Abstract
According to SAS No. 99 and the “Fraud Triangle” there are three major classes of fraud risk factors: pressures, opportunities, and rationalizations. This study first investigates the manner in which auditors react to pressures and opportunities, while assessing fraud risk and, searching for possible material misstatements. Then, this study investigates if SAS No. 99 recommended brainstorming sessions would accentuate or attenuate the tendency to be more sensitive to high pressures, and relatively less sensitive to high opportunities. It is hypothesized that brainstorming in groups will make the auditors even less (more) sensitive to the presence of high opportunities (high pressures) than, in cases where they act independently. In a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects design, using Big 4 auditors as participants, pressures and opportunities are manipulated at high and low levels, and brainstorming is manipulated at individual and group levels.
The results indicate that, in the presence of high pressures (high opportunities), auditors assess a higher (lower) fraud risk and find significantly more (less) instances of potential material misstatements. This tendency to underweight opportunities and overweight pressures while assessing fraud risk and searching for material misstatements is accentuated in a group brainstorming setting. Hence, the recommendations of SAS No. 99 could reduce the overall effectiveness of an audit in a scenario where only high opportunities are observed.
|
