消除认知偏见_提高审计师的独立性和职业怀疑（英文版）_22页_657kb

Summary of "Banishing bias?" – Audit, Objectivity and the Value of Professional Scepticism

Core Content

This report explores the role of professional scepticism in enhancing audit quality, and argues that a psychologically informed approach to audit standards is necessary to address the cognitive biases that affect the financial reporting process. It emphasizes that professional scepticism is not just a matter of attitude, but a complex psychological and systemic challenge that requires multi-stakeholder collaboration and systemic improvements.

Main Points

1. Importance of Professional Scepticism

• Professional scepticism is defined as a state of mind that involves a questioning attitude, alertness to possible misstatements, and critical assessment of evidence.
• It is a key component of audit quality, yet regulators and oversight bodies continue to highlight its lack as a problem.
• Overemphasizing professional scepticism in the wrong contexts may lead to inefficient audit procedures and reduced audit quality.

2. Cognitive Biases and Audit

• Cognitive biases are inherent to human decision-making and can influence auditors and other stakeholders in the financial reporting process.
• These biases may lead to systemic issues in audit quality, such as over-reliance on management, selective perception, anchoring, and groupthink.
• Data analytics may help reduce some biases, but it is not a silver bullet and must be used carefully to avoid reinforcing them.

3. Need for Psychological Informed Standards

• The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) and International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) have defined bias, but the psychology literature offers a more nuanced understanding.
• Standard setters should consider cognitive biases when developing standards to mitigate their impact or avoid detrimental effects on audit quality.
• Clarity on objectivity is essential, as it is central to audit quality and influenced by cognitive biases.

4. Stakeholder Roles in Enhancing Audit Quality

• Auditors must be aware of their own cognitive biases and design audit procedures accordingly.
• Preparers and investors also play a role in shaping audit perceptions and decision-making.
• Audit committees, regulators, and the public should encourage transparency and shared commitment to audit quality.

5. Structural Constraints in Audit

• The audit process is subject to information asymmetry, time limitations, and resource constraints.
• These constraints naturally lead to cognitive biases, making it important to balance efficiency and thoroughness in audit practices.
• Professional judgment is crucial in navigating these trade-offs.

Key Recommendations

• Audit firms should incorporate cognitive bias awareness into their methodologies.
• Standard setters should design standards that mitigate bias and enhance objectivity.
• Preparers should ensure transparency and support auditors in their work.
• Audit committees should challenge auditors and ask about bias mitigation.
• Regulators should focus on quality improvements rather than reacting to bias.
• Investors and the public should promote a shared commitment to audit quality.

Conclusion

• A global commitment to audit quality is necessary, given the complex and shared nature of cognitive biases.
• Professional scepticism must be understood not just as a personal attribute, but as a systemic challenge that requires collective responsibility.
• Data analytics can be a valuable tool, but it must be used thoughtfully to avoid reinforcing biases.
• Internal auditors also face similar challenges and should be aware of cognitive biases in their work.

Appendix Highlights

• The report includes a table of 12 cognitive biases and their effects on the audit process.
• These biases include hindsight, outcome, confirmation, anchoring, availability, groupthink, overconfidence, recency, conjunction, selective perception, stereotyping, and blind-spot bias.

References

• Tversky and Kahneman (1975)
• Anderson et al. (1993)
• Brazil et al. (2010, 2016)
• Glover et al. (2005)
• Kinney and Uecker (1982)
• Hollnagel (2016)

This report underscores the need for a holistic and psychologically informed approach to audit quality, involving all stakeholders in the financial reporting process.