IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v4y1987i1p127-143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of the planning memorandum, time pressure and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers' review time judgments

Author

Listed:
  • E. MICHAEL BAMBER
  • JOSEPH H. BYLINSKI

Abstract

. This study examines audit managers' review time effort (as reflected in their time estimates for working paper review) and the extent to which this effort is directed by another important audit manager activity: initial audit planning. Initial audit planning is manipulated by identifying certain audit areas as critical in the planning memo. Time pressure and individual auditor characteristics also are examined because auditing literature suggests that they may affect managers' review. The analysis is based on the responses, to an audit case, of 73 audit managers from ten large accounting firms. The results indicate that: 1) the managers exhibit reasonable agreement in budgeting over half of audit management time to review, 2) the initial audit plan directs their subsequent review, 3) time pressure does not significantly affect their estimated review times, and 4) firm affiliation, auditor experience level, and initial planning effort are associated with differences in managers' review practices and perceptions. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of these results for practice and further research.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:4:y:1987:i:1:p:127-143
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1987.tb00659.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1987.tb00659.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1987.tb00659.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. 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.
    2. Messier, Wf, 1983. "The Effect Of Experience And Firm Type On Materiality Disclosure Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 611-618.
    3. 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.
    4. Joyce, Ej, 1976. "Expert Judgment In Audit Program Planning," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14, pages 29-60.
    5. Lewis, Bl, 1980. "Expert Judgment In Auditing - An Expected Utility Approach," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 594-602.
    6. Nanni, Alfred Jr., 1984. "An exploration of the mediating effects of auditor experience and position in internal accounting control evaluation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 149-163, June.
    7. Trotman, Kt, 1985. "The Review Process And The Accuracy Of Auditor Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 740-752.
    8. Weber, R, 1978. "Auditor Decision-Making On Overall System Reliability - Accuracy, Consensus, And The Usefulness Of A Simulation Decision Aid," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 368-388.
    9. Kaplan, Se, 1985. "The Effect Of Combining Compliance And Substantive Tasks On Auditor Consensus," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 871-877.
    10. Hamilton, Re & Wright, Wf, 1982. "Internal Control Judgments And Effects Of Experience - Replications And Extensions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 756-765.
    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. 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.
    2. Jean-François Gajewski & Marco Heimann & Pierre-Majorique Léger & Prince Teye, 2024. "Enhancing auditors’ professional skepticism through nudges: an eye-tracking experiment," Post-Print hal-04636343, HAL.
    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. Cleston Alexandre dos Santos & Paulo Roberto da Cunha, 2021. "Effect of Trust between the Time Pressure and Complexity in Judging and Decision-Making in Auditing," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 25(5), pages 200037-2000.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Chua, Wai Fong & Fiedler, Tanya & Boedker, Christina, 2024. "Projecting, infrastructuring and calculating: From an In vitro to an In vivo carbon market," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    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. Sadok Mansour, 2007. "Modelisation Du Risque Dans Les Methodologies D'Audit : Apport Des De La Psychometrie," Post-Print halshs-00543217, HAL.
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3528 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Jean Bã‰Dard, 1991. "Expertise and Its Relation to Audit Decision Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 198-222, September.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Jean Bã‰Dard, 1991. "Compétence et qualité des décisions de vérification," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 223-252, September.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Vicky Arnold, 2018. "The changing technological environment and the future of behavioural research in accounting," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(2), pages 315-339, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Stefano Azzali & Tatiana Mazza & Luca Fornaciari & Laura Trinchera, 2021. "Effects of Materiality Assessment on Internal Controls over Financial Reporting Maturity," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, July.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    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. 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).
    19. 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.
    20. E. Michael Bamber & Joseph H. Bylinski, 1987. "Les effets de la note de planification, des pressions temporelles et des caractéristiques individuelles du vérificateur sur l'estimation du temps de révision par le chef de groupe en vérification," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 144-163, September.
    21. Mark W. Dirsmith & Mark A. Covaleski & John P. Mcallister, 1985. "Of paradigms and metaphors in auditing thought," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 46-68, September.

    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:wly:coacre:v:4:y:1987:i:1:p:127-143. 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://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.