We propose a two-dimensional audit rotation framework on auditors’ rotation that contributes to the discussion on the potential impact of alternatives to strengthen and maintain unbiased attitude, objectivity, and independence. According to the conceptual outlines of this framework, auditors’ objectivity and independence might be enhanced by dealing with confirmation bias and motivated reasoning bias. In this study, we outline and propose potential academic inquiries that could be addressed and tested under this framework. We draw upon research on accounting, auditing, psychology, and economics to discuss the potential consequences of different audit rotation alternates on auditors’ objectivity and independency. A framework is proposed with two-dimensional effects: confirmation bias and motivated reasoning bias. The research implications of the framework indicate that, to varying degrees, various audit rotation arrangement alternatives to the current partner-only rotation mandate in the U.S. could potentially enhance auditors’ objectivity and independency by mitigating confirmation bias and motivated reasoning bias, thus producing more objective and independent audit opinions. This study fills the void in the literature by providing a two-dimensional framework to the current literature of audit rotation for categorizing and comparing different audit rotation alternatives. The framework also enables us to shed light on the relative efficacy of different rotation arrangements on auditors’ objectivity and independence.
Dong, L., Sarikas, R., & Djatej, A. (2019). Partner rotation or extended rotations? The effect of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning bias on objectivity and independence: A framework. Journal of Global Business Insights, 4(2), 156-168. doi:10.5038/2640-64188.8.131.520
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License