Abstract Financial reporting fraud continues to cost companies millions of dollars annually and is a major source of concern for regulators, stakeholders, and auditors. While academic research has largely focused on external auditors' fraud detection efforts, we analyze whether auditors can help prevent occurrences of fraud through low‐cost reputational signals of higher “strategic reasoning”; strategic reasoning refers to strategies that individuals take in light of the anticipated actions of others (see van der Hoek et al., 2005, A logic for strategic reasoning, AAMAS '05, 157−164). Specifically, we consider the potential impact on manager behavior of signaling whether audit professionals use zero‐, first‐, and second‐order audit approaches. Zero‐order audit approaches involve making decisions based mostly on the auditor's incentives, first‐order approaches involve decisions based mostly on the client's incentives, and second‐ or higher‐order audit approaches involve decisions based on the client's incentives while recognizing that the client will respond to the auditor's decisions (see Wilks & Zimbelman, 2004, Accounting Horizons , 18 (3), 173–184). Using a context‐rich experiment in which manager participants have no history of interacting with the auditor, we find that the likelihood of fraud occurring is lower when it is signaled that audit partners and their teams use a first‐ or second‐order strategic audit approach compared to a zero‐order approach, due to an increase in the perceived likelihood of the auditor detecting fraud. We also consider whether signaling an auditor's level of strategic reasoning influences the level of effort used to conceal fraud and find an increase in the expected level of fraud effort for managers in the first‐ and second‐order audit conditions.

ABSTRACT Auditing standards recommend separate assessments of the likelihood and magnitude of risks (hereafter, LM decomposition). Prior research shows that decomposition can focus individuals on the components of a judgment and make them more sensitive to information. An experiment with 101 experienced auditors shows that LM decomposition leads auditors to be less concerned about high-risk fraud schemes relative to auditors who make holistic risk assessments. Our analyses also show that, relative to those making holistic risk assessments, the correlation between auditors' likelihood judgments and their overall fraud risk judgments and the coherence of their fraud risk judgments are higher for auditors who perform an LM decomposition. Two follow-up experiments with students replicate these findings for higher-risk events, and (unlike the auditor experiment) we also find that LM decomposition results in lower risk judgments for lower-risk issues. We also find that LM decomposition mitigates the influence of affective responses on high-risk judgments.

ABSTRACT This study examines how using the internal audit function (IAF) as a management training ground (MTG) affects external audit fees and the external auditors' perceptions of the IAF. Over half of all companies that have an IAF specifically hire internal auditors with the purpose of rotating them into management positions (or cycle current employees into the IAF for a short stint before promoting them into management positions). Using archival data, we find that external auditors charge higher fees to companies that use the IAF as a MTG. Using an experiment, we provide evidence as to why fees are higher. Specifically, we find that external auditors perceive internal auditors employed in an IAF used as a MTG to be less objective but not less competent than internal auditors employed in an IAF not used as a MTG. These results have important implications for the many companies that use their IAF as a MTG. Data Availability: Contact the authors. Data provided by the Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation are subject to restrictions.