IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v76y2019icp1-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditors’ comfort with uncertain estimates: More evidence is not always better

Author

Listed:
  • Rowe, Stephen P.

Abstract

Prior research generally presumes that auditors are more comfortable with better-supported management estimates because more support reduces the chance of misstatement; however, information processing theory suggests that auditor comfort is only increasing in evidential support to the extent that they need more support to be confident in their beliefs. Once auditors are confident, more support can make them less comfortable because it presents a potential challenge to their beliefs. I investigate this notion using an experiment with experienced auditors. I find that when estimate uncertainty is extreme, auditors are more comfortable with more evidential support; however, I find that when estimate uncertainty is moderate, auditors are more comfortable with less evidential support. Consistent with processing theory, further analyses reveal that more support provided in the moderate uncertainty condition did not change auditors' confidence in their estimates but was perceived to make their estimates more difficult to defend. These findings highlight how auditors’ desires and needs to defend their judgments impact how they evaluate evidential support early in the audit process.

Suggested Citation

  • Rowe, Stephen P., 2019. "Auditors’ comfort with uncertain estimates: More evidence is not always better," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-11.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:76:y:2019:i:c:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2019.01.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368219300029
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2019.01.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nolder, Christine J. & Kadous, Kathryn, 2018. "Grounding the professional skepticism construct in mindset and attitude theory: A way forward," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Pentland, Brian T., 1993. "Getting comfortable with the numbers: Auditing and the micro-production of macro-order," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(7-8), pages 605-620.
    3. D. Eric Hirst, 1994. "Auditor Sensitivity to Earnings Management," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 405-422, June.
    4. Mark H. Taylor, 2000. "The Effects of Industry Specialization on Auditors' Inherent Risk Assessments and Confidence Judgements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 693-712, December.
    5. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    6. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    7. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    8. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    9. Orie Barron & Jamie Pratt & James D. Stice, 2001. "Misstatement Direction, Litigation Risk, and Planned Audit Investment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
    10. Peecher, ME, 1996. "The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 125-140.
    11. Zimbelman, MF & Waller, WS, 1999. "An experimental investigation of auditor-auditee interaction under ambiguity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37, pages 135-155.
    12. Thomas Carrington & Bino Catasus, 2007. "Auditing Stories about Discomfort: Becoming Comfortable with Comfort Theory," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 35-58.
    13. Kelton, Andrea Seaton & Montague, Norma R., 2018. "The unintended consequences of uncertainty disclosures made by auditors and managers on nonprofessional investor judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 44-55.
    14. Jeremy B. Griffin, 2014. "The Effects of Uncertainty and Disclosure on Auditors' Fair Value Materiality Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1165-1193, December.
    15. Kuhn, Kristine M. & Budescu, David V., 1996. "The Relative Importance of Probabilities, Outcomes, and Vagueness in Hazard Risk Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 301-317, December.
    16. Ning Du & David V. Budescu, 2005. "The Effects of Imprecise Probabilities and Outcomes in Evaluating Investment Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1791-1803, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    2. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    2. Griffith, Emily E. & Kadous, Kathryn & Proell, Chad A., 2020. "Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    3. W. Robert Knechel & Justin Leiby, 2016. "If You Want My Advice: Status Motives and Audit Consultations About Accounting Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1331-1364, December.
    4. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    5. Emett, Scott A. & Libby, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2018. "PCAOB guidance and audits of fair values for Level 2 investments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 57-72.
    6. Yi (Dale) Fu & Noel Harding & David C. Hay & Mohammad Jahanzeb Khan & Tom Scott & Harj Singh & Sarka Stepankova & Nigar Sultana, 2023. "Comments of the AFAANZ Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee on Proposed International Standard on Auditing 500 (Revised) Audit Evidence," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4805-4812, December.
    7. Aghazadeh, Sanaz & Joe, Jennifer R., 2022. "Auditors' response to management confidence and misstatement risk," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    8. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    9. Steven M. Glover & Mark H. Taylor & Yi‐Jing Wu & Ken T. Trotman, 2019. "Mind the Gap: Why Do Experts Have Differences of Opinion Regarding the Sufficiency of Audit Evidence Supporting Complex Fair Value Measurements?†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1417-1460, September.
    10. Sanaz Aghazadeh & Yoon Ju Kang & Marietta Peytcheva, 2023. "Auditors’ scepticism in response to audit committee oversight behaviour," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2013-2034, June.
    11. Guénin-Paracini, Henri & Malsch, Bertrand & Paillé, Anne Marché, 2014. "Fear and risk in the audit process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 264-288.
    12. Federica De Santis, 2016. "Auditing Standard Change and Auditors' Everyday Practice: A Field Study," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(12), pages 41-54, December.
    13. Anne Marie Garvey & Laura Parte & Bridget McNally & José Antonio Gonzalo-Angulo, 2021. "True and Fair Override: Accounting Expert Opinions, Explanations from Behavioural Theories, and Discussions for Sustainability Accounting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.
    14. Bay, Charlotta, 2018. "Makeover accounting: Investigating the meaning-making practices of financial accounts," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 44-54.
    15. Hurley, Patrick J., 2015. "Ego depletion: Applications and implications for auditing research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 47-76.
    16. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    17. Kuselias, Stephen & Agoglia, Christopher P. & Wang, Elaine Ying, 2023. "The effect of team member proximity and assignment length on audit staff reliance on a supervisor's preferences," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    18. Vera-Muñoz, Sandra C., 2015. "Commentary on “The effect of an audit judgment rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates” (Kang, Trotman, and Trotman)," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 77-80.
    19. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    20. Dela Cruz, Aeson Luiz & Patel, Chris & Ying, Sammy & Pan, Peipei, 2020. "The relevance of professional skepticism to finance professionals’ Socially Responsible Investing decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:76:y:2019:i:c:p:1-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.