ABSTRACT
This experimental study replicates, using U.S. audit practionioners, Fukukawa and Mock (2011), who investigated the effects of probability-based versus belief-based risk assessments and positive versus negative assertions on auditor judgments. Most results are consistent with the prior study: (1) significant differences between probability-based and belief-based risk assessments are observed; (2) assessed risks are significantly higher and relatively more skeptical when negatively versus positively stated assertions are provided; and (3) when the belief-based assessments are transformed into probabilities using a method proposed by Cobb and Shenoy (2006) and compared with the probability-based risk assessments, the difference is not statistically significant. Some results do not replicate, particularly when the risk assessments after audit evidence is provided are examined. However, in general, the U.S. results are more consistent with expectations. Overall, this study corroborates the key results of Fukukawa and Mock (2011).
Data Availability: Contact the first author for data for use by others interested in extending or replicating results.
