Reply.
回应了Craig和Hirst关于审计师决策中问责制的研究，指出问责制可能是审计师的自动认知过程，并讨论了如何通过提醒审计师其问责性来改进审计流程。
Abstract The article presents responses to some issues related to auditor's accountability in decision making raised by auditing researchers Craig and Hirst. Craig observed that auditors do not anticipate having to explain or justify decisions or conduct to others because the decision making seems to be a routine task for them. Craig's comment suggests that accountability may be an "automatic" cognitive process for auditors. If accountability is an automatic process for auditors, additional improvements in the audit process may be gained by explicitly reminding auditors that they are accountable for their decisions. Hirst raises some methodological issues related to investigating accountability. He raises the practical problem of whether a subject can be manipulated when he or she may already feel accountable. A decision maker is accountable to an evaluative audience (including oneself) when he or she wants to maintain a desired social image with that audience. The evaluative audience can observe and judge the decision maker's actions and can compel him or her to justify and defend the actions.