The Effect of Accountability and Time Budgets on Auditors' Testing Strategies*

This study investigates the joint effects of accountability and time budgets on auditors' testing strategies. The task studied, substantive analytical procedures, requires auditors to identify and test hypotheses when investigating the cause of unexpected fluctuations. Thus, auditors must determine the number of tests to conduct (i.e., extent), the number of potential hypotheses to directly test (i.e., breadth), the number of tests for each hypothesis (i.e., depth) and the number of potential error or non-error hypotheses to test (i.e., focus). Testing strategies, which we define as choices made with respect to extent, focus, depth, and breadth of testing, have significant practical and theoretical implications. For example, reducing the breadth of testing may result in failure to test the correct hypothesis, potentially impairing audit effectiveness. In this study, auditors inherited five potential causes of an unexpected increase in the gross margin of a client. As in practice, their task was to conduct tests to investigate and identify the actual cause of the fluctuation. Auditors were randomly assigned to one of four conditions created by fully crossing accountability and time budgets. The results indicate that accountability leads to an increase in the extent and breadth of testing but does not affect the depth of testing. Further, accountability leads to an increase in the testing of errors but results in a decrease in the testing of non-errors. The focus on breadth and error testing is consistent with the notion that accountability, to a superior with unspecified preferences, promotes more cautious behavior. The results also show that a time budget decreases the extent and depth of testing but does not affect the breadth of testing. There was no evidence that the two factors interactively affected testing strategies or performance. Finally, increased breadth of testing was the mechanism that led to better performance as measured by the identification of the actual cause of the unexpected fluctuation.

[1]  Arnold M. Wright,et al.  Evaluation of Competing Hypotheses in Auditing , 1997 .

[2]  R. Houston,et al.  The Effects of Fee Pressure and Client Risk on Audit Seniors' Time Budget Decisions , 1999 .

[3]  M. W. Nelson,et al.  The effects of error frequency and accounting knowledge on error diagnosis in analytical review , 1993 .

[4]  Philip Yetton,et al.  The Effect Of The Review Process On Auditor Judgments , 1985 .

[5]  Robert H. Ashton,et al.  Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on judgment performance , 1992 .

[6]  M. F. Luce,et al.  When time is money : Decision behavior under opportunity-cost time pressure , 1996 .

[7]  Arnold M. Wright,et al.  Hypothesis revision strategies in conducting analytical procedures , 1997 .

[8]  Ken T. Trotman,et al.  The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective , 1997 .

[9]  E. Pedhazur Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction , 1982 .

[10]  C. McNair Proper compromises: The management control dilemma in public accounting and its impact on auditor behavior☆ , 1991 .

[11]  D. Eric Hirst,et al.  Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation* , 1996 .

[12]  Michael Gibbins,et al.  An Empirical Exploration Of Complex Accountability In Public Accounting , 1994 .

[13]  Michael Gibbins,et al.  PROPOSITIONS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT IN PUBLIC ACCOUNTING , 1984 .

[14]  A. Kruglanski Lay epistemics and human knowledge , 1989 .

[15]  Lori Robinson Van Wallendael The quest for limits on noncomplementarity in opinion revision , 1989 .

[16]  Steven M. Glover The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information , 1997 .

[17]  L. Shulman,et al.  Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning , 1978 .

[18]  G. Marchant,et al.  Justification Of Decisions In Auditing , 1995 .

[19]  P. Tetlock Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. , 1985 .

[20]  Robert Libby,et al.  Experience And The Ability To Explain Audit Findings , 1990 .

[21]  Robert H. Ashton,et al.  Pressure And Performance In Accounting Decision Settings - Paradoxical Effects Of Incentives, Feedback, And Justification , 1990 .

[22]  Jane Kennedy,et al.  Debiasing Audit Judgment With Accountability - A Framework And Experimental Results , 1993 .

[23]  Mark E. Peecher The Influence of Auditors' Justification Processes on Their Decisions: A Cognitive Model and Experimental Evidence , 1996 .

[24]  Linda S. McDaniel,et al.  The Effects Of Time Pressure And Audit Program Structure On Audit Performance , 1990 .

[25]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. , 1988 .