No abstract

Audit workpapers play a key role in auditor negligence trials, yet little is known about how workpaper documentation affects jurors' decision making. I investigate how auditors' documentation of their consideration of the alternative accounting treatments and their risk-based audit approach influence jurors' negligence verdicts and damage awards. I find that documentation of their consideration of the accounting alternatives increases the likelihood that auditors are found negligent because it increases jurors' perceptions of the foreseeability of the misstatement. However, when combined with documentation that explicitly links the audit risks to the work performed to address each risk, jurors award lower damage awards because they perceive auditors' actions prior to the negligent act as more compliant with the auditing standards. My results highlight the consequences of more complete documentation on jurors' evaluations of auditors and suggest the need for documentation policies that more effectively communicate the appropriateness of auditors' professional judgments.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is concerned about auditors' tendency to ignore relevant information that is inconsistent with management's assumptions underlying complex estimates. We find that priming auditors to consider how management arrived at a particular assumption helps curb aggressive reporting by encouraging auditors to engage in low‐level, concrete thinking regarding the direct evidence underlying the assumption. Low‐level, concrete thinking enhances auditors' sensitivity to relevant contradictory evidence. We also find that auditors reviewing graphical (versus textual) evidence are more skeptical of aggressive assumptions underlying a complex estimate. Evidence suggests that this is because graphs provide a better cognitive fit for tasks requiring comparisons and associations among data points. Our study is important to practitioners, regulators, and researchers as it sheds light on how a simple prime and the presentation format of audit evidence influence auditors' professional skepticism in this area. Additionally, it supports audit firms' initiatives to transform data to more visual formats by highlighting a context in which graphs improve auditors' judgments. Finally, we provide evidence as to how different primes affect auditors' evaluation of evidence, which can be useful in designing more effective audit plans.

No abstract

Given the uncertainty regarding auditors' responsibilities, standard setters considered the need for clarification of technical terms such as reasonable assurance in the new audit reporting models. The PCAOB ultimately decided to exclude clarifying language from its final standard, while the Auditing Standards Board and IAASB made such language mandatory. Given the difference in reporting models, this study investigates the role clarification of reasonable assurance plays in auditor negligence. We predict and find that, absent clarification, jurors judge auditors to be more negligent when the audit report includes a related critical audit matters disclosure than when it does not. However, consistent with our prediction, clarifying what is meant by reasonable assurance mitigates this increase in auditors' liability exposure by reducing jurors' perceptions of auditors' personal control over the misstatement at the time of the audit. Thus, our evidence suggests that the PCAOB's decision to not include such language in the new audit reporting model may have been shortsighted given the potential for clarification to mitigate a potential negative unintended consequence to auditors' litigation exposure under the new audit reporting model.