Does Performing Other Audit Tasks Affect Going-Concern Judgments?

Abstract

This study examines whether personally performing other audit tasks can bias supervising seniors' going-concern judgments. During an audit, the senior performs some audit tasks him/herself and delegates other tasks to staff members. When personally performing an audit task, the senior would focus on the evidence related to that task. We predict that such evidence will have greater influence on the senior's subsequent going-concern judgment. The results of our experiment are consistent with our predictions. When provided with an identical set of information, seniors who performed another audit task for which the underlying facts of the case reflected positively (negatively) on the company's viability, subsequently made going-concern judgments that were relatively more positive (negative). Our results also demonstrate that the well-documented tendency of auditors to attend more to negative information does not always dominate auditors' information processing. Subjects who performed the task for which the underlying facts reflected positively on the company's viability directed their attention to such positive information and, consequently, both their memory and judgments were more positive than those of subjects in the other conditions. Recent findings indicating that biases in seniors' going-concern judgments may not be fully offset in the review process are discussed along with other potential implications of our results.