The Influence of Audit Risk and Materiality Guidelines on Auditors’ Planning Materiality Assessment

Abstract

At present, methods to improve audit quality and auditing decisions are being debated by standard setters and researchers worldwide. Materiality has been and continues to be a topic of importance for auditors. Audit quality is primarily influenced by two factors: the requirements of standard setters and the professional judgment of auditors. Materiality judgment is primarily determined by the subjective judgment of the auditor because there is a lack of clear, standardized guidelines for such judgments. Thus, the same materiality issue could be judged differently by different auditors. Auditors’ materiality judgments are important because they significantly influence what information is recorded in the accounts, disclosed in financial statements and made available to external parties for decision-making. The objective of this study is to examine the influence that audit risk and quantitative guidelines have on the assessment of planning materiality and on the adjustment of material misstatements. We use a case study and conduct an experiment. The study results provide evidence that the standardization and implementation of quantitative materiality guidelines result in a smaller range of planning materiality judgments. This paper discusses the implications of those findings.