Auditor interventions that reduce auditor liability judgments

Abstract

Prior research documents jurors do not always respond consistently, or favorably, to auditors' quality-intended efforts. Counterintuitively, in some instances, doing more has led to greater liability, not less (Reffett, 2010). We hypothesize (and find) that proactive engagement of the corporate audit committee will reduce counterfactual thinking, and the proactive use of a forensic specialist at the audit planning stage will reduce negative intention-attributions. We further hypothesize these interventions, in turn, will reduce negative affect toward the auditor and negligence judgments. Our research leverages counterfactual thinking, attribution, and blame theories, and the use of affect as information. Additionally, we build on recent research that finds proactive preventive actions and the presence of a strong, active audit committee can reduce auditor liability judgments (Alderman & Jollineau, 2020; Frank, Grenier, & Pyzoha, 2021). Unlike Reffett (2010), we find that auditor's incremental efforts can reduce, rather than increase, negligence judgments. Our scenarios differ from those of Reffett in the timing and nature of auditor interventions and the root causes of the audit failure. We contribute to ongoing research examining the effects of auditor choices on jurors' judgments.