Experience Effects in Auditing: The Role of Task-Specific Knowledge

Previous studies concerning experience effects in audit judgments have produced mixed results, possibly because they did not consider the knowledge necessary to complete the task and when it would normally be acquired. Further, many studies did not view the global judgment process as consisting of several components, e.g., cue selection. Task-specific knowledge may aid the performance of experienced auditors more in some components than in others. Not considering task-specific knowledge or viewing the judgment process as being comprised of components may have led to certain problems in generalizing the results of these studies to other auditing tasks. Those problems are addressed in the design of this study, which examines experience effects, specifically the role of taskspecific knowledge, in the cue selection and cue weighting components of two audit tasks, analytical risk assessment and control risk assessment. Results indicate that task-specific knowledge aided the performance of experienced auditors in both the cue selection and cue weighting components only in analytical risk assessment. M j ~EASUREMENT of audit judgment performance is often difficult because there are no objective performance criteria for many audit tasks. As a result, the judgments of experienced auditors have been used as a substitute for other performance measures in determining firm policies and auditing standards. To determine the validity of this criterion, more evidence is needed This paper is based on my dissertation at The University of Michigan. I appreciate the assistance of my committee members: Robert Libby, Anant Kshirsagar, Frank Yates, and David Wright. I particularly appreciate the comments and support of my chairman, Robert Libby. I would also like to thank two anonymous referees for comments on this version of the paper, as well as the following persons for comments on earlier versions: Matt Anderson, David Frederick, Ed Joyce, Barry Lewis, Bill Waller, and Mark Young. Financial support was provided by Deloitte Haskins & Sells and The University of Michigan. Manuscript received October 1988. Revisions received March 1989 and July 1989. Accepted August 1989.

[1]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Analyzing the Use of Information in Investment Decision Making: A Methodological Proposal , 1972 .

[2]  William F. Wright,et al.  Internal Control Judgments And Effects Of Experience - Replications And Extensions , 1982 .

[3]  D. A. Summers,et al.  Subjective vs objective description of judgment policy , 1970 .

[4]  R. Sternberg.  Advances in the psychology of human intelligence , 1982 .

[5]  S. Pokharel.  Analyzing the Use of Information Systems in Logistics Industry , 2009 .

[6]  A. H. Ashton,et al.  Does consensus imply accuracy in accounting studies of decision making?: Alison Hubbard Ashton, Accounting Review 60 (185) 173–85 , 1986 .

[7]  R. Dawes,et al.  Linear models in decision making. , 1974 .

[8]  John R. Anderson.  A spreading activation theory of memory. , 1983 .

[9]  Michael J. Prietula,et al.  Expertise and Error in Diagnostic Reasoning , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Shane Moriarity,et al.  Communicating Financial Information Through Multidimensional Graphics , 1979 .

[11]  Herbert A. Simon.  The new science of management decision. , 1960 .

[12]  Robert Libby,et al.  Expertise And Auditors Judgments Of Conjunctive Events , 1986 .

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

[14]  M Seyrani,et al.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF EXPERIENCE AND TASK COMPLEXITY ON AUDIT JUDGMENTS , 2009 .

[15]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Expertise in Problem Solving. , 1981 .

[16]  William R. Kinney.  Audit technology and preferences for auditing standards , 1986 .

[17]  Paul R. Brown,et al.  Descriptive Modeling of Auditors' Internal Control Judgments: Replication and Extension , 1980 .

[18]  G. Marchant.  Analogical reasoning and error detection , 1987 .

[19]  A. Abdel-khalik,et al.  Information Choice and Utilization in an Experiment on Default Prediction , 1980 .

[20]  R. Ashton.  An Experimental Study of Internal Control Judgments , 1974 .

[21]  Robert Libby,et al.  Accounting and human information processing : theory and applications , 1981 .

[22]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. , 1984, Psychological review.

[23]  S. Mark Young,et al.  Evaluating Human Judgments And Decision Aids , 1983 .

[24]  K. R. Hammond,et al.  ANALYZING THE COMPONENTS OF CLINICAL INFERENCE. , 1964, Psychological review.

[25]  P. Slovic,et al.  Analyzing use of diagnostic signs. , 1971, Investigative radiology.

[26]  K. Ferris,et al.  Behavioral accounting research : a critical analysis , 1988 .

[27]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Unit weighting schemes for decision making , 1975 .

[28]  Paul E. Johnson,et al.  Expertise in Trial Advocacy: Some Considerations for Inquiry into Its Nature and Development , 1984 .

[29]  R. Dawes.  Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

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

[31]  H. J. Einhorn.  Expert judgment: Some necessary conditions and an example. , 1974 .

[32]  Gerald F. Smith,et al.  Towards a heuristic theory of problem structuring , 1988 .

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

[34]  Vasant Dhar,et al.  A Knowledge-Based Model of Audit Risk , 1988, AI Mag..

[35]  Bruce R. Gaumnitz,et al.  AUDITOR CONSENSUS IN INTERNAL CONTROL EVALUATION AND AUDIT PROGRAM-PLANNING , 1982 .

[36]  Michael J. Prietula,et al.  Expertise and error in diagnostic reasoning , 1981 .

[37]  P. Slovic.  Analyzing the expert judge: A descriptive study of a stockbroker's decision process. , 1969 .