Author:
Bowrin Anthony R.,King James
Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships among time pressure (TP), task complexity (TC), and audit effectiveness (AE). It is motivated by the conflicting results reported in prior TP studies.Design/methodology/approachThe research hypotheses are developed using McGrath's interactional model of the Yerkes‐Dodson Law. Data are collected using a two‐treatment field experiment involving 63 public accountants.FindingsThe results show a negative, interactional relationship among TP, TC, and AE.Research limitations/implicationsThe first limitation concerns the non‐random procedure used to recruit public accounting firms and auditors. Second, there is the less than perfect operationalization of the TC construct.Practical implicationsFirst, the findings suggest that public accounting firms may need to resist the urge to reduce the time allowed for performing compliance tests, and provide training to improve the detection rate for all type of compliance deviations. Second, the fact that the rate of change in AE, in response to changes in TP, is different for the two audit tasks studied, suggests that it may not be appropriate for audit planners to assume a uniform TP effect across the various tasks involved in an audit. This insight has implication for the trade‐offs between the lower direct audit costs associated with tighter time budgets, and possible increases in audit risk associated with lower AE.Originality/valueTwo unique aspects of this paper are the operationalization of TP as a continuous random variable and the use of z‐scores to standardize the AE measure.
Subject
Accounting,General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference77 articles.
1. Abdolmohammadi, M. (1999), “A comprehensive taxonomy of audit task structure, professional rank, and decision aids for behavioral research”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 11, pp. 51‐82.
2. Arens, A.A. and Loebbecke, J.K. (1994), Auditing: An Integrated Approach, 6th ed., Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
3. Ashton, R. (1990), “Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: paradoxical effects of incentives, feedback, and justification”, Journal of Accounting Research, pp. 148‐80 (supplement).
4. Azad, A.N. (1994), “Time budget pressure and filtering of time practices in internal auditing: a survey”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 17‐25.
5. Bailey, J.M. (1997), Miller: GAAS Guide, Harcourt Brace Professional Publishing, San Diego, CA.
Cited by
25 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献