IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v19y2002i3p411-444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Gibbins
  • Ken T. Trotman

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:19:y:2002:i:3:p:411-444
    DOI: 10.1506/J519-5LVU-JTMQ-YYJ7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1506/J519-5LVU-JTMQ-YYJ7
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1506/J519-5LVU-JTMQ-YYJ7?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. Ricchiute, David N., 1999. "The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 155-171, April.
    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. 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.
    4. Ramsay, Rj, 1994. "Senior Manager Differences In Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 127-135.
    5. Gibbins, M & Newton, Jd, 1994. "An Empirical Exploration Of Complex Accountability In Public Accounting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 165-186.
    6. Kennedy, J & Peecher, ME, 1997. "Judging auditors' technical knowledge," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 279-293.
    7. Trotman, Kt & Yetton, Pw, 1985. "The Effect Of The Review Process On Auditor Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 256-267.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Trotman, Kt, 1985. "The Review Process And The Accuracy Of Auditor Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 740-752.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Phillips, F, 1999. "Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 167-189.
    16. 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.
    17. 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. Campbell, Dennis & Loumioti, Maria & Wittenberg-Moerman, Regina, 2019. "Making sense of soft information: interpretation bias and loan quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2).
    2. Odette M. Pinto, 2015. "Effects of Advice on Effectiveness and Efficiency of Tax Planning Tasks," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 307-329, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Dennis, Sean A. & Johnstone, Karla M., 2018. "A natural field experiment examining the joint role of audit partner leadership and subordinates’ knowledge in fraud brainstorming," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 14-28.
    5. Mark E. Peecher, 2002. "A Discussion of “Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Reviewâ€," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 445-448, September.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. Mayorga, Diane & Trotman, Ken T., 2016. "The effects of a reasonable investor perspective and firm's prior disclosure policy on managers' disclosure judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 50-62.
    14. 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.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    11. Ricchiute, David N., 1999. "The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 155-171, April.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Hurley, Patrick J., 2015. "Ego depletion: Applications and implications for auditing research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 47-76.
    15. Koch, Christopher & Weber, Martin & Wüstemann, Jens, 2007. "Can auditors be independent? : Experimental evidence," Papers 07-59, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    16. 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.
    17. El-Hussein E. El-Masry, 2008. "Factors affecting auditors' utilization of evidential cues," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(1), pages 26-50, January.
    18. 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.
    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. Maksymov, Eldar, 2015. "Auditor evaluation of others’ credibility: A review of experimental studies on determinants and consequences," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 104-124.

    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:coacre:v:19:y:2002:i:3:p:411-444. 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)1911-3846 .

    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.