IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v17y2000i4p693-712.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Industry Specialization on Auditors' Inherent Risk Assessments and Confidence Judgements

Author

Listed:
  • MARK H. TAYLOR

Abstract

This study experimentally examines how industry specialization affects auditors' inherent risk assessments and their confidence in those risk assessments. Two groups of participants †experienced banking specialist auditors and equally experienced nonbanking auditors †provided inherent risk assessments for a hypothetical banking client for two financial statement accounts. They assessed inherent risk for an industry†specific account (loans receivable) and for a nonindustry†specific account (property and equipment). The results indicate that nonbanking auditors assessed inherent risk significantly higher than industry specialists for all but the valuation assertion for the loans receivable account. However, the difference between the nonbanking auditors' and banking specialists' inherent risk assessments was not as great for the property and equipment account. Further, nonspecialists were less confident about the appropriateness of their inherent risk assessments compared with industry specialists. Potential implications for research and practice are discussed in light of the study's findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark H. Taylor, 2000. "The Effects of Industry Specialization on Auditors' Inherent Risk Assessments and Confidence Judgements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 693-712, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:17:y:2000:i:4:p:693-712
    DOI: 10.1506/3LDH-AV52-0F4W-H4BB
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1506/3LDH-AV52-0F4W-H4BB
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1506/3LDH-AV52-0F4W-H4BB?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. Libby, Robert & Luft, Joan, 1993. "Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 425-450, July.
    2. Hirst, DE & Koonce, L & Miller, J, 1999. "The joint effect of management's prior forecast accuracy and the form of its financial forecasts on investor judgment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37, pages 101-124.
    3. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    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. Roger Simnett & Arnold Wright, 2005. "The portfolio of knowledge required by industry specialist auditors," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 87-101.
    2. Pacheco-Paredes, Angel Arturo & Wheatley, Clark M., 2021. "Do auditors react to real earnings management?," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    3. Rowe, Stephen P., 2019. "Auditors’ comfort with uncertain estimates: More evidence is not always better," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-11.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Le Wang & Xiaoyan Chen & Xing Li & Gaoliang Tian, 2021. "MD&A readability, auditor characteristics, and audit fees," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(4), pages 5025-5050, December.
    7. Bi, XiaoGang & Tang, Judy & Tharyan, Rajesh, 2020. "Switching due diligence auditor in Chinese mergers and acquisitions," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    8. Miguel Minutti‐Meza, 2013. "Does Auditor Industry Specialization Improve Audit Quality?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 779-817, September.
    9. Timothy B. Bell & David B. Bryan, 2021. "Effectiveness, efficiency, and fee premiums in audits led by industry specialist partners," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(3), pages 4513-4572, September.
    10. Yongliang Wu & Zihui Li & Min Zhang & Shengbao Zhai, 2023. "Auditor Assignments and Audit Quality," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 33(2), pages 160-187, June.

    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. Cédric Lesage & Yuan Ding & Thomas Jeanjean & Hervé Stolowy, 2009. "An experiment in the economic consequences of additional disclosure: The case of the Fair Value of Unlisted Equity Investments," Post-Print hal-00495573, HAL.
    2. Elliott, W.B. & Hodge, F. & Kennedy, J.J. & Pronk, M., 2007. "Are MBA students a good proxy for nonprofessional investors?," Other publications TiSEM 20271f1d-d385-4122-a175-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Libby, Robert & Bloomfield, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2002. "Experimental research in financial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 775-810, November.
    4. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    5. Olivier Herrbach, 2001. "Audit quality, auditor behaviour and the psychological contract," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 787-802.
    6. Clement, Michael B. & Koonce, Lisa & Lopez, Thomas J., 2007. "The roles of task-specific forecasting experience and innate ability in understanding analyst forecasting performance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 378-398, December.
    7. Corgnet, Brice & Hernán-González, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2020. "On booms that never bust: Ambiguity in experimental asset markets with bubbles," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Lau, Yeng Wai, 2014. "Aggregated or disaggregated information first?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2376-2384.
    9. Igor Kopylov & Joshua Miller, 2018. "Subjective beliefs and confidence when facts are forgotten," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 281-299, December.
    10. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    11. Andrew J. Rosman, 2011. "Auditors' going‐concern judgments: rigid, adaptive, or both?," Review of Accounting and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(1), pages 30-45, February.
    12. Elodie Le Cadre & Caroline Orset, 2010. "Irreversible investment, uncertainty, and ambiguity: The case of bioenergy sector," Working Papers 2010/03, INRA, Economie Publique.
    13. Marc A. Ragin & Benjamin L. Collier & Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2021. "The effect of information disclosure on demand for high‐load insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 88(1), pages 161-193, March.
    14. Alarie, Yves, 2000. "L’importance de la procédure dans les choix de loteries," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 76(3), pages 321-340, septembre.
    15. Elizabeth Almer & Audrey Gramling & Steven Kaplan, 2008. "Impact of Post-restatement Actions Taken by a Firm on Non-professional Investors’ Credibility Perceptions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 80(1), pages 61-76, June.
    16. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Shaw, W. Douglass & Silva, Andres, 2006. "The Effect of Risk Presentation on Product Valuation: An Experimental Analysis," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21429, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2010. "Fairness Ex Ante & Ex Post – An Experimental Test of the German “Bestseller Paragraph”," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2010_29, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Nov 2010.
    18. Dunn, Cheryl L. & Gerard, Gregory J. & Grabski, Severin V., 2017. "The combined effects of user schemas and degree of cognitive fit on data retrieval performance," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 46-67.
    19. Han, Jun, 2013. "A literature synthesis of experimental studies on management earnings guidance," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 49-70.
    20. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Cédric Gutierrez, 2023. "Unpacking Overconfident Behavior When Betting on Oneself," Post-Print hal-04383402, HAL.

    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:wly:coacre:v:17:y:2000:i:4:p:693-712. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.