Effect of different types of feedback on the level of auditors' configural information processing

Previous audit judgement research has emphasized the importance of auditors processing information configurally (i.e. jointly considering the impact of different cues). This paper examines the impact of four different forms of feedback (outcome, task properties, cognitive and combined) on increasing the extent of configural information processing by auditors. We find that task properties, cognitive and combined (task properties plus cognitive) feedback all lead to increased configural information processing. There is no impact of outcome feedback. We also find that the extent of configural processing is positively associated with our measure of judgement performance. We discuss the implications of the results for audit firms.     

Human Information Processing the Consistency of Audit Risk Judgments

This research utilises the human information processing methodology to determine whether audit risk judgments are consistent with those obtained by using the audit risk model advanced by Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS) Nos. 39 and 47. The effects of two audit-risk specific factors (the level of algorithmic audit risk and the combination of components of audit risk) are examined. The results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures and cue-utilisation indices reveal that some of the auditors' judgments are inconsistent with the multiplicative nature of the audit risk model. In addition, evidence suggests that auditors affiliated with regional and local firms may depart from the audit risk model when substandard tests of details procedures are performed. The differences noted in the judgments of Big Eight auditors and regional and local auditors indicate that modified versions of the audit risk model may be employed by auditors in different types of audit engagements.     

Impact of the timing of receipt of an inherited explanation on auditors' analytical procedures judgements

The present study extends prior research relating to auditors’ analytical procedures (AP) processes in two ways. First, it examines whether the timing of receipt of an inherited explanation (before or after self‐generating explanations) affects auditors’ hypothesis generation. Second, responding to calls to address how the auditors’ performance of the earlier stages of the AP process affects their performance in later stages of that process ( Koonce, 1993 ; Cohen, Krishnamoorthy and Wright, 2000 ) the present study concurrently addresses the hypothesis generation, information search, hypothesis evaluation and final judgement stages of the AP process. Consistent with a facilitation effect, more non‐error explanations were generated by auditors initially inheriting a non‐error explanation. Further, consistent with a recency effect, the initial likelihood assessed for the inherited explanation was higher when it was received after self‐generation of alternatives. Despite these initial differences, the timing of the inherited explanation did not significantly affect the auditors’ information search, evaluation processes or outcome performance (in terms of cause selection). Results relating to the receipt of an inherited explanation were similar, except that significantly fewer subjects not inheriting an explanation selected a cause the same as the inherited explanation. These results suggest that although inheriting an explanation from management does affect the outcome of the AP process, it does not lead to fewer correct outcomes, and highlight the importance of examining the AP process in its entirety rather than in a piecemeal manner.     

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.     

Accountability Demands and the Auditor's Evidence Search Strategy: The Influence of Reviewer Preferences and the Nature of the Response (Belief vs. Action)

This study examines differences in auditors' search behaviors associated with the preferences of audit management (reviewer preferences) and the nature of the required response (belief versus action) in the context of an accounts receivable collectibility review. I find that auditors facing reviewers who expressed concern about auditors spending time specifically looking for evidence inconsistent with explanations provided by the client (credence preference) examined fewer evidence items and followed a more client-prompted search (i.e., a search for evidence that follows directly from the client's explanation) than those facing reviewers who expressed concern about auditors' ready acceptance of client explanations without adequate justification (skepticism preference) and those facing reviewers who expressed no specific concern (unknown preference). Further, auditors in the action conditions examined fewer evidence items and spent less time per evidence item than those in the judgment conditions. Additional analyses also indicate that auditors who were held accountable to a reviewer with an unknown preference generally responded as if the reviewer maintained a skepticism preference.     

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.     

Processing Fluency and Investors’ Reactions to Disclosure Readability

The SEC's emphasis on the use of plain English is designed to make disclosures more readable and more informative. Using an experiment, I find that more readable disclosures lead to stronger reactions from small investors, so that changes in valuation judgments are more positive when news is good and more negative when news is bad. Drawing on research in psychology to explain this result, I predict and find that processing fluency from a more readable disclosure acts as a subconscious heuristic cue and increases investors’ beliefs that they can rely on the disclosure. Although I do not find that more readable disclosures directly increase perceptions of management credibility, I do find evidence of an indirect effect operating through feelings of processing fluency. In supplemental analyses, I find that investors who receive more readable disclosures revise their valuation judgments to be less extreme when they are explicitly made aware of the potential for variation in readability. I discuss potential explanations for these revised valuation judgments.     

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.     

The effects of feedback type on auditor judgment performance for configural and non-configural tasks

This study examines the effect of four different types of feedback (outcome, task properties, cognitive, combined task properties/cognitive) on the risk assessment judgments of auditors on two tasks, one requiring configural cue processing and the other not requiring configural cue processing. Task properties feedback and combined feedback improved performance on both tasks. Outcome feedback was more effective for the non-configural task, while cognitive feedback was more effective for the configural task. We also found that, on the configural task, the effect of cognitive feedback was heightened by lower levels of participant self-insight. Finally, combined feedback was particularly effective in transferring knowledge across tasks. These results have direct practical application for the use of feedback in audit practice. From a theoretical perspective they also help to reconcile earlier mixed results in accounting and psychology.     

An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions

We address the following overarching questions: What kind of accountability framework could regulators use to (a) motivate auditors to improve audit quality, and (b) evaluate how well auditors have carried out their duties? We draw on research in accounting, economics, psychology, and neuroscience to critique the accountabilities, incentives, and learning opportunities embedded in auditors’ extant regulatory environment. We first establish that forward-looking estimates are the basis for most financial statement information and that some of these estimates are highly uncertain, which increases the challenges faced by auditors. We propose an accountability framework with two dimensions: rewards versus penalties and processes versus outcomes. We show that auditors’ current regulatory accountabilities generally are in the form of penalties rather than rewards and primarily depend on audit outcomes rather than attributes of auditors’ judgment processes. We provide evidence from a range of disciplines that questions the suitability of the present system for improving the quality of auditors’ judgments and the quality of evaluations of those judgments made by inspectors. We identify four potential changes for improvement in audit quality based on our framework. Each of these identified changes has an impact on one or both of the two dimensions in our framework. For each of these changes, we outline JDM research questions that could be addressed to inform our overarching questions and to provide empirical evidence to help refine our accountability framework and improve audit quality.     

The effects of a modest incentive on information overload in an investment analysis task

This paper investigates the effects of performance based monetary incentives on cue usage within the information overload paradigm. Participants suggested appropriate stock prices for hypothetical companies based on either six or nine non-correlated information cues. The presence of monetary incentives motivated increased response times compared to participants who did not receive incentives. This in turn resulted in higher levels of information usage than has been observed in previous studies. The results support the view that information processing capacity imposes a limit on the amount of information processed per unit of time rather than on the amount of information that can be processed in total.     

The effect of information load on decision makers' cue utilization levels and decision quality in a financial distress decision task

Seventeen practising auditors and sixty-seven accounting students participated in a decision making experiment that examined the effect of increasing amounts of accounting information on cue usage and decision quality. Each participant made financial distress decisions under three levels of information load. Approximately one-third of those participating apparently experienced information overload and exhibited an inverted-U relationship between information usage and information load; the others exhibited patterns of increasing cue usage. The individuals who apparently experienced information overload also reached decisions of lesser quality, as indicated by significantly lower decision making consistency, lesser agreement with a composite judge, and lower consensus.     

Risk assessment in internal auditing: a neural network approach

Risk assessment is a systematic process for integrating professional judgments about relevant risk factors, their relative significance and probable adverse conditions and/or events leading to identification of auditable activities (IIA, 1995, SIAS No. 9). Internal auditors utilize risk measures to allocate critical audit resources to compliance, operational, or financial activities within the organization (Colbert, 1995). In information rich environments, risk assessment involves recognizing patterns in the data, such as complex data anomalies and discrepancies, that perhaps conceal one or more error or hazard conditions (e.g. Coakley and Brown, 1996; Bedard and Biggs, 1991; Libby, 1985). This research investigates whether neural networks can help enhance auditors’ risk assessments. Neural networks, an emerging artificial intelligence technology, are a powerful non‐linear optimization and pattern recognition tool (Haykin, 1994; Bishop, 1995). Several successful, real‐world business neural network application decision aids have already been built (Burger and Traver, 1996). Neural network modeling may prove invaluable in directing internal auditor attention to those aspects of financial, operating, and compliance data most informative of high‐risk audit areas, thus enhancing audit efficiency and effectiveness. This paper defines risk in an internal auditing context, describes contemporary approaches to performing risk assessments, provides an overview of the backpropagation neural network architecture, outlines the methodology adopted for conducting this research project including a Delphi study and comparison with statistical approaches, and presents preliminary results, which indicate that internal auditors could benefit from using neural network technology for assessing risk. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Self-insight into the cognitive processing of financial information

An experimental setting was formulated where individuals processed financial information and provided estimates of changes in security prices. The ability of subjects to express accurate subjective cue weights was assessed by comparing the subjective weights with objective (statistical) cue weights based on their judgments. The results indicate an encouraging degree of insight, especially when the results are compared with previous studies in psychology, since this group of users of accounting information were able to express indications of relative cue importance which reflected the way they were using the information.     

Auditors' perception of management: Determinants and consequences

An experiment was conducted to examine the determinants and consequences of auditors' perceptions of management. Based on the theory of correspondent inference (Jones & Davis, 1965), the following hypotheses were formulated: (1) auditors are most likely to make a dispositional inference about management when a transaction deviates from expectations and is made under conditions of high choice; (2) auditors are more likely to make a dispositional inference about the management of a new client than that of a continuing client; and (3) dispositional inferences about management will affect auditors' subsequent judgments. The results support the first hypothesis. Contrary to the second hypothesis, subjects' dispositional inferences about management did not differ significantly between the continuing client and the new client conditions. Finally, the materiality threshold of auditors was found to be significantly associated with their inferences about management.     

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.     

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.     

Auditor Expertise and the Estimation of Dollar Error in Accounts

A major task that auditors undertake in formulating their audit opinion is to estimate the dollar error that might exist in accounts in light of their evaluation of internal control strengths and weaknesses. The research that has been undertaken to evaluate the quality of auditor performance on this task, however, has produced mixed results. The current study tries to overcome some theoretical limitations and measurement limitations that have undermined prior studies. Forty practising auditors rated their abilities on fourteen characteristics derived from a model of expertise. They then undertook an experiment where they judged the extent of dollar error that might exist in the inventories of a manufacturing company. They based their judgments on working papers provided to them that contained, among other information, an evaluation of the company's internal control system. An estimate of the 'true' dollar error in the inventories was calculated using a program that simulated the company's internal control and accounting system. This estimate was then used to calculate the accuracy of the auditors' judgments. Their ratings on the expertise characteristics were not related to their judgment accuracy. Their ratings were related, however, to their confidence in their judgment accuracy. Auditors who considered themselves more expert at the task were more confident in their judgment accuracy but they were, in fact, no more accurate than auditors who considered themselves to be less expert at the task.     

Hypothesis revision strategies in conducting analytical procedures

A number of accounting tasks require an evaluation of competing hypotheses. For instance, a management accountant considers alternative reasons for a significant standard cost variance while an auditor must determine whether an unexpected fluctuation in a client's account balance was caused by an error, irregularity or a change in economic conditions. In spite of the prevalence of hypothesis evaluation in practice, little is known about the process. In this paper we provide evidence on two issues that could compromise effective and efficient hypothesis evaluation: (1) the revision of beliefs over competing hypotheses given diagnostic evidence; and (2) whether an eliminated hypothesis is subsequently resuscitated (i.e. reconsidered as plausible). To address these issues, 55 auditors were provided audit test results and were asked to evaluate five potential hypotheses that may have caused a material fluctuation in the gross margin ratio of a client. The findings indicate that, when presented with diagnostic evidence about a target hypothesis, auditors were prone to adjusting the likelihood of the target hypothesis but not revising the likelihoods of the competing hypotheses. This non-Bayesian revision strategy, which we label the “one-hypothesis syndrome”, appears to represent a trade-off reflecting competing forces of cognitive strain, efficiency and accountability. While our preliminary results indicate high performance (in identifying the actual cause), additional research in less controlled settings is needed to fully evaluate the effect of this trade-off on efficiency and effectiveness. Finally, contrary to anecdotal evidence from an SEC release, auditors were reluctant to eliminate hypotheses and those who did, did not regard their eliminations as permanent.     

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.