IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v18y2001i3p425-444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Jurors' Evaluations of Auditors in Negligence Cases

Author

Listed:
  • Kathryn Kadous

Abstract

Prior research indicates that individuals acting as jurors experience outcome effects in audit negligence litigation. That is, jurors evaluate auditors more harshly in light of negative outcomes, even when audit quality is constant. I posit that outcome effects in this setting are caused by jurors using their negative affect (i.e., feelings) resulting from learning about negative audit outcomes as information relevant to auditor blameworthiness. I tested this hypothesis in an experiment in which I manipulated audit quality, outcome information, and provision of an attribution instruction. The attribution instruction was designed to discredit negative affect as a cue to auditor blameworthiness. Consistent with expectations, attribution participants' evaluations of auditors exhibited less reliance on outcome information and more reliance on audit quality information than did evaluations made by control participants. In fact, outcome effects were eliminated for attribution participants. Courts may be able to improve the quality of jurors' decisions in such cases by employing an attribution instruction.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathryn Kadous, 2001. "Improving Jurors' Evaluations of Auditors in Negligence Cases," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 425-444, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:18:y:2001:i:3:p:425-444
    DOI: 10.1506/GM8A-HNPH-LL3L-98FY
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1506/GM8A-HNPH-LL3L-98FY
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1506/GM8A-HNPH-LL3L-98FY?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jillian Alderman & S. Jane Jollineau, 2020. "Can Audit Committee Expertise Increase External Auditors' Litigation Risk? The Moderating Effect of Audit Committee Independence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 717-740, June.
    2. Lei Liu & Tingyong Feng & Jing Chen & Hong Li, 2013. "The Value of Emotion: How Does Episodic Prospection Modulate Delay Discounting?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-7, November.
    3. Baxter, Jane & Carlsson-Wall, Martin & Chua, Wai Fong & Kraus, Kalle, 2019. "Accounting and passionate interests: The case of a Swedish football club," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 21-40.
    4. Shujun Ding & Philip Beaulieu, 2011. "The Role of Financial Incentives in Balanced Scorecard‐Based Performance Evaluations: Correcting Mood Congruency Biases," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1223-1247, December.
    5. Chambers, Valerie A. & Reckers, Philip M.J., 2022. "Auditor interventions that reduce auditor liability judgments," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    6. Christine Gimbar & Molly Mercer, 2021. "Do Auditors Accurately Predict Litigation and Reputation Consequences of Inaccurate Accounting Estimates?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 276-301, March.
    7. Brown, Timothy & Majors, Tracie M. & Peecher, Mark E., 2020. "Evidence on how different interventions affect juror assessment of auditor legal culpability and responsibility for damages after auditor failure to detect fraud," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    8. Philipp Koellinger & Theresa Treffers, 2015. "Joy Leads to Overconfidence, and a Simple Countermeasure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.

    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:wly:coacre:v:18:y:2001:i:3:p:425-444. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.