AUDITOR MEMORY FOR AUDIT EVIDENCE - EFFECTS OF GROUP ASSISTANCE, TIME-DELAY, AND MEMORY TASK

Auditor memory plays a key role in the quality of auditor judgment. Ho wever, prior research indicates that individual auditors commonly make memory errors and are over-confident in inaccurate memories of audit evidence. This paper reports a study that extends this research by ass essing whether auditor memory performance in two fundamental memory ta sks, cued recognition and/or cued recall, is improved through multiper son processes. Cued recognition involves identifying items from a list of statements or other items previously observed. Cued recall involve s supplying items about a specified topic from memory with no external memory aids. Two additional factors suggested by prior memory researc h (length of time delay and comparative memory tasks) are also examine d. These factors have not been tested in the auditing literature. One hundred and thirty-three practicing auditors first completed an audit workpaper review task, then completed an evidence memory task after a time delay. Group assistance, length of time delay between evidence en coding and retrieval, and memory task type (recall followed by recogni tion vs. recognition only) were tested. Results indicate that recall v olume and accuracy were greater when the memory task was performed in conjunction with two other auditors and when the delay between evidenc e encoding and evidence retrieval was short. Auditors were more accura te, and more confident, in recognition memory when acting with group a ssistance and after a shorter time delay. Performing the recall task p rior to the recognition task did not significantly affect the accuracy of recognition memory or confidence in accurate recognition. Group-as sisted auditors also committed fewer Type II errors in recognition mem ory than did individual auditors. However, group-assisted auditors wer e more confident that their recognition errors were accurate memories. In addition, performing the recall task prior to the recognition task significantly affected the incidence of Type II errors, both directly and in conjunction with time delay. The prediction that increased dis cussion from performing both memory tasks would increase group-assiste d confidence in accurate recognition as well as Type II errors was not supported.