Client Autonomous Technology and Auditor Legal Liability

ABSTRACT Technological advancements have enabled client organizations to replace human labor with autonomous technology that processes transactions independent of direct human intervention. Theory suggests that autonomous technology introduces an unconscious bias that reduces the perception of human control over negative events when systems use more autonomous technology. In a between-participants experiment, we test whether jurors reduce their assessments of auditor control over an undetected misstatement in the presence of a more, compared to a less, autonomous client system. Although jurors should focus on audit evidence quality and not on the nature of the client’s system, we find they do so only in the presence of a less autonomous client system and only when their implicit belief that “more technology is good” is lower. Overall, technology-based perceptions can change perceptions of auditor accountability for audit failures. Data Availability: Data are available upon request to the first author. JEL Classifications: M41; M42.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Information Systems
Published
2026-05-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-2024-038
Primary Topic
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Client Autonomous Technology and Auditor Legal Liability

Neal M. Snow, Peter Kipp, Elaine Mauldin
Journal of Information Systems
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
article

Client Autonomous Technology and Auditor Legal Liability

Neal M. Snow, Peter Kipp, Elaine Mauldin
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Technological advancements have enabled client organizations to replace human labor with autonomous technology that processes transactions independent of direct human intervention. Theory suggests that autonomous technology introduces an unconscious bias that reduces the perception of human control over negative events when systems use more autonomous technology. In a between-participants experiment, we test whether jurors reduce their assessments of auditor control over an undetected misstatement in the presence of a more, compared to a less, autonomous client system. Although jurors should focus on audit evidence quality and not on the nature of the client’s system, we find they do so only in the presence of a less autonomous client system and only when their implicit belief that “more technology is good” is lower. Overall, technology-based perceptions can change perceptions of auditor accountability for audit failures. Data Availability: Data are available upon request to the first author. JEL Classifications: M41; M42.

Journal of Information Systems
University of North Texas (US), Wright State University (US), University of Missouri (US)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.