The effect of presentation modality on source monitoring accuracy: Implications for auditors' reliability judgments and the planned extent of audit procedures

Auditors are required to base their evidence reliability assessments on the perceived credibility of the source (AICPA, 2006b). Hence, accurately identifying the source of evidence (source monitoring) is necessary for the proper assessment of evidence reliability. Source monitoring accuracy can be affected by multiple factors including the modality (visual or auditory) through which the evidence is obtained and how semantically similar the evidence items are (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993). This study examines the effect of presentation modality on source monitoring accuracy and the subsequent judgment of evidence reliability and the planned extent of audit procedures. Results indicate that auditors who receive evidence in mixed (visual and auditory) presentation modalities are more accurate in identifying the sources of evidence than are auditors who receive evidence in a single (written) modality. Further, auditors who are more accurate with their source monitoring commit fewer errors in their evidence reliability judgments than do auditors who were less accurate in their source monitoring. This modality effect may also have implications for the quality and completeness of evidence documented in the audit working papers, and thus, may ultimately influence the engagement partner's decision-making.