This paper presents an interpersonal model of audit file review centered on the audit manager. A manager's conduct of the review is affected by four components: the manager's expectations about the client, expectations about the preparer, expectations about the partner, and the manager's own approach and circumstances. The paper then presents a comprehensive field-based analysis of how a working paper review is conducted. It supplements the mostly experimental research on working paper review by reporting the results of a retrospective field questionnaire that asked audit managers to report on their behavior and their relationships with preparers and partners on actual audit engagements. The extent of review was sensitive to specific features of the client and the file (including risk factors), to features of the preparer, and particularly to the style of the reviewer, which was quite stable across cases. Although the evidence of managers' awareness of preparers' “stylizing” the file to suit the manager was weak, the evidence of managers' stylizing for the partners was pervasive, affecting both work done and documentation. Managers believed that good reviews emphasized key issues and risks rather than detail. Other new descriptive evidence on the nature of the review process is provided, including the purpose of the review process, how frequently surprises are found in the review process, and the qualities of good reviewers compared with poor reviewers. The implications of our model and our results for future research are outlined.

This paper presents an interpersonal model of audit file review centered on the audit manager. A manager's conduct of the review is affected by four components: the manager's expectations about the client, expectations about the preparer, expectations about the partner, and the manager's own approach and circumstances. The paper then presents a comprehensive field‐based analysis of how a working paper review is conducted. It supplements the mostly experimental research on working paper review by reporting the results of a retrospective field questionnaire that asked audit managers to report on their behavior and their relationships with preparers and partners on actual audit engagements. The extent of review was sensitive to specific features of the client and the file (including risk factors), to features of the preparer, and particularly to the style of the reviewer, which was quite stable across cases. Although the evidence of managers' awareness of preparers' “stylizing” the file to suit the manager was weak, the evidence of managers' stylizing for the partners was pervasive, affecting both work done and documentation. Managers believed that good reviews emphasized key issues and risks rather than detail. Other new descriptive evidence on the nature of the review process is provided, including the purpose of the review process, how frequently surprises are found in the review process, and the qualities of good reviewers compared with poor reviewers. The implications of our model and our results for future research are outlined.

With increased interest in voluntary sustainability reports from investors and other stakeholders, more companies are having these reports assured. The issue of what is considered material in these assurance engagements is important, and yet research on materiality has focused only on financial statement audits. This article reports the results of an experiment where auditors assess the materiality of audit differences in the same magnitude for both a financial audit and a sustainability (water) assurance engagement. Two factors, the risk of breaching a contract and community impact, are manipulated between‐subjects. We find that auditors assess the materiality of an audit difference significantly higher for a financial case than for a water case. This difference is significantly greater when there is no risk of breaching a contract than when there is a risk of breaching a contract. The risk of breaching a contract has a stronger effect on the difference in auditors' materiality assessments when there is no community impact than when there is a community impact. Overall our findings suggest that qualitative factors have a greater impact on sustainability (water) materiality assessments than on financial statement materiality assessments when an audit difference is between 5 percent and 10 percent of a relevant base. Understanding the factors that impact material judgments in sustainability reports is important as these factors affect the reliability of the reported disclosures.

This paper investigates the performance of senior and staff auditors in the identification of conceptual and mechanical errors during workpaper review. In this study, we begin to examine the potential for effectiveness and efficiency gains by involving staff (assistant) auditors in the review process. We find that senior auditors were more accurate than staff auditors in identifying conceptual errors contained in a hypothetical set of workpapers just reviewed. However, staff auditors were more accurate than senior auditors in identifying mechanical errors. Highlighting the benefits of a hierarchical review, composite groups consisting of a staff auditor and a senior outperformed composite groups consisting of two seniors or two staff auditors. The study finds that the differences in review performance between managers and seniors found in Ramsay 1994 generalize to lower levels of experience. Considering our results in conjunction with Ramsay 1994, we show a progression to a more conceptual review template as the rank of the reviewer moves from staff to senior to manager. The paper provides some guidance to audit firms that are presently introducing major changes to the way in which the review process is carried out, including the inclusion of reviews by staff auditors.

Impact of the type of audit team discussions on auditors' generation of material frauds

In response to the extended audit report regulations implemented in the United States and internationally, both audit firms and regulators have increased scrutiny over critical audit matters/key audit matters (collectively referred to as CAMs) through internal and external inspections. At the same time, auditors and audit committees (ACs) have altered the content and timing of CAM‐related discussions by communicating specific planned audit procedures earlier in the audit process. This study explores the effect of early communication of CAM‐related audit procedures to the AC and increased scrutiny from inspections on auditors' propensity to adjust planned audit procedures in the presence of newly identified audit risks. Based on self‐justification theory, we predict and find that early communication of planned audit procedures to the AC causes auditors to be less likely to adjust planned audit procedures even when additional risks arise that necessitate change, especially when inspection is likely. This has the potential for diminished audit quality. Interviews with audit partners provide context for how these findings relate to the current auditing environment.

Reported deficiencies continue to persist in audits of fair value measurements and other complex accounting estimates (hereafter, “FVMs”), despite improvements in auditor performance observed by regulators. The persistence of reported deficiencies in audits of FVMs suggests that factors underlying this trend may be more complicated and multidimensional than previously suggested by regulators and academic research, which has focused largely on auditors' unsatisfactory performance as the principal source of reported deficiencies. Drawing from the judgment and decision‐making expertise literature, we gather field‐based data from audit experts to identify additional factors that are likely to be contributing to differences of opinion between audit and inspection experts and the persistence of reported deficiencies in audits of FVMs. We find evidence that audit experts interpret standards and evaluate audit evidence differently than inspectors, and thus perceive there to be a gap between what auditors and inspectors regard as sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support audits of FVMs (hereafter, “FVM gap”). Moreover, results highlight several areas in audits of FVMs where differences of opinion exist between auditor and inspector experts regarding what constitutes a reported deficiency. Within the contexts we examine, our results identify additional factors, beyond deficient auditor performance, that may contribute to the FVM gap. We also report audit partners' recommendations for ways to reduce the FVM gap and suggest avenues for future research. Gaining a more complete understanding of sources contributing to reported deficiencies will help regulators, standard setters, audit firms, and academics to identify ways to reduce the FVM gap and reported deficiencies in audits of FVMs.

Distributed, rather than co‐located, teams increasingly perform audit work, raising regulator concerns that distributed team communication issues may affect audit quality. We investigate upward communication (i.e., raising issues to supervisors), a key communication dimension related to audit quality. In Study 1, we survey 69 senior auditors to establish that distributed team upward communication suffers. Furthermore, distributed team auditors identify less with their teams and struggle to know when and how to speak up. Because both are linked to inhibited upward communication, we next experimentally test firm practices with the potential to attenuate these problems. Study 2, an experiment with 128 staff auditors and interns, reveals that making auditors' professional identities salient improves upward communication on co‐located teams with strong team identities but not on distributed teams with weak team identities. Study 3, an experiment with 58 staff auditors, replicates a key Study 2 finding with a design that makes no reference to team identity strength. Specifically, in the presence of a salient professional identity, upward communication is significantly higher for co‐located relative to distributed team auditors. Study 4, an experiment with 69 staff auditors, focuses solely on distributed teams. It indicates that several distributed team management practices, including one‐on‐one and standing daily meetings, encourage upward communication. Finally, Study 5, informal interviews with eight audit seniors, corroborates key survey and experimental findings. Combined, our results provide insights into why distributed team communication suffers, refine audit voice theory, and provide regulators, practitioners, and researchers with multiple paths to improve audit quality.