The purpose of my dissertation is to examine jurors' evaluation of auditor negligence in response to auditors' use of natural language processing (NLP). To test my research objective, I conducted a 2x2 between-subjects experiment with 175 jury-eligible individuals. In the online experiment, I manipulated whether the audit team analyzes contracts with NLP software or by having human auditors read the contracts. I also manipulated task complexity as complex or simple. The dependent variables include a binary verdict variable and a scaled assessment of negligence. This dissertation makes several contributions to the accounting literature and practice. First, it contributes to the recent juror literature on emerging technologies by providing evidence that jurors attribute higher negligence assessments to auditors when auditors use NLP to examine contracts than when human auditors examine contracts. I also find that auditors' use of NLP leads to jurors' higher perceived causation, which, in turn, increases jurors' assessments of auditor liability. Second, this study answers the call of other researchers to examine the relationship between task complexity and negligence in different settings. I also find a marginally significant interaction effect of the use of NLP compared to human auditors to perform audit testing that is greater for complex …

Contentious interactions may arise between a tax professional and client upon a disagreement over a tax position. In an increasingly competitive tax return preparation market, these contentious interactions represent a significant threat to tax practitioners' client satisfaction and retention objectives. I conduct an experiment in which I examine the effect of three factors on tax clients' (1) likelihood to accept the advice of the tax accountant and (2) likelihood to switch tax accountants upon receiving professional advice counter to their preferred tax position. The three factors are: (1) clients' antagonistic narcissism; (2) clients' relationship with the accountant; and (3) how the advice is framed by the tax accountant. The results are based on a sample of 93 taxpayers. First, this study examines how clients' measured levels of narcissistic antagonism (hereafter, antagonism) impacts their reaction to "being told no" by their tax professional. Results indicate that upon the receipt of advice contrary to their preferences, highly antagonistic clients are more likely to (1) engage in a contentious interaction with their professional and (2) switch to a new tax professional. Supplemental path analyses document that individuals with high levels of antagonism cognitively react to instances of "being told no" by simultaneously devaluing …