The Effects of Industry Specialization on Auditors' Inherent Risk Assessments and Confidence Judgements*

This study experimentally examines how industry specialization affects auditors' inherent risk assessments and their confidence in those risk assessments. Two groups of participants - experienced banking specialist auditors and equally experienced nonbanking auditors - provided inherent risk assessments for a hypothetical banking client for two financial statement accounts. They assessed inherent risk for an industry-specific account (loans receivable) and for a nonindustry-specific account (property and equipment). The results indicate that nonbanking auditors assessed inherent risk significantly higher than industry specialists for all but the valuation assertion for the loans receivable account. However, the difference between the nonbanking auditors' and banking specialists' inherent risk assessments was not as great for the property and equipment account. Further, nonspecialists were less confident about the appropriateness of their inherent risk assessments compared with industry specialists. Potential implications for research and practice are discussed in light of the study's findings.

[1]  The Joint Effect of Management's Prior Forecast Accuracy and the Form of Its Financial Forecasts on Investor Judgment , 1999 .

[2]  D. Ellsberg.  Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms , 1961 .

[3]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence. , 1977 .

[4]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Ambiguity and rationality , 1988 .

[5]  Michael Gibbins,et al.  PROPOSITIONS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT IN PUBLIC ACCOUNTING , 1984 .

[6]  Robert Libby,et al.  Availability And The Generation Of Hypotheses In Analytical Review , 1985 .

[7]  Timothy B. Bell,et al.  Auditing organizations through a strategic-systems lens : the KPMG Business Measurement Process , 1997 .

[8]  Robert Libby,et al.  Expertise And Auditors Judgments Of Conjunctive Events , 1986 .

[9]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art , 1977 .

[10]  Sally Wright,et al.  The Effect of Industry Experience on Hypothesis Generation and Audit Planning Decisions , 1997 .

[11]  W. Waller,et al.  The auditor and learning from experience: Some conjectures , 1984 .

[12]  Ira Solomon,et al.  Judgment and decision-making research in accounting and auditing: Judgment and decision-making research in auditing , 1995 .

[13]  Tse-Chi Hsu,et al.  The Effect of Limitations on the Number of Criterion Score Values on the Significance Level of theF-Test , 1969 .

[14]  A. C. Rencher,et al.  Assessing the contribution of individual variables following rejection of a multivariate hypothesis , 1990 .

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty , 1991 .

[16]  P. Fishburn,et al.  A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts , 1995 .

[17]  Ira Solomon,et al.  What Do Industry-Specialist Auditors Know? , 1999 .

[18]  Robert Libby,et al.  Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation , 1993 .

[19]  Robert Libby,et al.  Experience And The Ability To Explain Audit Findings , 1990 .

[20]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Unreliable probabilities, risk taking and decision making , 1988 .

[21]  Ira Solomon,et al.  Experience, expertise and expert-performance research in public accounting , 1989 .