The Effect of Audit Standards on Fraud Consultation and Auditor Judgment

We investigate how the strictness of a requirement to consult on potential client fraud affects auditor assessments of fraud risk and the propensity to consult with firm experts. We test two specific forms of guidance about fraud consultations: (1) relatively strict (i.e., mandatory and binding) and (2) relatively lenient (i.e., advisory and non-binding). We predict that a strict consultation requirement will lead to greater propensity to consult and higher fraud risk assessments. We further investigate potentially amplifying effects of a client attribute (underlying fraud risk) and an engagement attribute (deadline pressure). Results from two experiments with 208 Dutch audit managers and partners demonstrate that fraud risk and the consultation propensity are both assessed higher under a strict consultation requirement. For near-partners and partners, this effect is compounded when a client exhibits significant red flags; for managers, it is compounded when deadline pressure is tight. This study demonstrates that the formulation of a standard, such as the consultation requirement, may create adverse incentives that bias risk assessment, which should be considered by regulators and audit firms when developing, formulating and implementing such procedures

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