IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/euract/v24y2015i3p581-606.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Loss Aversion, Audit Risk Judgments, and Auditor Liability

Author

Listed:
  • Jochen Bigus

Abstract

I investigate how different legal regimes affect auditor's effort and investors' investment decisions when the auditor is subject to probability weighting and loss aversion, which are two important characteristics of Prospect Theory. Probability weighting encourages an auditor to overrate the audit risk and the likelihood of damages leading to inflated audit fees which could help to explain the BigN audit-fee premium. With loss aversion, an auditor is sensitive to the risk of damage compensation and, thus, tends to exert excessive caution which also generates excessive audit fees. Consequently, investors may choose not to hire an auditor and, as a result, may forego an otherwise profitable investment. These effects are more intense with a strict liability regime than with a negligence rule because with the latter, the auditor is not held liable when due care has been exerted. This removes the risk of incurring losses. The paper highlights the robustness of the negligence regime when preferences are unobservable.

Suggested Citation

  • Jochen Bigus, 2015. "Loss Aversion, Audit Risk Judgments, and Auditor Liability," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 581-606, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:euract:v:24:y:2015:i:3:p:581-606
    DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2014.899920
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09638180.2014.899920
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09638180.2014.899920?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. Frey, Bruno S. & Eichenberger, Reiner, 1994. "Economic incentives transform psychological anomalies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 215-234, March.
    2. Oliver Hart, 2009. "Regulation and Sarbanes‐Oxley," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 437-445, May.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Derek K. Chan & Suil Pae, 1998. "An Analysis of the Economic Consequences of the Proportionate Liability Rule," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 457-480, December.
    5. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    6. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    7. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    8. Reiner Quick, 1996. "The legal liability of auditors in Germany," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 507-521.
    9. David de Meza & David C. Webb, 2007. "Incentive Design under Loss Aversion," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(1), pages 66-92, March.
    10. Jong†Hag Choi & Jeong†Bon Kim & Xiaohong Liu & Dan A. Simunic, 2008. "Audit Pricing, Legal Liability Regimes, and Big 4 Premiums: Theory and Cross†country Evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 55-99, March.
    11. Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "Understanding Regulation," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 11(4), pages 439-451, September.
    12. Steven Shavell, 1982. "On Liability and Insurance," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(1), pages 120-132, Spring.
    13. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Ralf Ewert & Eberhard Feess & Martin Nell, 2000. "Auditor liability rules under imperfect information and costly litigation: the welfare-increasing effect of liability insurance," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 371-385.
    15. Hemmer, Thomas & Kim, Oliver & Verrecchia, Robert E., 1999. "Introducing convexity into optimal compensation contracts," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 307-327, December.
    16. Ingolf Dittmann & Ernst Maug & Oliver Spalt, 2010. "Sticks or Carrots? Optimal CEO Compensation when Managers Are Loss Averse," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(6), pages 2015-2050, December.
    17. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    18. Lars Peter Hansen & Thomas J Sargent, 2014. "Robust Control and Model Uncertainty," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: UNCERTAINTY WITHIN ECONOMIC MODELS, chapter 5, pages 145-154, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. Craig Emby & David Finley, 1997. "Debiasing Framing Effects in Auditors' Internal Control Judgments and Testing Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 55-77, June.
    20. Lattimore, Pamela K. & Baker, Joanna R. & Witte, Ann D., 1992. "The influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 377-400, May.
    21. Hoffman, VB & Patton, JM, 1997. "Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 227-237.
    22. Narayanan, Vg, 1994. "An Analysis Of Auditor Liability Rules," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32, pages 39-59.
    23. Pamela K. Lattimore & Joanna R. Baker & A. Dryden Witte, 1992. "The Influence Of Probability on Risky Choice: A parametric Examination," NBER Technical Working Papers 0081, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    24. Marleen Willekens & Dan Simunic, 2007. "Precision in auditing standards: effects on auditor and director liability and the supply and demand for audit services," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 217-232.
    25. Dhami, Sanjit & Al-Nowaihi, Ali, 2010. "Optimal taxation in the presence of tax evasion: Expected utility versus prospect theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 313-337, August.
    26. Mark E. Peecher & M. David Piercey, 2008. "Judging Audit Quality in Light of Adverse Outcomes: Evidence of Outcome Bias and Reverse Outcome Bias," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 243-274, March.
    27. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor independence, `low balling', and disclosure regulation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 113-127, August.
    28. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    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. Ranjan Das Gupta & Rajesh Pathak, 2018. "Firm’s Risk-Return Association Facets and Prospect Theory Findings—An Emerging versus Developed Country Context," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-32, December.
    2. Jochen Bigus, 2015. "Auditor Reputation Under Different Negligence Regimes," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(3), pages 356-378, September.
    3. Jani Saastamoinen & Hannu Ojala & Kati Pajunen & Pontus Troberg, 2018. "Analyst Characteristics and the Level of Critical Perception of Goodwill Accounting," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(4), pages 538-555, December.
    4. Díez-Esteban, José María & García-Gómez, Conrado Diego & López-Iturriaga, Félix Javier & Santamaría-Mariscal, Marcos, 2017. "Corporate risk-taking, returns and the nature of major shareholders: Evidence from prospect theory," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 900-911.
    5. Ritzer-Angerer Petra, 2020. "Was bedeuten die Vertrauensguteigenschaften der Jahresabschlussprüfung für die Regulierung der Wirtschaftsprüferhaftung?," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 69(2), pages 89-119, August.
    6. Konstantinos Eleftheriou & Iliya Komarev & Paul Klumpes, 2023. "Regulating the Market for Audit Services: A Game Theoretic Approach," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 59(3), pages 697-734, September.
    7. Ritzer-Angerer Petra, 2020. "Was bedeuten die Vertrauensguteigenschaften der Jahresabschlussprüfung für die Regulierung der Wirtschaftsprüferhaftung?," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 69(2), pages 89-119, August.

    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. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    2. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    3. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    4. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    5. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    6. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "The shape of the utility function under risk in the loss domain and the "ruinous losses" hypothesis: some experimental results," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(2), pages 1393-1402.
    7. Jochen Bigus, 2015. "Auditor Reputation Under Different Negligence Regimes," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(3), pages 356-378, September.
    8. Foster, Gigi & Frijters, Paul & Schaffner, Markus & Torgler, Benno, 2018. "Expectation formation in an evolving game of uncertainty: New experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 379-405.
    9. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    10. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    11. Loreto Llorente & Josemari Aizpurua, 2008. "A Betting Market: Description and a Theoretical Explanation of Bets in Pelota Matches," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 421-446, March.
    12. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Sanjit Dhami & Narges Hajimoladarvish, 2020. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Tax Evasion: Theory and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 8606, CESifo.
    14. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    15. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. M. Pelé & M. Broihanne & B. Thierry & J. Call & V. Dufour, 2014. "To bet or not to bet? Decision-making under risk in non-human primates," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 141-166, October.
    17. Wang, Di, 2021. "Attention-driven probability weighting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    18. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    19. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    20. Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M. & Cuilty, Emilio, 2014. "The role of emotions on risk aversion: A Prospect Theory experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-9.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:euract:v:24:y:2015:i:3:p:581-606. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/REAR20 .

    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.