Auditors experience difficulty auditing accounts for which it is difficult to identify in advance all the evidence necessary to perform an effective audit. These accounts are challenging because they commonly require auditors to collect additional, relevant evidence in response to new information received during evidence collection. We address this experimentally by examining whether changing the focus of audit programs from plan-focused (i.e., focused on the planned audit procedures) to goal-focused (i.e., focused on the task goal) improves auditors' collection of relevant evidence that is not identifiable at audit program creation. We expect goal-focused auditors to remain open to more ways to achieve their goal. Consequently, we expect and find that goal-focused auditors collect more effective evidence than plan-focused auditors and follow up more effectively on this evidence. This suggests that a goal-focused approach improves audit quality on tasks requiring auditors to flexibly respond to new information.

Auditors are required to raise potential audit issues to their supervisor's attention (i.e., to speak up). Speaking up allows supervisors to adjust audit procedures as needed to protect audit quality. We argue that the act of speaking up may not always be sufficient to protect audit quality— how auditors speak up is critical. Drawing on audit voice theory (AVT), which focuses on whether auditors speak up, we consider the impact of auditors' salient goals on the tactics that auditors use when raising issues. Using a survey, multiple experiments, and an association study, we find that staff auditors with salient public service (vs. self‐serving) goals choose more quality‐enhancing voice tactics when speaking up. Importantly, however, we find that the voice‐related decisions of auditors with salient self‐serving (but not public service) goals respond to rewards for more quality‐enhancing tactics. These results support our theory that auditors approach voice differently depending on their salient goals, and they imply that supervisors can help auditors choose quality‐enhancing voice tactics even when self‐serving goals are salient. Overall, our findings test and extend AVT, identify a potential shortcoming of current audit standards, and suggest ways that firms can improve team communication and audit quality via recruitment strategies, team management practices, and training.

Auditors have difficulty evaluating the assumptions underlying management's estimates. One source of these problems is that auditors appear to dismiss evidence contradicting management's assumptions because their initial preference to support management's accounting biases their preliminary conclusions and, thus, their interpretation of evidence. We experimentally examine whether auditors with a balanced focus (i.e., a focus on documenting evidence that supports and contradicts their preliminary conclusion) are less likely to dismiss evidence that contradicts management's assumptions than auditors with a supporting focus (i.e., a focus on documenting evidence that supports their preliminary conclusion). We expect and find that, compared with auditors with a supporting focus, auditors with a balanced focus create documentation that is less dismissive of evidence contradicting management's estimate. Importantly, a balanced focus changes auditors' cognition and affects how auditors interpret contradicting evidence rather than merely increasing their documentation of this evidence. The effects of reduced dismissiveness persist to improve auditors' evaluations of a biased estimate and subsequent actions, improving audit quality in an important and difficult area.