Performance under Time Constraint: The Role of Personality

Farmer, Eric; Hunter, Julie; Belyavin, A.

doi:10.2466/pms.1984.59.3.875

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some research has reported an inverse relationship between TP and task effectiveness (McDaniel, 1990; Kobbeltvedt et al , 2005). Conversely, other research has reported either no relationship (Huchingson, 1973; Topi et al , 2005), or a positive relationship between these variables (Farmer et al , 1984). To complicate matters further, other researchers have proposed and found an inverted U‐shaped relationship between TP and task effectiveness (Choo, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Time pressure, task complexity, and audit effectiveness

Bowrin

King

2010

Managerial Auditing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract