[This paper examines the comparative effect of information choice and information processing on the judgment performance of auditors over two different levels of environmental predictability. The task was the prediction of corporate failure. The study found that information choice, as evidenced through suboptimal selection of ratios, was a limiting factor in performance. However, although subjects were able to utilize all the information from the ratios they selected, they were unable to improve performance when supplied with the superior combination of ratios determined by the environmental model. Thus, information processing also became a limiting factor in performance when subjects were unable to choose their own ratios.]

[Decision makers refer to their long-term memory to test the implications of evidence about a current problem (Birnberg and Shields 1984; Libby 1989). Given this reliance on long-term memory, biases in retrieval of previously encountered information may be an important source of decision error (Libby 1989), and differences in such biases may be one explanation for differences in auditor judgment performance across experience levels. The present study adopts a schema-based framework to examine some differences in the knowledge structures and judgments of experienced and inexperienced auditors and the relationship between these knowledge structures and judgments. The study examines the recall of typical and atypical information by experienced and inexperienced auditors within the context of a going-concern situation and then relates this measure of memory to the inferences and predictive judgments made by these auditors. Three experiments were conducted. In experiment 1, auditors read a description of a company that the audit partner-in-charge had suggested may have a going-concern problem. The description consisted of items that are considered typical of a company with going-concern problems, atypical items, and filler items. After an intervening period with a distractor task, all subjects were given a recall test, were asked to infer the likelihood of certain previously unstated items being true, and to estimate the probability that the firm would fail within a year. The first of six main findings showed that experienced auditors recalled more atypical items than inexperienced auditors, but there were no differences in the number of typical items recalled. Second, experienced auditors recalled more atypical than typical items, whereas inexperienced auditors did not. Third, experienced auditors were more likely than inexperienced auditors to infer that previously unstated atypical items were true. Fourth, for both experienced and inexperienced auditors, the ratio of atypical to typical items recalled was positively correlated with the inferences made, and the inferences were negatively correlated with the predictive judgments. This last correlation was much higher for the experienced than for the inexperienced auditors. Fifth, there was no direct relationship between recall and predictive judgments. Sixth, clustering of recall on the basis of atypical/typical items was significantly higher for experienced than for inexperienced auditors and was significantly correlated with inferences for experienced auditors only. In experiments 2 and 3, we collected additional data to examine some validity threats related to the first experiment. In experiment 2, we examined the relationship between recall and judgments, using audit managers who had worked on at least one audit with going-concern as an issue. We found results similar to those of experiment 1. In experiment 3, experienced auditors performed the recall and predictive judgments without the intervening inferences task. This provided a more direct test of the relationship between recall and predictive judgments. Again, no relationship was found.]

The article examine some differences in the knowledge structures and judgments of experienced and inexperienced auditors in the United States. It examines the recall of typical and atypical information by experienced and inexperienced auditors within the context of a going-concern situation and then relates this measure of memory to the inferences and predictive judgments made by these auditors. In experiment 1, auditors read a description of a company that the audit partner-in-charge had suggested may have a going-concern problem. The description consisted of items that are considered typical of a company with going-concern problems, atypical Items, and filter items. After an intervening period with a distracter task, all subjects were given a recall test, were asked to infer the likelihood of certain previously unstated items being true, and to estimate the probability that the firm would fail within a year. In experiment 2 and 3, the researchers collected additional data to examine some validity threats related to the first experiment.

This paper examines the comparative effect of information choice and information processing on the judgment performance of auditors over two different levels of environmental predictability. The task was the prediction of corporate failure. The study found that information choice, as evidenced through suboptimal selection of ratios, was a limiting factor in performance. However, although subjects were able to utilize all the information from the ratios they selected, they were unable to improve performance when supplied with the superior combination of ratios determined by the environmental model. Thus, information processing also became a limiting factor in performance when subjects were unable to choose their own ratios.

In this paper, we examine specific process gains and losses arising from the review process by considering the interaction between attributes of the preparer and attributes of the reviewer. Specifically, we investigate determinants of reviewers' performance in the presence of potential stylization attempts by audit workpaper preparers. We assess whether reviewers' detection of conclusion errors and documentation errors depends on three factors: nature of the preparer's stylization (by way of the preparer's differential emphasis on conclusion and documentation errors), auditor rank, and the reviewer's sensitivity to such stylization attempts. Our results show that, depending on the reviewers' stylization sensitivity, their cognitive templates can both facilitate and interfere with reviewers' effectiveness in responding to these stylization attempts, resulting in both potential gains and losses from the review process. Our paper identifies conditions related to whether and how reviewers can provide adaptive responses to stylization attempts, and demonstrates that conclusions about rankrelated performance differences in the review process should consider complex interactions between attributes of the reviewer and the preparer. Implications are discussed.

Negotiations are a pervasive feature of the audit process (e.g., the resolution of proposed audit adjustments and disclosures). The results of such negotiations are of great importance to the capital markets, the client, and the auditor. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of three promising, pragmatic intervention methods for enhancing auditor negotiation performance: a role-playing intervention—assuming the client's position in a mock negotiation; a passive intervention—explicitly considering the client's interests and options; and a practice intervention—engaging in a mock negotiation prior to the client negotiation. We posit that the role-playing intervention will improve negotiation results, because this approach requires direct experience in considering and arguing the client's position and more cognitive effort in obtaining an understanding of the counterpart's position, a critical factor identified in the negotiation literature for successful performance. Forty-five audit managers and partners were provided a realistic case based on an actual scenario involving the potential writedown of inventory due to obsolescence. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (role-playing, passive, or practice) and asked to negotiate the issue with a confederate playing the role of the CFO. Auditor conservatism and a large actual subsequent writedown suggest that a significant adjustment is warranted. The results indicate that the role-playing intervention method led to an enhanced negotiation outcome (greater writedown) compared to the passive and practice groups. Process improvements on a number of dimensions were also found, particularly for the role-playing group compared to the practice group.

In this study, we examine whether interacting hierarchical teams outperform nominal hierarchical teams in electronic brainstorming. Our hierarchical audit teams were composed of 111 managers and seniors from two Big 4 accounting firms. We compare fraud brainstorming outcomes between nominal and interacting teams for two tasks of varying complexity: a simpler task of fraud risk factor identification and a more complex task of fraud hypothesis generation. We find that nominal teams generate a significantly larger number of unique fraud risk factors and fraud hypotheses than interacting teams. Nominal teams also generate higher-quality fraud hypotheses. We provide evidence that social loafing by less experienced auditors in interacting teams drives the differences between nominal and interacting teams in the fraud hypothesis generation task. In addition, less experienced auditors have less developed mental simulations for frauds in interacting teams compared to those in nominal teams. A key contribution of our study is that it identifies the underlying mechanisms of the differential fraud brainstorming outcomes between nominal and interacting teams.

ABTRACT This study investigates the way that experienced audit committee Chairs address barriers to effective performance. We conceptualize audit committees as groups of individuals gathering, elaborating, and sharing information, and identify key group barriers to effective audit committee oversight. Drawing on 24 interviews with audit committee Chairs from leading Australian-listed companies, we provide new evidence of the approaches used in practice to address information-processing barriers faced by audit committees. Specifically, we identify six key mechanisms: (1) audit committee composition; (2) pre-meetings; (3) handling of disagreements between management and auditors; (4) formal audit committee meeting facilitation; (5) promoting audit committee skepticism; and (6) external auditor selection. Our findings provide insights for audit committee members, audit partners, and policy-makers as they aim to improve financial reporting and audit quality. These findings also have important implications for research designs of future experimental research.

In this study, we consider how the accumulating nature and income direction of audit differences influence negotiated audit adjustments. We test our expectations by constructing dyads consisting of experienced auditors and financial officers, allowing them to interact via a web-based instrument. As predicted, based on expectancy violation theory and consideration of negotiation leverage, these audit difference characteristics alter the behaviors and negotiated outcomes of our participants. Specifically, dyads determine smaller adjustments when audit differences accumulate over time. Analysis of auditor-client expectations and dialog suggests the leverage of the negotiators impacts the arguments used and the persuasiveness of those arguments. Dyads also produce smaller adjustments when an accumulating audit difference increases, rather than decreases, income, due in part to clients successfully using conservatism as a persuasive argument to convince auditors to concede. Our method provides insight into how these effects occur and how the social process can alter auditors' pre-negotiation expectations.

This study examines the effects that two balanced scorecard framework (BSF) elements, causal linkages between strategic objectives (“causal linkages”) and time delay information (“delays”) in a strategy map, have on long-term profit performance in a dynamic decision-making environment. Using a computer-based simulation task, we conduct a 3 × (4) experiment (control group; causal linkages without delays; causal linkages with delays; four simulation rounds) and find that managers presented with causal linkages without delays generate greater long-term profit compared to a control group. For managers presented with causal linkages with delays, long-term profit generation is higher than the control group, but is not significantly different from the causal linkages without delays treatment. Those managers presented with causal linkages with delays, however, demonstrate learning across the four simulation rounds. In contrast, learning is found to plateau for the causal linkages without delays treatment and is not present for the control group. We also examine the cognitive mechanism through which these two BSF elements impact performance, by measuring the accuracy of two components of managers' mental models. Data Availability: Experimental materials are available upon request from the authors.