U. Anderson et al., THE EFFECTS OF SOURCE-COMPETENCE INFORMATION AND ITS TIMING ON AUDITORS PERFORMANCE OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES, Auditing, 13(1), 1994, pp. 137-148
Evaluating the reliability of audit evidence received through manageme
nt inquiry is an important aspect of auditing. Independently verifying
information from management is often difficult, since increasingly fi
nancial statements involve ''soft'' information (e.g., environmental l
iability estimates). The objectives of this paper are to provide insig
ht into how auditors performing analytical procedures evaluate the rel
iability of management explanations for unexpected fluctuations and to
identify directions for future research. Based on research from psych
ology, auditors' assessments of the reliability of evidence were expec
ted to be sensitive to the manager's competence and to when the manage
r's competence became known. With regard to timing, it was expected th
at auditors' assessments would be more sensitive to the manager's comp
etence when it was known before receiving the manager's explanation as
compared to after. As expected, the experimental results indicate tha
t auditors who receive an explanation from a client manager judge it t
o be more reliable when the client manager possesses high versus low c
ompetence. However, contrary to expectations, auditors' judgments abou
t the reliability of the client manager's explanation do not depend on
when that competence information is received. While the study focused
on the competence of client personnel, other factors could also affec
t the auditor's assessment of client-provided evidence. The literature
s on influence (Cialdini 1985), attribution (Eagly et al. 1978), and p
ersuasion (Eagly and Chaiken 1984) offer useful perspectives for ident
ifying these factors and how they might affect the auditor's assessmen
ts of evidence from management. These perspectives are drawn on to ide
ntify directions for future research. Such additional research is nece
ssary to enhance understanding of the manner in which auditors evaluat
e the reliability of evidence received through management inquiry.