Electronic versus face-to-face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors' performance

Due to recent technological advancements such as online workpapers and email, audit firms have alternative methods of workpaper review that they did not have in the past. While audit workpaper preparers typically know they will be reviewed, and know the form their review will take, prior research has focused on comparing the judgments of auditors who expect to be reviewed with auditors who expect to remain anonymous. This study examines the effects on preparers of using two different methods of review: face-to-face and electronic review. The study also compares both review groups to a no-review control group. Consistent with the Heuristic-Systematic Model, we find that the method of review affects preparer effectiveness and efficiency. Specifically, preparers anticipating a face-to-face review are more concerned with audit effectiveness, produce higher quality judgments, are less efficient at their task, are less likely to be influenced by prior year workpapers, and feel more accountable than preparers in both the electronic review and no-review conditions. Interestingly, electronic review preparers generally do not differ from the no-review group. These results suggest that how a review will be conducted, and not merely the expectation that a review will occur, affects the decision-maker's judgments and perceptions.