IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v48y2008i2p301-318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of different types of feedback on the level of auditors’ configural information processing

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick W. Leung
  • Ken T. Trotman

Abstract

Previous audit judgement research has emphasized the importance of auditors processing information configurally (i.e. jointly considering the impact of different cues). This paper examines the impact of four different forms of feedback (outcome, task properties, cognitive and combined) on increasing the extent of configural information processing by auditors. We find that task properties, cognitive and combined (task properties plus cognitive) feedback all lead to increased configural information processing. There is no impact of outcome feedback. We also find that the extent of configural processing is positively associated with our measure of judgement performance. We discuss the implications of the results for audit firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick W. Leung & Ken T. Trotman, 2008. "Effect of different types of feedback on the level of auditors’ configural information processing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(2), pages 301-318, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:48:y:2008:i:2:p:301-318
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00238.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00238.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00238.x?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. Biggs, Sf & Mock, Tj, 1983. "An Investigation Of Auditor Decision-Processes In The Evaluation Of Internal Controls And Audit Scope Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 234-255.
    2. Balzer, William K. & Sulsky, Lorne M. & Hammer, Leslie B. & Sumner, Kenneth E., 1992. "Task information, cognitive information, or functional validity information: Which components of cognitive feedback affect performance?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 35-54, October.
    3. Ashton, Rh, 1974. "Experimental Study Of Internal Control Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 143-157.
    4. Wood, Robert E., 1986. "Task complexity: Definition of the construct," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 60-82, February.
    5. Balzer, William K. & Hammer, Leslie B. & Sumner, Kenneth E. & Birchenough, Todd R. & Martens, Sandra Parham & Raymark, Patrick H., 1994. "Effects of Cognitive Feedback Components, Display Format, and Elaboration on Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 369-385, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Remus, William & O'Conner, Marcus & Griggs, Kenneth, 1996. "Does Feedback Improve the Accuracy of Recurrent Judgmental Forecasts?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 22-30, April.
    8. Leung, Patrick W. & Trotman, Ken T., 2005. "The effects of feedback type on auditor judgment performance for configural and non-configural tasks," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 537-553, August.
    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. Nicole Nikiforow & Sebastian Wagener, 2021. "The contextual effect of completion on the effectiveness of performance feedback," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 61-90, February.
    2. Gort, Marjan & Broekhuis, Manda & Regts, Gerdien, 2013. "How teams use indicators for quality improvement – A multiple-case study on the use of multiple indicators in multidisciplinary breast cancer teams," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 69-77.
    3. Krumwiede, Kip R. & Swain, Monte R. & Thornock, Todd A. & Eggett, Dennis L., 2013. "The effects of task outcome feedback and broad domain evaluation experience on the use of unique scorecard measures," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 205-217.
    4. Andiola, Lindsay M., 2014. "Performance feedback in the audit environment: A review and synthesis of research on the behavioral effects," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-36.

    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. Leung, Patrick W. & Trotman, Ken T., 2005. "The effects of feedback type on auditor judgment performance for configural and non-configural tasks," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 537-553, August.
    2. Bolger, Fergus & Onkal-Atay, Dilek, 2004. "The effects of feedback on judgmental interval predictions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 29-39.
    3. Stone, Eric R. & Opel, Ryan B., 2000. "Training to Improve Calibration and Discrimination: The Effects of Performance and Environmental Feedback," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 282-309, November.
    4. Glover, Steven M. & Prawitt, Douglas F. & Spilker, Brian C., 1997. "The Influence of Decision Aids on User Behavior: Implications for Knowledge Acquisition and Inappropriate Reliance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 232-255, November.
    5. Dilla, William N. & Raschke, Robyn L., 2015. "Data visualization for fraud detection: Practice implications and a call for future research," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 1-22.
    6. Alissa, Walid & Capkun, Vedran & Jeanjean, Thomas & Suca, Nadja, 2014. "An empirical investigation of the impact of audit and auditor characteristics on auditor performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 495-510.
    7. Dezoort, F. T., 1998. "An analysis of experience effects on audit committee members' oversight judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Rianne Legerstee & Philip Hans Franses, 2014. "Do Experts’ SKU Forecasts Improve after Feedback?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 69-79, January.
    9. Andiola, Lindsay M., 2014. "Performance feedback in the audit environment: A review and synthesis of research on the behavioral effects," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-36.
    10. J. Michael Haynie & Dean A. Shepherd & Holger Patzelt, 2012. "Cognitive Adaptability and an Entrepreneurial Task: The Role of Metacognitive Ability and Feedback," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 36(2), pages 237-265, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Sengupta, K., 1995. "Cognitive feedback in environments characterized by irrelevant information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 125-143, April.
    13. Bierstaker, James L. & Kopp, Lori S. & Lombardi, Danielle R., 2016. "Are financial professionals ready for IFRS?: An exploratory study," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 1-7.
    14. Dierynck, Bart & Kadous, Kathryn & Peters, Christian P. H., 2024. "Learning in the auditing profession: A framework and future directions," Other publications TiSEM eb74c8e4-bc4a-4b71-b88a-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. 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.
    16. Simnett, Roger, 1996. "The effect of information selection, information processing and task complexity on predictive accuracy of auditors," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(7-8), pages 699-719.
    17. Ken T. Trotman & Roger Simnett & Amna Khalifa, 2009. "Impact of the Type of Audit Team Discussions on Auditors' Generation of Material Frauds," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1115-1142, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Phillips, Jean M., 1999. "Antecedents of Leader Utilization of Staff Input in Decision-Making Teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 215-242, March.
    20. W. Robert Knechel & William F. Messier, 1990. "Sequential auditor decision making: Information search and evidence evaluation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 386-406, March.

    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:bla:acctfi:v:48:y:2008:i:2:p:301-318. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    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.