The effect of time pressure on auditor attention to qualitative aspects of misstatements indicative of potential fraudulent financial reporting

Accounting, Organizations and Society

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 243-259

  Braun, Robert L ^a  

^a SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034165440     PISSN: 03613682     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00044-6     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) (1997). Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82. New York: AICPA.
2. AICPA(American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) (1998). AICPA Professional Standards. New York: AICPA.
3. Alderman, C. W., & Deitrick, J. W. (1982). Auditor's perceptions of time budget pressures and premature sign-offs: A replication and extension. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 2, 54-68.
4. Allport, D. A., Attonis, G., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225-235.
5. Ashton, A. (1991). Experience and error frequency knowledge as potential determinants of audit expertise. The Accounting Review, 66(2), 218-239.
6. Ashton, R. (1990). Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: Paradoxical effects of incentives, feedback, and justification. Journal of Accounting Research, 28( Supplement), 148-180.
7. Ashton, R. (1992). Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on judgment performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(2), 292-306.
8. Bell, T. B., & Carcello, J. V. (1998). A Decision Aid for Assessing the Likelihood of Fraudulent Financial Reporting. (Working paper). University of Tennessee.
9. Board of Directors of the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) (1993). Meeting the Financial Reporting Needs of the Future: A Public Commitment from the Public Accounting Profession. New York: AICPA.
10. Bonner, S. E. (1990). Experience effects in auditing: The role of task-specific knowledge. The Accounting Review, 65(1), 72-92.
11. Butt, J. (1988). Frequency judgments in an auditing-related task. Journal of Accounting Research, 26, 315-330.
12. Cook, E., & Kelly, T. (1988). Auditor stress and time budgets. CPA Journal, 58(7), 83-86.
13. Cushing, B. E., & Loebbecke, J. K. (1986). Comparison of Audit Methodologies for Large Accounting Firms. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association: Accounting Research Series.
14. DeZoort, F. T., & Lord, A. T. (1997). A review and synthesis of pressure effects research in accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature, 16, 28-85.
15. Dopuch, N. (1992). Another perspective on the use of deception in auditing experiments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 11, 109-111.
16. Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183-201.
17. Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Attention and Arousal. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
18. Gibbins, M., & Newton, J. (1994). An empirical exploration of complex accountability in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Research, 32(2), 165-186.
19. Glover, S. M. (1997). The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(2), 213-226.
20. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 356-388.
21. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. (1984). Automatic processing of fundamental information. American Psychologist, 39, 1372-1388.
22. Hogarth, R. M. (1991). A perspective on cognitive research in accounting. The Accounting Review, 66(2), 277-290.
23. Jamal, K., Johnson, P. E., & Berryman, R. G. (1995). Detecting framing effects in financial statements. Contemporary Accounting Research, 12(1), 85-105.
24. Johnson, V. E., & Kaplan, S. E. (1991). Experimental evidence on the effects of accountability on auditor judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 10(Suppl.), 96-107.
25. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26. Kelly, T., & Margheim, L. (1990). The impact of time budget pressure, personality, and leadership variables on dysfunctional auditor behavior. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 9(2), 21-42.
27. Kermis, G. F., & Mahapatra, S. (1985). An empirical study on the effects of time pressure on audit time allocations. Advances in Accounting, 2, 261-273.
28. Knapp, C., & Knapp, M. (1996). The Effects of Experience and Explicit Fraud Risk Assessment in Detecting Fraud with Analytical Procedures (Working paper), The University of Oklahoma.
29. Lightner, S. M., Adams, S. J., & Lightner, K. M. (1982). The influence of situational, ethical, and expectancy theory variables on accountants' underreporting behavior. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 2(1), 1-12.
30. Lightner, S. M., Leisenring, J. J., & Winters, A. J. (1983). Underreporting chargeable time. Journal of Accountancy, 155(1), 52-57.
31. Loebbecke, J. K., Eining, M. M., & Willingham, J. J. (1989). Auditors' experience with material irregularities: Frequency nature and detectability. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 9(1), 1-28.
32. McDaniel, L. S. (1990). The effects of time pressure and audit program structure on audit performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 28(2), 267-285.
33. National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting (1988). Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Washington, DC: National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting.
34. Nelson, M. W. (1993). The effects of error frequency and accounting knowledge on error diagnosis in analytical review. The Accounting Review, 68, 803-824.
35. Nelson, M. W. (1994). The learning and application of frequency knowledge in audit judgment. Journal of Accounting Literature, 13, 185-211.
36. Pincus, K. V. (1989). The efficacy of a red flags questionnaire for assessing the possibility of fraud. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 14, 153-163.
37. Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section AICPA (1993). In the Public Interest. New York: Public Oversight Board.
38. Rhode, J. G. (1978). Survey on the influence of selected aspects of the auditor's work environment on professional performance of certified public accountants. Summarized in The Commission on Auditors' Responsibilities: Report of Tentative Conclusions. New York: AICPA.
39. Shaffer, L. H. (1975). Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dormic, Attention and Performance V. London: Academic Press.
40. Shibano, T. (1990). Assessing audit risk from errors and irregularities. Journal of Accounting Research, 28(Suppl.), 110-140.
41. Solomon, I., & Brown, C. (1992). Auditors' judgments under time pressure: An agenda for research and an illustration. In Auditing Symposium XI; Proceedings of the 1992 Deloitte and Touche/University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems (pp. 73-91).
42. Spilker, B. C. (1995). The effects of time pressure and knowledge on key word selection behavior in tax research. The Accounting Review, 70(1), 49-70.
43. Spilker, B. C., & Prawitt, D. F. (1997). Adaptive responses to time pressure: The effects of experience on tax information search behavior. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 9, 172-198.
44. Waggoner, J.B., & Cashell, J.D. (1991). The impact of time pressure on auditors' performance. The Ohio CPA Journal 27-32.
45. Weick, K. E. (1983). Stress in accounting systems. The Accounting Review, 58(2), 350-365.
46. Winters, A. J., & Sullivan, J. B. (1994). Auditing for fraud: Perception versus reality. In P.R. Srivastava, Proceedings of the 1994 Deloitte and Touche/University of Kansas Sypmposium on Auditing Problems. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
47. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurological Psychology, 18, 459-482.
48. Zimbelman, M. F. (1997). The effects of SAS No. 82 on auditors' attention to fraud risk factors and audit planning decisions. Journal of Accounting Research, JJ(Suppl.), 75-104.