The effects of review form and task complexity on auditor performanceFootnote^*

* Accepted by Hong Hwang upon recommendation by Jong Hag Choi

References

• Abdolmohammadi, M., and A. Wright. 1987. “An Examination of the Effects of Experience and Task Complexity on Audit Judgments.” The Accounting Review 62 (1): 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agoglia, C. P., J. F. Brazel, R. C. Hatfield, and S. B. Jackson. 2010. “How Do Audit Workpaper Reviewers Cope with the Conflicting Pressures of Detecting Misstatements and Balancing Client Workloads?” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (2): 27–43.10.2308/aud.2010.29.2.27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agoglia, C. P., R. C. Hatfield, and J. F. Brazel. 2009. “The Effects of Audit Review Format on Review Team Judgments.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 28 (1): 95–111.10.2308/aud.2009.28.1.95
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asare, S. K., and L. S. McDaniel. 1996. “The Effects of Familiarity with the Preparer and Task Complexity on the Effectiveness of the Audit Review Process.” The Accounting Review 71 (2): 139–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashton, R. 1990. “Pressure and Performance in Accounting Decision Settings: Paradoxical Effect of Incentives, Feedback, and Justification.” Journal of Accounting Research 28 (Supplement): 148–180.10.2307/2491253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bamber, E. M., and D. Snowball. 1988. “An Experimental Study of the Effects of Audit Structure in Uncertain Task Environments.” The Accounting Review 63 (3): 490–504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bible, L., L. Graham, and A. Rosman. 2005. “The Effect of Electronic Audit Environments on Performance.” Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 20 (1): 27–42.
   Google Scholar
• Bonner, S. E. 1994. “A Model of the Effects of Audit Task Complexity.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 19 (3): 213–234.10.1016/0361-3682(94)90033-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonner, S. E. 2008. Judgement and Decision Making in Accounting. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Bonner, S. E., and B. L. Lewis. 1990. “Determinants of Auditor Expertise.” Journal of Accounting Research 28: 1–20.10.2307/2491243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazel, J. E., C. P. Agoglia, and R. C. Hatfield. 2004. “Electronic versus Face‐to‐Face Review: The Effects of Alternative Forms of Review on Auditors' Performance.” The Accounting Review 79 (4): 949–966.10.2308/accr.2004.79.4.949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronson, S. N., C. E. Hogan, M. F. Johnson, and K. Ramesh. 2011. “The Unintended Consequences of PCAOB Auditing Standard Nos. 2 and 3 on the Reliability of Preliminary Earnings Releases.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 51 (1–2): 95–114.10.1016/j.jacceco.2010.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckless, F. A., and S. P. Ravenscroft. 1990. “Contrast Coding: A Refinement of ANOVA in Behavioral Analysis.” The Accounting Review 65 (4): 933–945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casey, Jr, C. J. 1980. “Variation in Accounting Information Load: The Effect on Loan Officers’ Predictions of Bankruptcy.” The Accounting Review 55 (1): 36–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, C. J., J. L. Y. Ho, and W. M. Liao. 1997. “The Effects of Justification, Task Complexity and Experience/Training on Problem-solving Performance.” Behavioral Research in Accounting 9 (Supplement): 98–116.
   Google Scholar
• Chewning, Jr, E. G., and A. M. Harrell. 1990. “The Effect of Information Load on Decision Makers' Cue Utilization Levels and Decision Quality in a Financial Distress Decision Task.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 15 (6): 527–542.10.1016/0361-3682(90)90033-Q
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung, J., and G. S. Monroe. 2001. “A Research Note on the Effects of Gender and Task Complexity on an Audit Judgment.” Behavioral Research in Accounting 13 (1): 111–125.10.2308/bria.2001.13.1.111
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., G. Krishnamoorthy, and A. Wright. 2010. “Corporate Governance in the Post-Sarbanes-Oxley Era: Auditors’ Experiences.” Contemporary Accounting Research 27 (3): 751–786.10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01026.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeFond, M. L., and J. R. Francis. 2005. “Audit Research after Sarbanes-oxley.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (s-1): 5–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeZoort, T., P. Harrison, and M. Taylor. 2006. “Accountability and Auditors’ Materiality Judgments: The Effects of Differential Pressure Strength on Conservatism, Variability, and Effort.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (4–5): 373–390.10.1016/j.aos.2005.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowling, C., and S. A. Leech. 2014. “A Big 4 Firm’s Use of Information Technology to Control the Audit Process: How an Audit Support System is Changing Auditor Behavior.” Contemporary Accounting Research 31 (1): 230–252.10.1111/care.2014.31.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritz, M. S., and D. P. MacKinnon. 2007. “Required Sample Size to Detect the Mediated Effect.” Psychological Science 18 (3): 233–239.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glover, S. M. 1997. “The Influence of Time Pressure and Accountability on Auditors’ Processing of Nondiagnostic Information.” Journal of Accounting Research 35 (2): 213–226.10.2307/2491361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold, A., U. Gronewold, and S. E. Salterio. 2014. “Error Management in Audit Firms: Error Climate, Type, and Originator.” The Accounting Review 89 (1): 303–330.10.2308/accr-50592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guggenmos, R. D., M. D. Piercey, and C. P. Agoglia. 2016. Making Sense of Custom Contrast Analysis: Seven Takeaways and a New Approach. Working paper. Cornell University and University of Massachusetts Amherst.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, A. T., D. D. Frink, and M. R. Buckley. 2015. “An Accountability Account: A Review and Synthesis of the Theoretical and Empirical Research on Felt Accountability.” Journal of Organizational Behavior. Published online, doi:10.1002/job.2052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F., A. K. Montoya, and N. J. Rockwood. 2017. “The Analysis of Mechanisms and Their Contingencies: PROCESS versus Structural Equation Modeling.” Australian Marketing Journal 25 (1): 76–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, V. B., and J. M. Patton. 1997. “Accountability, the Dilution Effect, and Conservatism in Auditors’ Fraud Judgments.” Journal of Accounting Research 35 (2): 227–237.10.2307/2491362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janvrin, D., J. Bierstaker, and D. J. Lowe. 2008. “An Examination of Audit Information Technology Use and Perceived Importance.” Accounting Horizons 22 (1): 1–21.10.2308/acch.2008.22.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, V. E., and S. E. Kaplan. 1991. “Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Accountability on Auditor Judgments.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 10 (Supplement): 96–107.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, J. 1993. “Debiasing Audit Judgment with Accountability: A Framework and Experimental Results.” Journal of Accounting Research 31 (2): 231–245.10.2307/2491272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, J. 1995. “Debiasing the Curse of Knowledge in Audit Judgment.” The Accounting Review 70 (2): 249–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knechel, W. R., and J. L. Payne. 2001. “Additional Evidence on Audit Report Lag.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 20 (1): 137–146.10.2308/aud.2001.20.1.137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koonce, L., U. Anderson, and G. Marchant. 1995. “Justification of Decisions in Auditing.” Journal of Accounting Research 33 (2): 369–384.10.2307/2491493
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnan, J., and J. S. Yang. 2009. “Recent Trends in Audit Report and Earnings Announcement Lags.” Accounting Horizons 23 (3): 265–288.10.2308/acch.2009.23.3.265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, J., and P. Tetlock. 1999. “Accounting for the Effects of Accountability.” Psychological Bulletin 125 (March): 255–275.10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Libby, R., and P. A. Libby. 1989. “Expert Measurement and Mechanical Combination in Control Reliance Decisions.” The Accounting Review 64 (4): 729–747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Libby, R., and K. T. Trotman. 1993. “The Review Process as a Control for Differential Recall of Evidence in Auditor Judgments.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (6): 559–574.10.1016/0361-3682(93)90003-O
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, A. T. 1992. “Pressure: A Methodological Consideration for Behavioral Research in Auditing.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 11 (2): 89–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limit on Our Capacity for Processing Information.” The Psychological Review 63 (2): 81–97.10.1037/h0043158
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C. L., D. B. Fedor, and R. J. Ramsay. 2006. “Effects of Discussion of Audit Reviews on Auditors’ Motivation and Performance.” Behavioral Research in Accounting 18 (1): 135–146.10.2308/bria.2006.18.1.135
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, M. W. 2009. “Auditing: A Model and Literature Review of Professional Skepticism in Auditing.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 28 (2): 1–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pany, K., and P. M. J. Reckers. 1987. “Within- Vs. Between-subjects Experimental Designs: A Study of Demand Effects.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 7 (1): 39–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, J., J. Bettman, and E. Johnson. 1988. “Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14 (3): 534–552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peecher, M. E. 1996. “The Influence of Auditors’ Justification Processes on Their Decisions: A Cognitive Model and Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Accounting Research 34 (1): 125–140.10.2307/2491335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosman, A., S. Biggs, L. Graham, and L. Bible. 2007. “Successful Audit Workpaper Review Strategies in Electronic Environments.” Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 22 (1): 57–83.
   Google Scholar
• Sedor, L. M. 2002. “An Explanation for Unintentional Optimism in Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts.” The Accounting Review 77 (4): 731–753.10.2308/accr.2002.77.4.731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelton, S. W. 1999. “The Effect of Experience on the Use of Irrelevant Evidence in Auditor Judgment.” The Accounting Review 74 (2): 217–224.10.2308/accr.1999.74.2.217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sim, J., and C. C. Wright. 2005. “The Kappa Statistic in Reliability Studies: Use, Interpretation, and Sample Size Requirement.” Physical Therapy 85 (3): 257–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. 1955. “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69 (1): 99–118.10.2307/1884852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, H. T. 1995. “Effects of Expectations, Prior Involvement, and Review Awareness on Memory for Audit Evidence and Judgment.” Journal of Accounting Research 33 (1): 113–135.10.2307/2491295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, H. T., and A. Kao. 1999. “Accountability Effects on Auditors’ Performance: The Influence of Knowledge, Problem-solving Ability, and Task Complexity.” Journal of Accounting Research 37 (1): 209–223.10.2307/2491404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, H. T., and R. Libby. 1997. “Tacit Managerial versus Technical Knowledge as Determinants of Audit Expertise in the Field.” Journal of Accounting Research 35 (1): 97–113.10.2307/2491469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, H. T., T. B. Ng, and B. W. Mak. 2002. “The Effects of Task Complexity on Auditors’ Performance: The Impact of Accountability and Knowledge.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 21 (2): 81–95.10.2308/aud.2002.21.2.81
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. 1983a. “Accountability and the Perseverance of First Impressions.” Social Psychology Quarterly 46 (4): 285–292.10.2307/3033716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. 1983b. “Accountability and the Complexity of Thought.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (1): 74–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. 1985. “Accountability: A Social Check on the Fundamental Attribution Error.” Social Psychology Quarterly 48 (3): 227–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E., and R. Boettger. 1989. “Accountability: A Social Magnifier of the Dilution Effect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (3): 388–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E., and J. L. Kim. 1987. “Accountability and Judgment Processes in a Personality Prediction Task.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (4): 700–709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trotman, K. T. 1985. “The Review Process and the Accuracy of Auditor Judgments.” Journal of Accounting Research 23 (2): 740–752.10.2307/2490836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trotman, K. T., and P. W. Yetton. 1985. “The Effect of the Review Process on Auditor Judgments.” Journal of Accounting Research 23 (1): 256–267.10.2307/2490918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waller, W. S., and W. L. Felix, Jr. 1984. “The Auditor and Learning from Experience: Some Conjectures.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 9 (3–4): 383–406.10.1016/0361-3682(84)90021-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, R. 1986. “Task Complexity: Definition of the Construct.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37 (1): 60–82.10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar