The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board recently proposed amendments to the standard audit report that would require the disclosure of critical audit matters (CAMs), and the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to evaluate the use of principles-based (imprecise) accounting standards within U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. We assert that jurors perceive precise accounting standards to constrain auditors' control over financial reporting outcomes, resulting in a lower propensity for negligence verdicts when the accounting treatment conforms to the precise standard. However, we hypothesize that the use of either imprecise standards or CAMs reduces the extent to which jurors perceive this constraint to exist, leading to increased auditor liability. We present experimental evidence supporting this argument. Our results highlight the similarities between the effects of imprecise accounting standards and CAMs on negligence assessments. These results provide insight for regulators and the auditing profession about the potential consequences of the proposed regulatory changes.

SUMMARY The U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board recently proposed changes to the audit reporting model that would require auditors to disclose areas of high audit risk within the audit report. Concerns about the proposal's potential to increase auditor liability have been raised by practitioners and highlighted in the business press. In this paper, we review five recent experiments that directly relate to these concerns, identify patterns in the results, and discuss the implications of these findings for regulators and practitioners.

In this research note, we replicate Brazel, Jackson, Schaefer, and Stewart's (2016) study of how auditors evaluate skeptical behavior. Like the original study, we find that evaluators reward audit staff who exercise appropriate levels of skepticism and identify a misstatement (positive outcome). However, when no misstatement is identified (negative outcome), evaluators penalize staff who exercise appropriate levels of skepticism. One factor causing this outcome effect may be that exercising skepticism typically causes budget overages due to additional testing. Hence, we examine whether formally attributing the budget overage to skeptical judgments and actions in the audit budget file reduces outcome effects. However, while replicating the initial effect across three separate studies, we have been unable to reduce this effect. Thus, it is clear that the outcome effect in this context is very robust. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

Purpose This paper aims to examine the perceptions of auditor roles on the workpaper review process in current audit practice. Specifically, the paper investigates how an auditor’s defined role leads to perceived differences in what initiates the workpaper review process, the preferred methods for performing reviews and the stylization or framing of communicated review comments. Design/methodology/approach A survey was administered in which practicing auditors were asked about workpaper review process prompts, methods and preferences. The survey was completed by 215 auditors from each of the Big 4 accounting firms and one additional international firm. The final data set consists of quantitative and qualitative responses from 25 audit partners, 33 senior managers, 30 managers, 75 in-charge auditors/seniors and 52 staff auditors. Findings Findings indicate reviewers and preparers differ in their perceptions of the review process based on their defined roles. First, reviewers and preparers differ in their perspectives on which factors initiate the review process. Second, the majority of reviewers and preparers prefer face-to-face communication when discussing review notes. Reviewers, however, are more likely to believe the face-to-face method is an effective way to discuss review notes and to facilitate learning, whereas preparers prefer the method primarily because it reduces back-and-forth communication. Finally, reviewers believe they predominantly provide conclusion-based review notes, whereas preparers perceive review notes as having both conclusion- and documentation-based messages. Research limitations/implications This paper advances the academic literature by providing a unique perspective on the review process. Instead of investigating a single staff level, it examines the workpaper review process on a broader scale. By obtaining views from professionals across all levels, this work intends to inspire future research directed at reconciling differences and filling gaps in the review process literature. The finding that reviewers and preparers engage in role conformity that leads to incongruent perceptions of the review process should encourage the consideration of mechanisms, with the potential to be tested experimentally, by which to reconcile the incongruities. Practical implications Results support recent regulator concerns that there are breakdowns in the workpaper review process, and the findings provide some insight into why these breakdowns are occurring. Incongruent perceptions of review process characteristics may be the drivers of these identified regulatory concerns. Originality/value This is the first study to examine current workpaper review processes at the largest accounting firms from the perspective of both preparers and reviewers. From this unique data set, one key interpretation of the findings is that workpaper preparers do not appear to recognize a primary goal of the review process: to ensure that subordinates receive appropriate coaching, learning and development. However, workpaper reviewers do, in fact, attempt to support preparers and work to create a supportive team environment.

We examine communication behaviors during the audit review process using a survey of audit partners, managers, and in-charge/senior associates from each Big 4 accounting firm and one international accounting firm. We inquire about reviewers' preferred communication style when discussing review notes with preparers of varying performance levels, their likelihood of taking over the audit work of preparers due to either a lack of a response or an inappropriate response to a review note, and their propensity to self-correct preparers' documentation along with the reasons for doing so instead of leaving a review note. Consistent with expectations, results indicate that reviewers are more likely to discuss review notes face to face with below-averageperforming subordinates than with above-average-performing subordinates, and instead use alternative forms of communication with above-average performers. Further, we find that reviewers self-correct and/or update documentation themselves more frequently for below-average subordinates than for above-average subordinates. Supplemental analysis reveals that reviewers are likely to revise the work of subordinates, whether below average or above average, for a variety of reasons, including ease of doing so, efficiency, and pending deadlines.