IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v87y2020ics0361368220300593.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence on how different interventions affect juror assessment of auditor legal culpability and responsibility for damages after auditor failure to detect fraud

Author

Listed:
  • Brown, Timothy
  • Majors, Tracie M.
  • Peecher, Mark E.

Abstract

Prior research shows that, under realistic conditions, jurors overly harshly evaluate audit firm culpability when financial statement fraud emerges after issuance of a clean audit opinion. In two experiments, we test theory-based predictions that three topical regulatory factors can reduce jurors’ assessments of audit firm culpability as well as predictions about two key mediators through which these factors effectively operate. The three factors are an auditor judgment rule (AJR) prohibiting juror second-guessing of auditor judgments made in good faith and with a reasonable basis, a critical audit matter (CAM) disclosure in the audit report that pertains to the disputed area, and a juror negligence training (JNT) in which jurors learn and apply legal concepts before the case evaluation. The two mediators are jurors’ perceptions that the audit firm missed a readily detectable fraud (detectability) and tacitly assented to management’s potentially fraudulent actions (acquiescence). Finally, we also test a “reactance-effects” prediction whereby, even while the AJR and JNT interventions decrease assessed auditor culpability on average, we expect the interventions will simultaneously increase assessed damages among the relatively small subset of jurors finding against the audit firm in their presence relative to jurors finding against the audit firm in their absence. Results support our predictions and also demonstrate that the mediators of perceived detectability and acquiescence can underlie these effects.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:87:y:2020:i:c:s0361368220300593
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2020.101172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368220300593
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101172?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fitzsimons, Gavan J, 2000. "Consumer Response to Stockouts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 249-266, September.
    2. Coffee, John C., 2004. "Gatekeeper Failure and Reform: The Challenge of Fashioning Relevant Reforms," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt13d8s2qs, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Nguyen Pham & Naomi Mandel & Andrea C. Morales, 2016. "Messages from the Food Police: How Food-Related Warnings Backfire among Dieters," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 175-190.
    5. Palmrose, Zv, 1991. "Trials Of Legal Disputes Involving Independent Auditors - Some Empirical-Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29, pages 149-185.
    6. Kathryn Kadous, 2001. "Improving Jurors' Evaluations of Auditors in Negligence Cases," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 425-444, September.
    7. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    8. Dain C. Donelson, 2013. "The Potential for Catastrophic Auditor Litigation," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 15(1), pages 333-380.
    9. Jonathan H. Grenier & Bradley Pomeroy & Matthew T. Stern, 2015. "The Effects of Accounting Standard Precision, Auditor Task Expertise, and Judgment Frameworks on Audit Firm Litigation Exposure," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 336-357, March.
    10. Robert M. Cornell & Rick C. Warne & Martha M. Eining, 2009. "The Use of Remedial Tactics in Negligence Litigation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 767-787, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    13. Gavan J. Fitzsimons & Donald R. Lehmann, 2004. "Reactance to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contrary Responses," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 82-94, September.
    14. Mark E. Peecher & M. David Piercey, 2008. "Judging Audit Quality in Light of Adverse Outcomes: Evidence of Outcome Bias and Reverse Outcome Bias," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 243-274, March.
    15. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    16. Luzi Hail & Mark Lang & Christian Leuz, 2020. "Reproducibility in Accounting Research: Views of the Research Community," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 519-543, May.
    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. Goodson, Brian M. & Grenier, Jonathan H. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2023. "When law students think like audit litigation attorneys: Implications for experimental research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Camacho-Miñano, María-del-Mar & Muñoz-Izquierdo, Nora & Pincus, Morton & Wellmeyer, Patricia, 2024. "Are key audit matter disclosures useful in assessing the financial distress level of a client firm?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).

    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. 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.
    2. Goodson, Brian M. & Grenier, Jonathan H. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2023. "When law students think like audit litigation attorneys: Implications for experimental research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    3. Ma, Jin & Coram, Paul & Troshani, Indrit, 2024. "The effect of key audit matters and management disclosures on auditors’ judgements and decisions: An exploratory study," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    4. Sanaz Aghazadeh & Yoon Ju Kang & Marietta Peytcheva, 2023. "Auditors’ scepticism in response to audit committee oversight behaviour," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2013-2034, June.
    5. Sellers, R. Drew & Fogarty, Timothy J. & Jadallah, Jadallah, 2020. "Has the new world order taught the big four to manage client portfolio risk? Examining extreme loss occurrences before and after Sarbanes Oxley," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    6. Janice Y. Jung & Barbara A. Mellers, 2016. "American attitudes toward nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 62-74, January.
    7. Vera-Muñoz, Sandra C., 2015. "Commentary on “The effect of an audit judgment rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates” (Kang, Trotman, and Trotman)," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 77-80.
    8. Sharma, Dheeraj & Verma, Varsha, 2014. "Psychological and economic considerations of rewards programs," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 924-932.
    9. Chy, Mahfuz & De Franco, Gus & Su, Barbara, 2021. "The effect of auditor litigation risk on clients' access to bank debt: Evidence from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1).
    10. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    11. El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Pittman, Jeffrey, 2016. "Cross-country evidence on the importance of Big Four auditors to equity pricing: The mediating role of legal institutions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 60-81.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Nguyen Pham & Naomi Mandel & Andrea C. Morales, 2016. "Messages from the Food Police: How Food-Related Warnings Backfire among Dieters," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 175-190.
    15. Hoang, Dong & Breugelmans, Els, 2023. "“Sorry, the product you ordered is out of stock”: Effects of substitution policy in online grocery retailing," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 26-45.
    16. Trampe, Debra & Konuş, Umut & Verhoef, Peter C., 2014. "Customer Responses to Channel Migration Strategies Toward the E-channel," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 257-270.
    17. Cabano, Frank G. & Attari, Amin, 2023. "Don’t tell me how much to tip: The influence of gratuity guidelines on consumers’ favorability of the brand," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    18. De Vries, Eline L.E. & Zhang, Sha, 2020. "The effectiveness of random discounts for migrating customers to the mobile channel," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 272-281.
    19. Mertins, Lasse & Salbador, Debra & Long, James H., 2013. "The outcome effect – A review and implications for future research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 2-30.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:62-74 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Bertini, Marco & Aydinli, Aylin, 2020. "Consumer Reactance to Promotional Favors," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(4), pages 578-589.

    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:eee:aosoci:v:87:y:2020:i:c:s0361368220300593. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.