Malleable standards of care required by jurors when assessing auditor negligence

Eldar Maksymov, Mark W. Nelson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We report the results of four experiments investigating the relationship between (1) the quality of an audit, (2) jurors' assessments of the standard of prudent care (SOC) against which audit quality is compared, and (3) jurors' negligence verdicts. Experiment 1 operationalizes audit quality by varying the sample size used in audit testing, and provides evidence that jurors anchor their assessment of SOC on audit quality, producing a "competitive mediation" in which audit quality reduces the potential for a negligence verdict directly, but increases that potential indirectly by increasing SOC. Experiment 2 generalizes this finding to a setting that operationalizes audit quality by varying the size of adjustment the auditor required. Experiments 3 and 4 extend these results to a setting in which SOC is elicited after jurors make negligence verdicts. Overall, these experiments provide insight into the role of SOC in constraining and justifying negligence verdicts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)165-181
Number of pages17
JournalAccounting Review
Volume92
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Experiment
Negligence
Audit quality
Auditors
Audit
Testing
Mediation
Sample size

Keywords

  • Anchoring
  • Audit adjustment
  • Audit quality
  • Auditor liability
  • Jury
  • Mediation
  • Sample size

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Accounting
  • Finance
  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

Malleable standards of care required by jurors when assessing auditor negligence. / Maksymov, Eldar; Nelson, Mark W.

In: Accounting Review, Vol. 92, No. 1, 01.01.2017, p. 165-181.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9df31045029a4f218bd39757ba782e14,
title = "Malleable standards of care required by jurors when assessing auditor negligence",
abstract = "We report the results of four experiments investigating the relationship between (1) the quality of an audit, (2) jurors' assessments of the standard of prudent care (SOC) against which audit quality is compared, and (3) jurors' negligence verdicts. Experiment 1 operationalizes audit quality by varying the sample size used in audit testing, and provides evidence that jurors anchor their assessment of SOC on audit quality, producing a {"}competitive mediation{"} in which audit quality reduces the potential for a negligence verdict directly, but increases that potential indirectly by increasing SOC. Experiment 2 generalizes this finding to a setting that operationalizes audit quality by varying the size of adjustment the auditor required. Experiments 3 and 4 extend these results to a setting in which SOC is elicited after jurors make negligence verdicts. Overall, these experiments provide insight into the role of SOC in constraining and justifying negligence verdicts.",
keywords = "Anchoring, Audit adjustment, Audit quality, Auditor liability, Jury, Mediation, Sample size",
author = "Eldar Maksymov and Nelson, {Mark W.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2308/accr-51427",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "92",
pages = "165--181",
journal = "Accounting Review",
issn = "0001-4826",
publisher = "American Accounting Association",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Malleable standards of care required by jurors when assessing auditor negligence

AU - Maksymov, Eldar

AU - Nelson, Mark W.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - We report the results of four experiments investigating the relationship between (1) the quality of an audit, (2) jurors' assessments of the standard of prudent care (SOC) against which audit quality is compared, and (3) jurors' negligence verdicts. Experiment 1 operationalizes audit quality by varying the sample size used in audit testing, and provides evidence that jurors anchor their assessment of SOC on audit quality, producing a "competitive mediation" in which audit quality reduces the potential for a negligence verdict directly, but increases that potential indirectly by increasing SOC. Experiment 2 generalizes this finding to a setting that operationalizes audit quality by varying the size of adjustment the auditor required. Experiments 3 and 4 extend these results to a setting in which SOC is elicited after jurors make negligence verdicts. Overall, these experiments provide insight into the role of SOC in constraining and justifying negligence verdicts.

AB - We report the results of four experiments investigating the relationship between (1) the quality of an audit, (2) jurors' assessments of the standard of prudent care (SOC) against which audit quality is compared, and (3) jurors' negligence verdicts. Experiment 1 operationalizes audit quality by varying the sample size used in audit testing, and provides evidence that jurors anchor their assessment of SOC on audit quality, producing a "competitive mediation" in which audit quality reduces the potential for a negligence verdict directly, but increases that potential indirectly by increasing SOC. Experiment 2 generalizes this finding to a setting that operationalizes audit quality by varying the size of adjustment the auditor required. Experiments 3 and 4 extend these results to a setting in which SOC is elicited after jurors make negligence verdicts. Overall, these experiments provide insight into the role of SOC in constraining and justifying negligence verdicts.

KW - Anchoring

KW - Audit adjustment

KW - Audit quality

KW - Auditor liability

KW - Jury

KW - Mediation

KW - Sample size

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85010703382&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85010703382&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2308/accr-51427

DO - 10.2308/accr-51427

M3 - Article

VL - 92

SP - 165

EP - 181

JO - Accounting Review

JF - Accounting Review

SN - 0001-4826

IS - 1

ER -