The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective

Abstract In this paper, we describe the audit review process from a persuasion perspective. This perspective highlights that preparers have, and may take advantage of, opportunities to enhance their reputation by influencing the content and format of audit working papers (i.e. the working papers may be “stylized”). In turn, we highlight that reviewers may receive working papers containing messages intended to persuade the reviewer about the appropriateness of the work prepared and conclusions reached. We discuss the types of persuasion behaviors in which working-paper preparers may engage and the stylization that may result. In addition, we discuss potential behaviors by reviewers to cope with such behaviors and stylization. We make salient that to be effective, reviewers must anticipate persuasive behaviors of other audit team members, as well as the client. Further, we highlight that reviewers assume a working paper co-composer role. Finally, we suggest questions for future research related to persuasion behaviors and stylization, reviewer coping behaviors and the reviewer's role as a co-composer.

[1]  M. W. Nelson,et al.  Using Decision Aids to Improve Auditors' Conditional Probability Judgments , 1998 .

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

[3]  Ken T. Trotman,et al.  Member Variation, Recognition of Expertise, and Group Performance , 1987 .

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

[5]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. , 1983 .

[6]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Dimensions of Consumer Expertise , 1987 .

[7]  Paul L. Walker,et al.  The effects of instruction and experience on the acquisition of auditing knowledge , 1994 .

[8]  Anthony G. Greenwald,et al.  Psychological foundations of attitudes , 1968 .

[9]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Quality of Group Judgment , 1977 .

[10]  Robert J. Ramsay,et al.  Senior Manager Differences In Audit Workpaper Review Performance , 1994 .

[11]  K. Trotman,et al.  A Field Study of the Review Process: Research Note , 1992 .

[12]  Jefim Efrim Boritz,et al.  The Effect of Information Presentation Structures on Audit Planning and Review Judgments , 1985 .

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

[14]  M. W. Nelson,et al.  Knowledge structure and the estimation of conditional probabilities in audit planning , 1995 .

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

[16]  Zubaidah Ismail,et al.  The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks , 1995 .

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

[18]  Robert Libby,et al.  Judgment and decision-making research in accounting and auditing: The role of knowledge and memory in audit judgment , 1995 .

[19]  R. K. Mautz,et al.  The philosophy of auditing , 1961 .

[20]  E. Bamber,et al.  Expert Judgment in the Audit Team: A Source Reliability Approach , 1983 .

[21]  Michael Chris Knapp,et al.  Contemporary Auditing Issues and Cases , 1998 .

[22]  A. Greenwald.  6 – Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change1 , 1968 .

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

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

[25]  Jane L. Butt.  Frequency Judgments In An Auditing-Related Task , 1988 .

[26]  Thomas Kida,et al.  The Impact of Hypothesis-Testing Strategies on Auditors' Use of Judgment Data , 1984 .

[27]  Michael Gibbins,et al.  Good judgment in public accounting: Quality and justification* , 1987 .

[28]  Richard M. Tubbs,et al.  The effect of experience on the auditor's organization and amount of knowledge , 1988 .

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

[30]  Joseph H. Bylinski,et al.  The effects of the planning memorandum, time pressure and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers' review time judgments* , 1987 .

[31]  Ken T. Trotman,et al.  The Review Process And The Accuracy Of Auditor Judgments , 1985 .

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

[33]  B. R. Schlenker.  Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations , 1980 .

[34]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[35]  P. Johnson-Laird.  Mental models , 1989 .

[36]  Charles D. Barrett.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[37]  Frederick C. Miner,et al.  Group versus individual decision making: An investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains , 1984 .

[38]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. , 1979 .

[39]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[40]  B. E. Cushing,et al.  Comparison of audit methodologies of large accounting firms , 1986 .

[41]  I. Solomon,et al.  Research opportunities in auditing : the second decade , 1988 .

[42]  M. Fishbein.  A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. , 1980, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

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

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

[45]  P. Yetton,et al.  Individual and Group Judgments of Internal Control Systems , 1983 .

[46]  P. Johnson-Laird.  Ninth Bartlett Memorial Lecture. Thinking as a Skill , 1982 .

[47]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[48]  Ken T. Trotman,et al.  The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments , 1993 .

[49]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Cognitive theories of persuasion , 1984 .

[50]  S. Chaiken.  The heuristic model of persuasion. , 1987 .

[51]  Philip Yetton,et al.  Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy , 1982 .

[52]  Peter Wright,et al.  Persuasion Knowledge , 2022 .