Evidence of an Association between Error‐Specific Experience and Auditor Performance during Analytical Procedures

This study examined whether error‐specific experience can improve auditor performance during analytical procedures. In a field experiment, practicing auditors with different amounts of experience used analytical procedures to diagnose the reason for an unexpected interperiod change in an account balance. Analyses controlled for the influence of (1) general audit experience, (2) industry‐specific experience, and (3) error‐specific experience. Findings suggest that, for participants with less general experience, error‐specific experience increased the likelihood that they would provide a correct explanation. However, the benefits of error‐specific experience diminished as general experience increased. One interpretation is that error‐specific experience provides little or no incremental benefit for auditors who have already developed, through general experience, the analytical skills they need to perform effectively. These results provide evidence that error‐specific experience could be a surrogate for the learning opportunities made available through general experience. Research that explores how error‐specific experience might be provided through training is suggested.