Does the Arrangement of Audit Evidence According to Causal Connections Make Auditors More Susceptible to Memory Conjunction Errors?

Abstract

ABSTRACT Although prior research has shown that arranging working paper evidence according to causality can improve auditor judgment, the present study proposes that causal arrangements may elicit certain ill-effects on auditor memory and thus undermine auditor judgment. Specifically, causal arrangements of evidence may heighten auditors' vulnerability to memory conjunction errors (MCEs), wherein auditors misattribute one client's evidence to another client. In an experiment, auditors provided going concern judgments for two companies, whose evidence was causally, traditionally, or randomly arranged. Their recognition accuracy of whether previously evaluated or new (conjunction) evidence items were included in original company evidence sets provided an indication of proneness to MCEs. The results indicate that auditors are more prone to MCEs when evidence is presented in a causal as opposed to either a traditional or random arrangement. Data Availability: Confidentiality agreements with participants, written with the assistance of the university's human subjects committee, prevent the sharing of data with others.