Anchoring and adjustment effects on audit judgments: experimental evidence from Switzerland

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to illustrate the potentially detrimental effects on audit decision-making of certain judgmental heuristics, which can lead to systematic judgmental biases. This paper provides background on the heuristics and biases approaches to decision-making to increase auditors' awareness of the anchoring and adjustment effects affecting audit judgments adversely. Design/methodology/approach This study reports the results of an experimental research design analyzing the audit judgment of 85 auditors in Switzerland. Findings Based on the results of the experiment, the results indicate evidence on the existence of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic in Swiss audit judgments. The authors could identify an influence of the audit company size, the auditors' experience and the auditors' knowledge about behaviorism and anchor heuristic with regard to the anchoring and adjustment effect on audit judgment. Research limitations/implications The experimental tasks were relatively simple abstractions from the more complex analytical review situations faced by practicing auditors. Due to the small sample size, the authors cannot ensure representativeness of the results. Practical implications Professional judgment is a skill that auditor acquires overtime, combined with experience and knowledge, that allows him to achieve reasonable judgments, being independent of other opinions and free from material biases in a given circumstance. Our results show that auditors who are aware of biases and heuristics are less prone to judgment biases. Originality/value This paper is the first to analyze the impact of auditors' explicit experience and knowledge about behaviorism and anchor heuristic on the anchoring and adjustment effect on audit judgment. Through a stronger awareness of cognitive biases, a professional skepticism can be enhanced.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.