IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sgm/pzwzuw/v11i43y2013p189-202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heurystyki i bledy poznawcze jako zrodlo niepowodzen audytu zewnetrznego (Heuristics and cognitive biases as a reason of external audit failures)

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksandra Wasowska

    (Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydzial Zarzadzania)

Abstract

Spectacular financial reporting scandals of last years (cases of Enron, WorldCom, Parmalat and others) are usually attributed to conscious actions of auditors. When analyzing the reasons of audit failures scholars point at the lack of independence of auditors, who act against professional ethics and issue opinions which are in line with the expectations of the clients. Psychological studies suggest however, that the main reasons of audit failures are not negligence or conscious corruption, but cognitive biases. The article presents the main cognitive limitations which affect judgment and decision-making process of auditors: heuristics (availability, representativeness and anchoring), overconfidence, escalation of commitment and motivated reasoning. We present structural characteristics which make the auditing industry prone to cognitive biases. We also discuss possible measures aimed at reducing the number of audit failures.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksandra Wasowska, 2013. "Heurystyki i bledy poznawcze jako zrodlo niepowodzen audytu zewnetrznego (Heuristics and cognitive biases as a reason of external audit failures)," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 11(43), pages 189-202.
    • Handle: RePEc:sgm:pzwzuw:v:11:i:43:y:2013:p:189-202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://pz.wz.uw.edu.pl/sites/default/files/artykuly/pz_3_2013_wasowska.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://pz.wz.uw.edu.pl/en
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Itzhak Ben-David & John R. Graham, 2013. "Managerial Miscalibration," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(4), pages 1547-1584.
    2. Antle, R, 1984. "Auditor Independence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 1-20.
    3. Joyce, Ej & Biddle, Gc, 1981. "Anchoring And Adjustment In Probabilistic Inference In Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 120-145.
    4. Jennifer R. Joe, 2003. "Why Press Coverage of a Client Influences the Audit Opinion," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 109-133, March.
    5. Glover, SM, 1997. "The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 213-226.
    6. Francis, Jere R., 2004. "What do we know about audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 345-368.
    7. Libby, R, 1985. "Availability And The Generation Of Hypotheses In Analytical Review," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 648-667.
    8. Salterio, S. & Koonce, L., 1997. "The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 573-587, August.
    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. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    2. Jennifer R. Joe & Scott D. Vandervelde, 2007. "Do Auditor†Provided Nonaudit Services Improve Audit Effectiveness?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 467-487, June.
    3. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Messier, William F. & Quick, Linda A. & Vandervelde, Scott D., 2014. "The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 59-74.
    6. Florin DOBRE & Adriana Florina POPA & Ada Lorena NICULIÞÃ, 2013. "What Exactly Financial Auditors Report Give the Divergence Between Ethics, Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Is the Audit Profession Still Sustainable?," REVISTA DE MANAGEMENT COMPARAT INTERNATIONAL/REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(1), pages 63-70, March.
    7. Kimberly K. Moreno & Sudip Bhattacharjee & Duane M. Brandon, 2007. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Training Techniques on Analytical Procedures Performance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 983-1014, September.
    8. Shana Clor‐Proell & Mark W. Nelson, 2007. "Accounting Standards, Implementation Guidance, and Example‐Based Reasoning," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 699-730, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Melinda Timea FÜLÖP & Mirela-Oana PINTEA, 2014. "Effects Of The New Regulation And Corporate Governance Of The Audit Profession," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 4, pages 545-554, July.
    11. Cindy Moeckel, 1991. "Two factors affecting an auditor's ability to integrate audit evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 270-292, September.
    12. Luippold, Benjamin L. & Kida, Thomas & Piercey, M. David & Smith, James F., 2015. "Managing audits to manage earnings: The impact of diversions on an auditor’s detection of earnings management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-54.
    13. Atasi Basu & Randal Elder & Mohamed Onsi, 2012. "Reported earnings, auditor's opinion, and compensation: theory and evidence," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 29-48, March.
    14. Nieves Carrera & Nieves Gómez‐Aguilar & Christopher Humphrey & Emiliano Ruiz‐Barbadillo, 2007. "Mandatory audit firm rotation in Spain: a policy that was never applied," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(5), pages 671-701, September.
    15. Ghafran, Chaudhry & O'Sullivan, Noel, 2017. "The impact of audit committee expertise on audit quality: Evidence from UK audit fees," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 578-593.
    16. Huang, Ronghong & Tan, Kelvin Jui Keng & Faff, Robert W., 2016. "CEO overconfidence and corporate debt maturity," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 93-110.
    17. Kristian D. Allee & Daniel D. Wangerin, 2018. "Auditor monitoring and verification in financial contracts: evidence from earnouts and SFAS 141(R)," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1629-1664, December.
    18. Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, 2019. "The Effect of Financial Constraints on Audit Fees," Capital Markets Review, Malaysian Finance Association, vol. 27(2), pages 59-87.
    19. Odette M. Pinto, 2015. "Effects of Advice on Effectiveness and Efficiency of Tax Planning Tasks," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 307-329, December.
    20. Arbel, Yuval & Ben-Shahar, Danny & Gabriel, Stuart, 2014. "Anchoring and housing choice: Results of a natural policy experiment," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 68-83.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    audit; judgments; decision-making; heuristics; cognitive biases;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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:sgm:pzwzuw:v:11:i:43:y:2013:p:189-202. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/somuwpl.html .

    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.