IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v47y2015icp56-72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research

Author

Listed:
  • Trotman, Ken T.
  • Bauer, Tim D.
  • Humphreys, Kerry A.

Abstract

We examine the research literature on audit groups/teams focusing on three main areas: the hierarchical review process, brainstorming as part of the fraud detection planning process, and consultation within firms. We restrict our discussion of these three literatures to judgment and decision making (JDM) experiments. We consider research where two or more individuals within the audit firm interact with one another face-to-face, electronically, or where one person prepares/reviews working papers for another. We outline future research within each of the above areas, as well as considering other areas of future research involving within-firm group interactions related to audit teams in context, shared mental models, and audit team diversity (including sustainability assurance), as well as interactions with groups outside the audit firm, particularly audit committees.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:47:y:2015:i:c:p:56-72
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2015.09.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368215000872
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2015.09.004?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    2. Jefim Efrim Boritz, 1985. "The effect of information presentation structures on audit planning and review judgments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 193-218, March.
    3. Seet†Koh Tan & Hun†Tong Tan, 2008. "Effects of Exposure to Subsequently Invalidated Evidence on Judgements of Audit Workpaper Preparers and Reviewers," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 921-946, September.
    4. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    5. Hoffman, VB & Patton, JM, 1997. "Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 227-237.
    6. Karen A. Bantel & Susan E. Jackson, 1989. "Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(S1), pages 107-124, June.
    7. Vincent E. Owhoso & William F. Messier, Jr. & John G. Lynch, Jr., 2002. "Error Detection by Industry‐Specialized Teams during Sequential Audit Review," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 883-900, June.
    8. Trotman, Kt, 1985. "The Review Process And The Accuracy Of Auditor Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 740-752.
    9. Ricchiute, David N., 1999. "The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 155-171, April.
    10. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    11. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    12. Bamber, Em, 1983. "Expert Judgment In The Audit Team - A Source Reliability Approach," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 396-413.
    13. Tan, HT & Kao, A, 1999. "Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 209-223.
    14. E. Michael Bamber & Joseph H. Bylinski, 1987. "The effects of the planning memorandum, time pressure and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers' review time judgments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 127-143, September.
    15. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    16. Glover, SM, 1997. "The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 213-226.
    17. E. Michael Bamber & Robert J. Ramsay, 1997. "An Investigation of the Effects of Specialization in Audit Workpaper Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 501-513, September.
    18. Stephen K. Asare & Gregory M. Trompeter & Arnold M. Wright, 2000. "The Effect of Accountability and Time Budgets on Auditors' Testing Strategies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 539-560, December.
    19. Messier, William F. & Quick, Linda A. & Vandervelde, Scott D., 2014. "The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 59-74.
    20. Peecher, ME, 1996. "The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 125-140.
    21. Alain Pinsonneault & Henri Barki & R. Brent Gallupe & Norberto Hoppen, 1999. "Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 110-133, June.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. Kaplan, Steven E. & Reckers, Philip M. J., 1989. "An examination of information search during initial audit planning," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(5-6), pages 539-550, October.
    25. Gendron, Yves & Bedard, Jean, 2006. "On the constitution of audit committee effectiveness," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 211-239, April.
    26. Ramsay, Rj, 1994. "Senior Manager Differences In Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 127-135.
    27. Salterio, Steven, 1996. "The effects of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 467-486, July.
    28. Bonner, Sarah E., 1994. "A model of the effects of audit task complexity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 213-234, April.
    29. Stephen K. Asare & Arnold M. Wright, 2004. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Risk Assessment and Program Planning Tools in a Fraud Setting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 325-352, June.
    30. Hun†Tong Tan & Jackson Yip†Ow, 2001. "Are Reviewers' Judgements Influenced by Memo Structure and Conclusions Documented in Audit Workpapers?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 663-678, December.
    31. Schultz, Jj & Reckers, Pmj, 1981. "The Impact Of Group Processing On Selected Audit Disclosure Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 482-501.
    32. Ismail, Zubaidah & Trotman, Ken T., 1995. "The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 345-357, July.
    33. Paul Danos & John W. Eichenseher & Doris L. Holt, 1989. "Specialized knowledge and its communication in auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 91-109, September.
    34. Cynthia Williams Turner, 2001. "Accountability Demands and the Auditor’s Evidence Search Strategy: The Influence of Reviewer Preferences and the Nature of the Response (Belief vs. Action)," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 683-706, December.
    35. Salterio, S. & Koonce, L., 1997. "The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 573-587, August.
    36. Ashton, Rh, 1990. "Pressure And Performance In Accounting Decision Settings - Paradoxical Effects Of Incentives, Feedback, And Justification," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28, pages 148-180.
    37. Koonce, L & Anderson, U & Marchant, C, 1995. "Justification Of Decisions In Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 369-384.
    38. 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.
    39. Libby, Robert & Lewis, Barry L., 1982. "Human information processing research in accounting: The state of the art in 1982," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 231-285, July.
    40. Trotman, Kt & Yetton, Pw, 1985. "The Effect Of The Review Process On Auditor Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 256-267.
    41. Knechel, W. Robert & Salterio, Steven E. & Kochetova-Kozloski, Natalia, 2010. "The effect of benchmarked performance measures and strategic analysis on auditors' risk assessments and mental models," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 316-333, April.
    42. Trotman, Kt & Yetton, Pw & Zimmer, Ir, 1983. "Individual And Group Judgments Of Internal Control-Systems," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 286-292.
    43. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    44. Joyce, Ej, 1976. "Expert Judgment In Audit Program Planning," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14, pages 29-60.
    45. Ashton, Rh, 1974. "Experimental Study Of Internal Control Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 143-157.
    46. Gary Klein, 1999. "Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262611465, December.
    47. Christopher P. Agoglia & Thomas Kida & Dennis M. Hanno, 2003. "The Effects of Alternative Justification Memos on the Judgments of Audit Reviewees and Reviewers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 33-46, March.
    48. Libby, Robert & Lewis, Barry L., 1977. "Human information processing research in accounting: The state of the art," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 245-268, June.
    49. Kennedy, J & Kleinmuntz, DN & Peecher, ME, 1997. "Determinants of the justifiability of performance in ill-structured audit tasks," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35, pages 105-123.
    50. Yip-Ow, Jackson & Tan, Hun-Tong, 2000. "Effects of the preparer's justification on the reviewer's hypothesis generation and judgment in analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 203-215, February.
    51. Phillips, F, 1999. "Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 167-189.
    52. Noel Harding & Ken T. Trotman, 1999. "Hierarchical Differences in Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 671-684, December.
    53. Tan, Ht, 1995. "Effects Of Expectations, Prior Involvement, And Review Awareness On Memory For Audit Evidence And Judgment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 113-135.
    54. Kennedy, J, 1993. "Debiasing Audit Judgment With Accountability - A Framework And Experimental Results," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 231-245.
    55. Libby, Robert & Trotman, Ken T., 1993. "The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 559-574, August.
    56. Solomon, I, 1982. "Probability Assessment By Individual Auditors And Audit Teams - An Empirical-Investigation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 689-710.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    2. 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.
    3. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    4. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    5. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    6. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    7. 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.
    8. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    9. Noel Harding, 2010. "Understanding the structure of audit workpaper error knowledge and its relationship with workpaper review performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 50(3), pages 663-683, September.
    10. Sanaz Aghazadeh & Yoon Ju Kang & Marietta Peytcheva, 2023. "Auditors’ scepticism in response to audit committee oversight behaviour," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2013-2034, June.
    11. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    12. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Knechel, W.R. & Wallage, P., 2008. "The Effect of Audit Standards on Fraud Consultation and Auditor Judgment," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 11687, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Koch, Christopher & Weber, Martin & Wüstemann, Jens, 2007. "Can auditors be independent? : Experimental evidence," Papers 07-59, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    14. Andiola, Lindsay M. & Brazel, Joseph F. & Downey, Denise Hanes & Schaefer, Tammie J., 2024. "Coaching Today's auditors: What causes reviewers to adopt a more developmental approach?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    15. Dennis, Sean A. & Johnstone, Karla M., 2018. "A natural field experiment examining the joint role of audit partner leadership and subordinates’ knowledge in fraud brainstorming," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 14-28.
    16. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    17. Causholli, Monika & Floyd, Theresa & Jenkins, Nicole Thorne & Soltis, Scott M., 2021. "The ties that bind: Knowledge-seeking networks and auditor job performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    18. Griffith, Emily E. & Kadous, Kathryn & Proell, Chad A., 2020. "Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    19. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    20. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.

    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:eee:aosoci:v:47:y:2015:i:c:p:56-72. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.