This study examines the impact of alternative risk assessment (standard risk checklist versus no checklist) and program development (standard program versus no program) tools on two facets of fraud planning effectiveness: (1) the quality of audit procedures relative to a benchmark validated by a panel of experts, and (2) the propensity to consult fraud experts. A between-subjects experiment, using an SEC enforcement fraud case, was conducted to examine these relationships. Sixty-nine auditors made risk assessments and designed an audit program. We found that auditors who used a standard risk checklist, structured by SAS No. 82 risk categories, made lower risk assessments than those without a checklist. This suggests that the use of the checklist was associated with a less effective diagnosis of the fraud. We also found that auditors with a standard audit program designed a relatively less effective fraud program than those without this tool but were not more willing to seek consultation with fraud experts. This suggests that standard programs may impair auditors' ability to respond to fraud risk. Finally, our results show that fraud risk assessment (FRASK) was not associated with the planning of more effective fraud procedures but was directly associated with the desire to consult with fraud specialists. This suggests that one benefit of improved FRASK is its relation with consultation. Overall, the findings call into question the effectiveness of standard audit tools in a fraud setting and highlight the need for a more strategic reasoning approach in an elevated risk situation.
