Search

This paper reports the results of an experiment examining the framing bias and a potential debiasing technique. Practicing auditors formed a judgment about a hypothetical client's inventory internal control system to determine the amount of related substantive testing. Auditors from two Big Six firms were randomly assigned to one of four treatments in a fully crossed 2 x 2 between-subjects design. The initial description of the internal control system was identical for all treatments, as were the items of additional evidence about the system. Auditors either judged the risk of the control system or the strength of the control system. The risk-strength frames were crossed with two levels of debiasing technique: "none" or "evidence rating." Results indicate that without debiasing, significant framing effects were present, but that evidence rating significantly mitigated the framing effect. In this auditing context, the framing bias appears to be easily induced, but is not robust. Although the profession should be aware of this potential problem, effective remedial or proactive steps can be easily implemented and may naturally occur in current practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Accounting Perspectives is the property of Canadian Academic Accounting Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study examines the engagement quality review _EQR_ process from the perspective of the review partner. A questionnaire was administered to 127 audit partners in public accounting firms, experienced in performing EQRs. The questionnaire covered the elements, associations, and contextual features surrounding the EQR process. Partners recalled an engagement of their choosing where they acted in the role of review partner and where the review process involved direct negotiation or discussions with the engagement partner to resolve one or more issues. The results provide a comprehensive picture of a typical EQR; the issues involved, the process, and the outcomes that may result. Taken together, the results describe a professional, collegial, non-adversarial process, primarily focused on the objective of resolving difficult and complex client accounting issues. The ultimate resolution of the issue giving rise to the interaction may be a reflection of the suggestions of the reviewing partner or the engagement partner; frequently it is a new and synergistic solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outcome effect occurs where an evaluator, who has knowledge of the outcome of a judge's decision, assesses the quality of the judgment of that decision maker. If the evaluator has knowledge of a negative outcome, then that knowledge negatively influences his or her assessment of the ex ante judgment. For instance, jurors in a lawsuit brought against an auditor for alleged negligence are informed of an undetected fraud, even though an unqualified opinion was issued. This paper reports the results of an experiment in an applied audit judgment setting that examined methods of mitigating the outcome effect by means of instructions. The results showed that simply instructing or warning the evaluator about the potential biasing effects of outcome information was only weakly effective. However, instructions that stressed either (1) the cognitive non-normativeness of the outcome effect or (2) the seriousness and gravity of the evaluation ameliorated the effect significantly. From a theoretical perspective, the results suggest that there may both motivational and cognitive components to the outcome effect. In all, the findings suggest awareness of the outcome effect and use of relatively nonintrusive instructions to evaluators may effectively counteract the potential for the outcome bias. Keywords: outcome bias; auditor negligence; debiasing. Data Availability: Data used in this study is available from the second author on request. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents practice summaries preceding main articles. Debiasing the outcome effect, the role of instructions in an audit litigation setting; Big 5 auditors' professonal and organizational identification; Effects of decision aid orientation on risk factor identification and audit test planning; Others.