IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/abg/anprac/v25y2021i51477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Trust between the Time Pressure and Complexity in Judging and Decision-Making in Auditing

Author

Listed:
  • Cleston Alexandre dos Santos
  • Paulo Roberto da Cunha

Abstract

Objective: the study aimed to assess the moderating effect of confidence in the joint influence of time pressure and complexity in judgment and decision-making (JDM) in auditing. The behavioral decision theory (BDT) was used from the perspective of the anchoring heuristic. Methods: as a method, the 2x2x2 experiment was used with a final sample of 126 independent auditors. For analysis, the t-test and multiple linear regressions were used. Results: the findings allow us to infer that factors such as trust, time pressure, and complexity, individually and jointly, influence JDM. The study showed that trust moderates the joint influence of time pressure and complexity on JDM. Time pressure and task complexity negatively influence JDM, but when including trust as a moderating factor, the effect of time pressure and complexity is mitigated, reducing the auditor’s difficulties and uncertainties in JDM. Conclusion: the study contributes to BDT, moving academic research toward understanding the interrelationships between personal, environmental, and task factors. It also contributes by presenting evidence that there is a need for considering and observing the effects generated by the factors altogether, in order to contribute to improving the quality of the audit.

Suggested Citation

  • Cleston Alexandre dos Santos & Paulo Roberto da Cunha, 2021. "Effect of Trust between the Time Pressure and Complexity in Judging and Decision-Making in Auditing," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 25(5), pages 200037-2000.
    • Handle: RePEc:abg:anprac:v:25:y:2021:i:5:1477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rac.anpad.org.br/index.php/rac/article/view/1477
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://rac.anpad.org.br/index.php/rac/article/view/1477/1644
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    2. DeZoort, F. Todd & Hermanson, Dana R. & Houston, Richard W., 2003. "Audit committee support for auditors: The effects of materiality justification and accounting precision," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 175-199.
    3. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    4. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    5. E. Michael Bamber & Joseph H. Bylinski, 1987. "The effects of the planning memorandum, time pressure and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers' review time judgments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 127-143, September.
    6. Libby, Robert & Luft, Joan, 1993. "Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 425-450, July.
    7. Harvey, Nigel & Fischer, Ilan, 1997. "Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 117-133, May.
    8. Bonner, Sarah E., 1994. "A model of the effects of audit task complexity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 213-234, April.
    9. Walid M. Alissa & Vedran Capkun & Thomas Jeanjean & Nadja Suca, 2014. "An empirical investigation of the impact of audit and auditor characteristics on auditor performance," Post-Print hal-01147193, HAL.
    10. Dalal, Reeshad S. & Bonaccio, Silvia, 2010. "What types of advice do decision-makers prefer?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 11-23, May.
    11. Alissa, Walid & Capkun, Vedran & Jeanjean, Thomas & Suca, Nadja, 2014. "An empirical investigation of the impact of audit and auditor characteristics on auditor performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 495-510.
    12. Kennedy, J & Kleinmuntz, DN & Peecher, ME, 1997. "Determinants of the justifiability of performance in ill-structured audit tasks," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35, pages 105-123.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    2. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    3. Florian Hoos & Jorien Louise Pruijssers & Michel W. Lander, 2019. "Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 563-575, May.
    4. Blaufus, Kay & Lorenz, Daniela & Milde, Michael & Peuthert, Benjamin & Schwäbe, Alexander N., 2022. "Negotiating with the tax auditor: Determinants of tax auditors' negotiation strategy choice and the effect on firms’ tax adjustments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Griffith, Emily E. & Kadous, Kathryn & Proell, Chad A., 2020. "Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    6. Rita Lamboglia & Daniela Mancini, 2021. "The relationship between auditors’ human capital attributes and the assessment of the control environment," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(4), pages 1211-1239, December.
    7. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    8. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    9. Mauldin, Elaine G. & Ruchala, Linda V., 1999. "Towards a meta-theory of accounting information systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 317-331, May.
    10. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2021. "How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    11. Koch, Christopher & Weber, Martin & Wüstemann, Jens, 2007. "Can auditors be independent? : Experimental evidence," Papers 07-59, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    12. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    13. Ruhnke, Klaus, 2023. "Empirical research frameworks in a changing world: The case of audit data analytics," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    14. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    15. Sprenger, Julia, 2016. "Financial literacy: A barrier to seek financial advice but not a shield against following it," Ruhr Economic Papers 634, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    16. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    17. Stefan Schiller, 2017. "The Quest for Rationality: Chief Financial Officers’ and Accounting Master’s Students’ Perception of Economic Rationality," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, April.
    18. Leiby, Justin, 2018. "The role of consultants and management prestige in management control system adoption," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 1-13.
    19. Bonner, Sarah E. & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2002. "The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4-5), pages 303-345.
    20. Tomás Lejarraga & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2017. "When Experience Meets Description: How Dyads Integrate Experiential and Descriptive Information in Risky Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1953-1971, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:abg:anprac:v:25:y:2021:i:5:1477. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Information Technology of ANPAD (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://anpad.org.br .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.