IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ausman/v43y2018i2p225-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of brainstorming guidelines on individual auditors’ identification of potential frauds

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Chen

    (School of Accounting, UNSW Business School, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW, Australia)

  • Amna Saeed Khalifa

    (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Islamabad, Pakistan)

  • Kate L Morgan
  • Ken T Trotman

Abstract

Revised auditing standards and a focus by regulators on the detection of financial statement fraud have resulted in calls for research to examine alternative forms of fraud brainstorming. We examine the effect of using extended brainstorming guidelines, developed in the psychology literature as part of facilitator training, on auditors’ individual brainstorming performance prior to attending the team brainstorming meeting. We find that these additional brainstorming guidelines help auditors identify a greater quantity and quality of potential frauds. Our findings suggest an easy to implement approach to enhance auditors’ performance in fraud brainstorming. JEL Classification: C91; C92; M42

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Chen & Amna Saeed Khalifa & Kate L Morgan & Ken T Trotman, 2018. "The effect of brainstorming guidelines on individual auditors’ identification of potential frauds," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 43(2), pages 225-240, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ausman:v:43:y:2018:i:2:p:225-240
    DOI: 10.1177/0312896217728560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0312896217728560
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0312896217728560?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Ken T. Trotman & Roger Simnett & Amna Khalifa, 2009. "Impact of the Type of Audit Team Discussions on Auditors' Generation of Material Frauds," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1115-1142, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Paul Coram & Colin Ferguson & Robyn Moroney, 2008. "Internal audit, alternative internal audit structures and the level of misappropriation of assets fraud," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(4), pages 543-559, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    2. Monica Ramos Montesdeoca & Agustín J. Sánchez Medina & Felix Blázquez Santana, 2019. "Research Topics in Accounting Fraud in the 21st Century: A State of the Art," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-31, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Griffith, Emily E. & Kadous, Kathryn & Proell, Chad A., 2020. "Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    6. Greg Richins & Ken T. Trotman & Di Yang, 2024. "The effects of prevalence induced concept change on audit scepticism judgements," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 64(4), pages 4429-4446, December.
    7. Dierynck, Bart & Kadous, Kathryn & Peters, Christian P. H., 2024. "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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Downar, Benedikt & Ernstberger, Jürgen & Koch, Christopher, 2021. "Determinants and consequences of auditor dyad formation at the top level of audit teams," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    11. 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).
    12. Isabel Z. Wang & Neil Fargher, 2017. "The effects of tone at the top and coordination with external auditors on internal auditors’ fraud risk assessments," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 57(4), pages 1177-1202, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    15. Timothy A. Seidel & Chad A. Simon & Nathaniel M. Stephens, 2020. "Management bias across multiple accounting estimates," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 1-53, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Dela Cruz, Aeson Luiz & Patel, Chris & Ying, Sammy & Pan, Peipei, 2020. "The relevance of professional skepticism to finance professionals’ Socially Responsible Investing decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    18. Dan Amiram & Zahn Bozanic & James D. Cox & Quentin Dupont & Jonathan M. Karpoff & Richard Sloan, 2018. "Financial reporting fraud and other forms of misconduct: a multidisciplinary review of the literature," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 732-783, June.
    19. Evren Dilek Sengur, 2012. "Auditors' Perception Of Fraud Prevention Measures: Evidence From Turkey," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 1(14), pages 1-11.
    20. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Audit planning; brainstorming guidelines; fraud identification; individual brainstorming;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    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:sae:ausman:v:43:y:2018:i:2:p:225-240. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agsm.edu.au .

    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.