 2018). Auditors will be willing to perform challenging tasks to have excellent performance and positive perceptions of others (Sanusi et al., 2018). High goal orientation expected to have a positive impact on self-efficacy, which will ultimately direct auditors to achieve quality audit performance. This study interacts with goal orientation and self-efficacy in one study. The hypothesis formulated as follows:H5: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between goal orientation and fraud detection

responsibility.

Self-efficacy, professional commitment, and fraud detection responsibilityProfessional commitment directs auditors always to uphold and adhere to professional, ethical values (Meyer et al., 1993), particularly in audit tasks. Likewise, tax accountants will report and facilitate reporting tax fraud as a form of commitment to professional organizations (Shafer et al., 2016). This study investigates the role of professional commitment as a moderator in the relationship between self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibility. Accountants who have self-efficacy and professional commitment will be enthusiastic to express themselves as professional accountants. They are more responsive to obeying professional values and try to maintain the quality of work. The hypothesis formulated as follows:H6: Professional commitment moderates the relationship between self-efficacy and fraud

detection responsibility.

The research framework illustrates the relationship between goal orientation, self-efficacy, professional commitment, and fraud detection responsibility shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research Model

Research method Population and sampleThis study uses a survey method, which distributes questionnaires to all auditors who work at twelve small accounting firms in the Bali Province, Indonesia. The number of questionnaires distributed was 110 questionnaires, and about 86 questionnaires was returned. Thus, the return rate of the questionnaire (response rate) was 78.18%. All returned questionnaires completed so that they could use it in further analysis. Respondents comprised of partners (13.95%), managers (8.14%), senior auditors (26.74%), and junior auditors (51.16%). The majority of respondents are male (51.16%) and have tenure under ten years (69.77%).

Goal Orientation Self-efficacy

Fraud Detection

Responsibility

Professional Commitment

H1

H2 H3

H4H6

Mediating effect

H5


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


Measurement of variablesFraud detection responsibility is the auditor's perception of the responsibility for fraud detection. The researcher uses The Triangle Model of Responsibility (Schlenker et al., 1994) to evaluate auditory perceptions. This model consists of three elements, namely, professional obligation, task clarity, and personal control. This research instrument contains six-question items adapted from DeZoort & Harrison (2018). One example of the question posed is, "How relevant is detecting this fraud to your job?". Participants' responses were measured using a seven-point semantic scale, which is "not at all relevant" until "completely relevant." The goal orientation variable consists of three elements, namely learning goal orientation, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance. The research instrument consisted of 12 statements adapted from the Sanusi et al. (2018) study. One example statement is, "I like showing that I can perform better than my co-workers." Participant responses were measured using a seven-point semantic scale, i.e., "strongly disagree" until "strongly agree."

The self-efficacy variable consists of four statements adapted from the Sanusi et al. (2018). One example of a statement is, "I am confident I can solve the task." Participant responses were measured using a seven-point semantic scale, i.e., "strongly disagree" until "strongly agree." The variable professional commitment consists of two elements, namely affective professional commitment, and normative professional commitment. The instrument consisted of eight statements adapted from Shafer et al. (2016). One example of the statement is, "I feel a responsibility to the public accounting profession to continue in it." Participant responses were measured using a seven-point semantic scale, i.e., "strongly disagree" until "strongly agree." A description of the indicators for each variable shown in Appendix 1.

Result and discussionThe research data were analyzed using Partial Least Square (PLS) with a first-order approach. The testing step taken is the outer model test to evaluate the validity and reliability of the indicators, testing the research model, and testing the hypothesis. Reliability testing uses three methods, namely the convergent validity test, discriminant validity, and composite reliability. The outer model test results using reflective indicators show values greater than 0.5 so that the indicators are considered valid. They test discriminant validity by comparing the coefficient of the square root of the extracted variance (√AVE) for each latent variable with the other latent variables' correlation coefficient. The results of this test indicate the AVE value is higher than 0.50. Indicator test results are said to be reliable if they have a composite validity value and Cronbach Alpha greater than 0.70. The composite validity testing results of this study ranged from 0.827 to 0.873, while the Cronbach Alpha value ranged from 0.721-0.936. Thus, these results indicate that the indicators used are reliable.

Table 1 AVE, √AVE, and correlation of latent variablesCoeficient of Correlation

Variables AVE √AVE FDR GO PC SE SE*PCFDR 0.669 0.818 1.000GO 0.609 0.781 0.712 1.000PC 0.648 0.805 0.429 0.354 1.000SE 0.745 0.863 0.726 0.783 0.151 1.000SE*PC 0.721 0.849 0.735 0.726 0.727 0.771 1.000

Note:FDR = Fraud Detection ResponsibilityGO = Goal OrientationSE = Self-EfficacyPC = Professional Commitment


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


The next step is to test the inner model. The model feasibility test performed using the results of the R2 analysis, which showed the strength of the relationship between exogenous variables and endogenous variables. The R2 value is between 0.612-0.662 (relatively strong). This study has a Q2 calculation value of 0.8692, meaning this study has a good observation model. This figure interpreted that exogenous variables can explain the fraud detection responsibility of 86.92%; other factors outside the model explain the remaining 13.08%.

The next step is testing the hypothesis, which is carried out through two stages, testing the direct and indirect effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables. The results of direct relationship testing between each variable shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The direct relationship between each variable

Construct Original Sample

Sample Mean

Standard Deviation (STDEV)

T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) p-

value

Hypothesis Decision

GO -> FDR 0.135 0.156 0.174 0.773 0.221 Not SupportedGO -> SE 0.783 0.782 0.041 19.182 0.000 SupportedSE -> FDR 1.169 1.171 0.801 1.981 0.003 SupportedPC -> FDR 0.842 0.881 0.569 1.480 0.071 Not Supported

Hypothesis 1 predicts that goal orientation has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility. The test results in Table 2 show that goal orientation does not affect fraud detection responsibility (T-statistic value 0.773 <1.96, p-value 0.221). Thus, the result does not support H1. Hypothesis 2 predicts that goal orientation has a positive effect on self-efficacy. Following the hypotheses predicted, empirical testing results indicate a positive effect of goal orientation on self-efficacy (T-statistic value 19,182> 1.96, p-value 0,000). The results support H2. Hypothesis 3 formulates that self-efficacy has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility. The test results showed a positive influence (T-statistic value 1.98> 1.96, p-value 0.003). Thus, the results support H3. Hypothesis 4 predicts that professional commitment has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility. Contrary to the formulated hypothesis, the result showed no significant effect (T-statistic value of 1,480 <1.96, p-value 0.071). Thus, the result does not support H4.

The test of mediating and moderating variables role in this research model, shown in Table 3 and Table 4.

Table 3. Testing the role of mediating variablesModel Original

Sample T-statistics p-value VAF Hypothesis Decision

GO -> FDR 0.135 0.773 0.221GO -> SE 0.783 19.182 0.000SE -> FDR 1.169 1.981 0.003

0.828 Full Mediation

Hypothesis 5 formulates that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between goal orientation and fraud detection responsibility. The path coefficient analysis results showed that the relationship between goal orientation on fraud detection responsibility has insignificant results (T-statistic value 0.773 <1.96, p-value 0.221). Contrary, goal orientation has a positive effect on self-efficacy (T-statistic value 19.182> 1.96, p-value 0.000). Self-efficacy has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility (T-statistic value 1.981> 1.96, p-value 0.003). Table 3 shows that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between goal orientation and fraud detection responsibility. This result confirmed by the VAF value of 0.8716> 0.8. Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2013) states that if the research model has a VAF value> 80%, it means that


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


the model is a full mediation model. The VAF value of 0.8716 or 87.16% confirms that this research model is a full mediation. Thus, the results support Hypothesis 5.

Table 4. Testing the role of moderating variables

Model Original Sample T-statistics p-value Hypothesis

DecisionSE -> FDR 1.169 1.981 0.003PC -> FDR 0.842 1.480 0.071SE*PC -> FDR 0.876 1.962 0.039

Pure Moderation

Table 4 shows that professional commitment has no effect on fraud detection responsibility (T-statistic value of 1,480<1.96, p-value 0.071). The interaction analysis revealed that testing the interaction between the variables of self-efficacy and professional commitment to fraud detection responsibility showed significant value (T-statistic value 1.962>1.96, p-value 0.039). In this case, professional commitment becomes a pure moderation variable. Thus, the results support Hypothesis 6.

Goal orientation and fraud detection responsibilityHypothesis 1 test results show that goal orientation does not affect the responsibility of fraud detection. The results shows the opposite of the hypothesis formulated. This result may be due to researchers' failure to distinguish the dimensions of goal orientation (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; LePine, 2005; Stasielowicz, 2019). The auditors likely have different goal orientations. In fact, at the same time, individuals might have several goal orientations (Stasielowicz, 2019). The meta-analysis findings revealed that although goal orientation is closely related to the achievement of individual performance (Cellar et al., 2011; Payne et al., 2007), the strength of the relationship determined by the context and type of orientation of the individual's goals (Stasielowicz, 2019).

Second, there is no alignment between the employee's (individual) goal orientation and

organizational goals. An auditor with a high goal orientation is inspired to improve their competence and performance. This personal desire aims to achieve optimal performance and get a positive assessment from the leadership or other colleagues. Even so, it is not necessarily getting positive feedback from the head of the audit firm. The leadership considers that efforts to increase competence are an obligation that must be done by each auditor. Moreover, professional standards require auditors to provide adequate confidence when performing audit tasks, including fraud detection. This study's findings do not support previous research (Sanusi et al., 2018).

Goal orientation and self-efficacyHypothesis 2 test results show that goal orientation has a positive effect on self-efficacy. Individuals will improve their self-competence and performance consistently. Additional knowledge and good performance will increase individual self-efficacy to perform various types of tasks. In the audit field, individuals with high goal orientation will deliberately choose challenging tasks, which considered to be able to increase the auditor's self-efficacy. The results of testing this hypothesis support previous research, which states that goal orientation has a positive effect on self-efficacy (Button et al., 1996; Sanusi et al., 2018).

Self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibilityHypothesis 3 test results show that self-efficacy has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility. Individuals with high self-efficacy will use cognitive resources to complete tasks (Bandura, 1986). The auditor will focus on strategies for achieving success and having the ability to endure difficulties. A high level of enthusiasm at work will reduce the perceived workload or pressure (Bandura and Cervone, 1983). In accounting and auditing, auditors with


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


high self-efficacy will be more likely to make discretionary accounting decisions that are rigorous or contrary to client wishes and have a more objective attitude (Svanberg et al., 2019). The auditor can be the opponent of the client's discussion and defend opinions when the client protests the audit assessment results. Auditors feel more confident when investigating audit evidence that is accurate in a short period and when negotiating with clients to obtain the evidence needed (McCracken et al., 2008). This study supports previous research, stating that self-efficacy helps auditors negotiate (Miles and Maurer, 2012; Svanberg et al., 2019) and audit judgment (Iskandar et al., 2012; Sanusi et al., 2018).

Professional commitment and fraud detection responsibilityHypothesis 4 test results show that professional commitment does not affect fraud detection responsibility. The results do not support the formulated hypothesis. The finding supports previous studies (Kaplan and Whitecotton, 2001; Lord and DeZoort, 2001; Shaub et al., 1993; Yetmar and Eastman, 2000). The condition might be due to several things. First, auditors have difficulty synchronizing the objectives of the audit company with those of professional organizations. The auditor realizes that the client only expects the auditor to publish a fairness opinion, not detect fraud. This action not only produce conflicts between clients and auditors, but audit firms also risk losing potential clients (Alleyne et al., 2013). Small audit companies usually avoid conflicts with clients to prevent the termination of audit contracts in the future. Auditors prioritize the interests of clients rather than their commitment to upholding the values of the profession.

Second, clients of small audit firms usually come from small private companies. In this case, the auditor often has a close relationship with the owner so that the auditor cannot be independent. When the auditor detects that something is wrong or even leads to indications of fraud, such as avoidance or tax evasion, often the accountant or auditor is unable to reveal these suspicious signals. In business, tax avoidance has seen as a matter of course (Tien et al., 2019). Also, the failure of auditors to detect fraud may not significantly impact the reputation of the company, accounting firms, and audited companies. Thus, clients from small private companies do not attract the attention of investors or the media (Svanström, 2016). Third, it is still a matter of debate until now that large audit firms are more likely to detect material errors and misstatements. Large audit firms hire auditors with different attributes (Bagley et al., 2012), such as arrange certification or specialized training programs to auditor staff (Svanström, 2016; Zalata et al., 2020). Finally, the market considers that large audit firms have higher audit quality than smaller audit firms (Tien et al., 2019).

Goal orientation, self-efficacy, and fraud detection responsibilityHypothesis 5 test results show that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between goal orientation and fraud detection responsibility. Consistent with the Cognitive Social Theory, self-efficacy becomes a catalyst that converts motivation into action (Svanberg et al., 2019). Auditors are motivated to improve their competence and performance by taking on challenging tasks, such as detecting fraud. If the auditor believes in his ability, the auditor will be able to do their responsibilities well. This result support previous results that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between goal orientation and audit judgment (Sanusi et al., 2018) and the adaptation process in the workplace (Jundt et al., 2015).

Self-efficacy, professional commitment, and fraud detection responsibilityHypothesis 6 test results show that professional commitment moderate the relationship between goal orientation and fraud detection responsibility. The interaction between high self-efficacy and high professional commitment will increase fraud detection responsibility. If the auditor has low self-efficacy, the high professional commitment will lead them to continue to uphold professional values and maintain the quality of work (Svanberg et al., 2019).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


Additional analysisThis study fails to prove that goal orientation effect to fraud detection responsibility. This result is probably due to the measurement of this variable globally for the three dimensions. To gain further insight, researchers conducted additional analyzes using learning goal orientation, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance. Everyone has the chance in each dimension to become an alternative to reduce research bias (Kozlowski et al., 2001; Payne et al., 2007; Sanusi et al., 2018; Stasielowicz, 2019). The test of additional analysis data using PLS with a second-order approach presented in Table 5.

Tabel 5. Additional Analysis for Goal Orientation and Fraud Detection Responsibility

Construct Original Sample

Sample Mean

Standard Deviation (STDEV)

T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) p-value Remark

LGO -> FDR 0.476 0.473 0.073 6.493 0.005 SupportedPApGO -> FDR 0.327 0.318 0.156 2.099 0.043 SupportedPAdGO -> FDR 0.142 0.153 0.099 1.438 0.199 Not SupportedNote:LGO = learning goal orientationPapGO = performance-approach goal orientationPAdGO = performance-avoidance goal orientation

Table 5 shows that the learning goal orientation influences fraud detection responsibility. The auditor considers difficult tasks as a challenge to increase knowledge related to fraud detection strategies. The auditor will have a positive attitude towards all jobs, regardless of the difficulties to be faced (Vandewalle, 1997). The performance-approach has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility. Individuals want to prove their ability and want to get a positive perception (Stasielowicz, 2019). In performing fraud detection responsibility, the auditor will make various efforts to reveal the fraud that occurred. The auditor will be considered capable of completing the work, including fraud detection responsibility. The performance-avoidance goal orientation does not affect fraud detection responsibility. This result is because professional auditors will not avoid the task of detecting fraud. Professional accounting standards state that the detection of fraud is the specific task of an auditor. Thus, the auditor must be willing to do the task.

Conclusions, implication, and limitationThe results showed that the goal orientation variable affected the self-efficacy variable but did not directly influence fraud detection responsibility. This finding supports the Social Cognitive Theory. This study also found the role of self-efficacy in mediating the relationship between goal orientation and fraud detection responsibility. This result confirms that self-efficacy can improve individual performance even in complex tasks. The professional commitment was moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibility.

The results have several theoretical, practical, and policy implications. Based on an academic perspective, these findings extend the fraud literature. In this case, the responsibility influenced by the auditor's cognitive abilities. Nevertheless, this finding leaves questions about the variable professional commitment's failure in influecing the relationship between self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibility. From the perspective of practice and policymaking, this research highlights the need for standards and policymakers to review audit expectation gaps that occur between auditors and the public. To increase the auditor's awareness of the responsibility of fraud detection, professional organizations need to improve the function of the goal orientation, self-efficacy, and professional commitment of auditors through outreach, training, continuing education programs, and anti-fraud certification programs.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


This study has several limitations. First, respondents come from small audit firms in Indonesia. Although there is no statement that theory states that the size of the audit company determines the goal orientation and self-efficacy, the market still considers that large audit firms have higher audit quality (Tien et al., 2019). Future studies can expand this research by focusing on auditors affiliated with the Big Four. Researchers can also compare the results with the auditors' responsibilities in small audit companies in other countries. Secondly, this study failed to prove professional commitment effect on fraud detection responsiveness. It might be this research that only measures affective and normative professional commitment, which widely researched in accounting and auditing (Hall et al., 2005). Future research can use other dimensions, such as continuance professional commitment.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


References

ACFE. (2020), Report to the Nations: 2020 Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse, available at: https://www.acfe.com/report-to-the-nations/2020/.

AICPA. (2002), Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 99: Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York.

Alleyne, P. and Howard, M. (2005), “An exploratory study of auditors’ responsibility for fraud detection in Barbados”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 284–303.

Alleyne, P., Hudaib, M. and Pike, R. (2013), “Towards a conceptual model of whistle-blowing intentions among external auditors”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 10–23.

Aranya, N., Pollock, J. and Amernic, J. (1981), “An examination of professional commitment in public accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 271–280.

Bagley, P.L., Dalton, D. and Ortegren, M. (2012), “The factors that affect accountants’ decisions to seek careers with big 4 versus non-big 4 accounting firms”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 239–264.

Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1991), “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 248–287.

Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy and Health Behaviour. Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine, Delmar Publishers., NY.

Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1983), “Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems”, Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1017–1028.

Bell, B.S. and Kozlowski, W.J. (2002), “Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 497–505.

Button, S.B., Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1996), “Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 26–48.

Cellar, D.F., Stuhlmacher, A.F., Young, S.K., Fisher, D.M., Adair, C.K., Haynes, S., Twichell, E., et al. (2011), “Trait goal orientation, self-regulation, and performance: A meta-analysis”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 467–483.

Che-Ha, N., Mavondo, F.T. and Mohd-Said, S. (2014), “Performance or learning goal orientation: Implications for business performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 2811–2820.

Coutinho, S.A. and Neuman, G. (2008), “A model of metacognition, achievement goal orientation, learning style and self-efficacy”, Learning Environments Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 131–151.

DeZoort, F.T. and Harrison, P.D. (2018), “Understanding auditors’ sense of responsibility for detecting fraud within organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 149 No. 4, pp. 857–874.

Domino, M.A., Wingreen, S.C. and Blanton, J.E. (2015), “Social cognitive theory: The antecedents and effects of ethical climate fit on organizational attitudes of corporate accounting professionals—a reflection of client narcissism and fraud attitude risk”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 131 No. 2, pp. 453–467.

Greenfield, A.C., Norman, C.S. and Wier, B. (2008), “The effect of ethical orientation and professional commitment on earnings management behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 419–434.

Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous Applications, Better Results and Higher Acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46 No. 1–2, pp. 1–12.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


Hall, M., Smith, D. and Langfield‐Smith, K. (2005), “Accountants’ commitment to their profession: Multiple dimensions of professional commitment and opportunities for future research”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 89–109.

Herda, D.N. and Martin, K.A. (2016), “The effects of auditor experience and professional commitment on acceptance of underreporting time: A moderated mediation analysis”, Current Issues in Auditing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. A14–A27.

Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J.R. and Guerra, N.S. (2007), “A closer look at college students: Self-efficacy and goal orientation”, Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 454–476.

Hunter, J.E. (1986), “Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 340–362.

Hunter, J.E. and Hunter, R.F. (1984), “Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 96 No. 1, p. 72.

Hussin, S.A.H.S., Saleh, N.M. and Al-smady, A.A. (2019), “Auditor Demographic Factors and Dimensions of Auditors’ Skepticism in Jordan”, Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance, Vol. 11, pp. 39–48.

Iskandar, T.M. and Sanusi, Z.M. (2011), “Assesing the effect of self-efficacy and task complexity on internal control audit judgment”, Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting & Finance, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 2–52.

Iskandar, T.M., Sari, R.N., Zuraidah, M. and Anugerah, R. (2012), “Enhancing auditors’ performance: The importance of motivational factors and the mediation effect of effort”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 462–476.

Jeffrey, C., Weatherholt, N. and Lo, S. (1996), “Ethical development, professional commitment and rule observance attitudes: A study of auditors in Taiwan”, The International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 365–379.

Jundt, D.K., Shoss, M.K. and Huang, J.L. (2015), “Individual adaptive performance in organizations: A review”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. S1, pp. S53–S71.

Kaplan, S.E. and Whitecotton, S.M. (2001), “An examination of auditors’ reporting intentions when another auditor is offered client employment”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 45–63.

Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S.M., Brown, K.G., Salas, E., Smith, E.M. and Nason, E.R. (2001), “Effects of Training Goals and Goal Orientation Traits on Multidimensional Training Outcomes and Performance Adaptability”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 1–31.

LePine, J.A. (2005), “Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1153–1167.

Lord, A.T. and DeZoort, F.T. (2001), “The impact of commitment and moral reasoning on auditors’ responses to social influence pressure”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 215–235.

McCracken, Salterio, S.E. and Gibbins, M. (2008), “Auditor–client management relationships and roles in negotiating financial reporting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 No. 4–5, pp. 362–383.

Meutia, I., Adam, M. and Nurpratiwi, T. (2018), “The effect of professional commitment and ethical consideration on the desire to do whistleblowing with locus of control as a moderating variable (study on the banking sector in Palembang)”, Jurnal Perspektif Pembiayaan Dan Pembangunan Daerah, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 363–370.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization.”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, p. 538.

Miles, E.W. and Maurer, T.J. (2012), “Advancing validity of self‐efficacy in negotiation through focusing at the domain level”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 23–41.

Mohd‐Sanusi, Z. and Mohd‐Iskandar, T. (2007), “Audit judgment performance: assessing the


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


effect of performance incentives, effort and task complexity”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 34–52.

Nasution, D. and Östermark, R. (2012), “The Impact of Social Pressures, locus of control, and professional commitment on Auditors’ Judgment”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 163–178.

Payne, S.C., Youngcourt, S.S. and Beaubien, J.M. (2007), “A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net.”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, p. 128.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P. V. (1974), “Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians.”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 5, p. 603.

Radosevich, D.J., Vaidyanathan, V.T., Yeo, S. and Radosevich, D.M. (2004), “Relating goal orientation to self-regulatory processes: A longitudinal field test”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 207–229.

Ree, M.J. and Earles, J.A. (1991), “Predicting training success: Not much more than g”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 321–332.

Rustiarini, N.W., Sutrisno, S., Nurkholis, N. and Andayani, W. (2019), “Fraud triangle in public procurement: evidence from Indonesia”, Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 951–968.

Sanusi, Z.M., Iskandar, T.M., Monroe, G.S. and Saleh, N.M. (2018), “Effects of goal orientation, self-efficacy and task complexity on the audit judgement performance of Malaysian auditors”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 75–95.

Schlenker, B.R., Britt, T.W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R. and Doherty, K. (1994), “The triangle model of responsibility”, Psychological Review, Vol. 101 No. 4, p. 632.

Schmidt, A.M. and Ford, J.K. (2003), “Learning within a learner control training environment: The interactive effects of goal orientation and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 405–429.

Shafer, W.E., Simmons, R.S. and Yip, R.W.Y. (2016), “Social responsibility, professional commitment and tax fraud”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 111–134.

Shaub, M.K., Finn, D.W. and Munter, P. (1993), “The effects of auditors’ ethical orientation on commitment and ethical sensitivity”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 145–169.

Slatten, T. (2014), “Determinants and effects of employee’s creative self-efficacy on innovative activities”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 326–347.

Smith, D. and Hall, M. (2008), “An empirical examination of a three‐component model of professional commitment among public accountants”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 75–92.

Stasielowicz, L. (2019), “Goal orientation and performance adaptation: A meta-analysis”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 82 No. October, p. 103847.

Svanberg, J., Öhman, P. and Neidermeyer, P.E. (2019), “Auditor objectivity as a function of auditor negotiation self-efficacy beliefs”, Advances in Accounting, Vol. 44 No. March, pp. 121–131.

Svanström, T. (2016), “Time pressure, training activities and dysfunctional auditor behaviour: evidence from small audit firms”, International Journal of Auditing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 42–51.

Taylor, E.Z. and Curtis, M.B. (2010), “An examination of the layers of workplace influences in ethical judgments: Whistleblowing likelihood and perseverance in public accounting”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 21–37.

Tien, N.H., Thuong, T.M. and Yen, N.T.H. (2019), “Enhancing independence of local auditing services by profiting from experiences of the Big4 group (KPMG, Deloitte, PWC E&Y) operating in Vietnam market”, Cogent Business & Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 1605702.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


Vandewalle, D. (1997), “Development and Validation of a Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 995–1015.

Wongpinunwatana, N. and Panchoo, P. (2014), “Creating self-efficacy in internal auditors for information technology audits: An on-the-job training perspective”, International Journal of Management & Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 213–222.

Yetmar, S.A. and Eastman, K.K. (2000), “Tax practitioners’ ethical sensitivity: A model and empirical examination”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 271–288.

Yperen, N.W. Van, Blaga, M. and Postmes, T. (2015), “A meta-analysis of the impact of situationally induced achievement goals on task performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 165–182.

Zalata, A.M., Elzahar, H. and McLaughlin, C. (2020), “External audit quality and firms’ credit score”, Cogent Business & Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 1724063.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

2. Bukti Konfirmasi Artikel Accepted

(31 Juli 2020)

9/15/21, 10:28 PM Yahoo Mail - Journal of Financial Crime - Decision on Manuscript ID JFC-07-2020-0140

1/1

Journal of Financial Crime - Decision on Manuscript ID JFC-07-2020-0140

Dari: Journal of Financial Crime ([email protected])

Kepada: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Tanggal: Jumat, 31 Juli 2020 16.17 GMT+8

31-Jul-2020

Dear Ni Wayan, Anik and Agus Wahyudi Salasa

It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript JFC-07-2020-0140, entitled "Public Accounting Profession and FraudDetection Responsibility" in its current form for publication in Journal of Financial Crime. Please note, no furtherchanges can be made to your manuscript.

Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jfc (Manuscripts with Decisions for thesubmitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright TransferAgreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact informationis incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must bedone prior to you submitting your CTA.

If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed yourmanuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication.EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of ajournal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to thejournals’ publication schedule.

FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article asOpen Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons AttributionLicence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a followup email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the ArticleProcessing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also beinformed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please seehttp://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Journal of Financial Crime, we look forward to yourcontinued contributions to the Journal.

Yours sincerely,Ms. Angela FutterJournal of Financial [email protected]

PS: You can register to the table of contents of the journal at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-0790.htm so youget notified of the latest papers published.

https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jfc

http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-0790.htm

Rusti

Highlight

3. Bukti Konfirmasi Melakukan

Proofreading Artikel

(11 Oktober 2020)

9/15/21, 10:24 PM Yahoo Mail - Proof notification for your article ‘Public accounting profession and fraud detection responsibility’

1/1

Proof notification for your article ‘Public accounting profession and fraud detectionresponsibility’

Dari: [email protected]


Tanggal: Minggu, 11 Oktober 2020 08.30 GMT+8

Dear Ni Wayan,

Ar�cle Title: Public accoun�ng profession and fraud detec�on responsibilityAr�cle ID: 651127

Proofs of your ar�cle which will publish in Journal of Financial Crime are now available for review.

Please click the link below to access your proof using the login details:

Username: rus�[email protected]: 6cFAgxnF

h�ps://cwp.cadmus.com/gwps/proof.seam?proof=1608797&workflowId=1722544

For full instruc�ons on how to set up your computer and proof your ar�cle online please refer to our annota�onguide and FAQs.

You have been sent this proof as the Corresponding Author. Please note that your co-author/s will not receive aproof of this ar�cle, so only correc�ons submi�ed via this proof will be incorporated into the final publishedversion. Please ensure all author names and affilia�ons are correct before returning the proof and please alsonote that once the corrected PDF has been uploaded in this portal, you will no longer be able to access it. If youwish to retain a copy for your reference, please save a version locally.

Please submit your correc�ons by 15 October 2020. We aim to have your ar�cle published within seven days ofreceiving your edits. If we do not receive any correc�ons from you, we will assume that no changes are requiredand we will proceed with publica�on.

If you have any ques�ons about the proofing process, please contact me and I’ll be pleased to support you.

Kind regards,

Purnendu [email protected]

© Emerald Publishing Limited | Copyright info | Privacy policyRegistered Office: Howard House. Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA, UKRegistered in England No. 3080506, VAT No. GB 665 3593 06

****

https://cwp.cadmus.com/CwpUserHelp/13-Comments%20and%20Markup.htm

https://cwp.cadmus.com/CwpUserHelp/16-FAQ.htm

http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/about/policies/copyright.htm

https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/about/inside-emerald/policies/privacy

Rusti

Highlight

Smart Proof System Instructions

It is recommended that you read all instructions below; even if you are familiar with online review practices.

Using the Smart Proof system, proof reviewers can easily review the PDF proof, annotate corrections, respond to queries directly from the locally saved PDF proof, all of which are automatically submitted directly to our database without having to upload the annotated PDF.

Before completing your review.....

Did you reply to all author queries found in your proof?

Did you click the "Publish Comments" button to save all your corrections? Any unpublished comments will be lost.

Note: Once you click "Complete Proof Review" you will not be able to add or publish additional corrections.

Login into Smart Proof anywhere you are connected to theinternet.

Review the proof on the following pages and mark corrections,changes, and query responses using the Annotation Tools.

Note: Editing done by replacing the text on this PDF is not permitted with this application.

Save your proof corrections by clicking the "Publish Comments"button.Corrections don't have to be marked in one sitting. You canpublish comments and log back in at a later time to add andpublish more comments before you click the "Complete ProofReview" button below.

Complete your review after all corrections have been published

to the server by clicking the "Complete Proof Review" button

below.

AUTHOR QUERIES

Note: It is crucial that you NOT make direct edits to the PDF using the editing tools as doing so could

lead us to overlook your desired changes. Edits should be made via the ‘comments’ feature.

AUTHOR PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUERIESAQ1—Please confirm the given-names and surnames are identified properly by the colours.

j=Given-Name,j= Surname

The colours are for proofing purposes only. The colourswill not appear online or in print.

AQ2—Please check the accuracy of the affiliation(s) of each author andmake changes as

appropriate. Affiliations cannot be changed once the article has been published online. Please

ensure to include the city and country names in the affiliation(s), as these aremandatory in

linewith Emerald house style.

AQ3—Please provide department name for affiliation.

AQ4—You have used “data” in the plural form in the text andwe have retained your intended

meaning. However if youwish to imply its singular context, pleasemake revisionswith

respect to its associated verb usage.

AQ5—There are currently no acknowledgements/funding included. Please confirm if this is

correct or provide the acknowledgements/funding.

J_ID: JFC ART NO: 10.1108/JFC-07-2020-0140 Date: 11-October-20 Page: 16 Total Pages: 16 4/Color Figure(s) ARTTYPE="ResearchArt

ID: bhardwaj.singh Time: 01:45 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/Bhardwaj.Singh$/EM-JFCJ200130

Public accounting profession andfraud detection responsibility

Ni Wayan RustiariniAQ:1Department of Accounting, Universitas Mahasaraswati Denpasar,

Denpasar, Indonesia, andAQ:2

Anik Yuesti and Agus Wahyudi Salasa GamaAQ: 3

Universitas Mahasaraswati Denpasar, Denpasar, Indonesia

AbstractPurpose – The study aims to examine the influence of auditor personal factors, such as goal orientation,self-efficacy and professional commitment to auditor’s responsibility to detect the fraudulent, particularly insmall accounting firms.Design/methodology/approach – The authors surveyed 86 auditors working in small accounting firmsin Bali Province, Indonesia.Findings – The results prove the role of self-efficacy as a mediating variable in the relationship of goalorientation and auditor responsibility. This result at once confirms that self-efficacy can improve individualperformance even in complex tasks. This study also proves the role of professional commitment as a mediatorvariable.Research limitations/implications – Given that the respondents came from small accounting firms,these findings are not intended to be generalized with auditors in large accounting firms.Practical implications – These findings highlight essential efforts to reduce audit expectation gapsbetween auditors and the public. The small accounting firms’ leaders must to alignment workplaceorganizational goals and organization professional goals. A dualism of purpose causes the auditor to fail tofulfill the responsibility of fraud detection.Social implications – There is a severe audit expectation gap related to the auditor’s role in detectingfraud. This finding expected to answer public questions related to auditors’ ability and responsibility in smallaccounting firms in detecting fraud.Originality/value – There is limited research on auditor responsibility, particularly in small audit firms indeveloping countries. Also, there is still debate scientific about the influence of goal orientation, self-efficacyand professional commitment to auditor performance.

Keywords Self-efficacy, Fraud, Goal orientation, Audit expectation gap

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe Enron scandal has raised public concern over fraud. This condition requires the auditorprofession to actively find illegal actions in the company (Alleyne and Howard, 2005).Although Audit Standards (SAS) No. 99 has determined that external auditors can deliver“reasonable assurance” (AICPA, 2002), the fact is not all auditors can fulfill thisresponsibility (DeZoort and Harrison, 2018). This study examines the effect of the auditor’scharacteristics, namely, goal orientation, self-efficacy and professional commitment toresponsibility in detecting fraud. Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in his ability to completespecific tasks, whereas goal orientation refers to individual motives for completing tasks.The professional commitment factor is needed to direct the auditor to obey the assignment’smoral and ethical values (Hsieh et al., 2007; Shafer et al., 2016).

J_ID: JFC ART NO: 10.1108/JFC-07-2020-0140 Date: 11-October-20 Page: 1 Total Pages: 16 4/Color Figure(s) ARTTYPE="ResearchArtic


Publicaccountingprofession

Journal of Financial Crime© EmeraldPublishingLimited

1359-0790DOI 10.1108/JFC-07-2020-0140

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:https://www.emerald.com/insight/1359-0790.htm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFC-07-2020-0140

This research was motivated by four things. First, there is an audit expectation gaprelated to the auditor’s role in detecting fraud. Global financial studies reveal that externalauditors can only identify 4% of corporate fraud (ACFE, 2020). The low detection rate iscontrary to significant fraud cases (DeZoort and Harrison, 2018). Lack of auditor’sresponsibility raises public questions about the ability and seriousness of auditors to detectfraud indications. Second, based on the scientific literature review, no previous study hasdiscussed goal orientation on fraud detection responsibility. In auditing context, goalorientation becomes a reason that motivates auditors on audit judgment performance(Iskandar et al., 2012; Mohd-Sanusi and Mohd-Iskandar, 2007; Nasution and Östermark,2012; Sanusi et al., 2018). This study interacts with goal orientation with self-efficacy tomaximize performance achievement, which has not much discussed in audit research.

Third, there is still scientific debate regarding the role of self-efficacy in complex tasks.On the one hand, researchers previously stated that cognitive ability acts as the bestpredictor determining individual performance, particularly in complex tasks (Hunter, 1986;Hunter and Hunter, 1984; Ree and Earles, 1991). As a social cognitive construct, self-efficacywill increase an individual’s confidence in perform specific tasks (Bandura, 1991). Incontrast, self-efficacy cannot be a predictor of complex tasks (Sanusi et al., 2018; Svanberget al., 2019). Fourth, auditors’ willingness to fulfill fraud detection responsibility determinesby their commitment to their profession (Shafer et al., 2016). Nevertheless, previous researchhas mixed results. Some researchers found that professional commitment had a positiverelationship on rule observance attitude (Jeffrey et al., 1996), whistleblowing (Meutia et al.,2018; Taylor and Curtis, 2010) and audit judgment (Nasution and Östermark, 2012). Incontrary, other studies failed to identify this effect (Kaplan andWhitecotton, 2001; Lord andDeZoort, 2001; Shaub et al., 1993; Yetmar and Eastman, 2000).

Fifth, there is limited research on auditor responsibility carried out on small audit firms,particularly in developing countries. Most research on auditor responsibility carried out atlarge audit firms (Big 4) (DeZoort and Harrison, 2018). Not much research has revealed theability of auditors in small companies to fulfill these responsibilities. Alleyne and Howard’s(2005) study investigating 43 auditors in Barbados revealed that auditors consider thedetection of fraud as the responsibility of management, not the auditor. Nonetheless, theprofessional standards of public accountants have established that auditors have particularresponsibilities in detecting fraud. Based on these conditions, this research investigatespersonal factors that can improve auditors’ ability to fulfill the responsibility of frauddetection.

This study aims to examine auditor’s factors, namely, goal orientation, self-efficacy andprofessional commitment auditor’s perception of fraud detection responsibility. Researcherssurveyed 86 auditors working in 12 small accounting firms in Bali Province, Indonesia.Consistent with cognitive social theory, self-efficacy is mediate the relationship betweengoal orientation and fraud detection responsibility. The professional commitment wasmoderate the relationship between self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibility.

This study has theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, these findingsexpand the literature in the auditing field, specifically about fraud detection. This study alsoenriches the previous empirical results that self-efficacy has a role in improving auditorperformance even in complex tasks. In practice, these findings provide essential notes tosmall accounting firms’ leaders to improve auditors’ self-efficacy and professionalcommitment. The leaders also must to alignment organizational goals and professionalgoals. A dualism of purpose causes the auditor to fail to fulfill the responsibility of frauddetection. This finding also provides new insight for regulators that auditor’s self-efficacy



JFC

can increase the auditor’s responsibility. Furthermore, regulators and leaders of accountingfirms can design training activities to strengthen the auditor’s self-efficacy.

This paper organizes as follows. The second part outlines the social cognitive theory andformulates six research hypotheses. Next, the researcher explains the method of continuingresearch by discussing research results. The fifth section discusses the conclusions,implications and study limitations.

Literature review and hypothesis developmentSocial cognitive theoryThe social cognitive theory popularized by Bandura (1986) assumes that humans havecognitive abilities to be active information processors. Personal beliefs arise about theirability to perform tasks. Previous research combines social cognitive theory with the role ofinternal auditors in using information technology (Wongpinunwatana and Panchoo, 2014).This theory also used to evaluate accountants’ perceptions of ethical climate inorganizations, including the extent to which accountants will tolerate unethical behavior(Domino et al., 2015). In auditing literature, self-efficacy can improve audit judgment(Iskandar and Sanusi, 2011; Sanusi et al., 2018) and auditors’ skepticism (Hussin et al., 2019).

Goal orientation and fraud detection responsibilityThe task of detecting fraud is not an easy task. The auditor must have a goal orientation tofulfill these responsibilities. Goal orientation measured using three dimensions: learninggoal orientation, performance-approach and performance-avoidance (Sanusi et al., 2018;Stasielowicz, 2019; Vandewalle, 1997). Learning goal orientation is a concept that motivatesindividuals to develop competencies through the learning process (Sanusi et al., 2018;Stasielowicz, 2019; Yperen et al., 2015), such as formal education, training or experience. Thelearning process carried out continuously can improve the ability of individuals to performtasks (Sanusi et al., 2018). Performance-approach not only motivates individuals to obtainthe best performance but also facilitates individuals to have a positive perception fromothers (Radosevich et al., 2004; Sanusi et al., 2018; Yperen et al., 2015). Individuals willcompare their performance with others, such as peers (Yperen et al., 2015). Anotherdimension is performance-avoidance, which is the tendency of individuals to avoid difficulttasks, tend to fail or indicate an inability to work (Schmidt and Ford, 2003). This action aimsto prevent poor performance or negative perceptions of others (Vandewalle, 1997).

In the audit context, auditors with high goal orientation will accept responsibility fordetecting fraud. The auditor considers this task to increase knowledge and skills related tofraud detection strategies and techniques. Individuals with high goal orientation will makefewer mistakes to perform better (Stasielowicz, 2019). Conversely, individuals with low goalorientation tend to make more mistakes and have low performance (Che-Ha et al., 2014).Thus, this process can be directly improved the auditor performance and reputation. Theprevious results indicate that auditors with high goal orientation (learning and performance-approach) will show high audit judgment (Sanusi et al., 2018). The hypothesis formulated asfollows:

H1. Goal orientation has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility.

Goal orientation and self-efficacyIndividuals strive to improve self-competence and performance. Additional knowledge orexcellent performance achievement will increase self-efficacy to accept challenging tasks.




When these individuals get positive feedback, they become more confident performing thetask (Coutinho and Neuman, 2008). Previous studies revealed that goal orientation and self-efficacy have a positive relationship when done on simple tasks. Conversely, it produces anegative correlation in a complex and challenging task (Coutinho and Neuman, 2008).Nevertheless, this study remains optimistic that goal orientation will have a positive effecton self-efficacy. The hypothesis formulated as follows:

H2. Goal orientation has a positive effect on self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibilitySelf-efficacy represents to individual’s belief that he was able to succeed at work (Sanusiet al., 2018; Slatten, 2014; Svanberg et al., 2019). Individuals with high self-efficacy considercomplex tasks as challenges that need not avoided (Bandura, 1997). Auditors with high self-efficacy will not find it difficult in audit assignments when looking for accurate auditevidence in a limited time (McCracken et al., 2008). The auditor can also reveal the auditfindings, convince other parties of the truth of the results and provide arguments if the clientrefutes the findings. Self-efficacy helps auditors produce objective audit opinions (Svanberget al., 2019) and audit judgment (Iskandar et al., 2012; Sanusi et al., 2018). Auditors will tryvarious efforts to complete the audit task (Iskandar and Sanusi, 2011). The hypothesisformulated as follows:

H3. Self-efficacy has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility.

Professional commitment and fraud detection responsibilityProfessional commitment refers to three points, namely:

(1) trust in the goals and values of the profession;(2) willingness to maintain the name of the profession; and(3) a desire to maintain membership status in the profession (Porter et al., 1974).

Conceptually, professional commitment consists of three dimensions: affective, normativeand continuance commitment (Meyer et al., 1993; Smith and Hall, 2008). This study focuseson two-dimension, namely, affective and normative commitment. In accounting andauditing literature, most empirical studies focus on affective commitment (Hall et al., 2005;Lord and DeZoort, 2001).

Professional commitment will direct auditors’ behavior to protect the public interestwithout any desire to damage their profession (Lord and DeZoort, 2001). Individuals will bemore sensitive to professional, ethical issues (Aranya et al., 1981). For example, taxaccountants will avoid tax fraud (Shafer et al., 2016) and be lower in earnings managementpractices (Greenfield et al., 2008). Psychologically, individuals will have affective reactionswhen facing unethical behavior (Rustiarini et al., 2019). This commitment at once increasesauditor intention to conduct whistleblowing (Meutia et al., 2018). In the auditing context,auditors who are less experienced but have high commitment are less accepting ofunderreporting time. The auditor will tend to avoid dysfunctional behavior (Herda andMartin, 2016). Thus, auditors who have high professional commitment will fulfill theirresponsibility to detect fraud. The hypothesis formulated as follows:

H4. Professional commitment has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility.



JFC

Goal orientation, self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibilityReferring to the social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is a cognitive construct that directs anindividual’s choice, determines targets, has persistence and assesses the level of success ofperformance (Bandura, 1991; Hsieh et al., 2007; Sanusi et al., 2018). Auditors will be willingto perform challenging tasks to have excellent performance and positive perceptions ofothers (Sanusi et al., 2018). High goal orientation expected to have a positive impact on self-efficacy, which will ultimately direct auditors to achieve quality audit performance. Thisstudy interacts with goal orientation and self-efficacy in one study. The hypothesisformulated as follows:

H5. Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between goal orientation and fraud detectionresponsibility.

Self-efficacy, professional commitment and fraud detection responsibilityProfessional commitment directs auditors always to uphold and adhere to professional,ethical values (Meyer et al., 1993), particularly in audit tasks. Likewise, tax accountants willreport and facilitate reporting tax fraud as a form of commitment to professionalorganizations (Shafer et al., 2016). This study investigates the role of professionalcommitment as a moderator in the relationship between self-efficacy and fraud detectionresponsibility. Accountants who have self-efficacy and professional commitment will beenthusiastic to express themselves as professional accountants. They are more responsive toobeying professional values and try to maintain the quality of work. The hypothesisformulated as follows:

H6. Professional commitment moderates the relationship between self-efficacy andfraud detection responsibility.

The research framework illustrates the relationship among goal orientation, self-efficacy,professional commitment and fraud detection responsibility shown inF1 Figure 1.

Research methodPopulation and sampleThis study uses a survey method, which distributes questionnaires to all auditors who workat 12 small accounting firms in the Bali Province, Indonesia. The number of questionnaires

Figure 1.Research model

Goal Orientation Self-efficacy

Fraud Detection

Responsibility

Professional Commitment

H1

H2 H3

H4H6

Mediating effect

H5




distributed was 110 questionnaires, and about 86 questionnaires were returned. Thus, thereturn rate of the questionnaire (response rate) was 78.18%. All returned questionnairescompleted so that they could use it in further analysis. Respondents comprised of partners(13.95%), managers (8.14%), senior auditors (26.74%) and junior auditors (51.16%). Themajority of respondents are male (51.16%) and have tenure under ten years (69.77%).

Measurement of variablesFraud detection responsibility is the auditor’s perception of the responsibility for frauddetection. The researcher uses the triangle model of responsibility (Schlenker et al., 1994) toevaluate auditory perceptions. This model consists of three elements, namely, professionalobligation, task clarity and personal control. This research instrument contains six-questionitems adapted from DeZoort and Harrison (2018). One example of the question posed is,“How relevant is detecting this fraud to your job?.” Participants’ responses were measuredusing a seven-point semantic scale, which is “not at all relevant” until “completely relevant.”The goal orientation variable consists of three elements, namely, learning goal orientation,performance-approach and performance-avoidance. The research instrument consisted of 12statements adapted from the Sanusi et al. (2018) study. One example statement is, “I likeshowing that I can perform better than my coworkers.” Participant responses weremeasured using a seven-point semantic scale, i.e. “strongly disagree” until “strongly agree.”

The self-efficacy variable consists of four statements adapted from the Sanusi et al.(2018). One example of a statement is, “I am confident I can solve the task.” Participantresponses were measured using a seven-point semantic scale, i.e. “strongly disagree” until“strongly agree.” The variable professional commitment consists of two elements, namely,affective professional commitment and normative professional commitment. Theinstrument consisted of eight statements adapted from Shafer et al. (2016). One example ofthe statement is, “I feel a responsibility to the public accounting profession to continue in it.”Participant responses were measured using a seven-point semantic scale, i.e. “stronglydisagree” until “strongly agree.”A description of the indicators for each variable is shown inAppendix.

Result and discussionThe research data were analyzed using Partial Least Square (PLS) with a first-orderapproach. AQ: 4The testing step taken is the outer model test to evaluate the validity andreliability of the indicators, testing the research model and testing the hypothesis. Reliabilitytesting uses three methods, namely, the convergent validity test, discriminant validity andcomposite reliability. The outer model test results using reflective indicators show valuesgreater than 0.5 so that the indicators are considered valid. They test discriminant validityby comparing the coefficient of the square root of the extracted variance (HAVE) for eachlatent variable with the other latent variables’ correlation coefficient. The results of this testindicate the AVE value is higher than 0.50. Indicator test results are said to be reliable if theyhave a composite validity value and Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.70. The compositevalidity testing results of this study ranged from 0.827 to 0.873, while the Cronbach’s alphavalue ranged from 0.721 to 0.936. Thus, these results indicate that the indicators used arereliable ( T1Table 1).

The next step is to test the inner model. The model feasibility test performed using theresults of the R2 analysis, which showed the strength of the relationship between exogenousvariables and endogenous variables. The R2 value is between 0.612 and 0.662 (relativelystrong). This study has a Q2 calculation value of 0.8692, meaning this study has a goodobservation model. This figure interpreted that exogenous variables can explain the fraud



JFC

detection responsibility of 86.92%; other factors outside the model explain the remaining13.08%.

The next step is testing the hypothesis, which is carried out through two stages, testingthe direct and indirect effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables. The resultsof direct relationship testing among each variable is shown inT2 Table 2.

H1 predicts that goal orientation has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility.The test results in Table 2 show that goal orientation does not affect fraud detectionresponsibility (T-statistic value 0.773 < 1.96, p-value 0.221). Thus, the result does notsupportH1.H2 predicts that goal orientation has a positive effect on self-efficacy. Followingthe hypotheses predicted, empirical testing results indicate a positive effect of goalorientation on self-efficacy (T-statistic value 19,182> 1.96, p-value 0,000). The resultssupport H2. H3 formulates that self-efficacy has a positive effect on fraud detectionresponsibility. The test results showed a positive influence (T-statistic value 1.98> 1.96, p-value 0.003). Thus, the results support H3. H4 predicts that professional commitment has apositive effect on fraud detection responsibility. Contrary to the formulated hypothesis, theresult showed no significant effect (T-statistic value of 1,480< 1.96, p-value 0.071). Thus, theresult does not supportH4.

The test of mediating and moderating variables role in this research model is shown inT3-4 Tables 3 and 4.

H5 formulates that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between goal orientation andfraud detection responsibility. The path coefficient analysis results showed that therelationship between goal orientation on fraud detection responsibility has insignificantresults (T-statistic value 0.773 < 1.96, p-value 0.221). Contrary, goal orientation has apositive effect on self-efficacy (T-statistic value 19.182> 1.96, p-value 0.000). Self-efficacyhas a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility (T-statistic value 1.981> 1.96, p-value0.003). Table 3 shows that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between goal orientationand fraud detection responsibility. This result confirmed by the VAF value of 0.8716> 0.8.

Table 1.AVE,HAVE and

correlation of latentvariables

Variables AVE HAVECoefficient of correlation

FDR GO PC SE SE*PC

FDR 0.669 0.818 1.000 – – – –GO 0.609 0.781 0.712 1.000 – – –PC 0.648 0.805 0.429 0.354 1.000 – –SE 0.745 0.863 0.726 0.783 0.151 1.000 –SE*PC 0.721 0.849 0.735 0.726 0.727 0.771 1.000

Note:s FDR = fraud detection responsibility; GO = goal orientation; SE = self-efficacy; and PC =professional commitment

Table 2.Direct relationship

between eachvariable

ConstructOriginalsample

Samplemean

Standard deviation(STDEV)

T-statistics(jO/STDEVj) p-value Hypothesis decision

GO! FDR 0.135 0.156 0.174 0.773 0.221 Not supportedGO! SE 0.783 0.782 0.041 19.182 0.000 SupportedSE! FDR 1.169 1.171 0.801 1.981 0.003 SupportedPC! FDR 0.842 0.881 0.569 1.480 0.071 Not supported




Hair et al. (2013) state that if the research model has a VAF value> 80%, it means that themodel is a full mediation model. The VAF value of 0.8716 or 87.16% confirms that thisresearch model is a full mediation. Thus, the results supportH5.

Table 4 shows that professional commitment has no effect on fraud detectionresponsibility (T-statistic value of 1,480 < 1.96, p-value 0.071). The interaction analysisrevealed that testing the interaction between the variables of self-efficacy and professionalcommitment to fraud detection responsibility showed significant value (T-statistic value1.962> 1.96, p-value 0.039). In this case, professional commitment becomes a puremoderation variable. Thus, the results supportH6.

Goal orientation and fraud detection responsibilityH1 test results show that goal orientation does not affect the responsibility of frauddetection. The results shows the opposite of the hypothesis formulated. This result may beowing to researchers’ failure to distinguish the dimensions of goal orientation (Bell andKozlowski, 2002; LePine, 2005; Stasielowicz, 2019). The auditors likely have different goalorientations. In fact, at the same time, individuals might have several goal orientations(Stasielowicz, 2019). The meta-analysis findings revealed that although goal orientation isclosely related to the achievement of individual performance (Cellar et al., 2011; Payne et al.,2007), the strength of the relationship determined by the context and type of orientation ofthe individual’s goals (Stasielowicz, 2019).

Second, there is no alignment between the employee’s (individual) goal orientation andorganizational goals. An auditor with a high goal orientation is inspired to improve theircompetence and performance. This personal desire aims to achieve optimal performanceand get a positive assessment from the leadership or other colleagues. Even so, it is notnecessarily getting positive feedback from the head of the audit firm. The leadershipconsiders that efforts to increase competence are an obligation that must be done by eachauditor. Moreover, professional standards require auditors to provide adequate confidencewhen performing audit tasks, including fraud detection. This study’s findings do notsupport previous research (Sanusi et al., 2018).

Goal orientation and self-efficacyH2 test results show that goal orientation has a positive effect on self-efficacy. Individualswill improve their self-competence and performance consistently. Additional knowledge andgood performance will increase individual self-efficacy to perform various types of tasks. In

Table 3.Testing the role ofmediating variables

Model Original sample T-statistics p-value VAF Hypothesis decision

GO! FDR 0.135 0.773 0.221 0.828 Full mediationGO! SE 0.783 19.182 0.000SE! FDR 1.169 1.981 0.003

Table 4.Testing the role ofmoderating variables

Model Original sample T-statistics p-value Hypothesis decision

SE! FDR 1.169 1.981 0.003 Pure ModerationPC! FDR 0.842 1.480 0.071SE*PC! FDR 0.876 1.962 0.039



JFC

the audit field, individuals with high goal orientation will deliberately choose challengingtasks, which considered to be able to increase the auditor’s self-efficacy. The results oftesting this hypothesis support previous research, which states that goal orientation has apositive effect on self-efficacy (Button et al., 1996; Sanusi et al., 2018).

Self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibilityH3 test results show that self-efficacy has a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility.Individuals with high self-efficacy will use cognitive resources to complete tasks (Bandura,1986). The auditor will focus on strategies for achieving success and having the ability toendure difficulties. A high level of enthusiasm at work will reduce the perceived workload orpressure (Bandura and Cervone, 1983). In accounting and auditing, auditors with high self-efficacy will be more likely to make discretionary accounting decisions that are rigorous orcontrary to client wishes and have a more objective attitude (Svanberg et al., 2019). Theauditor can be the opponent of the client’s discussion and defend opinions when the clientprotests the audit assessment results. Auditors feel more confident when investigating auditevidence that is accurate in a short period and when negotiating with clients to obtain theevidence needed (McCracken et al., 2008). This study supports previous research, statingthat self-efficacy helps auditors negotiate (Miles andMaurer, 2012; Svanberg et al., 2019) andaudit judgment (Iskandar et al., 2012; Sanusi et al., 2018).

Professional commitment and fraud detection responsibilityH4 test results show that professional commitment does not affect fraud detectionresponsibility. The results do not support the formulated hypothesis. The finding supportsprevious studies (Kaplan andWhitecotton, 2001; Lord and DeZoort, 2001; Shaub et al., 1993;Yetmar and Eastman, 2000). The condition might be owing to several things. First, auditorshave difficulty synchronizing the objectives of the audit company with those of professionalorganizations. The auditor realizes that the client only expects the auditor to publish afairness opinion, not detect fraud. This action not only produce conflicts between clients andauditors, but audit firms also risk losing potential clients (Alleyne et al., 2013). Small auditcompanies usually avoid conflicts with clients to prevent the termination of audit contractsin the future. Auditors prioritize the interests of clients rather than their commitment toupholding the values of the profession.

Second, clients of small audit firms usually come from small private companies. In thiscase, the auditor often has a close relationship with the owner so that the auditor cannot beindependent. When the auditor detects that something is wrong or even leads to indicationsof fraud, such as avoidance or tax evasion, often the accountant or auditor is unable to revealthese suspicious signals. In business, tax avoidance has seen as a matter of course (Tienet al., 2019). Also, the failure of auditors to detect fraud may not significantly impact thereputation of the company, accounting firms and audited companies. Thus, clients fromsmall private companies do not attract the attention of investors or the media (Svanström,2016). Third, it is still a matter of debate until now that large audit firms are more likely todetect material errors and misstatements. Large audit firms hire auditors with differentattributes (Bagley et al., 2012), such as arrange certification or specialized training programsto auditor staff (Svanström, 2016; Zalata et al., 2020). Finally, the market considers that largeaudit firms have higher audit quality than smaller audit firms (Tien et al., 2019).

Goal orientation, self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibilityH5 test results show that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between goal orientationand fraud detection responsibility. Consistent with the cognitive social theory, self-efficacy




becomes a catalyst that converts motivation into action (Svanberg et al., 2019). Auditors aremotivated to improve their competence and performance by taking on challenging tasks,such as detecting fraud. If the auditor believes in his ability, the auditor will be able to dotheir responsibilities well. This result supports previous results that self-efficacy mediatesthe relationship between goal orientation and audit judgment (Sanusi et al., 2018) and theadaptation process in the workplace (Jundt et al., 2015).

Self-efficacy, professional commitment and fraud detection responsibilityH6 test results show that professional commitment moderate the relationship between goalorientation and fraud detection responsibility. The interaction between high self-efficacyand high professional commitment will increase fraud detection responsibility. If the auditorhas low self-efficacy, the high professional commitment will lead them to continue to upholdprofessional values andmaintain the quality of work (Svanberg et al., 2019).

Additional analysisThis study fails to prove that goal orientation effect to fraud detection responsibility. Thisresult is probably owing to the measurement of this variable globally for the threedimensions. To gain further insight, researchers conducted additional analyzes usinglearning goal orientation, performance-approach and performance-avoidance. Everyone hasthe chance in each dimension to become an alternative to reduce research bias (Kozlowskiet al., 2001; Payne et al., 2007; Sanusi et al., 2018; Stasielowicz, 2019). The test of additionalanalysis data using PLS with a second-order approach presented in T5Table 5.

Table 5 shows that the learning goal orientation influences fraud detectionresponsibility. The auditor considers difficult tasks as a challenge to increase knowledgerelated to fraud detection strategies. The auditor will have a positive attitude toward alljobs, regardless of the difficulties to be faced (Vandewalle, 1997). The performance-approachhas a positive effect on fraud detection responsibility. Individuals want to prove their abilityand want to get a positive perception (Stasielowicz, 2019). In performing fraud detectionresponsibility, the auditor will make various efforts to reveal the fraud that occurred. Theauditor will be considered capable of completing the work, including fraud detectionresponsibility. The performance-avoidance goal orientation does not affect fraud detectionresponsibility. This result is because professional auditors will not avoid the task ofdetecting fraud. Professional accounting standards state that the detection of fraud is thespecific task of an auditor. Thus, the auditor must be willing to do the task.

Conclusions, implication and limitationThe results showed that the goal orientation variable affected the self-efficacy variable butdid not directly influence fraud detection responsibility. This finding supports the social

Table 5.Additional analysisfor goal orientationand fraud detectionresponsibility

ConstructOriginalsample

Samplemean

Standard deviation(STDEV)

T-statistics(jO/STDEVj) p-value Remark

LGO! FDR 0.476 0.473 0.073 6.493 0.005 SupportedPApGO! FDR 0.327 0.318 0.156 2.099 0.043 SupportedPAdGO! FDR 0.142 0.153 0.099 1.438 0.199 Not supported

Notes: LGO = learning goal orientation; PapGO = performance-approach goal orientation; and PAdGO =performance-avoidance goal orientation



JFC

cognitive theory. This study also found the role of self-efficacy in mediating the relationshipbetween goal orientation and fraud detection responsibility. This result confirms that self-efficacy can improve individual performance even in complex tasks. The professionalcommitment was moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and fraud detectionresponsibility.

The results have several theoretical, practical and policy implications. Based on anacademic perspective, these findings extend the fraud literature. In this case, theresponsibility influenced by the auditor’s cognitive abilities. Nevertheless, this findingleaves questions about the variable professional commitment’s failure in influencing therelationship between self-efficacy and fraud detection responsibility. From the perspectiveof practice and policymaking, this research highlights the need for standards andpolicymakers to review audit expectation gaps that occur between auditors and the public.To increase the auditor’s awareness of the responsibility of fraud detection, professionalorganizations need to improve the function of the goal orientation, self-efficacy andprofessional commitment of auditors through outreach, training, continuing educationprograms and anti-fraud certification programs.

This study has several limitations. First, respondents come from small audit firms inIndonesia. Although there is no statement that theory states that the size of the auditcompany determines the goal orientation and self-efficacy, the market still considers thatlarge audit firms have higher audit quality (Tien et al., 2019). Future studies can expand thisresearch by focusing on auditors affiliated with the Big Four. Researchers can also comparethe results with the auditors’ responsibilities in small audit companies in other countries.Secondly, this study failed to prove professional commitment effect on fraud detectionresponsiveness. It might be this research that only measures affective and normativeprofessional commitment, which widely researched in accounting and auditing (Hall et al.,2005). Future research can use other dimensions, such as continuance professionalcommitment.AQ: 5

ReferencesACFE (2020), “Report to the nations: 2020 global study on occupational fraud and abuse”, available at:

www.acfe.com/report-to-the-nations/2020/.AICPA (2002), Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 99: Consideration of Fraud in a Financial

Statement Audit, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY.Alleyne, P. and Howard, M. (2005), “An exploratory study of auditors’ responsibility for fraud detection

in Barbados”,Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 284-303.Alleyne, P., Hudaib, M. and Pike, R. (2013), “Toward a conceptual model of whistle-blowing intentions

among external auditors”,The British Accounting Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 10-23.Aranya, N., Pollock, J. and Amernic, J. (1981), “An examination of professional commitment in public

accounting”, accounting”,Organizations and Society, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 271-280.Bagley, P.L., Dalton, D. and Ortegren, M. (2012), “The factors that affect accountants’ decisions to seek

careers with big 4 versus non-big 4 accounting firms”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 26 No. 2,pp. 239-264.

Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1991), “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation”, Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 248-287.

Bandura, A. (1997), “Self-Efficacy and health behaviour”, Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, HealthandMedicine, Delmar Publishers., New York, NY.




http://www.acfe.com/report-to-the-nations/2020/

Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1983), “Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing themotivational effects of goal systems”, psychology”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1017-1028.

Bell, B.S. and Kozlowski, W.J. (2002), “Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy,performance, and knowledge”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 497-505.

Button, S.B., Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1996), “Goal orientation in organizational research: aconceptual and empirical foundation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 26-48.

Cellar, D.F., Stuhlmacher, A.F., Young, S.K., Fisher, D.M., Adair, C.K., Haynes, S., Twichell, E., Arnold,K.A., Royer, K., Denning, B.L. and Riester, D. (2011), “Trait goal orientation, self-regulation, andperformance: a Meta-analysis”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 467-483.

Che-Ha, N., Mavondo, F.T. and Mohd-Said, S. (2014), “Performance or learning goal orientation:Implications for business performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 1,pp. 2811-2820.

Coutinho, S.A. and Neuman, G. (2008), “A model of metacognition, achievement goal orientation,learning style and self-efficacy”, Learning Environments Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 131-151.

DeZoort, F.T. and Harrison, P.D. (2018), “Understanding auditors’ sense of responsibility for detectingfraud within organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 149 No. 4, pp. 857-874.

Domino, M.A., Wingreen, S.C. and Blanton, J.E. (2015), “Social cognitive theory: the antecedents andeffects of ethical climate fit on organizational attitudes of corporate accounting professionals—areflection of client narcissism and fraud attitude risk”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 131 No. 2,pp. 453-467.

Greenfield, A.C., Norman, C.S. and Wier, B. (2008), “The effect of ethical orientation and professionalcommitment on earnings management behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 83 No. 3,pp. 419-434.

Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling:rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46Nos 1/2, pp. 1-12.

Hall, M., Smith, D., Langfield and Smith, K. (2005), “Accountants’ commitment to their profession:Multiple dimensions of professional commitment and opportunities for future research”,Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 89-109.

Herda, D.N. and Martin, K.A. (2016), “The effects of auditor experience and professional commitmenton acceptance of underreporting time: a moderated mediation analysis”, Current Issues inAuditing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. A14-A27.

Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J.R. and Guerra, N.S. (2007), “A closer look at college students: Self-efficacy and goalorientation”, Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 454-476.

Hunter, J.E. (1986), “Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 340-362.

Hunter, J.E. and Hunter, R.F. (1984), “Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 96 No. 1, p. 72.

Hussin, S.A.H.S., Saleh, N.M. and Al-Smady, A.A. (2019), “Auditor demographic factors anddimensions of auditors’ skepticism in Jordan”, Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance,Vol. 11, pp. 39-48.

Iskandar, T.M. and Sanusi, Z.M. (2011), “Assesing the effect of self-efficacy and task complexity oninternal control audit judgment”, Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting andFinance, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 2-52.

Iskandar, T.M., Sari, R.N., Zuraidah, M. and Anugerah, R. (2012), “Enhancing auditors’ performance:the importance of motivational factors and the mediation effect of effort”, Managerial AuditingJournal, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 462-476.



JFC

Jeffrey, C., Weatherholt, N. and Lo, S. (1996), “Ethical development, professional commitment and ruleobservance attitudes: a study of auditors in Taiwan”, The International Journal of Accounting,Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 365-379.

Jundt, D.K., Shoss, M.K. and Huang, J.L. (2015), “Individual adaptive performance in organizations: areview”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 53-71.

Kaplan, S.E. and Whitecotton, S.M. (2001), “An examination of auditors’ reporting intentions whenanother auditor is offered client employment”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory,Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 45-63.

Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S.M., Brown, K.G., Salas, E., Smith, E.M. and Nason, E.R. (2001), “Effects oftraining goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional training outcomes andperformance adaptability”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 85No. 1, pp. 1-31.

LePine, J.A. (2005), “Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficultyand team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1153-1167.

Lord, A.T. and DeZoort, F.T. (2001), “The impact of commitment and moral reasoning on auditors’responses to social influence pressure”, accounting”, Organizations and Society, Vol. 26 No. 3,pp. 215-235.

McCracken, Salterio, S.E. and Gibbins, M. (2008), “Auditor–client management relationships and rolesin negotiating financial reporting”, Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 Nos 4/5,pp. 362-383.

Meutia, I., Adam, M. and Nurpratiwi, T. (2018), “The effect of professional commitment and ethicalconsideration on the desire to do whistleblowing with locus of control as a moderating variable(study on the banking sector in palembang)”, Jurnal Perspektif Pembiayaan Dan PembangunanDaerah, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 363-370.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations:extension and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 78 No. 4, p. 538.

Miles, E.W. and Maurer, T.J. (2012), “Advancing validity of self-efficacy in negotiation throughfocusing at the domain level”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 85No. 1, pp. 23-41.

Mohd-Sanusi, Z. and Mohd-Iskandar, T. (2007), “Audit judgment performance: assessing the effect ofperformance incentives, effort and task complexity”,Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1,pp. 34-52.

Nasution, D. and Östermark, R. (2012), “The impact of social pressures, locus of control, andprofessional commitment on auditors’ judgment”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 2,pp. 163-178.

Payne, S.C., Youngcourt, S.S. and Beaubien, J.M. (2007), “A Meta-analytic examination of the goalorientation nomological net”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, p. 128.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974), “Organizational commitment, jobsatisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59No. 5, p. 603.

Radosevich, D.J., Vaidyanathan, V.T., Yeo, S. and Radosevich, D.M. (2004), “Relating goal orientation toself-regulatory processes: a longitudinal field test”, Contemporary Educational Psychology,Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 207-229.

Ree, M.J. and Earles, J.A. (1991), “Predicting training success: Not much more than g”, PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 321-332.

Rustiarini, N.W., Sutrisno, S., Nurkholis, N. and Andayani, W. (2019), “Fraud triangle in publicprocurement: evidence from Indonesia”, Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 951-968.




Sanusi, Z.M., Iskandar, T.M., Monroe, G.S. and Saleh, N.M. (2018), “Effects of goal orientation, self-efficacy and task complexity on the audit judgement performance of malaysian auditors”,Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 75-95.

Schlenker, B.R., Britt, T.W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R. and Doherty, K. (1994), “The triangle model ofresponsibility”, Psychological Review, Vol. 101 No. 4, p. 632.

Schmidt, A.M. and Ford, J.K. (2003), “Learning within a learner control training environment: theinteractive effects of goal orientation and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 405-429.

Shafer, W.E., Simmons, R.S. and Yip, R.W.Y. (2016), “Social responsibility, professional commitmentand tax fraud”,Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 111-134.

Shaub, M.K., Finn, D.W. and Munter, P. (1993), “The effects of auditors’ ethical orientation oncommitment and ethical sensitivity”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 5 No. 1,pp. 145-169.

Slatten, T. (2014), “Determinants and effects of employee’s creative self-efficacy on innovativeactivities”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 326-347.

Smith, D. and Hall, M. (2008), “An empirical examination of a three-component model of professionalcommitment among public accountants”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 1,pp. 75-92.

Stasielowicz, L. (2019), “Goal orientation and performance adaptation: a Meta-analysis”, Journal ofResearch in Personality, Vol. 82, p. 103847.

Svanberg, J., Öhman, P. and Neidermeyer, P.E. (2019), “Auditor objectivity as a function of auditornegotiation self-efficacy beliefs”,Advances in Accounting, Vol. 44, pp. 121-131.

Svanström, T. (2016), “Time pressure, training activities and dysfunctional auditor behaviour: evidencefrom small audit firms”, International Journal of Auditing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 42-51.

Taylor, E.Z. and Curtis, M.B. (2010), “An examination of the layers of workplace influences in ethicaljudgments: Whistleblowing likelihood and perseverance in public accounting”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 21-37.

Tien, N.H., Thuong, T.M. and Yen, N.T.H. (2019), “Enhancing independence of local auditing servicesby profiting from experiences of the Big4 group (KPMG, Deloitte, PWC E&Y) operating inVietnammarket”, Cogent Business andManagement, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 1605702.

Vandewalle, D. (1997), “Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument”,Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 995-1015.

Wongpinunwatana, N. and Panchoo, P. (2014), “Creating self-efficacy in internal auditors forinformation technology audits: an on-the-job training perspective”, International Journal ofManagement and Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 213-222.

Yetmar, S.A. and Eastman, K.K. (2000), “Tax practitioners’ ethical sensitivity: a model and empiricalexamination”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 271-288.

Yperen, N.W., Van, Blaga, M. and Postmes, T. (2015), “A Meta-analysis of the impact of situationallyinduced achievement goals on task performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 28 No. 2,pp. 165-182.

Zalata, A.M., Elzahar, H. and McLaughlin, C. (2020), “External audit quality and firms’ credit score”,Cogent Business andManagement, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 1724063.



JFC

Ta1 Appendix

Corresponding authorNi Wayan Rustiarini can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: [email protected]

Table A1.Variable

measurement

Variables Indicators

Fraud detectionresponsibility

How relevant is detecting this fraud to your job?How obligated are you to detect this fraud?How clear is your authoritative guidance for detecting this fraud?How informed are you about the procedures you should follow to detect this fraud?How much control do you have as a tax professional over your ability to detect thisfraud?How much of a contribution do you believe you can make to detecting this fraud?

Goal orientation Learning goal orientation (LGO)I am willing to select a challenging work assignment that I can learn a lot fromI often look for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledgeI enjoy challenging and difficult tasks at work where I learn new skillsFor me, further development of my work ability is important enough to take risks

Performance-approach goal orientation (PApGO)I like showing that I can perform better than my coworkersI try to figure out what it takes to prove my ability to others at workI enjoy it when others at work are aware of how well I am doingI prefer to work on projects in which I can prove my ability to others

Performance-avoidance goal orientation (PAvdGO)I would avoid taking on a new task if there was a chance that I would appear ratherincompetent to othersAvoidance of showing my low ability is more important to me than learning a newskillI am concerned about taking on a task at work that would reveal my low abilityI prefer to avoid situations at work in which I might perform poorly

Professionalcommitment

Affective professional commitmentPublic accounting profession is important to my self-imageI am proud to be in the public accounting professionI am enthusiastic about public accountingI believe people in a profession have a responsibility for a reasonable period of time

Normative professional commitmentI feel a responsibility to the public accounting profession to continue in itI do not feel that it would be right to leave public accountingI would feel guilty if I left public accounting professionI am in public accounting profession because of a sense of loyalty to it

Self-efficacy I am confident that can solve the taskI am sure that can cope with the task challengesI am certain that can manage the task requirementsI believe will do well the task even if complex





4. Bukti Konfirmasi Artikel Published Online

(5 November 2020)

9/15/21, 10:22 PM Yahoo Mail - JFC - Public accounting profession and fraud detection responsibility, is now published online.

1/1

JFC - Public accounting profession and fraud detection responsibility, is now publishedonline.

Dari: [email protected]


Tanggal: Kamis, 5 November 2020 06.02 GMT+8

04-Nov-2020

JFC - Journal of Financial Crime

Emerald Insight Date: 04-Nov-2020

I am pleased to inform you that Public accounting profession and fraud detection responsibility of Journal of Financial Crimehas been published on Emerald Insight.

Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact the Production Department.

Best Wishes,

PShekhar

Emerald Production Department

Emerald Group Limited, Registered Office: Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA United Kingdom. Registered inEngland No. 3080506, VAT No. GB 665 3593 06

Rusti

Highlight

5. Bukti Konfirmasi Artikel

Mendapatkan Volume dan Nomor

(9 Juni 2021)

9/15/21, 11:11 PM Yahoo Mail - Your article has been assigned to an issue

1/1

Your article has been assigned to an issue

Dari: Emerald ([email protected])


Tanggal: Rabu, 9 Juni 2021 18.00 GMT+8

Dear Mrs. Rustiarini, We’re pleased to let you know that your paper 'Public accounting profession and frauddetection responsibility' has now been assigned a volume and page numbers. You can find lots of information including copyright information and contacts on ourauthor pages. Kind regards The Emerald Team

View this message online | Forward to a friend

Data protection:This email was sent to [email protected].

For information about how we use your personal data, and your rights in relation to this, see our Privacy Notice. This email isconfidential between us and the intended recipient. Any recipient who receives this email in error should immediately report theerror to us and permanently delete this email from all storage devices.

Contact us:If you have any questions or comments regarding this email, please contact: [email protected].

© Emerald Publishing Limited | Copyright info Registered Office: Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, West Yorks.,BD16 1WA, United KingdomRegistered in England No. 3080506, VAT No. GB 665 3593 06

http://click.email.emeraldinsight.com/?qs=d2d461d74d161b00b3eb99d57b9e1277e2231c53d01401dc9a05df040152c4c6b4e9017337d34553012fe374a04ea046e8050d286e7503fa

http://click.email.emeraldinsight.com/?qs=d2d461d74d161b00ced51a6aefea84fa86efc27ed84b013065ecc9c6b237cfc869d2493ebfb258ca450b448d12538b2a46383c318b3c2ae6

http://click.email.emeraldinsight.com/?qs=d2d461d74d161b00bd2b89e906b81427e404a65d5013dd3f2d6bb29c02bd69fd2edd3b16b3dcf5709146477d93c4b69c7506ff7fb88ea2d4

http://click.email.emeraldinsight.com/?qs=d2d461d74d161b004d7f30dcbb8c3bcad2941db3971451432152ac084f5e8c15dcda2ea0f09471c5f592ab0e6fa48102ba0d7535252798e8

http://view.email.emeraldinsight.com/?qs=24835accc77f2cde1d5ab461b43190ceb17dac0e692ae5a8612db6b7f86914833dc8043ed5d2605b5dcd989c80e673ee73ff407cb4764bb3fe6220ffc6ba26e15d8e424eafe56ff437c215e8a65632f6

http://view.email.emeraldinsight.com/ftaf.aspx?qs=24835accc77f2cde1d5ab461b43190ceb17dac0e692ae5a8612db6b7f8691483daf1f5de4fb7922be794be40e199eb74

http://click.email.emeraldinsight.com/?qs=d2d461d74d161b00dbef065744837903e5e3fc15e4b572410a62087c9fb555f6414d3d7e10e110299315c4f14638c194a702472cb9dfa617


http://click.email.emeraldinsight.com/?qs=d2d461d74d161b005a976505ac8b2addd3c7148ce1d2d8cce2775a417d46972665a9be25bbed637981466a0ff96def881b8a9b9418c2dc82

Rusti

Highlight

BUKTI KORESPONDENSI ARTIKEL JURNAL INTERNASIONAL ...

Documents

Transcript of BUKTI KORESPONDENSI ARTIKEL JURNAL INTERNASIONAL ...