IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v36y2019i1p108-131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?

Author

Listed:
  • Kathryn Kadous
  • Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou

Abstract

Intrinsic motivation is generally thought to be positively associated with performance on a variety of tasks. However, there is only sparse experimental evidence supporting this idea and we know little about the specific mechanisms behind any effect. We develop theory about how auditors’ intrinsic motivation for their jobs can improve their judgments about complex accounting estimates. We experimentally test whether a prompt to make auditors’ intrinsic motivation for their jobs salient improves the specific information processing behaviors necessary for high‐quality judgments in complex audit tasks. It does: Prompted auditors attend to a broader set of information, process information more deeply, and request more relevant additional evidence. Supplemental analyses show that these processing behaviors mediate between salient intrinsic motivation and an improved ability to identify a biased complex estimate. Our theory and analyses indicate that auditors’ intrinsic motivation for their work provides unique value for improving judgment quality, particularly in the context of performing complex audit tasks. Our study supports the view that high‐quality cognitive processing can improve auditors’ professional skepticism by providing a foundation for skeptical judgments. Comment la motivation intrinsèque améliore‐t‐elle le jugement des auditeurs dans les tâches d'audit complexes? L'on s'entend généralement sur l'existence d'un lien positif entre la motivation intrinsèque et le rendement dans l'exécution de diverses tâches ; les données expérimentales confirmant la présence de ce lien sont toutefois peu nombreuses, et nous connaissons mal les mécanismes précis qui lui servent de vecteur. Les auteurs élaborent une théorie quant aux modalités selon lesquelles la motivation intrinsèque des auditeurs, dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions, peut améliorer leur jugement à l’égard des estimations comptables complexes. Ils procèdent à un test expérimental afin de déterminer si un encouragement visant à stimuler la motivation intrinsèque des auditeurs dans leur travail améliore les comportements spécifiques de traitement de l'information nécessaires à la formulation de jugements de qualité dans des tâches d'audit complexes. Les résultats du test se révèlent positifs : les auditeurs dont la motivation intrinsèque est stimulée s'intéressent à un éventail plus large d'informations, approfondissent davantage le traitement de ces informations et réclament des éléments probants supplémentaires plus pertinents. Des analyses complémentaires indiquent que ces comportements à l’égard du traitement de l'information ont un effet de médiation entre la motivation intrinsèque stimulée et une capacité accrue de percevoir les estimations complexes peu fiables. Selon la théorie et les analyses des auteurs, la motivation intrinsèque des auditeurs dans leur travail joue un rôle exclusif dans l'amélioration de la qualité du jugement, en particulier dans le contexte de tâches d'audit complexes. L’étude confirme l'idée selon laquelle un traitement cognitif de qualité supérieure peut nourrir l'esprit critique des auditeurs en servant de base à des jugements circonspects.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:36:y:2019:i:1:p:108-131
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12431
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12431?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. 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.
    2. Nolder, Christine J. & Kadous, Kathryn, 2018. "Grounding the professional skepticism construct in mindset and attitude theory: A way forward," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1-14.
    3. 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.
    4. Libby, Robert & Luft, Joan, 1993. "Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 425-450, July.
    5. Michael Gibbins & Steven Salterio & Alan Webb, 2001. "Evidence About Auditor–Client Management Negotiation Concerning Client’s Financial Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 535-563, December.
    6. Trochim, William M. K., 1989. "Outcome pattern matching and program theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 355-366, January.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Emily E. Griffith & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Kathryn Kadous, 2015. "Audits of Complex Estimates as Verification of Management Numbers: How Institutional Pressures Shape Practice," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 833-863, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Braun, Robert L., 2000. "The effect of time pressure on auditor attention to qualitative aspects of misstatements indicative of potential fraudulent financial reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 243-259, April.
    12. 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. Jose Joaquin Pozo-Antúnez & Horacio Molina-Sánchez & Antonio Ariza-Montes & Francisco Fernández-Navarro, 2021. "Promoting work Engagement in the Accounting Profession: a Machine Learning Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 157(2), pages 653-670, September.
    2. Dzhumashev, Ratbek & Levaggi, Rosella & Menoncin, Francesco, 2023. "Optimal tax enforcement with productive public inputs," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Bustos-Contell, Elisabeth & Porcuna-Enguix, Luis & Serrano-Madrid, José & Labatut-Serer, Gregorio, 2022. "Female audit team leaders and audit effort," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 324-331.
    5. 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).
    6. Kathryn Kadous & Chad A. Proell & Jay Rich & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "It Goes without Saying: The Effects of Intrinsic Motivational Orientation, Leadership Emphasis of Intrinsic Goals, and Audit Issue Ambiguity on Speaking Up," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 2113-2141, December.
    7. Peters, Christian P. H., 2023. "The microfoundations of audit quality," Other publications TiSEM 6a2b12a5-6060-4544-883b-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    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. 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.
    2. Steven M. Glover & Mark H. Taylor & Yi‐Jing Wu & Ken T. Trotman, 2019. "Mind the Gap: Why Do Experts Have Differences of Opinion Regarding the Sufficiency of Audit Evidence Supporting Complex Fair Value Measurements?†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1417-1460, September.
    3. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Hurley, Patrick J., 2015. "Ego depletion: Applications and implications for auditing research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 47-76.
    10. 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.
    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. 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.
    13. Rowe, Stephen P., 2019. "Auditors’ comfort with uncertain estimates: More evidence is not always better," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-11.
    14. 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).
    15. 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.
    16. Christopher J. Wolfe & Brant E. Christensen & Scott D. Vandervelde, 2020. "Intuition versus Analytical Thinking and Impairment Testing†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1598-1621, September.
    17. Vera-Muñoz, Sandra C., 2015. "Commentary on “The effect of an audit judgment rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates” (Kang, Trotman, and Trotman)," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 77-80.
    18. Dela Cruz, Aeson Luiz & Patel, Chris & Ying, Sammy & Pan, Peipei, 2020. "The relevance of professional skepticism to finance professionals’ Socially Responsible Investing decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    19. Lambert, Tamara A. & Jones, Keith L. & Brazel, Joseph F. & Showalter, D. Scott, 2017. "Audit time pressure and earnings quality: An examination of accelerated filings," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 50-66.
    20. 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).

    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:36:y:2019:i:1:p:108-131. 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.