Search results

The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of personalized task communication and examine auditor willingness to rely on and factor into their judgments and decisions historically accurate internal evidence suggesting a less conservative collectability judgment and audit adjustment decision than unfavorable external and less credible internal evidence.

This study uses a 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design manipulating whether participants receive source credibility insights leading to an evidence set consisting of mixed internal evidence signals, where historically accurate internal evidence suggests either a less conservative or similar collectability signal as unfavorable external evidence; and receive personalized or non-personalized task communication.

Through experimental analysis of 103 Big Four audit senior associates, the author found auditors factor into their collectability judgments and audit adjustment decisions historically accurate internal evidence suggesting less conservative collectability judgments and audit adjustment decisions than unfavorable external and less credible internal evidence. The author also found evidence that communication personalization elicits affect and increases effort levels for purposes of improving pre-task information processing and subsequent collectability judgments. The results also indicate that the influence of perceived personalization may not incrementally influence reliance on internal evidence that is consistent with unfavorable external evidence.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to examine auditor reliance behaviors when internal evidence suggests a less conservative collectability judgment and audit adjustment decision than unfavorable external evidence and is the first to explore communication personalization as a tool for effective audit knowledge transfer.

The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating effect of effort on the relationship between both accountability pressure and self‐efficacy, and auditors' performance.

The paper uses a between‐subjects experimental research design with accountability pressure manipulated randomly to two groups, accountable and non‐accountable. Each participant is required to perform internal control tasks.

Based on partial least square (PLS) analysis, results indicate that both variables, i.e. accountability pressure and self‐efficacy, are positively related to audit judgment performance through the process of high level of effort. High self‐efficacious participants who received accountability pressure would have high levels of effort, which in turn increase audit judgment performance.

This study provides further evidence on the effect of motivational factors on auditors' performance. Understanding the mediating role of some motivational variables is crucial in designing a continuous development program to enhance auditors' performance. The proposed framework of effort as a mediating variable is consistent with Libby and Lipe and Chang et al., who argue that accountability pressure and self‐efficacy would cause individuals to increase their effort in order to perform better.

The paper contributes to the literature on motivational factors that would explain the variability in audit judgments in coping with complex audit tasks.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of self-efficacy, goal orientation and task complexity on audit judgement performance in correctly linking audit procedures to audit objectives and types of misstatements.

The authors conducted an experiment audit with 154 auditors from small and medium audit firms in Malaysia as participants. The experimental task required them to link audit procedures to audit objectives and types of misstatements.

For sample of auditors from small and medium audit firms in Malaysia, the authors found that learning goal orientation has a stronger effect on audit judgement performance than performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientations. Self-efficacy mediates the effect of goal orientation when an audit task is less complex compared to when the task is more complex.

These results highlight the importance of social cognitive factors in explaining variations in audit judgement performance for audit judgement tasks with different levels of complexity.

The incorporation of individual psychological differences as explanatory variables in audit judgement studies may lead to a better understanding of auditors’ judgement and decision-making processes in small and medium audit firms located in developing economies.

The purpose of this study is to explore the social and collective foundations of the auditor’s judgment and specifically highlights that the dialogical dimension of auditors’ judgment is founded on both their interactions with their auditees and their interactions with their colleagues.

This qualitative study is based on interviews with 22 audit partners, conducted between March 2013 and October 2016, in France.

The research points out the complexity of auditor judgment. Confronted with issues such as equivocal and ambiguous circumstances, auditors must question the relevance of the meanings elaborated to act according to the situation (self-criticism or doubt) and must be wise and not be overconfident toward the information provided by the manager (wisdom). Last but not least, the findings also suggest that contrary advice helps auditors to improve an alternative point of view and hence reach a consensus.

The research uses a K. Weick sensemaking approach and contributes theoretically to gaining deeper understanding of the social dimension in audit judgment, by showing that professional judgment is an interactive and social practice.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of the presence of a code of ethics on the quality of auditors' judgments, within the context of the new International Standard on Quality Controls 1 (ISQC1).

A sample of 112 professional accountants and auditing students was employed to investigate the effect of the presence of a code of ethics (operationalised as the presence vs absence of an organisational code of conduct) on the quality of audit judgments, pertaining to an inventory writedown, using a 2 × 2 full factorial “between‐subjects” experimental design.

The results of this study indicate that the presence of a code of ethics has a positive impact on the quality of the judgments made by professional accountants, but not on students. This suggests that it is the code of ethics, in the context of greater general experience that leads to higher quality of judgments.

The results suggest that the requirements of ISQC1 are relevant to the quality control of accounting firms and have potential to positively impact the quality of audit performance.

This is the first paper to examine the impact of the presence of a code of ethics within an audit context. It is the first time that the interactive effects of the code of ethics and technical competency, which together form an integral part of standard‐setters' quality control standards, upon the quality of auditor judgments has been investigated.

This study aims to demonstrate how pressures (incentives) in the audit environment can lower audit quality because of a breakdown between professionally skeptical (PS) judgment (risk assessment) and PS action (testing).

The authors used a Qualtrics-based experiment with attitude change as a proxy measure of cognitive dissonance (CD). The authors analyze the results using a one-way independent between-group ANOVA with post hoc tests and t-tests.

The authors find that auditors experience CD when they fail to take appropriate high PS action (audit tests) that are in line with high PS judgment (risk assessments). The motivational force to reduce CD drives auditors to revise their assessments upward (rank higher), lower diagnostic audit tests (PS actions) and lower risk assessments (PS judgments). This leads to lower overall professional skepticism, and hence lower audit quality.

This investigation provides an empirical investigation of Nelson’s (2009) model of professional skepticism and demonstrates a specific mechanism for how incentives in the audit environment lower audit quality. Based on the findings, treatments to enhance audit quality can benefit by strengthening the critical link between PS judgments (risk assessments) and PS actions (audit tests).

Part V analyzes the details of how to assess materiality. It first tackles qualitative versus quantitative criteria and the role of professional judgment. It then analyzes the selection of quantitative threshold, to expand to the choice of benchmarks. It contrasts the whole financial statements with subaggregates, line items, and components.

Specific sections contrast IASB, FASB, SEC, and other guidance on materiality applied to comparative information, interim reporting, and segment reporting.

The section on estimates mingles complex guidance coming from accounting, auditing, and internal control over financial reporting to explain how the management can improve its assessment of materiality concerning estimates.

After explaining the techniques to move from individual to cumulative misstatements, the part tackles verification ex post, and finally summarizes the intricacies of whether immaterial misstatements are permissible and their consequences.

This study examines the mediating effect of effort on the relationship between performance incentives and audit judgment performance under different levels of task complexity.

Using an experimental research design, subjects are randomly assigned to three performance incentive groups: control, financial and feedback. Each subject is required to perform two experimental tasks of two complexity levels (low and high).

Results indicate that performance incentive variables are positively related to audit judgment performance. Hierarchical regressions of moderated‐mediation analyses support the hypotheses that the mediation effect of effort on the relationship between performance incentives and audit judgment performance occurs under low task complexity and not under high task complexity. In other words, the positive relationship between effort and audit judgment performance is weakened under high task complexity.

The external validity of this study is limited since the audit case contains less information than the real audit environment. This study contends that the expectancy theory can in fact be used to generate empirical prediction on audit judgment performance. The reliance on expectancy theory to supply theoretical mechanism by including the moderating variables provides explanation on when effort should and should not have positive effects on audit judgment performance.

Audit firms need to be careful on the performance incentives offered because incentives affect job output quality. Performance incentives may reduce job turnover and job tension among auditors. In addition, audit firms should ensure that the auditors have proper training to increase their skills and knowledge to help auditors to carry out various job complexities.

This paper can enhance knowledge and understanding on how motivational and environment factors influence audit judgment performance.

The role of big data and data analytics in the audit engagement process is evident. Notwithstanding, understanding how big data influences cognitive processes and, consequently, on the auditors’ judgment decision-making process is limited. The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual framework on the cognitive process that may influence auditors’ judgment decision-making in the big data environment. The proposed framework predicts the relationships among data visualization integration, data processing modes, task complexity and auditors’ judgment decision-making.

The methodology to accomplish the conceptual framework is based on a thorough literature review that consists of theoretical discussions and comparative studies of other authors’ works and thinking. It also involves summarizing and interpreting previous contributions subjectively and narratively and extending the work in some fashion. Based on this approach, this paper formulates four propositions about data visualization integration, data processing modes, task complexity and auditors’ judgment decision-making. The proposed framework was built from cognitive theory addressing how auditors process data into useful information to make judgment decision-making.

The proposed framework expects that the cognitive process of data visualization integration and intuitive data processing mode will improve auditors’ judgment decision-making. This paper also contends that task complexity may influence the cognitive process of data visualization integration and processing modes because of the voluminous nature of data and the complexity of business processes. Hence, it is also expected that the relationships between data visualization integration and audit judgment decision-making and between processing mode and audit judgment decision-making will be moderated by task complexity.

There is a dearth of studies examining how big data and big data analytics affect auditors’ cognitive processes in making decisions. This paper will help researchers and auditors understand the behavioral consequences of data visualization integration and data processing mode in making judgment decision-making, given a certain level of task complexity.

With the advent of big data and the evolution of innovative audit procedures, the constructed framework can be used as a theoretical foundation for future empirical studies concerning auditors’ judgment decision-making. It highlights the potential of big data to transform the nature and practice of accounting and auditing.

The purpose of this study is to illustrate the potentially detrimental effects on audit decision-making of certain judgmental heuristics, which can lead to systematic judgmental biases. This paper provides background on the heuristics and biases approaches to decision-making to increase auditors' awareness of the anchoring and adjustment effects affecting audit judgments adversely.

This study reports the results of an experimental research design analyzing the audit judgment of 85 auditors in Switzerland.

Based on the results of the experiment, the results indicate evidence on the existence of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic in Swiss audit judgments. The authors could identify an influence of the audit company size, the auditors' experience and the auditors' knowledge about behaviorism and anchor heuristic with regard to the anchoring and adjustment effect on audit judgment.

The experimental tasks were relatively simple abstractions from the more complex analytical review situations faced by practicing auditors. Due to the small sample size, the authors cannot ensure representativeness of the results.

Professional judgment is a skill that auditor acquires overtime, combined with experience and knowledge, that allows him to achieve reasonable judgments, being independent of other opinions and free from material biases in a given circumstance. Our results show that auditors who are aware of biases and heuristics are less prone to judgment biases.

This paper is the first to analyze the impact of auditors' explicit experience and knowledge about behaviorism and anchor heuristic on the anchoring and adjustment effect on audit judgment. Through a stronger awareness of cognitive biases, a professional skepticism can be enhanced.