Review

Enhancing Auditor Judgment Quality: A Review of Evidence

from Experimental Research
Renny Friska and Dian Agustia *

Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Airlangga,

Surabaya 60115, Indonesia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: We review 30 experimental auditing research papers published in four leading

accounting and auditing journals from 2001 to 2023 to address three key issues. First, we
identify trends in experimental auditing research and find that most studies are published
in Behavioral Research in Accounting due to its focus on behavioral and psychological aspects
of auditing. Second, to enhance the audit quality, we map this research to the task–person
and interpersonal interaction framework. The findings indicate that most studies focus
on audit task complexity, individual auditor attributes, and their interactions with stake-
holders, addressing factors that influence auditor judgment quality. Third, by analyzing
the characteristics of experimental studies, we highlight the evolution in the topics ex-
plored and participant types over the past two decades. These insights provide valuable
guidance for future research and practical implications for improved audit judgment and
decision-making processes.

Keywords: auditor judgment; judgment and decision-making; experimental auditing

research; task–person–interpersonal interaction framework; audit quality; behavioral ac-
counting; audit decision-making; JDM research in auditing

1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Lawrence Chui Auditor judgment and decision-making are integral parts of behavioral accounting
and Byron Pike research, aiming to understand the decision-making processes and evaluations performed
Received: 30 December 2024 by auditors and individuals interacting with them (Simnett & Trotman, 2018). Auditor
Revised: 12 February 2025 judgment involves various factors, including experience, knowledge, and an understanding
Accepted: 19 February 2025 of the industry and companies being audited. Additionally, auditor judgment is influenced
Published: 23 February 2025 by audit regulations, the firm structure, and the dynamic economic and business conditions
Citation: Friska, R., & Agustia, D. (Gao & Zhang, 2019; He et al., 2018; Shu et al., 2013; Wedemeyer, 2010). These factors
(2025). Enhancing Auditor Judgment can have both positive and negative effects. For instance, a good relationship with clients
Quality: A Review of Evidence from
can facilitate the audit process, as clients are more likely to cooperate. However, the rela-
Experimental Research. Journal of Risk
and Financial Management, 18(3), 115.
tionship may weaken the auditor’s judgement and be associated with lower audit quality
https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18030115 (Payne & Williamson, 2021). Audit firms and auditors must address these factors to avoid
declines in judgment quality that could negatively affect audit quality.
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
As business transactions and regulatory demands become increasingly complex, audi-
This article is an open access article tors must apply professional skepticism and sound judgment when evaluating financial
distributed under the terms and reports. The quality of auditors’ decisions is influenced by several factors, including the
conditions of the Creative Commons complexity of the tasks that they perform, their individual characteristics, and their interac-
Attribution (CC BY) license
tions with key stakeholders, such as management and audit committees, as Nelson and Tan
(https://creativecommons.org/
noted in 2005. Experimental research has been extensively employed to investigate these
licenses/by/4.0/).

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18030115

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 2 of 18

factors, yielding significant insights into the cognitive processes and behavioral biases that
influence auditor judgment.
Despite the growing body of experimental research in auditing, studies in this field
remain scattered across different academic journals, making it difficult to obtain a com-
prehensive understanding of key trends and methodological advancements. While some
studies have focused on audit task complexity and the cognitive limitations of auditors
(e.g., memory constraints and heuristic biases), others have examined external influences
such as client pressure, negotiation strategies, and regulatory interventions. Furthermore,
the role of technology in audit decision-making—such as the use of artificial intelligence,
data analytics, and visualization tools—has gained increasing attention recently. However,
a structured synthesis of these research areas is still lacking, necessitating a review that
systematically categorizes and evaluates existing experimental studies.
For several reasons, a comprehensive review of experimental research on auditor
judgment is essential. First, it helps to identify dominant research themes and gaps in
the literature, guiding future research in addressing unresolved questions. Second, it
provides a systematic assessment of the evolution of experimental methodologies. Third,
by mapping key findings to practical applications, this review provides insights into how
audit firms, standard setters, and regulators can improve the audit quality through targeted
interventions. This study aims to fill the existing gap by conducting a systematic review of
experimental research on auditor judgment published in leading accounting and auditing
journals from 2001 to 2023. Specifically, this study adopts the task–person–interpersonal
interaction framework proposed by Nelson and Tan (2005) to categorize the key factors
influencing auditor judgment quality. This framework allows for a structured analysis of the
research findings by examining three interrelated dimensions: (1) audit task characteristics,
(2) individual auditor attributes, and (3) interpersonal interactions with key stakeholders.
By using this framework, this review provides a holistic perspective on how different
elements interact to shape auditor decision-making. Furthermore, to guide this study, the
following research questions have been formulated: What are the dominant themes and
trends in experimental auditing research from 2001 to 2023? How do task characteristics,
auditor attributes, and interpersonal interactions influence auditor judgment quality?
In addition to identifying trends in experimental research, this review aims to provide
a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing auditor judgment and their
implications for both academic and professional settings. For academics, this study offers a
structured synthesis of the existing literature, highlighting theoretical developments and
gaps that require further exploration. The study also emphasizes the need for interdisci-
plinary approaches that integrate psychology, behavioral economics, and data analytics
into auditing research. For practitioners, this review provides actionable insights into
improving auditor performance by addressing cognitive biases, enhancing professional
skepticism, and implementing decision support systems. By consolidating the findings
from two decades of experimental studies, this research serves as a valuable resource to
shape future studies, refine audit methodologies, and strengthen regulatory frameworks to
ensure high-quality audit practices.
This study employs a systematic literature review approach to analyze experimental
research on auditor judgment published between 2001 and 2023 in four leading journals:
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (AJPT), Behavioral Research in Accounting (BRIA), The
Accounting Review (TAR), and Current Issues in Auditing (CIA). This study follows the Pre-
ferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework to
ensure a rigorous selection and evaluation process. The analysis is conducted using the task–
person–interpersonal interaction framework, which allows for the structured categorization
of the key research findings. Experimental research involves the deliberate manipulation of
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 3 of 18

one or more independent variables to observe their effects on dependent variables, with
the primary goal of establishing causal relationships. The results of experimental studies
related to auditor judgment are expected to guide audit firms and auditors in maintaining
judgment quality. Good judgment enables auditors to evaluate audit evidence accurately,
identify risks, and make appropriate decisions regarding material misstatements. Auditors
with high-quality judgment can withstand client pressures, consider relevant factors, and
make independent and objective decisions.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. Section 2 explains the research
methodology and describes the systematic literature review and selection criteria. Section 3
presents the key findings of the study, categorizing the research trends based on the
task–person–interpersonal interaction framework. Section 4 presents the discussion, and
Section 5 summarizes the key insights and suggests potential directions for future research.

2. Methodology
This review employs a systematic literature review approach to examine experimental
research on auditor judgment published between 2001 and 2023 in four leading accounting
and auditing journals by the American Accounting Association. These journals are Auditing:
A Journal of Practice & Theory (AJPT), Behavioral Research in Accounting (BRIA), The Accounting
Review (TAR), and Current Issues in Auditing (CIA). These journals are selected for their
prominent reputations in accounting and auditing based on their citations and impacts
(Simnett & Trotman, 2018). The inclusion of BRIA is particularly significant because it
focuses on the behavioral and psychological dimensions of auditing, which are central to
the experimental studies reviewed in this paper, while AJPT, TAR, and CIA focus on the
practical and theoretical aspects of auditing.
The objective of this review is to provide insights into the factors that strengthen or
enhance auditor judgment quality based on experimental research findings. The present
research employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
(PRISMA) flow diagram (Page et al., 2021) and conducts a systematic literature review to
understand the factors that influence auditor judgment based on experimental research.
The data collection process comprises three stages: the collection of relevant articles, the
filtration of studies, and a systematic literature review.
The PRISMA diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the process of identifying, screening,
and selecting studies for inclusion in a systematic review. In the initial phase of data
collection, articles containing the keywords “Audit Judgment” OR “Auditor Judgment”
AND “Experiment” were applied to titles, keywords, and abstracts obtained from Scopus
and the websites of each journal, focusing on studies published from 2001 to 2023 to
provide an overview of the current conditions. The total number of articles retrieved from
these various queries was 73. The use of Scopus and the journal database enabled the
comprehensive coverage of articles from AJPT, BRIA, TAR, and CIA. Seventeen duplicate
records were removed before screening, leaving 56 articles for further evaluation.
The title and abstract of each article from Scopus and the websites of each journal were
screened and selected based on two criteria: audit judgment and decisions and experimental
methods. From the 56 registered articles, we re-screened the titles and abstracts. There
were only 30 articles that specifically discussed audit judgments and decisions using
experimental methods. Twenty-six journal articles were not used in this research because
they did not discuss audit judgment and decision-making using experimental methods.
All 30 articles were successfully retrieved, with no missing reports.
During the eligibility assessment, each full-text article was reviewed to ensure its
alignment with the research objectives and methodological requirements. No additional
J. Risk Financial
J. Risk Manag.
Financial 2025,18,
Manag.2025, 18,115
x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
4 of 18

exclusions weremade
exclusions were madeatatthis
thisstage,
stage,
as as
all all 30 articles
30 articles met met the predefined
the predefined criteria.
criteria. These
These 30
30 studies were included in the final systematic
studies were included in the final systematic review. review.

Figure 1. Decision
Figure 1. Decision tree
tree based
based on
on the
the PRISMA
PRISMA flow
flow diagram.
diagram.** Record
Record identified
identifiedfrom:
from:Scopus
Scopusdata-
database
(https://www.scopus.com/)
base (scopus.com) and American and American Accounting
Accounting Association
Association websites
websites (https://aaahq.org/
(https://aaahq.org/Re-
Research/Journals, accessed
search/Journals, accessed on 29on 29 December
December 2024).2024).
** The** The article
article does
does not not discuss
discuss audit judgment
audit judgment and
and decision-making
decision-making usingusing experimental
experimental methods.
methods.

As
As shown in Table
shown in Table 1,1,30
30articles
articlesrelevant
relevanttoto thethe subject
subject were
were published
published in the
in the fourfour
journals. Notably, BRIA
journals. Notably, BRIAcontributed
contributedthe themost
most studies
studies duedue
to to
its its focus
focus on on
the the behavioral
behavioral
and psychological
and psychological aspects of accounting.
accounting. This distribution highlights the predominance of
This distribution highlights the predominance
behavioral-focused studies
of behavioral-focused in BRIA,
studies reflecting
in BRIA, itsits
reflecting specialized emphasis
specialized emphasis onon
thethe
psychological
psycho-
and behavioral
logical dimensions
and behavioral of audit
dimensions of judgment and decision-making.
audit judgment and decision-making.

Table 1. Distribution
Table1. of auditor
Distribution of auditorjudgment
judgmentarticles
articlesinin AJPT,
AJPT, BRIA,
BRIA, TAR,
TAR, and
and CIA
CIA (2001–2023).
(2001–2023).

No.
No. Journal
Journal Number of Articles
Number Reviewed
of Articles Reviewed
1 Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (AJPT) 8
1 Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (AJPT) 8
22 Behavioral
BehavioralResearch
Research inin
Accounting
Accounting(BRIA)
(BRIA) 17 17
33 The
TheAccounting
Accounting Review (TAR)
Review (TAR) 1 1
44 Current Issues in Auditing (CIA)
Current Issues in Auditing (CIA) 4 4
Total
Total 30 30

To systematically analyze the selected studies, this review adopts the task–person–
To systematically analyze the selected studies, this review adopts the task–person–
interpersonal interaction framework proposed by Nelson and Tan (2005). This framework
interpersonal
is particularlyinteraction frameworkresearch
useful in structuring proposed by Nelson
findings anditTan
because (2005). This
categorizes framework
auditor judg- is
particularly useful in structuring research findings because
ment research into the following three primary dimensions. it categorizes auditor judgment
research into the following three primary dimensions.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 5 of 18

1. Audit Task Characteristics—Examining how the nature of audit tasks, including

complexity, uncertainty, and evidence evaluation, influences auditors’ decision-
making processes.
2. Auditor Attributes/Person—Analyzing the impact of individual auditor characteris-
tics, such as experience, expertise, cognitive biases, and professional skepticism, on
judgment quality.
3. Interpersonal Interactions—Investigating how interactions with clients, audit commit-
tees, regulatory bodies, and other stakeholders affect auditors’ professional judgment
and independence.
The primary objective of this methodology is to identify patterns in experimental
research on auditor judgment and highlight areas that require further investigation. By
systematically mapping the literature, this study not only synthesizes existing knowledge
but also provides a foundation for future research directions. The findings of this review
contribute to ongoing discussions on audit quality by offering insights into how experimen-
tal research can be used to improve auditor decision-making, refine auditing standards,
and enhance regulatory oversight. Additionally, the study’s structured approach ensures
that the review remains comprehensive and methodologically sound, making it a valuable
resource for academics, practitioners, and policymakers seeking to understand and improve
auditor judgment.

3. Results
3.1. Trends in Publications
Examining the trends in audit judgment research from 2001 to 2023 reveals several
notable shifts across the different categories: task, person, and interpersonal interaction.
1. Task-Related Factors
In the early 2000s, research primarily focused on cognitive factors such as task com-
plexity (Chung & Monroe, 2001) and outcome knowledge (Emby et al., 2002), re-
flecting an emphasis on auditors’ processing of information. By the mid-2010s,
studies expanded to include risk assessments (Mock & Fukukawa, 2016), audit
engagement systems (Shim et al., 2020), and audit season effects (Hurley, 2017),
acknowledging that audit tasks are shaped by external pressures and evolving in-
dustry dynamics. Recent studies (2022–2023) have explored visualization techniques
(Rose et al., 2022), with a greater emphasis on how auditors navigate uncertainty,
ambiguity, and real-time decision-making, including the impact of AI, big data, and
benchmarking techniques (Bhattacharjee et al., 2022).
2. Person-Related Factors
Early research (2001–2011) focused on gender effects (Chung & Monroe, 2001),
partner influences (Peytcheva & Gillett, 2011), and auditor negotiation experience
(Fu et al., 2011). The 2010s saw increased attention to psychological aspects, including
depletion effects (Donnelly et al., 2021) and skepticism (Asare & Wright, 2019), sug-
gesting the growing recognition of auditors’ cognitive limitations. More recent studies
(2020–2023) have examined social media influences (Kuselias et al., 2021), indicating an
awareness of how external digital interactions impact auditors’ professional judgment.
3. Interpersonal Interaction
Research on audit judgement in interpersonal interactions has made significant
progress over the past decade. From 2010 to 2011, most research has focused on
direct interactions between auditors and clients, including topics such as ingratiation
(Robertson, 2010), negotiation tactics (Fu et al., 2011), and the influence of CEOs on
audit decisions (Cohen et al., 2011). Between 2016 and 2018, the focus shifted to
a broader range of social and organizational influences, including social pressures
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 6 of 18

(A. G. Brink et al., 2016), audit committee communication (Brown & Popova, 2016),
and client influences (Messier & Schmidt, 2018; Trompeter et al., 2018), reflecting the
increasing complexity of the audit environment. Between 2018 and 2020, research
focused on the impact of multiple sources of pressure, including client dishonesty
(Holderness, 2018), regulatory requirements, and professional guidance (Wright &
Bhattacharjee, 2020), which highlighted auditors’ increasing reliance on established
frameworks. The evolution of the trend has shifted from fundamental interpersonal
dynamics to broad, multi-faceted influences, with social, institutional, and regulatory
elements being incorporated into research findings on audit judgment.

3.2. Researcher Motivations

From the 30 studies reviewed, it was found that three articles (10%) explicitly focused
on motivations related to standards set by the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (PCAOB), one article (3.3%) aimed to generalize prior research findings (universal
application), and the remaining 26 articles (86.7%) were explanatory research, seeking to
deepen knowledge and generate new ideas.
The recent standards that motivated researchers included Auditing Standard (AS) No.
16: Communications with Audit Committees in 2012; PCAOB Form AP: Auditor Reporting
of Certain Audit Participants in 2015; and Amendments to Auditing Standards for the
Use of Specialists by Auditors in 2018. These standards have sparked debate regarding
their implementation, as explained in the research as follows. Communications with Audit
Committees (AS No. 16) highlight the benefits of frequent informal communication between
audit teams and audit committees for audit quality, but, to ensure that this communication
is effective, auditors need to consider how management influences the audit committee.
The influence of management pressure on the audit committee can reduce the effectiveness
of communication, which affects the audit quality (Brown & Popova, 2016). Regarding
partner identification (PCAOB, 2015), what motivates researchers is the fact that the partner
identification policy is a controversial topic in audit practice, and there are no studies that
show a clear impact of this policy on auditor judgment. Partner identification policies are
controversial because some argue that partner identification can lead to conflicts of interest
and affect the independence of the auditor, resulting in lower audit quality (Cianci et al.,
2017). Finally, standards promoting the use of specialists (PCAOB, 2018) reveal that the
advice provided by specialists can vary in quality, potentially undermining audit judgment
if specific client details are not fully considered (Wright & Bhattacharjee, 2020). It can be
concluded that researchers are concerned that the adoption of new standards set by the
PCAOB may affect audit quality.
Regarding generalization, one study replicated prior findings within the U.S. au-
dit environment, examining whether earlier conclusions could be applied universally
(Mock & Fukukawa, 2016). Generalization addresses external validity, which is often lim-
ited in laboratory experiments, despite their strengths in internal validity. To enhance the
external validity, replication across diverse participant characteristics and contexts is rec-
ommended. Consistent results between the original and replicated studies strengthen the
generalizability of the experimental findings, demonstrating their applicability to broader
conditions (Lynch, 1982).
Explanatory research seeks to explain why specific phenomena occur and to develop
or test theories. This approach is particularly effective in experimental studies (Neuman,
2014). Researchers are attracted to experiments due to their ability to establish causal
relationships, facilitating the extension of prior research and theory testing in auditing
behavior and psychology. For example, studies have explored topics such as the influence
of negotiation experience and negotiation styles on audit decisions (Fu et al., 2011), the use
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 7 of 18

of a prudent official’s perspective in the auditor’s decision (Asare & Wright, 2019), and the
effects of regulator-appointed auditors on audit decisions (Shim et al., 2020). Furthermore,
theories such as social comparison, motivated reasoning, and cognitive bias have been
tested in experimental settings (Kuselias et al., 2021; Peytcheva & Gillett, 2011). These
studies provide significant contributions in understanding the factors affecting auditor
judgment and decision-making.

3.3. Auditor Involvement

Experimental subjects are individuals who participate in experiments, where their
characteristics, attitudes, or behaviors serve as the objects of study. Subjects can come
from various backgrounds, including researchers, professionals, and even students
(Nahartyo, 2012). Table 2 illustrates that the majority of the experimental subjects in-
volved in the studies were auditors (70%). Since the research specifically focuses on auditor
judgment and decision-making, the use of auditors as subjects enhances the ecological
validity. Experiments with high ecological validity demonstrate relevance and utility
in at least one applicable context, requiring less evidence to establish external validity
(Lynch, 1982; Roe & Just, 2009). In the period from 2001 to 2023, at least 2.139 senior and/or
staff auditors participated, highlighting significant auditor engagement in knowledge
development.
Three experiments involved audit firm partners, addressing topics such as negotiation
experience and styles (Fu et al., 2011), outcome knowledge regarding ongoing concerns
assessment and peer evaluation (Emby et al., 2002), and the impact of partner identification
(Cianci et al., 2017). Regarding the controversial topic of partner identification mandated
by the PCAOB, partners acting as participants risk demonstrating biased behavior. Thus,
control measures are necessary to maintain neutrality and validity. Five experiments (16.7%)
utilized students as proxies. In certain conditions, student behavior aligns with that of
professional subjects. However, due to the specific focus on decision-making, caution
is necessary when using students. Employing professionals as controls may serve as an
alternative, as demonstrated in four studies (13.3%).
The high level of auditor participation in experiments on auditor judgment and
decision-making reflects their commitment to advancing knowledge. Strong auditor judg-
ment is closely linked to the profession, as it plays a critical role in ensuring audit quality.

Table 2. Participants in experimental studies.

No. Experimental Subjects Number of Articles Number of Participants

1 Audit Managers and/or Partners 3 301
2 Senior and/or Staff Auditors 18 1.894
3 Students 5 981
461
4 Combined Auditors and Students 4
(245 auditors, 216 students)
Total 30

3.4. Enhancing Auditor Judgment Quality

Auditor judgment refers to the ability of auditors to make sound professional decisions
during the audit of a company’s financial statements. It is crucial in ensuring audit quality
and the reliability of the resulting financial reports. Auditor judgment involves various factors,
including experience, knowledge, and an understanding of the industry and the audited
company. Additionally, auditor judgment is influenced by audit regulations, the structure of
audit firms, and dynamic economic and business conditions (Wedemeyer, 2010).
 J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 8 of 18
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

Based on the experimental research findings, the factors influencing auditor judgment
quality can be categorized into three main areas: (1) audit tasks, (2) auditor attributes, and
attributes, and (3) interpersonal interactions with stakeholders regarding auditor perfor-
(3) interpersonal interactions with stakeholders regarding auditor performance (Nelson &
mance (Nelson & Tan, 2005). These three areas are integral to the audit process. Table 3
Tan, 2005). These three areas are integral to the audit process. Table 3 shows the articles
shows the articles that we reviewed and the factors that influence audit judgment.
that we reviewed and the factors that influence audit judgment.
Auditors must complete various tasks to form a comprehensive audit opinion. In car-
Auditors must complete various tasks to form a comprehensive audit opinion. In
rying out these tasks, personal attributes such as their skills and personality significantly
carrying out these tasks, personal attributes such as their skills and personality significantly
influence the outcomes. Moreover, while applying personal attributes to perform tasks,
influence the outcomes. Moreover, while applying personal attributes to perform tasks,
auditors engage in interpersonal interactions with other auditors and stakeholders. The
auditors engage in interpersonal interactions with other auditors and stakeholders. The
relationship between the task, person, and interpersonal interaction is illustrated in Figure
relationship between the task, person, and interpersonal interaction is illustrated in Figure 2.
2. This model highlights that achieving high-quality audits requires auditors to integrate
This model highlights that achieving high-quality audits requires auditors to integrate audit
audit tasks with their personal attributes while engaging in effective interpersonal inter-
tasks with their personal attributes while engaging in effective interpersonal interactions
actions with relevant parties. This holistic process plays a critical role in preserving the
with relevant parties. This holistic process plays a critical role in preserving the integrity,
integrity, quality, and independence of audits.
quality, and independence of audits.

PERSON

TASK INTERPERSONAL INTERACTION

Figure 2. Model relationship between task, person, and interpersonal interaction.

Figure 2. Model relationship between task, person, and interpersonal interaction.
Table 3. Articles used in systematic review.
Table 3. Articles used in systematic review.
Categories Related Articles Identified Factors Affecting Auditor Judgment
Categories Related Articles Identified Factors Affecting Auditor Judgment
Task complexity, outcome knowledge, industry
Task complexity, outcome knowledge, industry
expertise, evidence configuration, evidence type,
expertise, evidence configuration, evidence type,
alternative source of explanation, retrieval
(Bhattacharjee et al., 2022; Chung & Monroe, alternative source of explanation, retrieval strat-
strategy, control environment effectiveness
(Bhattacharjee2001; Cianci
et al., 2022;etChung
al., 2017; Eilifsen et2001;
& Monroe, al., 2019;
egy, control environment effectiveness assess-
assessment, risk assessment approach, assertion
Emby et al., 2002; Frank, 2020; Fu et al., 2011;
Cianci et al., 2017; Eilifsen et al., 2019; Emby et al., ment, risk assessment
framing, approach,
disclosure assertion
identification, fram-
season,
Grenier et al., 2020; Grossman & Welker, 2011;
Task
2002; Frank,Hurley,
2020; Fu2017;
et al.,Messier
2011; Grenier et al.,2018; misstatement
ing, disclosure
2020;Mock distribution,
identification, response
season, mode,
misstate-
& Schmidt,
Task Grossman &&Welker, 2011; Hurley, 2017; Messier & ment non-diagnostic
distribution, evidence,
response standard
mode, precision, task
non-diagnos-
Fukukawa, 2016; Moroney, 2007; Rose et al.,
Schmidt, 2018; Mock & Fukukawa, 2016; Moroney, expertise,
tic&evidence, judgment
standard framework,
precision, audit
task expertise,
2022; Schmidt, 2014; Shim et al., 2020; Tang
engagement system, company status, auditors’
2007; Rose et al., 2022; Schmidt,
Yang, 2023;2014;Yen,Shim et al., 2020;judgment framework, audit engagement system,
2012)
psychological distance, ambiguity, benchmarking
Tang & Yang, 2023; Yen, 2012) companydatastatus, auditors’ psychological
set, visualization type, level ofdis-
uncertainty,
tance, timing
ambiguity,of thebenchmarking
cut, potentialdata set, visuali-
consequences
zation type, level of uncertainty, timing of the
(Asare & Wright, 2019; A. G. Brink et al., 2016; Auditor negotiation experience, partner
Chung & Monroe, 2001; Donnelly et al., 2021; cut, potential
influence,consequences
audit experience, social pressure, the
Person
(Asare & Wright,
Fu et2019; A. G.
al., 2011; Brink etetal.,
Kuselias al.,2016;
2021;Chung Auditor
Peytcheva negotiation
prudent official,experience,
compensating partner influ-depletion,
control,
& Monroe, 2001; Donnelly et al., 2021; Fu
& Gillett, 2011; Yen, 2012) et al., 2011; ence, audit experience, social pressure,
skepticism, social media content the pru-
Person
Kuselias et al., 2021; Peytcheva & Gillett, 2011; Yen, dent official, compensating
Ingratiation, incentive, control, depletion, style,
client negotiation
(A. G. Brink2012)et al., 2016; W. D. Brink et al., skepticism, social media content
CEO influence on audit committee
2019; Brown & Popova, 2016; Cohen et al.,
Ingratiation, incentive,
independence, client negotiation
management style,estimate
incentives,
Interpersonal 2011; Fu et al., 2011; Holderness, 2018;
(A. G. Brink et al., 2016; W. D. Brink et al., 2019; source, audit
CEO influence on auditcommittee
committeecommunication,
independ- client
Interaction Messier & Schmidt, 2018; Robertson, 2010;
Brown & Popova, Trompeter
2016; Cohen interpersonalincentives,
style, clientestimate
pressure, client
Interpersonal et et
al.,al., 2011;
2018; Fu et &
Wright al., ence, management source,
2011; Holderness, 2018; Messier & Schmidt,
Bhattacharjee, 2020)2018; Rob-audit committee communication, client interper-client
deception, number of auditors, clawback,
Interaction importance, subject matter expert, advice quality
ertson, 2010; Trompeter et al., 2018; Wright & sonal style, client pressure, client deception,
Bhattacharjee, 2020) number of auditors, clawback, client importance,
subject matter expert, advice quality
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 9 of 18

3.4.1. Audit Task

Audit tasks encompass research on how various audit assignments influence auditors’
decision-making processes (Nelson & Tan, 2005). Based on our review of the experimental
studies, several of the factors related to audit tasks that require attention from audit firms
and auditors are as follows.
1. Response Mode and Non-Diagnostic Evidence
Response mode refers to the method used to measure the probability or frequency
of an event. The frequency response mode assesses how often an event occurs, while the
probability response mode evaluates the likelihood of an event. Non-diagnostic evidence
refers to irrelevant or non-diagnostic information in the context of judgment. Such informa-
tion can cause a dilution effect, where auditors pay less attention to relevant data when
irrelevant data are also presented. Findings suggest that the frequency response mode
helps auditors to mitigate the dilution effect on risk assessments, particularly when the
provided non-diagnostic evidence is favorable. Using the frequency response mode enables
auditors to focus on diagnostic information, ignoring irrelevant evidence, leading to more
accurate judgments (Eilifsen et al., 2019).
2. Risk Assessment Approach and Assertion Framing
The approach to risk assessment can influence auditors’ risk judgments and the
effectiveness and efficiency of audits. Additionally, assertion framing can affect auditors’
suspicion levels and risk assessments. Probability-based risk assessments are easier to
understand but handle ambiguity poorly. Conversely, belief-based risk assessments handle
ambiguity better but are harder to interpret. Auditors must carefully select the approach
that aligns with the audit assignment (Mock & Fukukawa, 2016).
3. Evidence Configuration and Evidence Type
Evidence configuration refers to the arrangement of evidence, while the evidence type
relates to whether the evidence is conjunctive or disjunctive. Auditors are more prone
to memory conjunction errors when evidence is presented in a causal arrangement and
when conjunction evidence is used in the calculation of misrecognition. In this case, causal
evidence is presented in an order that follows the causal flow from one piece of evidence to
another. Evaluating evidence across multiple causally arranged sets may impair auditors’
ability to accurately distinguish information sources. To ensure precise judgment, auditors
working with multiple clients should review working papers and minimize the reliance on
memory, particularly for causally arranged evidence (Grossman & Welker, 2011).
4. Outcome Knowledge
Outcome knowledge refers to the knowledge the auditor has about the results of
previous audits. Auditors who are aware of favorable prior outcomes tend to make
less conservative judgments in subsequent audits, whereas an awareness of unfavorable
outcomes leads to more conservative judgments. Such biases can impact audits’ reliability.
To mitigate these effects, auditors should seek additional evidence or involve auditors
without prior outcome knowledge (Emby et al., 2002).
5. Timing of the Cut and Potential Consequences
The timing of the cut refers to the timing of cost reductions, which auditors use as cues
to identify real earnings management (REM). Auditors should be vigilant about end-of-
period transactions and consider their potential negative impacts on the company’s future
performance. Studies show that auditors tend to take confrontational action if there are cost
cuts at the end of the reporting period, and cost cuts related to core product development
have the potential to bring serious consequences for the company’s future operational
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 10 of 18

performance. Auditors consider these cost cuts to be related to earnings management

(Tang & Yang, 2023).
6. Visualization Type
Visualization tools, such as gradient plots and column charts, aid auditors in interpret-
ing data. Gradient plots, which represent uncertainty in data, are particularly effective in
enhancing audit judgment by helping auditors to assimilate uncertainty evidence into their
decision-making processes (Rose et al., 2022).
7. Audit Engagement System
Audit engagement systems determine how auditors are appointed. There are two
types of audit engagement systems that are commonly used, namely the Free Audit En-
gagement System (FAES) and the Auditor Designation System (ADS). Studies indicate that
the ADS, where regulators select auditors, enhances the independence and audit quality
compared to the FAES. However, the ADS may reduce market competition and increase the
audit costs. In addition, the selection of auditors determined by regulators can hinder the
speed of audits. The ADS can be an effective alternative in certain cases (Shim et al., 2020).
8. Standard Precision, Task Expertise, and Judgment Framework
The audit decision quality improves when standards are precise, auditors possess task
expertise, and judgment frameworks are utilized. Standard precision refers to the degree
of precision of the accounting standards used in the audit. Task expertise refers to the
auditor’s expertise in performing a particular audit task. The more expertise the auditor
has in performing the audit task, the better the decision made. Judgment framework refers
to the framework used by the auditor to make a decision. The better the framework used,
the better the decision made. Findings suggest that audit firms should employ technical
specialists when accounting standards lack precision and implement professional judgment
frameworks to guide decision-making (Grenier et al., 2020).
9. Benchmarking Data Set
A benchmarking data set is a collection of data used to compare the performance of
a company with that of other companies in the same industry. Selective client-provided
benchmarking data can bias auditors’ evaluations. To counter this, audit firms should
provide structured guidelines to ensure that auditors make impartial assessments of client-
provided data (Bhattacharjee et al., 2022).
10. Misstatement Distribution
Misstatement distribution is the way in which material errors are distributed among
accounts in financial statements. The distribution can be symmetrical or asymmetrical.
Auditors are more likely to identify material misstatements when errors are symmetrically
distributed across accounts and materiality effects are low. However, asymmetric distribu-
tions and high materiality effects reduce the likelihood of error detection. Audit standards
should offer clearer guidance on the assessment of material misstatements to enhance the
judgment quality (Messier & Schmidt, 2018).
11. Task Complexity and Industry Expertise
Task complexity refers to the degree of difficulty or complexity of an audit task faced by
an auditor. Audit task complexity can include factors such as the amount of information to
be analyzed, the degree of uncertainty in the available data, or the challenges in identifying
risks or internal control weaknesses. The greater the task complexity, the more difficult
it is for the auditor to make accurate audit decisions (Chung & Monroe, 2001). One
way to mitigate the negative effects of task complexity is to use auditors with industry
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 11 of 18

expertise. Industry expertise refers to in-depth knowledge and an understanding of a

particular industry. Auditors with industry expertise have a comprehensive understanding
of the characteristics, regulations, business processes, and unique issues associated with
a particular industry. Industry-specialized auditors can complete audit tasks during the
planning and evidence-gathering stages more efficiently than non-specialized auditors.
This demonstrates that, particularly in the initial phases of the audit, industry-specialized
auditors enhance the decision-making efficiency (Moroney, 2007).
12. Partner Identification
Partner identification policies, such as PCAOB Form AP, are policies that require
auditors to disclose, in the audit report, the name of the partner responsible for conducting
the audit of a company. Partner identification is intended to increase the accountability and
transparency in audit practices. On the other hand, this policy is controversial because some
parties argue that partner identification can lead to conflicts of interest and compromise
auditors’ independence. Audit firms should reinforce their professional values through
training and communication to mitigate these effects (Cianci et al., 2017).
13. Retrieval Strategy
Retrieval strategy refers to the strategy or sequence of retrieving information from
memory. The retrieval strategy affects how auditors recall evidence, such as “tone at the
top,” impacting their judgment. The balanced retrieval of positive and negative evidence
ensures accurate mental representation and enhances the decision quality (Schmidt, 2014).
14. Busy Season
The auditor busy season refers to a period of high workload and stress for auditors.
During the busy season, auditors face the demands of long hours, increased workloads,
and the pressure of tight deadlines. The busy season is often considered to be a very
demanding period for auditors. The busy season exposes auditors to high workloads
and stress, impacting their physical and mental well-being. Audit firms should prioritize
work–life balance during this period to maintain audit quality (Hurley, 2017).
15. Auditors’ Psychological Distance and Ambiguity
Psychological distance refers to the extent to which the auditor feels emotionally
involved in the situation being evaluated. Psychological distance affects how auditors
process ambiguous situations. An ambiguous situation is a situation in which the auditor
does not have clear information or clear indications as to whether or not there is a problem
in the audit. The interaction of the auditor’s psychological distance and ambiguity can
influence auditor decision-making. When auditors feel psychologically distant from an
ambiguous situation, their professional values are more likely to limit the biasing effects
of self-interest on their decision-making. However, when auditors feel psychologically
close to an ambiguous situation, self-interest is more likely to influence their decision-
making (Frank, 2020). Auditors can maintain their judgment quality and audit quality
in psychological and ambiguous conditions by adopting a prudent official approach and
based on professional values (Asare & Wright, 2019).

3.4.2. Person
Auditors and attributes refer to individual auditor characteristics, such as experience,
knowledge, and motivation, that influence their decision-making processes (Nelson & Tan,
2005). Based on our review of the experimental studies, the following are some of the
factors related to personal attributes that require attention from audit firms and auditors.
1. Partner Influence
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 12 of 18

Partners play a significant role in shaping auditor judgments. Partner preferences,

experiences, and profit-oriented goals can influence auditors’ objectivity in performing
their tasks. Studies indicate that partners’ views can affect auditors both before and after
they make decisions (Peytcheva & Gillett, 2011). This could threaten team communication
and reduce objectivity. Audit firms should establish standards to ensure that auditors’
objectivity is not excessively influenced by partners.
2. Auditor Negotiation Experience
Auditors with significant negotiation experience are those who have frequently en-
gaged in complex and material financial reporting negotiations with clients. Audit firms
will benefit from assigning experienced negotiators to handle contentious client nego-
tiations, where the client adopts an aggressive negotiation style. Previous negotiation
experience enables auditors to make better decisions in such contexts (Fu et al., 2011).
3. Audit Experience
Audit experience in this context refers to the auditor’s ability to perform analytical
procedures. Experienced auditors are better able to identify and explain errors during
analytical procedures. Research shows that junior auditors with more experience perform
analytical procedures similarly to senior auditors. Audit firms should consider auditor ex-
perience when assigning analytical procedures and invest in training programs to enhance
the skills of new auditors (Yen, 2012).
4. Social Pressure
Social pressure encompasses compliance and conformity influences. Compliance
pressure occurs when an authority figure, such as a manager, directs subordinates to align
with their expectations, while conformity pressure arises from peer influences, including
the suggestions or actions of colleagues and workplace norms. Research indicates that
auditors are often influenced by their superiors’ suggestions, even when such advice leads
to less conservative decisions (A. G. Brink et al., 2016). Audit firms should be aware of
these risks and implement measures to safeguard auditors’ independent judgment.
5. The Prudent Official
A prudent official is an objective third party with expertise in financial reporting
processes, capable of implementing controls and assessing control weaknesses. Auditors
are encouraged to adopt the perspective of a prudent official when evaluating internal
control deficiencies and assessing the effectiveness of compensating controls. For instance,
PCAOB inspectors exemplify this role. Reminders to adopt a prudent official perspective
can enhance the audit quality and assist auditors in evaluating risk-related conditions
(Asare & Wright, 2019).
6. Social Media Content
Accessing social media during work may negatively impact auditors’ performance
due to distractions. Additionally, social media content can influence auditors’ cognition,
altering their affective states and motivations. However, exposure to professional content
shared by other auditors can mitigate these negative effects, enhancing their focus and
engagement (Kuselias et al., 2021).
7. Ego Depletion
Ego depletion occurs when auditors experience mental fatigue after engaging in tasks
requiring self-control, such as multitasking or complex decision-making. During busy
seasons, ego depletion may reduce the decision quality, although auditors generally rely on
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 13 of 18

their inherent skepticism to assess risks accurately. Audit firms should address the work–
life balance to minimize ego depletion by providing sufficient rest, reducing unnecessary
workloads, and offering psychological support (Donnelly et al., 2021; Hurley, 2017).

3.4.3. Interpersonal Interaction

Interpersonal interaction refers to research on how the interactions between auditors
and stakeholders, such as audit committees, company management, and legal counsel,
influence auditors’ decision-making processes (Nelson & Tan, 2005). Based on our review
of the experimental studies, the following are some of the factors related to interpersonal
interactions that require attention from audit firms and auditors.
1. Ingratiation
Ingratiation refers to behaviors where clients seek to gain the support or favor of
auditors by engaging in flattery or cooperation. For example, clients may admire auditors’
expertise or express a strong willingness to collaborate. Ingratiation can effectively influence
auditors, particularly when the client’s incentives are low. However, ingratiation may lead
auditors to comply with client requests, potentially compromising their independence and
objectivity (Robertson, 2010). Audit firms should emphasize the professional code of ethics
to safeguard decision-making integrity against ingratiation tactics.
2. Management Incentive
Management incentives refer to rewards or motivations provided to company manage-
ment to achieve specific goals. Such incentives include bonuses or stock options or other
forms of incentives given to management as a reward for achieving the desired performance
by the company. In the context of research, incentive management can influence auditors’
decisions in evaluating a company’s financial statements. For instance, when management
has a strong incentive to manipulate its financial statements, such as meeting or exceeding
analysts’ forecasts, auditors are expected to exercise greater skepticism toward this infor-
mation. Additionally, auditors may rely more on the preferences of audit committees when
evaluating financial reports (Brown & Popova, 2016; Cohen et al., 2011).
3. Subject Matter Expert and Advice Quality
The PCAOB promotes the use of subject matter experts (SMEs) in audits, particularly
in areas involving fair value and estimations. SMEs provide specialized advice to audit
teams. However, the quality of their advice depends on their involvement in the audit and
the accuracy of the information provided by the client. When aware of SME involvement,
auditors tend to be more critical and thorough in evaluating the advice, leading to more
accurate decisions. Conversely, unawareness of SME involvement may result in less
thorough evaluations and reduced decision quality (Wright & Bhattacharjee, 2020).
4. Audit Committee Communication
Effective communication with the audit committee, as mandated by Auditing Stan-
dard (AS) No. 16: Communications with Audit Committees, enhances oversight and
audit quality. Moving beyond formal compliance checklists, such communication fosters
meaningful information exchange, reinforcing auditor independence and improving the
financial reporting quality (Brown & Popova, 2016).
5. CEO’s Influence on Audit Committee Independence
The CEO’s influence on audit committee member selection may jeopardize the com-
mittee’s independence, especially if the nominees have prior relationships with the CEO.
This can create potential conflicts of interest, undermining the audit committee’s oversight
role. Auditors must assess whether the audit committee operates independently to ensure
the integrity of the financial reporting process (Cohen et al., 2011).
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 14 of 18

6. Client Negotiation Style

Clients’ negotiation styles, ranging from cooperative to confrontational, can impact
auditors’ judgments. Cooperative clients promote collaboration, whereas confrontational
clients may signal less transparent or accurate accounting practices. The effect of the
negotiation style diminishes with experienced auditors but remains significant for less
experienced auditors (Fu et al., 2011). Assigning experienced auditors to challenging clients
can mitigate these effects.
7. Client Deception and Auditor Team Size
Client deception involves the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of informa-
tion. Indicators of deception include changes in speech patterns, restlessness, and inconsis-
tencies in statements. Teams with multiple auditors are more effective in detecting deception
than individual auditors. To enhance their judgment accuracy, audit firms should use larger
teams for consultations and provide training on deception detection (Holderness, 2018).
8. Clawbacks and Client Importance
Clawback provisions refer to contractual agreements or legal requirements that enable
a company to reclaim compensation previously paid to executives or employees under
certain circumstances. Clawbacks can influence auditors’ decision-making, particularly in
assessing risks and making recommendations for financial restatements. Although studies
indicate that clawbacks have limited direct impacts on auditors’ decisions, auditors are
still required to consider their implications when evaluating material risks, conducting
substantive testing, and forming an opinion on audited financial statements (W. D. Brink
et al., 2019). In contrast, client importance has a more significant influence on auditors’
decision-making processes. Client importance refers to the level of significance that a client
holds for an audit firm, often measured by the client’s financial size, its industry influence,
or the proportion of audit fees contributed to the firm’s overall revenue. Clients deemed
highly important can pose a threat to auditor independence and objectivity, as auditors may
feel pressured to maintain the business relationship. Research suggests that the level of
client importance affects risk assessments and decision-making differently. For clients with
low importance, auditors are less likely to experience significant bias, whereas, for highly
important clients, auditors may face subtle pressures that could impact the quality of their
judgments. These pressures may lead to conservative or lenient assessments depending on
the circumstances, potentially compromising the audit quality (W. D. Brink et al., 2019).
9. Client Pressure
Client pressure refers to attempts by clients to influence auditors’ decisions, particu-
larly in evaluating material misstatements or in determining the appropriate audit opinion.
This pressure can manifest in two primary forms: the importance of the client to the audit
firm and direct pressure exerted by the client to avoid unfavorable reporting. Clients
who are significant to an audit firm, either due to their financial size or the proportion
of fees that they contribute, may indirectly influence auditors’ judgments. For example,
auditors may be hesitant to challenge a client’s accounting treatments or decisions when
the client represents a substantial portion of the firm’s revenue or if maintaining a positive
business relationship is prioritized. Such influence can lead auditors to overlook material
misstatements or take a more lenient approach when evaluating evidence (W. D. Brink
et al., 2019; Messier & Schmidt, 2018). To address the risks posed by client pressure, audit
firms should implement the following measures: strict adherence to standards, enhanced
support systems, independence training, and communication with stakeholders.
10. Client Interpersonal Style
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 15 of 18

Clients’ interpersonal styles—ranging from friendly to intimidating—affect auditors’

professional skepticism. Friendly clients may reduce skepticism, while intimidating clients
may increase it. Auditors are encouraged to maintain professionalism by following objec-
tive audit procedures, employing effective communication, and adhering to established
audit standards (Trompeter et al., 2018).

4. Discussion
To conduct high-quality audits, auditors must combine their professional expertise
across three distinct areas: complexity of audit tasks, attributes of the individual auditor,
and interactions with others that occur during the audit process. These factors interact
dynamically, impacting one another and consequently affecting the audit quality directly.
Audit tasks range from routine procedures to highly complex evaluations requiring
significant professional judgment. Complex audit tasks, such as assessing fair value esti-
mates, detecting fraudulent transactions, and evaluating ambiguous financial disclosures,
require high levels of expertise and cognitive effort. Auditors with extensive industry
knowledge and experience are better equipped to navigate these challenges because they
can apply specialized knowledge to interpret audit evidence accurately and assess risks
effectively. Conversely, less experienced auditors may struggle to manage complex tasks,
leading to an increased reliance on heuristics or simplified decision-making processes,
which can introduce biases and reduce the quality of audit judgments.
Auditor attributes, particularly skepticism and experience, significantly shape how
auditors interact with clients, management, and other stakeholders. Skeptical auditors
frequently question the validity of the information provided by clients and exercise profes-
sional judgment with greater caution. Their skepticism acts as a safeguard against biased
financial reporting because they are less likely to accept client-provided explanations with-
out sufficient corroborating evidence. In contrast, less skeptical auditors may be more
susceptible to persuasion, potentially compromising their independence and objectivity.
However, experience also plays a crucial role in auditors’ evaluation of client information.
Less experienced auditors who lack the expertise to critically analyze financial data may
rely too heavily on client-provided information, increasing the risk of biased assessments.
Interpersonal interactions, particularly between auditors and clients, play a significant
role in shaping audit judgments, especially when audit tasks are complex and require
subjective interpretation. When faced with ambiguous audit evidence—such as fair value
estimates or uncertain revenue recognition—auditors must rely on their professional judg-
ment to assess the validity of client-reported figures. However, client pressure can distort
this process because management may try to persuade auditors to adopt a more favorable
interpretation of the evidence. While client pressure can introduce bias into audit decisions,
effective communication with audit committees can serve as a counterbalance, particularly
in complex audits. Audit committees oversee financial reporting and ensure that auditors
have access to accurate and unbiased information.

5. Conclusions and Future Research

Auditor judgment refers to the ability of auditors to make sound professional decisions
during the audit of a company’s financial statements. It is critical in ensuring audit quality
and the reliability of the resulting financial reports. This study categorizes the factors influ-
encing auditor judgment quality into three main areas: (1) audit tasks, (2) auditor attributes,
and (3) interpersonal interactions with stakeholders regarding auditor performance. The
relationships among these three areas demonstrate that achieving high-quality audits re-
quires auditors to integrate their audit tasks with their personal attributes while effectively
engaging in interpersonal interactions with relevant parties. This comprehensive process
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 16 of 18

plays a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity, quality, and independence of the audit.
Understanding and addressing these interconnected factors not only enhances auditors’
decision-making but also contributes significantly to improving the overall audit quality.
The findings of this study make significant contributions to both academia and au-
diting practice. Academically, this research offers a systematic mapping of experimental
studies on auditor judgment, shedding light on trends and methodological developments
in the field. From a practical perspective, the results can be utilized by public account-
ing firms and regulators to enhance the audit quality by addressing key factors affecting
auditor decision-making. For instance, understanding the impact of client pressure, task
complexity, and auditor experience can help audit firms to design better mitigation strate-
gies. Furthermore, insights into the role of technology in the audit process can serve as a
foundation for the development of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems to
assist auditors in handling complex tasks.
Despite providing a comprehensive review of experimental studies on auditor judg-
ment, this research has some limitations. Firstly, it only includes articles published between
2001 and 2023 in AJPT, BRIA, CIA, and TAR, which means that relevant studies outside
this timeframe and from other journals may not have been captured. Secondly, although
experimental research is valuable in establishing causal relationships, its findings may have
limitations in generalizing to more complex and dynamic audit environments. Thirdly,
cultural and regulatory differences across jurisdictions may influence auditor judgments;
however, this study does not fully explore these aspects.
Future research on auditor judgment can explore several areas to address the existing
gaps and emerging challenges in the field. Firstly, while this study highlights the impact
of task complexity, auditor attributes, and interpersonal interactions, more research is
needed to understand how these factors interact dynamically during the audit process.
Longitudinal studies could provide insights into how auditor decision-making evolves
over time, particularly under different regulatory and market conditions. Secondly, the
integration of advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence and data analytics, into
the audit process provides an opportunity to examine how these tools influence auditors’
judgment and decision quality. In addition, cross-cultural studies could explore how
differences in cultural, regulatory, and institutional environments affect auditor judgment
globally. Finally, experimental research could explore mitigation strategies for challenges
such as client pressure, bias, and ethical dilemmas, providing practical frameworks to
strengthen the audit quality. By addressing these areas, future research can contribute to
both theoretical advances and practical improvements in the auditing profession.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.A. and R.F.; methodology, D.A. and R.F.; software,
R.F.; validation, D.A.; formal analysis, D.A. and R.F.; investigation, D.A. and R.F.; resources, R.F.;
data curation, D.A.; writing—original draft preparation, R.F.; writing—review and editing, D.A.;
visualization, R.F.; supervision, D.A.; project administration, R.F. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due
not applicable for studies not involving humans or animals.

Informed Consent Statement: Patient consent was waived due not applicable for studies not
involving humans.

Data Availability Statement: The data supporting the reported results are available in the Sco-
pus database (https://www.scopus.com/) and on the American Accounting Association website
(https://aaahq.org/Research/Journals, accessed on 29 December 2024).
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 17 of 18

Acknowledgments: The authors extend their sincerest appreciation to the Department of Accounting
at Universitas Airlangga’s Faculty of Economics and Business for providing their unrelenting support
and resources throughout this research. We would like to express our gratitude to Suwarno, an
Auditor at the Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (Supreme Audit Institutions) Indonesia, for his valuable
suggestions, insights, and support in the writing of this article. His contributions have greatly
enhanced the depth and quality of our study. We would also like to express our gratitude to our
colleagues and reviewers for their valuable input, which significantly improved the quality of this
study, and to the auditing researchers for their insight and guidance, which enabled us to conduct
this study.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
Asare, S. K., & Wright, A. M. (2019). The effect of a prompt to adopt the prudent official’s perspective on auditors’ judgments of the
severity of control deficiencies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 38(4), 1–16. [CrossRef]
Bhattacharjee, S., Moreno, K. K., & Wright, N. S. (2022). How do client-provided benchmarking data impact auditors’ evaluations of
level 3 fair value discount rate assumptions? Current Issues in Auditing, 16(1), P1–P8. [CrossRef]
Brink, A. G., Tang, F., & Yang, L. (2016). The impact of estimate source and social pressure on auditors’ fair value estimate choices.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 28(2), 29–40. [CrossRef]
Brink, W. D., Grenier, J. H., Pyzoha, J. S., Reffett, A., & Zielinski, N. (2019). The effects of clawbacks on auditors’ propensity to propose
restatements and risk assessments. Current Issues in Auditing, 13(2), P12–P20. [CrossRef]
Brown, J. O., & Popova, V. K. (2016). The interplay of management incentives and audit committee communication on auditor judgment.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 28(1), 27–40. [CrossRef]
Chung, J., & Monroe, G. S. (2001). A research note on the effects of gender and task complexity on an audit judgment. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, 13(1), 111–125. [CrossRef]
Cianci, A. M., Houston, R. W., Montague, N. R., & Vogel, R. (2017). audit partner identification: Unintended consequences on audit
judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(4), 135–149.
Cohen, J. R., Gaynor, L. M., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. M. (2011). The impact on auditor judgments of CEO influence on audit
committee independence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(4), 129–147. [CrossRef]
Donnelly, A. M., Kaplan, S. E., & Vinson, J. M. (2021). The impact of trait skepticism and ego depletion on auditor judgment. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, 33(1), 107–122. [CrossRef]
Eilifsen, A., Kochetova, N., & Messier, W. F. (2019). Mitigating the dilution effect in auditors’ judgments using a frequency response
mode. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 31(2), 51–71. [CrossRef]
Emby, C., Gelardi, A. M. G., & Lowe, J. (2002). A research note on the influence of outcome knowledge on audit partners’ judgments.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 14(1), 87–103. [CrossRef]
Frank, M. L. (2020). When do auditors’ professional values constrain the biasing effects of self interest? An experimental investigation.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 32(2), 41–55. [CrossRef]
Fu, H., Tan, H. T., & Zhang, J. (2011). Effect of auditor negotiation experience and client negotiating style on auditors’ judgments in an
auditor-client negotiation context. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(3), 225–237. [CrossRef]
Gao, P., & Zhang, G. (2019). Auditing standards, professional judgment, and audit quality. Accounting Review, 94(6), 201–225. [CrossRef]
Grenier, J. H., Pomeroy, B., Stern, M. T., & Zielinski, N. B. (2020). The effects of accounting standard precision, auditor task expertise,
and judgment frameworks on audit firm litigation exposure. Current Issues in Auditing, 14(2), P19–P30. [CrossRef]
Grossman, A. M., & Welker, R. B. (2011). Does the arrangement of audit evidence according to causal connections make auditors more
susceptible to memory conjunction errors? Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23(2), 93–115. [CrossRef]
He, X., Kothari, S. P., Xiao, T., & Zuo, L. (2018). Long-term impact of economic conditions on auditors’ judgment. Accounting Review,
93(6), 203–229. [CrossRef]
Holderness, D. K. (2018). The effect of multiple auditors on deception detection in a client inquiry setting. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 30(1), 39–58. [CrossRef]
Hurley, P. J. (2017). Ego depletion and auditors’ busy season. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 29(2), 25–35. [CrossRef]
Kuselias, S., Lauck, J. R., & Williams, S. (2021). Social media content and social comparisons: An experimental examination of their
effect on audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 40(1), 55–72. [CrossRef]
Lynch, J. G. (1982). On the external validity of experiments in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 225–239. Available
online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2488619 (accessed on 25 October 2024). [CrossRef]
Messier, W. F., & Schmidt, M. (2018). Offsetting misstatements: The effect of misstatement distribution, quantitative materiality, and
client pressure on auditors’ judgments. Accounting Review, 93(4), 335–357. [CrossRef]
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 115 18 of 18

Mock, T. J., & Fukukawa, H. (2016). Auditors’ risk assessments: The effects of elicitation approach and assertion framing. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, 28(2), 75–84. [CrossRef]
Moroney, R. (2007). Does Industry Expertise Improve the Efficiency of Audit Judgment? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 26(2),
69–94. [CrossRef]
Nahartyo, E. (2012). Desain dan implementasi riset eksperimen (1st ed.). UPP STIM YKPN.
Nelson, M., & Tan, H.-T. (2005). Judgment and decision making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction
perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24, 41–71.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan,
S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald,
S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Payne, J. L., & Williamson, R. (2021). An examination of the influence of mutual CFO/audit firm tenure on audit quality. Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy, 40(4), 106825. [CrossRef]
Peytcheva, M., & Gillett, P. R. (2011). How partners’ views influence auditor judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(4),
285–301. [CrossRef]
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2015). Improving the transparency of audits: Rules to require disclosure of certain
audit participants on a new PCAOB form and related amendments to auditing standards. PCAOB release No. 2015-008. PCAOB.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2018). Amendments to auditing standards for auditor’s use of the work of specialists.
December 20, 2018: PCAOB release No. 2018-006. PCAOB.
Robertson, J. C. (2010). The effects of ingratiation and client incentive on auditor judgment. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 22(2),
69–86. [CrossRef]
Roe, B. E., & Just, D. R. (2009). Internal and external validity in economics research: Tradeoffs between experiments, field experiments,
natural experiments, and field data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5), 1266–1271. [CrossRef]
Rose, A. M., Rose, J. M., Rotaru, K., Sanderson, K. A., & Thibodeau, J. C. (2022). Effects of uncertainty visualization on attention,
arousal, and judgment. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 34(1), 113–139. [CrossRef]
Schmidt, R. N. (2014). The effects of auditors’ accessibility to “tone at the top” knowledge on audit judgments. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 26(2), 73–96. [CrossRef]
Shim, T. S., Pae, S. J., & Choi, E. (2020). The effects of auditor designation by the regulator on auditor decisions: Evidence from Korea.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 32(1), 21–36. [CrossRef]
Shu, P.-G., Chen, T.-K., Hung, W.-J., & Chiang, T.-L. (2013). Economic dependence and reputation concern for the audit firm, audit
groups, and individual auditors-the case of Taiwan. Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies, 16(2), 1350012. [CrossRef]
Simnett, R., & Trotman, K. T. (2018). Twenty-five-year overview of experimental auditing research: Trends and links to audit quality.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 30(2), 55–76. [CrossRef]
Tang, F., & Yang, L. (2023). Auditors’ responses to real earnings management: The effects of timing and potential consequences on
auditor decision-making. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 35(1), 67–80. [CrossRef]
Trompeter, G. M., Eutsler, J., & Norris, A. E. (2018). A live simulation-based investigation: Interactions with clients and their effect on
audit judgment and professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(3), 145–162. [CrossRef]
Wedemeyer, P. D. (2010). A discussion of auditor judgment as the critical component in audit quality—A practitioner’s perspective.
International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 7(4), 320–333. [CrossRef]
Wright, N. S., & Bhattacharjee, S. (2020). Auditors’ use of formal advice from internal firm subject matter experts: The impact of advice
quality and advice awareness on auditors’ judgments. Current Issues in Auditing, 14(2), P31–P39. [CrossRef]
Yen, A. C. (2012). The effect of early career experience on auditors’ assessments of error explanations in analytical review. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, 24(2), 211–229. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.