Can I Interrupt You? Understanding and Minimizing the Negative Effects of Brief Interruptions on Audit Judgment Quality

• Date: 01 July 2017
• Author: Noel Harding,Diane M. Mayorga,Sarah Kim
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12089

Can I Interrupt You? Understanding and Minimizing the Negative Effects of Brief

Interruptions on Audit Judgment Quality

Sarah Kim, Diane M. Mayorga and Noel Harding

UNSW Business School, UNSW Australia

Interruptions are an inescapable characteristic of auditors’socially driven work environment, and the continuing

growth of digital technologies implies thatinterruptions will increase. We investigate the effect of brief, but expected,

interruptions on audit judgment quality, and whether giving auditors notice of the timing of the impending

interruptionminimizes negative effectsarising from interruptions.Employing an experimentalon-line setting, we find

that auditors’performance deteriorates when they are briefly interrupted during the completion of an audit task. Our

results highlightthat this is partly explained by poorerrecall of information encounteredprior to the interruption. We

find that notifyingauditors in advance when the expectedinterruption will occur reducesthe extent to which memory

and judgment quality is negatively affected. Our results have importantimplications for audit firms in theirattempts

to deal with environmentsincreasingly characterized by interruptions.

Key words: Audit judgment, audit quality, experiment, foreknowledge, interruption, memory, notification, recall,

technology, work environment

INTRODUCTION

Interruptions are a common characteristic of the audit

work environment (Griffin & Ricchiute, 2011). Auditors

work in an open and interacting environment that, while

dealing with the complex and interrelated nature of

auditing, where workbeing done by one person often has

implications for thework being done by other people, also

means that they are regularly interrupted by other team

members. Moreover, the changing nature of audit

coordination (e.g., electronic review and geographically

distributed audit work), and the application in auditing

of electronic communication methods (e.g., instant

messaging, internet-based networking, video telephony),

indicates that interruptions will become increasingly

prevalent. Given the ubiquitous nature of interruptions

in auditing, research highlighting the negative effect of

interruptions on performance (e.g., Speier, Valacich &

Vessey, 1999; Speier, Vessey & Valacich, 2003) is

concerning.

Despite the potential negative consequences of

interruptions on audit judgment quality, and the

increasingly routine nature with which auditors expect to

be interrupted, little is known about the impact of

interruptions in an audit setting. Griffin and Ricchiute

(2011) and Long, Searcy and McClain (2014) examine

cognitivelydemanding and lengthy refocusingof attention

(i.e.,the writing of a progress memo, refocusing of attention

on internal control and ratio analysis tasks, respectively)

and find that the redirection of attention can alter

judgments on the original task being performed (but not

always negatively). We are not aware, however, of any

research examining the brief and bothersomeinterruptions

that distract attention only momentarily (e.g., email and

text messaging). We begin to fill this void by investigating

the impact of brief, but expected, interruptions on audit

judgment quality and, importantly, testing a means by

which any negative consequences of these interruptions

might be minimized. Our study will be of interest to audit

firms attempting to balance the benefits of geographically

diverse audit teams performing interdependent activities

with the potential detrimental effects of more frequent

interruptions.

Interruptions come at a significant cost. In 2005, it was

estimated that managing interruptions consumed 28

percent of a professional’s day and cost the US economy

$588 billion per year (Spira & Feintuch, 2005). Given the

increasing means by which interruptions may occur, the

current cost of managing interruptions is likely to be even

greater. Not only are interruptions costly to organizations,

but they can be costly to an individual’scognitive

processes. For example, research demonstrates that

interrupting messages cause not only forgetfulness (i.e.,

omissions) but also distortions (i.e., intrusions) of primary

task representations (Oulasvirta & Saariluoma, 2004).

Interruptionsforce individuals to restudy the primarytask,

resulting in lost time, and can result in individuals

conducting inefficient and ineffective information

search (Oulasvirta & Saariluoma, 2004). Furthermore,

misrepresentations of task information may persist as

individuals often do not revisit previously encountered

information (Gray & Fu, 2001). These interruption costs

are amplified in cognitively complex tasks (Speier et al.,

1999, 2003; Baddeley, Chincotta & Adlam, 2001). As

auditors typically work on complex audit tasks which

require substantial cognitive effort and attention, there is

the potential for interruptions to negatively impact audit

judgment quality.

Prior researchhas examined the effect of interruptions on

the judgment accuracy of students in abstract general

knowledge settings. While these studies find that students’

performance is negatively affected by interruptions

(e.g., Speier et al., 1999, 2003), it is an open empirical

question as to whether auditors will be similarly affected

by brief, but expected, interruptions. The audit profession

may attract and/or retain individuals that can more

effectively deal with interruptions. Management research

demonstrates that individuals can work effectively in

environments characterized by multiple,brief, interwoven

activities and interruptions when they have preferences to

Correspondenceto: DianeM. Mayorga, UNSW BusinessSchool, University

of New SouthWales, CollegeRd, Kensington, NSW 2052,Australia. Email:

d.mayorga@unsw.edu.au

International Journal of Auditing doi: 10.1111/ijau.12089

Int. J. Audit. 21:198–211 (2017)

©2017 John Wiley& Sons Ltd ISSN 1090-6738