Accountability and auditors’ materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism,variability, and effort

This study investigates the effects of differential accountability pressure strength on auditors’ materiality judgments. We evaluate whether incremental levels of accountability (i.e., review, justification, feedback) increase judgment conservatism, decreases judgment variability, and increases effort. One hundred sixty auditors participated in a between-subjects experiment that included a planning materiality task and a proposed audit adjustment materiality task. As predicted, auditors under higher levels of accountability pressure (i.e., justification, feedback) provided more conservative materiality judgments and had less judgment variability than auditors under lower levels of pressure (i.e., review, anonymity). The results also indicate that accountability strength was positively related to the amount of time spent on the task, explanation length, and consideration of qualitative materiality factors. Finally, the results show that use of a planning materiality decision aid influenced the accountability effects for the planning materiality judgment. These judgments were more conservative and less variable when the planning materiality decision aid was available. We consider implications for research, practice, and policy in the context of the study’s limitations.     

Report format and task complexity: Interaction in risk judgments

This study reports the results of an experiment to examine the effect of report format (graphic, tabular) and task complexity on the accuracy and bias of internal auditors' risk judgments. Accuracy is measured as the ability to discriminate between high and low risk reports, while bias is the propensity to report observing a high risk report, apart from the frequency of high risk reports in the population. Forty-seven experienced internal auditors judged the potential for error in each of 70 hypothetical reports. After controlling for individual differences, the results show a significant interaction between report format and task complexity, for both decision accuracy and bias. Implications are discussed.     

External auditors' willingness to rely on the work of internal auditors: The influence of work style and barriers to cooperation

The extent to which external auditors rely on the work of internal auditors is an important judgment. Recently, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has recommended that external auditors “rely (more) on the work of others” to reduce the greater-than-expected costs associated with compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. Reliance decisions, however, are complex decision tasks that require professional judgment and may be influenced by a number of factors, both external (environmental) and internal (cognitive and affective), including the auditors' working style and pervious experiences related to barriers to external/internal auditor cooperation (e.g., previously experienced low versus high internal auditor objectivity and/or competence). We experimentally examine these influences in our research reported herein. Consistent with expectations, external auditors' work styles significantly influenced the extent of planned audit testing, internal auditor reliance judgments, and interpretation of analytical procedures results. Auditors' perceptions about internal auditors' competence and objectivity, developed over years of interaction, also influenced these judgments, and interacted with work styles. Inconsistent with expectations, auditor rank (senior versus manager) did not influence judgments.     

External auditors' evaluation of the internal audit function: An empirical investigation

Evaluation of the strength of the client's internal audit function by the external auditor (EA) has taken on increased significance due to stronger regulation around the evaluation of internal controls after SOX (2002). However, research examining how this evaluation occurs in practice is mixed and inconclusive. In this study, we examine empirically whether the Desai et al. (2010) theoretical model is reflective of how auditors make judgments about the strength of their client's internal audit function in practice. Specifically, we present external auditors with evidence about internal auditor work performance, competence and objectivity in a manner consistent with the structure of evidence evaluation implied by the Desai et al. (2010) model. We then compare the auditors' actual strength judgments to the strength levels predicted by the model and evaluate similarities and differences. Results indicate that no one factor dominates the strength judgment in all cases. In addition, EAs do not weigh negative evidence as heavily as does the model. When the evidence about the three factors is conflicting, external auditors have difficulty incorporating them in a consistent way into the calculation of their overall strength judgment. Finally, we find results consistent with prior research indicating auditors tend to be more sensitive to negative than positive evidence. Also, it is harder to move auditors' beliefs away from a negative position with positive evidence than to move those beliefs away from a positive position with negative evidence. Results suggest that additional training and use of a decision aid structured according to the Desai et al. (2010) model would be especially useful when evidence about internal auditors' work performance, competence and objectivity is conflicting.     

An Empirical Investigation of the Interface Between Internal and External Auditors

Professional standards place specific responsibilities on auditors for the discovery of material mis-statements in reports of corporate financial performance. Certain factors have been shown to increase the likelihood of fraudulent financial reporting. One warning sign is the potentially pervasive effect of a weak internal control environment consistent with a weak internal audit group. This study investigates the impact of internal audit department quality differences on auditors ‘willingness to place reliance on the work performed by internal auditors. The study also gives consideration to auditors’ recent experiences with material errors and irregularities and examines the influence of two previously untested individual auditor differences on audit judgment decisions: (1) conflict management style and (2) perception of internal/external auditor communication barriers. The results indicate that auditors attend to internal audit department quality differences and that individual auditor differences exhibit significant influence over auditor judgments. Implications for audit practice are considered and directions for future research are suggested.     

Configural Information Processing in Auditing: Further Evidence

An important issue in audit judgment research has been how auditors combine information in order to make judgments and, in particular, whether auditors ‘judgments involve configural cue usage. Some recent research (Brown and Solomon, 1990; 1991) has found that under certain conditions, many auditors were able to configurally process information. This paper extends this research by examining some conditions that may facilitate the development of auditors’ ability to configurally process available information. The study found that: (a) the proportion of auditors processing the information configurally was greater than chance; (b) for those that processed the information configurally, the form of the interaction was as predicted, that is, ordinal with a compensatory form; (c) increasing depth of processing by requiring subjects to provide explanations for their judgments did not have a significant effect on the number of auditors processing configurally; (d) the level of consensus was higher for auditors who processed configurally than for those who did not; and (e) the analysis of the explanations provided by configurai cue processors indicated that they saw the relevant cues as being substitutable.     

Can Auditors Predict the Choices Made by Other Auditors?

An implicit assumption of prior literature on strategic behavior of auditors is that auditors know the preferences of their colleagues. In this study, we conduct an experiment to investigate the validity of this assumption. In our experiment, we match a manager with a pair of top and mediocre audit seniors, as assessed by their firm. Each auditor predicts the choices that will be made by other auditors on two tasks that differ in their level of ambiguity. Our results show no difference in the accuracy among managers, top seniors, and mediocre seniors when they predict the choices made by specific individual auditors for both tasks. When predicting the number of managers and seniors who will choose a specific option on the high-ambiguity task, managers outperform top seniors, who in turn outperform mediocre seniors. For the low-ambiguity task, we find no difference among managers, top seniors, and mediocre seniors. Our results provide some limited support for models of strategic auditor behavior, and indicate that the ability to predict the choices of others is a dimension of an auditor's expertise.     

Auditor liability: A comparison of judge and juror verdicts

This research examines differences between judges and jurors in rendering liability judgments in auditor litigation cases. While any number of case contexts would allow us to contrast and compare judges and jurors, we chose one that we believed would also address a second timely issue, auditor reliance or non-reliance upon the work of others. Within the general context of litigation of an alleged audit failure, we manipulated, between-participants, external auditor reliance on the work of others (relied on outsourced work, relied on in-house internal auditors’ work or did not rely). Our results show differences in the liability assessments of judges and jurors. Judges assign more liability to auditors that rely on the work of in-house internal auditors, less liability to auditors that rely on outsourced internal auditors and the least liability to auditors that choose not to rely on the work of internal auditors (but re-perform the work themselves) while jurors assess higher liability regardless of the work done by the auditors. Mediation analyses suggests the differences found in the overall liability assessments of jurors and judges are partially driven by their divergent attitudes towards the public accounting profession with jurors’ unfavorable attitudes leading to them assign liability regardless of the work performed. Further analysis suggests juror insensitivity to our reliance manipulations may reflect a strict liability perspective (consistent with prior work by Charron and Lowe (2008)); while judges consider other factors when making liability assessments.     

The comparative effect of process and outcome accountability in enhancing professional scepticism

Responding to concerns about insufficient professional scepticism in audits (e.g. PCAOB, 2011 , 2012 ; ASIC, 2012 ), we investigate the effect of process and outcome accountability in enhancing the level of professional scepticism and the differences in effects across audit experience levels. In our experiment, we manipulate the type of accountability (outcome versus process) for both novice auditors and audit seniors. We examine the effect on four measures of professional scepticism and find that auditors show greater levels of professional scepticism when they are expected to justify their judgment process, rather than their final judgments. Our results also show that the professional scepticism of novice auditors improves to a greater extent than that of more experienced auditors (audit seniors) under process accountability.     

Consideration of the social context of auditors’ reliance on expert system output during evaluation of loan loss reserves

Auditors are accountable for judgments made within the social context of the accounting firm. Tetlock (1985) states that decision makers often use the acceptability heuristic to cope with accountability. According to this heuristic, individuals make decisions which they are reasonably confident will be acceptable by others to whom they are accountable. When auditors form judgments with the aid of expert system output, they must determine the appropriate level of reliance on the expert system output. Since the expert system output is based on the input of experts, auditors may decide the output is ‘acceptable‘ and overrely on the output. In addition, because of the conservative nature of the accounting firm, expert system output which is negative may be viewed as more acceptable than positive output leading to greater overreliance. The results indicate that auditors do overrely on expert system output and rely to a greater degree on output which is negative versus output which is positive. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effect of auditor IT expertise on internal controls

Material weaknesses in internal controls related to information technology (IT) represent unique threats to organizations. Utilizing the external auditor as an example of an externally observable governance mechanism, we investigate if firms with revealed IT internal control deficiencies employ a strategy of disassociation with their current auditor. Our tests show that prior evidence of disassociation strategies hold in both IT and non-IT contexts. Of particular focus to our study, we document a positive association between firms that report IT material weaknesses and subsequent auditor dismissals or switching. We next investigate the potential internal control benefits of switching to auditors with greater expertise in environments that emphasize the importance of IT. We argue that greater audit firm IT expertise promotes improved internal controls for their clients, especially those controls that are dependent on IT. We find that clients that switch to auditors with greater IT expertise, relative to their former auditor, have a greater likelihood of material weakness remediation within one year of reporting control weaknesses. Complementing these findings, we find that audit IT expertise is negatively associated with both non-IT and IT material weaknesses in an ex ante reporting setting. Prior literature takes a longstanding interest in both the incentive for developing auditor expertise and the effects of that expertise. We contribute to this literature stream by providing additional evidence related to a specific type of expertise.     

The effect of constrained processing on auditors’ judgments

This study examines whether constraining experienced auditors’ processing by having them process evidence in a pre-established sequence (an experimental control technique used in previous studies) prevents them from using their usual processing strategies and thereby affects their judgments. We compare the relative attention to evidence and judgments of experienced and inexperienced auditors in a constrained versus an unconstrained processing condition. Consistent with expectations, experienced auditors’ going-concern judgments differed from inexperienced auditors’ judgments only when processing was unconstrained. This difference in judgments was the result of differential attention to evidence. These results demonstrate that the failure to consider how experienced auditors process evidence can result in inadvertently adopting control techniques that limit the generalizability of experimental findings. Although our study used a going-concern task, our conclusions are likely to apply to a variety of ill-structured audit tasks that require a goal-oriented, directed evaluation of evidence.     

An Investigation of Auditors’ Judgments When Companies Release Earnings Before Audit Completion

The majority of U.S. public companies release annual earnings prior to the completion of audit fieldwork. We investigate this phenomenon in a controlled experiment with audit partners and senior managers. We find that releasing earnings before completion of the audit pressures auditors to adopt the goals of management, thereby reducing the likelihood of post‐announcement audit‐adjustment recommendations. We also examine the effect of audit committee (AC) strength in improving auditors’ judgments after annual earnings are released. When ACs are actively involved in accounting issues and proactively communicating with auditors—characteristics currently lacking in most ACs—the negative effects on auditors’ judgments are completely mitigated. Our study provides evidence on potential unintended consequences of early release of earnings and the importance of investing in high‐quality ACs to mitigate adverse effects of client pressures on audit judgment and financial reporting quality.     

The Effects of Alternative Justification Memos on the Judgments of Audit Reviewees and Reviewers

Prior research on justification has typically focused on the differences in judgments between auditors required, or not required, to justify their decisions. However, justification memos can be prepared using different approaches. In this study we examine the impact of using three justification memos: supporting, balanced, and component. Using a comprehensive control environment case based on an actual client that experienced fraud, we find that the justification memo used can affect the judgments of auditors preparing the memos as well as the judgments of auditors who review their work. Specifically, the results indicate that auditors using an unrestricted component memo, who were required to write memos for components of their task by providing important positive and negative evidence, thought that the firm's control environment was more likely to prevent fraud as compared with the supporting and balanced memo groups. Additional analyses suggest that the reason for this result is that an unrestricted component memo focuses auditors' attention on a larger percentage of positive control environment characteristics when a firm's underlying evidence set is mostly positive. This may be problematic because firms can have more positive than negative control environment characteristics, even when fraud is present.     

Inherent risk: An investigation of auditors' judgments

The assessment of inherent risk is a judgment required of auditors by Statement on Auditing Standards 47 (Auditing Standards Board, AICPA, New York, 1983) that normatively affects the scope of work performed on audit engagements. This study explores the judgments of auditors concerning inherent risk in inventory. Four inherent risk factors were examined: turnover of the controller, financing pressure, the amount of complexity of overhead in inventory, and the quality of the personnel responsible for the inventory calculation. A human information processing approach employing ANOVA was utilized to determine the relative reliance on these factors in the inherent risk judgments of 65 practicing auditors. Correlation techniques were used to measure consensus, reliability, and self-insight.The results suggest that although all four inherent risk factors were important to auditors, quality of personnel was the most significant. Reliability was slightly lower than in previous research, but was still fairly high. Self-insight was moderate.     

Internal auditors’ use of interpersonal likability,arguments, and accounting information in a corporate governance setting

Internal auditors play an important role in influencing managers’ judgments. Yet, the practitioner literature indicates that, because internal audit lacks the client services incentives of external audit, internal auditors often adopt a “policeman approach” that can lead to negative interpersonal relationships with managers. We investigate three variables fundamental to internal auditors’ ability to influence managers: (1) internal auditors’ interpersonal likability, (2) the information used to support their positions, and (3) whether they present that information in a thematically organized argument. We find that managers agree more with an internal auditor who is both likable and uses a thematically organized argument. We find further that this joint effect occurs regardless of whether the internal auditor’s information is relatively supportive or unsupportive of his position. Overall, our theory and findings suggest that an internal auditor can achieve agreement from managers on important corporate governance issues with this fairly straightforward presentation tactic, even when the underlying information is relatively unsupportive and managers otherwise tend not to agree with the internal auditor’s position. Our study contributes to accounting, psychology, and writing and discourse theories with new evidence of the effects of an argument structure (holding the underlying information constant) on users’ judgments, and how those effects depend on the likability of the source of information. Our findings have important implications for internal auditors, managers, external auditors, and others interested in corporate governance.     

审计判断信心研究:一项实验的证据

行为决策理论认为判断信心是影响判断质量的一个重要因素。本文以内部控制风险判断和持续经营能力判断为实验任务,采用实验方法检验了审计人员经验、努力程度等因素与审计判断信心的关系。研究发现,审计人员的经验、努力程度与审计判断信心存在显著的正向关系,任务困难程度的主观感知与审计判断信心存在显著的负向关系,而男性审计人员判断信心明显高于女性审计人员。     

The development of an expert system for managerial evaluation of internal controls

Both practitioners and researchers have devoted signi?cant effort to the study of decision aids, especially expert systems, to assist auditors in internal control evaluations. In addition to being used as a decision aid, researchers have long contended that expert systems could be used to train non‐expert users. Even though the professional accounting literature makes it clear that responsibility for maintaining an effective internal control system rests with management rather than auditors, the focus to date has been on expert systems aimed at assisting/training auditors, not an organization's management. In contrast, this study focuses on management as users of an expert system for internal control evaluation. We describe the development process, explain how the resulting system was evaluated, and discuss results of that evaluation. These results suggest that such a system gives a new way to help managers increase effectiveness and ef?ciency of a critical organizational process: the evaluation of internal controls. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.