{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02516309412861137, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021076779697469353, 'mean_word_length': 5.208277703604806, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
PERCEPTION OF LOCUS OF CONTROL , LEVEL OF EDUCATION , MACHIAVELLIANISM AND ETHICAL REASONING AGAINST AUDITOR BEHAVIOR IN AUDIT

This study aims to examine individual factors such as locus of control (LOC), level of education, Machiavellianism and ethical reasoning that may influence the behavior of auditors in conflict situations. The survey was conducted by using questionnaires to auditors working at Public Accounting Firm in South Kalimantan. The analysis technique used is with multiple regressions.The results show that individual factors such as locus of control (LOC), level of education, Machiavellianism and ethical reasoning have been shown to significantly affect auditor behavior in conflict situations.


INTRODUCTION
Good corporate governance issues have been raised in recent times. In an effort to achieve good corporate governance, the auditor plays a crucial role as a profession based on the trust of the community to provide its professional services to the parties concerned. Trust given should be professionally accountable by providing quality audit results. Therefore, in carrying out its duties the auditor must act objectively and independently based on the code of ethics of their profession.
Nature of the work of the auditor itself is considered ambiguous which in certain situations will complicate even cornering auditors. On the one hand, auditors are required to be subject to professional standards and codes of ethics during their audit work. However, on the other hand, the fees from the auditor's work are actually provided by the clients who hire them so that it takes a hard effort for them to stick to the professional standards and codes of conduct. This fact is the obstacle for the auditor in maintaining objectivity and independence.
In various audit work, auditors are often not as understanding with the client as to the aspects of the function and purpose of the examination. In this case the client may pressure the auditor to take action in accordance with the wishes of the client which is an action that violates professional standards. Meeting the client's desire means violating the standards but the rejection of the client's request can result in sanctions in the possibility of termination of the assignment (dismissal) and very detrimental to the auditor. In this situation, auditors are said to be in a conflict where they are bound by professional standards and ethics on one hand and yet demanded to perform an action that violates the standards and ethics as well as threat its objectivity and independence by the client who hire them.
Conflict are common in auditoria work. It is a process that begins when one party feels let down by the other (French and Allbright, 1998).
Moreover, according to Fried and Schiff (1981) the frequency of conflict between management and the Public Accounting Firm has been increased lately. Knapp (1985)  It seems that conflicts can only be addressed through a moral approach, so ethical reasoning and concerns are essential in any auditor's professional judgment. Today a great deal of research is devoted to this issue, and attempts to describe and evaluate factors that may influence the auditor's ethical behavior (Louwes et al., 1997 in (Muawanah andIndriantoro, 2001).
Factors that may influence the auditor's ethical behavior have been investigated by (Tsui and Gul, 1996); (Zoraifi, 2005); (Hidayat and Handayani, 2010). The interaction effects of locus of control, personality variables, and ethical reasoning on auditor behavior in situations of audit conflict. The implication of the result is that the explicit recognition of the locus of control and ethical reasoning provides a better explanation for differences in ethical decision making auditors. Zoraifi (2005) developed Tsui and Gul (1996)  The development of research on auditors in the face of audits by Hidayat and Handayani (2010) by adding self efficacy variables. Self efficacy is operated as a person's belief in his ability to perform activities successfully.
Auditors with high self efficacy will perform tasks to succeed and in accordance with the code of ethics as auditors that will enable ethical behavior. Their results support research conducted by Lee and Bobko (1994) that individuals with self-efficacy of the same type can have different ethical measures that will behave differently. Richmond (2003)  Based on the above description, this study is an extension of Tsui and Gul (1996) research by incorporating a new personality variable that is Machiavellianism into the model to be tested.
This Machiavellianism is also a suggestion of future research in Hidayat and Handayani (2010) research. This study aims to examine the role of individual factors and ethical reasoning of auditors in situations of audit conflict.

Perception
Perception was a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sense impression to give meaning to their environment (Robbins, 1997). Perception is a process preceded by sensing, interpreting and interpreting messages.
According to Rakhmat (2007), perception was influenced by attention, personal factor (functional) and situational factors. Functional factors derived from the needs, past experience and other things that are personal so that the characteristics of people who provide a response that will determine the perception. Whereas the structural factors derive solely from the nature of the physical stimuli and the nerve effects it produces on the individual nervous system. Gordon (1993) states perceptions as sensory processes capture the stimuli of the real environment, then understood and produces human insight into the stimulus.
From the above definitions, can be concluded that perception is a process of giving meaning that starts from the acceptance of stimuli to be used to interpret and understand the world around.

Audit Conflict
According to Kenneth Thomas (1976) in Hidayat and Handayani (2010), conflict was a process whereby a part, both individuals and groups feel that other parts (both individuals and groups) take actions contrary to their interests.
Some business practitioners see that all conflicts were a nuisance and they assume that their job is to eliminate the conflict (Schwartz, 1992 in Hidayat and Handayani, 2010).
In an audit environment, conflicts are also viewed as a disturbance that can threaten the auditor's objectivity and independence. The research that became many references in this topic is the research of (Knapp, 1985). Knapp (1985) suggested that better outcomes of audit conflicts will be obtained when clients' financial condition is good compared to clients with poor financial conditions. Tsui and Gul (1996)

Ethical Reasoning
In generally, ethical behavior can be interpreted as a behavior that conforms to generally acceptable social norms with respect to beneficial and harmful actions. As members of a profession, auditors have an obligation to maintain their ethical standards of conduct to organizations in which they are sheltering, their profession, society and themselves and have a responsibility to be competent and maintain their objectivity and independence.
According to Khomsiyah and Indriantoro (1998) (Ponemon, 1992). Ponemon (1992) argued that development to as higher level of ethical consideration will help the sensitivity of an individual to better criticize events, problems and conflicts. Auditors with high ethical reasoning will be better at dealing with conflict and ethical dilemmas. Ponemon and Gabhart (1990), Trevino (1986) and Trevino and Youngblood (1990) suggest that individuals whose ethical reasoning are higher are likely to be less likely to approve unethical behavior. Ponemon (1992) compared ethical reasoning as measured by the DIT between partners and managers, his research results indicate that partners and managers at a higher level of ethical consideration will be more independent in making decisions related to ethical dilemmas.

Locus of Control (LOC)
In the last few decades, the concept of locus of control gained attention in the psychological literature. Rotter (1996) in Chan and Leung (2006) stated that the locus of control is an act whereby individuals connect events in their lives with actions or forces beyond their control.
Rotter (1996) in Chan and Leung (2006) identified two types of individuals based on locus of control: internal and external. Those with internal locus of control believe that results in their lives depend on their own actions. On the other hand, those with external locus of control believe that the outcome of life depends on chance, fate or other powerful influential people (Rotter, 1996 in Chan andLeung, 2006). Trevino (1986), as quoted by Muawanah (2000), states that personal variables such as LOC can interact with ethical awareness to influence individual behavior in ethical dilemmas (Tsui and Gul, 1996). Thus the relationship between the LOC and the auditor's behavior may depend on the auditor's ethical consciousness. Meanwhile, Rotter (1966) in (Muawanah, 2000), argued that internal-external constructs as personal variables such as LOC are relatively more stable than ethical awareness, because the level of ethical consciousness can be increased through ethical intervention and formal education. The results of both studies suggest that the interaction between LOC and ethical awareness affects auditor behavior in situations of audit conflict. More specifically, Tsui and Gul (1996)

Level of Education
According to Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, education is defined as a process of learning for individuals to achieve higher knowledge and understanding about certain objects and specific.
Such knowledge is formally acquired which results in the individual having a mindset and behavior in accordance with the education he has acquired.
Education plays a crucial role in many cases including ethical issues. Assessment of individual ethical standards differs from the educational level (Keller et.al, 2007). However, accounting and business education did not have a positive effect on ethical developments (McCabe, 1994and Gray, 1994in (McPhail and Walters, 2009 Undergraduate and postgraduate students have a higher average grade in their ethical perceptions than students at the Diploma level. Kraft and Singhapakdi (1991) conducted a study comparing S1 students with graduate students. Students are given a situation in which the supervisor discloses results on personality tests without permission. It was found that undergraduates perceive supervisor actions as more moral when there is increased production.
While the S2 students assume that the action is unethical even in situations of increased production.

Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism is operated as a variable in which an individual with an unscrupulous reputation relates to others to achieve his own personal goals, and to manipulate others for his own purposes (Christie and Geis, 1970). In the current situation Machiavellian moves aggressively, manipulatively, exploit, and move cunningly to achieve personal or organizational goals (Calhoon, 1969). Kohlberg (1981) (1978) and (1979) and Trevino et al. (1985) in Purnamasari (2006)). So it is expected that individuals with high Machiavellian properties will be more likely to perform unethical actions than individuals with low Machiavellian properties. Jones and Kavanagh (1996) and Richmond (2003)

Selection and Sampling Techniques
The sample of this research is auditor at 2 (two) Public Accounting Firm in South Kalimantan, that is Drs. Fahmi Rizani and Drs. Gusti

Mahfoedz. Data is obtained from Indonesian
Institute of Accountants Directory (IAI). Table 1 below contains a description of the results of questionnaire data collection  Knapp (1985) that has been adopted by Tsui and Gul (1996).
Respondents are asked to take a decision in a case faced by accepting or rejecting the client's request. Ethical and independent behavior is the answer of respondents who reject the client's request while unethical and independent behavior is the answer of respondents who meet the client's request.

Ethical Reasoning
Operated as an individual's ability to evaluate and consider ethical values in an event. The ethical reasoning variables were measured using an instrument developed by Cohen et.al (1998) (2002) and Zoraifi (2005).

Locus of Control (LOC)
The locus of control variable is operated as an  (1998) in Reiss and Mitra (1998). This instrument contains 16 statements and respondents are asked to choose the answer that best suits them. Categorization of respondents into internal and external set with means split. If the respondent's answer is above average, it is classified as internal and vice versa, if below average then it is classified externally.

Level of Education
Education level is defined as the level of formal education achieved by an individual.
Information on the level of education was obtained from the respondents' demographic data at the end of the questionnaire.

Machiavellianism
These variables are operated as the tendency of individuals to utilize the situation to gain personal gain and more have a desire to disobey the rules and become unethical (individuals with high Machiavellian properties). Perceptions of Machiavellian properties are measured by Mach IV scale developed by Christie and Geis (1970).
The higher the score of Mach IV, the greater its machiavellian properties.

RESEARCH METHODS
In accordance with Tsui and Gul (1996)

Demographic Data of Respondents
The description of respondents demographic data can be seen in table 2 below. Source: Data process

Descriptive Statistics
The following table 3 is used to provide an overview of the variables in this study.

Hypothesis Testing
The test results of the three hypotheses proposed in this study are presented in SPSS 17 output table below.  (1996) in Chan andLeung (2006), Trevino (1986), and Tsui and Gul (1996)