How Does an Audit or a Forensic Perspective Influence Auditors’ Fraud-Risk Assessment and Subsequent Risk Response?

This study examines whether priming auditors with a forensic perspective improves their fraud-risk assessments and subsequent audit-plan responses. We contribute to the literature by investigating a potential improvement in fraud detection that encourages auditors to take a forensic specialist’s perspective, while retaining the audit tenets of efficiently identifying and responding to risk. We prime auditors with a forensic perspective and compare their fraud performance to unprimed auditors in both low- and high-risk contexts, finding primed auditors assess fraud-risk significantly higher in all fraud-risk environments. In a high-risk environment, primed auditors propose a more appropriate audit-plan response. Relevant to fraud detection, these audit-plan modifications were consistent with those determined by a panel of audit and forensic experts. They exhibit a sensitivity in the low-risk environment, whereby their risk response is similar with that of the unprimed auditors. Finally, we find perspective-taking affects risk response through its influence on risk assessment.

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

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.

How Fraud Risk Decomposition Affects Auditors' 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.

PRACTITIONER SUMMARY How Fraud Risk Decomposition Affects Auditors' 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 Effect of Fraud Risk Assessment Frequency and Fraud Inquiry Timing on Auditors' Skeptical Judgments and Actions

SYNOPSIS Identifying ways to improve and maintain professional skepticism, particularly for the purpose of reducing the risk of material misstatement due to fraud, continues to be a top priority for the auditing profession. This study examines two strategies for improving skeptical behavior in a fraud-related task: (1) practicing inward-directed skepticism through repeated risk assessments and (2) performing timely fraud inquiries of operational-level employees. Results indicate auditors made more skeptical judgments when revisiting and reassessing fraud risk assessments. Further, when auditors performed operational-level fraud inquiries prior to substantive testing, participants exhibited significantly greater increases in skeptical judgment than those who performed inquiries subsequently or not at all. We also observed a greater tendency toward skeptical action, but only on the part of participants who were highly skeptical by nature. These findings support the effectiveness of two strategies for improving skepticism throughout an audit engagement that can improve fraud detection.

Assessing Management Integrity: Insights from Big 4 Auditors in Egypt

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.

Disclosure and Audit Implications of Nonfinancial Measures: A Teaching Case

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.

The Influence of Judgment Decomposition on Auditors' Fraud Risk Assessments: Some Trade-Offs

ABSTRACT Auditing standards recommend separate assessments of the likelihood and magnitude of risks (hereafter, LM decomposition). Prior research shows that decomposition can focus individuals on the components of a judgment and make them more sensitive to information. An experiment with 101 experienced auditors shows that LM decomposition leads auditors to be less concerned about high-risk fraud schemes relative to auditors who make holistic risk assessments. Our analyses also show that, relative to those making holistic risk assessments, the correlation between auditors' likelihood judgments and their overall fraud risk judgments and the coherence of their fraud risk judgments are higher for auditors who perform an LM decomposition. Two follow-up experiments with students replicate these findings for higher-risk events, and (unlike the auditor experiment) we also find that LM decomposition results in lower risk judgments for lower-risk issues. We also find that LM decomposition mitigates the influence of affective responses on high-risk judgments.