Articlegreen2010

How Do Audit Workpaper Reviewers Cope with the Conflicting Pressures of Detecting Misstatements and Balancing Client Workloads?

Christopher P. Agoglia · Joseph F. Brazel · Richard C. Hatfield · Scott B. Jackson

99 citations0/0 files storedAuditing A Journal of Practice & Theory

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance Accounting and Organizational Management Corporate Governance and Financial Management

Abstract

SUMMARY: The proliferation of electronic workpapers at audit firms allows audit managers and partners the choice of interacting electronically with their audit teams, as opposed to communicating with them in person. Prior research indicates that in-person discussion during review positively impacts audit effectiveness, while electronic review may improve audit efficiency. Thus, the choice of review format can be viewed as both a crucial and controllable audit input that can affect audit quality and, in turn, the reliability of financial statements. Still, little is known about how this decision is made. We conduct a survey and an experiment to extend the audit literature by examining reviewers’ choice of review format and by considering factors that influence this important choice. Survey evidence suggests that reviewers perceive in-person interaction during review as more effective and electronic interaction as more convenient. Given these findings, we conduct an experiment that explores whether misstatement risk and workload pressure influence the choice of review method. We find that these factors interact to affect reviewer behavior. Specifically, workload pressure can increase the likelihood of electronic review, but only when misstatement risk is low. When risk is high, reviewers choose to employ in-person reviews regardless of workload pressures. These findings are particularly relevant in light of changes in the regulatory environment that both emphasize the auditor’s role in detecting fraud/errors and exacerbate traditional workload pressures during busy times of the year. Our results suggest that reviewers cope with these conflicting pressures by choosing alternative review formats.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 99 citations exist upstream.

References

2002Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis 2016International Federation of Accountants (IFAC)1999Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1987-1997 An Analysis of U.S. Public Companies 1993Debiasing Audit Judgment with Accountability: A Framework and Experimental Results 1990The Effects of Time Pressure and Audit Program Structure on Audit Performance 2012The Effect of Workload Compression on Audit Quality 1997The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective 2002Predecisional Distortion of Evidence as a Consequence of Real-Time Audit Review

Cited by

2016How does auditors’ work stress affect audit quality? Empirical evidence from the Chinese stock market 2012Audit Quality Indicators: Insights from the Academic Literature 2021Group Judgment and Decision Making in Auditing: Research in the Time of COVID-19 and Beyond 2011Do changes in audit actions and attitudes consistent with increased auditor scepticism deter aggressive earnings management? An experimental investigation 2017Client Deadline Concentration in Audit Offices and Audit Quality

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.