IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bracre/v49y2017i6p560-577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?

Author

Listed:
  • Sweeney, John T.
  • Suh, Ik Seon
  • Dalton, Kenneth C.
  • Meljem, Sylvia

Abstract

We investigate the potential for preparer specific performance dimensions to influence workpaper reviewer's judgments and actions. In a 2 × 2 experimental design, we manipulate two factors: 1) the amount of time, relative to the budgeted hours, expended by the preparer to complete the workpaper, and 2) preparer interpersonal behaviors during the course of the audit. The participants in our sample consist of 138 Mexican audit managers and seniors representing all four Big 4 public accounting firms. Although the participants reviewed an identical workpaper, the results of our experiment reveal that reviewers wrote significantly fewer(more) review comments and judged it to be of higher(lower) quality when the preparer completed the workpaper under(over) the budgeted time or when the preparer demonstrated good(poor) interpersonal behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:bracre:v:49:y:2017:i:6:p:560-577
    DOI: 10.1016/j.bar.2017.09.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890838917300537
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.bar.2017.09.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Mcdaniel, Ls, 1990. "The Effects Of Time Pressure And Audit Program Structure On Audit Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 267-285.
    3. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Stephen K. Asare & Gregory M. Trompeter & Arnold M. Wright, 2000. "The Effect of Accountability and Time Budgets on Auditors' Testing Strategies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 539-560, December.
    6. Christopher Cornwell & David B. Mustard & Jessica Van Parys, 2013. "Noncognitive Skills and the Gender Disparities in Test Scores and Teacher Assessments: Evidence from Primary School," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 48(1), pages 236-264.
    7. Ramsay, Rj, 1994. "Senior Manager Differences In Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 127-135.
    8. Kennedy, J & Peecher, ME, 1997. "Judging auditors' technical knowledge," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 279-293.
    9. Francis, Jere R., 2004. "What do we know about audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 345-368.
    10. Cynthia Williams Turner, 2001. "Accountability Demands and the Auditor’s Evidence Search Strategy: The Influence of Reviewer Preferences and the Nature of the Response (Belief vs. Action)," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 683-706, December.
    11. B. Pierce & B. Sweeney, 2004. "Cost-quality conflict in audit firms: an empirical investigation," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 415-441.
    12. Cepeda Carrión, Gabriel & Henseler, Jörg & Ringle, Christian M. & Roldán, José Luis, 2016. "Prediction-oriented modeling in business research by means of PLS path modeling: Introduction to a JBR special section," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4545-4551.
    13. Anderson-Gough, Fiona & Grey, Christopher & Robson, Keith, 2001. "Tests of time: organizational time-reckoning and the making of accountants in two multi-national accounting firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 99-122, March.
    14. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    15. Lex Borghans & Bas ter Weel & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2008. "Interpersonal Styles and Labor Market Outcomes," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    16. Christopher P. Agoglia & Thomas Kida & Dennis M. Hanno, 2003. "The Effects of Alternative Justification Memos on the Judgments of Audit Reviewees and Reviewers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 33-46, March.
    17. Kennedy, J, 1993. "Debiasing Audit Judgment With Accountability - A Framework And Experimental Results," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 231-245.
    18. Libby, Robert & Trotman, Ken T., 1993. "The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 559-574, August.
    19. Tan, HT & Libby, R, 1997. "Tacit managerial versus technical knowledge as determinants of audit expertise in the field," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 97-113.
    20. Vincent E. Owhoso & William F. Messier, Jr. & John G. Lynch, Jr., 2002. "Error Detection by Industry‐Specialized Teams during Sequential Audit Review," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 883-900, June.
    21. Hirst, De, 1994. "Auditors Sensitivity To Source Reliability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 113-126.
    22. Bamber, Em, 1983. "Expert Judgment In The Audit Team - A Source Reliability Approach," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 396-413.
    23. Tan, HT & Kao, A, 1999. "Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 209-223.
    24. McNair, C. J., 1991. "Proper compromises: The management control dilemma in public accounting and its impact on auditor behavior," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 16(7), pages 635-653.
    25. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    26. E. Michael Bamber & Robert J. Ramsay, 1997. "An Investigation of the Effects of Specialization in Audit Workpaper Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 501-513, September.
    27. Lawrence A. Ponemon, 1992. "Auditor underreporting of time and moral reasoning: An experimental lab study," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 171-189, September.
    28. Dirsmith, Mark W. & Covaleski, Mark A., 1985. "Informal communications, nonformal communications and mentoring in public accounting firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 149-169, April.
    29. Hun†Tong Tan & Jackson Yip†Ow, 2001. "Are Reviewers' Judgements Influenced by Memo Structure and Conclusions Documented in Audit Workpapers?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 663-678, December.
    30. Ismail, Zubaidah & Trotman, Ken T., 1995. "The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 345-357, July.
    31. Kida, Thomas E., 1984. "Performance evaluation and review meeting characteristics in public accounting firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 137-147, June.
    32. D. Eric Hirst & Lisa Koonce, 1996. "Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 457-486, September.
    33. Ferris, Kenneth R. & Larcker, David F., 1983. "Explanatory variables of auditor performance in a large public accounting firm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, February.
    34. Sudip Bhattacharjee & Kimberly K. Moreno & Tracey Riley, 2012. "The Interplay of Interpersonal Affect and Source Reliability on Auditors’ Inventory Judgments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 1087-1108, December.
    35. Chinander, Karen R. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2003. "The input bias: The misuse of input information in judgments of outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 243-253, July.
    36. Yip-Ow, Jackson & Tan, Hun-Tong, 2000. "Effects of the preparer's justification on the reviewer's hypothesis generation and judgment in analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 203-215, February.
    37. Noel Harding & Ken T. Trotman, 1999. "Hierarchical Differences in Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 671-684, December.
    38. Olivier Herrbach, 2005. "The art of Compromise ? The individual and organisational legitimacy of "irregular auditing"," Post-Print halshs-00005479, HAL.
    39. Tan, Ht, 1995. "Effects Of Expectations, Prior Involvement, And Review Awareness On Memory For Audit Evidence And Judgment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 113-135.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna M. Rose & Jacob M. Rose & Ikseon Suh & Jay Thibodeau & Kristina Linke & Carolyn Strand Norman, 2021. "Why Financial Executives Do Bad Things: The Effects of the Slippery Slope and Tone at the Top on Misreporting Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(2), pages 291-309, November.

    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. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    3. Ulfert Gronewold & Anna Gold & Steven Salterio, 2013. "Reporting Self-Made Errors: The Impact of Organizational Error-Management Climate and Error Type," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 189-208, September.
    4. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Gronewold, U. & Salterio, S., 2010. "The Impact of Error-Management Climate, Error Type and Error Originator on Auditors’ Reporting Errors Discovered on Audit Work Papers," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 20551, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    5. Andiola, Lindsay M. & Bedard, Jean C., 2018. "Delivering the “tough message”: Moderators of subordinate auditors’ reactions to feedback," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 52-68.
    6. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Hun†Tong Tan & Karim Jamal, 2006. "Managing Perceptions of Technical Competence: How Well Do Auditors Know How Others View Them?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 761-787, September.
    10. Noel Harding, 2010. "Understanding the structure of audit workpaper error knowledge and its relationship with workpaper review performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 50(3), pages 663-683, September.
    11. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    12. Andiola, Lindsay M., 2014. "Performance feedback in the audit environment: A review and synthesis of research on the behavioral effects," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-36.
    13. Yip-Ow, Jackson & Tan, Hun-Tong, 2000. "Effects of the preparer's justification on the reviewer's hypothesis generation and judgment in analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 203-215, February.
    14. Pernilla Broberg & Torbjörn Tagesson & Daniela Argento & Niclas Gyllengahm & Ola Mårtensson, 2017. "Explaining the influence of time budget pressure on audit quality in Sweden," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 21(2), pages 331-350, June.
    15. 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.
    16. William F. Messier, Jr. & Vincent Owhoso & Carter Rakovski, 2008. "Can Audit Partners Predict Subordinates' Ability to Detect Errors?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1241-1264, December.
    17. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Knechel, W.R. & Wallage, P., 2008. "The Effect of Audit Standards on Fraud Consultation and Auditor Judgment," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 11687, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    18. Breda Sweeney & Don Arnold & Bernard Pierce, 2010. "The Impact of Perceived Ethical Culture of the Firm and Demographic Variables on Auditors’ Ethical Evaluation and Intention to Act Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 531-551, June.
    19. Svanberg, Jan & Öhman, Peter, 2015. "Auditors' identification with their clients: Effects on audit quality," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 395-408.
    20. Jeffrey R. Cohen & Gregory M. Trompeter, 1998. "An Examination of Factors Affecting Audit Practice Development," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 481-504, December.

    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:eee:bracre:v:49:y:2017:i:6:p:560-577. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-british-accounting-review .

    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.