IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v73y2019icp35-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Bucaro, Anthony C.

Abstract

Audit practitioners, standards, and regulators continually emphasize the importance of professional judgment in the audit of complex processes and financial estimates. Despite this increasing call for more thoughtful analysis, research and inspection reports seem to suggest that auditors tend to make mechanistic audit decisions in such situations. This experiment evaluates auditor participants' improved application of professional judgment in the audit of complex estimates when taught a specific critical thinking methodology from system dynamics. Results indicate that emphasizing the use of professional judgment is not sufficient to decrease auditors' mechanistic mentality. As expected, however, auditors primed to take a systems-thinking perspective are better able to evaluate the complexity of the situation and to more effectively apply professional judgment. These results suggest that the goal of improving professional judgment can be achieved with an underlying change to the way auditors think.

Suggested Citation

  • Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:73:y:2019:i:c:p:35-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2018.06.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368218303246
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2018.06.002?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. Kopp, Lori S. & O'Donnell, Ed, 2005. "The influence of a business-process focus on category knowledge and internal control evaluation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 423-434, July.
    2. Moti Frank, 2006. "Knowledge, abilities, cognitive characteristics and behavioral competences of engineers with high capacity for engineering systems thinking (CEST)," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 91-103, June.
    3. Moti Frank, 2000. "Engineering systems thinking and systems thinking," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3), pages 163-168.
    4. Borthick, A. Faye & Curtis, Mary B. & Sriram, Ram S., 2006. "Accelerating the acquisition of knowledge structure to improve performance in internal control reviews," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 323-342.
    5. Power, Michael, 2007. "Business risk auditing - Debating the history of its present," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 379-382.
    6. Barry Richmond, 1993. "Systems thinking: Critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 9(2), pages 113-133, June.
    7. Michael Shayne Gary & Robert E. Wood, 2016. "Unpacking mental models through laboratory experiments," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(2), pages 99-127, April.
    8. Knechel, W. Robert, 2007. "The business risk audit: Origins, obstacles and opportunities," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 383-408.
    9. Bratten, Brian & Jennings, Ross & Schwab, Casey M., 2016. "The accuracy of disclosures for complex estimates: Evidence from reported stock option fair values," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 32-49.
    10. Backof, Ann G. & Bamber, E. Michael & Carpenter, Tina D., 2016. "Do auditor judgment frameworks help in constraining aggressive reporting? Evidence under more precise and less precise accounting standards," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-11.
    11. Emily E. Griffith & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Kathryn Kadous & Donald Young, 2015. "Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 49-77, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Emily E. Griffith & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Kathryn Kadous, 2015. "Audits of Complex Estimates as Verification of Management Numbers: How Institutional Pressures Shape Practice," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 833-863, September.
    14. Alissa, Walid & Capkun, Vedran & Jeanjean, Thomas & Suca, Nadja, 2014. "An empirical investigation of the impact of audit and auditor characteristics on auditor performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 495-510.
    15. Shields, Michael D. & Birnberg, Jacob G. & Frieze, Irene Hanson, 1981. "Attributions, cognitive processes and control systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 69-93, January.
    16. Wood, Robert E., 1986. "Task complexity: Definition of the construct," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 60-82, February.
    17. Sterman, John D., 1989. "Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 301-335, June.
    18. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    19. Rasso, Jason Tyler, 2015. "Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 44-55.
    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. Stéphane Lhuillery & Marion Tellechea & Stéphanie Thiery, 2021. "Open innovation in managerial innovation: the case of internal audit," Working Papers of BETA 2021-19, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Lhuillery, Stéphane & Tellechea, Marion & Thiéry, Stéphanie, 2023. "Innovation in lieu of compliance: Internal audit departments’ standardized and non-standardized knowledge sources," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    3. Sargent, Matthew J. & Winton, Bradley G., 2023. "Cognitive ability and performance in accounting students: The importance of data analytics assignments," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Xiaomeng Lucock & Victoria Westbrooke, 2021. "Trusting in the “Eye in the Sky”? Farmers’ and Auditors’ Perceptions of Drone Use in Environmental Auditing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, November.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Carolyn Mactavish & Susan McCracken & Regan N. Schmidt, 2018. "External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 387-426, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Rita Lamboglia & Daniela Mancini, 2021. "The relationship between auditors’ human capital attributes and the assessment of the control environment," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(4), pages 1211-1239, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Shaw, Kenneth W. & Whitworth, James D., 2022. "Client importance and unconditional conservatism in complex accounting estimates," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    9. Chen, Bingyi, 2022. "Do investors value audit quality of complex estimates?," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Christopher J. Wolfe & Brant E. Christensen & Scott D. Vandervelde, 2020. "Intuition versus Analytical Thinking and Impairment Testing†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1598-1621, September.
    12. Aaron Saiewitz & Elaine (Ying) Wang, 2020. "Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross‐National Auditor Judgment Differences," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1854-1881, September.
    13. Dierynck, Bart & Kadous, Kathryn & Peters, Christian P. H., 2024. "Learning in the auditing profession: A framework and future directions," Other publications TiSEM eb74c8e4-bc4a-4b71-b88a-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Comprix, Joseph & Guo, Jun & Zhang, Yan & Zhou, Nan, 2017. "Setting expected rates of return on pension plan assets: New evidence on the influence of audit committee accounting experts," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 159-166.
    15. 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.
    16. Ma, Jin & Coram, Paul & Troshani, Indrit, 2024. "The effect of key audit matters and management disclosures on auditors’ judgements and decisions: An exploratory study," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    17. Kelley E. Dugan & Erika A. Mosyjowski & Shanna R. Daly & Lisa R. Lattuca, 2022. "Systems thinking assessments in engineering: A systematic literature review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 840-866, July.
    18. 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.
    19. Ji, Xu-dong & Lu, Wei & Qu, Wen, 2018. "Internal control risk and audit fees: Evidence from China," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 266-287.
    20. Sarah B. Stuber & Chris E. Hogan, 2021. "Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Accuracy of Accounting Estimates?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 331-370, March.

    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:73:y:2019:i:c:p:35-49. 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.