Joseph Brazel

Joseph Brazel

Professor

Joseph Brazel is the Jenkins Distinguished Professor of Accounting and a University Faculty Scholar at North Carolina State University, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in auditing and assurance services. His research focuses on professional skepticism, fraud detection, data analytics, non-financial measures, investor and CFO responses to fraud red flags, fraud brainstorming, and judgment and decision-making in auditing.He has published in The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Contemporary Accounting Research, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Review of Accounting Studies, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, and the Journal of Business Ethics. Dr. Brazel is also a monthly contributor at Forbes.com. The Center for Audit Quality (CAQ), Foundation for Auditing Research (FAR), Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) Research Institute, International Association for Accounting Education and Research, Institute for Fraud Prevention, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Investor Education Foundation, Institute of Management Accountants, Institute of Internal Auditors, Ernst and Young, KMPG, and North Carolina State University have all supplied him with grants to support his research. Prior to obtaining his Ph.D., Dr. Brazel was an audit manager with Deloitte.

An unintended consequence of full population testing on auditors’ professional skepticism
This study examines how the use of full population testing (FPT), enabled by data analytics, affects auditors’ professional skepticism. While FPT improves the sufficiency (quantity) of audit evidence by testing entire populations, it often relies on client-internal data, which may lack appropriateness (quality) and be vulnerable to management manipulation. Auditing standards emphasize that more evidence cannot compensate for poor quality, making external evidence critical for fraud detection.
The authors hypothesize that auditors using FPT may exhibit attribute substitution bias, substituting their judgment of evidence sufficiency for appropriateness. This bias could reduce skeptical actions when external evidence later reveals fraud red flags. In an experiment with 125 auditors, results show:
  • Auditors using FPT were 52% less likely to act skeptically (e.g., inquire about inconsistencies or alert managers) compared to those using sample testing when confronted with an external fraud indicator.
  • FPT inflates perceptions of evidence appropriateness because auditors perceive it as more sufficient.
  • Contrary to expectations, presenting FPT results visually (graphs) versus in tables did not significantly worsen the effect.
  • Experience with FPT amplifies the bias, meaning more experienced auditors are even less skeptical after using FPT.
The findings highlight a critical unintended consequence of advanced audit technologies: auditors may underreact to fraud risks when over-relying on internal evidence tested via FPT. Audit firms and regulators should address this through training and quality controls, emphasizing the distinction between evidence sufficiency and appropriateness and reinforcing the importance of external evidence.
Read PDF
More Info
← PreviousPage 2 of 2Next →
No related podcasts.
No related news.

Filter projects: 

Project Lead
University Filter
1 - 10 of 52 projects