- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "risk assessment"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Auditor perceptions of client narcissism as a fraud attitude risk factor(2012) Johnson, Eric N.; Kuhn, John R.; Apostolou, Barbara; Hassell, John M.Auditing standards prescribe that the auditor should consider client management’s attitude toward fraud when making fraud risk assessments. However, little guidance is provided in the auditing standards or the existing fraud literature on observable indicators of fraud attitude. We test whether observable indicators of narcissism, a personality trait linked to unethical and fraudulent behavior, is viewed by auditors as an indicator of increased fraud attitude risk. We administered an experiment to 101 practicing auditors from one international public accounting firm who assessed fraud risk based on a scenario in which client manager narcissism (attitude) and fraud motivation were each manipulated at two levels (low and high). Our results show that narcissistic client behavior and fraud motivation are significantly and positively related to auditors’ overall fraud risk assessments. Implications of these findings for further research and the auditing profession are discussed.Item Balancing the Risks and Benefits of Benzodiazepines(AMA, 2021-01) Hirschtritt, Matthew E.; Olfson, Mark; Kroenke, Kurt; Medicine, School of MedicineIn September 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced an anticipated update to the boxed warning on all benzodiazepines to explicitly “address the serious risks of abuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions” among this class of medications.1 The current boxed warning for benzodiazepines (eg, alprazolam, lorazepam, clonazepam, diazepam) highlights only the risks of coadministration of opioids and benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines are prescribed for multiple indications, most notably generalized anxiety disorder, panic, social phobia, insomnia, and seizure prophylaxis and rescue.Item Burning embers: towards more transparent and robust climate-change risk assessments(Nature, 2020) Zommers, Zinta; Marbaix, Philippe; Fischlin, Andreas; Ibrahim, Zelina Z.; Magnan, Alexandre K.; Pörtner, Hans-Otto; Howden, Mark; Calvin, Katherine; Warner, Koko; Thiery, Wim; Sebesvari, Zita; Davin, Edouard L.; Evans, Jason P.; Rosenzweig, Cynthia; O'Neill, Brian C.; Patwardhan, Anand; Warren, Rachel; van Aalst, Maarten; Hulbert, Margot; Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public HealthThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports provide policy-relevant insights about climate impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation through a process of peer-reviewed literature assessments underpinned by expert judgement. An iconic output from these assessments is the burning embers diagram, first used in the Third Assessment Report to visualize reasons for concern, which aggregate climate-change-related impacts and risks to various systems and sectors. These burning embers use colour transitions to show changes in the assessed level of risk to humans and ecosystems as a function of global mean temperature. In this Review, we outline the history and evolution of the burning embers and associated reasons for concern framework, focusing on the methodological approaches and advances. While the assessment framework and figure design have been broadly retained over time, refinements in methodology have occurred, including the consideration of different risks, use of confidence statements, more formalized protocols and standardized metrics. Comparison across reports reveals that the risk level at a given temperature has generally increased with each assessment cycle, reflecting accumulating scientific evidence. For future assessments, an explicit, transparent and systematic process of expert elicitation is needed to enhance comparability, quality and credibility of burning embers.