This study investigates whether the Auditing Standards Board's (ASB's) Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82 (AICPA [1997]) requiring auditors to separately assess the risk of fraud will lead auditors to spend more time reading fraud cues and design audit plans that are more sensitive to fraud risk. In this paper, fraud means intentionally misstating the financial statements. Auditors' ability to detect fraud has received significant attention from researchers, practitioners, legislators, and policymakers (see, e.g., Albrecht and Willingham [1993], National Commission

Practitioners and regulators are concerned that when auditors perceive management's attitude or character as indicative of low fraud risk, they are not sufficiently sensitive to high levels of incentive or opportunity risks in their overall fraud‐risk assessments. In this study, we examine whether a fraud‐triangle decomposition of fraud‐risk assessments (that is, separately assessing attitude, opportunity, and incentive risks prior to assessing overall fraud risk) increases auditors' sensitivity to opportunity and incentive cues when perceptions of management's attitude suggest low fraud risk. In an experiment with 52 practicing audit managers, we find that auditors who decompose fraud‐risk assessments are more sensitive to opportunity and incentive cues when making their overall assessments than auditors who simply make an overall fraud‐risk assessment. However, this increased sensitivity to opportunity and incentive cues appears to happen only when those cues suggest low fraud risk. When opportunity and incentive cues suggest high fraud risk, auditors are equally sensitive to those cues whether they use a decomposition or a holistic approach. We discuss and examine potential explanations for this finding.

Auditing, Auditor-Auditee interactions, Misstatements, Strategic behavior

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board recently reported that its inspections show that auditors fail to effectively modify their standard audit procedures in response to fraud risk. Prior academic research is consistent with this finding. Our study examines the effects of two interventions on auditors' planning decisions in a high-fraud-risk setting: strategic reasoning and brainstorming in groups. Both interventions are predicted to lead auditors to more effectively modify their planned audit procedures. We use a panel of fraud experts to identify effective modifications to the audit plan of a specific fraud case. The experts' recommendations are then used to evaluate the effectiveness of practicing auditors' audit plans with and without the two interventions. We predict and find that each intervention leads to more effective modifications to the standard audit procedures and that the combination of the interventions is not significantly more effective than either intervention used alone.

This study examines whether auditors can effectively use nonfinancial measures (NFMs) to assess the reasonableness of financial performance and, thereby, help detect financial statement fraud (hereafter, fraud). If auditors or other interested parties (e.g., directors, lenders, investors, or regulators) can identify NFMs (e.g., facilities growth) that are correlated with financial measures (e.g., revenue growth), inconsistent patterns between the NFMs and financial measures can be used to detect firms with high fraud risk. We find that the difference between financial and nonfinancial performance is significantly greater for firms that committed fraud than for their nonfraud competitors. We also find that this difference is a significant fraud indicator when included in a model containing variables that have previously been linked to the likelihood of fraud. Overall, our results provide empirical evidence suggesting that NFMs can be effectively used to assess fraud risk.

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.