Abstract
Decision aids hold the potential to improve audit quality; yet, immense legal and regulatory pressures on audit firms to improve audit quality could lead to a 'check list' mentality where auditors subordinate their audit judgements for the sake of compliance. Based on an experiment involving 118 audit practitioners, we find that auditors rely more on decision aid recommendations when either litigation risk or internal control risk is high relative to low. When both risks are simultaneously high, we find that litigation risk amplifies the auditors' awareness of legal defensibility, which in turn increases decision aid reliance, even as their confidence in the quality of their judgements deteriorates.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
