Accountability Effects on Auditors' Performance: Influence of Knowledge, Problem-Solving Ability, and Task Complexity

In this study, we examine three factors that moderate the relation between accountability to a superior and auditor performance: knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity. Specifically, we predict that accountability works best when the requisite knowledge and abilities are matched with the characteristics of the task. In our study, auditors performed three tasks of varying complexity. In the low complexity task (listing compliance and substantive tests), accountability did not influence performance. As the task became more complex (listing financial statement errors associated with an internal control deviation), accountability improved performance only when knowledge was high. For the most complex task (listing causes associated with a change in ratios), accountability improved performance only when both knowledge and problem-solving ability were high. These results indicate that accountability works best in particular combinations of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity. Implications of the results and the directions for future research are discussed.

[1]  Robert Libby,et al.  Availability And The Generation Of Hypotheses In Analytical Review , 1985 .

[2]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[3]  Larry E. Toothaker,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions , 1991 .

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

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

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

[7]  Sarah E. Bonner.  A model of the effects of audit task complexity , 1994 .

[8]  C. Cloyd,et al.  Performance in Tax Research Tasks: The Joint Effects of Knowledge and Accountability , 1998 .

[9]  L. Thurstone.  Primary mental abilities. , 1938, Science.

[10]  Robert Libby,et al.  Tacit managerial versus technical knowledge as determinants of audit expertise in the field , 1997 .

[11]  Jane Kennedy,et al.  Debiasing the curse of knowledge in audit judgment , 1995 .

[12]  D. Campbell.  Task Complexity: A Review and Analysis , 1988 .

[13]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  R. Sternberg.  The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence , 1988 .

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

[16]  R. Wood.  Task complexity: Definition of the construct , 1986 .

[17]  Barry L. Lewis,et al.  Determinants of Auditor Expertise , 1990 .

[18]  Robert Libby,et al.  Modeling the determinants of audit expertise , 1994 .

[19]  Hun-Tong Tan,et al.  Effects Of Expectations, Prior Involvement, And Review Awareness On Memory For Audit Evidence And Judgment , 1995 .

[20]  Robert Libby,et al.  Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation , 1993 .

[21]  Vicky B. Hoffman,et al.  Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments , 1997 .

[22]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Rationality and the sanctity of competence , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

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

[24]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability and complexity of thought. , 1983 .

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