Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:537778 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Auditors’
Male and female auditors’ overconfidence
overconfidence
Kris Hardies, Diane Breesch and Joël Branson
Faculty of Economic, Social and Political Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 105
Brussels, Belgium and Solvay Business School, Brussels, Belgium
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 20:34 15 September 2018 (PT)
1. Introduction
Overconfidence has been a hot topic in judgment and decision making research (Hardman,
2009). The overconfidence effect describes, among other things, the tendency of people to
believe that their judgment is more accurate than it really is. As a result, overconfidence
can create a mismatch between one’s confidence in one’s own judgments and the real
accuracy of these judgments. The principal fashion in which overconfidence has been
established is through so-called calibration tests (Lichtenstein et al., 1982; Teigen and
Jørgensen, 2005). Calibration is a criterion for evaluation of probability judgments.
Overconfident individuals have been found to miscalibrate by giving too narrow
confidence intervals (Beckmann and Menkhoff, 2008; van de Venter and Michayluk, 2008).
When individuals are asked to construct, for example, 90 percent confidence intervals
for currently (or soon) knowable magnitudes (e.g. Martin Luther King’s age at death, Managerial Auditing Journal
Vol. 27 No. 1, 2012
pp. 105-118
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
This paper has benefited from the comments of the participants of the 33rd Annual Congress of 0268-6902
the European Accounting Association (2010). DOI 10.1108/02686901211186126
MAJ or the exchange rate of the US$), far fewer than 90 percent of these intervals bracket the
27,1 true answer. If people were well-calibrated, 90 percent of their 90 percent confidence
intervals would contain the true value. However, true values typically fall within such
intervals between 30 and 60 percent of the time, indicating extreme overconfidence
(Mckenzie et al., 2008; Teigen and Jørgensen, 2005). Unless under very stringent conditions
(namely, facing similar problems every day, making explicitly probabilistic predictions
106 and obtaining swift and precise feedback on outcomes), overconfidence should be
expected both for experts and for non-experts (Kahneman and Riepe, 1998).
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 20:34 15 September 2018 (PT)
Auditing judgment and decision-making research has always had much interest in the
extent to which auditor judgments are biased because of the use of heuristics (i.e. rules of
thumb) (Trotman, 1998; Solomon and Trotman, 2003). Few studies have, however,
addressed the issue of auditor overconfidence, although auditor overconfidence may cause
audits to be ineffective, and could lead to legal problems, inappropriate staffing, inefficient
use of technology, and misallocation of audit resources (Owhoso and Weickgenannt, 2009).
Recent research also suggests that auditors are no less overconfident than laymen (Koch
and Wüstemann, 2009).
In this paper, we examine whether there exists a gender difference in overconfidence
within an auditor population. Gender differences in overconfidence have been reported
by many researchers from outside the domains of auditing and accounting. While
research into this topic is clearly not yet conclusive, most researchers have reported
findings that confirm the folk-belief that men are more overconfident than women.
Although many will interpret this as supportive evidence for the assumption that male
auditors are more overconfident than female auditors, one cannot safely assume that this
is indeed the case. Findings from research conducted on males and females from outside
the world of accounting cannot safely be assumed to apply for auditors, since auditors
are not a random sample of males and females but a well-selected subpopulation
(Hardies et al., 2010b). Gender differences that are present at the level of the general
population can be eliminated within a professional subpopulation, such as auditors,
because of self-selection (Kumar, 2010; Nekby et al., 2008) and/or socialization
(Gomez-Mejia, 1983; Smith and Rogers, 2000). Even if women, on average, are less
overconfident than men, there might thus be environments in which the selection of
women who participate is likely to be similar in terms of overconfidence compared to
their male colleagues (Nekby et al., 2008).
To the best of our knowledge, so far no study has investigated if a gender difference in
overconfidence exists within an auditor population. Examining whether overconfidence
differentially affects the judgments of male and female auditors is, however,
an important issue because audit overconfidence may impair the effectiveness of the
audit engagement (Owhoso and Weickgenannt, 2009). After all, the audit is permeated
by professional judgment. For example, most of the auditor’s work in forming the audit
opinion consists of obtaining and evaluating evidential matter concerning the assertions
in the financial statements. The measure of the validity of such evidence for audit
purposes lies in the judgment of the auditor (AICPA, 1980). Also the assessment of
auditor quality relies heavily on judgment (Han et al., 2011). Furthermore,
overconfidence could be an explanation for the recently reported association between
the sex of the audit engagement partner and the size of the audit fee, i.e. client firms with
female audit partners have significantly higher audit fees (Hardies et al., 2010a; Ittonen
and Peni, 2009)[1]. Finally, audit firms devote significant resources to training programs
designed to impact audit knowledge which can improve the subjective judgment Auditors’
accuracy (Beck et al., 1985). If a gender difference in auditor overconfidence would exist, overconfidence
training directed specifically at improving auditor calibration of either men or women
would seem warranted. Although overconfidence seems to be pervasive, such training
could focus on providing feedback in order to reduce overconfidence (Arkes et al., 1988)
or encourage auditors to formulate counter-arguments whenever exercising judgment
(Vreugdenhil, 1993). 107
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. The next section describes the
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 20:34 15 September 2018 (PT)
2. Auditor overconfidence
Miscalibration has been linked to compromised effectiveness and efficiency of the audit.
It may be an indication that an inappropriate amount of audit evidence (i.e. too little)
is being collected (Mladenovic and Simnett, 1994). Pincus (1991, p. 39) pointed out to the
harmful consequences of overconfidence, it may prevent auditors from:
.
searching for additional evidence that would lead to different decisions;
.
taking into account disconfirming evidence; and
.
being responsive to feedback.
4. Survey design
4.1 Task choice
Moore and Healy (2008) have argued that the different varieties of overconfidence are not
simply interchangeable (Grieco and Hogarth, 2009; Hilton et al., 2011). The term
overconfidence is in fact used throughout literature in reference to three related but
distinct phenomena. First, overconfidence has been used to refer to peoples’ tendency to
overestimate their ability to do something (e.g. winning a war). Second, overconfidence
has been used to refer to situations wherein people rate themselves better than others
(e.g. thinking that your driving skills are above the median)[3]. Third, also the tendency
of people to believe that their judgment is more accurate than it really is (e.g. providing
too narrow confidence intervals for forecasts of uncertain future events), has been seen
as an illustration of overconfidence. In this study, we focus upon the latter form of
overconfidence for several reasons. First, it is the most robust type of overconfidence
(Haran et al., 2010). Second, interval production tasks have been shown to possess
test-retest and cross-domain consistency, thus being a reliable and valid measure to
assess overconfidence (Glaser et al., 2010; Hilton et al., 2011). Third, the focus in auditing
research has been on this type of overconfidence (Koch and Wüstemann, 2009) –
because it involves forecasts of uncertain future events, it is arguably the most relevant
type of overconfidence for auditing. According to Kent and Weber (1998, p. 120):
[. . .] a major task that auditors undertake in formulating their audit opinion is to estimate the
dollar error that might exist in accounts in light of their evaluation of internal control
strengths and weaknesses.
If auditors believe that their judgment is more accurate than it really is, audit efficiency
will be negatively affected (Beck et al., 1985).
MAJ The tasks we use to examine if female and male auditors differ in their degree
27,1 of overconfidence are non-auditing tasks[4]. This choice is justified for a number of
reasons. The main advantage of using non-auditing tasks is that our results cannot solely
be ascribed to the specificities of our research instrument. Previous studies using these
tasks have documented the existence of a gender difference in overconfidence in the
general population as well as in specialized populations (e.g. lawyers, professional traders)
110 (Malsch, 1990; Oberlecher and Osler, 2011; Soll and Klayman, 2004)[5]. Moreover, these
measurements have been shown to be predictive of economic behaviour (Biais et al., 2005;
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 20:34 15 September 2018 (PT)
Deaves et al., 2009). The problem with employing an auditing task would be that there
would be no control condition, making it difficult to know if the results would be driven by
the specificities of the population (i.e. male and female auditors being somehow inherently
different to non-auditors), or by the specificities of the task (i.e. inducing gender-bias
somehow). From the study of Mladenovic and Simnett (1994), it also appears that auditing
tasks are not inherently different to non-auditing tasks, but auditors are somehow
inherently different to non-auditors, reducing the need to use an auditing task. Moreover,
given that miscalibration scores are consistent across tasks and domains (Jonsson and
Allwood, 2003; Glaser et al., 2010), it seems reasonable to assume that our results would
generalize to a context where auditors are working on an auditing task.
boundary, it was counted as a hit. If individuals would be well calibrated, only 10 percent
of final values (i.e. one out of ten questions) should fall outside the estimated 90 percent
intervals[8]. INTERVAL SIZE and ERROR were computed as described above.
5.2.3 Results. The overall HIT RATE was 31.9 percent (SD ¼ 2.5), replicating
previous findings of extreme overconfidence. HIT RATE was slightly higher for female
auditors (mean ¼ 34.4 percent, SD ¼ 2.8) than for male auditors (mean ¼ 31.5 percent,
SD ¼ 2.5), but the difference was not statistically significant ( p ¼ 0.365). We also note
that HIT RATE is much lower than in experiment 1, confirming that the magnitude of
the overconfidence effect is task dependent (Table II).
H2a cannot be rejected based upon our data. INTERVAL SIZE was computed for all
ten questions and indicated that male auditors provided no more informative intervals
than female auditors ( p-values ranging from 0.249 to 0.910). H2b was not refuted by
our data; ERROR was the same for male as for female auditors ( p-values ranging from
0.363 to 0.846). We controlled for sex-age interaction since the males in our sample were
again significantly ( p ¼ 0.000) older than the females (nine years on average), but
again our results were unaffected by this[9].
Notes
1. Less vis-à-vis more overconfident audit engagement partners will demand more audit effort
and/or charge a higher risk premium (thus increasing audit fees) – female auditors are
presumed to be less overconfident than male auditors.
2. Overconfidence is an important issue in financial decision making (it drives, for example,
trading (Biais et al., 2005), and excess entry into markets by entrepreneurs (Camerer and
Lovallo, 1999)) and has been examined quite extensively.
MAJ 3. Thinking that you are better at something than others is not an illustration of overconfidence
per se. It is, however, impossible for a majority to be above (or below) the median, thus, the
27,1 fact that a majority of people rates themselves above the median (e.g. for driving skills
(Svenson, 1981)) illustrates overconfidence in the population.
4. These tasks have been widely used in the psychological literature. It is also based upon this
literature that accounting researchers have argued in favor of the existence of a sex difference
114 in overconfidence (Barua et al., 2010; Hyatt and Taylor, 2008; Ittonen and Peni, 2009).
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 20:34 15 September 2018 (PT)
5. As an extra control, we also administered this task to 119 graduate accounting students
(60.5 percent males). This replicated previous findings of males being more overconfident
than females ( p ¼ 0.012).
6. Given the rather limited number of (especially female) participants in our first experiment,
we were suspicious about the reliability of our results. We therefore conducted a second
experiment with a larger sample to see if our results would be replicated.
7. The correlation between HIT RATE and participants’ age was 2 0.201 ( p ¼ 0.005). As an
alternative control, we dropped the 20 oldest men from our sample, thereby leveling the
average age of male and female auditors (mean age of 39 years; p ¼ 238) – we thank an
anonymous reviewer for this suggestion. Our results were again not affected.
8. Participants could have obtained such a result by giving an impossible answer to one of the
questions and near-infinite ranges on the other nine questions. We have, however, found no
evidence of this.
9. The correlation between HIT RATE and participants’ age was 20.124 ( p ¼ 0.006). Again,
as an alternative control, we also dropped the 100 oldest men from our sample in order to
level the average age of male and female auditors (mean age of 40 years; p ¼ 173). Our results
were again not affected.
10. For one thing, they appear to be inconsistent with a growing literature that suggests that
women have a tendency to charge lower prices to individual customers (Cron et al., 2009).
References
AICPA (1980), Statement on Auditing Standards No. 31: Evidential Matter, American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY.
AICPA (2002), Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99: Consideration of Fraud in a Financial
Statement Audit, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY.
AICPA (2008), Trends in the Supply of Accounting Graduates and the Demand for Public
Accounting Recruits, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY.
Arkes, H.R., Faust, D., Guilmette, T.J. and Hart, K. (1988), “Eliminating the hindsight bias”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 305-30.
Barber, B.M. and Odean, T. (2001), “Boys will be boys: gender, overconfidence, and common
stock investment”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 261-92.
Barua, A., Davidson, L.F., Rama, D.V. and Thiruvadi, S. (2010), “CFO gender and accruals
quality”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 25-39.
Beck, P.J., Solomon, I. and Tomassini, L.A. (1985), “Subjective prior probability distributions and
audit risk”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 37-56.
Beckmann, D. and Menkhoff, L. (2008), “Will women be women? Analyzing the gender difference
among financial experts”, Kyklos, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 364-84.
Beyer, S. (2002), “The effects of gender, dysphoria, and performance feedback on the accuracy of
self-evaluations”, Sex Roles, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 453-64.
Beyer, S. and Bowden, E.M. (1997), “Gender differences in self perceptions: convergent evidence Auditors’
from three measures of accuracy and bias”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 157-72. overconfidence
Biais, B., Hilton, D. and Mazurier, K. (2005), “Judgemental overconfidence, self-monitoring, and
trading performance in an experimental financial market”, Review of Economic Studies,
Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 287-312.
Byrnes, J.P., Miller, D.C. and Schafer, W.D. (1999), “Gender differences in risk taking: 115
a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 367-83.
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 20:34 15 September 2018 (PT)
Henrich, J., Heine, S.J. and Norenzayan, A. (2010), “The weirdest people in the world?”, Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, Vol. 33 Nos 2/3, pp. 61-135.
Hilton, D., Régner, I., Cabantous, L., Charalambides, L. and Vautier, S. (2011), “Do positive
illusions predict overconfidence in judgment? A test using interval production and
probability evaluation measures of miscalibration”, Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 117-40.
Hyatt, T.A. and Taylor, M.H. (2008), “The effects of incomplete personal capability knowledge
and overconfidence on employment contract selection”, Behavioral Research in
Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 37-54.
Ittonen, K. and Peni, E. (2009), “Auditor’s gender and audit fees”, paper presented at the 32nd
Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association (EAA), Finland, 12-15 May.
Johnson, D.D.P., McDermott, R., Barrett, E.S., Cowden, J., Wrangham, R., McIntyre, M.H. and
Rosen, S.P. (2006), “Overconfidence in wargames: experimental evidence on expectations,
aggression, gender and testosterone”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London – B,
Vol. 273 No. 1600, pp. 2513-20.
Jonsson, A.C. and Allwood, C.M. (2003), “Stability and variability in the realism of confidence
judgments over time, content domain, and gender”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 559-74.
Juslin, P., Winman, A. and Hansson, P. (2007), “The naı̈ve intuitive statistician: a naı̈ve sampling
model of intuitive confidence intervals”, Psychological Review, Vol. 114 No. 3, pp. 678-703.
Kahneman, D.E. and Riepe, M.W. (1998), “Aspects of investor psychology: beliefs, preferences,
and biases investment advisors should know about”, Journal of Portfolio Management,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 52-65.
Kennedy, J. and Peecher, M.E. (1997), “Judging auditors’ technical knowledge”, Journal of
Accounting Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 279-94.
Kent, P. and Weber, R. (1998), “Auditor expertise and the estimation of dollar error in accounts”,
Abacus, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 120-39.
Klayman, J., Soll, J.B., González-Vallejo, C. and Barlas, S. (1999), “Overconfidence: it depends on
how, what, and whom you ask”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 216-47.
Koch, C. and Wüstemann, J. (2009), “A review of bias research in auditing: opportunities for
combining psychological and economic research”, paper presented at the Midyear Conference
of the American Accounting Association Auditing Section, St Petersburg, FL, 15-17 January.
Kumar, A. (2010), “Self-selection and the forecasting abilities of female equity analysts”, Journal
of Accounting Research, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 393-436.
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B. and Phillips, L.D. (1982), “Calibration of probabilities: the state of the
art to 1980”, in Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (Eds), Judgment under Uncertainty:
Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 306-34.
Lundeberg, M.A., Fox, P.W. and Puncochar, J. (1994), “Highly confident but wrong: gender Auditors’
differences and similarities in confidence judgments”, Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-21. overconfidence
McKenzie, C.R.M., Liersch, M.J. and Yaniv, I. (2008), “Overconfidence in interval estimates: what
does expertise buy you”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 107
No. 2, pp. 179-91.
Malsch, M. (1990), Advocaten voorspellen de uitkomst van hun zaken (Lawyers’ Predictions of 117
Judicial Decisions: A Study on Calibration of Experts), Swets en Zeitlinger, Amsterdam.
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 20:34 15 September 2018 (PT)
Messier, W.F. Jr, Owhoso, V. and Rakovski, C. (2008), “Can audit partners predict subordinates’
ability to detect errors?”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 1241-64.
Mladenovic, R. and Simnett, R. (1994), “Examination of contextual effects and changes in task
predictability on auditor calibration”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 6, pp. 178-203.
Moore, D.A. and Cain, M.D. (2007), “Overconfidence and underconfidence: when and why people
underestimate (and overestimate) the competition”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 197-213.
Moore, D.A. and Healy, P.J. (2008), “The trouble with overconfidence”, Psychological Review,
Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 502-17.
Nekby, L., Thoursie, P.S. and Vahtrik, L. (2008), “Gender and self-selection into a competitive
environment: are women more overconfident than men?”, Economics Letters, Vol. 100 No. 3,
pp. 405-7.
Niederle, M. and Vesterlund, L. (2007), “Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete
too much?”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 122 No. 3, pp. 1067-102.
Norenzayan, A. and Heine, S.J. (2005), “Psychological universals: what are they and how can we
know?”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 131 No. 5, pp. 763-84.
Oberlecher, T. and Osler, C. (2011), “Survival of overconfidence in currency markets”, Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis (in press).
O’Laughlin, E.M. and Brubaker, B.S. (1998), “Use of landmarks in cognitive mapping: gender
differences in self report versus performance”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 595-601.
Owhoso, V. and Weickgenannt, A. (2009), “Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting
domain audits”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Pajares, F. and Miller, M.D. (1994), “Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical
problem solving: a path analysis”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 193-203.
Pincus, K.V. (1991), “Audit judgment confidence”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 3, pp. 39-65.
Russo, J. and Shoemaker, P. (1989), Decision Traps: Ten Barriers to Brilliant Decision Making and
How to Overcome Them, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Smith, A. and Rogers, V. (2000), “Ethics-related responses to specific situation vignettes:
evidence of gender-based differences and occupational socialization”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 73-86.
Teigen, K.H. and Jørgensen, M. (2005), “When 90% confidence intervals are 50% certain: on the
credibility of credible intervals”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 455-76.
Tomassini, L.A., Solomon, I., Romney, M.B. and Krogstad, J.L. (1982), “Calibration of auditors’
probabilistic judgments: some empirical evidence”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 391-406.
Trotman, K.T. (1998), “Audit judgment research – issues addressed, research methods and future
directions”, Accounting & Finance, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 115-56.
MAJ Smith, J.F. and Kida, T. (1991), “Heuristics and biases: expertise and task realism in auditing”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 109 No. 3, pp. 472-89.
27,1 Soll, J.B. and Klayman, J. (2004), “Overconfidence in interval estimates”, Journal of Experimental
Psychology – Learning Memory and Cognition, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 299-314.
Solomon, I. and Trotman, K.T. (2003), “Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing:
the first 25 years of AOS”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 395-412.
118 Spencer, S., Steele, C. and Quinn, D. (1999), “Stereotype threat and women’s math performance”,
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 20:34 15 September 2018 (PT)
Appendix
Analogous to the example, give for each of the ten following questions a minimum and a maximum
value so that you are 90 percent certain that the correct answer is within this range. You have to
expect that you answer 10 percent of the questions (i.e. one question) wrong. The questions are not
aimed at misguiding you and should (in cases of confusion) be interpreted in the most logical manner:
(1) What was Martin Luther King Jr’s age at death?
(2) In what year was J.S. Bach born?
(3) How many countries belong to OPEC?
(4) How many books are there in the Old Testament?
(5) How many companies went bankrupt in 2008, in Belgium?
(6) How many independent, sovereign countries were there at the end of 2008?
(7) What is the gestation of an Asian elephant, in days?
(8) What is the diameter of the moon, in kilometres?
(9) What is the air distance from London to Tokyo, in kilometres?
(10) What is the deepest known point in the ocean, in metres?
Corresponding author
Kris Hardies can be contacted at: kris.hardies@vub.ac.be
1. Shixin Yang, Yunguo Liu, Qiongdan Mai. 2018. Is the quality of female auditors really better? Evidence
based on the Chinese A-share market. China Journal of Accounting Research . [Crossref]
2. Jukka Karjalainen, Mervi Niskanen, Jyrki Niskanen. 2018. The effect of audit partner gender on modified
audit opinions. International Journal of Auditing 23. . [Crossref]
3. HardiesKris, Kris Hardies, KhalifaRihab, Rihab Khalifa. 2018. Gender is not “a dummy variable”: a
discussion of current gender research in accounting. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management
15:3, 385-407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 20:34 15 September 2018 (PT)
4. Redhwan Ahmed Ali Al-Dhamari, Sitraselvi Chandren. 2018. Audit Partners Gender, Auditor Quality
and Clients Value Relevance. Global Business Review 19:4, 952-967. [Crossref]
5. Géraldine Hottegindre, Marie-Claire Loison, Anne-Laure Farjaudon. 2017. Male and Female Auditors:
An Ethical Divide?. International Journal of Auditing 21:2, 131-149. [Crossref]
6. ReheulAnne-Mie, Anne-Mie Reheul, Van CaneghemTom, Tom Van Caneghem, Van den
BogaerdMachteld, Machteld Van den Bogaerd, VerbruggenSandra, Sandra Verbruggen. 2017. Auditor
gender, experience and reporting in nonprofit organizations. Managerial Auditing Journal 32:6, 550-577.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. KhlifHichem, Hichem Khlif, AchekImen, Imen Achek. 2017. Gender in accounting research: a review.
Managerial Auditing Journal 32:6, 627-655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Sarowar Hossain, Larelle Chapple, Gary S. Monroe. 2016. Does auditor gender affect issuing going-
concern decisions for financially distressed clients?. Accounting & Finance . [Crossref]
9. Kris Hardies, Diane Breesch, Joël Branson. 2016. Do (Fe)Male Auditors Impair Audit Quality? Evidence
from Going-Concern Opinions. European Accounting Review 25:1, 7-34. [Crossref]
10. Kris Hardies, Diane Breesch, Joël Branson. 2015. The Female Audit Fee Premium. AUDITING: A Journal
of Practice & Theory 34:4, 171-195. [Crossref]
11. Christine Nolder, Tracey J. Riley. 2014. Effects of Differences in National Culture on Auditors' Judgments
and Decisions: A Literature Review of Cross-Cultural Auditing Studies from a Judgment and Decision
Making Perspective. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory 33:2, 141-164. [Crossref]