The Effects of Firm Guidance on Auditors' Evaluations of Fair Value Estimates

Author:

Cohen Jeffrey R.1,Gaynor Lisa Milici2ORCID,Montague Norma R.3,de Lima Salge Carolina Alves4,Wayne Julie H.3

Affiliation:

1. Boston College

2. University of South Florida

3. Wake Forest University

4. University of Georgia

Abstract

SUMMARY Regulators are concerned that auditors are insufficiently skeptical in evaluating fair value estimates (PCAOB 2020). We employ Nolder and Kadous's (2018) professional skepticism model to examine how firm guidance impacts auditors' skeptical judgments and actions in the fair value context through their cognitive processing of confirming and conflicting evidence. We find that rewording firm guidance to include either a directional goal instructing them to oppose management's assertions or a bi-directional goal instructing them to support and oppose management's assertions lead auditors to gather more conflicting evidence than a directional goal instructing them to support management's assertions. However, gathering more conflicting evidence does not yield more skeptical actions unless auditors are instructed to support and oppose management's assertions. This is supported by theory suggesting that attending to both confirming and conflicting information forces individuals to reconcile the inconsistent information, enhancing the likelihood that it will be incorporated in their judgments. JEL Classifications: C91; G18; M42.

Publisher

American Accounting Association

Subject

Economics and Econometrics,Finance,Accounting

Reference42 articles.

1. Agoglia, C. P., Kida T., and HannoD. M. 2003. The effects of alternative justification memos on the judgments of audit reviewees and reviewers. Journal of Accounting Research41 ( 1): 33– 46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.00094

2. Austin, A. A., Hammersley J., and RicciM. A. 2020. Improving auditors' consideration of evidence contradicting management's estimate assumptions. Contemporary Accounting Research37 ( 2): 696– 716. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12540

3. Backof, A., Bamber E. M., and CarpenterT. D. 2016. Do auditor judgment frameworks help in constraining aggressive reporting? Evidence under more precise and less precise accounting standards. Accounting, Organizations and Society51: 1– 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2016.03.004

4. Backof, A. G., Carpenter T. D., and ThayerJ. 2018. Auditing complex estimates: How do construal level and evidence formatting impact auditors' consideration of inconsistent evidence?Contemporary Accounting Research35 ( 4): 1798– 1815. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12368

5. Baron, R. M., and KennyD. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51 ( 6): 1173– 1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3