Electronic versus face-to-face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors' performance

Accounting Review

Volumn 79, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 949-966

  Brazel, Joseph F ^a   Agoglia, Christopher P ^b   Hatfield, Richard C ^c  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DREXEL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Audit effectiveness; Audit efficiency; Heuristic systematic model; Review process

Indexed keywords

EID: 8744282766     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/accr.2004.79.4.949     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Agoglia, C. P., T. Kida, and D. M. Hanno. 2003. The effects of alternative justification memos on the judgments of audit reviewees and reviewers. Journal of Accounting Research 41 (March): 33-46.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1978. Planning and Supervision. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 22. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. -. 1988. The Auditor's Consideration of an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 59. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. Anderson, B. H., and M. J. Maletta. 1999. Primacy effects and the role of risk in auditor belief-revision processes. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (Spring): 75-89.
5. Asare, S. K., and L. McDaniel. 1996. The effect of familiarity with the preparer and task complexity on the effectiveness of the audit review process. The Accounting Review 71 (April): 139-159.
6. Bamber, E. M., and J. H. Bylinski. 1987. The effects of the planning memorandum, time pressure and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers' review time judgments. Contemporary Accounting Research 3 (Fall): 501-513.
7. Baltes, B. B., M. W. Dickson, M. P. Sherman, C. C. Bauer, and J. S. LaGanke. 2002. Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87 (January): 156-179.
8. Beach, L. R., and T. R. Mitchell. 1978. A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review 3: 439-449.
9. Bettman, J. R., E. J. Johnson, and J. W. Payne. 1990. A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 45 (February): 111-139.
10. Bhattacharjee, S., T. Kida, and D. M. Hanno. 1999. The impact of hypothesis set size on the time efficiency and accuracy of analytical review judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 37 (Spring): 83-100.
11. Bierstaker, J. F., and A. Wright. 2001. The effects of fee pressure and partner pressure on audit planning decisions. Advances in Accounting 18: 25-46.
12. Butler, S. A. 1986. Anchoring in the judgmental evaluation of audit samples. The Accounting Review 61 (January): 101-111.
13. Chaiken, S. 1980. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 752-766.
14. -. 1987. The heuristic model of persuasion. In Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, 5, edited by M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, and C. P. Herman, 3-39. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. -, A. Lieberman, and A. H. Eagly. 1989. Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Unintended Thought, edited by J. S. Uleman and J. A. Bargh, 212-252. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
16. Chen, S., and S. Chaiken. 1999. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, edited by S. Chaiken and Y. Trope, 73-96. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17. Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 (Spring): 37-46.
18. Cohen, J. R., G. Krishnamoorthy, and A. M. Wright. 2000. Evidence on the effect of financial and nonfinancial trends. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19 (Spring): 27-48.
19. Davis, J. S., and I. Solomon. 1989. Experience, expertise, and expert-performance research in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature 8: 150-164.
20. Emby, C., and M. Gibbins. 1988. Good judgment in public accounting: Quality and justification. Contemporary Accounting Research 4 (Spring): 287-313.
21. Gibbins, M., and C. Emby. 1984. Evidence on the nature of professional judgment in public accounting. In Auditing Research Symposium, edited by A. R. Abdel-khalik and I. Solomon, 449-471. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
22. Glover, S. M. 1997. The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing on nondiagnostic information. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (Autumn): 213-226.
23. Hoffman, V. B., and J. M. Patton. 1997. Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (Autumn): 227-237.
24. Ismail, Z., and K. T. Trotman. 1995. The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20 (July): 345-357.
25. Johnson, V. E., and S. E. Kaplan. 1991. Experimental evidence on the effects of accountability on auditor judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 10 (Supplement): 96-107.
26. Joyce, E. J., and G. C. Biddle. 1981. Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 19 (Spring): 120-145.
27. Kachelmeier, S. J., and K. L. Towry. 2002. Negotiated transfer pricing: Is fairness easier said than done? The Accounting Review 77 (July): 571-593.
28. Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research 31 (Autumn): 231-245.
29. Kida, T. 1984. The impact of hypothesis-testing strategies on auditor's use of judgment data. Journal of Accounting Research 22 (Spring): 332-340.
30. Koonce, L., U. Anderson, and G. Marchant. 1995. Justification of decisions in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (Autumn): 369-384.
31. Kreitner, R., and A. Kinicki. 2001. Organizational Behavior. 5th edition. New York, NY: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
32. Libby, R. 1981. Accounting and Human Information Processing: Theory and Applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33. -, and P. A. Libby. 1989. Expert measurement and mechanical combination in control reliance decisions. The Accounting Review 64 (October): 729-747.
34. -, and K. T. Trotman. 1993. The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (August): 559-574.
35. Lord, A. T. 1992. Pressure: A methodological consideration for behavioral research in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 11 (Fall): 90-108.
36. Low, K. 2004. The effects of industry specialization on audit risk assessments and audit-planning decisions. The Accounting Review 79 (January): 201-219.
37. McAllister, D. W., T. R. Mitchell, and L. R. Beach. 1979. The contingency model for the selection of decision strategies: An empirical test of the effects of significance, accountability, and reversibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 24: 228-244.
38. Payne, J. W., J. R. Bettman, and E. J. Johnson. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39. Peecher, M. E., and D. N. Kleinmuntz. 1991. Accountability and justification in audit judgment processes: A comment on Johnson and Kaplan. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 10 (Supplement): 108-113.
40. Rau, S. E., and D. V. Moser. 1999. Does performing other audit tasks affect going concern judgments? The Accounting Review 74 (October): 493-508.
41. Rich, J. S., I. Solomon, and K. T. Trotman. 1997. The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (July): 481-505.
42. Salterio, S. 1994. Researching for accounting precedents: Learning, efficiency, and effectiveness. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (Fall): 515-542.
43. Schlenker, B. R. 1980. Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations. Belmont, CA: Belmont-Cole.
44. Shumate, J. R., and Brooks, R. C. 2001. The effect of technology on auditing in government: A discussion of the paperless audit. The Journal of Government Financial Management 50 (Summer): 50-55.
45. Tan, H. 1992. Effects of expectations and prior involvement on memory for audit judgment: The moderating role of accountability. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
46. -. 1995. Effects of expectations, prior involvement, and review awareness on memory for audit evidence and judgment. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (Spring): 113-135.
47. -, and A. Kao. 1999. Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity. Journal of Accounting Research 37 (Spring): 209-223.
48. Tetlock, P. E. 1985. Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In The Self and Social Life, edited by B. R. Schlenker. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
49. -, and J. I. Kim. 1987. Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (No. 4): 700-709.
50. Trotman, K. T. 1985. The review process and the accuracy of auditor judgments. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 740-52.
51. Wright, A. 1988. The impact of prior working papers on auditor evidential planning judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 13 (6): 595-605.