A Judgment-Based Definition of Materiality

Moriarity, Shane; Hutton, Frederick Wollaston

doi:10.2307/2490615

Cited by 28 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As shown in Table 3, Moriarity and Barron (1976) found that auditors agree on the dominant variable that affects materiality judgments but disagree on the next important variables. Moriarity and Barron (1979) found differences between auditors in the quantitative and qualitative factors being considered during pre-audit materiality judgments. Mayper (1982) also found differences in factors considered.…”

Section: Factors Affecting Materiality Judgments Moriarity and Barronmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…The relative impact of the various cue dimensions was different across subjects. Moriarity and Barron (1979) developed an additive judgment model to reflect the combined effect of several variables on materiality during pre-audit judgments. The model reflected quantitative and qualitative differences across auditors, which provides bases for determining the lack of consensus in materiality judgments.…”

Section: Consensus Within the Auditor Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of materiality research

Iskandar

Iselin

1999

Accounting Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a review of the research literature on materiality. Previous research in materiality shows inconsistencies in judgments among auditors and other groups. Research findings suggest that variations in materiality judgments may be due to a number of factors including personality, contextual differences, and audit structure, or due to the absence of a clear materiality guideline. The objectives of this paper are to evaluate the development of research on materiality, identify variables that may have potential effects on materiality judgments, and establish the future direction of research in this area.

show abstract

Section: Factors Affecting Materiality Judgments Moriarity and Barronmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Consensus Within the Auditor Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of materiality research

Iskandar

Iselin

1999

Accounting Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…El concepto de materialidad ha sido investigado intensivamente desde la segunda mitad del siglo XX. Como fruto de esa labor, se ha identificado que la utilización de pautas numéricas o cuantitativas ha sido, históricamente, la forma más común para establecerla durante las tres etapas de la auditoría, particularmente el uso de un porcentaje del 5% al 10% que se multiplica sobre la utilidad empresarial (BOATSMAN; ROBERTSON, 1974;WARD, 1976;MORIARITY;BARRON, 1979;ROBINSON;FERTUCK, 1985;CHEWNING et al, 1989;CARPENTER;DIRSMITH, 1994;COSTIGAN;SIMON, 1995;BLOKDIJK, 2003).…”

Section: El Aspecto Cualitativo De La Materialidad En Auditoríaunclassified

THE IMPACT OF NEW INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES MATERIALITY IN AUDITING ABOUT THE FINANCIAL INFORMATIONS OF SMEs

Cacho

Tagle

2011

RUC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the exceptions of Cho et al (2003), Haka et al (1986), Fisher (1990) and Tuttle et al (2002), the majority of the existing materiality research has overwhelmingly focused on the auditor's perspective (e.g., Ward, 1976;Moriarity and Barron, 1979;Steinbart, 1987;Chewning et al, 1989;Morris and Nichols, 1988). While important to investigate and understand, some problems can occur when considering materiality from the auditor's perspective.…”

Section: How Materiality Is Determinedmentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation of nonprofessional investors’ qualitative materiality judgments incorporating SEC listed vs. non-listed events

Pinsker

Pitre

Daigle

2009

Journal of Accounting and Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tWhen the SEC began listing specific potentially material events in its Regulation FD [Regulation Fair Disclosure, 2000. SEC Release 33-7881, Rules 101-103], it deviated from its long-time ''policy" of not providing materiality guidance to auditors and managers. What is currently unclear in the materiality literature is which factor(s) -information-based characteristics or user-based characteristicshas an effect on nonprofessional investor qualitative materiality judgments. Using a series of experimental markets, we examine and find no evidence that an information-based characteristic (distinguishing between listed and non-listed events) has an effect on nonprofessional investors' materiality judgments. Our evidence regarding user-based characteristics is mixed. We do not find evidence of the direction of disclosed events impacting investors' judgments, but we do find evidence of an anchoring effect. Our findings indicate that the content of the information disclosed to nonprofessional investors is not as important as the timing of the disclosure. Our investigation is unique in that we consider the (qualitative) nature of the event, rather than simply its (quantitative) magnitude.

show abstract

A Judgment-Based Definition of Materiality

Cited by 28 publications

References 8 publications

A review of materiality research

A review of materiality research

THE IMPACT OF NEW INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES MATERIALITY IN AUDITING ABOUT THE FINANCIAL INFORMATIONS OF SMEs

An investigation of nonprofessional investors’ qualitative materiality judgments incorporating SEC listed vs. non-listed events

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About