Posted: Mar 26, 2021
This research investigates the complex interplay between artificial intelligence systems and human judgment in contemporary hybrid auditing environments. As organizations increasingly adopt AI-powered auditing tools while maintaining traditional manual analysis, understanding how these two approaches complement and potentially conflict becomes crucial for audit quality and effectiveness. Our study employs a novel methodological framework combining experimental simulations with qualitative analysis of auditor decision-making processes across 15 financial institutions. We developed a unique assessment protocol that measures judgment calibration, cognitive bias mitigation, and decision confidence in scenarios where AI recommendations either align with or contradict human intuition. The findings reveal several counterintuitive patterns: human auditors demonstrated superior judgment in detecting novel fraud patterns that fell outside AI training datasets, while AI systems excelled at identifying subtle statistical anomalies across large transaction volumes. However, the most significant finding concerns the 'validation paradox'—auditors showed decreased scrutiny of AI-generated findings when they aligned with initial hypotheses, potentially creating new blind spots. Our research contributes to the emerging literature on human-AI collaboration in professional settings by proposing a dynamic calibration model that optimizes the allocation of auditing tasks between human and artificial intelligence based on problem characteristics, data quality, and risk assessment. This study addresses a critical gap in understanding how professional judgment evolves in increasingly automated environments and provides practical frameworks for organizations seeking to implement hybrid auditing systems without compromising audit quality or professional skepticism.
Downloads: 79
Abstract Views: 1439
Rank: 234367