Confirmation Bias and Auditor Risk Assessments: Archival Evidence

IF 2.7 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Cory A. Cassell, Stuart M. Dearden, David Rosser, Jonathan E. Shipman
{"title":"Confirmation Bias and Auditor Risk Assessments: Archival Evidence","authors":"Cory A. Cassell, Stuart M. Dearden, David Rosser, Jonathan E. Shipman","doi":"10.2308/ajpt-2020-035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Judgment and decision making research suggests that auditors’ judgments are negatively affected by the use of heuristics. However, there is little research investigating whether such biases survive the quality control processes that regulators and audit firms implement to mitigate them. We investigate this by identifying a setting where one such bias – confirmation bias – is likely to manifest. Consistent with confirmation bias influencing observable audit outcomes, we find that auditors with previous experience auditing a client with a history of low risk followed by an increase in risk do not adequately respond to the higher level of risk. This effect is mitigated when the risk increase is likely large enough to violate auditors’ reasonableness constraint and when the client is highly visible or has strong external monitors. Our study complements prior experimental research by providing archival evidence that auditors’ use of heuristics has a significant effect on auditor judgments.","PeriodicalId":48142,"journal":{"name":"Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-2020-035","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Judgment and decision making research suggests that auditors’ judgments are negatively affected by the use of heuristics. However, there is little research investigating whether such biases survive the quality control processes that regulators and audit firms implement to mitigate them. We investigate this by identifying a setting where one such bias – confirmation bias – is likely to manifest. Consistent with confirmation bias influencing observable audit outcomes, we find that auditors with previous experience auditing a client with a history of low risk followed by an increase in risk do not adequately respond to the higher level of risk. This effect is mitigated when the risk increase is likely large enough to violate auditors’ reasonableness constraint and when the client is highly visible or has strong external monitors. Our study complements prior experimental research by providing archival evidence that auditors’ use of heuristics has a significant effect on auditor judgments.
确认偏误与审计师风险评估:档案证据
判断和决策研究表明,使用启发式会对审计师的判断产生负面影响。然而,很少有研究调查这些偏见是否在监管机构和审计公司实施的质量控制过程中幸存下来,以减轻它们。我们通过确定一个这样的偏见-确认偏见-可能表现的设置来调查这一点。与影响可观察审计结果的确认偏差一致,我们发现具有审计具有低风险历史的客户的经验的审计师在风险增加之后不能充分应对较高的风险水平。当风险增加可能大到足以违反审计师的合理性约束,当客户高度可见或有强大的外部监督时,这种影响就会减轻。我们的研究补充了先前的实验研究,提供了档案证据,证明审计师使用启发式对审计师的判断有显著影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.70%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: AUDITING contains technical articles as well as news and reports on current activities of the association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信