Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 373–390 www.elsevier.com/locate/aos 0361-3682/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2005.09.001 Accountability and auditors’ materiality judgments: The eVects of diVerential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and eVort Todd DeZoort a,¤ , Paul Harrison b , Mark Taylor c a The University of Alabama, Culverhouse School of Accountancy, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0220, United States b Wichita State University, School of Accountancy, Wichita, KS 67260-0087, United States c Creighton University, Department of Accounting, Omaha, NE 68178-0308, United States Abstract This study investigates the eVects of diVerential accountability pressure strength on auditors’ materiality judgments. We evaluate whether incremental levels of accountability (i.e., review, justiWcation, feedback) increase judgment conser- vatism, decreases judgment variability, and increases eVort. One hundred sixty auditors participated in a between-sub- jects experiment that included a planning materiality task and a proposed audit adjustment materiality task. As predicted, auditors under higher levels of accountability pressure (i.e., justiWcation, feedback) provided more conserva- tive materiality judgments and had less judgment variability than auditors under lower levels of pressure (i.e., review, anonymity). The results also indicate that accountability strength was positively related to the amount of time spent on the task, explanation length, and consideration of qualitative materiality factors. Finally, the results show that use of a planning materiality decision aid inXuenced the accountability eVects for the planning materiality judgment. These judg- ments were more conservative and less variable when the planning materiality decision aid was available. We consider implications for research, practice, and policy in the context of the study’s limitations.  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction This study evaluates the eVects of accountability pressure strength on auditors’ materiality judgments. We manipulate accountability at four levels (i.e., anonymity, review, justi Wcation, and feedback) and test whether incremental pressure increases judgment conservatism and decreases judgment variability on planning materiality and proposed audit adjustment materiality tasks. We also evaluate how accountabil- ity pressure strength aVects auditors’ eVort as prox- ied by the amount of time spent on the task and the length and nature of their materiality judgment justi- Wcations. Finally, given the common use of planning * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 205 348 6694; fax: +1 205 348 8453. E-mail address: tdezoort@cba.ua.edu (T. DeZoort).