Does auditor gender influence auditor liability? Exploring the impact of the crime congruency effect on jurors' perceptions of auditor negligence

This study investigates the liability risk associated with auditors' personal and financial conflicts of interest, and the potential for differences in liability exposure based on the gender of the auditor. A survey-based experiment was performed with 160 jury-eligible participants who reviewed a scenario in which an auditor, the defendant, failed to detect and report fraudulent behavior on the part of a client. The plaintiffs in this case are investors in the company who sustained financial losses due to the fraud, asserting that the audit firm should be liable for damages. A 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment examined how the auditor's gender (male/female) and the motivations of the alleged conflict of interest (personal vs. financial) influence jury-eligible individuals' perceptions of the defendant's independence and liability for negligence and fraud. Results indicate that female auditors are perceived as less independent and more liable for a personal conflict of interest, compared to male auditors. Male auditors are perceived as less independent and more liable for a financial conflict of interest, compared to female auditors. Auditors, regardless of gender, were perceived as less independent and more liable for a personal conflict of interest compared to a financial conflict of interest. The outcome of this study could be utilized to educate audit firms on the potential risks of liability that could emerge in unanticipated areas, and to assist with audit planning and legal decisions.