No abstract

This study investigates how the timing of the consideration of Big Data visualizations affects an auditor's evaluation of evidence and professional judgments. In addition, we examine whether the use of an intuitive processing mode, as compared to a deliberative processing mode, influences an auditor's use and evaluation of Big Data visualizations. We conduct an experiment with 127 senior auditors from two Big 4 firms and find that auditors have difficulty recognizing patterns in Big Data visualizations when viewed before more traditional audit evidence. Our findings also indicate that auditors who view Big Data visualizations containing patterns that are contrary to management assertions after they view traditional audit evidence have greater concerns about potential misstatements and increase budgeted hours more. Overall, our results suggest that Big Data visualizations used as evidential matter have fewer benefits when they are viewed before auditors examine more traditional audit evidence.

This study extends prior research by examining the effects of dispositional trust, induced skepticism, and fraud-specific audit experience on attention to aggressive financial reporting practices and judgments of potential misstatement. In an experimental analysis using 125 practicing auditors, this study finds that auditors who are less trusting of others attend more to evidence of aggressive reporting than do more trusting auditors, and higher levels of induced skepticism increase attention to aggressive reporting. Further, auditors who pay more attention to evidence of aggressive reporting are more likely to believe that intentional misstatement occurred. General audit experience was not a predictor of auditors' attention to aggressive reporting or auditors' judgments about intentional misstatements. Auditors with more fraud-specific experience, however, were more likely than auditors with less fraud-specific experience to believe that intentional misstatement had occurred when evidence of aggressive reporting exists.

This paper reports on the results of an experiment conducted with experienced corporate directors. The study findings indicate that directors employ prospective rationality cognition, and they sometimes make decisions that emphasize legal defensibility at the expense of personal ethics and social responsibility. Directors recognize the ethical and social implications of their decisions, but they believe that current corporate law requires them to pursue legal courses of action that maximize shareholder value. The results suggest that additional ethics education will have little influence on the decisions of many business leaders because their decisions are driven by corporate law, rather than personal ethics. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007board of director, ethics, social responsibility,

No abstract