provide a substantive response to the post below

Introduction

Current FASB standards require that management voluntarily disclose substantial information regarding the ability of an entity to continue as a going concern (Owens et al., 2024). This presupposes that as the landscape of corporate transparency evolves, voluntary disclosures by management play a critical role in shaping stakeholder perceptions, including those of auditors. In this article under review, Hillison and Vittori (2024) investigate how the nature and tone of voluntary disclosures influence auditors' professional judgments. By focusing on the behavioral responses of auditors to management communication, the paper bridges accounting research with psychological insights into decision-making. There are some key underlying integrations of accounting and behavioral auditing embedded in the article. First, existing literature has consistently identified ethical dilemmas in accounting with respect to moral intensity, personal attributes, and ethical issues in decision-making (Souza, 2017). Second, as personal attributes evolve, there is a tendency to move away from the old neo-classical assumptions in the accounting field which typically implies the rational decision making of capital markets and actors (Demirci & Nazlolu, 2023). Since the rationality of actors (including auditors) can be questionable, auditors need to understand that human behavior can influence the audit process. In fact, a key concept of bounded rationality is that individuals make decisions within the constraints of limited information, time, and cognitive capacity (AccountingInsights Team, 2024). This concept challenges the traditional assumption that auditors always act rationally and highlights the need for understanding the cognitive limitations that can affect audit outcomes. The Hillison and Vittori (2024) study is timely, given increasing regulatory emphasis on disclosure quality, auditor skepticism, and the growing complexity of audit environments.

Summary

The authors conduct a series of controlled experiments to examine how auditors respond to different types of voluntary disclosures, specifically, disclosures that vary in tone (positive vs. neutral) and timing (early vs. late). Through the controlled experiments, the authors examine how this disclosure behavior affects auditors' skepticism toward such information. They concluded that a positive tone in disclosures tends to increase auditors' confidence in management's integrity. Early disclosures are perceived as more credible and reduce perceived audit risk. However, overly optimistic disclosures may trigger skepticism when not supported by underlying financial data. The paper uses behavioral audit theory to interpret these findings, suggesting that auditors subconsciously weigh disclosure characteristics when forming judgments about risk, reliability, and the need for further evidence.

Critical Analysis

The relationship between management's voluntary disclosure and auditor judgment has garnered increasing attention in recent years, particularly as firms adopt more narrative-driven financial communication strategies. Some recent researchers have largely focused on the informational value of disclosures (e.g., Rapley et al, 2024), emphasizing how transparency affects investor behavior and market efficiency. However, a growing body of literature explores how these disclosures influence auditor cognition and risk assessment (see Grissa & Abaoub, 2024; Rapley et al, 2021; Sabty & Al-Taie,2024).

Hillison and Vittori (2024) contribute to this emerging stream by examining how the tone and timing of voluntary disclosures affect auditors' perceptions of management credibility and audit risk. Their experimental design builds on behavioral audit theory (see Nelson & Tan, 2005), which posits that auditors rely on both quantitative and qualitative cues when forming judgments. Unlike prior studies that focus on financial metrics or historical performance, Hillison and Vittori (2024) present a methodology that aligns with recent calls for more psychologically informed audit research (see Hurtt et al., 2013). Their findings reveal that auditors' judgments are sensitive to contextual cues, and that voluntary disclosures can act as subtle behavioral signals. This positions their study within a broader movement toward understanding the non-financial dimensions of audit evidence.

Strengths of the Article

• Experimental Rigor: The use of randomized experiments allows for strong causal inferences about auditor behavior.
• Interdisciplinary Approach: The integration of psychology and accounting enhances the depth of analysis.
• Practical Relevance: The findings have direct implications for audit planning, risk assessment, and client communication strategies.

Limitations Observed:

• Artificial Settings: Experimental scenarios may not fully capture the complexity of real-world audit environments.
• Limited Scope: The study focuses primarily on tone and timing, leaving out other influential factors like disclosure format, frequency, or industry context.
• Sample Bias: The auditor participants may not represent the full spectrum of experience levels or geographic diversity in the profession.

Contributions to the Field

This paper contributes to the growing body of literature on auditor judgment and decision-making by demonstrating that non-financial cues, like tone and timing, can significantly influence audit risk assessments. This encourages firms to consider how their voluntary disclosures may affect audit outcomes, especially during an ongoing audit. It also provides a framework for future research on behavioral auditing, especially in the context of narrative disclosures and investor relations.

Emergent Themes Observed:

Several themes emerge from the study:

• Trust and Skepticism: Auditors balance trust in management with professional skepticism, and disclosures can tip that balance.
• Behavioral Biases: Even trained professionals are susceptible to cognitive biases triggered by language and timing.
• Communication as Risk Signal: Voluntary disclosures serve as informal signals that shape perceptions of audit risk and client credibility.

ConclusionThis article will be an interesting read and highly recommended for anyone interested in current discussions on behavioral auditing. Hillison and Vittori (2024) offer compelling evidence that voluntary disclosures are more than just informational, they are behavioral cues that shape auditor judgment. Their work underscores the importance of strategic communication in financial reporting and opens the door for further exploration into how narrative elements influence professional decision-making. As audit environments become more complex and data-rich, understanding the psychological dimensions of disclosure will be essential for both auditors and management.