IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v142y2017i2d10.1007_s10551-016-3155-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Encouraging Professional Skepticism in the Industry Specialization Era

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan H. Grenier

    (Miami University)

Abstract

This paper provides theory and experimental evidence that, under common audit conditions, industry specialization inhibits some aspects of auditors’ professional skepticism. As auditors amass industry experience, they develop extensive knowledge of non-misstatement explanations for unusual financial statement fluctuations. This knowledge coupled with confidence in their ability to analyze audit evidence inhibits their inclination to be skeptical when there are no overt indicators of elevated misstatement risk. Although these conditions are, by definition, the conditions where misstatements are least likely, they are also the same conditions where the PCAOB has alleged pervasive insufficient professional skepticism and where well-concealed fraud is possible. These results pose an ethical dilemma for the PCAOB in terms of weighing its charge to protect the public interest against the fairness of its inspections to audit firms. Encouragingly, I also predict and find that audit firm efforts to promote professional skepticism are more effective for specialists as non-specialists are skeptical regardless of these efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan H. Grenier, 2017. "Encouraging Professional Skepticism in the Industry Specialization Era," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 241-256, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:142:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3155-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3155-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-016-3155-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-016-3155-1?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. Cynthia Williams Turner, 2001. "Accountability Demands and the Auditor’s Evidence Search Strategy: The Influence of Reviewer Preferences and the Nature of the Response (Belief vs. Action)," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 683-706, December.
    2. Vincent E. Owhoso & William F. Messier, Jr. & John G. Lynch, Jr., 2002. "Error Detection by Industry‐Specialized Teams during Sequential Audit Review," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 883-900, June.
    3. William Kerler & Larry Killough, 2009. "The Effects of Satisfaction with a Client’s Management During a Prior Audit Engagement, Trust, and Moral Reasoning on Auditors’ Perceived Risk of Management Fraud," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 109-136, March.
    4. Peecher, ME, 1996. "The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 125-140.
    5. Nonna Martinov-Bennie & Gary Pflugrath, 2009. "The Strength of an Accounting Firm’s Ethical Environment and the Quality of Auditors’ Judgments," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 237-253, June.
    6. Helen Brown-Liburd & Jeffrey Cohen & Greg Trompeter, 2013. "Effects of Earnings Forecasts and Heightened Professional Skepticism on the Outcomes of Client–Auditor Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(2), pages 311-325, August.
    7. Solomon, I & Shields, MD & Whittington, OR, 1999. "What do industry-specialist auditors know?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 191-208.
    8. Stephen K. Asare & Arnold M. Wright, 2004. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Risk Assessment and Program Planning Tools in a Fraud Setting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 325-352, June.
    9. Zimbelman, MF, 1997. "The effects of SAS no. 82 on auditors' attention to fraud risk factors and audit planning decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35, pages 75-97.
    10. Michael Birnbaum, 2000. "Psychological experiments on the internet," Framed Field Experiments 00125, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. 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.
    12. D. Eric Hirst & Lisa Koonce, 1996. "Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 457-486, September.
    13. Waller, William S. & Zimbelman, Mark F., 2003. "A cognitive footprint in archival data: Generalizing the dilution effect from laboratory to field settings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 254-268, July.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Jean-François Gajewski & Marco Heimann & Pierre-Majorique Léger & Prince Teye, 2024. "Enhancing auditors’ professional skepticism through nudges: an eye-tracking experiment," Post-Print hal-04636343, HAL.
    4. William D. Brink & Jonathan H. Grenier & Jonathan S. Pyzoha & Andrew Reffett, 2019. "The Effects of Clawbacks on Auditors’ Propensity to Propose Restatements and Risk Assessments," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 313-332, August.

    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. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    2. Dierynck, Bart & Kadous, Kathryn & Peters, Christian P. H., 2023. "Learning in the auditing profession: A framework and future directions," Other publications TiSEM eb74c8e4-bc4a-4b71-b88a-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. William Kerler & Larry Killough, 2009. "The Effects of Satisfaction with a Client’s Management During a Prior Audit Engagement, Trust, and Moral Reasoning on Auditors’ Perceived Risk of Management Fraud," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 109-136, March.
    8. W. Robert Knechel & Justin Leiby, 2016. "If You Want My Advice: Status Motives and Audit Consultations About Accounting Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1331-1364, December.
    9. William F., Messier & Robertson, Jesse C. & Simon, Chad A., 2015. "The effects of client management concessions and ingratiation attempts on auditors' trust and proposed adjustments," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 80-90.
    10. Dennis, Sean A. & Johnstone, Karla M., 2018. "A natural field experiment examining the joint role of audit partner leadership and subordinates’ knowledge in fraud brainstorming," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 14-28.
    11. 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.
    12. Herron, Eddward T. & Cornell, Robert M., 2021. "Creativity amidst standardization: Is creativity related to auditors’ recognition of and responses to fraud risk cues?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 314-326.
    13. 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.
    14. Gad Jacek, 2023. "Concentration on the market of audit services provided to publicly listed companies: Evidence from Poland," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 59(1), pages 32-45, March.
    15. Owhoso, Vincent & Weickgenannt, Andrea, 2009. "Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting domain audits," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-21.
    16. Kenneth J. Reichelt & Dechun Wang, 2010. "National and Office‐Specific Measures of Auditor Industry Expertise and Effects on Audit Quality," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 647-686, June.
    17. Jeffrey R. Cohen & Gregory M. Trompeter, 1998. "An Examination of Factors Affecting Audit Practice Development," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 481-504, December.
    18. Audrey Wen-Hsin Hsu & Chih-Hsien Liao, 2023. "Auditor industry specialization and real earnings management," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 607-641, February.
    19. Joseph F. Brazel & Keith L. Jones & Mark F. Zimbelman, 2009. "Using Nonfinancial Measures to Assess Fraud Risk," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(5), pages 1135-1166, December.
    20. Harold Hassink & Roger Meuwissen & Laury Bollen, 2010. "Fraud detection, redress and reporting by auditors," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(9), pages 861-881, October.

    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:kap:jbuset:v:142:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3155-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.