Firms should consider the levels of accountability pressure and situations where they use them and consider how different levels of pressure may impact performance.  Higher levels of accountability pressure may increase effectiveness and increase the likelihood of finding material misstatements. 

On the other hand, increased effectiveness and time spent due to higher levels of accountability pressure may cause inefficiencies and result in unnecessary effort.  Firms should evaluate the costs and benefits for their situations. 

The authors note that this study only looks at the effect of accountability pressure from an unknown partner.  In the real world, auditors have accountability pressures from many levels such as other superiors, clients, regulators, and audit committees. 
Further, the auditor may have assessed things differently if they knew the partner that was performing their review.

DeZoort, T., P. Harrison, and M. Taylor. 2006.  Accountability and auditors’ materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort.  Accounting, Organizations, and Society 31 (4-5):  373-390. 

The results of this study are important for audit firms to consider when designing their audit review process.  The evidence indicates that reviewers’ personal biases do impact the way they review subordinate’s workpapers.  Furthermore, it indicates that reviewers that place great importance on preparer/reviewer alignment may sign-off on preparer workpapers that are of lower quality with respect to judgment/conclusion decisions.  An additional concern is that biases may have the potential to cause preparers to focus more on satisfying the reviewer’s preferences and beliefs opposed to performing the necessary procedures and documentation to satisfy auditing and accounting standards.  The study suggests the importance of proper training on the review process and how biases may impact conclusions. 

Tan, H. and P. G. Shankar. 2010. Audit reviewers’ evaluation of subordinates’ work quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 29 (1): 251-266

Evaluating multiple causally arranged evidence sets may precipitate an auditor’s inability to accurately discern the source that pertains to specific information. Susceptibility to source misattributions may cause auditors to inadvertently evoke erroneous client information when rendering memory-based auditing judgments for a client and, therefore, create the potential for impaired judgment quality. Although working papers can serve to curtail informational misattributions, such as those created by MCEs, auditors can become overconfident in the accuracy of their memories and not thoroughly reexamine the working papers for verification. Subsequent to rendering an auditing decision, auditors concurrently working on multiple clients should consider reducing reliance on memory and tailoring working paper review to ensure the relationship between a decision for a certain client and its evidence.

Grossman, A. M., and R. B. Welker. 2011. Does the Arrangement of Audit Evidence According to Causal Connections Make Auditors More Susceptible to Memory Conjunction Errors? Behavioral Research in Accounting 23 (2): 93-115.

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org

The results of this study are important for firms to consider as they show that preparer’s perceptions of reviewers impact the preparer’s response to review notes. Audit firms should try to help their supervisors understand what they can do to exude more referent or expert power and less coercive power. Further, firms should allow subordinates to provide feedback to supervisors in order for them to understand how they are being perceived so they can take the necessary steps to alter the perception. 

Fedor, D. B. and Ramsay, R. J. 2007. Effects of Supervisor Power on Preparers' Responses to Audit Review: A Field Study. Behavioral Research in Accounting 19 (1): 91-105.

These findings extend the audit review process literature by highlighting that reviewers might not always mitigate biases in preparers’ judgments, particularly in cases where they cannot readily determine how much the bias influenced the preparer’s judgment. Reviewers may be inappropriately influenced by the preparer’s judgment. Audit firms should be interested in these findings because they view the review process as a key quality control mechanism. If reviewers rely too heavily on a preparer’s biased judgment, then they inadvertently increase the firm’s audit risk. Identifying this potential limitation of the review process is a necessary first step in helping reviewers respond more appropriately when they believe it is likely that a preparer’s judgment is biased.

Frank, M. L., & Hoffman, V. B. 2015. How Audit Reviewers Respond to an Audit Preparer's Affective Bias: The Ironic Rebound Effect. Accounting Review 90 (2): 559-577.

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org