Emotions are an important underlying factor that may interact with pressure and other situational variables to influence auditors’ judgments and decisions. This study seeks to identify emotional intelligence (EI) as a key factor in dealing with emotions and pressures in an audit context. In this paper, I focus on how EI may influence the relation between job pressures (i.e., time budget pressure and client incentive pressure) on the auditor’s judgment. Specifically, I investigate the moderating effect of emotional intelligence on auditor judgments when auditors experience both internal and external pressures. The results suggest that the moderating influence of EI on auditor judgments can effectively reduce auditors’ tendency to engage in dysfunctional behavior in order to improve audit quality. Furthermore, there is a positive relation between EI and professional skepticism suggesting that auditors with high EI are more skeptical and assess higher risk than auditors with low EI. Finally, moderation analysis suggests that EI is a significant mechanism which drives the joint effects of different type of pressures on auditor judgments.

An auditor performing analytical review must typically diagnose material variances of observed client data from his/her own expectations. The auditor may utilize a decision aid to help in generating potential explanations for a variance; it has, however, the capacity to provide many more explanations than are possible using other means. Under the circumstances of budgetary constraints and limited cognitive load for beginning an information search with these explanations, the auditor may consider the lengthy list and arrive at a more manageable sub-list of the most probable explanations. In doing so, the auditor either eliminates those explanations that are less likely or includes those that are more likely into a reduced list for further consideration. While the goal under either approach is the same-to reduce the list-studies in psychology have shown that those including will reduce the list to a much greater extent than those eliminating. If the auditor begins an information search with this reduced list of explanations, then whether the auditor uses inclusion or elimination may have effectiveness and efficiency implications for the remainder of the analytical review process. The auditor must also contend with risk in the audit environment, which also may influence the manner in which the auditor reduces the lengthy list of explanations. A risky audit environment is generally related to heightened auditor skepticism and increased audit effort, as predicted by the audit risk model (SAS 47, AICPA 1983). Each of these translates into the desire to pursue a greater number of plausible explanations in a high risk environment than in a low risk environment. Therefore, an auditor would be expected to reduce a decision-aid-provided list of explanations to a lesser degree in a high risk environment than a low risk environment. The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate the occurrence of a goal framing effect at varied levels of client risk. Using a two-way between subjects design, auditors in this study either eliminated or included explanations from a decision-aid-provided list in a low risk or high risk analytical review setting. As suggested by the goal framing theory, auditors who eliminated concluded with significantly more explanations than those who included. Furthermore, as suggested by the audit risk model, auditors in a high risk environment concluded with significantly more explanations than auditors in a low risk environment. Because previous auditing literature provides that auditor conservatism, which is heightened in periods of high risk, often mitigates biases and heuristics found in the general decision making or psychology literature, it was also predicted that in the high risk scenario, the influence of high risk in enlarging the set of explanations would overcome the influence of the inclusion goal framing in reducing the set of explanations. No support was found for this interaction. The results of this study have implications for the implementation of decision aids in practice. This study advises that in various client risk settings, auditors evaluating a lengthy decision-aid-provided list of explanations by inclusion may arrive at a significantly smaller number of explanations than by elimination. Given that the subsequent step of analytical review-information search-is planned according to what the auditor believes are the plausible hypotheses, goal framing may have an impact on the overall efficiency and effectiveness of analytical review, in both high and low risk client scenarios. / Ph. D.

In this study, I examine the influence of construals (interpretations) and mindsets on professional skepticism in auditors. Auditors have been criticized lately for not displaying enough professional skepticism, particularly in their audits of complex estimates (PCAOB 2008). Regulators speculate about and academic research shows a correlation between low professional skepticism and both audit failures and audit malpractice claims (Beasley et al. 2001; Anderson and Wolfe 2002). I hypothesize that prolonging the deliberative mindset in the audit judgment and decision-making process can increase professional skepticism in auditors. Experienced auditors take part in a 1 x 3 between-participants experiment in which they play the role of a senior auditor charged with evaluating a client's fair value estimate. I manipulate the type of mindset (deliberative or implemental) invoked by the evidence documentation instructions and have a third condition in which participants do not have to document audit evidence. Using multiple measures of professional skepticism, I find that auditors in the deliberative mindset condition display higher professional skepticism than both auditors in the implemental mindset condition and auditors in the no documentation condition. I further analyze the types of textual responses entered by the auditors and offer direction for future research in this area.

This dissertation comprises three studies, a literature review and two experimental studies, that center on the effects of psychological distance on judgment and decision-making in accounting. Construal level theory (CLT) of psychological distance (Liberman and Trope 1998; Trope and Liberman 2003), a framework recently developed in the field of social psychology, constitutes the theoretical foundation for each study. The first study reviews extant literature on CLT and illustrates the theory's potential for investigating previously unexplained phenomena within the accounting domain. Selected publications that apply CLT in contexts that are of particular interest to accounting researchers are emphasized and a series of broad, CLT-based research questions pertaining to various accounting domains are offered. The second study applies CLT to the audit context by investigating whether the performance of common auditing tasks that require varying degrees of abstract thinking affect decision-makers' overall mindset and hence their subsequent judgment. Results from the second study have important implications for audit practice as auditors work in environments that require frequent shifts in focus due to multiple client or project demands. The third study applies CLT to the enterprise risk management context by examining how spatial distance from a risk assessment object and risk category (i.e., the type of risk) affects decision-makers' assessment of the probability that the risk will materialize. The third study thus informs the corporate governance literature by identifying psychological distance as a potential source for judgment bias during the risk assessment process. Overall, the results reported in this dissertation suggest that psychological distance systematically affects individuals' judgment subject to the caveat that the judgment of concern falls within the domain of the decision-maker's routine cognition. By presenting empirical evidence from both the audit and the risk management domain, the studies contribute to our understanding of the heuristics and biases in judgment and decision-making in professional settings that are of interest to accounting research.

Many external parties such as investors, creditors, and regulatory agencies, use a company’s financial statements in their decision-making. In doing so, they rely on audit opinions on whether financial statements are fairly stated. However, evidence suggests that there are factors in the audit environment that influence auditor judgments. For example, nondiagnostic client information dilutes auditor judgments when compared to judgments based on diagnostic information alone, especially for less experienced auditors (Hackenbrack 1992; Hoffman and Patton 1997; Glover 1994; Shelton 1999). High time pressure conditions mitigate this effect by refocusing auditor attention toward relevant client information, therefore reducing the impact of nondiagnostic information (Glover 1994, 1997). This research study examines other common audit environment factors to determine if they too influence audit judgment results. An online questionnaire of 149 auditors, CPAs and other accounting professionals indicate that the inclusion of nondiagnostic client information results in a significant change in auditor judgments. The direction of this change follows a theorized pattern; risk assessments that were initially high are reduced, while those that were initially low are increased. Significance was not consistently found for a workload and PCAOB effect on auditor judgment. However, a comparison of the absolute value of dilution effect means across conditions reveals some trending for the proposed unwanted effect of high workload, and the beneficial effect of PCAOB guidance. These results have important implications for auditing research and practice. It extends previous archival research on workload effects and uses a unique questionnaire design to reexamine workload pressures in a behavioral setting. The results of hypothesis testing on workload pressure and PCAOB guidance, although lacking consistent statistical significance; exhibit trends that agree with proposed theoretical relationships. Tests on the effects of nondiagnostic information show strong statistical support for previous studies in the area of psychology and audit. This study’s greatest contribution suggests that audit pressures do not produce equivalent effects on auditor judgment; time pressure improves audit judgment, while workload pressure does not (Glover 1994, 1997). These results can be explained by examining the relationship between stress and audit judgment performance (Choo 1995, Yerkes and Dodson 1908). Different types and different degrees of audit pressures may correspond to different levels of audit pressure. Low to moderate levels of audit pressure, such as the level of time pressure used in Glover’s (1994, 1997) study improve audit performance. Higher audit pressures, such as high workload during an auditor’s busy season, may lower audit performance.