IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v37y2020i3p1598-1621.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intuition versus Analytical Thinking and Impairment Testing†

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher J. Wolfe
  • Brant E. Christensen
  • Scott D. Vandervelde

Abstract

We examine the use of intuition versus analytical thinking in auditor risk assessment using a task that requires auditors to assess a group of impairment indicators. We expect that auditor intuition, rooted in the subconscious, more likely reacts to impairment indicator risk than does auditor analytical thinking. Results from two different experiments support this expectation for less‐experienced audit seniors. These seniors are more likely to assess step‐zero impairment indicators as signaling potential impairment when prompted to think intuitively versus analytically. In contrast, a third experiment finds that experienced seniors are more likely to assess step‐zero impairment indicators as signaling potential impairment when prompted to think analytically versus intuitively. This is consistent with the more experienced but still non‐expert seniors possessing developed analytical thinking, but struggling to effectively use their intuition. Our results inform theory by suggesting under what conditions auditor intuition and analytical thinking produce differential risk sensitivity. Furthermore, our results inform practice, given regulators' stated focus on auditor skepticism and impairment assessments. L'intuition par rapport au raisonnement analytique dans le cadre des tests de dépréciation Nous examinons le recours à l'intuition comparativement au raisonnement analytique lorsque les auditeurs évaluent les risques, en mettant en oeuvre une tâche au cours de laquelle ils doivent évaluer une série d'indicateurs de dépréciation. Nous nous attendons à ce que l'intuition des auditeurs, ancrée dans leur subconscient, soit plus susceptible que leur raisonnement analytique de réagir à un risque associé à un indicateur de dépréciation. Les résultats de deux expériences distinctes soutiennent cette prédiction dans le cas des chargés de mission moins expérimentés. Ceux‐ci sont plus susceptibles de conclure que certains indicateurs de dépréciation à l’étape zéro du test révèlent une dépréciation possible lorsqu'ils sont invités à réfléchir de façon intuitive plutôt qu'analytique. À l'inverse, une troisième expérience établit que les chargés de mission expérimentés sont plus susceptibles d'estimer que ce type d'indicateurs à l’étape zéro révèlent une dépréciation possible lorsqu'ils sont invités à réfléchir de façon analytique plutôt qu'intuitive. Ce résultat est cohérent avec celui des chargés de mission plus expérimentés, mais qui ne sont pas encore des experts de la dépréciation, qui possèdent de fortes capacités de réflexion analytique, mais peinent à recourir efficacement à leur intuition. Nos résultats enrichissent la théorie en indiquant dans quelles conditions l'intuition ainsi que le raisonnement analytique des auditeurs produisent des niveaux de sensibilité différents aux risques. En outre, nos résultats renseignent la pratique comptable, étant donné l'accent mis par les organismes de réglementation sur le scepticisme des auditeurs et l’évaluation de la dépréciation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:37:y:2020:i:3:p:1598-1621
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12568
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12568?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah Kim & Ken T. Trotman & Neil Fargher, 2015. "The comparative effect of process and outcome accountability in enhancing professional scepticism," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 55(4), pages 1015-1040, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Ann G. Backof & Tina D. Carpenter & Jane Thayer, 2018. "Auditing Complex Estimates: How Do Construal Level and Evidence Formatting Impact Auditors' Consideration of Inconsistent Evidence?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 1798-1815, December.
    4. Rose, Jacob M. & Wolfe, Christopher J., 2000. "The effects of system design alternatives on the acquisition of tax knowledge from a computerized tax decision aid," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 285-306, April.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Dane, Erik & Rockmann, Kevin W. & Pratt, Michael G., 2012. "When should I trust my gut? Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 187-194.
    9. Loran F. Nordgren & Ap Dijksterhuis, 2009. "The Devil Is in the Deliberation: Thinking Too Much Reduces Preference Consistency," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(1), pages 39-46, June.
    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. Tatiana Garanina & Henri Hussinki & Johannes Dumay, 2021. "Accounting for intangibles and intellectual capital: a literature review from 2000 to 2020," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(4), pages 5111-5140, December.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    4. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    5. Dennis D. Fehrenbacher & Anis Triki & Martin Michael Weisner, 2021. "Can multitasking influence professional scepticism?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 1277-1306, March.
    6. Ruhnke, Klaus, 2023. "Empirical research frameworks in a changing world: The case of audit data analytics," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Chambers, Valerie A. & Reckers, Philip M.J. & Reinstein, Alan, 2020. "Drivers of juror's malpractice assessments in auditor litigation involving offshoring and overtime: Generation and a management Mindset," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    10. Ashley A. Austin & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Michael A. Ricci, 2020. "Improving Auditors' Consideration of Evidence Contradicting Management's Estimate Assumptions†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 696-716, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Tim D. Bauer & Sean M. Hillison & Mark E. Peecher & Bradley Pomeroy, 2020. "Revising Audit Plans to Address Fraud Risk: A Case of “Do as I Advise, Not as I Do”?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2558-2589, December.
    13. Chen, Bingyi, 2022. "Do investors value audit quality of complex estimates?," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Lori Shefchik Bhaskar & Patrick E. Hopkins & Joseph H. Schroeder, 2019. "An Investigation of Auditors’ Judgments When Companies Release Earnings Before Audit Completion," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 355-390, May.
    16. Sammy Xiaoyan Ying & Chris Patel & Aeson Luiz Dela Cruz, 2023. "The influence of partners' known preferences on auditors' sceptical judgements: The moderating role of perceived social influence pressure," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3193-3215, September.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Peters, Christian P. H., 2023. "The microfoundations of audit quality," Other publications TiSEM 6a2b12a5-6060-4544-883b-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Juma'h, Ahmad H. & Li, Yuan, 2023. "The effects of auditors’ knowledge, professional skepticism, and perceived adequacy of accounting standards on their intention to use blockchain," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).

    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:37:y:2020:i:3:p:1598-1621. 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: 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.