The Impact of Error-Management Climate, Error Type and Error Originator on Auditors’ Reporting Errors Discovered on Audit Work Papers

We examine factors affecting the auditor’s willingness to report their own or their peers’ self-discovered errors in working papers subsequent to detailed working paper review. Prior research has shown that errors in working papers are detected in the review process; however, such detection rates only rarely exceed 50% of the seeded errors. Hence, measures that encourage auditors to be alert to their own (or their peers’) potential errors any time they revisit the audit working papers may be valuable in detecting such residual errors and potentially correcting them before damage occurs to the audit firm or its client. We hypothesize that three factors affect the auditor’s willingness to report post detailed review discovered errors: the local office error-management climate (open versus blame), the type of error (mechanical versus conceptual) and who committed the error (the individual who committed the error (self) or a peer). Local office error-management climate is said to be open and supportive where errors and mistakes are accepted as part of everyday life as long as they are learned from and not repeated. In alternative, a blame error-management climate focuses on a “get it right the first time†culture where mistakes are not tolerated and blame gets attached to those admitting to or found committing such errors. We find that error-management climate has a significant overall effect on auditor willingness to report errors, as does who committed the error originally. We find both predicted and unpredicted significant interactions among the three factors that qualify these observed significant main effects. We discuss implications for audit practice and further research.review;adjustments;audit quality;materiality

The Impact of Client and Auditor Gender on Auditors' Judgments

This study assesses the influence of client gender and auditor gender on auditors’ judgments. In an experimental task, a client offers unverified explanations as to why the auditor’s initial proposed adjusting journal entry (AJE) to lower the inventory value should not be recorded. The design includes one randomly manipulated variable (client gender: male or female) and one measured variable (auditor gender: male or female). The dependent variable assesses the influence of the client’s explanations on the auditor’s final proposed AJE recommendation. The results indicate that both male and female auditors exhibited a male-favorability; that is, they were persuaded more by a male than female client to change their initial AJE recommendation. Furthermore, female auditors were more influenced by a male client and less influenced by a female client than male auditors. Using an expert panel’s consensus opinion as a benchmark for the "best" solution, the male auditors were more accurate than female auditors, irrespective of client gender. Additional research will aid in substantiating, determining the limits, and generalizing the findings.audit judgment;auditor gender;client gender;gender stereotypes;risk taking;selectivity hypothesis

The Impact of Client Expertise, Client Gender and Auditor Gender on Auditors' Judgments

The purpose of the current study is to assess the extent to which auditors’ judgments are affected by client expertise, client gender and auditor gender. Prior audit research suggests that auditors place more weight on evidence received from clients who possess higher, relative to lower, expertise (Anderson et al. 1994b; Bamber 1983; Hirst 1994; Margheim 1986; Rebele et al. 1988). We extend this line of research by suggesting that client expertise interacts with client gender during the auditor-client inquiry process, and examining the degree to which male and female auditors respond differently to these two source attributes. A total of 158 experienced auditors participated in a between-participants experiment with two manipulated variables (client expertise - low or high; client gender - male or female) and one measured variable (auditor gender - male or female). In a client-inquiry scenario, the auditors exhibited greater belief revision when the client possessed relatively higher expertise and when the client was male. A significant three-way interaction suggests that when client expertise was high, relative to low, the male favorability bias was reduced for male auditors; however, surprisingly, the bias was increased for female auditors. Post-experiment debriefing items indicate that male (female) auditors believe that male managers inherently possess a higher (similar) level of managerial ability. Comparing the managerial ability findings to the behavioral responses suggests a potential disconnect between the female auditors’ beliefs and actions. Since one of the hallmarks of the audit profession lies in the concept of objectivity, the results of this study indicate that audit researchers and practitioners need to better understand the implications of negative gender stereotypes toward women managers.Auditor Gender;Client Expertise;Client Gender;Gender Stereotypes