Conclusiones del capítulo

As mentioned earlier, the evaluation and impact of a time delay will be affected by the way in which the delayee makes sense of, and attributes blame for, the delay (Blount and Janicik 2001). Weiner‟s (1985) seminal review of attribution theory

literature explains that the evaluation of a negative experience, such as a time delay, will be evaluated on several causal dimensions which will determine the emotional response to that outcome, as well as the subsequent behavior. Although many categories and sub-categories of causal dimensions have been identified in the attribution theory literature, the three most common (or “classic”) causal dimensions are locus, stability, and

controllability (Weiner 1985). Locus refers to whether the outcome in question is perceived to be a result of factors within the person responsible for the outcome (internal designation) or within the environment (external designation). In attributing a cause to an interpersonal effect, such as a time delay, stability and controllability would only be of concern for an internally designated cause. In such situations, stability relates to the extent to which the cause of the outcome is perceived to be something that will fluctuate or remain constant. Controllability refers to whether the cause of the outcome is

making decisions regarding a new piece of software. There is no indication that their participants were experienced in the field of software design. In other words, it does not appear that the participants for experiment two really had much more relevant experience than the participants for experiment one.

8 Both Moon (1999) and Sheldon, Thomas-Hunt, and Proell (2006) investigate the impact of time delays on such variables as influence wielded by the collaborator and perceptions of competence the participant has of the collaborator. My study focuses more on the impact of the delay on the work produced by the participant (i.e., accuracy of the results of that work, amount of effort exerted to produce that work) than on the impact of the delay on the participant‟s relationship to the collaborator. In addition, Sheldon, Thomas-Hunt, and Proell manipulate only the expectation of when the collaborator is expected to respond, not the length of the delay experienced. In other words, all participants experienced the same actual wait time.

perceived to be something that the perpetrator had control over or not. Take, for an example, poor performance on an exam. Such an outcome could be attributed to: poor test taking conditions or an unfair exam (external causes); a lack of aptitude (an internal, stable, uncontrollable cause); a lack of preparedness (an internal, unstable, controllable cause); or fatigue due to the flu (an internal, unstable, uncontrollable cause).

Weiner (1985) proposes “laws” to link attributional thinking and specific emotions. He notes that first (before any attribution is made) there is a general positive or negative reaction based on whether the outcome is perceived as a success or failure.

Thus, based on this and the time delay literature previously discussed, a person experiencing a time delay is likely to view the delay as a violation of temporal

expectations, which is a negative outcome (Blount and Janicik 2001; Sheldon, Thomas-Hunt and Proell 2006). Therefore, the delayee will experience general negative emotions in response to the delay regardless of whatever attribution he or she makes as to the cause of the delay. Specifically, the delayee is expected to experience feelings of frustration (Kelley and Michela 1980; Sheldon, Thomas-Hunt and Proell 2006).

In addition to the general negative feelings of frustration, when the delayee assigns more of the responsibility (i.e., locus) of the delay to the delayer rather than to situational factors, he or she should perceive the delay more negatively and feel greater levels of impatience (Blount and Janicik 2001). That is, the delayee will feel more negative affect when he or she attributes the delay to the delayer rather than to environmental factors. In addition, the stability of the perceived cause should affect whether or not the delayee expects future delays while collaborating with the delayer (Kelley and Michela 1980; Weiner 1985). That is, the less stable (or more of an

anomaly) the delayee believes the circumstances are which lead to the delay, the less he or she will expect subsequent delays from the delayer (and vice versa). Finally, the perceived controllability of the delay may determine whether the delayee experiences feelings of anger or pity towards the delayer (Weiner 1985). Specifically, a delayee who perceives the cause of the delay to have been under the volitional control of the delayer is expected to feel anger toward the delayer. On the other hand, if the cause is not

perceived to be under the volitional control of the delayer, the delayee is expected to feel pity towards the delayer.

Organizational behavior theory predicts that a time-delay induced negative

affective state can lead to frustration, the overweighting of short-term temporal goals, and can have harmful consequences on job performance (Fox and Spector 1999; Blount and Janicik 2002). Fox and Spector (1999) survey 185 corporate employees from a variety of industries in order to determine and understand causes of counterproductive work

behaviors. Examples of harmful consequences that they find to be related to frustration include absenteeism, turnover, organizational aggression, and interpersonal aggression (Fox and Specter 1999). Fox and Specter (1999) also find that the form of the aggressive response taken by the employee will be strongly influenced by the perception of whether he or she can “get away with it” without getting caught.

The above research indicates that the way in which an individual attributes a negative outcome (such as a time delay) can impact the type of negative affect

experienced. As Blount and Janicik (2001) argue, time delays will be affected by how the individual experiencing the delay makes sense of it (though the delayee is expected to feel negative affect regardless of the attribution made). The subsequent chapter lays out

the attribution that I expect audit workpaper preparers to make when faced with a time delay in receiving the workpapers back from their reviewer and the expected

consequences of that attribution. The following section discusses extant literature on time delays in the audit review process.