| Audit judgment has been investigated in some depth during the last decade. Most previous audit judgment studies have examined individual decision-making behavior. In actual audit situations, however, many audit judgments are made by audit teams rather than by individuals.;The experimental task and setting used here were similar to those used by Joyce (1976) and Gaumnitz et al. (1982).;It was found that all three types of audit team judgments (nominal groups, interacting groups, and review process) exhibited significantly higher consensus than individual auditors. However, there were no significant differences among the three audit team judgments in terms of consensus. The average consensus and stability shown by non-affiliated Korean auditors were similar to those shown by U.S.-affiliated Korean auditors. The measurement scale affected consensus measurement significantly but did not impact significantly on stability measurements. Finally, results of this study exhibited no impact of experience and firm difference effects on consensus and stability measurements.;Therefore, the first objective of this study was to investigate individual vs. audit team judgments in internal control evaluation and audit program planning judgments. The second objective of this study was to examine whether auditors who have different professional and/or cultural backgrounds make similar judgments when placed in the same audit judgment setting. The third objective was to examine the impact of measurement scale effects on auditor judgments. Finally, experience and firm difference effects on auditor judgments were investigated. |
