Author
Listed:
- Curtis E. Mullis
- Richard C. Hatfield
Abstract
Auditors must frequently multitask in order to complete their work efficiently. However, the potential impact of multitasking on auditors’ judgment quality is poorly understood. Using Ego Depletion Theory and a laboratory experiment, we predict and find that auditors become less able to identify seeded errors after multitasking, and that this effect is most prominent in the identification of conceptual, rather than mechanical, errors. These negative consequences of multitasking are mitigated when auditors are exposed to an intervention based on a theoretical countermeasure of replenishing depleted self‐control resources, in that multitasking auditors identify more seeded errors with the intervention than without. Given that multitasking is a pervasive feature of the current audit environment, these findings have direct implications for audit practice. Beyond identifying multitasking as a cause of impaired performance in auditing, this study's results provide initial evidence that such negative effects can be mitigated, resulting in improved audit quality and, by extension, improved financial statement quality. Les auditeurs doivent fréquemment travailler en mode multitâche pour pouvoir s'acquitter de leurs fonctions avec efficience. Les répercussions potentielles du travail en mode multitâche sur la qualité du jugement des auditeurs sont toutefois mal comprises. Les auteurs, qui s'appuient sur la théorie de la perte d'ego et procèdent à une expérience en laboratoire, constatent, conformément à leurs prédictions, que l'aptitude des auditeurs à repérer des erreurs volontairement introduites diminue lorsqu'ils sont appelés à travailler en mode multitâche et que cette diminution est plus marquée s'il s'agit de repérer des erreurs conceptuelles plutôt que mécaniques. Ces répercussions négatives du travail en mode multitâche s'atténuent si les auditeurs sont exposés à une intervention revêtant la forme d'une contre‐mesure théoriquement apte à régénérer leur maîtrise de soi, puisque les auditeurs travaillant en mode multitâche repèrent un plus grand nombre d'erreurs volontairement introduites lorsqu'il y a intervention qu'en l'absence d'intervention. Le travail en mode multitâche étant aujourd'hui généralisé dans l'environnement d'audit, ces observations ont une incidence directe sur l'exercice de l'audit. En plus de permettre l'identification du travail en mode multitâche comme facteur nuisible à la qualité de l'audit, les résultats de l’étude livrent les premiers indices de la possibilité d'en atténuer les effets négatifs et d'accroître ainsi la qualité d'audit et, par extension, celle des états financiers.
Suggested Citation
Curtis E. Mullis & Richard C. Hatfield, 2018.
"The Effects of Multitasking on Auditors’ Judgment Quality,"
Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 314-333, March.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:coacre:v:35:y:2018:i:1:p:314-333
DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12392
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Dennis D. Fehrenbacher & Anis Triki & Martin Michael Weisner, 2021.
"Can multitasking influence professional scepticism?,"
Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 1277-1306, March.
- Hurley, Patrick J., 2019.
"Ego depletion and auditors’ JDM quality,"
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-1.
- 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).
- Sarah Bonner & Tracie Majors & Stacey Ritter, 2018.
"Prepopulating Audit Workpapers with Prior Year Assessments: Default Option Effects on Risk Rating Accuracy,"
Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(5), pages 1453-1481, December.
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:wly:coacre:v:35:y:2018:i:1:p:314-333. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.