This study examines audit partners' predictions of the ability of managers and seniors to detect financial statement errors. If partners are unable to predict the ability of their subordinates to detect errors, audit effectiveness may be affected. Audit partners are asked to predict which members of the audit team (managers or seniors) are able to detect specific types of errors. These predictions are then compared to errors detected by managers and seniors that are seeded in working papers. The results show that partners (1) exhibit significant overconfidence in the ability of subordinates to detect errors, (2) are more accurate in predicting managers' performance than seniors, (3) are more accurate at predicting subordinates' ability to detect mechanical (simple) errors than conceptual (complex) errors, and (4) are not better at predicting subordinates' ability to detect more frequent and more important errors than less frequent and less important errors.

One hundred and fifty auditors participated in a study that examines whether auditors’ probabilistic judgments are closer to a Bayesian benchmark when auditors make judgments using a frequency response mode versus a probability response mode. We test a series of hypotheses that examine the effect of using a frequency response mode by professional auditors both within and outside their knowledge domain (fraud or medical case context) on assessing the likelihood of rare events. The results show that the auditors’ responses across the two case contexts (fraud and medical case) using a frequency response mode are closer to the Bayesian benchmark. In addition, we find that (1) the deviations in the auditors’ responses from the Bayesian benchmark across both response modes are significantly smaller for the fraud case in the low base rate condition only and (2) the deviations in the auditors’ responses from Bayesian benchmark for the fraud case using a frequency response mode relative to the probability response mode are smaller in the low base rate condition than the other two base rate conditions. These findings contribute to research on auditor judgment and decision-making, and demonstrate how the use of a frequency response mode can improve auditors’ assessment of fraud.

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.

Financial analysts are required to disclose conflicts of interest (COI) in their research reports, but there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of COI disclosures. We investigate whether the influence of disclosing COI in analyst reports on investors' decision making depends on investment horizon. Experimental results show that short-term investors who view a COI disclosure are significantly less willing to invest in the recommended stock compared to short-term investors who do not view such a disclosure, while the presence of a COI disclosure does not significantly affect long-term investors' willingness to invest. Results further demonstrate that the COI disclosure decreases short-term investors' willingness to invest by reducing their perception of analysts' trustworthiness and expertness. This study provides evidence on when and how the COI disclosure can influence investors' behavior and enhances our understanding of investors' reactions to cautionary disclaimers. Data Availability: Contact the authors.