And due to the perceived knowledge superiority of the

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 15 pages.

negligent. And, due to the perceived knowledge superiority of the experts, jurors are likely to trust their recommendations. However, based on preference-consistent processing research ( Ditto and Lopez 1992 ; Ditto, Scepansky, Munro, Apanovitch, and Lockhart 1998 ; Ditto, Munro, Apanovitch, Scepansky, and Lockhart 2003 ), we contend that whether jurors defer to independent experts’ recommendations depends on the type of recommendation (i.e., negligent or not negligent). When individuals encounter evidence consistent with their preferences, they readily accept it and do not examine the evidence’s validity. Conversely, when individuals encounter evidence inconsistent with their preferences, they question the evidence’s validity by actively seeking preference-consistent evidence. 5 Prior research clearly indicates that jurors have a strong preference to find auditors negligent. Kadous (2000 , 2001 ) finds that, in order to maintain a belief in a just world ( Lerner and Simmons 5 A medical diagnosis example clarifies the distinction. A patient receiving a clean bill of health readily accepts the diagnosis without questioning the validity of the diagnosis. On the other hand, a patient receiving an unfavorable diagnosis will generate reasons why the diagnosis may be incorrect and actively seek out second opinions in an attempt to refute the unfavorable diagnosis. In accounting, Hales (2007) and Thayer (2011) find that nonprofessional investors tend to engage in preference-consistent processing. The Effects of Independent Expert Recommendations on Juror Judgments of Auditor Negligence 161 Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory November 2015
1966 ), jurors have significant motivations to blame the auditors ( Walster 1966 ), which desensitizes them to audit quality cues when there are severe consequences associated with an undetected fraud. Similarly, research on the audit expectations gap indicates that evaluators typically expect absolute, rather than reasonable, assurance and frequently ask, ‘‘ where were the auditors? ’’ when material misstatements go undetected ( Epstein and Geiger 1994 ; McEnroe and Martens 2001 ). Likewise, research on outcome bias finds that jurors are often overly harsh on auditors in auditor negligence lawsuits (cf. Lowe and Reckers 2006 ; Peecher and Piercey 2008 ). According to preference-consistent processing, this preference to find the auditors negligent will affect how jurors respond to expert recommendations. In particular, due to preference consistency, we expect that jurors will have lower motivation to question the merits of expert recommendations indicating that the auditors were negligent. As such, jurors who receive a ‘‘ negligent ’’ recommendation from independent experts are unlikely to thoroughly consider specific case facts, such as whether the auditors used a specialist. On the other hand, due to preference inconsistency, jurors should be less inclined to defer to independent experts’ ‘‘ not negligent ’’ recommendations. In this case, jurors will be inclined to diligently evaluate and consider specific case facts to potentially disconfirm the preference-inconsistent expert recommendation.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture