Perceptions of Auditor Negligence: The Effects of Big Data Visualisations on Jurors’ Decisions

<p>This study analyses the effects of Big Data visualisations on jurors’ decisions in audit litigation cases. Specifically, the study investigates the effects of different types of Big Data visualisations (word clouds or bar graphs) and different sources of Big Data (emails or social media posts) on jurors’ perceptions of auditors’ work and the size of the negligence awards that jurors recommend. The study theorises that the emotions elicited and the reliability of the data used to create visualisations such as word clouds will have dramatic effects on jury verdicts in audit negligence trials. There is considerable literature to support this assertion. However, after data collection, it was discovered that jurors are not influenced by the emotions elicited by visualisations. Rather, participants were very sceptical of more novel types of visualisations, such as word clouds, but could be persuaded by the inherent emotions elicited and the reliability of the data if they found the visualisation useful.</p>

Perceptions of Auditor Negligence: The Effects of Big Data Visualisations on Jurors’ Decisions

<p>This study analyses the effects of Big Data visualisations on jurors’ decisions in audit litigation cases. Specifically, the study investigates the effects of different types of Big Data visualisations (word clouds or bar graphs) and different sources of Big Data (emails or social media posts) on jurors’ perceptions of auditors’ work and the size of the negligence awards that jurors recommend. The study theorises that the emotions elicited and the reliability of the data used to create visualisations such as word clouds will have dramatic effects on jury verdicts in audit negligence trials. There is considerable literature to support this assertion. However, after data collection, it was discovered that jurors are not influenced by the emotions elicited by visualisations. Rather, participants were very sceptical of more novel types of visualisations, such as word clouds, but could be persuaded by the inherent emotions elicited and the reliability of the data if they found the visualisation useful.</p>

The impacts of interaction of audit litigation and ownership structure on audit quality

This study examines the impact of the interactions of audit litigation and ownership structure on audit quality by Big 4 and non-Big 4 audit firms in Oman. This study uses modified audit opinion as proxies for audit quality, binary variable for audit litigation and percentage of shares owned by large shareholders and minority shareholders (consisting of Arab [non-GCC] shareholders) for ownership structure. The study uses size, risk, types of activity and ages of the firms as control variables. For the analysis and explanation of results descriptive statistics, correlation, regression techniques and T-test are used. Based on a sample of 107 listed companies on Muscat Securities Market (MSM) for 2013–2017, we find that audit litigation has a significant impact on audit quality for Big 4 audit firms, but not for non-Big 4 audit firms. Also, the results indicate that there is no difference between Big 4 and non-Big 4 audit firms as far as litigation risk is concerned.

PRACTITIONER SUMMARY Factors Affecting the Outcomes of Legal Claims against Auditors

Maksymov, Pickerd, Lowe, Peecher, and Reffett (2020b) draw insights based on interviews with 27 prominent audit litigation attorneys about the factors affecting the initiation of legal claims against auditors and how such factors affect settlement outcomes. We summarize their key findings and discuss important implications for audit practitioners. Specifically, we focus on the key factors that affect plaintiff attorneys’ willingness to pursue legal claims against auditors, including the merits of the claim, size of alleged economic damages, auditors’ ability to pay, and the expected cost to pursue the claim. We also discuss the reasons why most audit disputes settle (as opposed to resolving at trial) and the factors affecting settlement outcomes. We hope the insights provided enhance audit practitioners’ understanding of litigation and the settlement process to allow them to manage claims in a less intimidated and ultimately more strategic manner.

Perceived Auditor Independence and Audit Litigation: The Role of Nonaudit Services Fees

ABSTRACT This study investigates whether audit litigants act as if they believe jurors will associate auditor-provided nonaudit services (NAS) with impaired auditor independence, and thus substandard auditor performance. Using GAAP-based financial statement restatements disclosed from 2001–2007 as an indicator for audit failure, I find that the amount of NAS fees and the ratio of NAS fees to total fees is positively associated with the likelihood that a restatement results in audit litigation. I also find that when plaintiff attorneys argue that auditor independence was impaired due to dependence on client fees and, in particular, NAS fees, restatement-related audit litigation is more likely to result in an auditor settlement and a larger amount of settlement. These results suggest that audit litigants act as if they believe NAS fees will strengthen the case against the auditor, and thus affect the court resolution if the lawsuit is taken to verdict. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from sources identified in the study.

The Association of Preaudit Engagement Risk with Discretionary Accruals

In an archival study of audits by multiple offices of three international audit firms, we examine whether preaudit engagement risk assessments made by the auditor are associated with estimated postaudit discretionary accruals. We find that preaudit engagement risk is significantly and positively associated with the estimated level of discretionary accruals reported in audited financial statements. As higher levels of discretionary accruals have been shown to be associated with higher risk of post-audit litigation, it appears that rather than taking actions that result in higher-risk clients reporting less aggressive discretionary accruals, auditors instead are accepting a higher postaudit risk for these clients.

Debiasing the Outcome Effect: The Role of Instructions in an Audit Litigation Setting

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 nonnormativeness 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.