Accounting regulators, practitioners, and academics have all expressed concern that client preferences unduly influence accountants' judgment. This study builds on Ponemon (1995) by investigating the effects of client outcome preferences and experience levels on practicing forensic accountants' and auditors' complex loss valuation accounting judgments. Based on studies in motivated reasoning and accounting experience, we predict and find that experienced accountants have the capacity to ignore client-preferred outcomes when evaluating evidence. Specifically, when acting as an expert witness in a lawsuit involving a loss valuation dispute, forensic accountants and auditors both provide higher estimates of the plaintiff's damages when assuming the role of an expert retained by the plaintiff versus the court, unless participants possessed high experience. In addition, we find no difference in loss valuation judgments for practicing forensic accountants and auditors when both have high experience.

You do not currently have access to this content.