Effect of fraud risk assessments on auditor skepticism: Unintended consequences on evidence evaluation

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace Mubako ◽  
Ed O'Donnell
Keyword(s):  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Evidence Evaluation ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments

scholarly journals How Fraud Risk Decomposition Affects Auditors' Fraud Risk Assessments

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. P26-P32
Author(s):  
Chad A. Simon ◽  
Jason L. Smith ◽  
Mark F. Zimbelman
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Risk Decomposition ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments

SUMMARY In this paper, we provide a practitioner summary of our paper “The Influence of Judgment Decomposition on Auditors' Fraud Risk Assessments: Some Trade-Offs” (Simon, Smith, and Zimbelman 2018). In that study, we investigate potential unintended consequences from current auditing guidance on risk assessments. Specifically, auditing standards recommend separate assessments of the likelihood and magnitude of risks (hereafter, LM decomposition) when auditors assess risk. Our study involved several experiments, including one with experienced auditors, where we found evidence that LM decomposition leads auditors to be less concerned about high-risk fraud schemes relative to auditors who make holistic risk assessments. Our other experiments involved non-auditing settings and replicated this finding while exploring potential explanations for it. After providing a summary of our study and its results, we offer concluding remarks on the potential implications of our findings.

scholarly journals PRACTITIONER SUMMARY How Fraud Risk Decomposition Affects Auditors' Fraud Risk Assessments

2020 ◽  
pp. 0000-0000
Author(s):  
Chad A. Simon ◽  
Jason L. Smith ◽  
Mark F. Zimbelman
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Risk Decomposition ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments

In this paper, we provide a practitioner summary of our paper "The Influence of Judgment Decomposition on Auditors' Fraud Risk Assessments: Some Tradeoffs" (Simon, Smith, and Zimbelman 2018). In that study, we investigate potential unintended consequences from current auditing guidance on risk assessments. Specifically, auditing standards recommend separate assessments of the likelihood and magnitude of risks (hereafter, LM decomposition) when auditors assess risk. Our study involved several experiments, including one with experienced auditors, where we found evidence that LM decomposition leads auditors to be less concerned about high-risk fraud schemes relative to auditors who make holistic risk assessments. Our other experiments involved non-auditing settings and replicated this finding while exploring potential explanations for it. After providing a summary of our study and its results, we offer concluding remarks on the potential implications of our findings.

The Influence of Documentation Specificity and Priming on Auditors' Fraud Risk Assessments and Evidence Evaluation Decisions

2010 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 547-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline S. Hammersley ◽  
E. Michael Bamber ◽  
Tina D. Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
Unintended Consequence ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Planning Stage ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Planning ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Support Theory ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Evidence Evaluation ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments

ABSTRACT: The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) recently suggested that auditors' lack of specific fraud planning documentation has led auditors to devote insufficient attention to fraud risks in subsequent audit work. Guided by Support Theory, we experimentally investigate how the specificity of fraud risk documentation during audit planning influences auditors' subsequent audit work. We also examine the effect of priming auditors about the fraud risks identified during planning before they begin subsequent evidence evaluation. We find that auditors' planning stage efforts affect subsequent fraud risk assessments and evidence evaluation decisions. Unprimed auditors who receive more specific documentation increase their fraud risk assessments and evidence requests. Priming's effects are more complex. Priming auditors who receive summary documentation also increases fraud risk assessments and evidence requests; however, priming auditors who receive specific documentation reduces these judgments because the priming makes the client-specific risks seem less typical. Accordingly, the PCAOB's call for more documentation can have the unintended consequence of reducing auditors' sensitivity to fraud.

On the Use of Checklists in Auditing: A Commentary

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. C1-C25 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Efrim Boritz ◽  
Lev M. Timoshenko
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Cue Combination ◽  
Assessment Task ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Red Flag ◽  
Application Methods ◽  
Effective Use ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments

SUMMARYExperimental studies concerning fraud (or “red flag”) checklists often are interpreted as providing evidence that checklists are dysfunctional because their use yields results inferior to unaided judgments (Hogan et al. 2008). However, some of the criticisms leveled against checklists are directed at generic checklists applied by individual auditors who combine the cues using their own judgment. Based on a review and synthesis of the literature on the use of checklists in auditing and other fields, we offer a framework for effective use of checklists that incorporates the nature of the audit task, checklist design, checklist application, and contextual factors. Our analysis of checklist research in auditing suggests that improvements to checklist design and to checklist application methods can make checklists more effective. In particular, with regard to fraud risk assessments, customizing checklists to fit both client circumstances and the characteristics of the fraud risk assessment task, along with auditor reliance on formal cue-combination models rather than on judgmental cue combinations, could make fraud checklists more effective than extant research implies.

scholarly journals Assessing Management Integrity: Insights from Big 4 Auditors in Egypt

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. A29-A39
Author(s):  
Rasha Kassem
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
External Auditors ◽  
Corporate Scandals ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments ◽  
Audit Standards

SUMMARY Recent corporate scandals have raised concerns about the quality and value of the audit profession and have generated demands for improving auditors' evaluation of management integrity. The literature lacks evidence regarding methods of assessing management integrity, while audit standards provide little if any guidance on this matter. This raises questions about how external auditors can comply with the audit standards in this area and what best practices and deficiencies exist in the assessment of management integrity. This study examines methods of assessing management integrity by providing insights from the Big 4 auditors in Egypt. The findings of this study will benefit audit firms in their professional audit training programs, as well as auditors conducting fraud risk assessments.

scholarly journals Disclosure and Audit Implications of Nonfinancial Measures: A Teaching Case

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. I1-I13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Hoag ◽  
Gabriel D. Saucedo
Keyword(s):  
Financial Statements ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Microsoft Excel ◽  
Teaching Case ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Nonfinancial Measures ◽  
Analytical Procedures ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments ◽  
Substantive Analytical Procedures

SUMMARY This case introduces students to nonfinancial measures (NFMs) and encourages thoughtful consideration and discourse surrounding their reporting and use by managers and auditors. NFMs are commonly reported by companies to provide increased transparency of operations and to more effectively describe performance. External parties such as analysts and auditors make use of NFMs in performing valuation assessments, fraud risk assessments, and substantive analytical procedures. In completing this case, students will be exposed to actual NFMs disclosed in SEC filings and employ Microsoft Excel knowledge to perform foundational analytical procedures. Students will also analyze how these NFMs link to the financial statements, as well as reflect upon the implications of NFMs for both internal and external users.

Fraud Brainstorming Group Composition in Auditing: The Persuasive Power of a Skeptical Minority

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle McAllister ◽  
Allen D. Blay ◽  
Kathryn Kadous
Keyword(s):  
Group Composition ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Professional Skepticism ◽  
Mediation Analyses ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Persuasive Power ◽  
High Trait ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments

We experimentally examine the effects of trait professional skepticism on fraud brainstorming performance. We find that groups with a minority, but not a majority, of high trait skeptics develop more fraud ideas than control groups with no high trait skeptics. Mediation analyses indicate that minority high trait skeptic groups also assess higher fraud risk, in part because they consider more fraud ideas. Low trait skeptics who brainstorm in groups with a minority of high trait skeptics tend to view the minority high trait skeptic as the best member of the group because of that member's unique insights. Their individual, post-brainstorming fraud risk assessments remain high, indicating conversion to the minority (skeptical) viewpoint. Our study contributes to the brainstorming literature by highlighting the importance of group composition. It suggests that firms can promote skeptical team judgments by leveraging individuals' high trait skepticism in thoughtfully composed interacting groups.

Auditors’ Use of Brainstorming in the Consideration of Fraud: Reports from the Field

2010 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 1273-1301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph F. Brazel ◽  
Tina D. Carpenter ◽  
J. Gregory Jenkins
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
High Quality ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments ◽  
Audit Standards

ABSTRACT: Audit standards require auditors to conduct fraud brainstorming sessions on every audit. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has raised concerns about auditors’ fraud judgments and the quality of their brainstorming sessions. We develop a measure of brainstorming quality to examine how it affects auditors’ fraud decision-making processes. We test our measure using field survey data of auditors’ actual brainstorming sessions for 179 audit engagements. Respondents report considerable variation in the quality of brainstorming in practice. We find some evidence that high-quality brainstorming improves the relations between fraud risk factors and fraud risk assessments. We also determine that brainstorming quality positively moderates the relations between fraud risk assessments and fraud-related testing. Our results suggest that the benefits of brainstorming do not apply uniformly, because low-quality sessions likely incur the costs of such interactions without receiving the attendant benefits. By documenting best practices from high-quality brainstorming sessions, our findings can inform auditors on how to improve their consideration of fraud.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document