IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/afr111/v4y2015i4p97.html

The Influence of Audit Risk and Materiality Guidelines on Auditors’ Planning Materiality Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Baldauf
  • Marcel Steller
  • Rudolf Steckel

Abstract

At present, methods to improve auditquality and auditing decisions are being debated by standard setters andresearchers worldwide. Materiality has been and continues to be a topic ofimportance for auditors.Audit quality is primarilyinfluenced by two factors- the requirements of standard setters and theprofessional judgment of auditors. Materiality judgment is primarily determinedby the subjective judgment of the auditor because there is a lack of clear, standardizedguidelines for such judgments. Thus, the same materiality issue could be judgeddifferently by different auditors. Auditors’ materiality judgments areimportant because they significantly influence what information is recorded inthe accounts, disclosed in financial statements and made available to externalparties for decision-making. The objective of this study is to examine theinfluence that audit risk and quantitative guidelines have on the assessment ofplanning materiality and on the adjustment of material misstatements. We use acase study and conduct an experiment. The study results provide evidence thatthe standardization and implementation of quantitative materiality guidelinesresult in a smaller range of planning materiality judgments. This paperdiscusses the implications of those findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Baldauf & Marcel Steller & Rudolf Steckel, 2015. "The Influence of Audit Risk and Materiality Guidelines on Auditors’ Planning Materiality Assessment," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(4), pages 1-97, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:afr111:v:4:y:2015:i:4:p:97
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/download/8026/4912
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/view/8026
    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. Takiah Mohd Iskandar & Errol R Iselin, 1999. "A review of materiality research," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 209-239, September.
    3. Ashton, Rh & Kramer, Ss, 1980. "Students As Surrogates In Behavioral Accounting Research - Some Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 1-15.
    4. Michael Gibbins & Steven Salterio & Alan Webb, 2001. "Evidence About Auditor–Client Management Negotiation Concerning Client’s Financial Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 535-563, December.
    5. Craig Emby & Nicola Pecchiari, 2013. "An Empirical Investigation of the Influence of Qualitative Risk Factors on Canadian Auditors’ Determination of Performance Materiality," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 281-299, December.
    6. LINDA S. McDANIEL & JOHN R. M. HAND, 1996. "The Value of Experimental Methods for Practice†Relevant Accounting Research," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 339-351, March.
    7. Ward, Bh, 1976. "Investigation Of Materiality Construct In Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 138-152.
    8. Karen Wilken Braun, 2001. "The Disposition of Audit†Detected Misstatements: An Examination of Risk and Reward Factors and Aggregation Effects," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 71-99, March.
    9. Swieringa, Rj & Weick, Ke, 1982. "An Assessment Of Laboratory Experiments In Accounting," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20, pages 56-101.
    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. Haid Marco & Graschitz Sabine & Heimerl Peter, 2019. "A matter of Motivation - The Effects of Risk Preference and Task Complexity on the Auditor’s Motivation," WSB Journal of Business and Finance, Sciendo, vol. 53(2), pages 1-14.
    2. Raul David & Indra Abeysekera, 2021. "Auditor Judgements after Withdrawal of the Materiality Accounting Standard in Australia," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Petersen, Knut & Patzke, Henning, 1986. "Individuelles Informationsverhalten als Gegenstand des "Behavioral Accounting": Eine Meta-Analyse der empirischen Forschung," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 177, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    4. Edgley, Carla, 2014. "A genealogy of accounting materiality," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-271.
    5. Gullkvist, Benita & Jokipii, Annukka, 2013. "Perceived importance of red flags across fraud types," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 44-61.
    6. Papirakis, Rachel, 2022. "Auditors’ self-actualization and ability to resist client pressure: Evidence from Canada," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    7. Richard C. Hatfield & Christopher P. Agoglia & Maria H. Sanchez, 2008. "Client Characteristics and the Negotiation Tactics of Auditors: Implications for Financial Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 46(5), pages 1183-1207, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Das, Abhijit & Chong, Vincent K. & Masschelein, Stijn & Wang, Isabel Z. & Woodliff, David R., 2025. "The effects of performance-based profit-sharing schemes and client pressure on auditors' pre-negotiation judgments," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    10. Audrius Masiulevičius & Vaclovas Lakis, 2018. "Differentiation of performance materiality in audit based on business needs," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(1), pages 115-124, September.
    11. Audrius Masiulevičius & Vaclovas Lakis, 2018. "Differentiation of performance materiality in audit based on business needs," Post-Print hal-02121042, HAL.
    12. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Sanaz Aghazadeh & Yoon Ju Kang & Marietta Peytcheva, 2023. "Auditors’ scepticism in response to audit committee oversight behaviour," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2013-2034, June.
    15. Cassandra Estep & Emily E. Griffith & Nikki L. MacKenzie, 2024. "How do financial executives respond to the use of artificial intelligence in financial reporting and auditing?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 2798-2831, September.
    16. Frank D. Hodge & Roger D. Martin & Jamie H. Pratt, 2006. "Audit Qualifications of Income†Decreasing Accounting Choices," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 369-394, June.
    17. Maureen Francis Mascha & Cathleen L. Miller, 2010. "The effects of task complexity and skill on over/under-estimation of internal control," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(8), pages 734-755, September.
    18. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    19. Steven Maijoor & Ann Vanstraelen, 2006. "Earnings management within Europe: the effects of member state audit environment, audit firm quality and international capital markets," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 33-52.
    20. Gary F. Templeton & D. Brian Blank, 2026. "Understanding non-normality in business, finance, and accounting research," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 66(2), pages 693-729, February.

    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:4:y:2015:i:4:p:97. 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.