Can identifying and investigating fraud risks increase auditors' liability?

Accounting Review

Volumn 85, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 2145-2167

  Reffett, Andrew B ^a  

^a MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditor liability; Counterfactual reasoning theory; Fraud risks; Negative affect

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650673602     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/accr.2010.85.6.2145     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Alicke, M., J. Buckingham, E. Zell, and T. Davis. 2008. Culpable control and counterfactual reasoning in the psychology of blame. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34(10):1371-1381.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2002. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. -. 2004. AICPA Practice Aid Series, Fraud Detection in a GAAS Audit: SAS No. 99 Implementation Guide. Revised edition. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. -. 2006. Risk Assessment Standards. Statement on Auditing Standards Nos. 104-111. New York, NY: AICPA.
5. Anderson, J. C., M. M. Jennings, D. J. Lowe, and P. J. Reckers. 1997. The mitigation of hindsight bias in judges' evaluation of auditor decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 16(2):20-39.
6. Ballinger, G. A. 2004. Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organizational Research Methods 7:127-150.
7. Bornstein, B. H. 1999. The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior 23:75-91.
8. Bothwell, R., and K. Duhon. 1994. Counterfactual thinking and victim compensation. The Journal of Social Psychology 134(5):705-706.
9. Bower, G. H. 1981. Mood and memory. The American Psychologist 36:129-148.
10. Bower, G., and J. Forgas. 2001. Mood and social memory. In Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition, edited by Forgas, J., 95-110. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
11. Causey, D., and S. A. Causey. 1991. Duties and Liabilities of Public Accountants. 4th edition. Mississippi State, MS: Accountant's Press.
12. Clarkson, P., C. Emby, and V. Watt. 2002. Debiasing the outcome effect: The role of instructions in an audit litigation setting. Auditing 21(2):7-20.
13. Coffee, J. 2004. Gatekeeper failure and reform: The challenge of fashioning relevant reform. Boston University Law Review. Boston University. School of Law 84:301-332.
14. Cornell, R., R. Warne, and M. Eining. 2009. The use of remedial tactics in negligence litigation. Contemporary Accounting Research 26(3):767-787.
15. Creyer, E. H., and Z. Gurhan. 1997. Who's to blame? Counterfactual reasoning and the assignment of blame. Psychology and Marketing 14:209-222.
16. Frank, K. E., D. J. Lowe, and J. Smith. 2001. The expectation gap: Perceptual differences between auditors, jurors and students. Managerial Auditing Journal 3:45-150.
17. Gleicher, E., K. A. Kost, S. M. Baker, A. J. Strathman, S. A. Richman, and S. Sherman. 1990. The role of counterfactual thinking in judgments of affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 16:284-295.
18. Golden, T., S. Skalak, and M. Clayton. 2006. A Guide to Forensic Accounting Investigation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
19. Grenier, J., M. Peecher, and D. Piercy. 2009. Judging auditor negligence: Debiasing interventions, outcome bias, and reverse outcome bias. Working paper, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
20. Kadous, K. 2000. The effects of audit quality and consequence severity on juror evaluations of auditor responsibility for plaintiff losses. The Accounting Review 75(3):327-341.
21. -. 2001. Improving jurors' evaluations of auditors in negligence cases. Contemporary Accounting Research 18(3):425-444.
22. -, L. Koonce, and K. Towry. 2005. Quantification and persuasion in managerial judgment. Contemporary Accounting Research 22(3):643-686.
23. Kahneman, D., and D. T. Miller. 1986. Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review 93:136-153.
24. -, and A. Tversky. 1996. On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review 103(3):582-588.
25. Kline, R. B. 1998. Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
26. Landman, J. 1987. Regret and elation following action and inaction: Affective responses to positive versus negative outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13:524-536.
27. Lei, M., and R. Lomax. 2005. The effects of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling 12:1-27.
28. Lowe, D. J., P. Reckers, and S. Whitecotton. 2002. The effects of decision-aid use and reliability on jurors' evaluations of auditor liability. The Accounting Review 77(1):185-202.
29. Macrae, C. N. 1992. A tale of two curries: Counterfactual thinking and accident-related judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18:84-87.
30. Markman, K. D., I. Gavinski, S. Sherman, and M. McMullen. 1993. The mental simulation of better and worse worlds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 29:87-109.
31. McMullen, M. N., K. D. Markman, and I. Gavanski. 1995. Living in neither the best nor the worst of all possible worlds: Antecedents and consequences of upward and downward counterfactual thinking. In What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking, edited by Roese, N., and J. Olson, 133-167. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Medvec, V. H., S. E. Madey, and T. Gilovich. 1995. When less is more: Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic athletes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:603-610.
33. Miller, D. T, and C. McFarland. 1986. Counterfactual thinking and victim compensation: A test of Norm Theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 12:513-519.
34. Peecher, M., and D. Piercey. 2008. Judging audit quality in light of adverse outcomes: Evidence of outcome bias and reverse outcome bias. Contemporary Accounting Research 25(1):243-274.
35. Radhakrishnan, S. 1999. Investors' recovery friction and auditor liability rules. The Accounting Review 74:225-240.
36. Robbennolt, J. K., J. Darley, and R. MacCoun. 2003. Symbolism and incommensurability in civil sanctioning: Legal decision-makers as goal managers. Brooklyn Law Review 68:1121-1158.
37. -, and M. S. Sobus. 1997. An integration of hindsight bias and counterfactual thinking: Decision-making and drug courier profiles. Law and Human Behavior 21(5):539-560.
38. Roese, N. 1994. The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:805-818.
39. -. 1997. Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin 121(1):133-148.
40. -, and J. Olson. 1995. What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Sanna, J., and K. Turley-Ames. 2000. Counterfactual intensity. European Journal of Social Psychology 30:273-296.
42. Schwarz, N., and G. L. Clore. 1983. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45(3):513-523.
43. Schumacker, R., and R. Lomax. 2004. A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
44. Sherman, S. J., and A. R. McConnell. 1995. Dysfunctional implications of counterfactual thinking: When alternatives to reality fail us. In What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking, edited by Roese, N., and J. Olson, 199-231. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Smith, R., and D. Tidrick. 1998. The effect of alternative judicial systems and settlement on auditing. Review of Accounting Studies 2:353-381.
46. Wegener, D., N. Kerr, N. Flemming, and R. Petty. 2000. Flexible corrections of juror judgments: Implications for jury instructions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6(3):629-654.
47. Zickafoose, D., and B. Bornstein. 1999. Double discounting: The effects of comparative negligence on mock juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior 23(5):577-596.