علیرضا معطوفی

When auditors intentionally or unintentionally approve financial statements in line with the views of their employers, the public interest and the auditing profession are at serious risk. The purpose of this study was to examine the process by which auditors' interests will influence decision making. To achieve this goal, first in the qualitative part of the research, by studying the background of accounting research and interviewing experts through the fuzzy Delphi method, the effective components on conflict of interest were identified. In the second part of the study, using social-cognitive meta-theory and operational decision-making power in the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) paradigm, data obtained from 362 certified public accountants. Smart-PLS software and Structural equations have been implemented for data analysis and hypotheses testing. Cognitive processes, including expected positive outcomes, understanding the problems of consistent decision-making, and ethical judgment, play a mediating role between the conflict of interest and deviant decision-making, and through these intervening variables, conflict of interest can be monitored and reduced. The results show that professional ethics with the confirmation of all hypotheses are considered as the most effective component. It also showed that reducing the expected positive results, increasing the understanding of problems, and reducing the auditors' ethical judgment in the assigned tasks will lead to deviant decisions. By implementing the proposed algorithm, cognition processes can be directed towards consistent decision making.

Background: As societies have become more complicated to manage, it is already unavoidable for governments to evaluate public policies. Moreover, adherence to professional ethics is an important criterion in evaluations. Therefore, the present research sought to provide a model for public policy evaluation based on the aspects of professional ethics. Method: The approach of the present study was mixed (qualitative- quantitative) and in terms of purpose it was applicable research. In the qualitative section, participants included academic experts and governorate experts of Golestan province, 14 of whom were selected by purposive sampling. The research tool was semi-structured interviews and coding method was used to analyze the data. In the quantitative part, the statistical population was the managers and experts of the governorate and governorates (630 people) that the sample size was 248 people and the sampling method was random. Data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire based on qualitative findings. Friedman statistical test with Spss26 software was used to analyze the data. Cronbach's alpha test was used for the validity of the questionnaire from the perspective of experts and its reliability (0.91). Results : The results showed that from the experts' point of view, 6 main themes (quality of effective evaluators in policy, ethical nature of policy, how policy is implemented, factors related to economic planning, openness and accountability and attention to structural issues) and 19 components in public policy evaluation model emphasizing the quality of the dimensions of professional ethics in the governorates of the country. Quantitative results showed that the ethical nature of the policy was the most important component of the general policy evaluation model with emphasis on professional ethics (M = 5.23). Conclusion : It can be concluded that the public policy evaluation model with an emphasis on professional ethics has different cultural, economic, social, and professional elements, which for better governance of provincial governments, they must be considered by executive authorities at the country’s macro and micro levels.

The present study aimed to identify the most effective causes of conflict of interest by examination of accounting literature and expert consensus. Understanding these factors, using cognitive psychology theories, can lead to a model for reducing conflict of interests. The dignity of the audit profession depends on fair and proper professional judgment by auditors, and achieving this requires identification and controlling of the key factors affecting judgment and decision-making. When auditors intentionally or unintentionally accredit financial statements in line with the opinion of their employers, public interests and the auditing profession are at serious risk. Several factors that can categorize into seven categories of structure, community, culture, environment, personality, audit firm characteristic, and ethics and behavior are rooted in a conflict of interests. However, no comprehensive research examining all the above factors and identifying the most effective ones has been done so far. By reviewing the research literature, major and minor factors were identified in domestic and foreign sources. Ten expert auditors were selected by the snowball method and interviewed. The considered major and minor factors were selected from among the introduced factors, and a questionnaire was sent to the experts using the Fuzzy Delphi (Screening) method. The results of the above statistical analysis identified eighteen of the most prominent sub-criteria of the factors affecting conflict of interests and identified structural factors the highest rank in this classification, which was agreed by the experts.