Acceso usuarios
Yifan Zhao, Noel Harding
A principal element of business risk (or strategic systems) auditing is the goal of evaluating the degree of concordance between management representations and expectations derived from an understanding of the business environment. Peecher et al. (2007) argue that an effective means by which auditors may achieve this goal is through a process of evidentiary triangulation. In this exploratory study, we investigate whether the order with which auditors evaluate business environment, information systems and financial statement representations evidence has the potential, as suggested by belief function theory, to improve the effectiveness with which they interpret the complex interrelationships between these three sources of evidence. Analyzing judgements made by practicing auditors in an experimental setting, our results reveal that, when faced with negative business environment evidence that is in conflict with positive information systems and financial statement representations evidence, auditors assess the risk of material misstatement to be higher when they are presented with the critically important business environment evidence last, rather than, as is traditionally the case, first. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that the positive order effects may be attenuated by the requirement to document reasons underlying the judgements made. The results raise a number of practical and theoretical issues that give direction to future research in this important area.
