The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-6902.htm

MAJ
28,4 The impact of hardiness on
accounting task performance
Casey J. McNellis
364 School of Business Administration, University of Montana,
Missoula, Montana, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to expand upon accounting literature that highlights the
benefits of hardiness in the accounting environment. Accordingly, the relationship between hardiness
and accounting task performance is investigated across two scenarios in the presence of
conscientiousness, a well-documented predictor of performance (Barrick and Mount).
Design/methodology/approach – Subjects completed a bank reconciliation task with either an
immediate deadline or a non-immediate deadline. The personality traits were measured with scales
from prior literature.
Findings – The relationship between the commitment dimension of hardiness and task performance
was positive and significant in the presence of the immediate deadline, but not the non-immediate
deadline. Conversely, the conscientiousness-task performance relationship was positive and
significant under the non-immediate deadline, but not the immediate deadline. Additional analysis
revealed a significant association between commitment and detection of errors.
Research limitations/implications – Since task performance was measured in relation to one
task, the generalizability of the results is limited. However, the results imply that hardiness serves as a
relevant variable in cognitive performance models.
Practical implications – The hardiness trait appears to produce positive outcomes in the
accounting environment. Accounting educators and firm leaders should understand how the trait is
expressed and activated in order to train professionals on critical accounting and auditing tasks.
Originality/value – This paper provides new evidence about the benefits of the hardy personality in
accounting settings. Additionally, the results offer a basis for researchers to incorporate hardiness as
an individual difference in studies on auditor performance.
Keywords Trait activation, Hardiness, Conscientiousness, Auditor performance, Task performance,
Auditors, Performance management, Accounting
Paper type Research paper

Managerial Auditing Journal
Vol. 28 No. 4, 2013
pp. 364-380
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-6902
DOI 10.1108/02686901311311945
Introduction
Public accounting has often been characterized as a deadline-intensive, stressful
environment, conducive to the onset of psychological and emotional strains (Sweeney
and Summers, 2002). The implications of the stress are far-reaching to hot-button
issues in the profession such as turnover (Law, 2005), job burnout (Sweeney and
Summers, 2002), and individual performance. Detriments to performance, which often
resemble reduced precision, less skepticism of client records (Rose, 2007), less
conservatism (Chung et al., 2008), and greater reliance on prior work (Brazel et al., 2004)
are of great concern to the profession, which is continually concerned with liability
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2010 American Accounting Association
Western Region Annual Meeting in Portland, Oregon, USA. The author is grateful for the helpful
comments from the concurrent session participants. The author is also thankful for the feedback
from two anonymous reviewers.
exposure (Rittenberg et al., 2008, pp. 726-727). In attempts to understand and resolve The impact
these issues, researchers have investigated dispositions (Rose, 2007) and mood states of hardiness
(Chung et al., 2008) that improve judgments and decisions, and thus positively impact
overall performance. Conscientiousness, or the ability to act in a thorough and precise
manner, is one of the most widely-regarded Big Five performance-enhancing
personality traits (Kamdar and Van Dyne, 2007; Barrick and Mount, 1991), yet another
disposition that has proven to alleviate the effects of job burnout and withdrawal 365
intentions in the accounting environment is hardiness (Law, 2005; Law et al., 2008), an
attribute evident in individuals who have the innate ability to understand and manage
stressful situations (Kobasa, 1979). The hardiness trait encompasses the attributes of:
.
commitment, or the ability to find purpose in the midst of stressful encounters;
.
control, or the capacity to view outcomes as manageable; and
.
challenge, or the ability to effectively process change (Kobasa, 1979; Khoshaba
and Maddi, 1999).

The conscientiousness and hardiness constructs bear substantial relevance in relation to

task performance (i.e. the degree of effectiveness and accuracy in which assignments are
completed) in the accounting environment, yet the examination of these traits together is
an avenue that is relatively absent from recent accounting literature. Accordingly, the
current study extends the investigation of the hardiness trait in the accounting
environment by considering its influence, when juxtaposed with conscientiousness, on
accounting task performance.
While initial personality research (Goh and Farley, 1977) suggests a non-significant
connection between personality and performance accuracy, recent studies assert
personality traits as relevant predictors of performance. Trait activation theory (Tett and
Burnett, 2003; Tett and Guterman, 2000) considers personality traits as “latent potentials”,
with the expression of traits dependent upon context. While the Barrick and Mount (1991)
study puts forth conscientiousness as a consistent positive predictor of performance,
multiple studies document negative relationships between conscientiousness and
performance (Tett and Burnett, 2003; Yeo and Neal, 2004). Consistent with the mixed
results, the theory predicts that conscientiousness will yield a positive impact in
environments with established rules and requirements for precision, but that these
environmental attributes potentially serve as impediments to the positive expression of
the trait in the midst of demands for decisive and resourceful thinking (Tett and Burnett,
2003) as well as time pressures (Yeo and Neal, 2004). While detailed work in public
accounting often requires a high level of precision, attention to detail, and application of
rules, it also demands an approach that is respectful of unusual items (AICPA, 2002) and
allows for efficient judgments. Previous research contends that the hardiness trait is
activated in the professional service context as a defense against the negative by-products
(i.e. burnout and turnover intentions) of such accounting work (Law, 2005; Law et al., 2008).
The current study proposes that hardy individuals, as opposed to conscientious
individuals, may be more apt to manage the stressors of the deadline-intensive and
judgment-oriented public accounting environment, thus preserving the cognitive
resources necessary in producing positive outcomes, such as enhanced task performance.
The results from a detailed bank reconciliation task completed by intermediate
accounting students and administered across two situations (immediate deadline vs
non-immediate deadline) generally support the theory and indicate that the hardiness trait
MAJ is positively activated in the presence of short deadlines, while the conscientiousness
28,4 trait is more influential with non-immediate deadlines. As expected, subjects’ task
performance was significantly lower in the immediate-deadline environment. However,
the type of deadline effectively moderated the link between the personality traits and task
performance. In the immediate-deadline environment, the commitment dimension (i.e. the
ability to purposefully manage stress (Kobasa, 1979)) of hardiness was positively related
366 to overall performance, while conscientiousness was non-significant. Additionally,
subjects with higher levels of the commitment dimension detected and correctly
incorporated a higher percentage of items unique to the current reconciliation, implying a
lower level of reliance upon prior work. In contrast, conscientiousness was positively
related to task performance in the presence of a non-immediate deadline, while
commitment was non-significant.
The study offers several contributions to the literature. By highlighting the
enhancement of task performance and error detection, which have implications for
fraud and risk investigations, the results provide further evidence about the suitability
of the hardy personality in managing the situational stressors of public accounting.
Second, the data imply that the hardiness trait is one that should garner the attention of
accounting educators and firm leaders in order to promote a deeper level of
understanding about:
.
how the trait is exploited during the course of detailed work; and
.
how the characteristics of the trait can be incorporated in the training of
individuals to facilitate the trait’s expression (Tett and Burnett, 2003) on relevant
tasks such as fraud detection, risk assessments, and going-concern evaluations.

Finally, the study establishes hardiness as a salient individual difference variable that
should be incorporated in auditing research.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, prior research is
reviewed, leading to the development of the hypotheses. Second, a detailed account of
the design and task is outlined. Third, the analysis of the results is presented, followed
by a discussion of the results and the contributions of this research.

Literature review and hypotheses

Hardiness
Hardiness is a personality trait evident in individuals who have the ability to effectively
manage stressful situations (Kobasa, 1979). Hardy individuals have the capacity to
interpret such instances in a positive light in order to meet objectives (Maddi et al., 2006).
The hardiness construct comprises three sub-dimensions: commitment, control, and
challenge (Kobasa, 1979). Individuals high in commitment find a “sense of purpose”
in stressful situations (Kobasa, 1979) and view their actions as “interesting and worthwhile”
(Khoshaba and Maddi, 1999). Those exhibiting the control dimension believe that outcomes
are generally determined through their actions (Khoshaba and Maddi, 1999). Finally,
the challenge aspect refers to the way in which individuals view change. Hardy individuals
approach change with the objectives of progress and growth (Florian et al., 1995).
The current study proposes that these attributes allow individuals to efficiently process
stress and thus preserve cognitive resources necessary to successfully complete tasks.
The hardiness construct has been viewed in a number of settings that are relevant to the
current research. Westman (1990) examined hardiness as a predictor of performance and
as a moderator between stress and performance for members of the Israel Defense Forces. The impact
In that study, performance was more negatively impacted by stress levels for those low in of hardiness
hardiness. Researchers have also extended the examination beyond stressful situations to
include mundane or repetitive tasks. Sansone et al. (1999) examined the hardiness and
conscientiousness of subjects who performed such a task, revealing that hardy
individuals, when assessing a task, consider the purpose of performing the task and
engage in efforts to stimulate their involvement in the task. Previous research also asserts 367
the role of the hardiness construct in the accounting profession. Maddi et al. (2006) found a
positive relationship between hardiness and the number of billable hours in a sample of
consultants, implying that the hardiness trait is an important construct in professional
environments where client services are offered. Law (2005) revealed a negative
relationship between hardiness and turnover intentions in a sample of public accounting
professionals. In an examination of job burnout in the public accounting environment,
Law et al. (2008) discovered that individuals high in hardiness were less susceptible to
exhaustion.

Conscientiousness
The relationship between conscientiousness and job performance has proven to be fairly
comprehensive in many settings (Kamdar and Van Dyne, 2007; Barrick and Mount,
1991). Accordingly, the inclusion of this trait in task performance studies is appropriate.
The trait seems to be conducive to tasks involving “detail”, “precision”, and
“rule-following” (Tett and Burnett, 2003). Furthermore, conscientious individuals are
often described with adjectives such as “hardworking”, “careful”, and “persevering”
(Barrick and Mount, 1991). Consistent with these attributes, Sansone et al. (1999) found
that compared to hardy individuals, who were more persistent on a mundane task
with the addition of an incentive, conscientious individuals exhibited such a level of
determination regardless of incentive.

Trait activation
While the literature has established a link between personality traits, namely
conscientiousness, and performance, other issues still exist. First, some published
studies have reported negative relationships between conscientiousness and
performance (Tett and Burnett, 2003; Yeo and Neal, 2004). Robertson and Callinan
(1998) contend that the direct relationship between personality traits and performance is
minor, implying that other variables may serve as moderators or mediators of the
relationship. According to trait activation theory, trait expression is dependent upon the
perceptions and cues associated with a particular context (Tett and Burnett, 2003;
Kamdar and Van Dyne, 2007). Tett and Burnett (2003) categorize such environmental
cues as those which allow for the positive expression of traits and those which constrain
or hinder the impact of the traits. In development of the theory, Tett and Burnett (2003)
address research on conscientiousness and the other Big Five personality traits to
explain the underpinnings of trait activation. For instance, the study suggests that
situational demands such as rule-following provide an environment for the positive
manifestation of the conscientiousness trait. However, Tett and Burnett (2003) propose
that this preference for rules in a context that requires a high level of resourcefulness
may result in an expression of conscientiousness that is detrimental to stated objectives.
Accordingly, the theory implies that non-significant relationships found between
MAJ personality traits and performance are not necessarily attributable to the particular
28,4 traits, but rather the situation in which the traits were observed.
The hardiness trait is not specifically addressed in the trait activation literature, yet the
theory and prior research provide an appropriate basis to propose and test the relationship
between hardiness and performance with regards to situational circumstances. Since
hardy individuals are less likely to experience burnout (Law et al., 2008) and also have the
368 ability to appropriately process stressful situations (Khoshaba and Maddi, 1999), it follows
that the expression of this trait would be the strongest in environments in which the
precursors to stress (i.e. tight deadlines, complex tasks), uncertainty, and rapid change
exist. For example, the detection and assessment of fraud are activities conducive to the
expression of the hardiness trait. Fraudulent transactions may be uncovered in the midst
of established tasks such as bank reconciliations or expenditure cycle control tests.
Accordingly, such assignments not only present challenges in the form of time constraints
and technicality, but also carry high levels of outcome uncertainty. The potential for
misstatements provides a sense of purpose to the hardy individual’s efficient examination
of the details. The uncertainty of the process is matched by the individual’s perception of
control over the situation and willingness to accept unexpected circumstances (i.e. the
challenge dimension). Alternatively, the activation of the trait would be constrained in
low-stress environments with pre-determined outcomes.

Public accounting environment

With respect to trait activation theory, the results of Maddi et al. (2006) suggest that
professional environments provide an appropriate setting for the expression of the
hardiness trait. Furthermore, studies imply that the relationship between
conscientiousness and performance is negatively impacted in situations where time
pressures exist (Yeo and Neal, 2004). In general, the professional environment of public
accounting is considered stressful and deadline-intensive, especially during certain
months of the year where the bulk of services are offered (Sweeney and Summers, 2002;
Dalton et al., 1997). Anecdotal evidence suggests that a majority of the work includes
an abundance of detail and precise calculations. Furthermore, accounting tasks are often
performed with the incorporation of rules offered by prior work, potentially allowing for
certain efficiencies (Brazel et al., 2004; Tan, 1995; Wright, 1988). In the case of financial
statement audits, however, professional standards require the consideration of fraud
and errors (AICPA, 1972, paragraph 2), phenomena often of a non-routine nature
(AICPA, 2002, paragraph 61), the occurrences of which limit the effectiveness of
anchoring upon prior work (Brazel et al., 2004; Wright, 1988). As such, the public
accounting environment requires precision and offers relevant heuristics, both conducive
to the expression of conscientiousness, but it also necessitates a high degree of
resourcefulness for the assessment and detection of unusual items and an appropriate
level of efficient decision-making in satisfaction of time budgets and deadlines.
In accordance with the theory, these latter demands for ingenuity and efficiency stand in
direct opposition to the expression of the conscientiousness trait (Tett and Burnett, 2003).
As such, it is expected that, in the face of the intense deadlines and the existence of unique
patterns of evidence (i.e. errors, etc.) often present in accounting tasks, conscientious
individuals will be distracted by the environment, relegated to following the established
rules available for systematic occurrences of data, and thus will be less apt to maximize
task performance. In contrast, hardy individuals are better suited to manage the stressors
of this environment, and thus are likely to have the cognitive capacity to perform related The impact
tasks at a high level. It is expected that in situations with immediate deadlines, hardiness of hardiness
will be positively related to accounting task performance:
H1. For accounting tasks involving immediate deadlines, hardiness will be
positively related to accounting task performance.
In accordance with trait activation theory, stress serves as a trigger for the hardiness 369
trait. In the presence of environmental stressors, such as near-term deadlines, hardy
individuals have the opportunity to employ their stress-coping capabilities. In contrast,
the absence of such stress constrains the relative effectiveness of the trait. In other
words, with a non-immediate deadline, individuals of all hardiness levels have similar
means for successful task completion. As such, hardiness is not expected to significantly
impact task performance in such situations. With respect to conscientiousness, tasks
requiring precision and attention to detail offer sufficient means for the positive
expression of the trait (Tett and Burnett, 2003). While time pressures inhibit the
effectiveness of conscientious individuals (Yeo and Neal, 2004), the lessening of such
demands frees up cognitive resources, normally exhausted from stress, for the thorough
and precise examination of the necessary issues related to task completion. Those with a
predisposition to careful and detailed analysis of situations will likely perform tasks
more effectively than individuals who lack such conscientious attributes. Therefore, it is
expected that conscientiousness will be positively related to accounting task
performance under non-immediate deadlines:
H2. For accounting tasks involving non-immediate deadlines, conscientiousness
will be positively related to accounting task performance.

Research design and method

Sample
109 students enrolled in intermediate-level financial accounting courses at two major
universities in the US performed a bank reconciliation task for review/diagnostic
purposes, and completed a survey for extra credit. All students had previously completed
principles-level courses in both financial and managerial accounting, and the coverage of
bank reconciliation topics in these courses across the universities was relatively similar.
The subjects were selected as proxies for entry-level public accountants involved in
detailed work. Kowalczyk and Wolfe (1998) suggest that undergraduate accounting
students serve as appropriate subjects for studies involving audit tasks such as
going-concern evaluations. The structure of this exercise (i.e. the presence of prior work,
the shifting between multiple documents, the repetitive nature, the complexity of the
calculations, etc.) was designed to be similar to that of typical tasks performed by
staff-level accountants. A detailed account of the task is presented in the next paragraph.

Procedures and task

The bank reconciliation task was administered during the first week of the semester for
which the subjects were enrolled. While the subjects possessed knowledge of the
fundamentals of reconciliations, due to prior completion of the financial accounting
principles course, the timing of the study during the semesters was orchestrated such
that the subjects had no formal instruction on the material immediately prior to the
completion of the task. The subjects either completed the task in the presence of
MAJ a near-term deadline or a longer-term deadline, reflecting the major manipulation
28,4 (variable name ¼ DEADLINE) of the study. In two course sections, subjects were
required to complete the exercise in 75 minutes class periods. As such, these subjects
were required to meet an immediate deadline (the IMMEDIATE condition). Students
from two other sections were given the bank reconciliation materials at the end of a class
and were allowed to take the materials home and submit the completed task one week
370 later. These subjects (i.e. in the NON-IMMEDIATE condition) were specifically
informed that they were expected to spend approximately 75 minutes completing the
task, but they were free to spend more time. Since the task was only for review purposes
and not part of the course grade, the students were instructed to complete the task
individually without the assistance of other resources. Consistent with tasks performed
in a professional accounting setting, the students were informed that they would receive
feedback on the task. At another point in the semester, all participants completed a
survey containing items from established hardiness and conscientiousness scales and
demographic questions. Personality traits remain somewhat constant over time
(Cohen et al., 2003, p. 130), and thus the temporal separation between the completion of
the task and survey was deemed appropriate.
The bank reconciliation task requires the reconciliation of the main operating cash
account for the month of December for a fictitious company. The exercise includes the
following documents: the prior month’s (November) reconciliation summary, the
December bank statement, the cash receipts journal for December, and the cash
disbursement journal for December. The task instructions also include additional
information and assumptions regarding certain reconciling items. The November
reconciliation offers not only necessary information to perform the reconciliation, but
also a set of rules, or anchors for which to base the December task. The December
materials contain non-unique reconciling items (i.e. outstanding checks, deposits in
transit, service charges, and NSF checks) similar to those from the month of November,
as well as items not included (i.e. errors made by the company and the collection of a note
receivable) in the November reconciliation. This design provides students with the
option to apply the heuristics from the prior work, but demands the detection of unique
items to correctly balance the cash account to the bank statement.

Measured independent variables

Hardiness was measured with a 30-item scale adapted from Bartone et al. (1989). The items
from this scale are part of the 45-item scale from Bartone et al. (1989). The 30-item scale has
three factors (commitment, control, and challenge), each containing ten items. The items
on the scale require subjects to assess their views on several statements. For the purposes
of this study, a seven-point scale was used, with “1” representing “not at all true” and “7”
representing “completely true”. The 30-item scale has demonstrated adequate internal
reliability in prior studies (Bartone et al., 1989: Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.82; Law, 2005:
Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.75) in accordance with general guidelines for reliability (Kline, 2005,
p. 59; Vogt, 2005, p. 71). Furthermore, Bartone et al. (1989) reports a reliability score for the
commitment items (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.82) in the 45-item scale comparable to that of the full
scale (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.85), with the other dimensions reported at relatively lower levels
(control: Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.66; challenge: Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.62). Higher scores on the scale
represent higher levels of the hardiness construct. Because individuals with high levels
of commitment find stressful situations more interesting (Khoshaba and Maddi, 1999),
a seven-point scale eliciting the subjects’ level of satisfaction with the task was included in The impact
the survey, with higher scores reflecting a higher level of satisfaction with the task. of hardiness
Conscientiousness was assessed with the ten-item NEO-Domain scale (Goldberg,
1999; http://ipip.ori.org), with each item measured on a seven-point scale. This scale
was obtained from the International Personality Item Pool at http://ipip.ori.org, which
reports an adequate reliability score (a ¼ 0.81) for the ten items. Higher scores on the
scale are associated with higher levels of the conscientiousness trait. In addition to the 371
continuous variables, gender and college major information were collected.

Dependent variables
Task performance was based upon the number of items correctly incorporated into the
reconciliation. Subjects received one point for properly including the December 31 bank
statement balance and one point for including the appropriate amount for the
unadjusted general ledger cash balance. The subjects earned a point for each type of
reconciling item identified in the bank reconciliation. Overall, there were six types of
reconciling items: deposits-in-transit, outstanding checks, service charges, NSF checks,
bank collection of notes receivable and interest, and errors made by the company. The
subjects were given a point for each individual reconciling item correctly added to the
reconciliation. The task included 14 outstanding checks, two deposits-in-transit, a bank
service charge, an NSF check, a note collection by the bank, and five errors made by the
company. In total, the task had 32 possible points. Task performance (RECPCT) was
measured as the percentage of points obtained out of the 32 total points. Of the 32 points,
22 points represented items similar to those from the November reconciliation.
Accordingly, the performance on those items (HEURPCT) was the percentage of points
earned divided by 22 points, and the performance on items unique to the December
reconciliation (SYSPCT) was calculated as the percentage of points earned out of ten
total points. This system of measurement more adequately reflects performance in
comparison to other methods, such as the extent (in dollars) of reconciliation balance
(i.e. the absolute value of the difference between the adjusted bank and book balances).
The dollar amount is somewhat deceiving, as two subjects detecting equal numbers of
reconciling items could receive differing task performance scores if the composition of
the items differs. The measures (i.e. RECPCT, etc.) used for this study reward subjects
for the number of items detected and correctly incorporated into the reconciliation. As
such, recognition of all types of reconciling items, correct identification of each
individual reconciling item, and proper inclusion of the unadjusted balances, results in a
balanced reconciliation and the maximum possible RECPCT score.

Results
Descriptive statistics
The descriptive statistics are presented in Table I. Analysis of RECPCT:
.
between accounting (n ¼ 95) and finance (n ¼ 14) students; and
.
across the two universities revealed no significant differences[1].

The Pearson correlations in Table II indicate that the hardiness measures have a
positive and significant correlation with task satisfaction. In contrast, the relationship
between conscientiousness and satisfaction is non-significant. These correlations
provide evidence of the differentiation between the two personality traits as well as the
MAJ
Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
28,4
Conscientiousnessa 5.185 0.851 20.492 20.461
Hardiness-full scaleb 4.977 0.410 20.506 20.051
Hardiness-commitmentc 5.486 0.609 20.795 0.408
Hardiness-controld 5.293 0.424 20.630 0.030
372 Hardiness-challengee 4.152 0.657 20.260 20.544
BR task satisfactionf 4.948 1.381 20.831 0.464
HEURPCTg 0.934 0.129 23.148 10.305
SYSPCTh 0.417 0.334 0.502 20.957
RECPCTi 0.772 0.161 20.785 1.375
Notes: aConscientiousness – average scores from ten-item NEO-Domain scale (Goldberg, 1999)
(1 – very inaccurate; 7 – very accurate); bhardiness-full scale – average scores from 30-item scale adapted
from Bartone et al. (1989) (1 – not true at all; 7 – completely true); chardiness-commitment – average scores
from ten-item sub-scale adapted from the hardiness scale in Bartone et al. (1989) (1 – not true at all; 7 –
completely true); dhardiness-control – average scores from ten-item sub-scale adapted from the hardiness
scale in Bartone et al. (1989) (1 – not true at all; 7 – completely true); ehardiness-challenge – average scores
from ten-item sub-scale adapted from the hardiness scale in Bartone et al. (1989) (1 – not true at all; 7 –
completely true); fBR task satisfaction – satisfaction rating on bank reconciliation task (1 – extremely
dissatisfied; 7 – extremely satisfied); gHEURPCT – percentage of items (out of 22) similar to prior period
items correctly incorporated into bank reconciliation; hSYSPCT – percentage of items (out of ten) not
Table I. similar to prior period items correctly incorporated into bank reconciliation; iRECPCT – percentage of
Descriptive statistics total items (out of 32) correctly incorporated into bank reconciliation; n ¼ 109

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Conscientiousness
2. Hardiness-full scale 0.371 * * *
3. Hardiness-
commitment 0.491 * * * 0.763 * * *
4. Hardiness-control 0.295 * * 0.682 * * * 0.432 * * *
5. Hardiness-challenge 0.048 0.724 * * * 0.221 * 0.232 *
6. BR task satisfaction 0.135 0.329 * * * 0.282 * * 0.247 * * 0.195 *
7. HEURPCT 0.193 * 0.153 0.207 * 0.106 0.026 0.254 * *
8. SYSPCT 0.200 * 0.212 * 0.174 0.035 0.213 * 0.342 * * * 0.383 * * *
Table II. 9. RECPCT 0.236 * 0.222 * 0.227 * 0.081 0.152 0.362 * * * 0.800 * * * 0.860 * * *
Pearson correlation
matrix Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001; n ¼ 109

activation of the hardiness trait on the bank reconciliation task. Accordingly, the
results are consistent with the notion that the hardy subjects were able to find a deeper
level of interest in the reconciliation activities.
With respect to the hardiness measure, a major issue involves the methods by which
the sub-dimensions (i.e. commitment, control, and challenge) are used relative to the
combined measure (Law, 2005; Funk, 1992; Carver, 1989). While different approaches
have been taken in previous research studies regarding the treatment of the three
components included in the instrument, composite scores are commonly calculated
(Law, 2005; Florian et al., 1995; Funk, 1992). Use of the separate sub-dimensions,
however, is most appropriate when the full measure fails to produce the strongest The impact
relationship with the dependent variable (Funk, 1992). of hardiness
The Pearson correlations indicate that hardiness-commitment has a higher correlation
with the dependent variable, RECPCT (r ¼ 0.227, p ¼ 0.018)[2], in comparison to the full
scale (r ¼ 0.222, p ¼ 0.020) and the other dimensions (hardiness-control r ¼ 0.081,
p ¼ 0.403; hardiness-challenge r ¼ 0.152, p ¼ 0.113). Examination of the correlations
for each level of DEADLINE, the predicted moderator, offers additional evidence as to 373
the prominence of the hardiness-commitment sub-dimension. These correlations are
presented in Table III for the IMMEDIATE condition and Table IV for the
NON-IMMEDIATE condition. Hardiness-commitment has the strongest positive
correlation with RECPCT of the hardiness measures in IMMEDIATE (r ¼ 0.363,
p ¼ 0.005), the condition in which a positive relationship is expected (i.e. H1). Conversely,
hardiness-commitment has the lowest correlation (r ¼ 20.004, p ¼ 0.979) with RECPCT
in the NON-IMMEDIATE condition, where no significant relationship is expected. As
such, hardiness-commitment, as opposed to the full measure, produces the strongest
relationships with the dependent variable with respect to the two contexts of DEADLINE,
asserting the consideration of the three dimensions as the proper course of action.
Of the three dimensions, hardiness-commitment is perhaps the most appropriate
representation of the hardiness trait for the purposes of the remaining analysis. For instance,
the commitment scale used in Maddi et al. (2006) produced the highest factor loading of the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Conscientiousness
2. Hardiness-full scale 0.478 * * *
3. Hardiness-commitment 0.480 * * * 0.824 * * *
4. Hardiness-control 0.444 * * * 0.722 * * * 0.506 * * *
5. Hardiness-challenge 0.169 0.704 * * * 0.284 * 0.267 *
6. BR task satisfaction 0.104 0.335 * 0.305 * 0.302 * 0.161
7. HEURPCT 0.148 0.213 0.272 * 0.142 0.049 0.199
8. SYSPCT 0.169 0.312 * 0.339 * * 0.054 0.250 0.346 * * 0.372 * * Table III.
9. RECPCT 0.189 0.308 * 0.363 * * 0.124 0.165 0.317 * 0.873 * * * 0.777 * * * Pearson correlation
matrix for IMMEDIATE
Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001; DEADLINE ¼ 0; n ¼ 58 deadline

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Conscientiousness
2. Hardiness-full scale 0.231
3. Hardiness-commitment 0.509 * * * 0.678 * * *
4. Hardiness-control 0.117 0.637 * * * 0.341 *
5. Hardiness-challenge (0.070) 0.757 * * * 0.162 0.201
6. BR task satisfaction 0.205 0.376 * * 0.238 0.218 0.310 *
7. HEURPCT 0.491 * * * 0.039 (0.014) 0.120 0.003 0.238 Table IV.
8. SYSPCT 0.242 0.146 0.000 0.044 0.213 0.258 0.450 * * Pearson correlation
9. RECPCT 0.334 * 0.135 (0.004) 0.069 0.183 0.282 * 0.644 * * * 0.973 * * * matrix for
NON-IMMEDIATE
Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001; DEADLINE ¼ 1; n ¼ 51 deadline
MAJ three dimensions on the full measure. Additionally, the commitment items from the full
28,4 45-item scale used in Bartone et al. (1989) have comparable reliability with the full scale, and
superior reliability in comparison to the other dimensions[3]. Since the hardiness-control
and hardiness-challenge dimensions have non-significant correlations with RECPCT in the
current sample, and therefore do not likely account for a substantial amount of variance,
these dimensions are not included in the regression model and tests of hypotheses.
374
Regression analysis and tests of hypotheses
For purposes of the regression analysis, DEADLINE was dummy-coded such that the
IMMEDIATE condition represents the reference group (i.e. DEADLINE ¼ 0). In
accordance with the guidance from Cohen et al. (2003, pp. 375-377), the interaction terms
(i.e. DEADLINE £ conscientiousness and DEADLINE £ hardiness-commitment) were
coded as the product of the appropriate level for DEADLINE (i.e. 0 or 1) and the
mean-centered score for the respective personality trait. The results of the bank
reconciliation task are presented in Table V. The main effect model without the
interactions (Panel A) is statistically significant (F ¼ 8.523; p , 0.001; adjusted
R 2 ¼ 0.173). As expected, DEADLINE is significant (t ¼ 4.018, p , 0.001), indicating
that subjects in the NON-IMMEDIATE condition (n ¼ 51, M ¼ 0.834, SD ¼ 0.131)
scored higher than those in the IMMEDIATE condition (n ¼ 58, M ¼ 0.718,
SD ¼ 0.166)[4]. The conscientiousness (t ¼ 1.615, p ¼ 0.109) and hardiness-
commitment (t ¼ 1.340, p ¼ 0.183) predictors are non-significant.

Panel A: bank reconciliation task model (RECPCT) w/o interaction terms (n ¼ 109)
Source SS df MS F p-value
Regression 0.548 3 0.183 8.523 , 0.001
Residual 2.249 105 0.021
Variable Coefficient t-value p-value
Intercept 0.365 2.795 0.006
DEADLINEb 0.113 4.018 , 0.001
c
Conscientiousness 0.031 1.615 0.109
Hardiness-commitmentd 0.036 1.340 0.183
Adjusted R 2 0.173
Panel B: bank reconciliation task model (RECPCT) with interaction terms (n ¼ 109)
Source SS df MS F p-value
Regression 0.702 5 0.140 6.902 , 0.001
Residual 2.095 103 0.020
Variable Coefficient t-value p-value
Intercept 0.215 1.326 0.188
DEADLINE 0.114 4.148 , 0.001
Conscientiousness 0.004 0.150 0.881
Hardiness-commitment 0.089 2.730 0.007
DEADLINE £ conscientiousness 0.069 1.835 0.069
DEADLINE £ hardiness-commitment 2 0.145 22.693 0.008
2
Adjusted R 0.215
Table V. Notes: aRECPCT – percentage of total items (out of 32) correctly incorporated into bank reconciliation;
b
Multiple regression DEADLINE – manipulated variable dummy-coded as follows: 0 – IMMEDIATE deadline, 1 – NON-
analysis for bank IMMEDIATE deadline; cconscientiousness – average scores from ten-item NEO-Domain scale (Goldberg,
reconciliation task model 1999) (1 – very inaccurate, 7 – very accurate); dhardiness-commitment – average scores from ten-item sub-
(DV ¼ RECPCTa) scale adapted from the hardiness scale in Bartone et al. (1989) (1 – not true at all, 7 – completely true)
With the inclusion of the interaction terms (Panel B), the model is statistically significant The impact
(F ¼ 6.902, p , 0.001, adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.215). The coefficients for the personality traits are of hardiness
appropriately interpreted as the slopes for the IMMEDIATE condition (i.e. the reference
group) (Cohen et al., 2003, pp. 375-377). As anticipated, the relationship between
conscientiousness and RECPCT is non-significant under IMMEDIATE (t ¼ 0.150,
p ¼ 0.881). As such, higher levels of conscientiousness did not result in higher levels of
performance with a near-term deadline, suggesting that the effectiveness of the trait is 375
impeded in such situations. H1 predicts a positive relationship between hardiness and
performance under immediate deadlines. The model indicates that hardiness-commitment
is positively related to RECPCT (t ¼ 2.730, p ¼ 0.007). The interaction terms in
the model represent the slope differences between the levels of DEADLINE
(Cohen et al., 2003, pp. 375-377). The interaction for hardiness-commitment
(i.e. DEADLINE £ hardiness-commitment) reveals that the slope is significantly lower
(t ¼ 22.693, p ¼ 0.008), with less of a positive impact, in the NON-IMMEDIATE
condition in comparison to the IMMEDIATE condition. Figure 1, which contains a plot of
the RECPCT means across the levels of DEADLINE and the levels of commitment
(i.e. high and low) split at the median, illustrates this relationship. These results provide
strong support for H1 and highlight the situational variable (DEADLINE) as a moderator
in the relationship between hardiness and task performance[5].
H2 suggests that conscientiousness is positively related to task performance in the
absence of a near-term deadline. The DEADLINE £ conscientiousness coefficient
(0.069) from Table V, Panel B indicates that the conscientiousness – RECPCT
relationship is more positive under NON-IMMEDIATE when compared to
IMMEDIATE. This difference in slopes is marginally significant (t ¼ 1.835,
p ¼ 0.069)[6]. Conscientiousness has a positive and significant influence on RECPCT
(b ¼ 0.073, t ¼ 2.532, p ¼ 0.013) in NON-IMMEDIATE. These results provide support
for H2. Finally, the positive effects of hardiness-commitment are eliminated without the
presence of the immediate deadline (b ¼ 2 0.056, t ¼ 2 1.309, p ¼ 0.194).

0.9

0.85
0.8404
0.8261
0.8 Low Hardiness-
Commitment (below
RECPCT

0.7627 median)
0.75
High Hardiness-
0.7 Commitment (at or
above median)
0.6635
0.65

0.6 Figure 1.
Not Immediate Immediate Plot of RECPCT means
by condition
DEADLINE
MAJ Additional analysis
28,4 While the regression model examined overall performance on the bank reconciliation
task, the scores on specific portions provide relevant insight to the study results. The
SYSPCT and HEURPCT variables represent the subjects’ abilities in finding items
unique to the current month’s reconciliation (i.e. errors) and those similar to the prior
month’s work (i.e. outstanding checks, service charges, etc.), respectively. Such a
376 distinction mirrors other accounting tasks, which often require attention to unusual
items, but also contain heuristics (i.e. prior work) for task completion (Brazel et al., 2004;
Wright, 1988). The current study proposed that hardy individuals possess the
mechanisms to manage the strain associated with a deadline-intensive environment, and
thus the cognitive resources for successful completion. While the regression model
provides results consistent with this proposal, the correlation between
hardiness-commitment and SYSPCT (r ¼ 0.339, p ¼ 0.009) from Table III indicates
that the hardy subjects’ enhanced performance was partially due to the successful
detection and incorporation of unique items. With the intensity of the deadline removed
(Table IV), the relationship is virtually eliminated (r , 0.001, p ¼ 0.999). In the
IMMEDIATE condition, conscientiousness does not bear a significant association with
performance on the unique items (r ¼ 0.169, p ¼ 0.204) or the non-unique items
(r ¼ 0.148, p ¼ 0.268). Outside of the deadline-intensive environment (i.e.
NON-IMMEDIATE), however, the significant relationship with RECPCT appears to
be driven by performance on the non-unique items (r ¼ 0.491, p , 0.001). Conversely,
conscientiousness is not significantly associated with SYSPCT (r ¼ 0.242, p ¼ 0.087).

Discussion and conclusion

This study investigated the influence of hardiness and conscientiousness on accounting
task performance. Trait activation theory (Tett and Burnett, 2003) predicts that the
relationship between such traits and relevant outcomes is situational, dependent upon
environmental cues. The public accounting environment represents a context involving
time pressures and intense deadlines, and thus the onset of stress (Sweeney and
Summers, 2002). Given hardy individuals’ ability to perceive stressful situations as
purposeful (Khoshaba and Maddi, 1999), and the proposed weakened effect of
conscientiousness in environments with time pressure (Yeo and Neal, 2004), the current
study considered whether the hardiness trait has a more positive influence on task
performance than conscientiousness in such situations.
The results from a bank reconciliation task, designed to incorporate features
(i.e. complexity, prior work, detailed information, various deadlines, etc.) similar to those on
tasks performed in the professional accounting environment, generally support the theory.
Under an immediate deadline (i.e. 75 minutes), the commitment dimension of hardiness had a
positive and significant relationship with task performance. Additional analysis revealed
that high-commitment individuals did better at detecting errors and unique items (i.e. those
items not similar to prior work). However, the relationship was virtually eliminated when the
deadline was less-immediate. Conscientiousness, in contrast, was a non-factor in task
performance for the immediate deadline, but had a positive and significant effect with the
deadline removed. Additional analysis revealed that the significant relationship was
primarily driven by detection of non-unique items (i.e. those items similar to prior reconciling
items). Regardless of the type of deadline, the relationship between conscientiousness and
the percentage of errors and unique items detected was non-significant.
 One critical feature of the accounting environment, in addition to time pressures and The impact
stress, is the existence of anchors in the form of prior work (Brazel et al., 2004; Wright, 1988). of hardiness
The presence of such heuristics in a deadline-intensive environment potentially facilitates
the reliance on prior work in task completion. Given the responsibilities of accountants to
assess fraud and detect errors (AICPA, 1972, paragraph 2, 2002), the completion of tasks
without overemphasis on prior work is essential. While conscientious individuals possess
attributes (detail oriented, careful, etc.) desired in the profession, the results of the study 377
imply that hardy individuals are better able to manage the stress of the environment and
preserve work quality. Furthermore, the enhancement of task performance under time
pressure appears to be partially driven by hardy individuals’ ability to perform tasks with
an approach that is considerate of potential unique instances of data (i.e. errors).
Alternatively, the positive influence of conscientiousness in the absence of time pressure
seems to be the result of a strict adherence to the heuristics provided by prior work.
This study offers an appropriate complement to the findings from Law et al. (2008).
With burnout levels in the public accounting a pervasive issue (Sweeney and Summers,
2002), the preservation of cognitive resources on critical accounting tasks is of utmost
concern, especially in the midst of the time pressures and complexity that define the
professional environment. Hardy individuals possess the facilities to navigate this setting
without experiencing the ill effects of job burnout (Law et al., 2008). Based upon the results
of the current study, the positive effects of this disposition highlighted in Law et al. (2008)
effectively translate into beneficial task outcomes produced under intense conditions.
Consequently, the current study advances the implication from prior research in
accounting that hardy individuals are well-prepared for the demands of public accounting
(Law et al., 2008; Law, 2005). As a result of this study, accounting faculty members have
another basis for which to evaluate their students. These educators should design
assessments with features and challenges similar to those in the public accounting
environment. This focus will allow for the observation and expression of the hardiness
characteristics that have proven beneficial in accounting settings. In turn, faculty
members will have increased value in assisting students and firms with job placement.
This study also provides another approach for firm professionals to consider when
recruiting accounting students for employment. Recruiting managers should design
interview questions that capture information about a recruit’s capability to find purpose in
stressful situations and capacity to incorporate intuition and creativity, as opposed to
simple rule-following, in such instances. Naturally, firm internship and leadership
programs provide another setting in which to evaluate recruits on these criteria. The
results of this study are also beneficial to firm supervisors charged with the training of
subordinates. While accounting work is inherently detailed and deadline-intensive,
supervisors should strive to communicate and foster a sense of purpose in such work as a
means to exploit the hardy characteristics and enhance performance. Finally, this study
extends the literature on the benefits of hardiness in the accounting environment.
Accordingly, audit researchers examining performance should consider hardiness as an
individual difference in experimental scenarios.
This study is not without limitations. First, the personality scales were completed
on a self-report basis, a potential bias inherent in the study’s methodology. Second, the
study produced low reliability scores for the control and challenge dimensions. While
these measures have demonstrated relatively low levels in prior research (Bartone et al.,
1989), and were not significantly associated with the dependent variable in this study,
MAJ their theoretical relevance is of importance in the continuing investigation of the link
28,4 between hardiness and performance. The hardiness construct has been measured
numerous different ways in the literature with varying levels of reliability (Funk, 1992).
Future research should examine these other measures in relation to task performance.
Third, the personality traits were examined in relation to one task. While the bank
reconciliation shares features with tasks performed in the accounting environment,
378 future research should extend the examination to consider different types of tasks of
varying complexity and strain. Additionally, the design included two different types of
deadlines. However, the public accounting environment likely includes a variety of
different situational characteristics, which should be examined to further assert the
suitability of the hardiness and conscientiousness traits.

Notes
1. At one university, subjects in one course section (n ¼ 32) completed the task in the
IMMEDIATE condition. At the other university, subjects from one section (n ¼ 26) completed
the task in the IMMEDIATE condition, while subjects from two sections (n ¼ 51) completed
the task in the NON-IMMEDIATE condition. As such, comparisons across the two
universities are based upon the IMMEDIATE condition (University 1: n ¼ 32, M ¼ 0.687,
SD ¼ 0.177; University 2: n ¼ 26, M ¼ 0.757, SD ¼ 0.146). The difference between
IMMEDIATE conditions at the two universities is non-significant (F ¼ 2.666; p ¼ 0.108).
2. All reported p-values are two-tailed.
3. In the current sample, the 30-item scale Cronbach’s a (Rosenthal and Rosnow, 2008,
p. 97) score is 0.689. The scores for the three dimensions are as follows: commitment ¼ 0.667,
control ¼ 0.146, challenge ¼ 0.595. The ten-item conscientiousness scale has a score of 0.843.
4. Subjects in NON-IMMEDIATE spent a significantly ( p , 0.001) longer time (M ¼ 118.49
minutes) on the task in comparison to subjects in IMMEDIATE, who had approximately
75 minutes. As such, the significance of DEADLINE can potentially be explained by (1)
a difference in time spent by subjects between the two conditions and/or (2) the presence of
time pressure. The relationship between DEADLINE and RECPCT, comparing only the
NON-IMMEDIATE cases with time spent less than 75 minutes (n ¼ 11) (i.e. the same amount
of time provided to subjects in the IMMEDIATE condition) to the IMMEDIATE cases yields a
marginally significant difference (t ¼ 1.931, p ¼ 0.058). As such, NON-IMMEDIATE subjects
spending similar amounts of time as IMMEDIATE subjects still performed better. This result
is somewhat consistent with the interpretation that the influence of the manipulation is at least
partially based upon time pressure, and not just time spent.
5. With the full hardiness scale (i.e. hardiness-full scale) used in the full-model analysis (as opposed
to hardiness-commitment), the relationship between hardiness-full scale and RECPCT is
significant (t ¼ 2.139, p ¼ 0.035) under the IMMEDIATE condition, further supporting the
positive influence of the trait in the presence of immediate deadlines. However, the interaction
between DEADLINE and hardiness-full scale is non-significant (t ¼ 21.229, p ¼ 0.222).
6. The regression model reported in Table V, Panel B was run with IMMEDIATE serving as
the reference group for the DEADLINE variable. As such, the full model produced main
effect coefficients relevant to the relationships within the IMMEDIATE condition that were
necessary to test H1. Since H2 predicts a relationship in the NON-IMMEDIATE condition, the
regression model was also run with NON-IMMEDIATE representing the reference group.
This produced the main effect coefficients reported in the following sentences necessary for the
testing of H2.
References The impact
AICPA (1972), AU Section 110: Responsibilities and Functions of the Independent Auditor, of hardiness
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY.
AICPA (2002), AU Section 316: Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit,
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The Big-Five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 1-26. 379
Bartone, P.T., Ursano, R.J., Wright, K.M. and Ingraham, L.H. (1989), “The impact of a military air
disaster on the health of assistance workers”, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
Vol. 177 No. 6, pp. 317-328.
Brazel, J.F., Agoglia, C.P. and Hatfield, R.C. (2004), “Electronic versus face-to-face review:
the effects of alternative forms of review on auditors’ performance”, The Accounting
Review, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 949-966.
Carver, C.S. (1989), “How should multifaceted personality constructs be tested? Issues illustrated
by self-monitoring, attributional style, and hardiness”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 577-585.
Chung, J.O.Y., Cohen, J.R. and Monroe, G.S. (2008), “The effect of moods on auditors’ inventory
valuation decisions”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 137-159.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Dalton, D.R., Hill, J.W. and Ramsay, R.J. (1997), “Women as managers and partners:
context specific predictors of turnover in international public accounting firms”, Auditing:
A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 29-50.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M. and Taubman, O. (1995), “Does hardiness contribute to mental health
during a stressful real-life situation? The roles of appraisal and coping”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 687-695.
Funk, S.C. (1992), “Hardiness: a review of theory and research”, Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 335-345.
Goh, D.S. and Farley, F.H. (1977), “Personality effects on cognitive test performance”, The Journal
of Psychology, Vol. 96, pp. 111-122.
Goldberg, L.R. (1999), “A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models”, in Mervielde, I., Deary, I., De Fruyt, F. and
Ostendorf, F. (Eds), Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7, Tilburg University Press,
Tilburg, pp. 7-28.
Kamdar, D. and Van Dyne, L. (2007), “The joint effects of personality and workplace social
exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1286-1298.
Khoshaba, D.M. and Maddi, S.R. (1999), “Early experiences in hardiness development”,
Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 106-116.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Kobasa, S.C. (1979), “Stressful life events, personality, and health: an inquiry into hardiness”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Kowalczyk, T.K. and Wolfe, C.J. (1998), “Anchoring effects associated with recommendations
from expert decision aids: an experimental analysis”, Behavioral Research in Accounting,
Vol. 10, Supplement, pp. 147-169.
MAJ Law, D.W. (2005), “Interactive organizational commitment and hardiness in public accountants’
turnover”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 383-393.
28,4 Law, D.W., Sweeney, J.T. and Summers, S.L. (2008), “An examination of the influence of
contextual and individual variables on public accountants’ exhaustion”, in Arnold, V.,
Douglas Clinton, B., Lillis, A., Roberts, C. and Wright, S. (Eds), Advances in Accounting
Behavioral Research, Emerald, Bradford, pp. 129-153.
380 Maddi, S.R., Harvey, R.H., Khoshaba, D.M., Lu, J.L., Persico, M. and Brow, M. (2006),
“The personality construct of hardiness, III: relationships with repression, innovativeness,
authoritarianism, and performance”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 575-598.
Rittenberg, L.E., Schwieger, B.J. and Johnstone, K.M. (2008), Auditing: A Business Risk Approach,
6th ed., Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH.
Robertson, I. and Callinan, M. (1998), “Personality and work behaviour”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 321-340.
Rose, J.M. (2007), “Attention to evidence of aggressive financial reporting and intentional
misstatement judgments: effects of experience and trust”, Behavioral Research in
Accounting, Vol. 19, pp. 215-229.
Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R.L. (2008), Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data
Analysis, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Sansone, C., Wiebe, D.J. and Morgan, C. (1999), “Self-regulating interest: the moderating role of
hardiness and conscientiousness”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 701-733.
Sweeney, J.T. and Summers, S.L. (2002), “The effect of the busy season workload on public
accountants’ burnout”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 14, pp. 223-245.
Tan, H.T. (1995), “Effects of expectations, prior involvement, and review awareness on memory for
audit evidence and judgment”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 113-135.
Tett, R.P. and Burnett, D.D. (2003), “A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 500-517.
Tett, R.P. and Guterman, H.A. (2000), “Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and
cross-situational consistency: testing a principle of trait activation”, Journal of Research in
Personality, Vol. 34, pp. 397-423.
Vogt, W.P. (2005), Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Westman, M. (1990), “The relationship between stress and performance: the moderating effect of
hardiness”, Human Performance, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 141-155.
Wright, A. (1988), “The impact of prior working papers on auditor evidential planning
judgments”, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 595-605.
Yeo, G.B. and Neal, A. (2004), “A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: effects
of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89
No. 2, pp. 231-247.

About the author

Casey J. McNellis is an Assistant Professor of Accounting at the University of Montana.
He conducts behavioural accounting research primarily in the areas of audit regulation and
auditor performance. Casey J. McNellis can be contacted at: casey.mcnellis@umontana.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints