The effects of familiarity with the preparer and task complexity on the effectiveness of the audit review process

Accounting Review

Volumn 71, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 139-159

  Asare, Stephen K ^b   McDaniel, Linda S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Familiarity; Review effectiveness; Task complexity; Time pressure

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030121883     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Abdolmohammadi, M., and A. Wright. 1987. An examination of the effects of experience and task complexity on audit judgments. The Accounting Review 62 (January): 1-13.
2. Aldag, R., and S. Fuller. 1993. Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomena and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin 113 (May): 533-52.
3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1978. AICPA: The Commission on Auditors' Responsibilities: Reports, Conclusions, and Recommendations. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. -. 1992. AICPA Professional Standards 1 (June). New York, NY: AICPA.
5. Anderson, R. 1977. The External Audit. Toronto, Canada: Pitman.
6. Asare, S., and A. Wright. 1994. The effect of hypothesis generation and information search on performance in conducting analytical procedures. In Proceedings of the 12th USC Audit Judgment Symposium. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
7. Ashton, R. 1990. Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: Paradoxical effects on incentives, feedback and justification. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (Supplement): 148-186.
8. Bamber, M. 1983. Expert judgment in the audit team: A source reliability approach. Journal of Accounting Research 21 (Autumn): 396-412.
9. -, L. Bamber, and J. Bylinski. 1988. A descriptive study of audit managers' working paper review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 7 (Spring): 137-149.
10. -, and J. Bylinski. 1987. The effects of the planning memorandum, time pressure and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers' review time judgments. Contemporary Accounting Research 4 (Fall): 127-143.
11. Bacsik, J., and S. Rizzo. 1983. Reviews of audit workpapers. The CPA Journal 53 (November): 12-20.
12. Blodgett, E., J. F. Schmitt, and R. R. Scudder. 1987. Clinical session evaluation: The effect of familiarity with the supervisee. Clinical Supervisor 5 (Spring): 33-43.
13. Bonner, S. 1994. A model of the effects of audit task complexity. Accounting, Organizations and Society 19 (April): 213-234.
14. Callaway, M., and J. Esser. 1984. Groupthink: Effects of cohesiveness and problem-solving procedures on group decision making. Social Behavior and Personality 12 (1984): 157-164.
15. Campbell, D. 1988. Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review 13 (January): 40-52.
16. -, and D. Ilgen. 1976. Additive effects of task difficulty and goal-setting on subsequent task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (June): 319-324.
17. Courtright, J. A. 1978. A laboratory investigation of groupthink. Communication Monographs 45 (August): 229-246.
18. Cushing, B., and J. Loebbecke. 1986. Comparison of Audit Methodologies of Large Accounting Firms. Studies in Accounting Research No. 26. Sarasota, FL: AAA.
19. Flowers, M. 1977. A laboratory test of some implications of Janis's groupthink hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (December): 888-896.
20. Foos, P. 1992. Test performance as a function of expected form and difficulty. The Journal of Experimental Education 60 (Spring): 205-211.
21. Gitomer, D., M. Curtis, R. Glaser, and D. Lensky. 1987. Processing differences as a function of item difficulty in verbal analogy performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (September): 212-219.
22. Hirst, E. 1994. Auditors' sensitivity to source reliability. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (Spring): 113-126.
23. Ilgen, D., and J. Barnes-Farrell. 1993. Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s. What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54 (April): 321-368.
24. Jagacinski, C., and J. Nicholls. 1990. Reducing effort to protect perceived ability: "They'd do it but I wouldn't." Journal of Educational Psychology 82 (March): 15-21.
25. Janis, I. 1972. Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
26. Kingstrom, P., and L. Mainstone. 1985. An investigation of the rater-ratee acquaintance and rater bias. Academy of Management Journal 28 (September): 641-653.
27. Kirk, R. 1993. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
28. Kreutzfeldt, R. 1992. Discussants response to auditors' judgments and decisions under time pressure. An illustration and agenda for research. In Proceedings of the 1992 Deloitte & Touche/University of Kansas Symposium on Audit Problems, edited by R. Srivastava. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
29. Kukla, A. 1974. Performance as a function of resultant achievement motivation (perceived ability) and perceived difficulty. Journal of Research in Personality 7 (March): 374-383.
30. Label, W., and A. Arens. 1984. Guidelines for the more effective workpaper review. Practical Accountant 17 (April): 49-54.
31. Landy, F., and J. Farr. 1980. Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin 87 (January): 72-107.
32. Leana, C. 1985. A partial test of Janis' Groupthink model: Effects of group cohesiveness and leader behavior on defective decision making. Journal of Management 11 (Spring): 5-17.
33. Libby, R., and K. Trotman. 1993. The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (August): 559-574.
34. -,-, and I. Zimmer. 1987. Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 72 (February): 81-87.
35. Martell, R., and C. Willis. 1993. Effects of observers' performance expectations on behavior ratings of work groups: Memory or response bias? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 56 (October): 91-109.
36. Martin, B., and D. Manning. 1995. Combined effects of normative information and task difficulty on the goal commitment-performance relationship. Journal of Management 21 (Spring): 65-80.
37. McCauley, C. 1989. The nature of social influence in groupthink: compliance and internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (August): 250-260.
38. McDaniel, L. 1990. The effects of time pressure and audit program structure on audit performance. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (Autumn): 267-285.
39. Olshavsky, R. 1979. Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: A replication and extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 24 (December): 300-316.
40. Paquette, L., and T. Kida. 1988. The effect of decision strategy and task complexity on decision performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 41 (February): 128-142.
41. Payne, J. 1976. Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16 (August): 366-387.
42. -. 1982. Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin 92 (September): 382-402.
43. -, J. Bettman, and E. Johnson. 1988. Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14 (July): 534-552.
44. -, -, and -. 1990. The adaptive decision maker: Effort and accuracy in choice. In Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn, edited by R. Hogarth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
45. Plumlee, D. 1985. Standard of objectivity for internal auditors: Memory and bias effects. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (Autumn): 683-699.
46. Ramsay, R. 1994. Senior/manager differences in audit workpaper review performances. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (Spring): 127-135.
47. Schepanski, A., R. Tubbs, and R. Grimlund. 1992. Within-subjects and between-subjects designs in behavioral accounting research: An examination of some issues of concern. Journal of Accounting Literature 11 (1992): 121-149.
48. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 1981. Accounting Series Release No. 292 (SEC/ASR), SEC vs. Andersen A. and Co.; Re Mattel Incorporated. Washington D.C. Government Printing Office: SEC.
49. Shapira, Z. 1989. Task choice and assigned goals as determinants of task motivation and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 44 (October): 141-165.
50. Solomon, I. 1987. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research. Journal of Accounting Literature 6 (1987): 1-25.
51. -, and C. Brown. 1992. Auditors' judgments and decisions under time pressure. An illustration and agenda for research. In Proceedings of the 1992 Deloitte & Touche/ University of Kansas Symposium on Audit Problems, edited by R. Srivastava. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
52. Tetlock, P., R. Peterson, C. McGuire, S. Channg, and P. Feld. 1992. Assessing political group dynamics: A test of the groupthink model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (September): 403-425.
53. Tan, H. 1995. Effects of expectations, prior involvement, and review awareness on memory for audit evidence and judgment. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (Spring): 113-135.
54. Trotman, K. 1985. The review process and the accuracy of auditor judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (Autumn): 740-752.
55. -, and P. Yetton. 1985. The effect of the review process on auditor judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (Spring): 257-267.
56. Watson, D. 1975. The structure of project teams facing differentiated environments: An exploratory study in public accounting firms. The Accounting Review 50 (April): 259-273.
57. Weingart L. 1992. Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 77 (October): 682-693.
58. Wood, R. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37 (February): 60-82.
59. Zalesny, M. 1990. Rater confidence and social influence in performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology 75 (June): 274-289.