IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/afr111/v2y2013i1p73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Presentation Modality and Source Monitoring During Management Inquiry: Effects on Auditors’ Reliability Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly F Gamble

Abstract

An experiment was performed to determine whether the presentation modality of evidence affected auditors’ accuracy in identifying the sources of that evidence (i.e., source monitoring) and their subsequent judgments of evidence reliability. Participants were provided with conflicting explanations for a material increase in a fictitious client firm’s gross margin. The explanations were presented in either the same (both visual) or mixed (one visual and one auditory) modalities. The sources of the explanations had either the same (both high) or mixed (one high and one low) levels of credibility. Results indicate that auditors who received evidence in mixed presentation modalities were more accurate in identifying the sources of that evidence. Also, auditors with more accurate source monitoring judged evidence obtained from a less-credible source to be of significantly lower reliability than did auditors who were not as accurate in identifying evidence sources. These findings suggest that auditors’ judgments of evidence reliability may be influenced by the sensory modality by which evidence is perceived. Also, post-hoc analysis indicates that taking notes may improve auditors’ source monitoring accuracy when evidence is perceived via an auditory modality.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly F Gamble, 2013. "Presentation Modality and Source Monitoring During Management Inquiry: Effects on Auditors’ Reliability Judgments," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 2(1), pages 1-73, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:afr111:v:2:y:2013:i:1:p:73
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/download/2270/1324
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/view/2270
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Margheim, Ll, 1986. "Further Evidence On External Auditors Reliance On Internal Auditors," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 194-205.
    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. Mario J. Maletta, 1993. "An Examination of Auditors' Decisions to Use Internal Auditors as Assistants: The Effect of Inherent Risk," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 508-525, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Hunton, J.E. & Gomaa, M.I., 2006. "The Impact of Client Expertise, Client Gender and Auditor Gender on Auditors' Judgments," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-031-F&A, 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.
    4. Mishiel Said Suwaidan & Amer Qasim, 2010. "External auditors' reliance on internal auditors and its impact on audit fees: An empirical investigation," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(6), pages 509-525, June.
    5. Reiner Quick & Philipp Henrizi, 2019. "Experimental evidence on external auditor reliance on the internal audit," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 1143-1176, November.
    6. 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).
    7. Kevin Koh & Li Li & Xuejiao Liu & Chunfei Wang, 2023. "The Effect of Audit Partner Diversity on Audit Quality: Evidence from China," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 59(1), pages 340-380, March.
    8. Ilias G. Basioudis, 2007. "Auditor's Engagement Risk and Audit Fees: The Role of Audit Firm Alumni," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(9‐10), pages 1393-1422, November.
    9. Jagdish PATHAK & Mary LIND & Mohammad ABDOLMOHAMMADI, 2010. "E-Commerce Audit Judgment Expertise: Does Expertise in System Change Management and Information Technology Auditing Mediate E-Commerce Audit Judgment Expertise?," Informatica Economica, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(1), pages 5-20.
    10. Hamrick, Jennifer & Schafer, Jennifer & DeZoort, Todd, 2023. "The effect of client gender and negotiation style on auditors' proposed audit adjustments," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    11. Lee, Hanjoon & Lindquist, Jay D. & Acito, Frank, 1997. "Managers' evaluation of research design and its impact on the use of research: An experimental approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 231-240, July.
    12. Ho, Sandra & Hutchinson, Marion, 2010. "Internal audit department characteristics/activities and audit fees: Some evidence from Hong Kong firms," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 121-136.
    13. Miller Haynes, Christine, 2002. "The effects of context on cascaded-inference evidence evaluation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 469-485, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Desai, Naman & Gupta, Vishal, 2015. "Selective Perceptions and Group Brainstorming: An Investigation of Auditors’ Fraud Risk Assessment," IIMA Working Papers WP2015-03-14, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    16. Desai, Naman & Nagar, Neerav, 2016. "A research note: Are auditors unable to detect classification shifting or merely not willing to report it? Evidence from India," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 111-120.
    17. Maines, Laureen A., 1996. "An experimental examination of subjective forecast combination," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 223-233, June.
    18. 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.
    19. Ester Gras-Gil & Salvador Marin-Hernandez & Domingo Garcia-Perez de Lema, 2012. "Internal audit and financial reporting in the Spanish banking industry," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 27(8), pages 728-753, August.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:jfr:afr111:v:2:y:2013:i:1:p:73. 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: Sciedu Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.