The Impact of Socio-Technical Determinants and Mediating Mechanisms on AI Adoption in Internal Auditing
Downloads
This study examines how socio-technical factors shape the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in internal auditing. A theory-driven model links organisational readiness, management support, auditors’ perceptions, and attitudes to AI adoption through direct and mediated pathways. Survey data from 340 listed firms were analysed using covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM) in AMOS, employing bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples to assess construct validity, model fit, and mediation effects. The results indicate that management support is the strongest driver, enhancing auditors’ perceptions and attitudes. Attitude emerges as the most potent predictor of adoption, whereas perception affects adoption only indirectly through attitude, confirming indirect-only mediation. Organisational readiness is not statistically significant, implying that infrastructure alone does not ensure adoption without leadership commitment and behavioural alignment. By integrating the Resource-Based View and the Technology Acceptance Model with institutional insights, the study advances understanding of how organisational resources, behavioural mechanisms, and institutional pressures jointly influence sustainable AI adoption in internal auditing. The findings emphasise the importance of executive sponsorship, role-specific AI literacy, and participatory system design while informing policy on competency and governance frameworks for effective AI integration.
Downloads
[1] Shamsuddin, R., Tabrizi, H. B., & Gottimukkula, P. R. (2025). Towards responsible AI: an implementable blueprint for integrating explainability and social-cognitive frameworks in AI systems. AI Perspectives & Advances, 7(1), 1. doi:10.1186/s42467-024-00016-5.
[2] Solikin, I., & Darmawan, D. (2023). Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Improving the Effectiveness of Accounting Information Systems. Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks, Ubiquitous Computing, and Dependable Applications, 14(2), 82–93. doi:10.58346/JOWUA.2023.I2.007.
[3] Leocádio, D., Malheiro, L., & Reis, J. (2024). Artificial Intelligence in Auditing: A Conceptual Framework for Auditing Practices. Administrative Sciences, 14(10), 238. doi:10.3390/admsci14100238.
[4] O’Donnell, J. B. (2024). Auditing Transformation: A Model of Artificial Intelligence Adoption. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 26(6). doi:10.33423/jabe.v26i6.7390.
[5] Peng, Y., Ahmad, S. F., Ahmad, A. Y. A. B., Al Shaikh, M. S., Daoud, M. K., & Alhamdi, F. M. H. (2023). Riding the Waves of Artificial Intelligence in Advancing Accounting and Its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(19), 14165. doi:10.3390/su151914165.
[6] Kokina, J., Blanchette, S., Davenport, T. H., & Pachamanova, D. (2025). Challenges and opportunities for artificial intelligence in auditing: Evidence from the field. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 56, 100734. doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2025.100734.
[7] Handoko, B. L., Thomas, G. N., & Indriaty, L. (2024). Socio Technical System Model for Auditor Intention to Adopt Artificial Intelligence. 2024 4th International Conference on Computer Communication and Information Systems (CCCIS), 75–79. doi:10.1109/cccis63483.2024.00020.
[8] ETDA. (2024). ETDA announces Generative AI Governance Guideline to promote safe development and use of AI in Thailand. Ministry of Digital Economy and Society, Bangkok, Thailand. Available online: https://www.etda.or.th/th/news/Generative-AI-Guideline.html (accessed on May 2026). (In Thai).
[9] TFAC. (2024). AI in Accounting and Auditing [Event/program highlight]. Thai Federation of Accounting Professions (TFAC). Bangkok, Thailand. Available online: https://www.tfac.or.th/ (accessed on May 2026). (In Thai).
[10] Khamrin, P. (2025). Internal Auditing in the Digital Era: Roles, Technologies and Practices. The Journal of Accounting Review Chiang Rai Rajabhat University, 10(1), 1–14.
[11] Kaewsawad, V., & Duda, J. (2025). Assessing Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literacy and Readiness in Thailand’s Workforce: Challenges and Opportunities for Digital Transformation. Science & Technology Asia, 209-231.
[12] Thanitthanakhun, K., & Jitsakul, W. (2025). Competency and Guideline for Assessing Readiness To Be an Information Technology Auditor in Thailand. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 103(1), 242–255.
[13] Imjai, N., Promma, W., Chanatup, S., Usman, B., & Aujirapongpan, S. (2025). Emerging roles of AI mindset, experiential learning and soft skills in developing career readiness for accountant 5.0 of Gen Z accounting students. The International Journal of Management Education, 23(3), 101208. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2025.101208.
[14] Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108.
[15] Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. doi:10.1002/smj.4250050207.
[16] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008.
[17] Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(1), 67. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67.
[18] Prasad, V. H., Sharma, N. L., & Prakash, S. (2024). Development of internal auditing in Fiji: An institutional theory approach. Corporate Ownership and Control, 21(3), 138. doi:10.22495/cocv21i3art12.
[19] Anomah, S. (2025). Assessing the institutional readiness and capacity for AI adoption in public audit institutions in developing countries: evidence from Ghana. Telematics and Informatics Reports, 20, 100260. doi:10.1016/j.teler.2025.100260.
[20] Mohrman, S. A., & Worley, C. G. (2025). Socio-Technical Organization Design in the Digital Era: a Collaborative Exploration. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 31, 59–88. doi:10.1108/S0897-301620250000031006.
[21] Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating Readiness for Organizational Change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703. doi:10.1177/001872679304600601.
[22] Benhayoun, I., Bougrine, S., & Sassioui, A. (2025). Readiness for artificial intelligence adoption by auditors in emerging countries – a PLS-SEM analysis of Moroccan firms. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 23(4), 1486–1508. doi:10.1108/JFRA-07-2024-0448.
[23] Gaskin, J. E., Lowry, P. B., Rosengren, W., & Fife, P. T. (2025). Essential Validation Criteria for Rigorous Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modelling. Information Systems Journal, 35(6), 1630–1661. doi:10.1111/isj.12598.
[24] Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Becker, J.-M. (2025). Covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): a SmartPLS 4 software tutorial. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 13(3), 709–724. doi:10.1057/s41270-025-00414-6.
[25] Henseler, J., & Schuberth, F. (2025). Should PLS become factor-based or should CB-SEM become composite-based? Both! European Journal of Information Systems, 34(3), 551–563. doi:10.1080/0960085X.2024.2357123.
[26] Dash, G., & Paul, J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121092. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092.
[27] Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008.
[28] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
[29] Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 745–783. doi:10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y.
[30] Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
[31] Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th Ed.). The Guilford Press, New York, United States.
[32] Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
[33] Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge. New York, United States. doi:10.4324/9780203771587.
- This work (including HTML and PDF Files) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
