IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/wsbjbf/v53y2019i2p1-14n1001.html

A matter of Motivation - The Effects of Risk Preference and Task Complexity on the Auditor’s Motivation

Author

Listed:
  • Haid Marco

    (Division for Management in Health and Sport Tourism, UMIT, Eduard-Wallnöfer-Zentrum 1, 6060Hall in Tirol, Austria)

  • Graschitz Sabine

    (Department of Accounting, Auditing, and Taxation, University of Innsbruck, Universitätsstraße 15, 6020Innsbruck, Austria)

  • Heimerl Peter

    (Division for Management in Health and Sport Tourism, UMIT, Eduard-Wallnöfer-Zentrum 1, 6060Hall in Tirol, Austria)

Abstract

This article examines whether and how several audit-specific attributes influence auditor’s motivation. Following the literature, the research project focuses mainly on the impact of risk preference, task complexity and the liability situation in this issue. A 2x2 mixed-subjects case-based experiment was conducted to gain data for in-depth insights. In sum 209 master students with a major in accounting and auditing participated in the experiment. The results indicate that increased risk aversion leads to a higher observed task motivation. Regarding the task complexity, data analysis shows that increasing task complexity lowers auditor’s motivation. This study contributes to the stream of judgment and decision making literature and offers new insights in to the relationship and dependence of inherent auditor-specific factors.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:wsbjbf:v:53:y:2019:i:2:p:1-14:n:1001
    DOI: 10.2478/wsbjbf-2019-0017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/wsbjbf-2019-0017
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/wsbjbf-2019-0017?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. Zuraidah Mohd‐Sanusi & Takiah Mohd‐Iskandar, 2007. "Audit judgment performance: assessing the effect of performance incentives, effort and task complexity," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 22(1), pages 34-52, January.
    2. repec:eme:maj000:02686901011008963 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    4. Craig W. Fisher & InduShobha Chengalur-Smith & Donald P. Ballou, 2003. "The Impact of Experience and Time on the Use of Data Quality Information in Decision Making," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 170-188, June.
    5. 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.
    6. repec:eme:maj000:02686900710715639 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Dye, Ronald A., 1995. "Incorporation and the audit market," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 75-114, February.
    8. Takiah Mohd Iskandar & Ria Nelly Sari & Zuraidah Mohd‐Sanusi & Rita Anugerah, 2012. "Enhancing auditors' performance," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 27(5), pages 462-476, May.
    9. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    10. Hardies, Kris & Breesch, Diane & Branson, Joël, 2013. "Gender differences in overconfidence and risk taking: Do self-selection and socialization matter?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 442-444.
    11. repec:eme:maj000:02686901211227959 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Anthony R. Bowrin & James King, 2010. "Time pressure, task complexity, and audit effectiveness," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 25(2), pages 160-181, January.
    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. Anthony R. Bowrin & James King, 2010. "Time pressure, task complexity, and audit effectiveness," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(2), pages 160-181, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Zuraidah Mohd-Sanusi, 2007. "Audit judgment performance: assessing the effect of performance incentives, effort and task complexity," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 22(1), pages 34-52, February.
    17. Tan, HT & Kao, A, 1999. "Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(1), pages 209-223.
    18. Bonner, Sarah E., 1994. "A model of the effects of audit task complexity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 213-234, April.
    19. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    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. 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.
    2. Alissa, Walid & Capkun, Vedran & Jeanjean, Thomas & Suca, Nadja, 2014. "An empirical investigation of the impact of audit and auditor characteristics on auditor performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 495-510.
    3. 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.
    4. Cleston Alexandre dos Santos & Paulo Roberto da Cunha, 2021. "Effect of Trust between the Time Pressure and Complexity in Judging and Decision-Making in Auditing," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 25(5), pages 200037-2000.
    5. Bauermeister, Golo-Friedrich & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2016. "Risk Attitude And Inconsistencies - Does The Choice Of Display Format And Risk Elicitation Method Influence The Outcomes?," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244764, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    6. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    7. Sebastian Kronenberger & Volker Laux, 2022. "Conservative Accounting, Audit Quality, and Litigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 2349-2362, March.
    8. Chen, Xiao & Dai, Narisa Tianjing & Liu, Leo Jiahe, 2025. "Audit implications of major customer diversity," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2).
    9. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Zubanov, Nick & Cadsby, Bram & Song, Fei, 2017. "The," IZA Discussion Papers 10542, IZA Network @ LISER.
    11. Mehdi Nekhili & Fahim Javed & Haithem Nagati, 2022. "Audit Partner Gender, Leadership and Ethics: The Case of Earnings Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(2), pages 233-260, May.
    12. Cao, June & Ee, Mong Shan & Hasan, Iftekhar & Huang, He, 2024. "Asymmetric reactions of abnormal audit fees jump to credit rating changes," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    13. Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea & Pierno, Donato, 2025. "Experimental methods: Learning your own risk preferences under different risk elicitation methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Bénédicte Rulleau, 2024. "Household preferences for cyber-attack resilient water distribution networks: A latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment in France," Post-Print hal-04157111, HAL.
    15. John M. Barrios, 2022. "Occupational Licensing and Accountant Quality: Evidence from the 150‐Hour Rule," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 60(1), pages 3-43, March.
    16. Bauermeister, Golo & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Risk Aversion and Inconsistencies - Does the Choice of Risk Elicitation Method and Display Format Influence the Outcomes?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235348, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Trestini, Samuel & Giampietri, Elisa & Smiglak-Krajewska, Magdalena, "undated". "Farmer behaviour towards the agricultural risk management tools provided by the CAP: a comparison between Italy and Poland," 162nd Seminar, April 26-27, 2018, Budapest, Hungary 271978, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2016. "A comparison of hypothetical risk attitude elicitation instruments for explaining farmer crop insurance purchases," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(1), pages 113-135.
    19. Holst, Gesa Sophie & Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver, 2015. "Anchoring effects in an experimental auction – Are farmers anchored?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 106-117.
    20. Michelle S. Segovia & Marco A. Palma & Jayson L. Lusk & Andreas C. Drichoutis, 2025. "Visual formats in risk preference elicitation: What catches the eye?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 275-303, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:vrs:wsbjbf:v:53:y:2019:i:2:p:1-14:n:1001. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.