IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/accper/v17y2018i3p387-426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Carolyn Mactavish
  • Susan McCracken
  • Regan N. Schmidt

Abstract

This manuscript reviews the external auditor judgment and decision making (JDM) literature from the past decade by specific tasks in the auditing process. Decomposing the literature review by audit task was chosen to enable audit and behavioral researchers and graduate students to identify the trends of JDM research subsequent to Nelson and Tan's () literature review. In addition to identifying gaps/omissions in the current literature, suggestions for future research are also advanced based on forthcoming transformations in the auditing institutional environment. Résumé Jugement et prise de décisions des auditeurs externes : Une analyse des tâches du processus d'audit Les auteurs passent en revue les études sur le jugement et la prise de décisions des auditeurs externes publiées au cours de la dernière décennie, en fonction de tâches précises du processus d'audit. Leur choix de segmenter leur analyse documentaire selon les tâches d'audit vise à permettre aux chercheurs et aux étudiants de cycle supérieur en études comportementales de définir les tendances de la recherche sur le jugement et la prise de décisions postérieure à l'analyse documentaire de Nelson et Tan (2005). En plus de relever les lacunes et les oublis de la documentation récente, les auteurs suggèrent des pistes de recherche pour l'avenir, en tenant compte des transformations prévisibles de l'environnement institutionnel de l'audit.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolyn Mactavish & Susan McCracken & Regan N. Schmidt, 2018. "External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 387-426, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:accper:v:17:y:2018:i:3:p:387-426
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3838.12182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12182
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3838.12182?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huang, Xiaobei “Beryl†& Watson, Luke, 2015. "Corporate social responsibility research in accounting," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 1-16.
    2. Devan Mescall & Fred Phillips & Regan N. Schmidt, 2017. "Erratum to: Does the Accounting Profession Discipline Its Members Differently After Public Scrutiny?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 407-407, May.
    3. Schultz Jr., Joseph J. & Bierstaker, James Lloyd & O'Donnell, Ed, 2010. "Integrating business risk into auditor judgment about the risk of material misstatement: The influence of a strategic-systems-audit approach," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 238-251, February.
    4. Ken T. Trotman & Hwee C. Tan & Nicole Ang, 2011. "Fifty‐year overview of judgment and decision‐making research in accounting," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 51(1), pages 278-360, March.
    5. Natalia Kochetova†kozloski & William F. Messier Jr. & Aasmund Eilifsen, 2011. "Improving Auditors’ Fraud Judgments Using a Frequency Response Mode," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 837-858, September.
    6. Borthick, A. Faye & Curtis, Mary B. & Sriram, Ram S., 2006. "Accelerating the acquisition of knowledge structure to improve performance in internal control reviews," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 323-342.
    7. Ken T. Trotman & Roger Simnett & Amna Khalifa, 2009. "Impact of the Type of Audit Team Discussions on Auditors' Generation of Material Frauds," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1115-1142, December.
    8. Luc Quadackers & Tom Groot & Arnold Wright, 2014. "Auditors’ Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 639-657, September.
    9. Terence Bu†Peow NG & Hun†Tong Tan, 2007. "Effects of Qualitative Factor Salience, Expressed Client Concern, and Qualitative Materiality Thresholds on Auditors' Audit Adjustment Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1171-1192, December.
    10. Knechel, W. Robert & Salterio, Steven E. & Kochetova-Kozloski, Natalia, 2010. "The effect of benchmarked performance measures and strategic analysis on auditors' risk assessments and mental models," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 316-333, April.
    11. Eric N. Johnson & D. Jordan Lowe & Philip M. J. Reckers, 2016. "The Influence of Mood on Subordinates’ Ability to Resist Coercive Pressure in Public Accounting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 261-287, March.
    12. Joseph F. Brazel & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2007. "An Examination of Auditor Planning Judgements in a Complex Accounting Information System Environment," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1059-1083, December.
    13. Greg Trompeter & Arnold Wright, 2010. "The World Has Changed—Have Analytical Procedure Practices?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 350-350, June.
    14. Steven M. Glover & Douglas F. Prawitt & David A. Wood, 2008. "Internal Audit Sourcing Arrangement and the External Auditor's Reliance Decision," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 193-213, March.
    15. Peecher, Mark E. & Schwartz, Rachel & Solomon, Ira, 2007. "It's all about audit quality: Perspectives on strategic-systems auditing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 463-485.
    16. Seet†Koh Tan & Hun†Tong Tan, 2008. "Effects of Exposure to Subsequently Invalidated Evidence on Judgements of Audit Workpaper Preparers and Reviewers," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 921-946, September.
    17. Backof, Ann G. & Bamber, E. Michael & Carpenter, Tina D., 2016. "Do auditor judgment frameworks help in constraining aggressive reporting? Evidence under more precise and less precise accounting standards," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-11.
    18. 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.
    19. Wright, William F., 2016. "Client business models, process business risks and the risk of material misstatement of revenue," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 43-55.
    20. Emily E. Griffith & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Kathryn Kadous & Donald Young, 2015. "Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 49-77, March.
    21. W. Robert Knechel & Justin Leiby, 2016. "If You Want My Advice: Status Motives and Audit Consultations About Accounting Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1331-1364, December.
    22. Kimberly K. Moreno & Sudip Bhattacharjee & Duane M. Brandon, 2007. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Training Techniques on Analytical Procedures Performance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 983-1014, September.
    23. Steven E. Salterio, 2012. "Fifteen years in the trenches: Auditor–client negotiations exposed and explored," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 52, pages 233-286, October.
    24. Jennifer R. Joe & Scott D. Vandervelde, 2007. "Do Auditor†Provided Nonaudit Services Improve Audit Effectiveness?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 467-487, June.
    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. Agoglia, Christopher P. & Hatfield, Richard C. & Lambert, Tamara A., 2015. "Audit team time reporting: An agency theory perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-14.
    27. Messier, William F. & Quick, Linda A. & Vandervelde, Scott D., 2014. "The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 59-74.
    28. Greg Trompeter & Arnold Wright, 2010. "The World Has Changed—Have Analytical Procedure Practices?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 669-700, June.
    29. Jeremy B. Griffin, 2014. "The Effects of Uncertainty and Disclosure on Auditors' Fair Value Materiality Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1165-1193, December.
    30. Elaine G. Mauldin & Christopher J. Wolfe, 2014. "How Do Auditors Address Control Deficiencies that Bias Accounting Estimates?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 658-680, September.
    31. Mélanie Roussy & Alexandre Perron, 2018. "New Perspectives in Internal Audit Research: A Structured Literature Review," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 345-385, September.
    32. 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.
    33. Devan Mescall & Fred Phillips & Regan N. Schmidt, 2017. "Does the Accounting Profession Discipline Its Members Differently After Public Scrutiny?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 285-309, May.
    34. Luippold, Benjamin L. & Kida, Thomas & Piercey, M. David & Smith, James F., 2015. "Managing audits to manage earnings: The impact of diversions on an auditor’s detection of earnings management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-54.
    35. Rasso, Jason Tyler, 2015. "Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 44-55.
    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. Xiaomeng Lucock & Victoria Westbrooke, 2021. "Trusting in the “Eye in the Sky”? Farmers’ and Auditors’ Perceptions of Drone Use in Environmental Auditing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, 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. 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.
    3. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    4. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    5. Luippold, Benjamin L. & Kida, Thomas & Piercey, M. David & Smith, James F., 2015. "Managing audits to manage earnings: The impact of diversions on an auditor’s detection of earnings management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-54.
    6. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Soon‐Yeow Phang, 2020. "Impacts of the timing of the discovery of a subsequent event on the auditors’ approach to subsequent events," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 4121-4146, December.
    9. Emett, Scott A. & Libby, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2018. "PCAOB guidance and audits of fair values for Level 2 investments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 57-72.
    10. Wright, William F., 2016. "Client business models, process business risks and the risk of material misstatement of revenue," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 43-55.
    11. Steven J. Kachelmeier & Ben W. Van Landuyt, 2017. "Prompting the Benefit of the Doubt: The Joint Effect of Auditor‐Client Social Bonds and Measurement Uncertainty on Audit Adjustments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 963-994, September.
    12. Ashley A. Austin & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Michael A. Ricci, 2020. "Improving Auditors' Consideration of Evidence Contradicting Management's Estimate Assumptions†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 696-716, June.
    13. Green, Wendy J. & Cheng, Mandy M., 2019. "Materiality judgments in an integrated reporting setting: The effect of strategic relevance and strategy map," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-14.
    14. Tim D. Bauer & Sean M. Hillison & Mark E. Peecher & Bradley Pomeroy, 2020. "Revising Audit Plans to Address Fraud Risk: A Case of “Do as I Advise, Not as I Do”?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2558-2589, December.
    15. Huh, Bong Gu & Lee, Sunhwa & Kim, Wonsin, 2021. "The impact of the input level of information system audit on the audit quality: Korean evidence," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    16. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    17. Dennis D. Fehrenbacher & Anis Triki & Martin Michael Weisner, 2021. "Can multitasking influence professional scepticism?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 1277-1306, March.
    18. Downar, Benedikt & Ernstberger, Jürgen & Koch, Christopher, 2021. "Determinants and consequences of auditor dyad formation at the top level of audit teams," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    19. Aaron Saiewitz & Elaine (Ying) Wang, 2020. "Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross‐National Auditor Judgment Differences," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1854-1881, September.
    20. Arnold, Vicky & Collier, Philip A. & Leech, Stewart A. & Rose, Jacob M. & Sutton, Steve G., 2023. "Can knowledge based systems be designed to counteract deskilling effects?," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).

    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:wly:accper:v:17:y:2018:i:3:p:387-426. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3838 .

    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.