The Interaction Of Documentation Format And Sequence On Error Detection In A Sales Returns Accounting Information System

This paper describes an experiment investigating whether the documentation mode and sequence of documentation jointly affect error detection performance when documenting an accounting information system. Forty-six graduate and undergraduate accounting and accounting information systems students participated in the study in three groups.  The students received a narrative and flowchart describing a client's sales returns processing system and were asked to identify the control weaknesses and violations in the system.  One group of participants received both the narrative and flowchart simultaneously. Another group of participant received the narrative first followed by flowchart after a period of time and a third group received flowchart first followed by narrative after a period of time as well. The results show that neither narrative nor flowchart was differentially effective than the other in detecting system control errors. However, there was a significant interaction of documentation format and documentation sequence, suggesting that the amount of error detection when documenting a system was dependent upon the format and the sequence in which documentation was conducted. It also seems that given a choice of documentation formats to use, participants prefer to use narrative primarily more than flowchart in documenting a system. When forced to use flowchart first followed by narrative, participants' overall error detection performance improved significantly than when using narrative first followed by flowchart.  The implication in this study is that a second documentation format goes a long way to detect errors that would otherwise not be detected.  Similarly, the degree to which errors are effectively detected depended on the sequence in which documentation format is used

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

Female Audit Partners and Extended Audit Reporting: UK Evidence

This study investigates whether audit partner gender is associated with the extent of auditor disclosure and the communication style regarding risks of material misstatements that are classified as key audit matters (KAMs). Using a sample of UK firms during the 2013–2017 period, our results suggest that female audit partners are more likely than male audit partners to disclose more KAMs with more details after controlling for both client and audit firm attributes. Furthermore, female audit partners are found to use a less optimistic tone and provide less readable audit reports, compared to their male counterparts, suggesting that behavioural variances between female and male audit partners may have significant implications on their writing style. Therefore, this study offers new insights on the role of audit partner gender in extended audit reporting. Our findings have important implications for audit firms, investors, policymakers and governments in relation to the development, implementation and enforcement of gender diversity

Heuristics and cognitive biases as a reason of external audit failures

Niepowodzenia audytu towarzyszące skandalom finansowym z ostatnich lat (Enron, WorldCom, Parmalat i inne) przypisuje się najczęściej świadomemu działaniu audytorów. Analizując przyczyny tych spektakularnych porażek, zwraca się zwykle uwagę na kwestię braku niezależności audytorów, którzy, wbrew etyce zawodowej, formułują opinie zgodne z oczekiwaniami klienta. Badania psychologiczne sugerują jednak, że główną przyczyną porażek audytorów są nie tyle zaniechania czy świadoma korupcja, ile raczej błędy poznawcze. W artykule omówione zostały podstawowe ograniczenia poznawcze w procesach formułowania sądów i podejmowania decyzji przez audytorów: błędy wynikające ze stosowania heurystyk dostępności, reprezentatywności i zakotwiczenia, konsekwencje nadmiernej pewności siebie, zjawisko eskalacji zaangażowania oraz proces rozumowania zmotywowanego przez cel. Przedstawiono ponadto cechy strukturalne branży audytorskiej, sprzyjające występowaniu ograniczeń poznawczych. Omówiono wskazywane w literaturze propozycje zwiększania skuteczności audytu zewnętrznego.Spectacular financial reporting scandals of last years (cases of Enron, WorldCom, Parmalat and others) are usually attributed to conscious actions of auditors. When analyzing the reasons of audit failures scholars point at the lack of independence of auditors, who act against professional ethics and issue opinions which are in line with the expectations of the clients. Psychological studies suggest however, that the main reasons of audit failures are not negligence or conscious corruption, but cognitive biases. The article presents the main cognitive limitations which affect judgment and decision-making process of auditors: heuristics (availability, representativeness and anchoring), overconfidence, escalation of commitment and motivated reasoning. We present structural characteristics which make the auditing industry prone to cognitive biases. We also discuss possible measures aimed at reducing the number of audit failures