5 Ways Auditors Can Overcome Confirmation Bias

Listen

Narrowly pursuing an investigation into what you initially suspect doesn’t just trip up scientists. Confirmation bias—one of five common judgment biases—has the potential to lead auditors up the wrong path just as easily.

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Indeed, jumping to a conclusion is a particularly seductive line of reasoning during the early stages of an audit. At that time, financial information is often highly aggregated and minds trained to see patterns begin to see them. Yet quite often, the data are too ambiguous to allow the auditor to definitively identify the reason for a change in financial information.

This represents a trap, for the deeper one gets into investigating a particular hypothesis, the more difficult it becomes to consider contradictory ones. Rather, it’s common to seek evidence that supports suspicions and overlook data that don’t. Result: You’ve confirmed your bias—bypassing both the scientific method and best practices in auditing.

How to avoid this pitfall? Auditors can take five pragmatic steps to overcome this bias when performing analytical procedures. In fact, following these rules will improve decision making in other areas of the audit, as well:

Don’t Jump to Conclusions

Treat the initial data-gathering stage as a fact-finding mission, without trying to understand the specific causes of any identified fluctuations. That is, resist the temptation to immediately generate potential hypotheses. Wait until a more complete information set has been reviewed. Only then begin to consider reasons the data may differ from expectations.

Brainstorming: The Rule of Three

If possible, identify three potential causes for each unexpected data fluctuation that is identified. Why is three the magic number? Research has shown that auditors who develop three hypotheses are more likely to correctly identify misstatements when performing analytical procedures than those who develop just one hypothesis. From a probabilistic standpoint, the more plausible the expectations brainstormed, the higher the likelihood that the underlying cause of the fluctuation will be identified. However, developing too many initial hypotheses may constrain the auditor’s ability to efficiently evaluate each potential explanation. Research published in the
Journal of Accounting Research in 1999 revealed that auditors who develop three hypotheses are actually more efficient, and just as effective, at identifying misstatements through the use of analytical procedures as those who develop more than three hypotheses.

Flag It

When identifying potential causes of a financial fluctuation, take note of the specific information that triggered a hypothesis. Present those data to a colleague to see whether he or she comes up with similar explanations. If the explanations are different, the colleague has assisted you in expanding your hypothesis set. If the explanations are similar, the colleague has provided you with some validation of your existing set. In other words, two minds can improve your chances of identifying the true explanation for the fluctuation.

Prove Yourself Wrong

It’s natural to seek out evidence that confirms these explanations once an initial set of hypotheses has been developed. However, accepting evidence as support ignores the fact that the same evidence could also indicate a different explanation. In a similar fashion, it’s also common to subconsciously ignore contradictory evidence. This is the heart of confirmation bias. Instead, try to disconfirm your initial suspicions by actively seeking out and weighing contradictory information. Such an approach can only lead to stronger and more definitive conclusions.

Circle Back

After identifying your initial hypotheses, the next required step is to investigate the data further to determine which (if any) is the actual cause of the data fluctuation. While performing this investigation, additional information will invariably be analyzed to confirm or disconfirm these explanations. Don’t forget to revisit old hypotheses and consider fresh ones when examining these new data. Remember that successful hypothesis generation during the performance of analytical procedures is an iterative process.

Suspicions may or may not be confirmed by using these five steps in an audit, but you’ll have certainty about two preconceptions: You’ll have avoided the pitfall of confirmation bias, and you’re far more likely to have discovered the true cause of financial fluctuations.​​​​​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U2z1gDcQzY

Posted in Insights

More from Insights »

Latest Stories

Side-by-side photos of the chair and the two students posing for a photo with the chair
From Text Prompt to Furniture: The Story Behind Babson’s AI Dam Chair With groundbreaking artificial intelligences advances, Vaness (Reece) Gardner ’26 and Cole Collins ’26 have created what is believed to be the first full-scale, AI-designed chair on a college campus.
By
Eric Beato
Editor / Writer
Eric Beato
Eric Beato is the Editor of Babson Thought & Action and Babson Magazine. A native of Chicago and a graduate of the University of Missouri School of Journalism, Eric has worked as an editor and writer at newspapers across the country, including the Chicago Sun-Times and Boston Herald. Eric joined Babson College in 2019 after working as the communications director for a private educational travel company and as the managing editor of six regional sports publications.
May 23, 2025

Posted in Community, Entrepreneurial Leadership, Outcomes

College president shakes hands with a student at the Commencement ceremony
Babson’s Graduates Remember the People Who Inspired Them In the final moments before Commencement, just before marching to the ceremony, Babson’s 2025 graduates reflected on their College journeys and the people who supported and inspired them.
By
John Crawford
Senior Journalist
John Crawford
A writer for Babson Thought & Action and the Babson Magazine, John Crawford has been telling the College’s entrepreneurial story for more than 15 years. Assignments for Babson have taken him from Rwanda to El Salvador, from the sweet-smelling factory of a Pennsylvania candy maker, to the stately Atlanta headquarters of an NFL owner, to the bustling office of a New York City fashion designer. Beyond his work for Babson, he has written articles and essays for The Philadelphia Inquirer, Notre Dame Magazine, The Good Men Project, and other publications. He can be found on Twitter, @crawfordwriter, where he tweets about climate change.
,
Hillary Chabot
Writer
Hillary Chabot
Hillary Chabot is a writer for Babson Thought & Action and Babson Magazine. An award-winning journalist, she is known for her insightful reporting and dedication to detailed storytelling. With a career spanning over two decades, she has covered a wide range of topics, from presidential campaigns and government policy to neighborhood issues and investigative series. As a reporter for The Boston Herald, Hillary earned a reputation for tenacity and integrity. Her work at Babson College fuels her passions—to learn something new every day and conduct thoughtful, empathic interviews. She’s thrilled to be at Babson College, where students, faculty, staff members and classes provide compelling copy daily.
May 22, 2025

Posted in Community

Teddy Sourlis holds a microphone while speaking at an event
LISTEN: Changing the Game: The Mind on Sports In Episode 6 of “From Problems to Possibilities,” two Babson College alumni and an expert in mental health philanthropy discuss how entrepreneurial leaders are making an impact at the intersection of sports and mental health.
By
May 21, 2025

Posted in Entrepreneurial Leadership, Insights